Welcome Ron, study II Peter 1, being filled with the Holy Spirit and walking in the Holy Spirit with your wife.
Cross dressing problems
- Thread starter Ron1976
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Why can't you just wear what makes you happy and comfortable?
People are not happy with me walking around nude in my own backyard. Yes, we have privacy fenced in area where I do that. I tell them to stay out of my yard.
Whoaaaa. You said cross dressing. Didn't know you were walking around naked hun. You got to wear clothes dear, regardless if its your yard or not. Its just the sensible thing to do
It is interesting that it is God that creates the clean heart and not the efforts of the one offering the prayer. I love the renew a right spirit within me part too. I agree with you that this is a great verse to pray over yourself.
G
Godsgirl83
Guest
Pureness Hun,
Do you LOOK at the names of the users who are posting???
@TheLearner is NOT OP of this thread, nor the person who posted about cross dressing issues.
I have high solid fences friend gate is locked. But, my wife gives keys to her side of the family.
Keep your eyes on Jesus. Remember He has already won this battle for you. Surrender this to Him and keep Him in your thoughts always. He has won the victory for you.
what??So are you saying that regardless of the inappropriateness of it he should continue wearing womens clothes if it makes him feel happy?
That's a bit like saying what should be the main deciding factor behind what we do as Christian's is feeling happy about what we do regardless of it actually not being right or unhealthy or inappropriate ect.
Explain how its inappropriate, because I don't see anything wrong with it, if that's what makes him happy. But did you not hear him say naked? If the case was that he wanted to cross dress I really deep down inside don't think God would turn him around at the gate because of it. This isn't a perfect world of how "you" think it should be dear. Be more open minded about other people feelings on how they want to live there lives, and if cross dressing is how a person want to live there live, than so be it. Who are you to judgewhat??So are you saying that regardless of the inappropriateness of it he should continue wearing womens clothes if it makes him feel happy?
That's a bit like saying what should be the main deciding factor behind what we do as Christian's is feeling happy about what we do regardless of it actually not being right or unhealthy or inappropriate ect.
"Verse Deuteronomy 22:5. The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man — כלי גבר keli geber, the instruments or arms of a man. As the word גבר geber is here used, which properly signifies a strong man or man of war, it is very probable that armour is here intended; especially as we know that in the worship of Venus, to which that of Astarte or Ashtaroth among the Canaanites bore a striking resemblance, the women were accustomed to appear in armour before her. It certainly cannot mean a simple change in dress, whereby the men might pass for women, and vice versa. " ( is from Clarke's commentary).
Along with this being a symbol of worship of false religions. It could also be related to Warrior's dressing like women to avoid fighting in war.
Along with this being a symbol of worship of false religions. It could also be related to Warrior's dressing like women to avoid fighting in war.
"
The Hebrew word for “man” here is geber. Both times it appears in this verse, “man” is geber.[vii] As distinct from one of the general words for “man,” ’adam or ish, this word relates specifically to a male at the height of his powers. The usage of this word is not primarily a military one, although the Brown, Driver, and Briggs Lexicon defines it: “man as strong, distinguished from women, children, and non-combatants whom he is to defend.”[viii] It depicts a man operating at his most competent and capable level. Another word, gibbor, uniquely means “warrior.” Geber is not gibbor. These words are used entirely differently. Those who interpret this verse to prohibit women from wearing military armor argue their view by alleging that this word “man” is the word for “warrior.” Certainly, God could have used the word gibbor, because He did use that word c. 160 times, speaking of heroes or champions. Geber, “man,” communicates man in his strength, emphasizing his masculinity or manliness.[ix] Especially parallel with the second regulation and the use of the word “garment,” geber is not talking about a warrior and his armor. Anyone who says that the word here means “warrior” either has not looked closely enough or is depending on the ignorance of his audience to slip past them a more culturally acceptable interpretation. Most people still oppose women in hand-to-hand combat (infantry), but they have long since stopped disputing women wearing men’s clothes. Of course, if they are not “wearing the pants” in a household, they will also not be in the military."
https://faithsaves.net/deuteronomy-22-5/
The Hebrew word for “man” here is geber. Both times it appears in this verse, “man” is geber.[vii] As distinct from one of the general words for “man,” ’adam or ish, this word relates specifically to a male at the height of his powers. The usage of this word is not primarily a military one, although the Brown, Driver, and Briggs Lexicon defines it: “man as strong, distinguished from women, children, and non-combatants whom he is to defend.”[viii] It depicts a man operating at his most competent and capable level. Another word, gibbor, uniquely means “warrior.” Geber is not gibbor. These words are used entirely differently. Those who interpret this verse to prohibit women from wearing military armor argue their view by alleging that this word “man” is the word for “warrior.” Certainly, God could have used the word gibbor, because He did use that word c. 160 times, speaking of heroes or champions. Geber, “man,” communicates man in his strength, emphasizing his masculinity or manliness.[ix] Especially parallel with the second regulation and the use of the word “garment,” geber is not talking about a warrior and his armor. Anyone who says that the word here means “warrior” either has not looked closely enough or is depending on the ignorance of his audience to slip past them a more culturally acceptable interpretation. Most people still oppose women in hand-to-hand combat (infantry), but they have long since stopped disputing women wearing men’s clothes. Of course, if they are not “wearing the pants” in a household, they will also not be in the military."
https://faithsaves.net/deuteronomy-22-5/
"
Considering this, perhaps a better translation of this verse would be as follows:
"The woman shall not put on [the weapons/armor of a warrior], neither shall a [warrior] put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."
Many scholars agree with this translation. Adam Clark, commenting on Deuteronomy, states,
"As the word...geber is here used, which properly signifies a strong man or man of war, it is very probable that armour is here intended; especially as we know that in the worship of Venus, to which that of Astarte or Ashtaroth among the Canaanites bore a striking resemblance, the women were accustomed to appear in armour before her."4
John Gill in his Exposition of the Entire Bible sees a similar meaning in 22:5:
"...and the word [keliy] also signifies armour, as Onkelos renders it; and so here forbids women putting on a military habit and going with men to war, as was usual with the eastern women; and so Maimonides illustrates it, by putting a mitre or an helmet on her head, and clothing herself with a coat of mail; and in like manner Josephus explains it, 'take heed, especially in war, that a woman do not make use of the habit of a man, or a man that of a woman...'" (sic) 5
Rabbi Jon-Jay Tilsen of The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism writes in an excerpt from an article entitled "Cross Dressing and Deuteronomy 22:5,"
"In another attempt to identify the quintessential 'men's items,' Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob, quoted in the Talmud (edited about 800 C.E.), says, 'What is the proof that a woman may not go forth with weapons to war?' He then cites our verse [Deuteronomy 22:5], which he reads this way: 'A warrior's gear may not be put on a woman' (B. Naz. 59a). He reads kli gever [geber] as the homograph kli gibbor, meaning a 'warrior's gear'."
Rabbi Tilsen further states,
"This same understanding is followed by Midrash Mishlei (Proverbs) which contends that the Biblical character Yael in the Book of Judges kills General Sisera with a tent pin instead of a sword in order to comply with this law. It would have been 'unlady-like' for her to use a sword -- worse, a violation of the law -- because a sword is a man's tool..."
Considering the sheer specificity of Deut 22:5 and the precise nature of those things that are forbidden, Deut 22:5 is most likely ceremonial law rather than moral law, which would mean that it would have little, if any, implications for Christians today. Many believe, however, that this verse still applies to us today because this verse states that violators of this law are an abomination to God and that which was an abomination to God in the Old Testament would also be an abomination to God in the New Testament. However, the usage of the word abomination in Deut 22:5 does not necessarily make it a timeless moral law because any violation of God's mandates is an abomination to Him, whether it is a violation of ceremonial law or moral law. Furthermore, Deut 22:5 is placed squarely in the middle of, and is completely surrounded by, ceremonial laws. If it is indeed a principle to be literally followed today, why would God choose to bury this verse in the middle of what are clearly ceremonial laws?
"
http://www.spiritualabuse.org/actseighteen/women-pants.html
Considering this, perhaps a better translation of this verse would be as follows:
"The woman shall not put on [the weapons/armor of a warrior], neither shall a [warrior] put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."
Many scholars agree with this translation. Adam Clark, commenting on Deuteronomy, states,
"As the word...geber is here used, which properly signifies a strong man or man of war, it is very probable that armour is here intended; especially as we know that in the worship of Venus, to which that of Astarte or Ashtaroth among the Canaanites bore a striking resemblance, the women were accustomed to appear in armour before her."4
John Gill in his Exposition of the Entire Bible sees a similar meaning in 22:5:
"...and the word [keliy] also signifies armour, as Onkelos renders it; and so here forbids women putting on a military habit and going with men to war, as was usual with the eastern women; and so Maimonides illustrates it, by putting a mitre or an helmet on her head, and clothing herself with a coat of mail; and in like manner Josephus explains it, 'take heed, especially in war, that a woman do not make use of the habit of a man, or a man that of a woman...'" (sic) 5
Rabbi Jon-Jay Tilsen of The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism writes in an excerpt from an article entitled "Cross Dressing and Deuteronomy 22:5,"
"In another attempt to identify the quintessential 'men's items,' Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob, quoted in the Talmud (edited about 800 C.E.), says, 'What is the proof that a woman may not go forth with weapons to war?' He then cites our verse [Deuteronomy 22:5], which he reads this way: 'A warrior's gear may not be put on a woman' (B. Naz. 59a). He reads kli gever [geber] as the homograph kli gibbor, meaning a 'warrior's gear'."
Rabbi Tilsen further states,
"This same understanding is followed by Midrash Mishlei (Proverbs) which contends that the Biblical character Yael in the Book of Judges kills General Sisera with a tent pin instead of a sword in order to comply with this law. It would have been 'unlady-like' for her to use a sword -- worse, a violation of the law -- because a sword is a man's tool..."
Considering the sheer specificity of Deut 22:5 and the precise nature of those things that are forbidden, Deut 22:5 is most likely ceremonial law rather than moral law, which would mean that it would have little, if any, implications for Christians today. Many believe, however, that this verse still applies to us today because this verse states that violators of this law are an abomination to God and that which was an abomination to God in the Old Testament would also be an abomination to God in the New Testament. However, the usage of the word abomination in Deut 22:5 does not necessarily make it a timeless moral law because any violation of God's mandates is an abomination to Him, whether it is a violation of ceremonial law or moral law. Furthermore, Deut 22:5 is placed squarely in the middle of, and is completely surrounded by, ceremonial laws. If it is indeed a principle to be literally followed today, why would God choose to bury this verse in the middle of what are clearly ceremonial laws?
"
http://www.spiritualabuse.org/actseighteen/women-pants.html
Are you serious?
There is a big difference between cultural dress which many countries have where men don't were trousers like we do.Yet a man actually wearing womens clothing is a completley different thing.There has beensufficient responses to the OP which outlines the biblical and moral dynamics to give you a sense of the inappropriateness of it.Yet you still hold the view that if if makes him happy then keep doing it.God made Male and female genders and both have distinct masculine a feminine qualities which God has clearly defined so for a man who God has created as masculine to be wearing womens clothes is contradictory.In fact society in some areas is seeking to distort the gender identities via transgenderism ect.
So you are saying that I need to be open minded ect then you have the wrong perception of whats right and wrong in this area.
I am not even judging the individual at all and neither am I condemning them. We are al saved by the grace of God and we all need enlightenment at times or godly clarification given in love which is what it's all about.
Furthermore the Op didn't say anything about nakedness that was said by somebody else.
That's just like telling a homosexual not to be a homosexual. Are you serious? I'm not condemning anything. I just said do what makes you happy, regardless of how anyone feels. At The end of the day, that cross dresser is a human being. Ill rather be myself, than have to hide or cover up how I feel. That's just like telling that cross dresser to bury his or her feelings deep inside and for me personally I don't think its right. Ill rather live with the truth than live with a lie.
well if that's what you think then you are clearly deceived and have not yet grasped what the word of God defines as holiness ect.
What ok earth are you saying then.?
So you are quite happy to express support for anyone who is "feeling/thinking" certain things which are both unhealthy and inappropriate for Gods people?
You are saying that this dear man is a human being...no one is saying he isnt!
He is precious and loved by God... and We all feel and think things which God is totally aware of and his purpose is to conform us to a christ likeness dynamic which is an ongoing process.Just because we think ir feel certain things it doesn't mean they are always right.The bible even mentions about "deceitful desires"..In view of what you are expressing then I take it you are in totally agreement with the Christian gay movement,transgenderism,bi sexual individuals and this whole area?
After all according to you they are human beings and it's better for them to just live out their lives being what they presently are without any real awareness of reverence for the call unto holiness....which I add only God can truly work into their lives by his spirit?
I mean....seriously..
Oh I didn't say you were condemning anything...however you were taking on the view that I was being judgemental which I most definitely wasn't.
Welp, ain't no sin better than the next sinwell if that's what you think then you are clearly deceived and have not yet grasped what the word of God defines as holiness ect.
What ok earth are you saying then.?
So you are quite happy to express support for anyone who is "feeling/thinking" certain things which are both unhealthy and inappropriate for Gods people?
You are saying that this dear man is a human being...no one is saying he isnt!
In view of what you are expressing then I take it you are in totally agreement with the Christian gay movement,transgenderism,bi sexual individuals and this whole area?
After all according to you they are human beings and it's better for them to just live out their lives being what they presently are without any real awareness of reverence for the call unto holiness....which I add only God can truly work into their lives by his spirit?
I mean....seriously..
Oh I didn't say you were condemning anything...however you were taking on the view that I was being judgemental which I most definitely wasn't.
. Ain't nobody perfect and we don't live in a perfect world. Try being more realistic rather than trying to be perfect. We will be here talking about sins all day if that was the case.