Is wearing blended fabrics a sin?

Question

This is a question for those of the Christian and Jewish faith.

According to Deuteronomy 22:11, it is forbidden to wear blended fabrics. Do you abide by this law? I understand that Christians tend to focus on the New Testament, disregarding chunks from the Old testament as they see fit. However, Jesus states quite clearly that the laws of old still stand (Matthew 5:17-20)

Do you conveniently ignore this law, or do you abide by it?

Miller: You better brush up on your bible studies, buddy. Jesus states quite emphatically that the old laws still stand. You say Christians are saved by faith “not by keeping a bunch of rules” – Let me guess, you just pick and choose don’t you? I mean I’m pretty sure that you’re not going to start fornicating or condoning abortion are you now? No, didn’t think so…

Suzanne: No, it makes no sense at all. Essentially, what you’re saying is that god likes to speak in riddles and confuse people. Rather than state clearly to his believers what he meant – he is, after all, a personal god – he decided to become a sub-par Aesop. You’ve also managed to totally discredit all Kosher abiding Jews. Bravo!

Your mind appears to be bending over backwards to keep its convoluted beliefs reasonable and afloat.

Suzanne: I understand, or I should say that I have heard, that defeat can be difficult to deal with. Fair enough - you'd prefer to throw around veiled insults. What I'd like to see from you would be a list of the rules that are meant as parables and those that aren't. Then I'd like to see where in the bible it says what should be taken literally and what shouldn't - or are you just choosing what suits you at the time? Perhaps your god tells you personally? No, that couldn't be it, otherwise christians would all agree on what is parable and what isn't.

Failing that, would you at least apologize to all the Kosher abiding Jews you so obviously discredited...I know, I know - if you apologize you will contradict your parable explanation...

You done gone and got yerself backed in a corner and yer acting like it...

Teeheehee

Answer 1

What about the one where if you touch the skin of a pig on the Sabbath, you get taken to the edge of the village to be stoned to death.
What are the implications for college football programs?

Answer 2

Hermeneutics. You seem to have left out what Jesus said about these minor laws in the Sermon on the Mount that those who did not keep these laws and taught others so would be "the least" in the Kingdom of God. Still in the Kingdom though, by Faith.

Now, concerning the Jewish faith: Would a Jew who wore a blended fabric cease to be a Jew? What is the consequence of disregarding this minor law? Now, for most laws there is a fine or punishment for breaking that law but for this particular law, no punishment is directly established. This is a very specific directive you list; linen and wool together. What clothing manufacturer even makes such a garment today? And, what does the Talmud say about wearing say a wool coat over a linen shirt? Finally, what Rabbi today would rebuke or be offended by a gentile for wearing such? None that I know.

Now, if you want to show your juvenile disposition and general disrespect towards others here, that only shows your own profound immaturity. If anyone deserves an apology, it is Suzanne.

Answer 3

This day and age, no. Because back then, in Jesus's time and earlier, they didn't have mini skirts and bikinis. They had colourful fabric. That was their kind of clothing sin. But then after Jesus's death, 2000 years later, bikinis were invented. They made blended fabrics look way modest. So it's no more a sin.

Answer 4

Only if you are strict Jewish. Most contemporary Jewish people don't follow this Law.

The reason it's there, is due to time frame of when it was written, and their methods of making and washing clothing may produce mold within the woven fabric. If you Read Deuteronomy and Leviticus where mostly all of those Various Laws are written/recorded, you'll notice a lot has to do with hygenie. They did not have the same methods we had today, as far disinfecting or simple anti-bacterial products ROFL. So There were highly intellegent Laws (considering time frame of recording) lol put into place to keep the community free from disease due to common things such as mold, bacteria and other things. That's why there is also regulations in regards to clean and unclean food and ways to cook it - as they didnt have the technology we do to prevent them from heating the food to a certain temperature that would kill off any e-coli or bacteria in the meat etc.

It also has to do with holiness, but most of them are there for health reasons, honestly. God's a pretty smart guy LOL. ;) ♥

Answer 5

No, wearing blended fabrics is not a sin.

The Biblical prohibition against mixing fibers (as well as many other dietary and societal prohibitions) illustrate the same concept: God did not want His people to mix the sacred and the profane; additionally, He wanted to teach them to DISCERN between the sacred and the profane.

This is most evident within the dietary laws: there is nothing inherently evil about shellfish. Folks throughout the ages have merely assumed that God prohibited the Jews from eating shellfish because of health reasons. (These folks evidently are unaware that the Jews did know how to cook raw meat.) Once any of these foods is cooked, the health issues cited by many disappear, so what's the real issue?

What you have to understand is that -- again and again -- God taught His people by EXAMPLE, using ILLUSTRATION. Let's say you're a parent and you want to teach your young child not to drink poison from under the kitchen sink. Sure, you could lock the sink -- but what if the child finds a bottle of ammonia lying around the house? The solution many parents come up with is the "Mr. Yuck" sticker. Whenever the child sees this, he or she knows that it's BAD. They don't need to know anything other than that to save their lives. So "Mr. Yuck" is a symbol your child can easily understand and say "daddy said that's bad for me!" If it doesn't have a "Mr. Yuck" sticker on it, your child knows it's safe to eat (because kids eat EVERYTHING).

Similarly, God wanted to symbolically illustrate for His people the difference between the good (sacred) and evil (profane) of the world. How does He do it? "Shellfish are bad. But Cows you may eat." "Do not mix wool (which causes the wearer irritation and sweating) and linen (which is pure and clean)." God wasn't really talking about shellfish, cows, wool or linen; He was speaking symbolically about good and evil. Does this make sense?

EDIT: I'm sorry that what I've written is apparently too difficult for you to understand. Keep at it and maybe you'll be able to comprehend theological issues soon.

Answer 6

This is a good question. I assume that such a thing must have existed when the Bible was written, but then again, maybe it was just that unthinkable. Considering the fact that forced sexual contact was forbidden, I don't see why this wouldn't also extend to children, but you're right that there's nothing specific against it. But then, I don't believe that the Torah was ever intended to be the one and only source of moral laws, nor was it intended to apply to anyone outside of the Israelites.

Answer 7

What stunning incompetence to include Christians in this question. Everyone knows that Christians are saved by faith in the work of Christ on the cross, not by keeping a bunch of rules. Some people want it both ways.
.

Answer 8

Yes it is, but with all the sins I commit on a daily basis, I really don't plan on worrying about that one for a while

Answer 9

No just fabrics that clash in color. Or things that cancel each other out.
Like polka-dots and stripes.
Or jeans and a skirt. (I am still trying to figure out the point of that one)

Answer 10

Well....... would you take your stubbornly disobedient children into the town forefathers and have them stoned to death? How about stoning to death any woman guilty of Adultery? Of course not! Yet, these are 'Old Testament Law' You are being argumentative. Why, to what purpose?