Need advice in Nebraska.

If you're new to the Cafe, please grab a seat by the potted palm, settle down with a nice big latte, and tell us a little bit about yourself. Please also look here for forum principles and rules.
Disaffected.citizen
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 433
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 6:16 am
Location: UK

Re: Need advice in Nebraska.

Post by Disaffected.citizen » Thu Apr 12, 2018 11:28 am

crfriend wrote:Good old Deuteronomy. {sigh}

First and foremost, the passage is of utterly no consequence for non-Christians. Zero, zip, nada. The only effect it can have is if those who Believe manage to get modern laws passed in regards to the matter. For most Christians, it's of no consequence either because it comes from the Old Testament which was superseded decades and decades ago by the New Testament which most Christians regard as canonical
Whilst I concur with your interpretation of the text, I believe Deuteronomy applies to all Abramic religions; Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the multitude of "off-shoots" of each.

As regards Christians (now venturing into murky waters) I believe anybody who professes such religion ought consider the teachings of Christ first and foremost; I was taught that he preached about love and tolerance.

User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
Posts: 10764
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)
Contact:

Re: Need advice in Nebraska.

Post by crfriend » Thu Apr 12, 2018 3:19 pm

Disaffected.citizen wrote:Whilst I concur with your interpretation of the text, I believe Deuteronomy applies to all Abramic religions; Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the multitude of "off-shoots" of each.
That's correct, it does. I tend to simplify the matter a bit and lump 'em all into the same bucket.

That's not without its pitfalls, though, as I think that Judaism tend to lean on the Old Testament although I rather suspect that their interpretation is better than the West's because it's not as badly mangled by translation and interpretation.
As regards Christians (now venturing into murky waters) I believe anybody who professes such religion ought consider the teachings of Christ first and foremost; I was taught that he preached about love and tolerance.
This is actively discouraged by most of the organised Religions as it puts the believer in too close a proximity to the deity and diminishes the power of the priesthood and hierarchy. Addressing the latter requires an assumption that organised religion is not about spirituality but rather about power, control, and altogether-too-frequently, wealth.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!

User avatar
Fred in Skirts
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 2618
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 6:48 pm
Location: Southeast Corner of Aiken County, SC USA

Re: Need advice in Nebraska.

Post by Fred in Skirts » Thu Apr 12, 2018 3:27 pm

Caultron wrote:
Fred in Skirts wrote:
Caultron wrote:...Leviticus 19:28 says, "You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the Lord."...
...Lev 19:28 - As far as I can see not many these days...
Really? We must have hundreds of tattoo shops here in the greater Phoenix area, and you see tattooed people everywhere.
The OP was asking how many follow this today. And my answer was not many. Since TAT shops are everywhere and billions of people have them. I have seen some who are tattooed over just about every square inch of their bodies. :D
Fred :kiltdance:

"The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle."


"It is better to be hated for what you are than be loved for what you are not" Andre Gide: 1869 - 1951

weeladdie18
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1339
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 3:17 pm

Re: Need advice in Nebraska.

Post by weeladdie18 » Thu Apr 12, 2018 3:54 pm

Thank you Carl for your explanation of Deuteronomy 11.5 ...on 11.5 .18 .. I concur with your explanation .....I was unaware of the

implication of women taking arms. We can safely say that there is no reference to " men not wearing womens clothes." weeladdie

User avatar
Pdxfashionpioneer
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1117
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 6:39 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Need advice in Nebraska.

Post by Pdxfashionpioneer » Mon Sep 03, 2018 10:20 am

Just to be precise, if its not Deuteronomy then its Leviticus that says 'men shall not wear that which pertains to women and vice versa.' On the men's side it was enjoining a pagan practice of men dressing as women for certain rituals. On the women's side it was to keep them in the place proscribed by a patriarchal society.

The reality is that Fundamentalists who cite these things cherry-pick. Few criticize women for wearing pants, but men wearing skirts …

They also miss the fact that much of the Old Testament was written as parables and everyone knew that. Stories that aren't literally true, but nonetheless vividly illustrate Truth. That's why Jesus preached in parables, it was a well-established tradition.
David, the PDX Fashion Pioneer

Social norms aren't changed by Congress or Parliament; they're changed by a sufficient number of people ignoring the existing ones and publicly practicing new ones.

User avatar
oldsalt1
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 2165
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 8:25 pm
Location: Long Island, New York

Re: Need advice in Nebraska.

Post by oldsalt1 » Mon Sep 03, 2018 11:32 am

Deuteronomy 22.5 While it says clothing It was meant to state that men and women should not reverse their roles. It appears that men and women wore pretty much the same thing The only main difference were the skirts that the military wore

This is all supposition but Jesus never wore a pair of pants or shorts. In his youth he is depicted as wearing tunics. He may have never donned a skirt But Skirts were the mainstay of the soldiers of the times. So it would appear that that isn't what the bible was referring to.

Darryl
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 4:32 am
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA

Re: Need advice in Nebraska.

Post by Darryl » Sat Sep 08, 2018 7:23 am

oldsalt1 wrote:Deuteronomy 22.5 While it says clothing It was meant to state that men and women should not reverse their roles. It appears that men and women wore pretty much the same thing The only main difference were the skirts that the military wore

This is all supposition but Jesus never wore a pair of pants or shorts. In his youth he is depicted as wearing tunics. He may have never donned a skirt But Skirts were the mainstay of the soldiers of the times. So it would appear that that isn't what the bible was referring to.
Indeed. I usually ask if the objector agrees that G-d is the same yesterday, today and forever, that he doesn't change (and there are numerous passages saying so). Then I just mention in Genesis 3:1 G-d made garments for Adam and Eve - k'toneth (a long, shirt-like garment). Generally long-sleeved, short-sleeved, sleeveless, and sometimes with one open shoulder by the time of the Roman occupation of Israel, and coming down to the knees or slightly above for everyday wear and work. For formal occasions they could be floor-length. Dresses, anyone? And reading about life and customs back then men would also wear skirts while working in the heat, not just the military.

First, let us think of the prevailing attitudes of the time. As Mark Cartright puts it (http://www.ancient.eu/article/659/):
The exact role and status of women in the Roman world, and indeed in most ancient societies, has often been obscured by the biases of both ancient male writers and 19-20th century CE male scholars, a situation only relatively recently redressed by modern scholarship which has sought to more objectively assess women's status, rights, duties, representation in the arts, and daily lives; and all this from almost exclusively male source material dealing with a male-dominated Roman world.
Think of all the hooplah, hate and discontent raised against the TNIV bible translation which basically ended up forcing the publisher to retract much of the progress made because it made women "too equal." Or, at least, upset too many applecarts. My memory may be somewhat faulty, but the TNIV was replaced by the NIV 2011.

One can also simply say there is a great inertia involved in the societal safeguards that are meant to keep those in power, in power.

On the other hand, I often wear a kilt outfit to church on Sunday, but on occasion in high summer I've shown up in a lightweight mini or something only 1.25" longer than a mini. I've been working on some web pages with some folks from church and a lady was texting a friend "yeah, Darryl is over here in the office, in his kilt." Which was actually a black, knee-length straight skirt, lightweight and very comfortable in 95-degree humid heat.

User avatar
oldsalt1
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 2165
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 8:25 pm
Location: Long Island, New York

Re: Need advice in Nebraska.

Post by oldsalt1 » Sat Sep 08, 2018 11:34 am

was texting a friend "yeah, Darryl is over here in the office, in his kilt."

What was your gut feeling when you saw the text

I wear skirts to weekday masses (I haven't made Sunday yet) and many other times when I stop by the church. I haven't had a problem Was she complaining , bitching or just being a busybody.

Darryl
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 4:32 am
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA

Re: Need advice in Nebraska.

Post by Darryl » Sat Sep 08, 2018 7:56 pm

oldsalt1 wrote:was texting a friend "yeah, Darryl is over here in the office, in his kilt."

What was your gut feeling when you saw the text

I wear skirts to weekday masses (I haven't made Sunday yet) and many other times when I stop by the church. I haven't had a problem Was she complaining , bitching or just being a busybody.
She was just "girl talking" with some of her...well, our...friends (**). Since over the last 3 years various people from church have seen me in various skirts and dresses, both old and young folk. One reason I picked this church was the "family" feel, the pastor likes word studies, and actually had occasion to use Dt. 22:5 in a sermon once where he got into the meaning of the words in the text and how it didn't mean what most people thought it meant (***). And the denomination is one that allows women to preach, teach and pastor. Even the couple guys giving me the "look" have stopped. I talk with the guys before and after church about "guy things" and my "wandering eyes" land on lovely ladies of marriageable age and status....I'd say the members of my church accept me as just a "(regular) man in a skirt." Even visitors key off the behavior of the regulars while there.

Some friends in a more "rigid" denomination seem somewhat ok with my skirts in "normal" occasions but if they are having a social event will ask for a kilted appearance - which I do for the sake of a 35-year friendship (though again, a number of the regulars at these events have seen me skirted and have no problems with it). Having spent time chauffeuring the gentleman's mother here and there for a few years when she gave up her car I've become privy to some events in his younger years that helps explain his behavior.

Anyhooo, back on topic...she may have just been sharing juicy info to the club of "I wonder what's under his kilt" ladies. I was more inclined to correct her by saying it's a SKIRT, not a kilt. But she was just sharing a factual tidbit as she perceived it.

Oh...and as a sub-contractor I'd wear male business casual or IT casual to a client meeting since they are HIS clients, not mine, unless he specified "come as you are."

Even my clients now know I'll be in IT casual unless I get an emergency call and have to come in, in which case they know to expect a kilt(*) or skirt.

(*) in these cases most likely a "Thrifty Kilt" that is more a wrap-around skirt with small pleats in back, cost around $30.
(**) I was surprised by the number of church ladies, young and old, befriending me on FaceBook after I made my first appearances. :D
(***) there's a saying "...(waving the Greek and Hebrew texts) THIS is the Word of God, everything else is a translation..."

To really get the meaning of a passage in another language, you should be able to access a "native speaker" of that language, just going back and forth in a dictionary won't do. :doh: Much of the King James was based on the Latin Vulgate and the Greek Septuagint with some reference made to the Greek NT and Hebrew OT. Today, we can make very good guesses and have a high degree of confidence in the important stuff because of the "originals" and all the written sermons, commentaries and so on. But some things aren't changed to a more accurate translation on purpose because its not that important and would rock too many boats.

User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 4405
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Appalachian Mountains (VA)
Contact:

Re: Need advice in Nebraska.

Post by moonshadow » Sun Sep 09, 2018 12:48 am

I guess I'm the only one that remains unaffiliated! :lol:

I can totally get behind some of the code written in the scriptures. Not killing and stealing seem to be common sense rules. Things like "not coveting" certainly can satisfy the soul if one practices the rule. Other matters such as avoiding pork made sense at the time, prior to our understanding of food safety.

I also can understand in such a primitive world, prior to the advent of firearms and other weapons of mass destruction, leaders and rulers needed some mechanism to keep people in line, and discourage them from beheading the rulers and lords over them.... it totally makes sense and is understandable. After all, humans by and large do need to be governed to an extent.

However the prohibition of wearing clothing that pertains to the opposite gender makes no sense to me, outside of the description that Dave gave, which is also what I have heard, that being such practices were common amongst the pagan people, a culture that the Hebrews wanted to distinguish themselves from. Also, depending on how far the crossdresser goes, sometimes they can look pretty convincing (passable), and thus may lead to more homosexual encounters.

So, on second thought, I'll back peddle a little on the comment above. Despite homosexuality being practiced in many species across the animal kingdom, during biblical times, when the human population was much more sparse, and average lifespans were much lower, discouraging homosexual relationships would have made sense as well, as such a relationship would yield no offspring. No offspring would mean the death of the tribe.

However, at 7.6 billion strong, I don't think we have to worry about the human race going extinct any time soon, so the biblical law prohibiting crossdressing and homosexuality is really rather pointless. In fact, the population could probably use to shed a few billion as we're already taxing the planet pretty hard.

Finally, if someone has a religious objection to men wearing skirts, then if that person is a man, he doesn't have to wear one. Nobody is twisting his arm. Outside of that he has no right to dictate his religious convictions onto others.
-Moon Shadow

User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
Posts: 10764
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)
Contact:

Re: Need advice in Nebraska.

Post by crfriend » Sun Sep 09, 2018 1:17 am

moonshadow wrote:Not killing and stealing seem to be common sense rules.
Yet we seem fine with State-sanctioned murder ("capital punishment") and economic predation of the have-nots by the haves. What an odd world we live in!
Things like "not coveting" certainly can satisfy the soul if one practices the rule.
This is a state of mind, and, yes, it can be liberating. However, how often is it actually deployed in practise?
Despite homosexuality being practiced in many species across the animal kingdom, during biblical times,[...] discouraging homosexual relationships would have made sense as well.
A long time ago, I had a couple of flatmates who were interested in "scripture", and who took the same viewpoint of it as your typical "televangelist". I horrified the lot of them by doing my own cherry-picking and not only justified the practise, but came close to deifying it. They were disgusted and infuriated with the result, first because I had the audacity to suggest such a thing as being derived from "scripture" and secondly because they could not refute the logic based on their own (and televangelists') practise. (I suspect that they were more torqued off that an atheist could best them at their own game than anything else. 'Tis a pity I don't know Greek, Latin, and Aramaic else I could likely have done better.
Finally, if someone has a religious objection to men wearing skirts, then if that person is a man, he doesn't have to wear one. Nobody is twisting his arm. Outside of that he has no right to dictate his religious convictions onto others.
Indeed, and this is where bearing and demeanour come into play. When you can quietly and firmly stand your ground when the other one is frothing at the mouth, guess who the witnesses are going to side with. Stand with firmness and dignity, because it's a sure thing that the opposition will surrender both in any sort of debate.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!

User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 4405
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Appalachian Mountains (VA)
Contact:

Re: Need advice in Nebraska.

Post by moonshadow » Sun Sep 09, 2018 1:51 am

crfriend wrote:
moonshadow wrote:Things like "not coveting" certainly can satisfy the soul if one practices the rule.
This is a state of mind, and, yes, it can be liberating. However, how often is it actually deployed in practise?
It's hard. However one thing George Carlin pointed out quite correctly, the sin of "coveting" is pretty much what drives the world economy. As for me, I'm generally satisfied with my possessions. However I can't say that I'm 100% satisfied. I do have things that I want someday. Also I could do with a lot less, and yet I won't sacrifice anything.

But aside from all of that, I have to confess, most people who are accepting of what I do are active and practicing Christians. I'm not talking about the ultra- "holier than thou" lot that is prevalent in areas like where I live. I just mean, generally, when I get compliments and "atta-boys", they normally come from people who are openly Christian. Atheist, and agnostics seem to be accepting too...

Though I hate to generalize, but by percentage, most of my trouble has actually come from PAGANS, AND, I've had at least a few instances of blow-back from homosexual men. It's not often as I don't see homosexuals often, but considering the total sum of people I see daily, compared against the percentage of negative feedback, at least half of the blow-back seems to stem from rednecks with a "pagan nature" and homosexuals!

Ironic isn't it?
-Moon Shadow

Post Reply