dacontinent says:
Let's get them addressed.
- No where in the scriptures does is say that a woman is sent outside the camp because she has given birth.
The woman is sent out of the camp immediately after having given birth, because she was deemed unclean. You know exactly what I'm talking about, semantics or no semantics. She was still commanded to leave the camp. Your wife didn't leave home. According to the bible, you were supposed to be isolating her, but instead, you brought her home, thus contaminating and threatening the life of a newborn according to the bible with germs and bacteria.
...
One more time...WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY THAT NEW MOTHERS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE PUT OUT OF THE CAMP? One simple reference will be more than enough.
dacontinent says:...
- There is no need to show the obvious in the scriptures that the new mother's place is to nurse and care for her child. All mammals do that. That is as plain as the nose on your face.
How come it's not? You want to just read into it what you believe is true? I won't give you the benefit of the doubt, cause the bible said nothing of the kind, but you did. ...
So, let me not read into this. Can you point me to a reference that says for a mother NOT TO NURSE her child? Any one will do.
dacontinent says:...
- The law does command that everything the new mother touched was to be washed. I really don't understand why that is a problem.
Your wife didn't follow it and neither did you, so how can you honestly defend it when you didn't follow it by putting her out of your home as commanded? ...
If she has been put out of the camp, then why would what she touched need to be washed? With the scripture reference to lepers being put out of the camp for being unclean, the articles they touched were to be burned. The reason for the elements of a new mother being washed was that she was right at home. Of course, in those days mothers gave birth at home anyway. Some still do.
dacontinent says:...
- I cleaned everything that my wife touched for the first 21 days. I went more than the 14. Yes, I do mean EVERYTHING. It had nothing to do with the law. It had everything to do with serving her needs.
And for what reason did you have to clean everything she touched? I would find it hard to believe that you go around the house cleaning everything after you touch, but I'm sure you'll tell me you do such things.
...
The reason that I cleaned everything that she touched was that it was dirty and I did not want her to have to do anything other than to take care of our child. You see, I love her. We clean a lot. It is important to us. We are very hospitable and have guests on a daily basis. We are not as good as a professional service, but you will rarely find things not clean or in disarray.
From your comments in this thread, I am only guessing that you are single. I trust that the environment that you live in is kept clean and attractive.
dacontinent says:...
1. Where did you get the notion that God instructed that these new mothers were told to be separate from their children at all during the "time of purification" after giving birth?
Since you want to "read stuff that's not there", so can I. It said that the woman was unclean. You've already acknowledged this FACT because you claimed that you cleaned the items touched by your wife. If you had to clean behind your wife, why put a newborn baby, with no immune system, in danger of being contaminated? It's quite contradictory.
...
So...you made it up despite the things that are scientifically evident and naturally observed. What has medical science proven is the most important factor in building a baby's immune system? Mother's milk! Unclean for public interaction and unclean for private care are quite different but not contradictory.
dacontinent says:...
2. I am going to guess that your parents gave you instructions to follow without first giving you the scientific facts and complete rationale behind them. Why was that?
Has nothing to do with this conversation.
...
O but it does have to do with this conversation. You contend that God should have told them about germs. My point is simply that telling them that things were hygienically unclean was no different to them. They had no microscopes yet to examine the cultures, so germs would just be an element within the realm of cleanliness that they would not have been able to identify.
My parents did not have to explain to me the perils of 2nd & 3rd degree burns when I started washing dishes at age 4. They simply told me not to touch the stove and not to play with matches.
dacontinent says:...
3. If they did not present such detailed explanations to you, how did you manage to survive in potentially dangerous situations?
Because what the Old Testament commanded was totally unnecessary, as modern science has shown. There's no need to isolate women. Some women who've given birth went back to work within a couple of days with no problems.
...
Since you did not attempt to answer the question, I will respond to what you did say.
What modern science has shown is that with the advancement of medicine and technology we are able to control the environment and recovery better. Some women who have given birth have gone back to in a couple of days with no problem since women started giving birth. However, it is far from the norm even today with all of our modern advances. Modern science has also shown us that the biblical method is still most suitable in cultures where advanced medicine and technology are not available. Furthermore, the finding of the La Leche League (
www.llli.org) that this method still produces faster recovery times for the mother and better health for both mother and child than the best results available through modern medical advancement.
dacontinent says:...
4. Getting back to the subject of this thread, if our young girls and guys managed to execute abstinence before marriage, how many unwed pregancies would they be a part of?[/LIST]
Because it's unrealistic to assume that they'll remain abstinent in this day and age. If they were taught to use condoms/protection, there'd be fewer pregnancies and fewer diseases to begin with.
...
You are evading the question. I will rephrase it. How many unwed pregnancies are produced through the practice of abstinence? With all of the information that is given to our youngsters on STD's, low birth rates, the cost of medical procedures (the highest costs being in natal care), the general state of the economy, the costs of childcare, etc., is it your postion that they have less MENTAL CAPACITY to make the decision to be abstinent than their ancestors?
Come on back to Jesus, Bruh.
