May ruffle some feathers, but very funny!
 

Regardless of your personal beliefs, you gotta appreciate this guys style.

Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality, who dispenses advice to
people who call in to her Radio show. On 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 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 neighboring 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 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?

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, 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 am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan

Don

That's outstanding. I happen to be a Christian, and I could make serious replies to this one, but nobody would read them anyway, so instead I'll just laugh. :) Good stuff.

Dan

Its easy to answer as a Christian. It would be much harder for an Orthodox Jew.

Brilliant.

Good point Cam, didn't really think of that.

well, you know what Dr. Laura sez...

"love the sin, hate the sinner."

love the hater, not the player. no, I mean hate the lover, not the... no wait, play the hater, not the... oh hell, now you got me all screwed up

Someone emailed me that a short while ago, it's hilarious. Just shows that while the Bible is a wonderful document and everything, "wiggle room" is an important concept to keep in mind w/ it. :D

Careful, Speeder -- if too many people try to make serious inferences from this one, I may be forced to draft up a thesis on The Law fer ya'll. :) Cam, you make a great point. It's a lot easier to answer this one as a Christian. I did have a serious Jewish friend once who answered the sacrifices one, but I don't remember what he said. <smirk> That helps a lot ... FWIW, there are some groups of Jews still today that do their best to live according to The Law, including not boiling a kid in it's mother's milk (kid goat, that is), burning mildewed houses, and not putting cream in their coffee (mixing milk and meat, technically). Maybe that's why the Palestinians are really so upset? Perhaps they could peacefully coexist with Jews if they could only put milk in their coffee, or have cheese on their hamburgers? :)

Dan

What about the hole in the sheet law?

LOL, good stuff.

Hey Lendaddy,

I think this is outside the lines. Orthodox Jews DO adhere to those principles, all 613 of them set forth in the Torah. There is an entire body of interpretation and scholarship surrounding exactly HOW those things are applied to living in the modern world. And they take it extremely seriously-- for example, if you look inside a coat it will say something like "Shanetz Free" which means there's no mix of linen and cotton. There's an interpretation that says that using an electric razor is more closely akin to scissors than using a straight razor, which is helpful in following the rule about shaving. The extent of their efforts to keep the Sabbath is truly incredible. The kosher laws say that any fish with fins and scales is OK, but crab meat ain't. Ask anyone in the orthodox community and they will be familiar with those rules, because they live by them on a daily basis.

Anyway, for those that don't subscribe to the New Testament the principles written above are considered to be inflexible. They are subject to rabbinical interpretation, but they are very rigid.

Where it really gets interesting is the body of interpretation of religious law, that goes back thousands of years, that looks at the cases "at the margin," e.g. what do you do if you have a saucepan full of milk that you are heating up and a piece of meat inadvertently falls in it? Can you retrieve the meat and still use the milk? Any Talmudic scholars on the BBS? (I think the answer is that if the meat is less than 1/60 the volume of the milk you can but don't quote me!)

Anyway, I can understand why some participant in the highly topical debate over homosexuality would challenge the old testament. But there are hundreds of thousands of people who adhere to these principles daily.

The reason I know all this is because I used to work in Detroit with a group of orthodox folks. I'm not Jewish, so it was a real eye-opener for me. And until I had that experience, I never really understood the concept of separation of church and state, or really understood the meaning of religious tolerance. Every time some politician in the bible belt tries to advocate for prayer in school, I think of those guys, and how troublesome it would be for people of Christian background to have the Old Testament incorporated into the educational routine. . .

So while I certainly agree with you that the attached stimulates controversy I do think it could be construed by some as making light of their religious principles. I wouldn't be too happy if somebody started ripping on transubstantiation or communion in this forum, for that matter.

My .02!

John,

If it bothers you I apologize. I have nothing but respect for the Jewish people. I did not write it, but I did laugh. I appreciate the humorous style of the writing, thats all. I don't think it's degrading to the religion, but I respect your opinion.

Or the new "hole in the pillowcase" scenario enjoying new popularity since the Monica Lewinski days.

Good reading:
http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/403a.htm

You've touched on one of the inherent problems with religions in general, and this is one of the many reasons I'm not a religious person. The extreme positions in any faith are (virtually without exception) ridiculous, however it is these same extremes that in another way add "validity" to the religion, otherwise it is perceived as weak-kneed and not having what some would call "credibility". A religion has to take contriversial stances and meet a certain level of "difficulty" in order to not be seen as "fly by night", "wishy-washy", unfounded faith. Morality isn't supposed to be easy and isn't "supposed" to take a back seat to contemporary convenience if it is to be viewed as "credible" by its followers, so religions have to try and walk the knife edge between being too contemporary / accomodating and too conservative. It seems that this balance is really just a "slippery slope" and that it basically can't be done from a logic standpoint.

Here's an example: take the Catholic church's view on birth control. This is (particularly in our overpopulated society) what most people would agree is a ridiculous position. It makes no sense in contemporary society (Monty Python satarized this brilliantly with their piece "every sperm is sacred") given our population, lifestyles, etc. The history of this position stems back to medeival times when it was used to (1) ensure that there would always be adequate numbers of "the faithful" (the successful survival of communities was much less assured then than today with things like disease, war, famine, etc.), (2) help with the problem of unwanted children, (3) provide another means / incentive for people to repress their sexuality (seen as the root cause behind a host of other problems like infidelity (adultery), illegitimate children, divorce, weakened family units / structure, etc.) You get the point.

NOW (in the context of modern society) this places the Church in a precarious position: if it "admits" the ridiculousness of their position, it undermines the "credibility" of the religion - i.e. they've "flip-flopped"; it CERTAINLY undermines the notion of papal infallability. If it continues defending the position, the religion risks being perceived "outdated", "out of touch", etc. This is one of literally hundreds of examples of the ridiculousness of "fundimentalist" positions (regardless of faith) that are inherently flawed, but the odd part of it is that the same fundimentalist positions are necessary to give "fundimentals" to the particular belief system, although it is virtually NEVER defensable via logic.

"Organized" religion has yet to adequately address this fundimental flaw about the role of fundimentalism and what its "role" should be.

Porsche-o-Phile,

I think that is EXTREMELY well put. Bravo. (I'm serious)

Where I have historically had a hard time is with the whole "Logic" thing. When you try to get into the REASON why milk and meat together is a bad thing, and think about bacteria growth in the times before refrigeration, this gets you into the area of RATIONALIZING the commandments of the Almighty. Ask a theological scholar and they'll tell you that although there may be good logical principles that are coincident with the rule, that's not why the rule's there, it's because the rule is the commandment of G_d. This tends to deter people from engineering workarounds to the rule and maintains the hard-line of "credibility" that you talk about.

You hit another good point which is the importance of MODERATION of the viewpoint. Isn't the entire concept of justification by faith based on Martin Luther's examination of the life of St. Augustine, from which he concluded that it just wasn't practical for salvation to be based on behavior alone, but belief? Isn't it easier to attract subscribers to a particular viewpoint if it doesn't require enormous self-sacrifice to join?

I'll say this for ritual, though: it tends to be a daily "reminder" of religious principles vs. once a week or twice a year.

And finally, what about political loyalty to somebody outside the country? The entire history of Europe from 1521 to the present can be understood in the context of the struggle for loyalty to the Vatican vs. loyalty at home. To the extent that external loyalty is threatening to the State, is it any wonder that there was an English Civil War, Oliver Cromwell and the IRA?

Very interesting.

Personally my opinion of these things is that these laws were written to help preserve the health and well being of people in that time.

When you look at many of these writings, and consider them in the context of B.C. man, many make a lot of sense. A considerable number were focused around general cleanliness, health, etc... WHile others are a bit confusing and seem somewhat arbitrary.

While there are those that feel you should not pick and choose what you take from the Bible, I think it's important to keep in mind the intent of it's writing, and this, frankly, is what it's all about. REligion is personal and therefore subject to personal understanding.

I understand these "rules" to be more geared towards early people... That the intent of the Bible and Christianity in general was respect towards God and fellow man, etc... ...and personally don't think God has any issues with me eating Shrimp Scampi, why would he?

Porsche-O-Phile

http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/clap.gif

Re: May ruffle some feathers, but very funny!
 

Pretty good. I'm always appreciative of someone who can take an absurd, baseless argument, and magnify it's absurdity.

I think this guy did at least a 10x magnification.

OTOH. . ."ruffle some feathers" !? I thought sex with a rooster would fall into the "bestiality" catagory.

Is bestiality an abomination, according to Leviticus?

Clearly, if it is, bestiality too must be embraced and accepted, as has homosexuallity. That is, since Leviticus says some absurd stuff, ALL what it says MUST be absurd. :rolleyes:

(read: who knows, maybe even Leviticus could find a nut every once in while)

The origin of many religious edicts are often forgotten or misinterpreted. A catholic friend of mine told me that priests used to be able to marry, but in the 13 or 1400's they banned the practice not just for the stated reasons of focusing on God, but because when many married priests died, their wives tended to comingle church and private assets