Should women on their period be required to wear a sign?

Question

Lev.15:19- 24 states I am not allowed to have contact with a woman when she is in her time of menstral uncleanliness; however I cannot tell when a women is on her period and generally have to make assumptions depending on their mood. Would it be safer to just make all women currently on their period be required to wear a sign? I really do not want to offend God so I need some suggestions.

Answer 1

And the Levitical codes also state that you should not wear a cloth made of more than one fiber.

You should go naked rather than wear a polyester/blend shirt or pants.

Answer 2

Are you a married Jewish man? If not, then this doesn't now, and never has, applied to you.

Oh, but Jeebus freed you from the "Old Laws" eh?

Nope, he didn't.

Why not? Because a person CANNOT be freed from something they were NEVER bound by in the first place!

And Jeebus didn't "fulfill" the Law either, the Law is eternal and can no more be fulfilled by a bloody human virgin pagan sacrifice for sin than it can be by you pulling up to a stop sign and never having to stop at one again because you've now "fulfilled it".

In other words, you been lied to, Bubba.

Here is what applies to non-Jews, here is how you get a place in the World To Come, and it's NOT by some disgusting bloody human pagan virgin sacrifice for sin like the ancient Baal worshippers did. Here is the real way according to the Torah:
http://www.noahide.org

EDIT: To Death's Embrace: No, this law didn't come about because God considered blood to be sacred. It came about because when a woman has her period, it is considered by Jews to be a death - the death of an egg that had the potential to be a human being, another Jewish person (This never applied to non-Jews). And death is something that renders a person impure, whenever anyone comes into contact with a dead body, they must take the appropriate measures in order to become pure again, which you can read about in the Torah. A Kohen, a Jewish priest (and yes we still know who our priest families are) cannot even step into a hospital if it has a morgue where dead people may be. Or a graveyard either.

For a woman on her period, this means she is contaminated by death, due to the death of the egg which had the potential to be a Jewish human being, and she cannot impart this taint of death to her husband or to anyone else for that matter. When her period is over, she purifies herself by going to the Mikvah, immersing in the water to purify herself. Then she may go home and resume relations with her husband. It has nothing to do with being anti-female, or sexist, it has to do with the impurity of DEATH, and nothing more.

Someone might be interested in the pictures and stories that The Mikvah Project put together, very beautiful.
http://www.mikvahproject.com/

Answer 3

This was a law given to the Israelites in the old testament and was not meant for the rest of us .The law was for all bodily discharges not just menstrual blood . This had it's value other than religious as a very early form of disease prevention . Blood is still considered sacred and the Bible makes cautions about blood . Very interesting how that applies to the current times and policies about blood . Seems like there was a lot of foresight , and perhaps aids wouldn't have taken such root , if the Biblical laws had been followed regarding blood .

Answer 4

I find the mood method is generally reliable. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's how this particular rule first came about. The old Hebrews were such a pragmatic lot!

"We are no longer under that set of laws, actually people other than the Hebrews were never under that law."

Oh, OK then. Well, I guess nobody can complain about homos based on Leviticus 18 and 20 anymore, either.

Answer 5

whilst i don't think of a woman might desire to have the potential to get an abortion, extremely if the daddy needs the baby, the certainty of the difficulty is that its in her physique and the regulation enables it. inspite of the undeniable fact that, if she chooses to maintain the baby the dad must be in charge for it because of the fact if she had an abortion there does not be slightly one to pay for, yet because of the fact she did not that infant is alive and no rely in case you settle for it or not, you may desire to pay for it. If the baby grow to be on your abdomen and got here tearing out of your vagina then you definately could make the techniques approximately it. I do understand your element, yet while they gave adult adult males the right to disclaim their infant then they could merely go around getting females knocked up (females who certainly needed the baby) and then while cases have been given not straightforward they might run off devoid of outcomes. merely does not artwork. So why do not you purely wrap your salami from now on. Or do the worldwide a desire and get a vasectomy.

Answer 6

I don't think that it applies to today's life anymore. Just like eating certain foods. I'm sure God wouldn't be offended. If you would still like to keep that command then I don't think women should have to wear a sign. Besides, I think it meant you cannot sleep with a woman that's on her period. And if your not married you shouldn't be sleeping with any woman if you are trying to go by God's law.

Answer 7

I think people that believe that should wear a big sign in red saying something that I'm going to be nice enough not to type out.

Answer 8

They're already showing a sign -- it's called "The Can't You Tell By My Bad Attitude That I'm OTR?"

Answer 9

HELLO, Axel!

We are no longer under that set of laws, actually people other than the Hebrews were never under that law.

The only laws that are for us now, are the Ten Commandments. I wouldn't worry about the sign of a woman's period if I were you, but that I was committing adultery or fornication!

God Bless You

Answer 10

No! At the time it was misunderstood and there were great health concerns invovled, which don't don't really have now. Besides that was a cultural law, not one set fortt by G-d. The Bible references both.