That's how it looks to western eyes, but what's not to say that hanging your robe over your left shoulder was male and your right female? Such distinctions look small from far away, but as we know, they are big deals to the people living there and then.

if male and female fashion were the same, and had all the same variations, it wouldn't be possible to dress wrong.

we all usually dress sinfully anyway:
"Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together." (Dueteronomy 22:5  KJV)
nowadays we even mix different materials in the same textile, that can't be good for us.

i really wish the bible revealed more of the context in which the different texts were written. why did someone have to forbid men from wearing women's garment and women from that which pertains to a man? something must have happened to earn it a line right there, but only those who lived at the time will know what.

Quote from: Taka on November 01, 2012, 07:37:21 AM
i really wish the bible revealed more of the context in which the different texts were written. why did someone have to forbid men from wearing women's garment and women from that which pertains to a man? something must have happened to earn it a line right there, but only those who lived at the time will know what.

In another thread (sorry, I don't know which one it was), someone posted a link to an organizations website where it went through the translations of some passages that pertain to trans* people. It demonstrated how the translation for men's and women's garments had changed over time. How, originally the translation for the men's garments was a soldiers uniform and how women and people with disabilities should not be made to wear them. I don't know exactly how accurate it is but, I have seen in many languages how translations can get messed up a little.

Quote from: Brooke777 on November 01, 2012, 08:30:59 AM
In another thread (sorry, I don't know which one it was), someone posted a link to an organizations website where it went through the translations of some passages that pertain to trans* people. It demonstrated how the translation for men's and women's garments had changed over time. How, originally the translation for the men's garments was a soldiers uniform and how women and people with disabilities should not be made to wear them. I don't know exactly how accurate it is but, I have seen in many languages how translations can get messed up a little.

I believe that it may have been GenderTree (They do have the passages that you are referring to under the heading Christian view.)

Quote from: SarahM777 on November 01, 2012, 08:36:01 AM
I believe that it may have been GenderTree (They do have the passages that you are referring to under the heading Christian view.)

Thank you. That does sound familiar.

I've never considered the bible to be against Gender Variance. "Dueteronomy 22:5" In my opinion is against women going to war and like many passages in the bible is surplus in this society. I stood by my faith when I was a gay man and I'll stand by it as a woman.

As I am moving from an agnostic/atheist position towards Progressive Judaism it's not something that will be a problem apparently.
As I understand it the Torah is viewed as something that is continually evolving in interpretation, and can never be made to stand still, because we don't.

Karen.

i really wish the bible revealed more of the context in which the different texts were written

I'm wondering if the writer is at fault, or, like Ayn Rand, god needed an editor real bad.

Quote from: tekla on November 01, 2012, 01:26:35 PM
i really wish the bible revealed more of the context in which the different texts were written

Isn't that the traditional role of the priesthood?

Isn't that the traditional role of the priesthood?

I thought that was fundraising.

Quote from: Brooke777 on November 01, 2012, 08:30:59 AM
It demonstrated how the translation for men's and women's garments had changed over time. How, originally the translation for the men's garments was a soldiers uniform and how women and people with disabilities should not be made to wear them. I don't know exactly how accurate it is but, I have seen in many languages how translations can get messed up a little.

Another site I have been on took this a bit farther by adding that the context of this passage which is important was neighborly duties and activities.  My own paraphrase is that you don't put armor on a woman  or a frail man that you know can get whupped about too easily because they are not stong enough, but neither do you work over the frail man by forcibly treating him as you normally treat women.  The site makes the point that Women were the primary point of this, but we know women got kicked around in those days any way, but don't kick her around for this thing. -- Cannon fodder!!    Another interpretation that makes it clear that CDing was not the culprit.