Wykluczenie, takie jak dziś, wprowadzono w organizacji w roku 1952.
W tym czasie zaczynają się krystalizować listy rzeczy i działań zakazanych czy dopuszczanych przez głosicieli.
Padło też pytanie związane ze spodniami:
"Jeżeli w 5 Mojżeszowej 22:5 powiedziano, iż niewiasta nie powinna nosić stroju mężczyzny, czy to znaczy, że niewiasty nie śmią nigdy nosić długich spodni?" (Strażnica 22, 1952 s. 17 [ang. 01.10 1951])
.
Napisano w tym tekście 'coś' w obronie spodni:
że można na farmie nosić;
robocze;
gdy zima jest surowa;
ubranie narciarskie.
To formy dopuszczone, ale jest pewne ale...
"myśl
o sodomii, a nie po prostu sama zmiana ubioru, jest tym, co jest powodem tego zakazu i co uzasadnia surowy sąd: »Bo ktokolwiek czyni te rzeczy, jest obrzydzeniem Jehowie, twemu Bogu«" (jw. s. 17).
Tak więc nie wolno folgować sobie co do spodni, bo może być to poczytane przez Jehowę i starszych, jako sodomia.
Oto tekst angielski.
Jest to pierwszy tekst w Strażnicach, który wskazuje skorowidz, a który podejmuje problem spodni.
*** w51 10/1 pp. 607-608 Questions From Readers ***
When Deuteronomy 22:5 says that a woman should not wear a man’s clothes, does it mean that women should not wear slacks?—J. P., Pennsylvania.
Deuteronomy 22:5 (Da) reads: “There shall not be a man’s apparel on a woman, neither shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever doeth so is an abomination to Jehovah thy God.” This text certainly was not recorded with the thought in mind of preventing modern women from wearing slacks. Men did not wear slacks or trousers when this was recorded, but what we would view as dresses today. In parts of the Orient, in fact, the men wore dresslike robes and the women wore pajamalike trousers of varying styles. So the wearing of slacks or even work pants, such as around a farm, is not forbidden by this text and is an individual matter. The women can use good judgment as to time and place and what is accepted as proper in the section where they reside. In some sections where winters are severe many women wear trousers or ski suits or some similar garment that covers and protects their legs. Such is not Scripturally wrong.
At Deuteronomy 22:5 the Bible is not dealing with fashions or fretting over styles, but apparently it is here forbidding persons of one sex from wearing the clothing of the opposite sex for purposes of deceit, to appear of the opposite sex, to hide the true facts. Men should not try to deceitfully dress like women to hide the fact that they are men, nor should women try to dress in men’s clothes to hide the fact that they are women. Being more specific, the Bible seems to be striking a blow against the sin of sodomy. It was a disgrace for a woman’s hair to be shorn like a man’s, and it was a dishonor for a man’s hair to be allowed to grow long like a woman’s. (1 Cor. 11:6, 14) The woman was not to appear masculine by having short hair like a man’s or by wearing clothes like a man’s. It might suggest to others that she was available for unnatural sex uses. Likewise the man. If he wore long hair like a woman’s or garbed himself in women’s clothes he would certainly appear effeminate and open to propositions from men for unnatural sex use. So it is this deeper meaning with
sodomy in view, and not a mere switching of clothes in itself, that brings this practice under prohibition and makes it deserve the severe judgment: “Whoever doeth so is an abomination to Jehovah thy God.”
Nie wklepuję więcej polskiego, bo sporo tego, ale jak któreś zdanie potrzebne to wklepię.
