Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
11-09-2004, 11:36 PM | #11 | |||
Contributor
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA
Posts: 16,829
|
The verse in question is:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
11-10-2004, 04:48 AM | #12 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 2,762
|
Don't forget that the same chapter prohibits these gender-appropriate items from being made of blended fabrics. Hope those pants are 100% cotton through-and-through, inq, or you're just as evil as a cross-dresser.
Quote:
|
|
11-10-2004, 07:56 PM | #13 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
But what if it's lycra/cotton? I don't think the bible metions those. I think it's just wool/linen blends that are disallowed
(I see inq01 isn't back yet.) |
11-10-2004, 09:18 PM | #14 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
|
A movement...
This is mroe of a GRD thing, I think.
|
11-11-2004, 12:37 AM | #15 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,290
|
Okay, so what you're telling me is that God hates my girlfriend (a vegetarian who gives a lot of money to charity and believes in waiting for marriage before having sex (sucks to be me )), not because she doesn't believe in him, or because she voted Kerry, but because she wears men's pants? Guh...
and I wore some size 7 women's pants to a costume dance a few weeks ago, too (at a Christian university, even ). Not that it matters; I'm pretty decidedly hellbound anyway. |
11-11-2004, 04:45 AM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: michigan
Posts: 513
|
Bit of interesting US history on point. Today (November 11) in 1865 the only Congressional Medal of Honor awarded to a woman was awarded to Dr. Mary Edwards Walker She was a staunch advocate of no tobacco, no alcohol, and women wearing men's clothing.
In fact, it appears she ONLY wore men's clothing, and may have been arrested for it! Good to see how we have progressed since then.... |
11-11-2004, 05:55 AM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 590
|
inquisitive01 please help me out of my cross dressing dilemma.
Since there is a Biblical injunction against cross dressing and since I would not want to anger the Big Guy please help me to figure out if I am in violation of his law. As an avid (male) kayaker I have been forced to wear a skirt http://www.snapdragondesign.com/ to keep water out of my boat. While it is true that I do look rather fetching in my rubber skirt I assure you that my intentions are mostly utilitarian. Do you think that I should refrain from this terrible unmanly practice? Should I go Inuit and give up my spray skirt in favor of a more manly paddling water stopper like the tuliq shown in these photos http://www.thing.net/~rnonas/web.html . Please Mr(?) inquisitive01 winter is coming and the water is getting rough. Tuliq or skirt? Would a skirt be OK if I start calling it a kilt? |
11-11-2004, 07:28 AM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Lousyana (but I'd rather be in New Zealand!)
Posts: 944
|
Funny-- the way Jesus is typically protrayed he has long hair, as was common in his day.
Ben Franklin, George Washington & others wore wigs as was common in their day. What about kilts? I've worn womens' boots in the past because they worked better for me. HELLO! Not everybody dresses like ancient Israelites or modern day Americans! Guess what? We ain't the center of the universe! This is all relative, depending on time & culture. You can't apply an absolute standard to something that varies from period to period, from culture to culture. It's plain silly! J ________________ "Oh, no! I LOVE sex with women!" - Johnny Depp in "Ed Wood" |
11-11-2004, 09:11 AM | #19 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,290
|
Okay, from a bit of study, that passage is just one example of the large theme of "do not mix categories" in Levitical law. Don't cross-breed your animals, don't plant different crops in one field, don't mix wool and cotten, don't wear clothing for the other gender. For the Jews, keeping something with its own kind was apparently a big deal, and there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with that, as it's just an aspect of their culture. There is something wrong with applying those laws to our culture, but that's another issue entirely.
Oh, and, btw, Quote:
PS: It's definitely of interest that it says "God hates these people" rather than "God hates this practice." Kind of throws that whole "loving the sinner" thing right out the window, if you ask me. |
|
11-11-2004, 11:03 AM | #20 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|