Defacing Deuteronomy 22:5

[Bubba136]

Defacing Deuteronomy 22:5

Context: Deuteronomy as a book was given to the Israelites who were a group of nomads and wanderers for hundreds of years right before they were to enter the promised land. These nomads and wanderers had never planted vineyards, milked cows, owned homes. They had spent all their lives as wanderers. They were entering the land formerly dominated by the Canaanites, a group of people who practiced prolific idolatry. They were basically a clueless people, who had no idea about how life was to be in their new city, so God gave them Deuteronomy and it’s laws to guide them throughout. This is a chapter about living in Canaan, without becoming a Canaanite. About living in the world, without being of the world.

12-26 constitute the Torah, a community under God.

21:1-25:19 is ultimately about community obligations

Chapter 22 exegesis

verses 1-4: animal rights, principle of how to love your neighbor as yourself. Maybe you’ll find an animal, but that doesn’t mean you get to keep it. The moral principle is maybe you found it, but that doesn’t rightfully mean you get to keep, an ultimate form of loving your neighbor as yourself.

verse 6: this is about eating eggs and taking the chicks, but not killing or taking the mother hen for food. Remember, these people have been eating manna all their lives. They’ve never seen raised farm animals, never cared for a chicken, never planted a crop, never had possessions until now. Principle don’t sacrifice long term good for short term pleasure.

verse 8: parapet on roof. Remember, now they’re taking homes they’ve never lived in before. Principle: make provisions for the safety of your guests which fulfills loving your neighbor as yourself.

verse 9: don’t sow with two kinds of seed. To be honest, I don’t know why this provision was given.

verse 10: don’t plow with Ox and Donkey together. The Ox is a powerful animal and will literally drag the poor donkey along, possibly injuring the donkey. This verse is referenced by Paul in the New Testament about Christians not being unequally yoked with unbelievers.

verse 11: don’t mix wool and linen together in clothing. Principle, God is against mixing incompatible things because he wants believers to stand apart from the world as he commands wool not to be mixed with linen.

verse 12: standing out from the rest of the world with four tassels.

EXHORTATION TO UNITY KEY

With that said, take heed to 1 Timothy 1:3-7 “As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, 4nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith.5But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.6For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion,7wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions.”

Believers are not to be divided, they are to be united. Basing an entire theology upon a verse which occurs only once will likely result in “mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith”

1. NOT LITERAL--just as believers are not required to find a stray ox to fulfill verses 1-4, just as they’re not required to build a parapet around their roofs to fulfill loving their neighbors as themselves, so this verse does not literally mean “a woman can’t wear men’s clothing” or vice versa. After all, it’s ultimately a sinful human being who classifies clothes as being either male or female, not God himself. Additionally, Israel was about to occupy the land of idolatrous Canaanites, who often used crossdressing as a means to affecting their pagan idol worship. Basically, God didn’t want Israel to identify with pagan idol worship in the way they dressed.

2. PRINCIPLES--moral code is to maintain the difference between the sexes to maintain God’s created order.

A. MAINTAIN DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN THE SEXES--maintain the difference between the sexes to maintain God’s created order.

1. SPIRITUAL IDENTITY DIFFERENTIATION PRIMARY--this verse represents the different roles the sexes are supposed to play before God most importantly.

A. The male is the federal head of household, not the female. Just as God first approached the male Adam after the fall in Genesis 3:9, so God will first hold accountable the male in the household, not the female, for the sins of the family.

B. Church as Bride & Marriage Roles Just as God the Father is Head of the Church his bride, so God will also hold the male accountable for the sins of his wife and family as found in Ephesians 5:23-24. Equally, the church should not usurp God the husbands role.

C. Ahab/Jezebel Role Inversion. The female is not to be Jezebel, the male is not to be Ahab. Jezebel killed off the Lord’s prophets (1 Kings 18:4), she used government money to sponsor Baal worship (1 Kings 18:19), she manipulated the death of Naboth to obtain Naboth’s vineyard after her husband Ahab’s rejected request (1 Kings 21:1-10).

2. Sexes have equal value, despite having different roles for both are both are fearfully and wonderfully made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26, Psalm 139:14).

B. PROTECTION AGAINST IDOLATRY--Deuteronomy was given to Israel right before Israel was to go in and take hold of land formerly dominated by idolatry. The Hebrew word for “detests” is “toebah.” It used a total of 8 times in Deuteronomy, 4 of which make explicit reference to idolatry of false gods. From this, the inductie reference to idolatry is made. They are required to burn the false idols of Canaan (7:25) that condoned the idolatry of greed, they are commanded against child sacrifice (12:31) which the Canaanites did to their false gods, they are warned against divination, sorcery, soothsayers (18:10-12), and they are warned against the actual crafting of physical idols (27:15).

C. MAINTAIN BIOLOGICAL DIFFERENTIATION SECONDARY--Differences between the sexes is secondarily maintained by maintaining the difference between the biological sexes in the interests of avoiding deception to self and others. What is considered male and female clothing ultimately is defined by humans. It’s humanely defined by how a product is marketed (Jeffrey Campbell makes the exact same Lita shoe to both females and males). It’s humanely defined based on culture (a “skirt” on a male in Scotland is okay), space (rural traditions are different from urban clothing stereotypes) and time (a tunic in biblical times is a dress in modern times). To apply that verse for all generations regardless of culture, space and time is to honor the differences between males and females that don’t change. Those differences are:

1. gonadal differentiation

2. internal genital differentiation

3. external genital differentiation

4. breast differentiation

5. muscle mass differentiation

6. height differentiation

7. hair differentiation--thickness, not length.

Transsexualism and living as the opposite sex are forms of both deception to self and others and are thus not condoned. Transsexual believers are reminded that their resurrected body will bear the marks of SRS, just as Jesus’ resurrected body bore the marks of his crucifixion (John 20:27)

5. CONCLUSION--as long as males and females are living first to God to honor their God ordained spiritual role differentiations and as long as they are maintaining the difference between the biological sexes, both to themselves and others, then they have the freedom to wear what they want to wear. Provided of course, that the exercise of this freedom does not become a stumbling block to other believers (1 Corinthians 8:9)

Note: This mini expository applies to husbands asserting biblical permission for women to wear pants.

[Shafted]

A great read Bubba.That really says a lot.

[kneehighs]

Thanks Bubba. For those that don't know, Deuteronomy 22:5 is one bible verse that at SURFACE level, appears to first prohibit women wearing men's clothes, and second, men wearing women's clothes. It reads from the NIV version, "A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this" Ultimately, the author subverts surface level appearances of the passage and thus "defaces" it's surface level meaning.

I can imagine how this might be useful to some here who assume this verse immediately prohibits women from wearing pants, or men from wearing heels. Especially, since it's content appears biblically based.

[meganiwish]

I must revisit Deuteronomy. Might I recommend Ecclesiastes, where you will find wisdom to make you weep.

Megan

PS I'm not a believer as such, but I know wisdom when I read it.

[Pumped]

I have seen other explainations that the verses are speaking of garments that men and women wore only during times of prayer and not specifcally men's or women's clothing in general, but what do I know!

[ilikekicks]

I didnt realize how many believers this site had. Its good to see! -Ilk.

[Logjam]

I had exactly the same thought as ILK. Again - good to see. Regards, Logjam

[Shafted]

Indeed, it might make for an interesting poll.

[yozz]

Please don't. We have had problems with religious subjects before and several people (of otherwise good standing) got banned then. I think this was before you joined, but Bubba should remember. Many posts were removed, so it will be hard to find traces of it. The rules are: no politics and no religion. Please respect those. Y.

[Shafted]

I honestly would like to see a straight poll with no text. Just respond to the poll and don't elaborate. It would be a simple matter for me to delete the text that others post. The point is you can tackle these subjects by suppressing text responses to the poll. At the same time it keeps things anonymous. There would be no debate in such a situation because there is nothing to argue about. Quite frankly if we follow the rules verbatim, there will be little to talk about as religion and politics pervades every aspect of life including the wearing of heels. I don't think asking the question "Do you believe?" where people can vote anonymously should be any kind of a problem. The forum is really well covered now as far as moderation is concerned. Usually there is always a "website team" member online at most times. I think you would be pleasently surprised, Yozz. It can be done. The plug can be pulled very quickly should it get out of hand, but I honestly don't see how it could happen if text posting in the attached thread is not permitted. I would never suggest it unless it could be policed effectively. What do you think? Also any comments from the other website team members? Added text: Value of a poll like this could not be overstated because it could show us if the majority of us fall into an easily tolerated demographic.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Shafted
Spelling correction and added text

[yozz]

I do not think the outcome of the poll would carry any relevance beyond the number of people that answer yes. Most of the people who would answer no would not answer at all. You can see this already in several of the threads that have subjects like "do you wear heels to church?" In my view it is better not to touch the subject here. If you have any doubt, you should ask Tech first. He is the one who cleaned up the mess and banned a number of people a number of years ago. One of the people who got banned was our great expert at polls (ds1918 or whatever number). The title of the thread was "Do you as a heel wearing person believe in God?" I think in the end the whole thread was removed. I never saw the mails that really ended it all as they were removed very quickly. If you are interested in knowing what percentage of the people here are religious, look first for official statistics on religion in various countries. Then try to take an appropriate weighted average and you will probably get a number that is slightly high, but not too far off from what you might find here if you were to have a poll in which all members would answer honestly. It does require quite some homework. Y.

Edited January 17, 2013 by yozz

[Shafted]

But what is your opinion on the no text poll, Yozz? You're are probably right though, and it best be left alone. Although I wasn't here when the big brew ha ha happened, JMC did fill me in to what happened, and I have no desire to repeat that. Still I'd like to think we can learn from our mistakes.

[yozz]

If you create a yes/no only poll, I have no idea what the result will mean. My guess is that the percentage of 'yes-people' that vote, will be much higher than the percentage of 'no-people' that will vote. There is no way to tell what those percentages are, and hence the only thing you are left with are the absolute numbers, but there is no way you can draw more conclusions than that. Hence it appears to me that it is something we better leave alone. Creating meaningful polls is actually surprisingly difficult. A very famous one is where they asked boys and girls with how many girls resp boys they had had relations. The average answer of the boys was about twice as high as that of the girls! ...????... Y.

[kneehighs]

I have thought about scraping the questions from the limited number of experiments done on crossdressing, transvestism, and autogynephilia research programs and condensing them into a questionairre format members here could answer, to be shared with the "scientific community". It'd be a good way for our community to serve the interests of the world about us.

This might include, but not be focused on, religious beliefs ranging from atheist to agnostic to wiccan to Baal to Jehova's Witness etc.

[Shafted]

Do you really think that if the poll is anonymous that the no voters would not vote, yozz?

I have thought about scraping the questions from the limited number of experiments done on crossdressing, transvestism, and autogynephilia research programs and condensing them into a questionairre format members here could answer, to be shared with the "scientific community". It'd be a good way for our community to serve the interests of the world about us.

This might include, but not be focused on, religious beliefs ranging from atheist to agnostic to wiccan to Baal to Jehova's Witness etc.

Great idea kneehighs!

The sensitive nature of this topic most likely would make me decide against pursuing this. But I personally would like to see a demographic of our membership. A demographic that includes a wide range of beliefs, not just religious..

[yozz]

I agree fully that some of these things would be very worthwhile to know. But they are not easy to extract. Just try to imagine how you would try to find out which percentage of the male population wears regularly pantyhose? About the no option. I think that people who are not religious are less interested in the poll. Of course this is my private opinion. Explaining this would probably draw reactions, so it is best to leave it at that. If you ask the average Japanese whether (s)he is religious, I always get the answer no. Yet most of those people will visit this temple on this day of the year and that temple on that day of the year, etc. They have shinto rites for one thing, buddhistic rites for something else and the fashion at the moment is to get married according to christian customs. How are you going to classify all that? Maybe, if, after some research, someone can come up with a rather wide poll that is going to give useful answers, one could try to include one question about religion. In that case people will answer the poll for its other merits, and the one religion question will be answered "on the fly". Science is not always easy if you want to be careful...... Y.

Edited January 17, 2013 by yozz

[Steve63130]

I am strongly against the idea of a poll also. Religion and politics are sensitive subjects, and the ONLY outcome is difference of opinion, which merely serves to divide us, not unite us. I say drop the idea like a hot potato and close this thread. Let's steer clear of topics that divide us or have the potential to do so. It's hard enough for some people to be civil on topics like "Do you like wedges?" I can't imagine this thread ending in a better way now that it did years ago. "Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana Steve

[ilikekicks]

Do you really think that if the poll is anonymous that the no voters would not vote, yozz?

I believe Yozz is somewhat.. His answer is better to the situation.

I'll use my own perspective in my explanation as I really cant explain how it would apply to others.

Do *I* believe in ' god '. That could also be worded as ' Do I believe there is a god '? I would have to first ask ' what is god ?'.

I think a better question to ask would be ' Do you believe in some form of spirituality/theology? ' and not be specific in using the term of ' god ' at all.

I was raised by Orthodox Jew Parents. I Loved learning the ancient history that went along with the Torah, but I dont believe in a ' higher entity ' anymore. I do believe in a spirit world of sorts but dont believe I have any personal understanding of how it runs, how it works, how ' souls ' get there.. Im not ' agnostic ' as I believe in other planes of existence ( some might call them heaven, hell and purgatory ), just not a central ' head honcho ' as one might say.

If it boils down to a specific ' Yes ' or ' no ', How would I answer and be truthful? Which answer would be ' more correct '?

I do believe if you made a ' no reply ' thread where people could post a message, without being allowed to reply to anyone elses, explaining their own belief on their spirituality, we might be able to learn a thing or 2, gain perspective from others. Of course there will be someone whom becomes offended as its a touchy subject, but if we are just stating what we believe and NOT replying to anyone else, not commenting at each others beliefs, I really dont see how much harm would come from that. It would require a specific rule of ' no replies ' of any kind though.

I know I would probably see/hear about perspectives or renew perspectives I have overlooked/forgotten about.

I do often wonder ' whats out there '. Even those of us hardened in our beliefs realize we dont have all the answers.

[Pumped]

I didnt realize how many believers this site had. Its good to see!

-Ilk.

Actually, I am a bit of an agnostic. I believe there may be a surpreme being, but not sure if that being is God, or just someone more powerful than man.

A few years ago I had someone give me a hard time for my beiiefs and was told that I should read the Bible. Well I had, the King James version and the New International version, both read completely, cover to cover. Plus I have done a fair amount of Bible study.

I may be an agnostic, a agnostic that has studied!

[Shafted]

I do believe if you made a ' no reply ' thread where people could post a message, without being allowed to reply to anyone elses, explaining their own belief on their spirituality, we might be able to learn a thing or 2, gain perspective from others. Of course there will be someone whom becomes offended as its a touchy subject, but if we are just stating what we believe and NOT replying to anyone else, not commenting at each others beliefs, I really dont see how much harm would come from that. It would require a specific rule of ' no replies ' of any kind though.

That would go beyond moderator control to set up a poll like that, if it can be done. The no post poll is at least easily managed. But Yozz and Steve are right. It's probably best left alone. That is my intent at this point.

[kneehighs]

I am strongly against the idea of a poll also. Religion and politics are sensitive subjects, and the ONLY outcome is difference of opinion, which merely serves to divide us, not unite us. I say drop the idea like a hot potato and close this thread. Let's steer clear of topics that divide us or have the potential to do so. It's hard enough for some people to be civil on topics like "Do you like wedges?" I can't imagine this thread ending in a better way now that it did years ago.

"Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana

Steve

Closing the entire thread is an overreaction to a minor discussion.

I think closing the entire thread unjustifiably punishes the original post for the nontopical subsequent posts (started by Shafted in post #eight), regarding religious POLLS. The original post in it of itself did not create division in the first 7 posts, nor would it create divisions in subsequent posts absent talk about a possible POLL. The original post practically serves the interests of the bible believing contingency of this community, past and present. It outlines how they can wear heels and do so with a good conscience from within a conservative bible context.

[Shafted]

Closing the thread is not necessary, but I suppose getting back on topic is. My apologies all if I rattled a few nerves. Believe me, it was not intentional.

[FreshinHeels]

13 things we do but not suppose to do but we do them anyway http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/07/13-things-the-bible-forbids_n_1327701.html#slide=655873

[Tacchi Alti]

I'm a Christian, and what is always vital in quoting a verse of Scripture (or any other piece of writing or speech, come to that) is to look at the CONTEXT. If you take the verse in isolation it is something you may want to apply literally, but there are other things in that chapter which would be ridiculous to implement now (how many Bible-bashers have a battlement on their roof, for instance - verse 8?) Often a literal application when the books were written has a figurative meaning now, and in this case might be illustrated by the common expression 'she wears the trousers'. We all know what is meant by that without its literal fulfilment being necessary!

[JeffB]

13 things we do but not suppose to do but we do them anyway

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/07/13-things-the-bible-forbids_n_1327701.html#slide=655873

I'm so going to hell after having a ham and cheese sammich for lunch yesterday.

[meganiwish]

Yes, on two counts You gonna burn , boy. Tacchi Alti is right about context. But also to be borne in mind is that people who come later force their meaning on to the writer's words. Who's ever had someone say, "'Neither a lender nor borrower be," Shakespeare!' But Shakespeare didn't say it, Polonius (I think) did. People use quotes like they use statistics, to add weight to an argument that might otherwise be ephemeral. Beware all quotes and statistics. (I use quotes to illustrate my point when I know the writer has said it better than my poor resources will allow.That's depressingly often the case)

[Histiletto]

I applaud those that take the time to delve into studying the biblical writings and other historical documentations to find better understandings and clarities of the reasonings and circumstances for such recordings. Most laypeople don't always comprehend the totality of these writings and often use phrases and verses out of context to try proving points that aren't sustained by actual truths. So if something feels like it doesn't follow the truths or even conflict with your sense of justice and mercy one has learned to rely on, it should be considered to be false until the whole truth can be presented and verify the parts of this something that are true, thus disgarding or re-evaluating the deceptions. Many of the rules and laws we have today were enacted falsehoods under the guise: "for the good of people" that actually deteriorates freedoms and promotes social slavery. By making rules that tell me to depend on others in how I should feel and what I ought to want is an injustice perpetrated upon each individual's free agency. It's obvious that the biased wearing of high heels have been one of the results of these falsehoods.

[Shafted]

I applaud those that take the time to delve into studying the biblical writings and other historical documentations to find better understandings and clarities of the reasonings and circumstances for such recordings. Most laypeople don't always comprehend the totality of these writings and often use phrases and verses out of context to try proving points that aren't sustained by actual truths. So if something feels like it doesn't follow the truths or even conflict with your sense of justice and mercy one has learned to rely on, it should be considered to be false until the whole truth can be presented and verify the parts of this something that are true, thus disgarding or re-evaluating the deceptions. Many of the rules and laws we have today were enacted falsehoods under the guise: "for the good of people" that actually deteriorates freedoms and promotes social slavery. By making rules that tell me to depend on others in how I should feel and what I ought to want is an injustice perpetrated upon each individual's free agency.

Extremely well spoken Histiletto.

[Pumped]

Also one thing that many do not realize is the Bible as most Christians know it was put together by the Catholic church some where around the 12 century. The fathers decided what was proper for the general public to read and put in books and left out books for various reasons. Google "books of the Apocrypha".

[JeffB]

By the way, does the Bible say anything about Hot Pockets and if they're bad for mankind or anything like that?