An open letter to dr. laura concerning homosexuality (i did not write it)

  • Thread starter Entropia
  • Start date
137
1
"The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362
admonishments to heterosexuals.
That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that
they need more supervision."



Dr. Laura Schlesinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice
to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as
an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according
to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The
following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident,
which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as
informative.........

Dear Dr. Laura

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I
have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that
knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend
the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that
Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other
specific laws and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors.
They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in
her period of menstrual cleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is,
how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend
of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can
you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated
to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don.t agree. Can you settle this?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room
here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.
19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes
me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester
blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town
together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn.t we just burn them to
death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with
their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident
you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is
eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan,
Jack
 

megashawn

Science Advisor
435
0
Haha, thats pretty awesome.

You know, this reminds me that I heard on Fox that a gay pastor has been elected to the episcopalian (spelling) church.

Thought that was interesting.
 

Kerrie

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
818
14
absolutely excellent, any word on laura's response?
 
73
0
Oh yeah. We're on a winner here with this homosexuality. How dare that God guy give us rules about how to live. What would he know?
 

RageSk8

How dare that God guy give us rules about how to live. What would he know?
I don't know what God knows, but supposedly you do. Isn't claiming the knowledge of God blasphemy?
 
73
0
I don't know everything that God knows, but I do know what he has told us in the Bible. He spells it out pretty clearly. I don't know if it's blasphemy or not but it's a big mistake to think you can decide what is right and wrong better than God. I've tried to explain here before that the reason we live in a screwed up world is to provide absolute proof that only God is qualified to decide what is right and wrong.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=829
 

megashawn

Science Advisor
435
0
Why not, instead of rehasing the same unprovable concept, simply disprove or argue againts the points made in that letter.

It applys not only to homosexuals, but life and freedom in general.
 
73
0
Ok fine. The answer is simple. The points made in the letter are irrelevant. The laws that God gave to ancient Israel through Moses no longer apply. We don't have to burn bulls, sell daughters into slavery, avoid working on the Sabbath or any of the other things mentioned in the letter, neither does God want us to do those things. Those laws were part of a covenant that God made with the nation of Israel, a covenant that was terminated at Pentecost, in the year 33.

We are now subject to the law of Christ. Jesus said that the whole law hangs on two commandments: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind ... You shall love your neighbor as yourself" - Matthew 22:35-40. The law of Christ is not set out in the form of a code but the new testament does state many commands and decrees that we are obliged to obey among them a clear command regarding homosexuality:

"Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." - Romans 1:27. see also 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
 

schwarzchildradius

Very funny stuff. She so deserves it. Now go do the right thing. Isn't that special?
 

Phobos

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,927
6
Laser Eyes -
So the 10 commandments are obsolete too? I'm surprised to hear that since so many Christians cite them (as well as other passages from the Old Testament). Your response is interesting. Please check out my other topic about Christianity & the Old Testament.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2892

aside: Note that Dr. Laura did refer to the Old Testament, so perhaps the O.T. response letter is fair enough. Perhaps you would say that both Dr. Laura & the letter-writer were on the wrong track?
 
73
0
The 10 commandments were a basic part of the law that God gave to Israel. Those commandments had equal force with about 600 other laws that were equally binding on Israelites. Like all the other laws the 10 commandments were part of the covenant between God and the nation of Israel. Indeed the 10 commandments were referred to as "the tablets of the covenant". That is why the ark in which the tablets were kept was called "the ark of the covenant".

We are not subject to the 10 commandments or the other laws that God gave to Israel any longer. But that is not to say that the ten commandments and the old laws have no relevance whatsoever. The 10 commandments and the rest of the Mosaic law reflect God's viewpoint of things and therefore should be studied but they do not have the force of a legal code that we are bound to follow. The old laws had "a shadow of the good things to come" meaning they would naturally lead to and reflect the law of Christ. The 10 commandments dealt with man's relationship to God and man's relationship with his brothers. When Jesus was asked which is the greatest commandment in the law, his answer that I have set out above epitomized the 10 commandments.
 
137
1
given all of what you said laser eyes... how can one argue that the 10 commandments condemn queer physical relations?


(by "queer" i mean "not exclusively heterosexual". i.e a male and a hermaphrodite, a female and a m to f transexual, etc. i do not mean "queer" in a derogatory manner)
 
73
0
Anyone who knows the 10 commandments knows that an express prohibition on homosexuality is not one of them. But it didn't need to be because it was covered by another law. As you pointed out above homosexuality was condemned by God as an abomination in the laws he gave to Israel at Leviticus 18:22 and also at 20:13. All of the 600 or so Mosaic laws were equally binding on the Israelites and had equal force with the 10 commandments.

The fact that once again we find homosexuality specifically prohibited in the Christian Greek Scriptures shows how important God regards it.
 

megashawn

Science Advisor
435
0
We are now subject to the law of Christ. Jesus said that the whole law hangs on two commandments: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind ... You shall love your neighbor as yourself" - Matthew 22:35-40.
Ok Laser eyes. You have a gay neighbor. Do you love him as you love yourself? From your general attitude, I'd guess no.

So does this mean you will be suffering in hell along with the Homosexuals simply because you don't like them?

And while you keep saying there is new laws that condemn homosexuality, you've yet to prove this. Perhaps you could point us towards a passage?

You see, people use the 10 commandments and Mosaic law to there liking, until someone points out "Hey, slavery is wrong, its illegal, etc, so, the ten commandments are irrelevant since jesus died for us". But then you drive down the road and see billboards like:

What part of "Thou shalt not" didn't you understand?

-God

So its like a double standard. Abide by the 10 commandments and ancient law, until it goes against society. Then, say its changed now, then still go by the pieces you like.

Its funny, its like Christianity is more customizable a Honda Civic. Change it to suit your needs for the day so that you can still sleep at night knowing if a sattelite smashes through your roof, you'll wake up in heaven.
 

FZ+

1,550
2
There was a very interesting article in the Times today regarding this...
Some snippage...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-7-715998,00.html
The love that is not a sin
The arguments put forward to show that such relationships are immoral are bad. Either their premises are false or the argument by means of which the conclusion is drawn from them itself contains errors.

If most of the Christian anti-homosexual arguments are bad, this is not only because their authors make factual or logical errors; it is also partly because they do not concern themselves with the social context of sexual relationships.

The important point is that Christian moralists cannot go on writing as if a great deal of work had not already been done outside Christian circles on the social and other aspects of sexuality. Few theologians, for instance, show awareness even of the existence of such important works as Michel Foucault’s The History of Sexuality, David F. Greenberg’s The Construction of Homosexuality, and Jeffrey Weeks’s Sexuality and its Discontents.

While this remains the case, too many theologians and church authorities who attempt to pronounce on the subject of homosexuality simply lack credibility; they have not done their homework.

The theological debate on homosexuality within the Roman Catholic Church has had a short life. Before the publication of John McNeill’s book The Church and the Homosexual in 1977 little had appeared other than cursory statements treating homosexuals as deviants, and homosexuality as a perversion or a quasi-criminal kind of activity. Sexuality was treated as more or less synonymous with heterosexuality, and homosexuality was seen as a marginal aberration.

In McNeill’s book, for the first time in mainstream Catholic theology, an attempt was made to consider both homosexual people and homosexual activity in a more understanding and positive light.

The history of that book’s publication and of subsequent Vatican documents exhibits currents of thinking that run strongly in the opposite direction. This is particularly clear in two documents issuing from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF): the 1975 Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics (Persona Humana) and the 1986 Letter on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons (HP).

There has been little public theological debate of the positions adopted in these documents. To many, these interventions represent a timely defence and elaboration of traditional Catholic views on homosexuality and a much-needed reassertion of traditional Christian teaching on the nature and purpose of sex in human life at a time when other churches are abandoning the heritage to which they should be faithful and when there is pressure towards infidelity even inside the Catholic Church. On the one hand there has thus been an enthusiastic reception on the part of many who seem to have felt little need to criticise the CDF’s statements. On the other hand, these interventions have occasioned much negative reaction.

Many feel that the CDF has not thought seriously about the subject but has merely sought to justify a position that is the product of prejudice of bygone ages; a prejudice that is, in at least some countries, thankfully beginning to break down. The CDF is accused of refusing to listen to voices at variance with its own, and in particular of failing to take seriously the voice and experience of gay Catholics who find that the old teaching simply does not reflect the reality of their lives; its documents speak with the harsh voice of a remote and homophobic bureaucracy isolated from and ignorant of the lives of ordinary men and women.

Perhaps the most important single text appealed to in support of a moral condemnation of all same-sex activity is Romans 1, where Paul paints a very unflattering picture of Gentile society, including the alleged fact that “their females exchanged the natural use for that which is against nature, and the males likewise abandoned the natural use of the female and burned in their desire for each other, males committing what is shameful with males and receiving among themselves the due reward for their delusion” (Romans 1:26–7).

This text is important first of all because it is a New Testament text. Appeal to it is an appeal to the new dispensation inaugurated by Jesus Christ, not to the old. Use of Genesis 19 and Leviticus 18:22 may run into problems about the applicability of Old Testament law to Christians, or indeed to anybody since the coming of Christ.

Use of Romans 1 avoids any such problems. And it apparently shows quite clearly that, in the new dispensation as under the old, same-sex activity is unacceptable.

But things are not quite so simple. There are several factors which should make us hesitate to embrace this way of understanding the text. To begin with, this part of Romans 1 is not primarily an attack on people who go in for same-sex activity, but on Gentiles, the vast majority of humanity who do not worship exclusively the one true God, the God of Israel. The wrath of God “has been revealed against all the impiety and injustice of those people who unjustly suppress the truth” (v. 18). The true nature of God is apparent to them through the created things they see around them (vv. 19, 20), but though they knew God they did not glorify or thank him as they should, but they became vain, their senseless hearts were darkened (v. 21). Claiming to be wise, they became stupid and exchanged the glory of the imperishable God for images in the likeness of perishable animals (vv. 22–23).

This is basically what is wrong with the Gentiles: that they have abandoned the one whom they knew to be the true God in order to worship idols. They are not idolaters out of ignorance, but have deliberately suppressed what they knew to be the truth. Because of this, God has given them up, by means of the desires of their hearts, to uncleanness, so that they dishonour their bodies among themselves (v. 24).

This is the background to the two verses which, according to many, amount to a clear condemnation of same-sex activity, and which follow immediately. It is because of their exchanging the truth for a lie that God has given them up to dishonourable passions, so that their women exchange the natural for the unnatural, and the men burn for men. Thus, if Paul thinks the Gentiles typically engage in same-sex activity, this is for him not a sin that demands punishment, but is a condition that God has put them in because of their suppression of the truth about Him; if anything, it is itself a punishment for a crime.

The second answer is to look more closely at the language of shame that Paul uses here. The Greek word which I have translated as “what is shameful” (aschemosyne) and its cognates are used a number of times in the Bible, both in the New Testament and in the Septuagint version of the Old. The way they are used in the Septuagint reveals the body as a locus of shame for Jewish culture. For example, a law in Exodus says: “You shall not go up by steps to my altar, lest your nakedness (aschemosyne) be exposed upon it” (20:26). It is used regularly in Leviticus to translate the Hebrew erwah, rendered as “nakedness” in the standard English translations.This is particularly striking in the laws forbidding “uncovering nakedness” in 18:6–21; for example: “The aschemosyne of your father and the aschemosyne of your mother you shall not uncover; she is your mother, and you shall not uncover her aschemosyne” (18:7). In these texts, though the uncovering of the aschemosyne may be sinful, the aschemosyne itself certainly is not. Its use here reveals a sensitivity about the human body, with the Exodus text focusing particularly on the sexual organs.

One more, quite different, example shows again the distance between shame and sin. In 2 Maccabees 9:2, Antiochus is said to lose a battle and to “beat a shameful (aschemona) retreat”. There is of course no suggestion here at all that Antiochus’s retreat is sinful. Rather, it brings dishonour upon him; because of this action, he is not viewed by others with respect, but with contempt or ridicule. In none of these texts is there a connection between shame — aschemosyne — and sin. The word has to do rather with how one is looked on by others, and so is closely related to the ideas of honour and dishonour.

If we look for cogent biblical or natural-law arguments against homosexual relationships and acts in general, we will not find them: there aren’t any. There are plenty which look faithful to Scripture and compelling in their logic, but none which are. We must be careful in assessing what this conclusion does and does not entail. It does not entail that it is good to be gay and that Christian moral teachers who teach otherwise are wrong. It entails only that there is no good reason for thinking otherwise. Somebody may yet discover a cogent proof for the immorality of homosexuality, but if the application of fine minds has not discovered one after all this time, we are entitled to think that there is no such argument to be found.

My conclusion is not that it is good to be gay, but that it is irrational for serious, reflective Christians to accept Church teaching on homosexuality. This is in itself a serious conclusion, for there are clearly many such Christians; that is why the debate exists within the churches in the first place. The only rational course for such Christians is to continue to believe in the possible goodness of homosexual relationships. This is not a matter of dissent or materialism; it is simply that the Church at the moment produces no good arguments to assent to. Regrettably, in this area, the Church teaches badly.
 

FZ+

1,550
2
And also:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-7-715997,00.html
Sodom and Gomorrah: the true story

THE story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah features in many official Church treatments of homosexuality, and was until recently often held to furnish biblical condemnation of homosexual acts. The Letter on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons (HP), says of Genesis 19:1–11: “There can be no doubt of the moral judgment made there against homosexual relations.” In the Catechism of the Catholic Church this passage is referred to, along with Romans 1:24–7, 1 Corinthians 6:10 and 1 Timothy 1:10, in support of the contention that the Bible “presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity”.

Does an examination of the text support this judgment? Several considerations lead to a negative answer. When the two angels arrive at Sodom they are offered hospitality by Lot, Abraham’s nephew. He invites them to lodge in his house for the night and offers them a feast. It is at this point that all the men of Sodom surround Lot’s house, calling to him: “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them” (v. 5).

In context, this is almost certainly not a demand to know the identity of the visitors, but a demand that Lot deliver them up that they might use them sexually.

It is here that readers, including those in positions of authority in the churches, have sometimes seen a reference to homosexuality: the men of Sodom want to have sex with the two visitors, who are themselves men. (The men of Sodom, like Lot, are unaware that they are angels.) The men of Sodom are, it is sometimes claimed, expressing homosexual desire, and it is for this that they and their city, as well as the neighbouring city of Gomorrah, are destroyed.

But this interpretation is inadequate, for several reasons. Whatever it is, the crime is not one of attempted homosexual rape, except that the men believe that the angels are men like themselves. Though they may think that they are about to rape two men, we, the readers, know better.

Anti-homosexual interpretations of the story ignore this central and obvious point. Let us for the sake of argument ignore it too, and treat the story as one of a simple attempted homosexual rape. If we understand it in this (defective) way, then we can say that it expresses a condemnation of male homosexual rape in general, and not just of this particular attempted rape. But, of course, a condemnation of male homosexual rape is not a condemnation of all homosexual acts.

Consider a simple thought experiment: in the place of the two apparently male visitors, put two female visitors. If the story were of two women menaced with rape, followed by the destruction of the cities, nobody would dream of reading it as a condemnation in narrative form of heterosexual acts.

To understand the story as a condemnation of homosexual acts in general is to read into the text something that is absent. The only reason for its being read as such is that readers have already, prior to reading, been determined to condemn homosexual acts and to find a biblical justification for their attitude. That justification is not to be found in the narrative if we read the text objectively.
 
137
1
well said FZ
 
73
0
Ok Laser eyes. You have a gay neighbor. Do you love him as you love yourself? From your general attitude, I'd guess no.
I understand that this is a sensitive topic. But I have merely stated what God's law is. It's not my law, it's God's law. What I think is irrelevant.

So does this mean you will be suffering in hell along with the Homosexuals simply because you don't like them?
There is no eternal suffering and there is no hell . That is a fiction created by Satan's empire of false religion to control and intimidate people. When you die that is the end of your life, period.

And while you keep saying there is new laws that condemn homosexuality, you've yet to prove this. Perhaps you could point us towards a passage?
I did set out one relevant passage above but for your benefit here they are:

"Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." - Romans 1:27

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators ... nor homosexuals ...will inherit the kingdom of God." - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

"the law is not made for a righteous person, but ... for fornicators, for sodomites ... and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine" - 1 Timothy 1:9-10

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." - Leviticus 18:22

"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." - Leviticus 20:13

An important point I have made in my posts above is that the laws God gave to Israel no longer apply and do not have the force of a legal code that we must comply with. But the old testament scriptures are relevant because they show God's viewpoint of things and they help to confirm the proper interpretation of the new testament scriptures. Now, can anyone honestly read these passages and tell me that they are in any doubt about God's view of homosexuality?
 

Phobos

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,927
6
Originally posted by megashawn
Ok Laser eyes. You have a gay neighbor. Do you love him as you love yourself? From your general attitude, I'd guess no.

So does this mean you will be suffering in hell along with the Homosexuals simply because you don't like them?
The typical Christian response seems to be "Love the sinner, hate the sin."

You see, people use the 10 commandments and Mosaic law to there liking...
...Christianity is more customizable ...
As in everything in life, there are many interpretations and some of the conflicts you see may be coming from interpretations from different groups. There are many variations of the main religions. Also, a person's study of the subject can be in-depth and well thought out or, as is often seen in mainstream media like billboards, no deeper than bumper sticker philosophies.
 

Phobos

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,927
6
Originally posted by Laser Eyes
There is no eternal suffering and there is no hell . That is a fiction created by Satan's empire of false religion to control and intimidate people. When you die that is the end of your life, period.
Can you elaborate? Where is this viewpoint from? Doesn't seem to match the common Judeo-Christian or even Islamic beliefs.
 

DR OF DEATH

the problem is that now days some of the old rules and testaments are no longer rellevent, i mean according to the testaments, premarital sex, homosexuality, masturbation, jealousy, theft, gaining material possesions, etc are all wrong,

but how many gays, unmarried couples, thiefs, rich people, etc are there. we all know what the testements say are wrong, but we never abide my all of them becuase some are just not relevent.
 

schwarzchildradius

The supreme court recently ruled on this, striking down state laws that make homosexuality a crime. Scalia predictably dessented with a crude rant about how morality is no longer legislatable, (touchet!)
Homosexual sex is not immoral, obviously, if it is consentual.
 

DR OF DEATH

precisely what im saying, we have now abolished the idea that homosexuality is a sin, we have done the same with premarital sex which is now quite common. gaining material wealt is quite common (for some of us) even the church gains a hell of alot of material wealth these days.

so it seems as if the morals / ethics codes of the days of the bible are rapidly changing.
 

Scoundrel

Nice rhetoric, but....

"The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362
admonishments to heterosexuals.
That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that
they need more supervision."

Well, the Bible does admonish homosexuals and heterosexuals...all of humanity in fact. This statement however uses a rhetorical device of misdirection to provide facts and then draw a false conclusion based upon the facts. The idea is to stir an emotional response rather than an intellectual response. Yes, I agree with the statement in general, but the Bible contains admonishments for "being" homosexual, not for "being" heterosexual. All 368 admonishments apply to everyone, all of humanity. God and Christians do not hate sinners, we hate the sin, because sin destroys life.

Dr. Laura Schlesinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice
to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as
an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according
to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The
following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident,
which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as
informative.........


Hmmm. I suppose if you think persecuting a person for their religious/cultural beliefs is funny, then this is hilarious. I would not find a person running down homosexuals amusing in the least. This will be a sticking point as long as people redefine disagreement with the practice of homosexuality as "homophobia". I am not unnaturally afraid of homosexuals, I love them, but I hate the sin that is destroying their souls.

Dear Dr. Laura

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I
have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that
knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend
the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that
Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

Just to remind everyone, Leviticus 18:22 says, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Apparently you disagree with this text, which means you think the rest of Leviticus is false as well. For example, Leviticus 18:7-9 states:

"Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her. Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonor your father. Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere."

Since it is okay to lie with a man as one lies with a woman, is this okay? How about Leviticus 18:23:

"Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion."

Is it okay to have sex with a donkey, or a fish? Just curious.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them.
1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors.
They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

Actually, when Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross, he made it unnecessary for us to continue animal sacrifices any longer. However, if you prefer a more "politically correct" answer, then no. No, because smiting those who dis-like your form of worship is a hate crime and carries a stiffer penalty than normal smiting.

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her?

Exodus 21:7 is not a sanction of slavery, it is rules for governing your body of servants and how to integrate them into your family. Servanthood was a common practice and it persists today. Plumbers, electricians, beauticians and physicians all, essentially, indenture themselves to a "master" and work for very low wages until such a time as they can strike out on their own into the world. We don't refer to the practice as slavery or servitude anymore because it is not politically correct.

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in
her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is,
how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

If you remain a virgin until your wedding, then have sex only with your wife, you will know for certain when she is menstruating. I hope you comfort her during this time of pain rather than bothering her for your own gratification. The P.C. response would be to stop bothering people before you get slapped with a sexual harassment lawsuit.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend
of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can
you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

See 2 above. Since you like Leviticus 25, then I have a bargain for you. As soon as you raise a poor person up you your standard of living, as suggested in
Lev. 25:35-37, using your own money and expecting nothing in return, ever. Then you can start purchasing Canadians.

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated
to kill him myself?

No, leave her alone, John 8:7 says "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Furthermore, Jesus says in Luke 13:14-15
Indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, the synagogue ruler said to the people, "There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath." The Lord answered him, "You hypocrites! Doesn't each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water?"

Besides, your moral obligation may land you in federal prison.

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don.t agree. Can you settle this?

All sins are equal in the eyes of the Lord. Regardless, the question of detestable food was abolished when Jesus created a new covenant with mankind. The "ceremonial laws" were swept aside. The moral laws, like not performing homosexual acts, are still in effect.

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room
here?

Yes, Jesus spent a lot of time healing the blind, disfigured, demon possessed, etc. As stated before in 6, Jesus sacrificed Himself to create a new covenant with mankind. The "ceremonial laws" were swept aside. The moral laws, like not performing homosexual acts, are still in effect.

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.
19:27. How should they die?

As stated before in 6 and 7, Jesus sacrificed Himself to create a new covenant with mankind. The "ceremonial laws" were swept aside. The moral laws, like not performing homosexual acts, are still in effect.

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes
me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

See 6, 7 and 8 above.

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester
blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town
together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn.t we just burn them to
death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with
their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)

See 9 above, also see John 8:7 which says "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident
you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is
eternal and unchanging. Your adoring fan, James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus University of Virginia

James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. is an Alumni Scholars from Heartspring World Reach. Found here, 7th from the top:

http://www.shakleeinstitute.org/Alumni.html

Several other people are also credited with authorship of this article, probably all false.
I hope that this clears up any confusion you might have. There is a lot of contradictory information out there on the net and elsewhere, but an honest search through the Bible with a heart that longs to know the truth will bring you the answers you are seeking. Please feel free to email me at:

scoundrel@pmt.org

or the visit our website for more information! Have a great day and God Bless you!

The Rupert First Christian Church Website!
http://www.rupertchristian.com/ [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
85
1
Originally posted by Laser Eyes
Ok fine. The answer is simple. The points made in the letter are irrelevant. The laws that God gave to ancient Israel through Moses no longer apply. We don't have to burn bulls, sell daughters into slavery, avoid working on the Sabbath or any of the other things mentioned in the letter, neither does God want us to do those things. Those laws were part of a covenant that God made with the nation of Israel, a covenant that was terminated at Pentecost, in the year 33.
Oh, okay, good. Let me just breathe a sigh of relief. It's a good thing God was only a real bastard some 2000 years ago, and then only to the Jews. I'm glad he's come around now.
 

Related Threads for: An open letter to dr. laura concerning homosexuality (i did not write it)

  • Posted
Replies
5
Views
13K
  • Posted
Replies
16
Views
15K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
6
Views
10K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
22
Views
5K
Replies
60
Views
9K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top