Gay and Christian

[Gagatron]

No one who gives birth is "sinful". The Bible doesn't use that word when describing the cleansing process. It's a known fact that women bleed after giving birth, and that their breast leak. This is why the law is dead people...because it was meant for Jews 3000 years ago.

Nowadays, you're still unclean abit, but much less so. You get to shower and put on a tampon. Than goodness Jesus cleared that up.

Oh! So earlier it's "obvious" that everything a woman lies down on and touches during her period is unclean, but now it's antiquated rules that don't apply anymore.

Also, how is a woman not being "unclean" for twice as long when she has a girl as when she has a boy not sexist?

12:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
12:3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
12:4 And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.
12:5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.
12:6 And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or dove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:

And "unclean" is pretty much "sinful". Otherwise the advice would be "take a shower and wash up" instead of "sacrifice some animals to the LORD".

There's possibly a scientific explanaition. What if the types of hormones during the carrying period of a female baby make the afterbirth menstruation last longer?

[North Rhode Island]

Evidence? He did not flood the world, he did not smite Sodom, pretty much every mass genocide attributed to God is an allegory, or was not scientifically understood by the writer at the time of occurance. I'm sure if any one of us saw these events first hand (or were able to invesitage them) we'd know what happened.

He DID do all of those things. It was for the betterment of the universe.

the universe that, because of christianity, we didnt belive existed untill a few hundred years ago?

[Gagatron]

Imagine being a woman 3000 years ago, in Israel. No tampons. No hormone pills. No underwhere. When you bleed, it gets on everthing, doesn't it? Dripping on the ground while walking? Imagine if the period is extra heavy, and everytime you sit down, you stain everything. Why would you want to stay in the village?

Not a historian here, but... Yeah, undergarments have been around since Roman times I believe, so I think they were probably also around in early Jewish communities.

No, I think they were known for being naked behind their cloaks.

[Dakini]

Periods aren't so dirty that women have to live outside the village for their entire duration where anyone they touch becomes unclean by proxy.

Imagine being a woman 3000 years ago, in Israel. No tampons. No hormone pills. No underwhere. When you bleed, it gets on everthing, doesn't it? Dripping on the ground while walking? Imagine if the period is extra heavy, and everytime you sit down, you stain everything. Why would you want to stay in the village?

1. I'm pretty sure they had underwear.
2. They also had rags that they'd use sort of like pads (albeit ones that would probably be reused and would maybe not stay perfectly in place so well, but hey, if you're not being very athletic you're probably not going to bleed everywhere).
3. The pill doesn't tend to stop periods unless you take the kinds that do. Hormone pills aren't overly relevant for periods, they'll make them lighter for some women, but I'm not sure what you think the pill does.
4. I don't think that I'd want to be kicked out of the village to live by myself for my period. Usually I'd prefer to sit at home with a hot water bottle, not have to go scavange for some food.
5. Women are also unclean a week after their period is done according to Leviticus. Since women (on average) have a week long period every four weeks, this means that women would be unclean half the time from menarche to menopause.

[Ceannairceach]

Not a historian here, but... Yeah, undergarments have been around since Roman times I believe, so I think they were probably also around in early Jewish communities.

No, I think they were known for being naked behind their cloaks.

Horribly wrong, old chap.

[Dakini]

Oh! So earlier it's "obvious" that everything a woman lies down on and touches during her period is unclean, but now it's antiquated rules that don't apply anymore.

Also, how is a woman not being "unclean" for twice as long when she has a girl as when she has a boy not sexist?

12:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
12:3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
12:4 And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.
12:5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.
12:6 And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or dove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:

And "unclean" is pretty much "sinful". Otherwise the advice would be "take a shower and wash up" instead of "sacrifice some animals to the LORD".

There's possibly a scientific explanaition. What if the types of hormones during the carrying period of a female baby make the afterbirth menstruation last longer?

No.

It's called "you birthed a boy, while you're still filthy and disgusting, at least you did something useful" as opposed to "you birthed a girl, you really are useless, aren't you?".

[The Norwegian Blue]

Well, some of them can be, depending how they're applied - devotion can be lovely, but being devoted to, say, exterminating all the people who don't look like you? Yeah, I'd say that's dangerous.

That said, no one is arguing that there's nothing good in the Bible. There's plenty. The most dedicated atheist in the world won't claim that "Love thy neighbor" is a nasty, horrible message. The thing is, the Bible doesn't begin and end with "love thy neighbor," and quite a lot of the other passages aren't nearly as nice. Just going with examples of indisputable sexism, the bit about how the punishment for raping someone is that you have to pay her father a bit of money and then marry her, and the rape victim never even gets a say in the matter? Not so nice. The bit about how menstruating women are so disgusting and unclean that the punishment for a man having sex with one, even if she's his wife, is to exile both of them? Not so nice. The bit about how giving birth is sinful and unclean, and that giving birth to a daughter is even MORE unclean, and that everyone should shun the new mother while she ritually cleanses herself, and she should have to make an offering to God to ATONE for having given birth before she counts as being "clean" again? Not so freaking nice.

You can choose to be a Christian. That's fine. You can choose to believe in the Bible and use it as a guide for how to live your life. That's fine, too. But for heaven's sake, READ the damn thing first and recognize that there are a lot of bits of it that aren't nice at all and that probably aren't good words to live by.

No one who gives birth is "sinful". The Bible doesn't use that word when describing the cleansing process.

Check the last line of Dakini's quoted passage:

12:6 And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or dove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:

It's a known fact that women bleed after giving birth, and that their breast leak.

Strangely, there are no prohibitions regarding the ritual uncleanliness of wounded people or cows. If it were just a matter of blood and milk, those things would be "impure" and require shunning too, wouldn't you think?

Further, women do not bleed for MONTHS after giving birth, and they very definitely do not bleed twice as long when they have daughters as sons. The passage is very clear - giving birth is an "impure" act, and having a nasty icky GIRL is even worse.

This is why the law is dead people...because it was meant for Jews 3000 years ago.

In the post I was replying to, you claimed that there was nothing problematic about those Old Testament laws. Make up your mind. Either they're all hunky-dory or people are right to say that some of them are ridiculous, sexist, and dangerous.

Nowadays, you're still unclean abit, but much less so. You get to shower and put on a tampon. Than goodness Jesus cleared that up.

....no, you're not unclean by virtue of having had a daughter two months ago, not even a bit, and I'm pretty sure Jesus never once spoke about tampons. Good grief.

[The Norwegian Blue]

Oh! So earlier it's "obvious" that everything a woman lies down on and touches during her period is unclean, but now it's antiquated rules that don't apply anymore.

Also, how is a woman not being "unclean" for twice as long when she has a girl as when she has a boy not sexist?

12:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
12:3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
12:4 And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.
12:5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.
12:6 And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or dove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:

And "unclean" is pretty much "sinful". Otherwise the advice would be "take a shower and wash up" instead of "sacrifice some animals to the LORD".

There's possibly a scientific explanaition. What if the types of hormones during the carrying period of a female baby make the afterbirth menstruation last longer?

Yeah, what if they did? That would make this argument make more sense! Pity that doesn't, y'know, actually happen. Because if it did, you might have a hint of a point.

[Gagatron]

There's possibly a scientific explanaition. What if the types of hormones during the carrying period of a female baby make the afterbirth menstruation last longer?

Yeah, what if they did? That would make this argument make more sense! Pity that doesn't, y'know, actually happen. Because if it did, you might have a hint of a point.

Regardless, I'm going to research this.

[Eskandapolis]

There's possibly a scientific explanaition. What if the types of hormones during the carrying period of a female baby make the afterbirth menstruation last longer?

Yeah, what if they did? That would make this argument make more sense! Pity that doesn't, y'know, actually happen. Because if it did, you might have a hint of a point.

But didnt Christ repeal the Old Law rules?, which makes it a non-issue unless you are a very conservative Christian/Mormon/others but not 4 most Christians

Wikipedia:The majority Christian theology, known as Supersessionism, states that this either "replaces" or "completes" or "fulfills" the previous Law of Moses of the Hebrew Bible

J Ratzinger:Thus the Sinai covenant is indeed superseded. But once what was provisional in it has been swept away, we see what is truly definitive in it.

Heb. 7:18, On the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness

Wiki:The approach among many early Protestants that predominates today in Lutheran churches and some Reformed churches emphasizes the discontinuity between the old covenant and the new and sees the Mosaic Law primarily as negative

Wiki: New Covenant Theology claims that all Old Covenant laws have been cancelled or abrogated[40] in favor of the Law of Christ or New Covenant law

Article 7 of the Church of England's 1563 version, and other versions, specify only that Christians are bound by the "commandments which are called moral," but not bound by the ceremonial, ritual, or civil laws from the "law of Moses."

Dual-covenant theology is a Liberal Christian view that holds that Jews may simply keep the Law of Moses, because of the "everlasting covenant" (Genesis 17:13) between Abraham and God expressed in the Hebrew Bible, whereas Gentiles (those not Jews or Jewish proselytes) must convert to Christianity or alternatively accept the Seven Laws of Noah

[Gagatron]

Yeah, what if they did? That would make this argument make more sense! Pity that doesn't, y'know, actually happen. Because if it did, you might have a hint of a point.

But didnt Christ repeal the Old Law rules?

Wikipedia:The majority Christian theology, known as Supersessionism, states that this either "replaces" or "completes" or "fulfills" the previous Law of Moses of the Hebrew Bible

J Ratzinger:Thus the Sinai covenant is indeed superseded. But once what was provisional in it has been swept away, we see what is truly definitive in it.

Heb. 7:18, On the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness

Wiki:The approach among many early Protestants that predominates today in Lutheran churches and some Reformed churches emphasizes the discontinuity between the old covenant and the new and sees the Mosaic Law primarily as negative

Wiki: New Covenant Theology claims that all Old Covenant laws have been cancelled or abrogated[40] in favor of the Law of Christ or New Covenant law

Article 7 of the Church of England's 1563 version, and other versions, specify only that Christians are bound by the "commandments which are called moral," but not bound by the ceremonial, ritual, or civil laws from the "law of Moses."

Dual-covenant theology is a Liberal Christian view that holds that Jews may simply keep the Law of Moses, because of the "everlasting covenant" (Genesis 17:13) between Abraham and God expressed in the Hebrew Bible, whereas Gentiles (those not Jews or Jewish proselytes) must convert to Christianity or alternatively accept the Seven Laws of Noah

[Ceannairceach]

But didnt Christ repeal the Old Law rules?

He may of repealed them, but I don't remember a single instance when he apologized for them.

[Gagatron]

He may of repealed them, but I don't remember a single instance when he apologized for them.

He didn't have to. They were provisions at the time, they served their purpose, and they were removed.

[Eskandapolis]

Can we know turn into another issue that isn't the impurity of women during the period, or the sacrifice of animals (which Jesus said it was useless, if I'm not wrong, I have doubts about this)?

[Eskandapolis]

He may of repealed them, but I don't remember a single instance when he apologized for them.

He didn't have to. They were provisions at the time, they served their purpose, and they were removed.

Yes, just as the Pope's quote said

[Dakini]

Yeah, what if they did? That would make this argument make more sense! Pity that doesn't, y'know, actually happen. Because if it did, you might have a hint of a point.

But didnt Christ repeal the Old Law rules?, which makes it a non-issue unless you are a very conservative Christian/Mormon/others but not 4 most Christians

Wikipedia:The majority Christian theology, known as Supersessionism, states that this either "replaces" or "completes" or "fulfills" the previous Law of Moses of the Hebrew Bible

J Ratzinger:Thus the Sinai covenant is indeed superseded. But once what was provisional in it has been swept away, we see what is truly definitive in it.

Heb. 7:18, On the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness

Wiki:The approach among many early Protestants that predominates today in Lutheran churches and some Reformed churches emphasizes the discontinuity between the old covenant and the new and sees the Mosaic Law primarily as negative

Wiki: New Covenant Theology claims that all Old Covenant laws have been cancelled or abrogated[40] in favor of the Law of Christ or New Covenant law

Article 7 of the Church of England's 1563 version, and other versions, specify only that Christians are bound by the "commandments which are called moral," but not bound by the ceremonial, ritual, or civil laws from the "law of Moses."

Dual-covenant theology is a Liberal Christian view that holds that Jews may simply keep the Law of Moses, because of the "everlasting covenant" (Genesis 17:13) between Abraham and God expressed in the Hebrew Bible, whereas Gentiles (those not Jews or Jewish proselytes) must convert to Christianity or alternatively accept the Seven Laws of Noah

That doesn't make the Bible less sexist (which was how this tangent started).

[Ceannairceach]

He may of repealed them, but I don't remember a single instance when he apologized for them.

He didn't have to. They were provisions at the time, they served their purpose, and they were removed.

Yes, he did have to. They served no purpose other than to cast a blame onto others, as the Nazis did with Jews for example, to unite the people against common enemies and to say "Look at this; This is evil". Murder, genocide, and general evil was caused because of the laws God set down, according to the OT, and it was justified because your god said it was OK. But suddenly he wanted to change things, after hundreds of years, and doesn't even have the honor to apologize for the deaths he caused, when he supposedly loved everyone.

[Eskandapolis]

But didnt Christ repeal the Old Law rules?, which makes it a non-issue unless you are a very conservative Christian/Mormon/others but not 4 most Christians

That doesn't make the Bible less sexist (which was how this tangent started).

I know that, it just makes them irrelevant

[Dakini]

That doesn't make the Bible less sexist (which was how this tangent started).

I know that, it just makes them irrelevant

Well, if they were entirely irrelevant, why weren't those pages torn from the Bible?

[Gagatron]

I know that, it just makes them irrelevant

Well, if they were entirely irrelevant, why weren't those pages torn from the Bible?

They show the History of the Jews.

[Dakini]

Can we know turn into another issue that isn't the impurity of women during the period, or the sacrifice of animals (which Jesus said it was useless, if I'm not wrong, I have doubts about this)?

We could talk about the other really sexist parts of the Bible if you'd like?

Including the ones in the New Testament.

Unless Gagatron is coming around to the notion that perhaps the women of the forum who have expressed alienation from reading the Bible due to the large amount of sexism in its pages aren't all crazy.

[Dakini]

Well, if they were entirely irrelevant, why weren't those pages torn from the Bible?

They show the History of the Jews.

Leviticus doesn't really. It's just a bunch of rules which apparently became irrelevant.

It also includes such gems as

11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

and

11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls ; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
11:15 Every raven after his kind;
11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

Which are scientifically inaccurate (hares don't chew cud, bats aren't birds).

[Eskandapolis]

They show the History of the Jews.

Leviticus doesn't really. It's just a bunch of rules which apparently became irrelevant.

It also includes such gems as

11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

and

11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls ; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
11:15 Every raven after his kind;
11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

Which are scientifically inaccurate (hares don't chew cud, bats aren't birds).

The whole "thou shalt not eat shrimp" thing, but most of those seem pretty disgusting (eating pelicans and bats, something I wouldn't do unless I was starving)

[Gagatron]

They show the History of the Jews.

Leviticus doesn't really. It's just a bunch of rules which apparently became irrelevant.

It also includes such gems as

11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

and

11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls ; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
11:15 Every raven after his kind;
11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

Which are scientifically inaccurate (hares don't chew cud, bats aren't birds).

The Bible's not a science book anyway, and has probably been slightly mistranslated. It's already known that the word for bird really means "flying thing". So the bat thing doesn't surprise me.

[Dakini]

Leviticus doesn't really. It's just a bunch of rules which apparently became irrelevant.

It also includes such gems as

11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

and

11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls ; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
11:15 Every raven after his kind;
11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

Which are scientifically inaccurate (hares don't chew cud, bats aren't birds).

The whole "thou shalt not eat shrimp" thing, but most of those seem pretty disgusting (eating pelicans and bats, something I wouldn't do unless I was starving)

I'm not sure how eating a pelican is much less gross than eating a chicken. They seem like if you cut off the heads and plucked them they'd be like giant chickens.

And bats aren't any grosser than mice.