Ok abominators this is for you.

[Converse]

In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger 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 offence.

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 neighbors. They claim the odour 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'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

[suebee]

Thanks so much for this! I've seen it before, and was searching for it just two days ago. I have several friends who want a copy.

It's incredible how so many choose to NOT see the Bible as having a context: in time, in terms of culture, societaly development, etc. etc.

This is a clip from The West Wing that uses the premise of the letter that you posted as a scene. Great scene!

That's exactly it suebee, it's all about cultural relativity.

It bugs me that folks quote old testament scripture when infact God sent us Jesus and a New Covenant/Testament to supercede the Old Covenant/Testament.

oops! too late to edit my previous post.

Of course the Old Covenant/Testament of the Christian Bible is based on the Hebrew Bible and therefore stands on it's own in Judaism. Laura Schlesinger is coming from an Orthodox Jewish position so of course wouldn't be quoting the New Covenant/Testament. Just to clarify that I wasn't being "bugged" by Judaism.

I do love Prof. Kauffman's response.

[Apocalipstic]

It does seem ironic that Evangelicals who claim to believe that the New Testament "was sent" as a new Covenant with Jesus and superceeds Old Testament, use the Old Testament as an excuse for bad, bigoted and homophobic behavior....to mention just a few things.

It makes ZERO logical sense.

Like how can you love your neighbor as yourself and turn the other cheek andf also believe in an eye for an eye.

Or be against abortion no matter what and FOR the death penalty. Zero logic.

My father said I was an abomination back when I was 21, it sounds funny to say, but if I really think about it, it seems pretty heavy and maybe a drop strong.

What about "thou shalt not judge"? calling someone an abomination seems pretty judgemental to me.

Originally Posted by apocalipstic

It does seem ironic that Evangelicals who claim to believe that the New Testament "was sent" as a new Covenant with Jesus and superceeds Old Testament, use the Old Testament as an excuse for bad, bigoted and homophobic behavior....to mention just a few things.

It makes ZERO logical sense.

Like how can you love your neighbor as yourself and turn the other cheek andf also believe in an eye for an eye.

Or be against abortion no matter what and FOR the death penalty. Zero logic.

My father said I was an abomination back when I was 21, it sounds funny to say, but if I really think about it, it seems pretty heavy and maybe a drop strong.

What about "thou shalt not judge"? calling someone an abomination seems pretty judgemental to me.

I have always been very careful NOT to use the Old Testament/Covenant in any theological debates - on those very rare occasions I put my head above the theological parapet. Although sadly my church managed such hypocrisy and used that Leviticus quote when it decided I couldn't lead a music group because despite living celibately I did live with a woman and therefore was "giving the impression of sin!". It irritates me immensely, for as you say, there is no logic at all in believing the New Covenant supecedes the old one and then using the old one to justify your actions.

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by Incubus

I have always been very careful NOT to use the Old Testament/Covenant in any theological debates - on those very rare occasions I put my head above the theological parapet. Although sadly my church managed such hypocrisy and used that Leviticus quote when it decided I couldn't lead a music group because despite living celibately I did live with a woman and therefore was "giving the impression of sin!". It irritates me immensely, for as you say, there is no logic at all in believing the New Covenant supecedes the old one and then using the old one to justify your actions.

We were told in Sunday School not to even sip water at parties so we would not give the impression we were "drinking".

[waxnrope]

Current teaching among many liberation theologians (including many feminists ... see Luise schottrof, for example) is that using "Old" and "New" is antiJudaistic, and the preferred terms are Hebrew and Greek Bible, or First and Second Testament.

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by waxnrope

Current teaching among many liberation theologians (including many feminists ... see Luise schottrof, for example) is that using "Old" and "New" is antiJudaistic, and the preferred terms are Hebrew and Greek Bible, or First and Second Testament.

It has been a long time since I have hung out at church . but I can see your point! Thank you.

I may have to go with First and Second Testament, since the Testaments were not all originally written in Hebrew and Greek...and I strive for logic...not that I usually find it. Grin.

[Miss Scarlett]

I love the comment in this article about biblical ignorance being an epidemic in the US...

[WolfyOne]

Originally Posted by Incubus

That's exactly it suebee, it's all about cultural relativity.

It bugs me that folks quote old testament scripture when in fact God sent us Jesus and a New Covenant/Testament to supercede the Old Covenant/Testament.

Being Jewish, I don't think the new testament supercedes the old. I'm not religious in a practicing way, but I think there are a few religions that don't see it as superceding.

I think Dr Laura is full of crap and can read into the bible any way it suits her needs. She can only speak from her me place not mine, thank goodness. In fact, we have a bible here from 1951 and when looking at new ones and it at the same time, the wording has changed from bookmaker to bookmaker.

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by waxnrope

Current teaching among many liberation theologians (including many feminists ... see Luise schottrof, for example) is that using "Old" and "New" is antiJudaistic, and the preferred terms are Hebrew and Greek Bible, or First and Second Testament.

I must admit to having a good giggle this morning fondly remembering having dropped 2nd Testament three times and finally making an F in it because I could not stomach the class at Baptist college.

Originally Posted by WolfyOne

Being Jewish, I don't think the new testament supercedes the old. I'm not religious in a practicing way, but I think there are a few religions that don't see it as superceding.

I think Dr Laura is full of crap and can read into the bible any way it suits her needs. She can only speak from her me place not mine, thank goodness. In fact, we have a bible here from 1951 and when looking at new ones and it at the same time, the wording has changed from bookmaker to bookmaker.

I don't believe that any of the Bible can be taken literally thousands of years after it was written, yet people continue to use it as an explanation and excuse for REALLY bad behavior.

I mean, let's say one does believe in the Second Testament...then I have to question if they have actually read it, because I don't see Jesus running around calling people abominations.

The wording of the Bible changes all the time. Things were added in the Middle Ages because it was thought it sounded better, differences were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls...and honestly everyone translates from their own point of view....and you have translations of treanslations of translations going on. It is like a game of telephone.

[Apocalipstic]

I like abominable better than abomination!

[waxnrope]

Originally Posted by apocalipstic

It has been a long time since I have hung out at church . but I can see your point! Thank you.

I may have to go with First and Second Testament, since the Testaments were not all originally written in Hebrew and Greek...and I strive for logic...not that I usually find it. Grin.

Please explain the statement about languages. Thanks.

I can go with first and second testaments. Wasn't the Bible written in Hebrew and Aramaic?

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by waxnrope

Please explain the statement about languages. Thanks.

Some people think Matthew was written in Aramaic, so I decided use First and Second Testament.

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by Incubus

I can go with first and second testaments. Wasn't the Bible written in Hebrew and Aramaic?

I thought so, also in the Greek vernacular at the time.

[Miss Scarlett]

Originally Posted by Incubus

I can go with first and second testaments. Wasn't the Bible written in Hebrew and Aramaic?

I spent several years studying with an amazing Hebrew scholar (who worked on the NIV translation, among other things) by translating the OT (Tanakh) and NT from the "original" languages.The OT was written in Hebrew with some portions in Aramaic (Daniel, Ezra) but during the Hellenization of the region the commonly used text was translated into Greek by some Hellenistic Jews and later was translated back into the original languages. The NT was written for the most part in Koine Greek - the "common" Greek spoken at that time. Luke and Acts were written in a more sophisticated Greek.