Attention men: How do these laws feel from the your perspective being a man and reversing the rules in a female dominated society?


A woman must not have sexual relations with her father.

A woman must not have sexual relations with her mothers husband.

A woman must not have sexual relations with her brother.

A woman must not have sexual relations with her half-brother.

A woman must not have sexual have relations with her daughter’s son.

A woman must not have sexual relations with her son’s son.

A woman must not have sexual relations with her son..

A woman must not marry a man and his son.

A woman must not marry a man and his daughter’s son.

A woman must not marry a man and his son’s son.

A woman must not have sexual relations with her mother’s brother.

A woman must not have sexual relations with her father’s brother.

A woman must not have sexual relations with her mother’s sister’s husband.

A woman must not have sexual relations with her son-in-law.

A woman must not have sexual relations with her sister’s husband.

A woman must not have sexual relations with one husband in the dwelling of another.

A woman must not approach a man while menstruous for sexual relations

Do not commit adultery.

A woman must not have sexual relations with an animal..

A woman must not have sexual relations with another woman.

A woman must not have sexual relations with a man betrothed to another woman.

A woman must not lust after any man forbidden to her.

A woman must not have sexual relations with a man until she has lawfully acquired him in marriage.

Do not allow your son or daughter to marry a godworshiper (a worshiper of false gods) who refuses to repent.
Do not allow your daughter to play the harlot, allowing her to commit fornication..
A woman must not have sexual relations with a man who returns to hier after having sexual relations with another woman.

A childless widower must not marry anybody outside of his wife’s family.

A woman must not divorce a man she married after having raped him.

A woman must not divorce a man she married after having slandered him.

A woman must not allow herself to be sterilized or use birth control.

A woman must not divorce a man, unless he committed premarital fornication.

JB wrote:


I don't think the word male and female are interchangable. Women were considered property ...not men. The laws were written more for the men. Back then, a woman could not divorce a man just because he committee premarital fornication. etc.

Krimsa wrote:

Absolutely. I can’t look at any one of those laws and see where the genders could be substituted for one another. I have to politely disagree with that assertion and attempt at minimizing just how seriously some of these laws would have affected women and the overall quality of their lives. Prison has fewer regulations.

What would really help is if you show me. Find the actual text in the bible where the word unclean is used and how we might possibly me misinterpreting its point of reference in Leviticus 12. Put your money where you mouth is so to speak Eljay. You claim I have not read the bible. I have done the leg work otherwise I would not have found this passage. It’s your turn to show me where I might have misunderstood the intended reference to the word. That’s only fair.

Also you still have not addressed these issues. Unless your ONLY argument at this point is this proposed "misinterpretation" on our part? That would require proof. Do you think a scientist or an actual professor of mathematics could just rely on "what he or she thinks"? Our community disapproves of that. You can have a hypothesis that you either prove or disprove through logic and reasoning or experimentation. We don’t have the luxury of just basing "facts" on the conformation of our own belief structure.

Why was the atonement or "cleansing period" twice as long if a woman should give birth to a female infant as opposed to a male child?

Why were women advised to not touch "holy" objects until this ritual cleansing had been completed?

Why did this process just happen to take place immediately after childbirth? Women go for a span of time where they do not have periods following birth. Breast feeding lengthens this time period and the bottle for feeding babies was not invented yet. All of these women would have been breast feeding Eljay. So that is further physical evidence to discredit your argument that this was only for her medical state and well being. These priests would have had zero in the way of concern for her reproductive health.

Why would she need to pay the priests for her sin of childbirth? It is referred to as sin twice in Leviticus.

Tell me the answers to these questions BASED on the actual verse, not what you think it might mean. Or what they possibly could have meant to minimize the damage here. You also just contradicted yourself. You mention that Leviticus and its use of the word "unclean" are in direct contrast with Genesis and "be fruitful and multiply." Yes it is! That was the contradiction that I initially brought forth on this thread. You just now admitted it. It is a contradiction in terms and god can’t seem to decide what he wants. Presumably, he wants more children to be raised as "good Christian folk" but at the same time, he's not really sure he wants to share the limelight with human females who actually create life from their own bodies. Because, you see, he (god) wants to be the ONLY one who creates life. So since there is no way for a mythological male figurehead to create life in reality, human females will have to do BUT, they better pay atonement, ritually cleanse themselves, and do something about this ability to create babies that they posses. They are being made to feel it’s wrong and shameful whereas for thousands of years before the advent of Christianity, birth was held in the minds of both men and women as a wonderful power to be honored as all birth and life was in the Pagan tradition.

While you are at it, do you believe that the bible does not have a VERY anti-female tone in many passages?

I'm in total agreement with JB and Krimsa on this one Eljay.

Eljay,

This is precisely the type of thing you spoke of in the other thread. You say that you have your own personal interpretations on the Bible and other people have NO RIGHT to tell you how you should personally interpret the bible to make discision in your own life.

I don't think anyone is concerned about how you personally view the Bible. The real point is that apparently your own personal interpretations just aren't holding any water in objective unbiased discussions concerning the overall book.

It is perfectly clear that the Bible is male-chauvanistic. And that these laws are indeed gender specific.

In fact, JB has focused on at least on of these that drives home the point vividly and removes all doubt.

She mentioned the one where the women who's husband dies is not allow to remarry outside of HIS FAMILY.

Where does it say that if a man's wife dies that he is not allow to remarry outside of HER FAMILY?

Where does the Bible ever refer to women purchasing husbands?

Clearly it's male-chauvanism through and through. Where does the Bible ever suggest that a man must remain silent in public and only speak to his wife in private about important social matters?

Your personal interpretations of the Bible simply aren't supportable in light of the overall picture. If you're trying to ignore the male-chauvanism that's in the Bible I think you'd be entirely on your own with that interpretation. It just isn't supported by the book itself.

The book is clearly male-chuavanistic.

Just be thankful that you can indeed make up your own interpretations and ignore what the book is actually saying. This is how protestantism got started in the first place. People didn't agree with the interpretations of the Catholic church so they decided to run off and make up their own interpretations without concern about whether or not the book actually supports their conclusions.

I do not accept the "letter of the law - fundimentalist, legalistic Christian interpretation" - however you expect me to accept the legalistic - non informed opinions of those who look at scripture to support their idea's rather than examine it in it's totality to determine what the concluison is?

And they let you teach?!

Obviously you can see why I have no respect for your opinions Abra.