Ok, this isn't really a dvar torah. Actually, its a political, homophobic, diatribe written by Steven Anderson, the hate-filled baptist preacher previously best known for asking God to smite the duly elected president of these United States. I call it dvar torah because Pastor Steve quotes our scriptures on behalf of his ludicrous point. As follows:
Many people today have the idea that Jesus Christ while he was on this earth had long hair and wore clothing that looked like a dress. The reason for this is that many people derive what they believe from artwork or the opinions of so-called “theologians” and “scholars” instead of getting their information directly from the Bible itself. First of all, the Bible makes it clear that it is a sin for a man to have long hair..:
DB: The cites are from the New Testament, and though I haven't gone to the original Greek it seems like a drasha: The verses don't say anything explicit about long hair. Anderson is interpreting. As for long-hair in the Bible, we know that Absalon, at least, wore his in the hippie style.
These same type of paintings have also given people the idea that “Jesus did not wear pants.” Some have even made utterly ridiculous and bizarre statements such as, “pants had not been invented yet,” or “they didn’t have pants back then.” According to these “scholars,” the men of the past who built the pyramids and Stonehenge just hadn’t thought of pants yet!
DB: We'll discuss pants presently. First, I want to point out Anderson's factual and reasoning errors: (1) The pyramids aren't anything amazing from an engineering POV. Toddlers build pyramids with wooden blocks. The ancient Egyptians did the exact same thing with clay blocks. Big whoops.(2) And even if the pyramids were as difficult to make as, say a skyscraper, it doesn't follow that the particular genius that goes into a skyscraper can also be applied to creating a style of clothing. (3) And really what's so great about pants? Men wear them instead of skirts for entirely arbitrary/subjective reasons. Coming up with them had nothing to do with intelligence. Its just style.
What I believe is based upon the Bible, not “historical evidence,”
DB: And there in 11 small words is one of the best indictments of fundamentalism I have ever seen
...but the historical record also proves that men in the ancient Middle East wore pants. For example... The Bible uses the word “breeches” to refer to pants. Our modern day spelling of this word is britches, such as in the expression, “he is a little too big for his britches.” Here are several mentions from the Bible of men wearing britches (pants): [All having to do with the costume of the kohen]
DB: The word the bible uses is michnasayim. Christians very often forget they rely on a translation. Moreover, he's wrong about breeches and britches. Breeches is a perfectly good modern English word; britches is a variant spelling based originally on a corrupt pronunciation. Both words mean "pants" today, and they also mean "underpants" which is exactly what they meant when the translation Pastor Moron relies upon was written. More to the point, as the Bible originally meant it, the michnasayim were UNDERGARMENTS. They were completely covered by the kitonet which was a skirt-like tunic!
Anyone who has not had their mind warped by a so-called theologian or historian knows that a dress is a woman’s garment. The only men I have seen wearing dresses in 2010 are homosexuals, Catholic priests (sorry to be redundant), Islamic clerics, and Buddhist monks. These men are an abomination according to the Bible.
What about Sean Connery? I've seen him and other Scottish men in kilts. And many men wear sarongs, dhotis, caftans, and other types of skirt-like garments. Are they all gay abominations?
No comments:
Post a Comment