The following letter was received at the offices of Fools' Paradise addressed to Dr. Laura Schlesinger. Unfortunately, we fired Dr. Laura a long time ago and she has since gone on to become a prominent talk radio personality with strong views on just about everything, especially homosexuality, a subject which seems to hold a weird fascination for her. Recently, she said that as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 8:22 and cannot be condoned in any circumstance.

The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura , which was posted on the Internet:

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 I 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 specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour 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 offence.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring 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 neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obliged 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 disciple and adoring fan.

0wned.

This is old...but always gives me a chuckle.

Comedy is good for the soul...even if it is irreverent at times...

I really do hate people who have a good point but have to adopt the sarcastic innocent-sounding stupid fucking cunt persona to voice their beliefs.

old, but good

So old it should be in the apocrypha.

And notice all the statements come from Leviticus. When I suggest dumping it from the bible, _I_ get laughed at.

quote:Originally posted by Aphelion Corona:

I really do hate people who have a good point but have to adopt the sarcastic innocent-sounding stupid fucking cunt persona to voice their beliefs.

quote:1st Corinthians 6:9-11

9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.



A new testament referral to homosexuality (and various other acts) and the possibilities of forgiveness.

Many of the laws of Leviticus were thrown out by Jesus. Back then, men were in debt to God for their sins. It was up to each individual man, through sacrifices at the temple and following the laws of God, to pay the penalty for his sins (either through the death of a clean animal, or the eternal death of himself). When Jesus paid the debt of man, men no longer had to worry about saving themselves. As a matter of fact, they couldn't if they tried.

In summary, much of Leviticus no longer applies. Homosexuality is mentioned in more places than Leviticus. Also note verse 11 that I posted above. There were to be no more 'stonings' or death. The option to be sanctified was granted.

Disregard Leviticus. The purpose of the old testament is to learn the history of God's people and learn more about who God is. The new testament is where the belief system, the present day laws, the doctrine is.

Nice post Elephantitis Man. Yes I get it now.

It should be said that Dr. Laura was probably an orthodox Jew at the time this was written and so the new testament doesn't really apply.

EM is right though. Although the other laws of Lev can be used against christian groups who use Levs homosexuals laws as their main supporting argument. Some of the more crazy anti-gay groups seem to love parts of Lev over any other verse in the bible.

quote:Originally posted by Aphelion Corona:

I really do hate people who have a good point but have to adopt the sarcastic innocent-sounding stupid fucking cunt persona to voice their beliefs.

You hate them because they own you. You're owned, you piece of crap soon-to-be-a-pile-of-ash Jew boy.

quote:Originally posted by Snoopy:

You hate them because they own you. You're owned, you piece of crap soon-to-be-a-pile-of-ash Jew boy.

I don't know how you get away with this.

It should be said that being a homosexual is akin to eating pork in Jewish beliefs. As an orthodox Jew, I do not believe everyone should be Jewish, or follow Jewish law. Gentiles are not held by the laws in Leviticus, and Jews can choose to disregard them, as many reform Jews have done. Judaism has evolved over the years, and being Jewish can mean so many things. I do not believe that Jewish law should be forced, or that it is a necessarily better path for everyone. So, in short, I do not think that Judaism has a moral claim against homosexuals.

That letter was reportedly from Michael Moore, and shows his ignorance of Judaism. His arguments don't "own" the Jewish belief, and he lies about being with a woman. He couldn't get one. It's not witty, nor clever, nor even particularly funny beyond a superficial chuckle. The man shows his religious stupidity in this letter. If he took time to make arguments that weren't easily refuted, or couldn't be answered by actually reading the Pentateuch, it'd be much more appealing, amusing, and of higher-quality.

Honestly, this is a worthless piece of shit.

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:



Disregard Leviticus. The purpose of the old testament is to learn the history of God's people and learn more about who God is. The new testament is where the belief system, the present day laws, the doctrine is.

If the word of god is perfect, then the laws contained in Leviticus must remain completely valid and completely just, regardless of place and time; unless you argue that they were not perfect of course.

So in reality, "disregarding Leviticus" would be a very poor suggestion.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

If the word of god is perfect, then the laws contained in Leviticus must remain completely valid and completely just, regardless of place and time; unless you argue that they were not perfect of course.

So in reality, "disregarding Leviticus" would be a very poor suggestion.

Not if the perfect son of God, Jesus, died for the sins of man changing the whole method in which man was to get into heaven. Leviticut was the laws for the 12 tribes of Isreal. Back then, there were no such things as 'gentiles'. Does that mean that gentiles were never to exist? Of course not. You have to understand Jesus had the authority to and did change the laws set for the people.

You are using such staunch and inane literal interpretation of the text that you are manipulating its very purpose. It was law, of the Jewish people, before the appearance of Christ. It was God's ideals of perfection. Christ showed up and said, "You don't have to worry about your uncleanliness. I am here to die so you may be clean through me."

You take the words, the scriptures, and the book out entirely out of context. It is law of the Jews, not the gentiles.

Christianity is written in the New Testament, not the old.

About 2000 years ago god changed

all the laws around?

Why? Didn't he get them right

the first time?

quote:Originally posted by Viraljimmy:

About 2000 years ago god changed

all the laws around?

Why? Didn't he get them right

the first time?

That's a highly disputed idea (Christianity). From a religious perspective:

It's often believed that Moses broke two tablets of the Ten Commandments that were never replaced. Also, if one looks at the Shema, and the Ten Commandments, and some of Levitical law, it becomes rather apparent that people are the ones not getting it right.

quote:Originally posted by Viraljimmy:

About 2000 years ago god changed

all the laws around?

Why? Didn't he get them right

the first time?

He didn't get them wrong, he made it easier for them to be forgiven. The laws of Leviticus show God's standards for a 'clean' man. When Jesus died a prefectly 'clean' man, men no longer had to worry about this. Jesus more or less took the burden of the laws of Leviticus off of man's shoulders.

Jesus even said in the scripture I posted earlier that all those sins are forgiven through him.

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

Not if the perfect son of God, Jesus, died for the sins of man changing the whole method in which man was to get into heaven. Leviticut was the laws for the 12 tribes of Isreal. Back then, there were no such things as 'gentiles'. Does that mean that gentiles were never to exist? Of course not. You have to understand Jesus had the authority to and did change the laws set for the people.

You are using such staunch and inane literal interpretation of the text that you are manipulating its very purpose. It was law, of the Jewish people, before the appearance of Christ. It was God's ideals of perfection. Christ showed up and said, "You don't have to worry about your uncleanliness. I am here to die so you may be clean through me."

You take the words, the scriptures, and the book out entirely out of context. It is law of the Jews, not the gentiles.

Christianity is written in the New Testament, not the old.

Your post doesn't answer anything. The laws must remain, by virtue of their "perfection", just, correct, right, good, and valid, regardless of the period of time they are being used and regardless of context!

You ignore this because you yourself find those laws outrageous, vile, and disgusiting and cannpt phathom them being applied today; yet they can, and by virtue of the supposed "perfect" word of god, those laws would remain just as valid, just as good, and just as relevant today as they were in the time of Moses.

If I were to follow those laws today, no Christian that believes in the literal interpretation of the bible, could find me at fault.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 10-09-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

If I were to follow those laws today, no Christian that believes in the literal interpretation of the bible, could find me at fault.



You are missing the point. Whether you followed the laws or didn't it doesn't matter. Everyone is a sinner. Whether or not the laws are still upheld by God, everyone is equally a sinner in God's eyes. And yes, you could be found at fault for following some of these laws because, as I said before, Jesus changed some of them. For one, sacrifices are no longer necessary. If you were to make a sacrifice, you would be denying that Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice and thus, you wouldn't be a Christian.

I could still make a sacrifice, while still holding Jesus' sacrifice as the "ultimate" one. Thus, I have not sinned.

Furthermore, it is you who are missing the point, because you dismissed the initial post (the letter to Dr....) by saying that Leviticus "no longer applies" which is faulty logic because it ignores that the laws in Leviticus are perfect, and thus could still be used in today's context, and you would be judged by Christian morality, just, right, and good for using them.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I could still make a sacrifice, while still holding Jesus' sacrifice as the "ultimate" one. Thus, I have not sinned.

No, making a sacrifice anyway would be saying that Christ's sacrifice was in vain, thus being more blasphemy than worship.

quote:Furthermore, it is you who are missing the point, because you dismissed the initial post (the letter to Dr....) by saying that Leviticus "no longer applies" which is faulty logic because it ignores that the laws in Leviticus are perfect, and thus could still be used in today's context, and you would be judged by Christian morality, just, right, and good for using them.

Once again, the Christian doctrine is based on the New Testament, not the old. If you want to be a Jew, go ahead and follow the Old Testament. That is what you'd be doing.

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

No, making a sacrifice anyway would be saying that Christ's sacrifice was in vain, thus being more blasphemy than worship.

[/b]

Of course not, I could very well still maintain that Christ's sacrifice was not in vain while also making a sacrifice. Who are you to say what I can believe or can't? In fact, this very ordeal could only be resolved by the Christ, because it is he who knows what I would be feeling, and not you. So this discussion with you, on whether or not that sacrifice would mean the Christ's sacrifice was in vain, is moot.

quote:

Once again, the Christian doctrine is based on the New Testament, not the old. If you want to be a Jew, go ahead and follow the Old Testament. That is what you'd be doing.

You're still evading the facts. This has nothing to do with what current Christian churches believe their doctrine is. It has everything to do with laws that are supposedly perfect, and that given that perfection, they must still remain just and good laws.

Again, if I follow those laws, I would still be justified, and would still be good according to Christian morality.

quote:Originally posted by Me:

[QUOTE] Whether you followed the laws or didn't it doesn't matter. Everyone is a sinner. Whether or not the laws are still upheld by God, everyone is equally a sinner in God's eyes.

Once again, Rust. You are debating that the laws, because they are perfect, are still in effect. I said earlier and I will say it again, it doesn't matter. Everyone is a sinner, therefore, if you want to follow the old laws, go ahead. If you want to say that you're justified in stoning people because Leviticus says so, go ahead. To speak bluntly, it would be a lost cause on your part in doing so.

Second, continuing to make sacrifices would be blasphemous. Why? Why must I explain every little meaning of every little thing to you, Rust?

Why the hell did people do sacrifices back then? Because they had to in order for their sins to be forgiven. When Jesus died, their sins were paid for. They no longer had to make sacrifices. Continuing to do so is like a slap in the face to God. It's like, I pay your bus fair, telling you all you have to do is get on the bus when it comes. But when the bus arrives, and in doubt of what I told you earlier, or perhaps out of pride, you pay anyway. It's an insult; like saying to me "I don't need you to pay for me. I can pay for myself." Or perhaps, "I know you said you paid for me, but I wasn't sure so I went ahead and paid anyway." It's an insult. What part of this don't you understand?

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:



Once again, Rust. You are debating that the laws, because they are perfect, are still in effect. I said earlier and I will say it again, it doesn't matter. Everyone is a sinner, therefore, if you want to follow the old laws, go ahead. If you want to say that you're justified in stoning people because Leviticus says so, go ahead. To speak bluntly, it would be a lost cause on your part in doing so.



I never said anything about we being all sinners, or not. I said that your dismissal of the "letter" because "Leviticus doesn't apply now" was a ridiculous cop out. If it was perfect, it can certainly be followed, it can certainly be used. That is the point.

Instead of acknowledging this, you continue to grasp as straws, building an argument out of nowhere. Why? Because the possibility of Leviticus still being used, justly, and in the name of god, coupled with the impossibility of you condemning the individual who dare use those atrocious laws, is unspeakable to you.

quote:

Second, continuing to make sacrifices would be blasphemous. Why? Why must I explain every little meaning of every little thing to you, Rust?

Why the hell did people do sacrifices back then? Because they had to in order for their sins to be forgiven. When Jesus died, their sins were paid for. They no longer had to make sacrifices. Continuing to do so is like a slap in the face to God. It's like, I pay your bus fair, telling you all you have to do is get on the bus when it comes. But when the bus arrives, and in doubt of what I told you earlier, or perhaps out of pride, you pay anyway. It's an insult; like saying to me "I don't need you to pay for me. I can pay for myself." Or perhaps, "I know you said you paid for me, but I wasn't sure so I went ahead and paid anyway." It's an insult. What part of this don't you understand?



http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Please spare me the bullshit about having to explain things to me, since it is obvious that you are the one who can't grasp the simple concept being said here:

You have absolutely no way of knowing what I would be believing, or what my intentions would be, if I were to do a sacrifice. Therefore, you have absolutely no say in determining whether what I would be doing would be a "slap in god's face" or not. The only one who truly knows would be god, certainly not self-righteous you.

Emc3, nice post, actually humorous for once.

Actually, Elephantitis Man, Jesus said that all of the OT still applies.

quote:) “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV) Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself. None other then Jesus said so.

2) All of the vicious Old Testament laws will be binding forever. "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

3) Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

3b) "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)

3c) "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

4) Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark.7:9-13 "Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)

5) Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)

6) Jesus has a punishment even worse than his father concerning adultery: God said the act of adultery was punishable by death. Jesus says looking with lust is the same thing and you should gouge your eye out, better a part, than the whole. The punishment under Jesus is an eternity in Hell. (Matthew 5:27)

7) Peter says that all slaves should “be subject to [their] masters with all fear,” to the bad and cruel as well as the “good and gentle.” This is merely an echo of the same slavery commands in the Old Testament. 1 Peter 2:18

8) “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17).

9) “...the scripture cannot be broken.” --Jesus Christ, John 10:35 http://www.evilbible.com/do_not_ignore_ot.htm

quote: It's like, I pay your bus fair, telling you all you have to do is get on the bus when it comes. But when the bus arrives, and in doubt of what I told you earlier, or perhaps out of pride, you pay anyway. It's an insult; like saying to me "I don't need you to pay for me. I can pay for myself."

I really can't leave this one alone. This is a helariously terrible metaphor. What is god, Joe Pesci?

(angry) "I allready paid for you're bus fair! What is my money no good to you?"

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:

http://ww w.evilbibl e.com/do_n ot_ignore_ot.htm (http: //www.evil bible.com/ do_not_ign ore_ot.htm )

Damn straight!

We should kill those who work on Sabbath! http://spikedhumor.com/articles/2920/CNNNN_Holy_Homosexuals.html