Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    I am somewhat of a romantic.  I see marriage as a partnership betwee
    two equal partners.  Each partner brings into the marriage there own
    strengths, weakness, likes, and dislikes.  Each partner brings into the
    marriage all the good things and bad things that have happened in the
    partners past.  Together the partners share all the responsibilities of
    building a life together.  The two partners learn to know and trust
    each other in the most intimate way possible.  They share heart, soul,
    and mind, as well as body with each other.
    
    All important emotional, physical, financial, spiritual issues are
    discussed and resolved together.  There is no need for a leader.  Just
    two equal partners.
    
    Anything else comes out of the insecurity of one of the partners.
    
    And it is the insecurity of one of the partners that will eventually
    erode the whole relationship.
    
    

    
    I agree with you, Patricia, to a large extent.  However, it is clear
    that the assumption of equality is naive.  People are different and
    some grossly so yet they desire to be married.  There is no reason the
    strength of one cannot compensate for the weakness of another and vice
    versa.  In fact, equality of characteristics is a false idea.  No two people
    are alike.  As one is married one discovers just how different people
    are and if they're like me are sometimes surprised at the degree of
    difference in reality compared to earlier perceptions.
    
    Inevitably instances occur where the partners cannot agree and someone
    must make a decision.  The Bible urges the male, who has been
    specifically created with this quality, to exercise his leadership
    skills and for the female, who has been specifically created with this
    quality, to acquiesce.  God has generally blessed the world with this
    system and we have seen throughout His revelation the wisdom of this
    system.  However, I would suggest that in the modern and post-modern
    era that society, without any good reason, has abandoned this wisdom. 
    Therefore, we see only the Bible-believing Christian practicing God's
    wisdom today.  And in millions of marriages this system is working just
    as God designed it to work and is bringing great joy and happiness to
    marriages while the rest of the world is largely dissatisfied with the
    great institution.
    
    jeff

    Patricia:
    
    Remember the concept that Jesus brought forth...a good tree cannot
    produce bad fruit and a bad tree cannot produce good fruit.  The role
    of matrimony is as vital as breathing in my opinion.  One can breath in
    the wrong things...or hyperventalate...or in some way deprive oxygen to
    the body.  In like manner, a marriage can crumble mainly due to the man
    exhibiting a poor ability to take of the role of spiritual leader (to
    which esteeming your spouse is a big part), or the dysfunbctionalism of 
    the responsibilities God gave to each of the genders within a
    relationship.  
    
    This was the point I was attempting to make when making the list I did
    yesterday.  If one truly seeks liberation from the precepts of Gods
    plan for a relationship, then in my opinion it is best to flee from any
    long term commitments and cling to the cause...because ultimately, the
    relationship will crumble.
    
    In regards to couples who believe in this kind of relationship,
    statistically these marriages stay in tact...because there is
    likemindedness amongst the husband and wife.
    
    An automobile is useless without the components that make it run.
    
    -Jack

    	I agree with Patricia.
    
    	Marriage is a partnership.  And it's not a 50-50 partnership.
    	It is 100-100 in that both must give 100% and not keep count
    	of who is doing 51% and who is doing 49.
    
    	I disagree with her in her interpretation of others' entries
    	so that she sees in their replies the concepts of "boss" and
    	"dominance" and "submission".

    	contuniation of .5:
    
    	And "lording".

re Note 1122.2 by USAT05::BENSON:

> In fact, equality of characteristics is a false idea.  

        And it certainly isn't the "liberal" or "feminist" idea -- if
        anything "equality of characteristics" is the conservative
        idea -- the idea that all men are more suited to leadership
        in their families than all women (i.e., that all men have the
        "equipped for leadership" characteristic, and all women lack
        it).

        If the Bible teaches that all men have this characteristic,
        and that all women have the characteristic of lacking it,
        then you are right, this would be an example of the Bible
        teaching falsehood.

        (The principle behind feminism -- and anti-discrimination
        movements in general, is *not* that all persons have the same
        characteristics but rather, quite the opposite, that you
        cannot predict the characteristics possessed by an individual
        by their gender.)

        Bob

Note 1122.1

It's too bad that so much of what's been entered in this string so far is
patronizing, pontifical, and unhelpful.

I realize that marriage is a matter close to you right now as you prepare
to enter into covenantal relationship.  (Or is it that you're recently
married?  I've forgotten the planned date.)  That is as it should be.

It's a wonderful thing to be committed in love with your best friend.

Some friends of mine, a Mennonite couple, have as their wedding bands (a
symbol of pagan origin, incidentally) three hand-interwoven strands of
wire.  One for him, one for her, and one for God.  There's a partnership!

Shalom,
Richard

    Thanks Richard!
    
    
    It is a subject close to my heart right now.  We are planning to
    formalize our holy union early in 1996.
    
    
                                     Patricia
    
    
    

       Z     the idea that all men are more suited to leadership
       Z     in their families than all women (i.e., that all men have the
       Z     "equipped for leadership" characteristic, and all women lack
       Z     it).
    
    I believe the role of spiritual leader is ordained to the man of the
    the family unit.  I personally didn't say that all men are more suited. 
    I believe it is acquired through learning.  
    
    -Jack

    
    > I believe the role of spiritual leader is ordained to the man of the
    > the family unit.  

    I believe that this supposition is as biblically correct as the belief
    in snake handling and a celibate bachelor clergy. It is, in my opinion,
    an over emphasized and improperly imposed doctrine. I believe that both
    husband and wife are called to lead their family spiritually. 

    If a man thinks he is to be the spiritual leader of his family it is
    only to the extent that he ensures the spiritual needs of his wife and
    children are met. He may well best "lead" his family by knowing his
    limitations and letting his wife make the spiritual decisions. I don't
    believe a man holds de facto spiritual veto power over his wife.

    What has happened in many families is that the husband as become
    spiritually disconnected. In these circumstances I think the husband is
    indeed called to take on his spiritual responsibilities as husband and
    father; and the wife is indeed required to nurture the spiritual
    growth of her husband.
    
    Eric

    Eloquently put.  You will find Eric, that my responses are sincere but
    not always complete as I am making kneejerk reactions to Patricias
    continual use of the words Dominance and oppression when I clearly
    communicated this wasn't the case.
    
    -Jack 

    
    Paul (and all of Judaism preceding the Gospel) makes it clear that God
    chose men as the spiritual leaders of the nation, church, and home. 
    God made this clear in the order in which He created humanity and in
    direct commands of the Mosaic Law.  Jesus further emphasized the
    spiritual responsibility of men in choosing His apostles and disciples
    and in fulfilling the Law.  Paul and other NT writers further emphasized 
    the leadership of men and specifically required women to submit to their 
    husbands, for example.
    
    Eve was deceived by Satan in the garden of Eden.  Adam was not deceived
    but sinned knowing full well the command against eating the fruit. 
    Women are easily decieved.  It is universally apparant.  It is apparant
    right here.  And men who champion women in spiritual leadership are
    also deceived and in opposition to the expressed will of God as clearly
    demonstrated in the Scriptures.
    
    jeff

    Continue your preaching of sexism in the name of Christianity and you
    will continue to push more people away from the religion you are
    identifying as a repressive religion.
    
    To truly understand who Jesus is and what Jesus did we need to focus on
    what Jesus did which was inconsistent with the culture of the time, not
    where he went along with the culture of the time.
    
    Women at the time of Jesus were severely restricted and excluded from
    religious practices(other than pagan practices).  That the official
    disciples named by the authors of the Gospels are all men, is not
    unusual.  That fact that there were a number of women followers, (not
    named by the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as disciples) but 
    certainly identified and included within Jesus' inner circle is amazing
    for the culture of the time.  Jesus talked with the woman at the well,
    which was culturally unacceptable, Jesus applauded the faith of the
    menstruating women who violated Jesus' spiritual purity by touching
    him, Jesus applauded mary in the Mary/Martha story for being a disciple
    and not sticking to woman's work.  Jesus learned from and was
    significantly influenced by the Syro Phoenician women.  The woman from
    Jesus' life, surrounded him at his death after the men had run away.
    
    Jesus' first ressurrection experiences were to the women.
    
    History has shown the men have marginalized the historic significance
    of the lives of women.  The fact that the Bible affirms woman's role
    and discipleship in spite of all the cultural attempts to obliterate
    those roles is what is truly amazing.
    
    It is truly evil for people to misuse the scriptures in order to
    support the inequality of women and other marginalized groups.
    
                               Patricia

        re .13

    Jack,

    I have read some of your replies on the subject of marriage and have
    the utmost respect for you and the high standards you set for yourself.
    I find you, as usual, open, honest and forthright. You are uplifting
    your views on the roles of spouses without insulting (just disagreeing
    with) other views, as far as I can tell. 

    Also, as usual, while I respect your integrity I don't 100% agree with
    your biblical interpretations. :^) I'm sure you're shocked. :^) I used
    your reply merely as a spring board to add my view on that particular
    interpretation.

    Peace,

    	Eric

    
    I knew you'd say that, Patricia.  Thankfully, there's no contradiction
    in gifting and ordaining men as leaders and valuing the unique role and
    great value of women.
    
    jeff

    
    Marriage may be a partnership of two equals, but as has been pointed
    out equal does not mean identical. I can have an equal measure of
    bricks and feathers, but I have a definite preference as to which I
    would use as a pillow. Equal, in the terms of marriage partners, simply
    means that there is no one gender that has carte blanche authority to
    make decisions that effect the other spouse. 

    However, I think it is very important for a marriage that the spouses
    each have clearly defined roles. Now I'm not saying these role need to
    conform to some artificial parochial standard, but each partner must
    have a clear understanding of what is expected of them by the other.
    Without defined roles the couple will struggle to bind together and
    form an effective union. The couple must work together to find the
    roles that work best for themselves, just as Jack has pointed out is
    the case in his family. In one family mom may absolutely love being a
    stay at home, full time mom and dad may be content to be bread winner
    and fix-it man. In another the wife may be the spiritual leader and the
    husband the student; and this is good both emotionally and spiritually
    *for that family*. 

    The key point I'm trying to make is that equality in a marriage does
    not mean identical or interchangeable. At times there is a need for a
    leader; some times it's the wife, some times it's the husband. We are
    not all equally strong emotionally, we are not all equally astute
    financially, and heaven knows we're are not all equally inspired
    spiritually. Neither is one gender always the stronger, more astute or
    more inspired than the other. Women have no monopoly on tenderness and
    submissiveness and men have no monopoly on strength and spirituality.
    To *force* this role playing is, in my opinion, to deny the self
    evident will of God. Men are not weak if they cry and women are not
    cold bitches if they're strong and self assured.
              
 	   Eric

    .14
    
    Jeff,
    
    >Women are easily decieved.  It is universally apparant.  It is apparant
    >right here.      ^^^^^^^^
    
    It is also universally apparent that men can't spell very well either. 
    It is apparent right here.  (;^)  
    
    (Spelling rule: 'i' before 'e', except after 'c')
    
    Cindy
                              

    Eric,
    
    Because jack and others attack something they thing I put in my entry
    does not mean it is actually their.   
    
    .1 says has a lot of the same thoughts echoed in your last note.
    
    There is also an interesting observation that I have made and seen
    confirmed in some of the newer books such as men are from mars and
    woman are from venus.
    
    When asked to handle a group task, men and women often handle the same
    task very differently.  Women may be more likely to work as groups
    going from one task to the next, while men may be more likely to divide
    the task into clearly assignable roles and handle the sub tasks
    individually.  The point is that some people may do much better when
    their task is very specific and well defined.  Other people do better
    by just walking into the situation and doing whatever needs to be done.
    
    I'm really impressed by the number of modern families I see with the
    adult partners work together and define how their own family
    operates.  Perhaps its just my circle of friends, but I don't see too
    many families where both the adult members are not equal partners.

    
                                        Patricia
    

    
    Patricia,

    > Because jack and others attack something they thing I put in my entry
    > does not mean it is actually their.

    I try to read what an individual has to say about their own beliefs and
    ignore the re-interpretations of a second party. What I mean is, I care
    about what Patricia has to say about Patricia's beliefs and what Jack
    has to say about Jack's beliefs. If I've got my wire crossed please
    accept my apologies... and show me where I gave this impression so that
    I can be more careful in the future.

    > I'm really impressed by the number of modern families I see with the
    > adult partners work together and define how their own family
    > operates.  

    I agree. This is exactly what Jack said about his family; they work
    together to define how their own family operates. I'll be honest though
    and say that Jack comes across as far less strident than the other
    conservative men here. If a couple together decides that a patriarchal
    model works best for them than this is good *for that family*. The
    patriarchal model is not, by default, a bad thing. It is bad only when
    foisted on an unwilling party, either male or female.

    > Perhaps its just my circle of friends, but I don't see too many
    > families where both the adult members are not equal partners.

    I'm getting bogged down in some of the vocabulary... it's me I assure
    you. Just for my own edification, can you give me some examples of
    unequal partnerships. With the exception of the "barefoot and pregnant"
    and "keep them in their place" crowd, I think all happy marriages are
    based on equal partnerships. Equal respect, equal importance, equal
    giving of self, equal love. As I said equal partners does not mean
    interchangeable partners to me.

	Eric

re Note 1122.20 by POWDML::FLANAGAN:

>     When asked to handle a group task, men and women often handle the same
>     task very differently.  

        It is important to note here the word is "often", not
        "always".

        The big problem I have with conservative readings of the
        Biblical role of women in marriage and society in general is
        that they seem to read "always".

        It is just plain wrong to tell the person who is one of the
        exceptions (and some of the exceptions may represent 20%-40%
        of the individuals) that they can't be whom they know they
        are simply because of what is in their genes (or jeans :-).

        Bob

    
    Be nice, Cindy...if you can!  I'm usually a very good speller!  And I
    know that rule about i and e.  Obviously I simply transposed the two
    letters quite by accident!  I guess this means I have ADD or dyslexia,
    don't you think?  ;)
    
    jeff

    An incident that happened this morning I thought might be appropriate
    here.
    
    Michele and I compliment each other quite a bit...and I believe her
    strengths off shoot my weaknesses and vice versa.
    
    Two days ago, we got an offer on our house.  After 1.3 years of having
    a for sale sign, we got an offer that matched what we were asking for
    it...but we give the buyer a thousand at closing.  I believe this was
    all God...since the realtor desert plagued us for over a year.
    
    Anyway, I was to sign the P&S this morning.  I went to the office which
    was closed, and took the forms to sign out of the mailbox...simply to
    sign and go my merry way.  Upon looking, I noticed instead of the
    buying price being 96,900, it said 96,500.  Hmmm..$400.00 discrepency.
    Well, there surely has to be a logical reason...perhaps it didn't
    include some deposit!  Anyway, an office manager showed up...we went
    in, I showed her the discrepency, she called my broker who listed the
    house just three weeks ago.  My broker didn't look at the contract and
    mistakingly put it at 96,5.  Great...so I'm out 400 dollars.  
    
    I get on the phone with her, she says she's embarrassed...never does
    this sort of thing...and is awfully sorry.  Thinking to myself, here is
    an example of an honest mistake, and a contrite heart, I suggest that
    to make everybody happy and not get the buyer involved, she and I split
    the difference and I don't pay 5% on the 1000 at closing.  Hence I am
    only out $150.00.  I can live with that.
    
    Michele is a sweetheart...Michele is a business person too and wants to
    be sure there is equity in everything.  I on the other hand tend to
    shrug off things.  We compliment each other and sometimes I wish I had
    her traits instead of mine.  Back at the office I call her and tell her
    what happened.  Suddenly, I am feeling like I'm in a position of being
    under a light....then what happened??...Then what did you
    say???...etc.  Michele likes to get to the bottom of it.  Result?...
    It was their mistake and we shouldn't have to be out 150.  I told her
    that it was a matter of being gracious.  "Well, yes, and I think you
    were gracious by offering to split half and half...but we made a deal
    and a mistake is a mistake."
    
    We did the concall thing and Michele in a pleasant voice stated that we
    shouldn't be out 200 dollars because of the realtors mistake.  After
    Hmmms and Hawwws, the realtor acquiesed to Michele and we all hung up
    on good terms.  Michele thought we should go 75-25 so as to only be out
    50 instead of 150.
    
    Ten minutes later, Michele calls me and asks how she did.  I gently
    told her I didn't believe the whole thing was worth saving 100 dollars.
    That it was all in the interest of maintaining a testimony and being
    gracious.  This was the underlying message in our half hour discussion
    before we even called the realtor.
    
    Michele calls me back a half hour later and tells me she called our
    realtor back...telling her to disregard what was said and we'll stick
    to losing the $150...that it was an honest mistake and that it is
    similar to the grace God Jesus gives us when we make a mistake.  The
    realtor was quite thankful and appreciated the gesture.
    
    My closing comments in the next reply.
    
     
    
    

    After Michele told me she called back the realtor.  I stated the
    following.
    
    "Michele, I just want you to know I am really proud that you did this.
    This is a clear demonstration of grace and it in my opinion is well
    worth it.  I don't mean to turn this into a negative, but this is an
    example of myself trying to be a spiritual leader in the home...setting
    the spiritual tone and all that.  Had you reasoned with me in the first
    place instead of getting huffy over the matter, you would not have had
    to call Vivan at all.  It would have saved you trouble and an awkward
    situation."
    
    This is an example of Spiritual Leadership and myself setting the
    spiritual tone.  Now I realize the roles could have been
    reversed...dependent on the personality of a husband or a wife...but
    the point here is that had Michele acquiesed on this matter, then true
    grace would have prevailed and it would have been less awkward for
    everybody.
    
    -Jack

Re: .25 Jack

One thing I don't understand about this story is why you call this an
example of "spiritual" leadership.  If making the decision about whether to
agree to pay $150 or $50 of the $400 price difference on a house is an
example of spiritual leadership, what's the difference between spiritual
leadership and just plain leadership?

I certainly don't claim to be an expert on the subject of marriage, but
IMO scolding your wife and telling her to do what you say next time and
not to be so "huffy" about it was unnecessary and the sort of thing I
wouldn't put with for very long if I were your wife.

Of course in your scheme of things, as a man I wouldn't have to put up
with this kind of scolding.  It would be my wife who'd have to put up with
*my* scolding her, admonishing her to mend her ways and bow down to my
leadership.

				-- Bob

    Thank you Bob,
    
    It's nice to hear a man say that!
    
                           

    I wasn't scolding her.  I was trying to reason with her that this would
    be a good example of illustrating grace and maintaining a good
    testimony.  This to me is a spiritual issue...and as I said, the roles
    could have been reversed where I could have wanted to push for the
    extra money instead of her.
    
    What I was driving at was her willingness to concede happened after the
    potential damage had been done.  Although she called the realtor back,
    it was kind of like telling somebody about their surprise birthday
    party the day before.  Ther party just doesn't have as much meaning!
    
    -Jack

    Jack you got a wonderful relationship.
    
    you get to play boss
    michelle thinks it OK.
    That's cool
    
    Thanks for the example of how this plays itself out.
    
    A gentle scolding followed by a lot of positive reinforcement for
    fixing her error.
    
    Just the way I would treat a child!
    
    

    Seems to me like you should be mad at Michele rather than me. 
    Afterall, who is worse the fool or the fool that follows him?
    
    Since I consider Michele a pinnacle of character, integrity, and a
    godly woman, I consider myself honored to be the spiritual leader in my
    family.
    
    Let he who is greatest among men be a servant to all.  You are looking
    at this whole thing backwards because society has conditioned you to do
    so.
    
    -Jack

Re: .30 Jack

>    Afterall, who is worse the fool or the fool that follows him?

A quote from Gandalf!  Gee, maybe you're onto something after all. :-)

				-- Bob

    
    > ... and as I said, the roles could have
    > been reversed where I could have wanted to push for the extra money
    > instead of her.
      
    I'm reading two possible meanings here:

    	1. A couple should always do the gracious thing no mater which
    	   partner is suggesting the gracious action.

    	2. The wife should acquiesce to her husband's judgment of what is
    	   gracious regardless of her disagreement.

    Which is it? Or is there another lesson you were trying to illustrate?

    
    > A quote from Gandalf!

    Actually I think Tolkien is paraphrasing Socrates.
    
    Eric

    Yes Leader Jack,
    
    I'm obviously lacking in my comprehension.  Must be those "Y"
    Chromosones.
    

    
    I applaud your attempt to communicate, Jack.  But, alas, lest God open
    eyes they remain shut.
    
    jeff

Re: .33 Eric

Oops... Showing my ignorance I guess.

				-- Bob

    	I can't believe the way they are treating you, Jack.  Why do you
    	put up with it?

    
    Antagonists aside, the questions I had in .32 were asked without
    judgment and in an effort to clear up any false assumptions I might
    have made. I have tried to be honest and sensitive in me queries on
    this issues... I think Jack knows this.
    
    Eric 

    Eric:
    
    I know your intentions are honorable and I intend to answer your
    question.  However it is now 5:11 and I told Michele I would be home at
    5:30 or else!! %-}
    
    -Jack

Re: .31 "a quote from Gandalf"

Actually, it suddenly occurred to me that it was Obe-Wan Kenobi I was
thinking of, speaking to Han Solo in _Star Wars_.  I guess some people
would say that Gandalf and Obe-Wan Kenobi are really the same person...

				-- Bob

    Actually Bob, I did get it from Obe-Wan Kenobi but didn't want to admit
    it! :-)
    
    -Jack

                                      
    Re.23
    
    > Be nice, Cindy...if you can! 
    
    Oh, of *course* I will, Jeff!  (;^)
    
    I just couldn't let that comment yours go by without some kind of a
    return response.  You understand, I'm sure.  (;^)  
    
    (Though actually, I must admit...the devil made me do it...) >B^>
    
    Cindy

>    menstruating women who violated Jesus' spiritual purity by touching
    
    Another proof for the deity of Christ.  The Living Torah could not be
    violated and made unclean.
    
    Mike

    I would go for a more human reason.
    
    i.e. there is nothing unclean to start with about a woman's body and
    it's cycle!.

    Under the mosaic law, a woman is considered unclean during this time.
    It's no disparage on women, it is a ceremonial and health law I
    believe.  Women were prohibited from entering the assembly of the
    congregation and were not to lie with a man during this time.
    
    -Jack

    It is a disparage on woman.  It was always a disparage on women.  The
    mosaic law considered women inferior to men, and unclean.  We must read
    scripture with a hermeneutic of suspicion and honestly address the
    issues withing scripture.  masking the issues is not redemptive for
    anyone.
    
    Jesus was revolutionary in his overturning of cultural taboos against
    women!

.44, .45 -

There are many books about the need to control women's monthly bleeding, 
which has inspired male awe and fear for millennia.  One of the best is 
*The Wise Wound* by Shuttle & Redgrove.  Pregnancy and childbirth have also 
been perceived as making women "unclean" and therefore to be kept away from 
centers of religious practice.  

In prepatriarchal spiritual traditions, women--and women's reproductive 
power, including their cycles of bleeding--were revered.

D.
             

    	Didn't the Mosaic call for two weeks of abstinence from the
    	onset of menstruation?  Coincidentally (or perhaps deliberately
    	by God's design) the end of that two weeks will most likely be 
    	the woman's ovulation!

    it is interesting that pschotherapist have never documented the
    evidence of "birthing envy".
    
                                     Patricia
    

    I'd be interested to know if there are similar laws which apply to men. 
    I believe there were.
    
    -Jack

    .50
    
    Yes, I believe there were. E.g., as in the book of Leviticus,
    menstruating or pregnant women were put on a par with men who had
    discharges from their bodies, who were similarly ostracized.  These were
    commonly lepers.
    
    D.

    Men were also put to death for spilling their seed on the ground.  
    
    I think I'd rather have the burden of being ostracized.
    
    Keep in mind now that psychologists, analysts, and crisi councelors
    throughout our land continually tell our youth that sex is natural and
    cannot be controlled.  Based on this, spilling the seed is just as
    natural as having a period so it looks like men get the worst of the
    deal!
    
    -Jack

    Not only that Jack, but it will make the young men go blind! :-)

    I don't wear glasses everybody!!!!!!

    .52
    
    sounds like an excellent reason to be suspicious of patriarchal
    systems...!  'Cause they tend to be, you know.  Not that healthy for
    any of us.
    
    D.

    Actually, it was a little tongue in cheek.  I don't believe sex is as
    natural to the will as a period.  A period arrives by default...and
    there is little one can do about it.  Sex is a natural act but is also
    subject to the will of the individual.
    
    I believe it was Jocelyn Elders who told an audience of pastors that
    condom use must be taught because abstinence has failed.  I believe
    this to be a misconception (no pun intended).  The underlying message
    is since abstinence has failed, then sexual activity is uncontrollable. 
    She may not have meant that but this is the message coming across.
    
    -Jack

>                     <<< Note 1122.51 by PCBUOA::DBROOKS >>>
>                                -< I think so. >-
>
>    .50
>    
>    Yes, I believe there were. E.g., as in the book of Leviticus,
>    menstruating or pregnant women were put on a par with men who had
>    discharges from their bodies, who were similarly ostracized.  These were
>    commonly lepers.
    
   I may be wrong about this, but I believe emission of seman was included
   in bodily discharges that caused ritual impurity.

   Leslie

>      <<< Note 1122.52 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>
>
>    Men were also put to death for spilling their seed on the ground.  
>    
    
  I think this is an over-generalization. The problem was not so much that
  the seman spilled on the ground, but that the intent of this action on 
  the part of one specific man was to not provide an heir to his brother's
  estate. His motive was greed.

  Leslie

    I thought the motive was not wanting to father a child that would not
    be legally considered his!