<p>Okay, so if Leviticus was written for priests, why would it say that women are ritualistically unclean during their periods? What is the relevance?</p>
<p>^I’m going to level with you that I don’t remember whether the woman on her period is mentioned in Leviticus or if that comes from another book. I only brought that in to prove that the word you all take as “abomination” means “ritualistically unclean” and used an example where it was used correctly (that is to say: the verbage wasn’t changed). </p>
<p>You didn’t aswer my question about whether you feel that all those rules should still apply today, even the ones about stoning disobediant children and wearing mixed/polycotton blends.</p>
<p>I’m not Christian. Per my religion, I don’t even believe that the Bible is the word of God. So stoning disobedient children? Condemning homosexuals? Not at all. I’m just curious why Christians who actually do believe that the Bible is the word of God, choose to ignore parts of it.</p>
<p>Leviticus does talk about women on periods being unclean.</p>
<p>^That’s the million dollar question, I’d like to think everybody except the most insane Bryan Fisher types are moving away from the whole “It’s the inerrant word of God” thing and more towards “it was written by men for a high-context society that doesn’t translate to today.” I’m a Christian but I never really read the Bible, what I know I know from the most obvious parts that get played out in the media and the stuff I’ve looked up on my own to research for what I talk about. The rest I’ve picked up from various sources. </p>
<p>It’s bizzare, when you ask one of the crazier Christians if the stoning of disobediant children or the polycotton blends thing comes up they say “Oh that doesn’t really apply anymore, it was for that time only” but when you bring up homosexuality immediately “SINFUL OTHER-WORD-FOR-A-CIGARETTE(S) BURN FOREVER INERRANT WORD OF GOD!!!” On one hand, it can change and “not” be the inerrant word of God, on the other hand, it’s the inerrant word of God when talking about Homosexuality… I never got the memo that said one didn’t apply anymore and the other did. That’s why I find it horribly hypocritical.</p>
<p>I encourage anyone who truly wants to know what Leviticus says about homosexuality to read it for yourself by going to BibleGateway.com, entering Leviticus 18 (or Leviticus 20) in the search box and choosing the translation of your choice. I also encourage you to read the whole chapter so you can see it in context.</p>
<p>Using the New American Standard version (because it is in the public domain and therefore not subject to copyright restrictions) as an example, one can determine whether these laws are directed to all of Israel or only to priests by reading Leviticus 18: 1 - 3. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Note that the letters in parentheses refer to footnotes that list other similar verses. I don’t know how to make them smaller. </p>
<p>The section that talks about a woman’s period and lying with a male as one lies with a female is Leviticus 18:19 - 23:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are about 20 English translations of the Old Testament available on this website, most of which are more recent and in plainer English that the New American Standard version. Please don’t take my word for it (or the word of the OP); read for yourself what the Bible says.</p>
<p>Itchirumon said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good point.</p>
<p>Even moderate and apologetic Christians are guilty of this, when they selectively relegate impossible fairy tales like the Garden of Eden and Noah’s Ark to the fairy tale bin, while keeping the tale of Jesus Christ as historical fact.</p>
<p>^That’s exactly what I was saying before. It makes no sense to me, but someone else said that that is one thing that makes Christians Christians and not Jews. Because they don’t believe in the the Old Testament (also the Torah) fundamentally.</p>
<p>Yet they still pick and choose elements of it to follow? After all, the Old Testament is where the 10 commandments and 7 deadly sins come from.</p>