In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Jew,

homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, 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 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 other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.


1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may 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?


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 uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I

tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.


4. 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?


5. 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 obligated to kill

him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?


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? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?


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 and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm 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, Dept. Of Curriculum,

Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia


(It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian :)

LOL THAT WAS ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS!!!

I wish I could take credit for it

Makes me want to read the Bible. I bet I could do a lot of editing along the way. It would be interesting to see how it read afterward.

Religion just like Politics and Laws, needs to be adjusted with the times...

There is still a law in Bangor, Maine that you cannot walk down the street on Sunday with an icecream cone in your back pocket...

Forgiving the idea of asking why you would be carrying an icecream cone in your back pocket, I would wonder what the punishment would be... Maybe they made you sit down, then eat it, because Lord knows eating a crushed icecream cone sucks...

Dear Dr. Laura:

I've been having trouble finding a suitable mate. I would like to ask if Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is still valid?

~~~~~~
Deuteronomy 22

[28] If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
[29] Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
~~~~

So my question would be, "Does God's unchanging word still apply today?"

And how much would 50 Shekels be in US dollars?

Also, can I go for an 18 year old woman, or should I rape a 21 year old just to be safe? I'd like to get married and settle down as soon as possible and start a family. So please advise quickly.

Thanks for your spiritual wisdom and guidance.

Ok Abra here is some guidence about what this says..

Deut 22:28-29

<LTR>28 If find a man a damsel that is a virgin, which not is betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie
3588 4672 376 5291 9999 1330 834 3808 781 8610 7901

<RTL><LTR>with her, and they be found;
5973 4672

<RTL>

<LTR>29 Then shall give the man that lay with her unto father the damsel's fifty shekels of silver, and his
5414 376 7901 5973 1 5291 2572 9999 3701 3807 a

<RTL><LTR>she shall be wife; because he hath humbled her, not he may put her away all his days.
1961 802 8478  834 6031 3808 3201 7971 3605 3117

<RTL>

<LTR>30 not shall take A man wife, his father's nor discover skirt. his father's
3808 3947 376 853 802 1 3808 1540 3671 1


(Interlinear Transliterated Bible. Copyright © 1994, 2003 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)


So you are assumming " Lay hold of her" is what?

Abra says: rape

The word for this phrase Abra is....

taphas

OT:8610 taphas (taw-fas'); a primitive root; to manipulate, i.e. seize; chiefly to capture, wield, specifically, to overlay; figuratively, to use unwarrantably:


KJV - catch, handle, (lay, take) hold (on, over), stop, surely, surprise, take.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)


Now I do not see Rape here at all.. What the Hebrew says is.manipulate, take her by suprise.

So how is this Rape?

I believe it is taking advantage of a young Virgin by sublte words.. Intise her.

Now in this day and age virginity as it should be today and we would have way less problems. was very important as sexual purity for 1 man and woman to be together should be. so this man who is like taking advantage of this womans youth and thus has even though she did nothing wrong has defiled her. has ruined her reputation.

The cost of this for she will have a hard time finding a husband as people will shy away from her now is what?

He will pay her father and what will he have to do?

Deut 22:29
and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.
NKJV


If this law was practiced would we have men going around sleeping with as many women as possible that they seduce?

I truely doubt it.. they would have to marry her and could never divorce her.

Now does this say she can not divorce him?

No it does not. If he fools around on her she can divorce him if she wishes.. she does not have to. but she can and remarry.

now that he is divorced can he ever have another woman? No he can not.

for he is still married as far as the law is concerned and if he does what is his punishment?

Deut 22:23-24

23 "If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor's wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you.
NKJV


the man would be put to death. It does not matter what the case is and the woman for he is known to be in a married state. even though his wife divorced him and the woman would know so she slept with a married man.

no rape here either.

so what else does Duet. say here about Rape.

Deut 22:25-27

25 "But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. 27 For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her.
NKJV


Now forced is Rape Abra but you neglected to use these scriptures.. See you have to read what is really said.. touch on the Hebrew for these words and read it again.

so what you have said is a LIE and you act as if your translation is TRUE.

but its not. Abra you say you do not like fables. Then why do you make them up as TRUTH? Blessings...Miles

you guys should becarefull what you ask you just might get it

Futhermore Abra and anyone else who likes to take scriptures and make them seem evil because they say so.

You have become JUDGE and EXECUTIONER of the unseen. Why?

Because truely you do not understand what you are reading.

Then you say this is what something says when clearly you can not see.

Then all who listen to you follow these words.

Matt 15:13-14
"Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. 14 Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind . And if the blind leads the blind , both will fall into a ditch."
NKJV


The blind fall into the ditch because they can not see.

So you would have to admit all that says science that says we know thier is the unseen.

So then you make the Unseen Evil. Thus making alot of what you believe EVIL by your own words. A fool is who does not search out a matter. Is it not? Shalom..Miles

I would refer those concerned with leviticus to the specific sayings of JESUS

What comes out of you is what defiles you. For from within, out of your hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile you. (TNIV, Mark 7:20-23)

I dont think Jesus ever condones or suggests stoning or buying anyone , but I could have missed it,

I somehow think Jesus gave us the blessing of repentance and forgiveness, but still gave more support to some behaviors than others,,,,
now, considering adultery and sexual immorality are both mentioned, i will guess they were not being used as synonyms but two seperate TYPES of offense, and we can all , I suppose, use our own logic to think of what might have been considered sexually immoral,,,beyond adultery that is,,

I believe the whole point of the post was to show that you can't take a single verse about homosexuals and call it law if you are going to ignore all the rest of the old laws.

So Bible lovers, calm down. Find a sense of humor. The old laws are not to be followed any more. We have grown up people.

I agree. But some of those laws were also in the new book. They werent SPECIFIED(things like beastiality and incest are not mentioned in the new testament specifically either) so we must use our own gauge as to what 'sexual immorality' is.

Yes, and when you can see how absurd the old laws are, it does cause one to question the new laws as well.

I think we are intelligent beings, and we can figure that stuff out according to our own wisdom.

I think we can too. I tend to see the new laws as coming more from God as general guide and the old laws applying more to a specific people of a specific culture and times...but thats just according to my own 'wisdom'.

The verse you're referring to here is speaking about a betrothed young woman. I was only concerned with what it says about free and single women miles.

But you're probably right about the "rape" thing. That's going a bit overboard. So let's just assume that I'll seduce her willingly.

Happy now?

Well there's a problem with that too.

First off, God's word is supposed to be unchanging. If the Old Testament applies only to the ancient Hebrew society and no one else, then God's laws not only change over time, but they also change from culture to culture.

Secondly, even if we accept your view here then we could argue the the laws against homosexuality only applied to the ancient Hebrews and therefore aren't applicable to any other culture or time period.

All you're doing it trying to create a "Salad Bar Religion" where you get to pick and choose which commandments and directives you'd like to have on your plate, and which one's you have no appetite for.

Once you go there, then anything goes.

In fact, that kind of thinking only serves to support the idea that every individual should take away they own 'salad' from the Bible, and that there can be no absolute laws. God's words then apply to everyone according to their own "wisdom".

I'll buy that!

Now if you can sell that to the hardcore fundies you'll be doing great.

First off, God's word is supposed to be unchanging. If the Old Testament applies only to the ancient Hebrew society and no one else, then God's laws not only change over time, but they also change from culture to culture.


I think many different concepts are being crossed here. First the concept of Gods word(as in whas has been shared and spoken) and the concept of Gods laws( as in commands which are given, usually within specific boundaries)


I also think this is bringing up a type of extreme that tries to paint EVERY 'similar' situation with the same brush in order to make it reasonable or unchanging.

I guess it depends upon how you take the phrase 'God is unchanging'. I take it that God is the same today as he was yesterday and will be tomorrow, not to mean that he doesnt make assessments and form judgments about them.


The same God that told Adam and Eve they could have everything EXCEPT the fruit of one TREE, is the same God who restricted them from that same garden when they BROKE HIS RULE. So his punishment, I suppose, could be seen as an example of him changing to some people. I just dont see that type of adaptation/circumstance/ response as an example of his CHANGING but of his reacting and judging.