does your religion interfere?

[SilverLady(SO)]

Well, Sylvia, we know where your hot button is . . .

Oh, Jeannie!! Would you please return Sylvia's hot button to her? Marley has enough toys to play with, and if he doesn't, then I'll send him some more shoes!!

Hugs to ya'all!!

- SL

[Amanda Barber]

okay...1st thing here, is, I am no bible thumper. but I do know, somewhere out there, are folks that do have a faith and I am merely asking,..does anyone here have a conflict or have had,..a conflict, with their own religion while dealing with their CD life?

I am mildly curious, about this. religion is something that can be very emotionally strong in someone and I know, so is being a CD.
they are both imbeded very strongly.

so, is there, are there, anyone herein with or had any conflict with themselves?

thank you
"ronnie"

No. I've been crossdressing since I was 4-5. I gave up christianity by 10-12. It just didn't make sense to me. Even at 12 I knew for survival reasons I had go through the motions and pretend I beleived until I was 18.

[Gaven McLaren]

In my case no. I believe in the Norse(viking) way. And many of my gods have either dressed as a woman or shape shifted (IE: Loki) to a female form.

[CJ]

Hi all,

Well, the discussion is on a pretty adult level so far, so I think we should leave it here. This IS a question that people can deal with in a mature fashion, Ronnie, but, as you know, people's faith (like their politics and their sex lives) is something many hold to be personal and not really open to debate. If the view here is to share how religion and faith--central aspects of many people's lives--interface with our sense of identity (sexual or otherwise), then I hope this thread thrives... as long as it does so in an atmosphere of mutual respect and thirst for the discovery of the experience of others.

As far as Deut. 22:5 is concerned, as Sylvia has mentioned, and as has been extensively discussed elsewhere on this forum, there are social and historical reasons (rather than merely moral ones) for the existence of this passage in the Bible. The passage is but one in the book of Deuteronomy, a section of the Bible generally thought to consist of addresses by Moses to the Israelites in regards to the keeping of Hebrew cultural identity. It was necessary for the Israelites to distinguish themselves from the cultures around them in order to prevent their assimilation into these cultures. Hence the admonitions to avoid practices that were "an abomination unto the Lord" (read: the "impure" and idolatric traditions of surrounding cultures). One such practice is crossdressing, prevalent in the goddess-worshipping faith of the Phoenicians, for example, where (male) worshippers would pay hommage to Astarte (Greek: Aphrodite) by adopting feminine dress (this kind of "crossdressed worship" is still alive and well in some corners of India and in tribal cultures throughout the world, for example). Even Christianity has, in a way, ties to these traditions by considering the soul of the truly devout to be "the bride of Christ." In both men and women, the soul is seen as feminine, as to be "married" to Christ. In some (admittedly non-Christian) traditions, adopting feminine dress is a way to externalize this principle in worship. Of course, all this is very esoteric and has more to do with mystical interpretations of Christianity than it does with received rites and dogmas.

So, the much-feared (and much-maligned) biblical passage that is Deuteronomy 22:5 needs, always, to be considered in its proper context. All religious texts and scriptures--from any religious tradition, in any region of the globe--need to be. Although I, myself, am something of an agnostic, I would think that, for a Christian, John 3:16 would matter more than Deut. 22:5. This is my own two cents' worth, anyway.

Love,
CJ

[Anita]

The Gnostics were part of Christianity in the early centuries AD. One of their beliefs is that the physical world was created by powerful beings, but that these beings were not "God," as most religions think of that term. So in the Gnostic world, God was not concerned with male/female, hot/cold, black or white, or any other either/or choice. Certainly we are concerned with these things, and have to pay attention to how we deal with them. But God is not necessarily concerned with them, is how the modern version of Gnostic practice plays out. It is more important how we treat each other. I am not a Gnostic, but that idea is part of what I do practice.

[DonnaT]

It seems that there has always been problems associatedd with translating ancient Hebrew, for various reasons. For example, the word for man could mean exactly "man" or another word for man could mean human. Like man can not live on bread alone. Does than mean woman can live on bread alone but man cannot, or does it mean humans can not live on bread alone. Of course it means human.

In Deuteronomy 22:5 The word man, in both the first and last part of Deut 22:5, is the Hebrew word geber meaning “man, strong man, or warrior (emphasizing strength or ability to fight).”

It is important to note that this is not the only word for man in Hebrew. Verse 13 of this very same chapter uses the Hebrew word 'iysh, which is also translated man and means just that – “man, male (in contrast to woman, female).”

It is apparent that Moses, when writing Deut 22:5, was quite intentionally not talking about a man in general, but a very specific kind of man – namely, a warrior or soldier. Considering this, perhaps a better translation of this verse would be as follows:

“A (woman or weak/frail man) shall not be made to put on the weapons/armor of a warrior, neither shall a warrior wear the robes of a (weak/frail man or woman), for all that do so are an abomination unto the LORD thy God.”

Translators commonly render keliy as weapon, armor or instrument in the Old Testament.

[Jamie Sue]

It is apparent that Moses, when writing Deut 22:5, was quite intentionally not talking about a man in general, but a very specific kind of man – namely, a warrior or soldier. Considering this, perhaps a better translation of this verse would be as follows:

“A (woman or weak/frail man) shall not be made to put on the weapons/armor of a warrior, neither shall a warrior wear the robes of a (weak/frail man or woman), for all that do so are an abomination unto the LORD thy God.”

Even though I not that into the religious side of the house, I think that this is a great point.

[Jeannie]

Think about it girls. Every Holy book of every religion was written by men. I rest my case. Hugs


Love
Jeannie

[DonnaT]

Just found this web site that tries to go through the steps of explaning a translation.

http://throughthecracks.org/Deut21_5.html

"Never cause or force a warriors Weapon to be used by a woman or weak person; neither dress warriors armor on a woman or weak person for to YAHVEH, GOD of HOST, disgusting is such that do So. "

OR:

"YAHVEH, GOD of HOST , considers such disgusting those that force the weak or Woman to fight in a WAR."

Which would mean it says nothing about how the man or warrior dresses.

However, going by the websites translated words, it seems to say: "Never cause or force a warriors Weapon on a woman or weak person; nor clothe a warrior in the mantle (robes?) of a woman or weak person for to YAHVEH, GOD of HOST, disgusting is such that do So. "

[Absaroka]

Thanks loads for the translation Donna.

I wonder just how many other passages have had their meanings changed over the centuries. Among others I have always wondered about the passages about homosexuality and if they were directed at all homosexuals or just at certain homosexuals engaging in unsavory practices.

Jesus associated with prostitutes and tax collectors. Funny how tax collectors are no longer considered sinful by nature. However I am told that a better translation of the term tax collector back then was extortionist. Seems the tax collectors were supposed to collect a certain amount for the government but had broad latitude in levying additional charges which went into their own pocket.

Absaroka

[PaulaG]

My religion doesn't interfere with my dressing. My personal beliefs come closest to the Unitarian-Universalist's, who are very accepting.

[Ronnie M]

hey? I merely asked, out of mild adult curiousity. it was NOT intended for a 24 page essay.
I'm sorry I ever tried to ask anything adult here.
I won't do it again.

but thanks for those replying anyway..........


sheeeeeeeeesh.

try to be an adult and get jumped on..........I QUIT!

[DonnaT]

Geez, Ronnie, as noted by CJ the discussion is on a pretty adult level so far. And I've not seen a post where anyone has jumped on you. Nor has there been a comdemnation of anyone else's religion/teachings or lack thereof.

[Phylis Anne]

well i am a minority .i am jewish and in our prayers we read thou shal not wear womens things and thank you for making me a man.well since i have been crossdressing since i was little and at one point even wanted to become a woman i have made peace with myself and my faith that since i can never change who i am ,and what i am i lead my life in a ballance.some times i think i should talk to my rabi but he wouldnt understand all the problems we go through .the only one outside of my family is my doctor and she is a religious woman and i explained everything to her and she accepts me for what i am .also i know that there are a lot of religious jews that are part of our community .so who knew .love phylisanne

[Virginia]

I wonder what YAHVEH thinks about the female throttle jockey that flies an F/A 18 Super Hornet when asked by some a..hole reporter "could you really shoot down another airplane?" the pilot looked at this idiot with such well deserved disdane and as she turned to walk away, said, "Try Me!"
Virginia