File this under "Headlines that left you speechless"

[Quatermass]

And what Q said.

Glad to see I amused someone with my attempted translation of Biblespeak into something perversely modern.

[raisindot]

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:

Not to defend the great amount of nastiness in the Old Testament, but some commentators believe that this particular part reflected a belief in ancient times that women who bore girls needed a longer recovery time because, of course, girls were the 'inferior' sex. It may have been true that more newborn girls died than boys or that more women died in childbirth after having girls--hard to tell, since there aren't any health records available from the time. The whole 'purifying' thing is essentially a law designed to keep men from having sex with women during menstruation or too soon after a woman gave birth. Obviously, they had no idea of why women 'bled' every thirty days or so, so it was quite easy to attribute this to some sinful purpose. Also, there was probably some realization that women could not conceived during this (drum roll) 'period' so having sex in this time would be consider the equivalent of 'wasting seed.' So, even though in the face of it, it seems extremely sexist (which most, but not all, of the Old Testament is), there is probably some ancient health reasoning behind it. The same reasoning may be the rationale for why the eating of pork and shellfish are prohibited--back then, probably many pork-eaters contracted trichinosis from improperly cooked pig and it's possible that many shellfish were infected with diseases as well. The ancient quacks probably noticed that people who ate only beef or fowl or mutton tended note to die soon afterword.

[Bouncy Castle]

Plus a lack of refrigeration.

[Tonyblack]

According to Laviticus, they weren't allowed to eat four-legged birds either.

[cheery_j.]

Which is sound advice. There's probably something very very wrong with a four-legged bird.

[ChristianBecker]

You should also not forget that Leviticus is for Jews, not Christians.
The stuff about the woman having to cleanse herself is because of the blood. Some religions (Islam, Judaism) have this thing about blood. This is why they slaughter animals in a special way, for example.
Since a birth is also quite a bloody business, it's quite logical - in the context of said religions - that the woman has to cleanse herself (ritually). As far as I know Jews aren't allowed to have sex for some days after the woman's menstruation.

As to priests and sex: The Christian god, who is NOT the god of the Old Testament, readily forgives. Forgiveness is what Christianity is actually about. So these priests don't have to be afraid of any repercussions. It's a bit like Mr Tulip's potato. As long as you have it (or repent in the case of a Christian), you'll be OK:
Priests are entitled to children by the way, especially when we're talking about Old Testament priests. Even Catholic priests haven't always been celibate.

[Tonyblack]

You should also not forget that Leviticus is for Jews, not Christians.

No Christian! If you are one of these people who believes that every word in the Bible is word of God then you have follow all the daft stuff as well. Fundamentalist Christians can't cherry pick the bits that they like and ignore the rest.

[Tonyblack]

Sorry about that - I wasn't having a go at Christians in general. It's the ones who believe that anything in the Bible MUST be literally true that i was having a dig at.

[raisindot]

You should also not forget that Leviticus is for Jews, not Christians.
The stuff about the woman having to cleanse herself is because of the blood. Some religions (Islam, Judaism) have this thing about blood. This is why they slaughter animals in a special way, for example.
Since a birth is also quite a bloody business, it's quite logical - in the context of said religions - that the woman has to cleanse herself (ritually). As far as I know Jews aren't allowed to have sex for some days after the woman's menstruation.

Jewish WOMEN can't have sex for this certain time period, and their husbands can't have sex with them. This doesn't, however, prevent husbands from having sex with their OTHER wives, which was common in those days (and is still not uncommon in the Muslim world).

As to priests and sex: The Christian god, who is NOT the god of the Old Testament, readily forgives. Forgiveness is what Christianity is actually about. So these priests don't have to be afraid of any repercussions. It's a bit like Mr Tulip's potato. As long as you have it (or repent in the case of a Christian), you'll be OK:

This is EXTREMELY debatable. In the Gospels (all of which were written decades after the actual events happened), Jesus did not in any way indicate that the god he was referring to was any different than the Jewish god, and certainly none of the Jews living in his time would have thought any differently. The Gospel Jesus was essentially a rabbi (teacher) and prophet who full taught in the Judaic tradition. What he rebelled against was the corruption among the priestly class and the idea that it was okay to have sinful thoughts and to be selfish and uncaring as long as you obeyed the 'letter' of the Law. And the Jewish god DID forgive--he forgave the Jews on numerous occasions. And we Jews have our one "atonement" holiday--You Kippur--where we're supposed to atone for our yearly sins and supposedly receive forgiveness for them. This 'forgiveness' is not administered by a priest but supposedly comes directly from God. Jesus himself never felt that praying to himself would make his followers free of sin; in fact, he made it quite clear that sin was unforgivable. It was Paul and later church leaders were the ones who created these concepts when they were trying to differentiate Christianity from Judaism.

Priests are entitled to children by the way, especially when we're talking about Old Testament priests. Even Catholic priests haven't always been celibate.

Celibacy is a completely Christian concept. Jews who did not marry and have children--even priests--were frowned upon.
And certainly a large number of popes had mistresses and fathered children, as late as the Renaissance.

Mind you, none of this is meant in any way to be a criticism of Christianity or anyone's belief systems, since it matters not to me whether one worships Allah, Jesus, Om or pond algae. I myself don't believe in the veracity of any of this stuff, but I really do like to study religion, particularly from a historical and textual perspective.

[raisindot]

Which is sound advice. There's probably something very very wrong with a four-legged bird.

Well, this proves that there were still dinosaurs around in those days. Which means that the Creationists are right!

[Tonyblack]

Which is sound advice. There's probably something very very wrong with a four-legged bird.

Well, this proves that there were still dinosaurs around in those days. Which means that the Creationists are right!

Damn!

[Jan Van Quirm]

The same reasoning may be the rationale for why the eating of pork and shellfish are prohibited--back then, probably many pork-eaters contracted trichinosis from improperly cooked pig and it's possible that many shellfish were infected with diseases as well. The ancient quacks probably noticed that people who ate only beef or fowl or mutton tended note to die soon afterword.

Or even simpler, pork and shellfish tend to go off more quickly than other meats in hot climates - unless you've discovered refrigeration?
Sorry Bouncy - didn't see your post there

Definitely medical reasoning for the childbirth stuff although it's hard to see why you had to do a sin sacrifice as Yahweh would soon have run out of worshippers if all his faithful abstained from sin altogether... Priests - what do they know. Perhaps that's why sex with (little) kids (or just boys) is OK as they don't get preggers or have periods?

I only know of one example of incest in the bible, and that is where the daughters seduce the father :roll

Poor ole Noah. He gets a bad press for this - it was his daughters-in-law not his own daughters, but socially it's still a bit of a gaffe

[Dotsie]

Not to defend the great amount of nastiness in the Old Testament, but some commentators believe that this particular part reflected a belief in ancient times that women who bore girls needed a longer recovery time because, of course, girls were the 'inferior' sex.

How does in any way defend the bible?

To me, the word 'unclean' is pretty self-explanatory. I don't see these rules being to protect the women for health reasons, more likely to protect the men from some perceived danger. And of course it wasn't just sex that unclean women had to abstain from, so these bizarre rules don't have any logic behind them.

[chris.ph]

women are dirty horrible creatures that deserve to be licked clean in my book

[ChristianBecker]

Um... yeah.

Try delicate.

More awed than speechless

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... nuals.html