Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: thoughtomator
That's about cross-dressing. Close, but not quite.

Not really, you either misunderstand or are ignoring the nuances and context of Deut. against the subject of homosexuality. So you think Yahweh just had some fashion issues in ancient Israel? You think there were some cross dressing Marlyn Monroe make-up wearing types that needed to be addressed in the Bible?

Disguising or misrepresenting one's gender is a homosexual act in order to attract the opposite sex/gender, you ask your Rabbi if he thinks behaving like the opposite sex in Moses' day isn't specifically for homosexual attraction.

Unless of course you just want to believe the liberal spin for the day, that's your ignorance.

105 posted on 04/07/2005 8:36:03 AM PDT by Clint N. Suhks (WARNING: EXPOSURE TO THE SON MAY PREVENT BURNING.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies ]


To: Clint N. Suhks
It's not a matter of wanting to believe one thing or another. It's a matter of reading what is there, not what one may or may not want to be there.

I provide no support for female homosexuality, nor do I intend to. I think there is a reason why the males are addressed and not the females. That reason is that female homosexuality is essentially physically harmless, while male homosexuality is both directly damaging to the body as well as being extremely dangerous in terms of disease. It's not that female homosexuality is right; it's that male homosexuality is particularly bad. That's the distinction I am pointing out in this exercise.

108 posted on 04/07/2005 8:42:23 AM PDT by thoughtomator ("The Passion of the Opus" - 2 hours of a FReeper being crucified on his own self-pitying thread)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies ]

To: Clint N. Suhks

To address the cross-dressing issue: In the context of a society where the roles of men and women differ to a great degree, as it was among the people of Israel, there are far more motivations than attracting a member of the same sex, to wear the clothes of the opposite gender. A woman might do so to gain a different privilege restricted only to men; the reasons why a man might do so are easily imagined, as well. Without other scriptural support I do not believe it is correct to read it as an injunction against female homosexuality; in the context of Lev. 18:22, the absence of an explicit female equivalent, or anything approaching such a statement, indicates strongly against such an interpretation.


109 posted on 04/07/2005 8:47:18 AM PDT by thoughtomator ("The Passion of the Opus" - 2 hours of a FReeper being crucified on his own self-pitying thread)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies ]

To: Clint N. Suhks

There are all kinds of Mosaic Laws, some of them absurd. I'd even go so far as to say that the commandment "do not seethe the calf in it's mother's milk" is LITERAL and doesn't mean don't eat meat and cheese.

When I went to Hebrew school, I think there were 613 commandments. Some are ridiculous(like going into a store without intending on at least POTENTIALLY buying something.)

Like with any religion, people have chosen to obey or disobey different aspects as time has marched on. If they were the "law" before, Jesus would not have overturned the whole stoning thing. But then I've read that by the time Jesus was around, people were no longer stoned on anything resembling a regular basis.


159 posted on 04/07/2005 10:42:30 AM PDT by Skywalk (Transdimensional Jihad!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson