Have you seen this before?

Question

Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a 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 east coast 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:

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?

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?

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 offense.

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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 fan,
Jim

http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/WhyCantIOwnACanadian_10-02.html

Answer 1

I thought that Jim had hit the nail on the head. Strange how all those things he mentioned is being ignored. Good one:)

Answer 2

I should imagine Jim’s response to the citation of Leviticus 18:22 would elicit a few giggles here and there. I suppose also that some people would find it to be an instructive response to the radio personality. Jim’s response, however, does raise a few questions. For instance, is Jim an Orthodox Jew? If so, does he claim to be under the Mosaic Law? If so, then is he not bound by covenant to God to carry out the law in its entirety? The very next verse, Leviticus 18:23, condemns sexual intimacy with animals. Does Jim find this practice perfectly acceptable?

Leviticus 18:6-17 condemns incest. Is it possible that Jim finds this practice perfectly acceptable as well?

Perhaps Jim is not an Orthodox Jew but is a Christian instead. If so, does he realize that the Mosaic law covenant, in its entirety, was a contract between Israel and God alone? (Psalm 147:19-20) Does he realize that it is no longer in force (Ephesians 2:14, 15; Colossians 2:13-17)?

Moreover, if Jim is a Christian, does he not realize that homosexuality is condemned in scripture in Genesis, Leviticus, Romans, Matthew, and Jude?

Really, who is cherrypicking?

Hannah J Paul

Answer 3

Excellent, Babes! Haven't laughed so much in a long time!

Apparently you shouldn't take what's written in the Bible literally, after seeing this I understand why.

To be fair, it is thousands of years old, so after so many translations, the original contents probably have changed dramatically (look how much the English language alone has changed in just the last 2 or 3 hundred years).

Answer 4

That is why Jews have it wrong.
Jesus talks about these things not being of importance as we can have a relationship with God through him. And he talks about homosexuality being sinful.
Christ is the way, the truth and the life!

Answer 5

Yes, I have seen it, and thank you for reminding me.

One of the things that strikes about the religionists is the glaringly obvious fact that they either haven't studied their texts in detail, or, if they have, then they must be guilty of massive, and intentional, errors of ommission.

If one actually reads the entire Christian 'Bible, in it's current form, it's an extraordinary document. Full of contradictions, and worse. To literally 'follow' it is to all intents and purposes impossible, as to 'obey' in one area is to 'disobey' in another.

As I have attempted to point out many times it was never intended that ordinary people should have access to the entire text, Guthenburg will answer to Rome in the court of the catholic mind.

Answer 6

Nope, I haven't seen it before. I'm not surprised at it's content, however. It is a common ploy for people who want to excuse themselves from Biblical morality: find a law from the Old Testament that isn't PC or practicaly applicable today (legal codes concerning slavery, for example), lump it together with the moral code, and call it all "the same" (say there is no difference between a nation's legal code and a moral code), and then dismiss the lot.

I wonder if this guy does the same thing with the laws against kidnapping, rape, robbery, and murder? After all, those are forbidden in the Old Testament as well!

Answer 7

That's just it, isn't it? No one can fulfill the Law, unless the one who claimed to have done it-- Jesus Christ, did it.

The Law was there to convince us of sin. That we are not capable of upholding the Law. To cause us a state of hoplessness that drives us to Christ.

I am familliar with Dr. Laura and I like her. But she has a problem with God on these matters. She is still destined for gathering God's wrath to her. Jesus being the only way out of that. Perhaps all her wisdom will be gathered one day and she will stop trying to be a good Jew, and start being a person faithful to God through Jesus, the Deliverer.

She is pretty smart. I wonder what she will do?

Answer 8

This is very good - frankly anyone who cites the Bible or the Koran or any other holy book as a reason to recommend or prohibit any particular lifestyle or behaviour should think again.

Answer 9

Awesome.

There are still people, though who will tell you that there's a big difference between the homosexuality verse and the rest of those old Mosaic laws.

Cherry-pickin' is fun!

Answer 10

Fabulous argument. Dr. Laura obviously has selective memory, she doesn't know much about the bible, or she finds some way to rationalize her homophobia.

Who wants to bet she wears cotton/polyester fabric?

Thanks for posting!