Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    
>There are doubtlessly many wives and
>mothers who wish this practice was still in place.
    
    Among the very ortodox Jews it still is. Generally there is a second
    bed in the master bed room and the wife moves to that during that
    part of her cycle.
    
    			Alfred

    .1  Doesn't sound like much of a vacation for her.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Ritual cleanliness is a big thing in orthodox Judaism. The sleeping
    separately is not intended as a vacation for anyone. There are lots
    of other practices around it besides who sleeps where.

    My wife grew up in an orthodox Jewish area. I learned very quickly that
    handing money to a women working a checkout was not done. Neither was
    I to expect her to hand it back to me. I put my money on the counter
    and she did the same with my change. This way we avoided the touching
    that might make one of us unclean. I was never sure which one of us
    the concern was for or if it was a habit that protected other orthodox.

    Also, I believe that after a women's period an orthodox woman will go
    for a ritual bath. For some things men will do the same. Both genders
    have responsibilities for cleanliness.

    Of course today we know that blood is safe. I mean it's not like
    diseases can be passed in blood right? There was a time when
    cleanliness and medical care were not up to todays standards. I suspect
    that some parts of the ritual cleanliness rules had important health
    considerations. 

    			Alfred

    .3  No disrespect intended.  And yes, diseases can be passed by blood.
    Diseases can also be passed by saliva, mucous, and other bodily fluids.
    Some diseases are even air-borne.
    
    However, I say that, unless it's a problem for one or both of the partners,
    sexual intercourse during a woman's cycle is not sinful.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    
    It's funny moral relativism runs rapant.  
    

    RE: .5
    
    Explain, please.
    
    Marc H.

>  However, I say that, unless it's a problem for one or both of the partners,
>  sexual intercourse during a woman's cycle is not sinful.

I'm not trying to be flip - I've thought about this some... not alot, but
some.

What if there's some rhyme or reason to the (sometimes seemingly) arbitrary
way God dictated the old law?  Something He knows and we don't.  Maybe
there's very good reason God said this and we should just obey it.

-Steve

    
    Answer:
    
    >However, I say that, unless it's a problem for one or both of the
    >partners, sexual intercourse during a woman's cycle is not sinful.
               
          
    This is moral relativism.
    
    
    The Old Testament Law was fulfilled through Christ's death on the
    cross.  We are no longer under the law, but under grace.   I looked up the
    entire chapter of the scripture Richard posted.  The death mentioned is
    referring to a penalty for sin.  
    
    Jesus Christ has paid the penalty for us.  Does that mean all the
    things listed in that text are no longer sin?  Absolutely not, it is
    sinful to have sex with a woman who is on her period.. period.  
    
    Christ came to set us free from the bondage and penalty of sin, he did
    not redefine sin.
    
    Nancy
    

    
    >>it is sinful to have sex with a woman who is on her period.. period. 
    	
    	Stated as a fact, when in actuality it's nothing more than opinion
    based on your particular interpretation of the scriptures.
    
        GJD

    .9
    
    Have you read the scripture... today?

    RE: .8
    
    O.K., now if its a sin, are the other levitical (SP) laws still
    binding?
    
    When I read the various rules and regs about what color cloth to wear,
    meat not to eat, when to have sex, etc., I have always thought that it
    was clearly not a sin, since Jesus had came and died.....i.e. the 
    "new" covernant. 
    
    Why are you holding on to these old laws ?
    
    Marc H.

    .11
    
    Christ came to set us free from the bondage and penalty of sin, he did
    not redefine sin.
    
    
    

    RE: .12
    
    Not to be redundant, but, in your view, do the laws then in the old
    testament still apply?
    
    Marc H.

.13
    
    No, in my understanding of what is the law.
    
    What do you understand the law to represent?    
    
    

    RE: .14
    
    Let me try again.....The laws in the old testament represent a series
    of do's and don't that were appropriate for the people at that time.
    With Christ's coming, a new covernant with the people replaced the old
    testament laws. Thus, having sex with your wife during her period,
    while not *my* idea of a romantic night, is O.K, and not a sin.
    
    You ( that you word) said, I think that it is a sin...hence, I'm
    assuming that you still feel that the old testament laws bind you.
    
    Am I wrong?
    
    Marc H.

    .15
    
    I understand your position and your reasoning.  I don't agree.  I'm not
    under bondage [spiritual] to the law.  But the law didn't abolish sin. 
    Sin has not been redefined.
    
    Thou Shalt Not Steal applies yesterday and today... it is still sin. 
    But under Grace, I no longer have to pay the penalty for sin.
    
    Therefore, out bondage into Grace... but I am still responsibility to 
    uphold the morals/principles of God.
    
    Grace did not abolish the law, Grace fulfilled the law by providing the
    one sacrifice for our sins that was needed to restore our hearts to
    Him.
    

    Romans 3 and 4 provides an excellent explanation of this.  
    
    -Jack

    Romans 3:1  What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there
    of circumcision?
      2  Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the
    oracles of God.
      3  For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the
    faith of God without effect?
      4  God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is
    written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest
    overcome when thou art judged.
      5  But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what
    shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)
      6  God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?
      7  For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his
    glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
      8  And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some
    affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation 
    is just.
      9  What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have
    before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
     10  As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
     11  There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after
    God.
     12  They are all gone out of the way, they are together become
    unprofitable;there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
     13  Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have
    used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
     14  Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
     15  Their feet are swift to shed blood:
     16  Destruction and misery are in their ways:
     17  And the way of peace have they not known:
     18  There is no fear of God before their eyes.
     19  Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to
    them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all 
    the world may become guilty before God.
     20  Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be
    justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
     21  But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested,
    being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
     22  Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ
    unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
     23  For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
     24  Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is
    in Christ Jesus:
     25  Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his
    blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past,
    through the forbearance of God;
     26  To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might
    be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
     27  Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works?
    Nay: but by the law of faith.
     28  Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the
    deeds of the law.
     29  Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles?
    Yes, of the Gentiles also:
     30  Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by
    faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
     31  Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we
    establish the law.
    

    RE: .16
    
    O.K.....lets try another angle. Do you then feel that the "no sex
    during.." is a moral law, similar to not stealing? And that the ritual
    burnt offerings are *not* moral laws?
    
    Marc H.

    
    
    Yes, I've read the scriptures in question.  I stand by my previous
    comment.  You've point strong statements which are your opinion based
    on *your* interpretation of those scriptures.  I happen to think that
    interpretation is incorrect.  That doesn't make either one of us *bad*
    people.  But, like most situations.  When comments like yours *are*
    stated as fact rather than as opinion, I tend to discount them.  I'm
    funny that way.
    
        GJD

    .20
    
    That's fine, we all have to live by the choices to make.  Don't get me
    confused with zealots who don't allow others their choices. 
    
    I've also said this before, but I will say it again... Motivation imho
    is what should be looked at when making a determination about someone's
    beliefs or lack thereof.  If Cindy, for instance, was a malicious,
    spiteful person and was purporting her beliefs around the "higher
    conscious", then perhaps I might get angry or upset with her.  But I
    believe Cindy truly believes from her heart and only wishes to share
    that with others because of the impact that it has had on her life.
    
    Therefore, while I believe her beliefs to be dangerous to the eternal
    well being of one's soul, I respect her God given right to choose and
    believe as she does.  
    
    I will discuss it with her and learn from her as she shares about her
    awarenesses, but I won't ridicule her or chide her into changing her
    beliefs.  I will share equally mine, that's all.
    
    Love in Him,
    Nancy
    
    P.S.
    Cindy, I really *do* respect you.
    
    

    Re.21                                                  
    
    You know, Nancy, I feel similarly about you.
    
    It is quite true that I do not seek to convert anyone to my way of
    thinking and believing when it comes to religion and spirituality.  
    
    The one thing that is most important to me is that equal time and 
    space be allowed for *all* to present their own beliefs openly and 
    without fear of censorship or percecution.  That doesn't mean we 
    can't make comments on them, as you did about mine in .21.  I too 
    do not agree with all that you believe, and yet I will make sure you
    always have a place to speak, and will defend always your right to 
    say what it is you wish to.  I also understand to a certain degree 
    why you believe as you do, and that makes a world of difference in 
    understanding another.  This is the true essence of note 805, by the 
    way, which will become apparent in the next few entries. 
    
    David, you asked about my beliefs.  This is a start.  More to follow
    eventually.
    
    May God bless, especially at this Holiest of times,
    
    Cindy

.19

I think I know what you're getting at, Marc.  At the time of observing
strict Levitical law, the ancients had a different understanding of the
nature of blood than is commonly and medically accepted now.

At one time, it tied in with their way of thinking to avoid the blood
associated with the "sickness" most women experience about every 28 days.

Peter's vision, as recorded in Acts, has been interpretted as only applying
to the ancient dietary laws.  I say that's the letter and not the spirit
of the vision.  Eating pork no longer renders one unclean.  Neither does
enjoying sexual intercourse during the menstrual cycle.  It becomes a sin,
I believe, when it is done against the will of one of the partners.

Peace,
Richard

    re: .23
    
    Thats my understanding too.
    
    Marc H.