It seems that the hangup is on the word "abomination". Pick a synonym: detestation; loathing; abhorrence; disgust; aversion; loathsomeness; odiousness. I may find the practice of playing with one's feces as being abominable - disgusting, odious, abhorrent. I also believe that child abuse is an abomination. Do I believe that the two should carry the same consequences? Hardly. And when I discuss these practices with my children, I will make no effort to hide my disgust and loathing for both activities. And they will learn that while the same same word is used to express my emotional reaction to these differing acts, the acts themselves are not equal, or even equivalent in themselves.

God made His feelings about certain activities very clear. Why are somethings labelled abominations and others are not? On some, I could speculate, others, I don't have a clue. But for each there is a penalty. The penalty for touching a woman during her menes that the offender would be ceremonially unclean for the rest of the day. There was no penalty for offering the wages received from a whore for sacrifice. Homosexual sex warranted the term abomination while fornication and adultrey carried the same penalty but were generally not designated as abominations. It would seem logical that if these actions were viewed as being equal or equivalent, they would have the same, or similar penalties.

Since the penalties are markedly different, a justified conclusion is that they weighed differently in their ... severity(?).

jess
I didn’t change any type of claims from 2 weeks to 1 day. Reread what those statements were to see clearly they still work together. One is a safety measure and one is “when” the actual event of the bleeding occurs. No conflict there.

You got the punishment’s all wrong too. Having sex with your wife at anytime during the bleeding cycle requires the soul being cut off from the people of God forever, the same as homosexuality. These things don’t carry a death penalty but rather damnation in Hell.

Leviticus 18:19 "Do not violate a woman by having sexual intercourse with her during her period of menstrual impurity.
22 "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.
29 Whoever does any of these detestable things will be cut off from the community of Israel. 30 So be careful to obey my laws, and do not practice any of these detestable activities. (this Bible version uses detestable instead of abominable)


To clear up your confusion, just touching a woman or sitting where she sat etc. while she is on her cycle makes a man unclean but that wears off by evening time. Touching a woman is not what I was referring to either.

Side note: and who knows when the real cycle the writer meant, my wife starts with some massive chemical change the week before which a God would know about but whoever wrote Lev. didn’t. But leaving that out for this argument, may be wise at this time.


So my initial conclusion is that because most married men had sex with their wives and had to have hit the mother-load often enough, God should have cut them off, thereby destroying Israel.

But that didn’t happen due to this cause. Did God not know about it, and over looked this one massive sin, but held them to the other sins, or was there no God to see this sin and also not understand how sex sometimes works between a man and woman as her period begins?

The more problable conclusion is that a single man wrote Lev. and it could not have been Moses. It is also not the inspired word of God as Christians define it.

[This message has been edited by critical thinking made ez (edited April 18, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by critical thinking made ez (edited April 18, 2001).]

Layman, thanks for your posts, I have learned some very valuable lessons from your actions. I am indebted.