Distractions: Alcohol, Guns, Pornography, Video Games, Gambling...

[RandyPNW]

I would distinguish between Rabbinic Judaism and the Scriptures themselves.

The scriptures themselves don't say what you are saying.

I disagree.

Bible Commentary is not always accurate, and includes a lot of opinions based on certain preconceptions, such as, Jesus is *not* the Messiah.

Jesus being the messiah or lack thereof is not a Jewish legal matter, it's a theological one.

A distinction without a difference.

There may be more than one intent in cross-dressing. My concern is the Scriptures' explicit prohibition against cross-dressing in the mode of gender confusion.

According to who? You mock rabbinical interpretation yet include your own personal interpretation and present it as binding. Who gave you that authority?

I wasn't aware that I "mocked" Rabbinic Interpretation--I simply disagree with it. I don't cite it as authoritative. If that's "mocking" to you, so be it. But I don't consider that mocking at all.

[Athanasius]

I disagree.

You've asserted a view and failed to interact with counter-perspectives. When presented with considerations against your view, you merely reasserted yourself. That's disagreement, sure, but it's obstinant and not rigorous. Well, maybe it's more refusal than disagreement.

I wasn't aware that I "mocked" Rabbinic Interpretation--I simply disagree with it. I don't cite it as authoritative. If that's "mocking" to you, so be it. But I don't consider that mocking at all.

Remember when you said this?

Just my honest thoughts. Too bad some here think that my thoughts are worthy of ridicule.

Pot, kettle.

[Fenris]

I disagree.

You disagree? Great. Show me where the verses say that cross dressing is homosexuality. Because you just invented that.

A distinction without a difference.

No, it's actually a big difference. Theological debates are not a big feature in Judaism, because it's a rules based religion. One does not become a rabbi by learning theology, but by becoming expert in Jewish law. But for you, because the fundamentals of Christianity are more belief than action, you see everything through that lens. But it doesn't apply to other religions. Just making you aware.

I wasn't aware that I "mocked" Rabbinic Interpretation--I simply disagree with it. I don't cite it as authoritative.

Ok, so it's not "authoritative". What makes your views any more authoritative? Why should anyone listen to you? Why should *I* listen to you?

[RandyPNW]

I disagree.

You disagree? Great. Show me where the verses say that cross dressing is homosexuality. Because you just invented that.

No, that is the obvious suggestion of the law.

Lev 18.22 22 ‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

Deut 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.

Lev 18 is quite explicit in its denunciation of *homosexuality.* Wearing women's clothing is obviously a kind of gender confusion leading to a man, acting as a woman, pursuing sexual relations with another man.

What makes this even more apparent is that the set of laws in Deuteronomy 22 appear designed to show concern for others in society. And this gender confusion is therefore shown to be the opposite of this, acting as though there is no concern as to how this will affect the institution of marriage in society.

You obviously disagree with this. And so, there is nothing more to be said.

But for you, because the fundamentals of Christianity are more belief than action, you see everything through that lens. But it doesn't apply to other religions. Just making you aware.

You're making me aware about what Christianity teaches? Nice try. Some Christians, it is true, assume there is some kind of dichotomy between faith and reason, between what one wishes to believe and explicitly stated laws of God.

But other Christians, like myself, including Christians all down through the centuries, have believed, as you do, that the laws of God were fairly clearly rendered. Again, fulfillment of the laws in Christ were not an abrogation of *law* itself. There is an intelligent design to this fulfillment that does not ignore fundamental laws of morality given in the Law of Moses.

Ok, so it's not "authoritative". What makes your views any more authoritative? Why should anyone listen to you? Why should *I* listen to you?

Because I've died to my own interests and have chosen to serve the interests of God. It is, I believe, God's wish to reach out to Fenris, apart from human religion, whether Jewish or Christian. It is meeting God spiritually that is fulfilling to our lives. And I believe He would have you enter into a greater level of spirituality. That is, I believe, found in Christ.

Is this a "belief?" Of course. But is it based on the righteousness displayed in the Law of Moses? Yes. It is a system that circumvents what the Law was not intended to do, which was to bring final redemption to the Jewish People. The Law could not do that, and never tried to do that. Messiah could and did do that.

But yes--it is a matter of personal conviction. It just will never be popular with those who have an axe to grind, or some kind of code of loyalty to a particular class of people.

[Fenris]

No, that is the obvious suggestion of the law.

It "suggests" nothing of the sort. You're inventing a connection that does not exist in the text.

Lev 18.22 22 ‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

Deut 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.

Lev 18 is quite explicit in its denunciation of *homosexuality.* Wearing women's clothing is obviously a kind of gender confusion leading to a man, acting as a woman, pursuing sexual relations with another man.

Two chapters in different books of the bible talking about two different topics are not the same thing. Again, lesbianism is not prohibited by the bible, so why is a woman crossdressing as a man to have sex with another woman prohibited?

What makes this even more apparent is that the set of laws in Deuteronomy 22 appear designed to show concern for others in society. And this gender confusion is therefore shown to be the opposite of this, acting as though there is no concern as to how this will affect the institution of marriage in society.

You obviously disagree with this. And so, there is nothing more to be said.

Yes, because you're inventing things. And when challenged, rather than presenting evidence in support of your viewpoint, you say "there's nothing more to talk about."

You're making me aware about what Christianity teaches?

No, I'm making you aware of what other religions teach. Because you seem completely oblivious.

Because I've died to my own interests and have chosen to serve the interests of God.

What a coincidence! So have I! So now my view is authoritative and you must accept it! 

Is this a "belief?" Of course. But is it based on the righteousness displayed in the Law of Moses?

Unlike you, I actually uphold and follow the bible's laws. So my view is authoritative x9000!!!

Yes. It is a system that circumvents what the Law was not intended to do, which was to bring final redemption to the Jewish People. 

Actually the bibles laws are a condition of the Sinai covenant and have nothing to do with any final redemption. But you're on a roll here so why bother.

But yes--it is a matter of personal conviction.

You have personal convictions. Just like every other human being on the planet. So again, what makes your any  more compelling? Even your fellow Christians don't agree with you, so why should I?

[Athanasius]

Lev 18 is quite explicit in its denunciation of *homosexuality.* Wearing women's clothing is obviously a kind of gender confusion leading to a man, acting as a woman, pursuing sexual relations with another man.

Do you know who gay men don't want to have sex with? Women. This idea that gay men dress up as women to have sex with other gay men is... odd. Deuteronomy 22:5 doesn't say anything about same-sex sexual activity, and Leviticus 18 doesn't say anything about cross-dressing. And what's the context of Deuteronomy 22:5 anyway? Donkeys, ox and birds nests. What did men and women wear in the ANE? They didn't have the dress and trousers distinction that we have today, that's for sure.

It's not only odd, but I am explicitly telling you that "wearing women's clothing" doesn't necessarily lead to men acting as women with the intent of having sex with men. It can, but it doesn't always, and for whatever reason, we've moved beyond the specifics of my circumstance to things no one was discussing. I'm wearing women's socks if you can believe it, and I guess that counts as "cross-dressing" despite the gendered label being entirely arbitrary, but you know what? No one is coming around my stinky feet.

Although the internet is full of weirdos.

As much as I'm critical of the current metaphysics (to be generous), there is a valid distinction between gender identity and sexual orientation. You're treating the two as if they're one and the same, and they're not. You could have, for example, men dressing up as women to have sex with women, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to describe that, as kinky as it is, as homosexual activity.

And so we return to the necessity game, except this time...

P1. Leviticus 18 denounces homosexual conduct
P2. Wearing women's clothing is homosexual conduct
C. Therefore, Leviticus 18 denounces cross-dressing

But P2 isn't true necessarily, and so the conclusion doesn't follow.

What makes this even more apparent is that the set of laws in Deuteronomy 22 appear designed to show concern for others in society. And this gender confusion is therefore shown to be the opposite of this, acting as though there is no concern as to how this will affect the institution of marriage in society.

You obviously disagree with this. And so, there is nothing more to be said.

Sure there is.

Do you really think Deuteronomy 22:13 - 21 is beneficial for society? Ours today, I mean? In this portion of scripture, we read about virginity testing, and if proof of the woman's virginity cannot be found, then she's to be stoned to death. But what about those women who really are virgins, and no proof can be found because their hymen tore for some reason other than sex?

But God said it, right?

20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found
21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

And don't worry, if the husband besmirches the wife and proof of virginity can be found then he gets stoned instead. Oh no wait, he's fined a hundred shekels of silver. Why do you think Dawkins and others get away with talking about the capriciousness of God?

Or you know, how about v28 - 29, where women are forced to marry the men who raped them?

Now obviously these things are said because - I would imagine - they corrected social wrongs at the time. v28 - 29 is awful, but it's not as awful as what was happening. But just because they're less awful doesn't mean they're examples to us today of how we ought to organise society. We've moved on. We've actually bettered our moral understanding. Some of us, anyway. And we know that these societies lead to female infanticide and honor killings because that's what we see in history and today.

Of course, we all ignore the biggest sin of Deuteronomy 22, which is the wearing of clothes that blend wool and linen together.

I think Deuteronomy 22:5 is being plucked and proof texted. There is a whole lot that we don't follow in this portion of Scripture, so what makes 22:5 especially morally binding? Because it affects the institution of marriage? You'd think that this would be mentioned, given marriage is discussed. But it's not. If a man raped a woman and the hymen was already broken, despite her being a virgin, and thus it's assumed that she's been immoral, then I guess they both die?

You did add tassels to the four corners of your cloak, right?

[Fenris]

You did add tassels to the four corners of your cloak, right?

Ooh ooh, I did! 

[RandyPNW]

Do you know who gay men don't want to have sex with? Women. This idea that gay men dress up as women to have sex with other gay men is... odd.

Boy George acted like a woman, as do many gay men. And yes, they wanted to play the female role in a relationship with the same sex. Role-playing is very normal, but in this case, the Bible calls it "sinful." Even if the gay guy wants to act like a woman, and isn't "advertising" for sex, he is still putting a temptation out there for ex-gays who wish not to be tempted.

And that's why Deut 22 seems to apply cross-dressing, as something that should serve others by not putting a stumbling block in front of them. This is like going out of your way to help someone when you don't have to, such as when you find your neighbors animals straying--vs 1. Or, like when a neighbor's animal has stumbled--vs 4.

Or, like doing something that only has the appearance of something cruel, like recognizing the value of reproduction in animals as something inherently good--vs 7.

Yes, cross-dressing doesn't inherently do harm to anybody. If, for example, it happens as a dramatic act in a play, it may be harmless. But in context, it is when something of value, like a social institution, is being threatened, cross-dressing may be very harmful!

Or, like taking precautions so that someone does not get hurt due to your failure to anticipate conditions in which an accident may happen--vs 8.

Or, like failing to recognize the need to distinguish between plants before they are mature, so there is no confusion as to what is being produced--vs 9. Or, like failing to recognize essential differences in nature that don't work so well together--vs 10.

Do you think this last failure to differentiate would apply to cross-dressers? Or to gays? At any rate, the chapter goes on to list sexual perversions, indicating some decidedly different relationships, which may include the homosexual or the bestial relationship, do not belong in the category of sexual compatibility.

Much of this has to do with recognizing divine design in nature. We shouldn't even give the appearance of trying to challenge the thought processes of Deity. Those who turn to a pure Naturalism simply want to claim there is no inherent morality in Nature, giving justification for people to live as they want, and not as they ought.

Deuteronomy 22:5 doesn't say anything about same-sex sexual activity, and Leviticus 18 doesn't say anything about cross-dressing. And what's the context of Deuteronomy 22:5 anyway? Donkeys, ox and birds nests. What did men and women wear in the ANE? They didn't have the dress and trousers distinction that we have today, that's for sure.

It's not only odd, but I am explicitly telling you that "wearing women's clothing" doesn't necessarily lead to men acting as women with the intent of having sex with men. It can, but it doesn't always, and for whatever reason, we've moved beyond the specifics of my circumstance to things no one was discussing. I'm wearing women's socks if you can believe it, and I guess that counts as "cross-dressing" despite the gendered label being entirely arbitrary, but you know what? No one is coming around my stinky feet.

Although the internet is full of weirdos.

We just discover what people are really like inside the privacy of their own homes, and with a degree of anonymity. Perhaps our own hang-ups are not so unusual after all? However, we need to do better than the lowest common denominator--you think?

As much as I'm critical of the current metaphysics (to be generous), there is a valid distinction between gender identity and sexual orientation. You're treating the two as if they're one and the same, and they're not.

I'm aware of that. But I was in the mode of justifying the cross-dressing rule as something that has sexual connotations, whether it is intentional or not. It has a bad impact, I think, on a normal marriage society, whether a person is aware or not.

And so we return to the necessity game, except this time...

P1. Leviticus 18 denounces homosexual conduct
P2. Wearing women's clothing is homosexual conduct
C. Therefore, Leviticus 18 denounces cross-dressing

But P2 isn't true necessarily, and so the conclusion doesn't follow.

What makes this even more apparent is that the set of laws in Deuteronomy 22 appear designed to show concern for others in society. And this gender confusion is therefore shown to be the opposite of this, acting as though there is no concern as to how this will affect the institution of marriage in society.

Do you really think Deuteronomy 22:13 - 21 is beneficial for society? Ours today, I mean? In this portion of scripture, we read about virginity testing, and if proof of the woman's virginity cannot be found, then she's to be stoned to death. But what about those women who really are virgins, and no proof can be found because their hymen tore for some reason other than sex?

But God said it, right?

God isn't stupid. He knew the Law of Moses was for an ancient culture, and He was laying down ground rules--not exceptions. He understood Hebrews were smart enough to distinguish between the intent of the Law and exceptional circumstances. For example, David ate the holy bread in a time of desperate need, simply by asking the priest to arbitrate.

Many rules under the Law contained eternal principles, but were contained in time-limited circumstances. The biggest example was the law of animal sacrifice. The principle was that God accepted observance of an illustration that we confess having done violence to others through the act of sacrificing an animal.

But the time limitation on this is the act of Christ's forgiveness for the failure of Israel to keep the Law properly, including the law of animal sacrifice. Internal corruption to a high degree delegitimized all of the animal sacrifices as a flawed repentance, a false confession, or an inadequate form of worship.

Since Christ sacrificed himself for Israel, they need not offer animal sacrifices any more. They only need to confess his death on behalf of all human sin.

There were time limitations on things like avoiding tattoos, because in ancient times pagans may have practiced this. Avoiding pagan practices had an inherent spiritual value, though it was time-limited.

In the modern world, this is not a major issue, even if the principle of avoiding appearances of paganism still applies. God gave the Law of Moses to demand eternal principles be recognized, and be acknowledged as evident in the nature of our own conscience. Today, the circumstances have changed, but the principles are unchanging.

[IMINXTC]

Yes. But in the words of Stevie Nicks: "You're saying I'm fragile
I try not to be
I search only
For something
I can't see

I have my own life
And I am stronger
Than you know"

If you think suicide is about strength or a lack of it then I'm going to say no, as well. It's certainly tempting to think that way ("if only I was smarter, or stronger") but it's not about that.

Indeed:
Surviving cancer.
Demonic attacks.

Not for the faint of heart.
You been through it.

And that's not even everything. I haven't yet met a psychologist, counsellor or therapist who quite knew where to begin after I've explained all the 'major' events in my life. There's a lot, and I started young. I've lived a life, I like to say.

How did I not list Autism - perhaps key or crucial in said issues(?).

Prayers are current

[Athanasius]

Boy George acted like a woman, as do many gay men. And yes, they wanted to play the female role in a relationship with the same sex. Role-playing is very normal, but in this case, the Bible calls it "sinful." Even if the gay guy wants to act like a woman, and isn't "advertising" for sex, he is still putting a temptation out there for ex-gays who wish not to be tempted.

... Let me get a drink.

No, I was talking about dressing up as a woman, which isn't what you're talking about here, which is '[acting] like a woman' -- I think most people would regard that as a particular kind of gay flamboyance rather than an attempt to emulate women. Of course, this goes back to the kinds of distinctions you don't want to entertain, namely, that one could wear women's clothing without attracting men (I gave socks as a nice easy example). To think that ex-gay (?) men would be tempted by men acting like women is strange. I think at this point in the discussion it's mostly just a kind of ignorance.

I'm not sure about this implied equation between, presumably, submission and the 'female role in a relationship'.

And that's why Deut 22 seems to apply cross-dressing, as something that should serve others by not putting a stumbling block in front of them. This is like going out of your way to help someone when you don't have to, such as when you find your neighbors animals straying--vs 1. Or, like when a neighbor's animal has stumbled--vs 4.

To bring this back to my own real-life experience, (1) gay men want nothing to do with me, and (2) ex-gay men don't find me to be a stumbling block. This entire appeal to 'stumbling blocks' is absurd, as if it excuses a person from their own responsibilities. If my clothes are triggering someone else that's on them, not me. (If I have to say this, does that mean I've made it?)

Of course, to argue from the notion of 'stumbling blocks' ends up arguing for too much anyway.

But in context...

Oh, in context.

Those who turn to a pure Naturalism simply want to claim there is no inherent morality in Nature, giving justification for people to live as they want, and not as they ought.

We're not talking about 'those' nebulous people. We were talking about me.

We just discover what people are really like inside the privacy of their own homes, and with a degree of anonymity. Perhaps our own hang-ups are not so unusual after all? However, we need to do better than the lowest common denominator--you think?

Were you planning on replying to what I wrote?

I'm aware of that. But I was in the mode of justifying the cross-dressing rule as something that has sexual connotations, whether it is intentional or not. It has a bad impact, I think, on a normal marriage society, whether a person is aware or not.

Do you find socks to be sexually arousing, Randy? Jeans, maybe? Not skinny jeans, just normal old straight cut whatever. Sweaters? You aren't in the mode of justifying anything, you're in the mode of asserting. You're in the mode of failing to interact with opposing views while mutating this discussion from something specifically about the experience I was conveying and into to a discussion that no one was all that interested in discussing, because it wasn't relevant.

He understood Hebrews were smart enough to distinguish between the intent of the Law and exceptional circumstances.

Oh, exceptional circumstances. And my circumstances are...?

[Athanasius]

Yes. But in the words of Stevie Nicks: "You're saying I'm fragile
I try not to be
I search only
For something
I can't see

I have my own life
And I am stronger
Than you know"

If you think suicide is about strength or a lack of it then I'm going to say no, as well. It's certainly tempting to think that way ("if only I was smarter, or stronger") but it's not about that.

Indeed:
Surviving cancer.
Demonic attacks.

Not for the faint of heart.
You been through it.

And that's not even everything. I haven't yet met a psychologist, counsellor or therapist who quite knew where to begin after I've explained all the 'major' events in my life. There's a lot, and I started young. I've lived a life, I like to say.

How did I not list Autism - perhaps key or crucial in said issues(?).

Prayers are current

Actually the impact of HRT on my ASD has been intriguing, but yes, I don't doubt that the ASD has had a significant impact on specifically my experience of the world, and view of self in relation to others.

I've actually gained a sense of social awareness, empathy, etc. Apparently, I'm a much more caring, invested person. So, there's actually some sense where I can naturally engage socially without calculating everything in real time. And you know, when people tell me their dog has died I don't just blankly stare at them and kind of shrug.

[Fenris]

And that's why Deut 22 seems to apply cross-dressing

I'm interested in why you think that some aspects of Deut 22 are in effect today and some aren't. Verses 11 and 12 are in the same chapter as verse 5 is, yet verse 5 is super important to you and I'm guessing you don't keep 11 and 12. Religious Jews do, by the way.

[RandyPNW]

And that's why Deut 22 seems to apply cross-dressing

I'm interested in why you think that some aspects of Deut 22 are in effect today and some aren't. Verses 11 and 12 are in the same chapter as verse 5 is, yet verse 5 is super important to you and I'm guessing you don't keep 11 and 12. Religious Jews do, by the way.

The rationale goes like this. God's eternal principles of holiness existed in the Law of Moses, and it was given "for all your generations," ie on a continuous basis.

However, written into the Law, as well, was the inevitable failure of that system to bring Israel back to the tree of life, to experience eternal life and eternal bliss. The Law was only for mortals, and could not bring about immortality.

And so, the Law was a confirmation of what the story of the Garden of Eden meant, which is that Man, in his mortal state, could not obtain Eternal Life and Eternal Righteousness. There would always be failure, which is why the Law was chalk full of purification and cleansing ceremonies, and offerings of contrition.

And there were all kinds of symbols of separation between a holy God and a people who were kept near only by the grace and mercy of a patient God. There was a division between the temple and the people, between the priest and the people, and between God and the priests.

But contained in the Law was a spirit of prophecy, hoping for a return to Eden--a Messianic hope. The Prophets later made this clear.

And so, the temporary nature of the Law had to yield up symbols of separation to symbols of unity, like the Communion of Jesus. We now directly partake of God, rather than find ourselves speaking to God through a wall of purification ceremonies.

Having been forgiven by the death of Christ, we no longer need all of the purification and redemption festivals and ceremonies. Seasons are no longer important since the ultimate season of redemption has already arrived. Sabbath is no longer necessary since our works are no longer viewed as unclean and in need to rituals of the Law being done year after year.

The principles contained in the many laws are eternal--principles like the need to separate from paganism. Citing specific pagan practices under the Law were time-limited, because Israel at that time was the only chosen nation, the only nation following the true God. And they had to remain distinct from the pagans, including even looking like they were following them or their impure ways.

So now that Christians view the separating wall between Israel and the nations has come down through Christ, it is a matter of choosing to avoid paganism in other countries or even in our own country, regardless of the practices. Times have changed, and the Law is no longer applicable in its ancient setting, as Christians see it.

[Athanasius]

And that's why Deut 22 seems to apply cross-dressing

I'm interested in why you think that some aspects of Deut 22 are in effect today and some aren't. Verses 11 and 12 are in the same chapter as verse 5 is, yet verse 5 is super important to you and I'm guessing you don't keep 11 and 12. Religious Jews do, by the way.

The rationale goes like this. God's eternal principles of holiness existed in the Law of Moses, and it was given "for all your generations," ie on a continuous basis.

However, written into the Law, as well, was the inevitable failure of that system to bring Israel back to the tree of life, to experience eternal life and eternal bliss. The Law was only for mortals, and could not bring about immortality.

And so, the Law was a confirmation of what the story of the Garden of Eden meant, which is that Man, in his mortal state, could not obtain Eternal Life and Eternal Righteousness. There would always be failure, which is why the Law was chalk full of purification and cleansing ceremonies, and offerings of contrition.

And there were all kinds of symbols of separation between a holy God and a people who were kept near only by the grace and mercy of a patient God. There was a division between the temple and the people, between the priest and the people, and between God and the priests.

But contained in the Law was a spirit of prophecy, hoping for a return to Eden--a Messianic hope. The Prophets later made this clear.

And so, the temporary nature of the Law had to yield up symbols of separation to symbols of unity, like the Communion of Jesus. We now directly partake of God, rather than find ourselves speaking to God through a wall of purification ceremonies.

Having been forgiven by the death of Christ, we no longer need all of the purification and redemption festivals and ceremonies. Seasons are no longer important since the ultimate season of redemption has already arrived. Sabbath is no longer necessary since our works are no longer viewed as unclean and in need to rituals of the Law being done year after year.

The principles contained in the many laws are eternal--principles like the need to separate from paganism. Citing specific pagan practices under the Law were time-limited, because Israel at that time was the only chosen nation, the only nation following the true God. And they had to remain distinct from the pagans, including even looking like they were following them or their impure ways.

So now that Christians view the separating wall between Israel and the nations has come down through Christ, it is a matter of choosing to avoid paganism in other countries or even in our own country, regardless of the practices. Times have changed, and the Law is no longer applicable in its ancient setting, as Christians see it.

The problem Fenris and I have raised is this:

If Deuteronomy 22:5 is to be taken as concrete instruction for Christians today, then the whole of Deuteronomy 22 ought to be taken as concrete instruction for Christians today.

If Deuteronomy 22 is to be understood as expressing eternal principles, then the whole of Deuteronomy 22 ought to be taken as the expression of eternal principles. Deuteronomy 22:5 can't be concrete, while Deuteronomy 22:11 - 12 is not.

If you want to argue something like:

P1. Deuteronomy expresses eternal principles
P2. Deuteronomy 22:5 is a particular example of a more general eternal principle
C. The eternal principles of Deuteronomy 22:5 apply to Christians today

Then fine, that can be examined. You can't take Deuteronomy 22:5 concretely and argue something like, 'cross-dressing is homosexual dressing'  while appealing to another book entirely that doesn't speak towards Deuteronomy 22:5. I mean, you can, but it's a poor argument. It means arguing that one verse is an expression of an eternal principle but not concrete, while another is concrete and also an expression of an eternal principle.

...to say nothing of your mentions of context and Jews not sticking to the law (apparently) for 'exceptional circumstances' that you don't seem to have considered at all in the context of this discussion. It seems that your position is informed by the axiomatic idea that God will either (1) heal or (2) provide a way to cope with life's challenges. Okay, well, this is the way God has provided for me to cope. If you want to launch an argument from Deuteronomy 22:5, make it a good one, then provide a good holy alternative. As it is, you're just making stuff up by appealing to shallow grandiose sounding pseudo-academic abstractions of the text.

[Fenris]

The rationale goes like this. God's eternal principles of holiness existed in the Law of Moses, and it was given "for all your generations," ie on a continuous basis.

However, written into the Law, as well, was the inevitable failure of that system to bring Israel back to the tree of life, to experience eternal life and eternal bliss. The Law was only for mortals, and could not bring about immortality.

And so, the Law was a confirmation of what the story of the Garden of Eden meant, which is that Man, in his mortal state, could not obtain Eternal Life and Eternal Righteousness. There would always be failure, which is why the Law was chalk full of purification and cleansing ceremonies, and offerings of contrition.

And there were all kinds of symbols of separation between a holy God and a people who were kept near only by the grace and mercy of a patient God. There was a division between the temple and the people, between the priest and the people, and between God and the priests.

But contained in the Law was a spirit of prophecy, hoping for a return to Eden--a Messianic hope. The Prophets later made this clear.

And so, the temporary nature of the Law had to yield up symbols of separation to symbols of unity, like the Communion of Jesus. We now directly partake of God, rather than find ourselves speaking to God through a wall of purification ceremonies.

Having been forgiven by the death of Christ, we no longer need all of the purification and redemption festivals and ceremonies. Seasons are no longer important since the ultimate season of redemption has already arrived. Sabbath is no longer necessary since our works are no longer viewed as unclean and in need to rituals of the Law being done year after year.

The principles contained in the many laws are eternal--principles like the need to separate from paganism. Citing specific pagan practices under the Law were time-limited, because Israel at that time was the only chosen nation, the only nation following the true God. And they had to remain distinct from the pagans, including even looking like they were following them or their impure ways.

So now that Christians view the separating wall between Israel and the nations has come down through Christ, it is a matter of choosing to avoid paganism in other countries or even in our own country, regardless of the practices. Times have changed, and the Law is no longer applicable in its ancient setting, as Christians see it.

I can't believe you took so much time, and typed so much, yet couldn't explain why some verses in the chapter are binding and some are free to be ignored.