Duet. 22:5

tyroneweaver

Platinum Member
Mar 3, 2012
25,732
11,034
940
Burley, Idaho
“Shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man”: Found only here in the Pentateuch, this statute prohibited a man from wearing any item of feminine clothing or ornamentation. The same word translated “abomination” was used to describe God’s view of homosexuality (Lev. 18:22; 20:13). This instance specifically outlawed transvestism. The creation order distinctions between male and female were to be maintained without exceptions (compare Gen. 1:27).

This is the eleventh subsection, the law of transvestism. This passage clearly teaches the importance of maintaining a proper distinction between the sexes, the lack of which is an “abomination unto the LORD thy God”. This warning does not refer merely to clothing styles but to that “which pertaineth unto a man”, that is, “a man’s things”. This prohibition included clothing that was distinctively masculine in ornamentation, as well as other ornaments, weapons, or items distinctively associated with men. The prohibition is against transvestism which was often associated with homosexuality and fertility rites.

Men and women were commanded not to “wear that which pertaineth” to the opposite sex.
This is saying, a man should not try to appear as a woman, and a woman should not try to appear as a man. If a woman was the same size as her husband, she should not put on his clothes and try to be him. Women should be proud they are women, and men should be proud to be men. God made us what He wanted us to be.
 
Wait, so does the OT matter or not?

Because when confronted with contradictions and, well let’s be honest, ridiculous passages in the OT, some Christians will say “oh, that’s just the OT. You shouldn’t put too much stock in it.”

So which is it?

Or is this just another example of a buffet-style Christianity, where people can pick and choose which passages to adhere to, and which passages to ignore, depending on what is convenient to them?
 
Wait, so does the OT matter or not?

Because when confronted with contradictions and, well let’s be honest, ridiculous passages in the OT, some Christians will say “oh, that’s just the OT. You shouldn’t put too much stock in it.”

So which is it?

Or is this just another example of a buffet-style Christianity, where people can pick and choose which passages to adhere to, and which passages to ignore, depending on what is convenient to them?
So you're just going to blow the passage off. That's rather convenient.
r
 
I am interested in the "God made us what He wanted us to be." part.
If God made a man who wanted to wear female clothes, who is really at fault.
 
Wait, so does the OT matter or not?

Because when confronted with contradictions and, well let’s be honest, ridiculous passages in the OT, some Christians will say “oh, that’s just the OT. You shouldn’t put too much stock in it.”

So which is it?

Or is this just another example of a buffet-style Christianity, where people can pick and choose which passages to adhere to, and which passages to ignore, depending on what is convenient to them?
So you're just going to blow the passage off. That's rather convenient.
r

No, I’m asking you. Do you apply the same standards to all the OT passages or just the ones you agree with?
 
So you're just going to blow the passage off. That's rather convenient.
t
What are your thoughts about Exodus (23:19 and 34:26) and Deuteronomy (14:21)?
We have Church farms in my religion, and they produce products that help the poor.
I mean these aren't gardens. We're talking 160 acre field irrigated by pivot irrigation.
I would imagine that since we've gone from an agricultural society to an industrial one the rules still apply but the first fruits could be interpreted as monetary donation.
We have tithing in my religion as well as alms giving.
 

Forum List

Back
Top