Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Menstruation

2007-04-07T06:05:15Z

Ian911299:

Menstruation occurs at the end of a woman's menstrual cycle. The lining of the uterus is shed and expelled from the body. Menstruation occurs in humans and more developed apes, including [[gorillas]] and [[orangutans]] [http://www.4woman.gov/faq/menstru.htm#4].

== Biblical view ==

The Bible states that God does not approve of menstruation (Romans 11:376), despite creating women that way. In Ezekiel, God condemns an action of the Israelites by equating it to a woman's menstrual cycle: "...to Me their way was like the uncleanness of a woman in her customary impurity" (Ezekiel 36:17). In Isaiah, God also likens man's own righteousness to "filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6). The English translation here is actually cleaned up a little, as it more directly translates to "a rag of periods" [http://www.atruechurch.info/sexduringmenstruation.html].

The Bible states that if a man and a woman have sexual intercourse during her menstrual cycle both must be ostracized by their community: "If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has exposed her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from their people." (Leviticus 20:18)

[[Category:Biology]]

Talk:Women

2007-03-31T19:56:48Z

Ian911299:

{{vc}}I'm not going into the Biblical issues here; that's for more scholarly folk than myself. However: "''Also not explicitly stated in the Bible, it is obvious that,''" does that work? At what level of opinion and/or writer's logic does CP draw the line? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 03:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: NO, this does not work. The logic in that is completely flawed.
::Also, if Eve was created from Adam's rib, wouldn't she be his sister? They are of the same flesh and blood...
::-- [[user:Orly|Orly]] 10:24 14 March 2007 (CET)

If god does not approve of menstruation, why did "he" design women that way?

-- [[user:Orly|Orly]] 15:42 14 March 2007 (CET)

I thought of taking it out to. But those verses are in the bible still... I thought it better to explain their role than to refuse to acknowledge them just for their inconvenience.

-- BornAgainBrit

:Free advice for you to use, or not, as yous see fit: the reason religious debates are never resolved is simple (imo): people are trying to understand why a possibly omnipotent / omniscient being does what it does. We have no frame of reference for this, so we're stuck making all kinds of assumptions. Simple answer to any "why" question is, unfortunately, "why not?" Or "because." Or "it will all make sense 1,000 years from now, we simply lack perspective." Which doesn't mean those arguments are right, but what are you going to do?

:My advice: read, study, pray if you like. But you probably won't get an answer you like, and (conversely) you not getting an answer you like doesn't prove anything.

:[[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 13:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT) , going back to technical edits where the Chicago Manual can be proved far more easily ;)

This is really a terrible article! Some facts maybe? /What

Never mind: asked and answered on [[User_talk:TimSvendsen | TimSvendsen's]] page [[User:Sedge|Sedge]] 23:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Rename 'women in the bible' as that seems to be the only section?

What a sexist article! Someone really needs to fix it up. --[[User:Ian911299|Ian911299]] 15:56, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Women

2007-03-31T19:55:49Z

Ian911299: