What is a Woman?

[oxmixmudd]

...
because you are afraid to hurt someone's feelings. ...

We made some progress I think. But if you think that is my motivation, you've not been reading my posts for the last decade or more ...

[Machinist]

It's not about wearing the dress of the opposite sex. It's all about what mindset you get into when you do.

[Mountain Man]

What about an actor in a play dressing like a woman? They used to do it routinely in Shakespeare's time. And do you notice we seem to get more upset with men dressing like women than the other way around? Nobody minds if a woman wears overalls or a pant suit. Except maybe some KJV only type churches. My mom's old baptist church had a rule that women could only come to church wearing dresses. No pants allowed.

Obviously there's more to it than just an article of clothing. As you noted, men and women at the time of the Old Testament both wore robes. It's more about dressing in a way so one appears to be the opposite gender, which involves more than just a woman putting on a pair of pants.

To your question about an actor, I suppose the real question is, does God take intent into account? If an actor is only playing a role in a play and isn't going about trying to convince greater society that he's a woman, will God give him a pass? I don't know.

[rogue06]

Both sexes wore "dresses" in bible times. I remember going to an Easter pageant at my church with a friend and her young daughter a while back. The little girl looked up at me and said, "Why is Jesus wearing a dress?"

You can't "gird your loins" if you're wearing pants.

o-GIRD-YOUR-LOINS-900.jpg

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

No, that is not what I am alleging.

You have been trying to allege that two words and their root verb mean different things in two different verses.

Perhaps you should change your pseudonym to Humpty Dumpty.

[Mountain Man]

You have been trying to allege that two words and their root verb mean different things in two different verses.

Perhaps you should change your pseudonym to Humpty Dumpty.

No, that is not what I am alleging.

Perhaps you should change your pseudonym to moron.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

No, that is not what I am alleging.

Perhaps you should change your pseudonym to moron.

It is precisely what you have been alleging. Nice pejorative there MM - very Christian of you.

[Mountain Man]

It is precisely what you have been alleging. Nice pejorative there MM - very Christian of you.

No, it is not what I have been alleging. The word means the same thing in both instances. The difference is in who the thing is considered an abomination to.

"This is an abomination to God" vs "This shall be an abomination to you", which is to say it is a difference between moral law and ceremonial law.

If you still don't understand then I suggest you go slam your head in a door a few hundred times and see if you can't knock some sense into yourself. It certainly couldn't make you any dumber.

[tabibito]

You have been trying to allege that two words and their root verb mean different things in two different verses.

He hasn't, but even if he had, it would by no means be be impossible in any number of languages (depending on whether it would be possible for the word in question and context.)

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

No, it is not what I have been alleging. The word means the same thing in both instances. The difference is in who the thing is considered an abomination to.

And Deuteronomy 14.3 has the deity stating

You shall not eat any abhorrent thing/Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing

In your "considered opinion" what other supernatural entity is this entity referencing concerning what is deemed to be abominable or abhorrent?

[Sparko]

We made some progress I think. But if you think that is my motivation, you've not been reading my posts for the last decade or more ...

I was just postulating a motive. I do know you are not shy in telling anyyone on tweb when you think they are sinning or not acting like a Christian, but you seem to be reluctant to point out that LBGT behavior is a sin because it might be perceived as "condemnation" and you want to "wait for God to reveal it to them" somehow. To me that sounds like you are reluctant to hurt their feelings with the truth.

[Sparko]

Obviously there's more to it than just an article of clothing. As you noted, men and women at the time of the Old Testament both wore robes. It's more about dressing in a way so one appears to be the opposite gender, which involves more than just a woman putting on a pair of pants.

To your question about an actor, I suppose the real question is, does God take intent into account? If an actor is only playing a role in a play and isn't going about trying to convince greater society that he's a woman, will God give him a pass? I don't know.

So it's about trying to fool other people? What about someone who only dresses up like a man or woman in their own home and tells nobody about it? Is that OK then? What about someone who is obviously not fooling anyone dressing like the opposite sex? Like say if Arnold Schwarzenegger put on a skirt and walked around town? He would still obviously be a man and not fooling anyone.

All I am saying is that the OT Law is more complicated than it is presented. Motivations are not mentioned in the law.

[Mountain Man]

So it's about trying to fool other people? What about someone who only dresses up like a man or woman in their own home and tells nobody about it? Is that OK then? What about someone who is obviously not fooling anyone dressing like the opposite sex? Like say if Arnold Schwarzenegger put on a skirt and walked around town? He would still obviously be a man and not fooling anyone.

All I am saying is that the OT Law is more complicated than it is presented. Motivations are not mentioned in the law.

The bottom line is this: the Bible clearly says it is detestable to God, so looking for loopholes is the wrong approach.

[seer]

277172242_4709751065814948_1592687592158604921_n.jpg

[oxmixmudd]

I was just postulating a motive. I do know you are not shy in telling anyyone on tweb when you think they are sinning or not acting like a Christian, but you seem to be reluctant to point out that LBGT behavior is a sin because it might be perceived as "condemnation" and you want to "wait for God to reveal it to them" somehow. To me that sounds like you are reluctant to hurt their feelings with the truth.

It's not about hurting feelings. It is about making sure that they know we are not about trying to hurt or destroy them - a gay or trans person, even in our current society, must endure a great deal of very hostile behavior. Anyrhing from just hostile looks to being dragged behind a pickup till dead. When we use the sorts of language we see used in this thread, it can trigger the legitimate fears for their physical and emotional safety that have been learned over time.

So talking about a person being 'abhorrent to God' or 'an abomination', this is the language used to rally mobs to hunt the things or people down and destroy them. And in the old testament, it is indeed a death sentence.

And it is not as if there are no conservative Christian groups or people that have done such things. And regardless of how much we know 'that is not us' , the average person we come in contact with does not know that until they get to know us more closely.