Thanks Bookman for the input, I will try to tone down on Layman. I like a lot of color in my arguments. But see where it might run a little.

Layman, don't assume I'm someone named Koy, I'm not, you will lose that argument too.

But that there is someone else on this board as brilliant and loud as I am is a good sign. LOL

Instead of telling us it is relevant, just state the relevancy and your argument. Stop the Red Herring!

If the punishment for this particular "abomination" is greater than that of others, such as eating shellfish, then the Christian can reasonably infer that it was considered to be a more serious sin.

That is why I asked. What is the punishment for this particular "abomination" and is it the same as for others, such as shell fish?

The verses points out that God thinks that both are Abominations, that each is equally an abomination. Same level of God's defined word of abomination. Homosexuality, and eating shrimp etc.

The degree of punishment is irrelevant

That's a fine conclusory statement you end with. But why is the degree of punishment irrelevant?

We call shoplifting a crime or offense and we call murder one a crime or offense. That certainly does not mean that we equate the two. The punishment proscribed for the crime/offense is what reflects a societies views on the crime/offense.

This can even be true when we are talking about the exact same offense. 30 years ago driving while intoxicated was a crime. It still is. However, 30 years ago the punishment was much less severe than it is now. What happened? Society began to view drunk driving as a more serious crime and deserving of more punishment.

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited April 18, 2001).]

If a God did exist and tells you personally that 3 items are abominations, do you want to break any of them dispite what the punishment is?

Why is the punishment irrelevant? If the Israelites considered them to be equal in moral offense or seriousness, why would they punish one more than the other?

Eh?

please delete> duplicate post

[This message has been edited by jess (edited April 18, 2001).]

heh heh heh. EZ, I am a woman. I am also married. Not that I didn't have sex before that.

I am telling you, having sex (which you originally said a two week buffer for:
, but are now saying one day...) Does nothing to bring on a woman's period. What it does is arrgravate the bit of blood that has already passed into the vagina into leaving.

Next thing I know, you will be telling me that orgasm causes ovulation. Or that nerves can cause a period to be late (after the luteal phase has started) jeez.
But, dispite that, (sic) If I were male and if that had happened, I would be unclean only until I had purified myself. Meaning, taken a ritual bath. Big deal.

Eating shellfish, screwing during a period, cutting your hair are not 'sins' which carry real 'punishments'. Homosexuality, adultery, and working on the Sabbath all carry the death penalty.

Does that help, Layman?

(not said in moderator capacity)