Defacing Deuteronomy 22:5

[Shafted]

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

Kind of depends on what's in em.

[Guest]

The Apocrypha is more interesting and has more sense. Sadly I only have the separate old testiment copy. Al

[JeffB]

Kind of depends on what's in em.

Well, barbecue chicken is my favorite. YUM! Hope I won't be damned because of that!

[Shafted]

Well, barbecue chicken is my favorite. YUM! Hope I won't be damned because of that!

I suspect you are already forgiven Jeff.

[meganiwish]

I'm ashamed to admit that I have a woollen coat with a linen lining (22:11) and that I once ploughed with an ox and an ass together (22:10).

[yozz]

Do all these rules also apply to virtual reality? Y.

[meganiwish]

It would be just asking for trouble to plough with a virtual ox and a virtual ass together. They'd get stuck in a corner.

[Tacchi Alti]

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".

I certainly didn't realise that, and what you say goes against the reliable history of the compilation of the Bible. The canonical books were established essentially (with one or two variations) by the fourth century. Jerome omitted the apocryphal books but they were subsequently added by the Roman Catholic church fairly quickly afterwards. It is not until the 16th century that they were publicly rejected by the reformers but retained by the RCs.

I don't want to get embroiled in discussion about this, as it's off-topic, but I thought I ought at least to mention that what you say is not generally accepted as fact.

[kneehighs]

Just found some additional information that would be useful here, especially to the person who dogmatically argues, "men should just be masculine and women should just be feminine". I hate that accusation, perpetrated by many conservative Christian leaders, especially when it results in members here being condemned and feeling accused.

Feminine as an English word, according to Webster's, originated in use somewhere between 1350's-1400's. Here's the Webster's quote:

Middle English, from Anglo-French feminin, from Latinfemininus, from femina woman; akin to Old English delunipple, Latin filius son, felix, fetus, & fecundus fruitful,felare to suck, Greek thēlē nipple

First Known Use: 14th century

Even more interesting is when I searched for the word feminine within this ancient Hebrew to English bible it doesn't show up. Abram does, Abraham does, Now while this cursory investigation doesn't constitute a final hermenuetical conclusion about old Hebrew language, it's sufficient to satisfy until a bona fide Hebrew language scholar can be consulted. The position would go that because the word feminine or any of it's derivatives didn't exist when Moses wrote Deuteronomy, a true inductive analysis would rule out the modern default position on Deut 22:5

The point is that femininity and masculinity are linguistically constructed stereotypes that change over space, time and culture. They are not absolute truths. Just take a look at enclosed chart taken from the Grammatical Gender entry on Wikipedia. The Portugese language makes the moon feminine while the Polish langauge makes it masculine. If truth is absolute, like people argue Deuteronomy 22:5 is absolutely literal, then who is right? Who is wrong?

Taking this a step further, there's even the theme of Linguistic Relativity, recently revived by Lera Borodistky. Click this link here on NPR. German's described a bridge as fragile, pretty, and slender. Spanish speakers described the same bridge as strong, big, and sturdy.

Boroditsky proposes that because the word for "bridge" in German — die brucke — is a feminine noun, and the word for "bridge" in Spanish — el puente — is a masculine noun, native speakers unconsciously give nouns the characteristics of their grammatical gender.

The people that argue Deuteronomy 22:5 means that men should be masculine and women should be feminine don't understand that masculinity and feminity are linguistically constructed stereotypes. They are sinfully enslaved to the linguistically constructed concepts of femininity and masculinity. (that's probably going too far, but it's fun to say ha!)

[meganiwish]

Anyone who wants to know the difference between sex and grammatical gender is welcome to contact me here. I daresay even at my age I could teach them a thing or two. frenchlessons@megan.co.uk

[Guest]

Yes I think Me wearing womans shoes goes against the bible. As far as the old testament, it was explained to me this way. When jesus died for our sins, that wiped out the old laws and new ones were written. So those that pick and choose which of the old laws are gospel, or what we must live by, Will die by ALL the laws. So that means there is NO forgiveness for sins. You either live by The old testament or the new. Now, do I think there are examples in the old testament (OT) that can guide us in life? Very much so. This is where our values come from. The purpose of the OT was to show A need for jesus to come along and die for our sins. With that said, it does say in the new testament men should not wear womans clothes And woman should not wear mens. For the life of me I can't see why that would be an Issue with the styles back then. But, along with this do I think it is a sin to over eat, to smoke, to drink? Yes. It is something That controls US, we do have control over it. IE,addictions. I also think it is wrong to "worship" possessions the way we do. Maybe I have some of this stuff wrong, I don't know. These are just my opinions and thoughts on the matter.

[Shafted]

With that said, it does say in the new testament men should not wear womans clothes

And woman should not wear mens. For the life of me I can't see why that would be an

Issue with the styles back then.

For my own curiosity, please quote where in the bible this is. I'm very interested in this for my own reference. PM me if you chose.

[kneehighs]

For my own curiosity, please quote where in the bible this is. I'm very interested in this for my own reference. PM me if you chose.

He can't quote you that because it doesn't exist. The only explicit references to clothing in the New Testament are in 1 Peter 3:1-4 and 1 Timothy 2:9-11, neither of which address male or female clothing differentiations.

One must be guilty of a sin of comission if they interpret Deut 22:5 literally. Therefore, by that same literal standard, one must also be guilty of a sin of omission by not literally building a parapet around their roof (Deut 22:eight) or literally wearing a cloak (Deut 22;12). By this same reasoning, one must also be guilty of a sin if they did not also get literally circumcised on their 8th day (Genesis 17:12) or have all their male children literally circumcised on the 8th day. This is not cherry picking which Old Testament Laws are applicable, it is rightly interpreting the application of Old Testament laws to the process of sanctification, not justification.

The bottom line is that Deut 22:5 gets it's "new testament value" for sanctification by "maintaining the difference between the biological sexes in the interest of avoiding deception to self and others." Those differences are primarily BIBLICAL in nature, first and foremost. Men are accountable as federal heads of household. For as God first approached Adam after the fall, so he will first hold the male accountable for the family (Genesis 3:9). Similarly the Church, or believers in general, assume the role of the bride or female in relation to God and his plan for salvation (Ephesians 5:23-24).

Ultimately, this means for the believer in this hhplace.org community, beginning everything by trusting as a bride in Jesus' words "it is finished" (John 19:30), rather than trying to usurp God's male role in salvation.

[FreshinHeels]

Could ye not als so that at a certain moment in history any piece of clothing that exists is or has been worn be either female or male? No point in naming the examples I think we all know them. So does that not mean both men and women are guilty according to Deut 22? Cause who says what is women or man cloths. There could be totally different opinions in 100 years when people look back at the clothes of today.

Edited January 24, 2013 by FreshinHeels

[kneehighs]

Could ye not als so that at a certain moment in history any piece of clothing that exists is or has been worn be either female or male?

No point in naming the examples I think we all know them.

So does that not mean both men and women are guilty according to Deut 22?

Cause who says what is women or man cloths.

There could be totally different opinions in 100 years when people look back at the clothes of today.

The point of guilt is not the literal point at which a female wears male clothing, or vice versa. Those points would endlessly change over space, time, and culture for both sexes. The point of guilt is the point at which the differentiation between the biological sexes is ruined, either to self or towards others. This standard does not change over space, time, and culture. The true spirit of the verse, again applies to Biblically induced roles which are biblically assigned to male and female. Ultimately, the church as bride (female) should trust God's work on the cross as husband (male) for justification.

[FreshinHeels]

ahh that means woman barefoot and pregnant jk kiddinge offcourse.

[heels59]

The point of guilt is the point at which the differentiation between the biological sexes is ruined, either to self or towards others.

So if I understand you correctly, you see a distinct difference, a crossing of the line if you will, between men heeling, or even wearing skirts or dresses (as men), and full crossdressing, with the intent to "pass"

Do you see this on an individual level, or in society as a whole? ie. Styles become so androgenous that gender is indeterminate, or perhaps other male/female roles become blurred.

[Histiletto]

The natural laws of humanity come into play here. Until it is possible for the man to produce an ovum and support the gestation process or the female to generate the sperm, the sexes can not change their true identity. We have seen and witnessed transgendering by both males and females, but neither have been able to successfully complete the reproductive processes to which they have transgendered. Should these two processes for reproduction become transferable between men and women, then there will be some necessity to determine their identity. To say the transferring of the sexual processes is impossible may have been considered as such in the past, but with the technology of today, such things can not be totally ruled out. Certainly the moral right would do all within their abilities to prohibit such actions or even considerations. However, from the standpoint of science it is a fascinating field to be understood. If we see this life as a progression in the eternities to become more godlike, then wouldn't we also have to eventually understand such thing. Which makes me wonder if God is also dealing with a process of eternal perfection. We often hear the reference that we are the children of God. Hopefully, we will strive to live up to His examples and the teachings of His actual representatives, whether they are sourced from writings or those living among us. Either way, high heels are not gender specific. Only humans have made such decrees.

[Guest]

For my own curiosity, please quote where in the bible this is. I'm very interested in this for my own reference. PM me if you chose.

I could not find it. Maybe I got it mixed up with homosexuality. But it was nice to get back

In and read the bible again.

Do I think what I do is right, no. But that is for each of us to decide and live with.

[kneehighs]

Something else to consider for the bible believing Christian struggling with Deut 22:5.

Have you ever looked at how God made clothes? Right after the fall, in Genesis 3:21, "The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them." Ultimately, this points to the need for a sacrifice (Jesus) to effectively cover man's shame. And that sacrifice is ultimately God the groom's male plan of salvation for his female bride, the church. Deut 22:5 primarily refers to maintaining the biblical role distinction between the sexes, in this case between humankind the church (female) and God (male).

But upon further inspection, none of the pertinent words in Hebrew in Genesis 3:21, in their entire use in the Old Testament Pentateuch, ever conote or denote a differentiation between male and female clothing. Again, a spiritual interpretation of this passage is key. As an animal sacrifice was necessary to atone for sins then, so God’s sacrifice of his Son later was necessary to atone for sins in the New Testament. Literally speaking, if distinctions between male and female clothing were so incredibly important, one would assume such reference could be found in the scripture. In Genesis 3:21, neither the word "way·ya·‘aś for made, nor the word kā·ṯə·nō·wṯ for garments, nor the word ‘ō·wr for skin nor the word way·yal·bi·šêm for clothed are ever actually used in any context (my limited research could find) to imply differentiation between the sexes--ever in the entirety of the Old Testament Pentateuch (books authored by Moses).

My belief is that alot of bible believing Christians in this forum might really be struggling with idolatry, but not necessarily recognize it as such yet. When collections reach into hundreds of pairs, when the emotional craving for new shoes becomes greed, it's idolatry.

[Shafted]

You're wisdom continues to astound me KH. The idolatry card was one that I didn't see. Thanks for pointing that out.

[yozz]

Old Testament Pentateuch (books authored by Moses).

If the book was written by Moses, you better look up hieroglyphs. At that time the choice was between

cuneiforms or hieroglyphs and they came straight out of Egypt.

Y.

[Gudulitooo]

To my humble understanding, religious texts all aim at the perpetuation of the ones that believe said texts, and maybe also the others. This implies some hygienic rules, moral rules (to be able to live in group and benefit from the commin efforts), and some other rules dedicated to reproduction, etc. For example, if I add to write the rules, I would put some articles so that males and females can meet and reproduce themselves without delusion, and will take care and educate the children so that the children can follow the rules when their turn comes... In a sense, laic laws aim at the same. Only the writing process is a bit different.

[Shafted]

For example, if I add to write the rules, I would put some articles so that males and females can meet and reproduce themselves without delusion, and will take care and educate the children so that the children can follow the rules when their turn comes...

You show great wisdom and understanding my friend. Isn't that how it should be? It's a simple and beautiful concept that works if we care to try. We have so lost that sense as a species.

[meganiwish]

Well, the Commandments are really a sort of manual on how to live righteously, whereas secular laws like Lex Talionis (the law of retaliation, that's the eye for an eye one) exist to protect society, as retaliation has a tendency to escalate. Interestingly, the Commandments don't contain much about sanctions - they're just expected to live by them. The laws accept that people will wrong each other from time to time. To err is human.

[HighHeelLover86]

I'll take to heart the immortal George Carlin's proposed Eleventh Commandment which states: "Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself." and that's all I'll say. I applaud people's effort's to explain things about religion and religious/spiritual practices and customs, etc, etc, etc, but have learned long ago to stay out of it. However i will make a small exception in saying that I have what I would consider a unique set of beliefs and would propose that the biggest reason for in-fighting and debate among people with regards to these subjects is the realization that everyone has a unique belief unto themselves thus a concensus among them is an impossibility.

[meganiwish]

I didn't think we were discussing religion, I thought we were discussing the texts. As I said, I'm not a believer, but I have read the Bible cover to cover, three times. Many people here will be more familiar with it than me. Some of it is a tedious read and some of it is gripping. It may be the word of God, but it was written down by humans, and to err is human (see my post above), so one needs to treat it as one would literature, for that is what it is, and one's beliefs change with each reading.

I watched a series about young Amish people doing a thing like walkabout - I think they called it sprunglaufen. Something like that. First off, they were lovely young people, with no judgementalness in them. But it must have been a challenging experience for them to go out into the world, and sometimes they would go back to a bit of the Bible for reassurance and end up changing how they'd thought about it.

Isn't that what this is?

[Shafted]

I'll take to heart the immortal George Carlin's proposed Eleventh Commandment which states: "Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself." and that's all I'll say. I applaud people's effort's to explain things about religion and religious/spiritual practices and customs, etc, etc, etc, but have learned long ago to stay out of it. However i will make a small exception in saying that I have what I would consider a unique set of beliefs and would propose that the biggest reason for in-fighting and debate among people with regards to these subjects is the realization that everyone has a unique belief unto themselves thus a concensus among them is an impossibility.

Even if you don't wish to be involved in a religious discussion, listen just the same. don't turn a deaf ear to it. You just may learn something that you find appealing and you may learn something about your fellow man. An open mind is the key to understand everything. When you close it you limit yourself.

[HighHeelLover86]

Even if you don't wish to be involved in a religious discussion, listen just the same. don't turn a deaf ear to it. You just may learn something that you find appealing and you may learn something about your fellow man. An open mind is the key to understand everything. When you close it you limit yourself.

I can appreciate youe sentiment Shafted and I am listening to be sure. I'm not against a good debate so long as someone doesn't try to "convert" me. I was simply suggesting that while discussion is a good thing, one must be careful not to allow oneself to take offense at someone else's beliefs. With that in mind I rarely engage in discussions of this nature because I know I can get a little hot under the collar at times. To be truthful this is has been one of the most civilized discussions to have a religious context that i've ever participated in. I just prefer to stay out of things like this nine times outta ten. Not only for my sake but to avoid potential confrontation with others as well. Hopefully I haven't ruffled any feathers but if I have I appologize and ask forgiveness.

[Gudulitooo]

You show great wisdom and understanding my friend. Isn't that how it should be? It's a simple and beautiful concept that works if we care to try. We have so lost that sense as a species.

A nice despot I would be, wouldn't I ? I even think of the perpetuation of my own reign beyond generations...