Crossdressing is a ...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Crossdressing is a sin

85 Posts
17 Users
1 Thanks
561 Views
Posts: 1445
Admin
Topic starter
(@cdh)
Famed Member     Seattle, Washington, United States of America
Joined: 12 years ago
wpf-cross-image

It must be, it says it right there in Deuteronomy 22:5

A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this.

That seems pretty clear to me. Not only is it a sin, but a detestable sin. At least that's what my pastor was kind enough to remind me when I went to him for advice. He was quick to point out that while God welcomed all children to His flock - even the hurt and broken - He did not intend for them to stay that way. I asked him for resources and support to help me overcome this and he pointed me to Randall's website.

Now as you know I've previously written about being a Christian crossdresser, and I firmly believe that God can do more than we could ever hope for or imagine - He even has the power to cure crossdressing (if you think about it for a second, this is probably quite easy compared with healing the sick and raising the dead).

But if crossdressing were such a detestable sin, surely the Bible would be overflowing with admonishments against crossdressing. At least a mention in the New Testament, or a reaffirmation by another prophet in the Old Testament. What we have though is Deuteronomy 22:5. Which happens to be only six verses away from Deuteronomy 22:11

Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together

And Deuteronomy 22:12

Make tassels on the four corners of the cloak you wear

Now I'm sure that every good Bible believing Christian checks to ensure their clothes aren't made from different materials, and is diligent about making tassels for their coats. Surely being just six verses away would make these commandments as important and worthy of fervor? Not so it seems. The inconvenient laws from the Old Testament 'no longer apply to modern society'. It seems somewhat hypocritical to me that Christians would use this verse to damn the transgendered as sinners and heretics. Joanna does this line of reasoning full justice when she discusses Crossdressing and Christianity

Randall constructs a compelling argument that crossdressing is not Christian. It is worth reading, he begins:

While searching for an answer to the question of cross-dressing being a sin, I realized that I was looking for a black and white literal answer in the Word that was not there. My reasoning was that if the prohibition was not there, it was OK to cross-dress. Later, I realized that was the same attitude the Pharisees had in Jesus’ day - they would strain at observing all of the "must dos," but they would create all kinds of ways to follow the law literally while breaking it in spirit. It occurred to me that on this issue, I had become a legalist! (more)

Clearly crossdressing is not a sin, any more than eating pork or wearing clothes made of different fabrics. Given this we should should not be willing to accept the condemnation of others, especially not Christians. As Paul says in Romans 2:1

You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgement on someone else, for whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgement do the same things.

And in rejecting the condemnation of others, we should realize that Jesus Christ does not condemn us.

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. - John 3:17-18

So we have accepted that crossdressing is not a sin, but what of the other lines of reasoning Randall puts forth? I'll discuss those in more detail in a future post. In ending this post I want to again urge you.

Don't let anyone else tell you that crossdressing is 'right' any more than you let anyone tell you that crossdressing is a sin. Your true purpose in life is known to God, and revealed to you through your relationship with Him. He may want to cure you, change your heart, or use you to bring comfort and blessing to others. Be open to His plan for your life.

Hugs and Blessings

Vanessa

Reply
84 Replies
Posts: 2
Guest
(@Diane Lewis)
New Member
Joined: 16 years ago

You might want to look at http://www.gendertree.com/

Sandra Stewart has a fairly good look at this issue and more in great detail.

I certainly think it worth the effort.

D

Reply
Posts: 2
Guest
(@Diane Lewis)
New Member
Joined: 16 years ago

You might want to look at http://www.gendertree.com/

Sandra Stewart has a fairly good look at this issue and more in great detail.

I certainly think it worth the effort.

D

Reply
Posts: 1445
Admin
Topic starter
(@cdh)
Famed Member     Seattle, Washington, United States of America
Joined: 12 years ago

Thanks for your detailed explanation Lynnea. If I understand your conclusion correctly, by accepting an inappropriate occupation (i.e. living as who we are) we debase ourselves. So this verse is more about being true to yourself and who God made you as, than a condemnation of the transgendered?

Reply
Posts: 1445
Admin
Topic starter
(@cdh)
Famed Member     Seattle, Washington, United States of America
Joined: 12 years ago

Thanks for your detailed explanation Lynnea. If I understand your conclusion correctly, by accepting an inappropriate occupation (i.e. living as who we are) we debase ourselves. So this verse is more about being true to yourself and who God made you as, than a condemnation of the transgendered?

Reply
Posts: 2
Guest
(@Diane Lewis)
New Member
Joined: 16 years ago

Ah, good old Deut. 22:5. Even when I first encountered it (as a callow 13 year-old combing the Old Testament for lurid tales of sex and violence), I was rather skeptical about it, not only because it was to be found in a part of the Bible chock full of bizarre laws (seemingly half of which were to be enforced with the threat of stoning*), but because it seemed silly for God to concern him/her/itself with something so trivial as what people wore (the way I saw it, it reduced him/her/it to the level of someone from the high school "in crowd", who condemned others for not dressing in a suitably trendy fashion). Besides, who decides what qualifies as men's clothing and what qualifies as women's clothing? That's right, OTHER HUMAN BEINGS! So whose authority do we ultimately take on which attire is "gender-appropriate" and therefore "divinely approved" - the fashion fascists? God help us! Or should we make it more democratic and leave it up to a periodic vote? And what happens when fashions start to change significantly, and one sex begins adopting the attire of the other en masse (as, for example, when women began to wear trousers in ever-increasing numbers)? Are the brave pioneers of these changes fated to be damned as "abominations", while those timid souls who only follow the fashion once it's become safely entrenched get off scot free? And if so, what of those in the middle? What is to be their fate?

Which sort of leads me to another reason I'm cynical about Deut. 22:5's applicability to the modern world. Why is it that all but the most extreme Christian fundamentalists only seem to apply it to male crossdressers these days? I mean, it's pretty clear that it applies equally to both sexes: it's not as though it says, "A man must not wear women's clothing, for verily the Lord Your God doth bring up the contents of his stomach at the very thought of such a vile thing; but a woman shall have permission to don the apparel of the man, for it has come to the Lord Your God's attention that women wearing men's clothes is quite the trendy thing nowadays (and actually sort of hot too), and there is nothing that doth please the Lord Your God more than seeing people follow the latest trends." (Maybe it's in the same version of the Bible in which God commanded the ancient Israelites to keep their homes well-stocked with handguns, assault rifles, hand grenades and rocket launchers; and enjoined his later followers to imitate their example for all time to come.) Indeed, if the sad fate of Joan of Arc is any indication, society once took both parts of this prohibition very seriously - apparently, the thing that ultimately sent the aforementioned Frenchwoman to the stake was her abominable "crime" of wearing men's attire.

Funny you should bring up the OT law about tassels. If memory serves me correctly, this command is concluded with the stern injunction that God's chosen people are to follow it "for all time to come" (or words to that effect), which leads me to wonder which part of "all time to come" millions of believers, both Christian and Jewish, over the centuries have failed to understand! Ironically, I actually have a piece of tasselled clothing myself: a black leather jacket to which I had long leather fringes attached. It's become something of a trademark for me, and has led to me acquiring some unusual nicknames over the years, such as Tass and David Tasselhoff!

*In retrospect, the OT "capital crime" that bemuses me the most is that of disobedience to one's parents. I doubt the penalty for that one would have been applied very stringently, even back in OT times. After all, how long is any society likely to last if it puts all its disobedient children to death?

Reply
Posts: 2
Guest
(@Diane Lewis)
New Member
Joined: 16 years ago

Ah, good old Deut. 22:5. Even when I first encountered it (as a callow 13 year-old combing the Old Testament for lurid tales of sex and violence), I was rather skeptical about it, not only because it was to be found in a part of the Bible chock full of bizarre laws (seemingly half of which were to be enforced with the threat of stoning*), but because it seemed silly for God to concern him/her/itself with something so trivial as what people wore (the way I saw it, it reduced him/her/it to the level of someone from the high school "in crowd", who condemned others for not dressing in a suitably trendy fashion). Besides, who decides what qualifies as men's clothing and what qualifies as women's clothing? That's right, OTHER HUMAN BEINGS! So whose authority do we ultimately take on which attire is "gender-appropriate" and therefore "divinely approved" - the fashion fascists? God help us! Or should we make it more democratic and leave it up to a periodic vote? And what happens when fashions start to change significantly, and one sex begins adopting the attire of the other en masse (as, for example, when women began to wear trousers in ever-increasing numbers)? Are the brave pioneers of these changes fated to be damned as "abominations", while those timid souls who only follow the fashion once it's become safely entrenched get off scot free? And if so, what of those in the middle? What is to be their fate?

Which sort of leads me to another reason I'm cynical about Deut. 22:5's applicability to the modern world. Why is it that all but the most extreme Christian fundamentalists only seem to apply it to male crossdressers these days? I mean, it's pretty clear that it applies equally to both sexes: it's not as though it says, "A man must not wear women's clothing, for verily the Lord Your God doth bring up the contents of his stomach at the very thought of such a vile thing; but a woman shall have permission to don the apparel of the man, for it has come to the Lord Your God's attention that women wearing men's clothes is quite the trendy thing nowadays (and actually sort of hot too), and there is nothing that doth please the Lord Your God more than seeing people follow the latest trends." (Maybe it's in the same version of the Bible in which God commanded the ancient Israelites to keep their homes well-stocked with handguns, assault rifles, hand grenades and rocket launchers; and enjoined his later followers to imitate their example for all time to come.) Indeed, if the sad fate of Joan of Arc is any indication, society once took both parts of this prohibition very seriously - apparently, the thing that ultimately sent the aforementioned Frenchwoman to the stake was her abominable "crime" of wearing men's attire.

Funny you should bring up the OT law about tassels. If memory serves me correctly, this command is concluded with the stern injunction that God's chosen people are to follow it "for all time to come" (or words to that effect), which leads me to wonder which part of "all time to come" millions of believers, both Christian and Jewish, over the centuries have failed to understand! Ironically, I actually have a piece of tasselled clothing myself: a black leather jacket to which I had long leather fringes attached. It's become something of a trademark for me, and has led to me acquiring some unusual nicknames over the years, such as Tass and David Tasselhoff!

*In retrospect, the OT "capital crime" that bemuses me the most is that of disobedience to one's parents. I doubt the penalty for that one would have been applied very stringently, even back in OT times. After all, how long is any society likely to last if it puts all its disobedient children to death?

Reply
2 Replies
Admin
(@cdh)
Joined: 12 years ago

Famed Member     Seattle, Washington, United States of America
Posts: 1445

@Zosimus: Your comment made me smile. It's too true how well meaning Christians can get so focused on certain verses and interpretations and easily forget the verse right after it. Or even the second sentence of the verse they're so passionate about. I think that Jesus correctly chastised those in His time who were doing this. Using the law to take people further away from God rather than closer to Him.

Reply
Admin
(@cdh)
Joined: 12 years ago

Famed Member     Seattle, Washington, United States of America
Posts: 1445

@Zosimus: Your comment made me smile. It's too true how well meaning Christians can get so focused on certain verses and interpretations and easily forget the verse right after it. Or even the second sentence of the verse they're so passionate about. I think that Jesus correctly chastised those in His time who were doing this. Using the law to take people further away from God rather than closer to Him.

Reply
Posts: 2
Guest
(@Diane Lewis)
New Member
Joined: 16 years ago

Brilliant Post! Thank You!

Reply
Posts: 2
Guest
(@Diane Lewis)
New Member
Joined: 16 years ago

Brilliant Post! Thank You!

Reply
Posts: 2
Guest
(@Diane Lewis)
New Member
Joined: 16 years ago

I am a m/f c....age 65.......and do it pretty openly for the last 3yrs. and am ok with it. In refrence to you Dt. comment.... I was tol by a christen lady friend who supports me stated that that book of the bible was dated back in the time when the Romans where in full swing of wine drinking and orgies.(not enough woomen to go around). Hmmmm.....
I have another christian lady friend of mine for years that supports me, but got on the tangent of it being wrong....I asked her if God made mistakes?..Her answer was no.....Ok then, if I am a creation of God than how can I be wrong? And I believe in God, or a greater divine being. I am native american by two tribes, and am leaning toward their old ways.
I my mind if I am happy doing what am doing . That is all that matters.
"Judge not less ye be judge".
Thank you, Marcye

Reply
Posts: 2
Guest
(@Diane Lewis)
New Member
Joined: 16 years ago

I am a m/f c....age 65.......and do it pretty openly for the last 3yrs. and am ok with it. In refrence to you Dt. comment.... I was tol by a christen lady friend who supports me stated that that book of the bible was dated back in the time when the Romans where in full swing of wine drinking and orgies.(not enough woomen to go around). Hmmmm.....
I have another christian lady friend of mine for years that supports me, but got on the tangent of it being wrong....I asked her if God made mistakes?..Her answer was no.....Ok then, if I am a creation of God than how can I be wrong? And I believe in God, or a greater divine being. I am native american by two tribes, and am leaning toward their old ways.
I my mind if I am happy doing what am doing . That is all that matters.
"Judge not less ye be judge".
Thank you, Marcye

Reply
Posts: 2
Guest
(@Diane Lewis)
New Member
Joined: 16 years ago

hell man get a life and live it as long as you harm no one ,the priests and vicars etc are 99% perverts who molest kids ,so why take their advice

Reply
Posts: 2
Guest
(@Diane Lewis)
New Member
Joined: 16 years ago

hell man get a life and live it as long as you harm no one ,the priests and vicars etc are 99% perverts who molest kids ,so why take their advice

Reply
Posts: 2
Guest
(@Diane Lewis)
New Member
Joined: 16 years ago

dueteronomy 22:5 seems to be where many hang their hat as the final verse that says crossdressing is a sin. And yet it never occurs to anyone that back in that day womens clothes were probably close to what we would call a berka today. Not lingerie or high heels or flouncy skirts and satin blouses. So how can that verse be the end all and be-all for the narrow-minded bible thumpers?
vicki

Reply
2 Replies
Guest
(@Diane Lewis)
Joined: 16 years ago

New Member
Posts: 2

Dear Vanessa,
above web site is Jade Catherine excellent research about cross dressing and God. Deut 22.5 refers to neighboring community that praticed CD as attempt to convert fromGod and drive others from God.
Also that portion of Bible has to do with Jewish rules and per NT we are Gentiles and not held to Jewish law. Jesus's new Conventant replaced the old. And Roman's 14 Paul talks about eating the meat is not a sin but eating such that it harms others away from God.

Reply
Guest
(@Diane Lewis)
Joined: 16 years ago

New Member
Posts: 2

Dear Vanessa,
above web site is Jade Catherine excellent research about cross dressing and God. Deut 22.5 refers to neighboring community that praticed CD as attempt to convert fromGod and drive others from God.
Also that portion of Bible has to do with Jewish rules and per NT we are Gentiles and not held to Jewish law. Jesus's new Conventant replaced the old. And Roman's 14 Paul talks about eating the meat is not a sin but eating such that it harms others away from God.

Reply
Posts: 2
Guest
(@Diane Lewis)
New Member
Joined: 16 years ago

dueteronomy 22:5 seems to be where many hang their hat as the final verse that says crossdressing is a sin. And yet it never occurs to anyone that back in that day womens clothes were probably close to what we would call a berka today. Not lingerie or high heels or flouncy skirts and satin blouses. So how can that verse be the end all and be-all for the narrow-minded bible thumpers?
vicki

Reply
Page 1 / 6
Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates from Crossdresser Heaven.

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?