A letter for Doctor Laura

[RangerMWilhite]

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

[Nobody]

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
Did you actually send this, or are you trying to lead us to believe,you did?

[sharplee]

the mere sound of laura sexlingers voice makes me want to kill things.

s

[Paisleyspeaker]

cool.
really cool
you need to really mail that to her, and post her reply.:D

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

cool.
really cool
you need to really mail that to her, and post her reply.:D


And then smite every last one of us for having unclean thoughts....you can find them all over, I'm certain that the good book demands reprimand for that as well somewhere.....

[Paisleyspeaker]

Are you accusing me of having unclean thoughts, or simply addmiting to some of you own?:p

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Both. You must have had unclean thoughts simply while making a reply with the word 'unclean' inside of it. Probably about me;)

[Paisleyspeaker]

Both ? And what were your unclean thoughts? ( I'll show you mine if you show me yours:p ) I don't really know you well enough to have an unclean thought. I'm a visual kinda person, and homer simpson's pea brain is not very inspiring.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Both ? And what were your unclean thoughts? ( I'll show you mine if you show me yours:p )

I don't think that I could list them all, but one was certainly about you...or whoever that is in your cute little picture there.




I don't really know you well enough to have an unclean thought. I'm a visual kinda person, and homer simpson's pea brain is not very inspiring.

Really? I thought all women were in love with Homer Simpson...but you could always use that sexy shot of Mr. Burns holding a brain nice and high at the bottom of my posts, I'm sure that one of these has to be turning you on;)

Anyways, I'm really more a visual person too....probably why your picture was the one thought that I could list:p

[Paisleyspeaker]

The picture is of me, and thank you.:D

[General Septem]

Whoever wrote that letter is an idiot.

And yes, paisley's avatar is cute. :D

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Watch out, you're starting to sound just like Beezelbub

[General Septem]

Watch out, you're starting to sound just like Beezelbub
In the non-bullshit sense, or in the straight sense? Oh, wait.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Simply saying that someone is an idiot because you don't understand or agree with their point of view.

[General Septem]

Simply saying that someone is an idiot because you don't understand or agree with their point of view.
I think whoever whote the letter is the one who "doesn't understand". This isn't the first time I've seen atheists say "LOL THE BIBL SEZ TO KILL PEOPL" or something similar.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

So how would you interpret the pasages that are being referenced? And how do you know that your interpretation is the one that everyone should take?

[General Septem]

I could go into the specifics but that's a long letter and I don't feel like it.

How do I know it's true? The same way you know anything to be true. How do you know the sky is black? You look up. A lot of other interpretations of the Bible just don't make sense (i.e., selling your daughter to slavery). Another thing that should be known is that a lot of the Old Testament is ritual law rather than moral law, in other words, you had to do them in order to be Jewish but they weren't necessarily sins. Well you don't have to be Jewish to follow God anymore, so the ritual laws are no longer necessary. For example, the laws about being unclean, or which animals you can and can't eat. Well it turns out the animals you can't eat are unhealthy, or at least were unhealthy at the time due to lack of vaccines or being able to cook them hot enough. And the laws about being unclean, well "unclean" in that sense doesn't always mean spiritually unclean - they just had germs and could spread disease, so a lot of the ritual laws were to keep the people safe.

[Paisleyspeaker]

The whole thing is w wonderful example of what happens when people fail to exersize common sense. Rules were very important to the Jewish people, and so was the discussioin of those laws. Many of the books of the old testament particlarly Leviticus were meant to be debated, as they were inforced. Not just swallowed and obeyed( that is a very midevil europe vassal and lord sort of idea) . Now I have a question for you. If we are no longer required to live by the laws of Leviticus, as we are not Jewish, what does that to the biblical support for homophobic viewpoints? The single most often "the bible says don't do it" quote is from Leviticus

[General Septem]

Now I have a question for you. If we are no longer required to live by the laws of Leviticus, as we are not Jewish, what does that to the biblical support for homophobic viewpoints? The single most often "the bible says don't do it" quote is from Leviticus
Not all the laws of Leviticus are ritual laws. It's unclean to touch a pig, but it's an abomination to have sex with another man. Unclean: dirty, germs, disease. Abomination: vile, perverse, disgusting, something to be reviled.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Not all the laws of Leviticus are ritual laws. It's unclean to touch a pig, but it's an abomination to have sex with another man. Unclean: dirty, germs, disease. Abomination: vile, perverse, disgusting, something to be reviled.


You are understanding these things the way that you want to by using the American English language of today to prove it. One, it was written in a different language. Two, it was written LONG ago, in a different society with very different understandings of things. So to use your straightforward understanding of it today would not be any way to prove that your viewpoint is right. Look for different ways to interpret the same passages and accept them as possibilities.

[General Septem]

Look for different ways to interpret the same passages and accept them as possibilities.
I already have. And I'm not the only one.

It's not just Leviticus that says it is wrong for two men or two women to have sex. Ever hear of Sodom and Guemorrah? When was the last time a biblical town was destroyed for not washing their hands? Sure, maybe they died of disease, but that's what hand-washing was supposed to prevent in the first place. If there's any other explanation, then why did Jesus declare all foods to be clean and that you did not have to wash your hands before a meal to receive salvation?

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

All's I'm saying is that you can justify yourself any way that you want to, without hard evidence it doesn't make you any more right. Just as another example, there are people who find arguments just as valid as yours to continue bad habits, it doesn't make them any more right to do it.

[General Septem]

All's I'm saying is that you can justify yourself any way that you want to, without hard evidence it doesn't make you any more right. Just as another example, there are people who find arguments just as valid as yours to continue bad habits, it doesn't make them any more right to do it.
But I do have hard evidence.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Hard evidence that the Catholic religion has things completely perfect? I haven't seen any yet. I don't think that I've seen any argument that you've made about the Bible that has hard evidence to support it, just your interpretation of which parts are to be treated literally and which are not from what your common sense from your 21st century Free American Society has taught you what common sense is.

[General Septem]

Why is your argument based on the Bible, anyway? The Bible is a creature of Tradition just like the Catholic Church is. I obey Catholicism just like other Christians obey the Bible; Catholicism just isn't as vague. You can say "well how do you know Catholicism is true", but you could say the same about the Bible. So it doesn't really matter. I don't see what your problem is, anyway. I was just saying the guy who wrote that letter is an idiot who doesn't understnad the Bible at all. Like most Atheists actually. One of those people who "knows more about Christianity than most Christians", yet thinks that the Bible says it's ok to commit murder as long as they "deserve it".

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

I don't see what your problem is, anyway.



The only problem that I have is that you are completely certain that your interpretation of a translated 2000 year old piece of literature is completely right, and anyone who disagrees must be an idiot. You can believe it if you want to, but don't shoot down other possibilities if you have no evidence beyond your own interpretation.


yet thinks that the Bible says it's ok to commit murder as long as they "deserve it".

Many christians think that this is the case. I've never actually read the bible, but I'm sure that there are passages that both refute it and support it, depending on how literally you take it. And who really knows how literally it was intended to be taken? No one knows the authors, so no one can say one way or the other without a doubt.

[General Septem]

The only problem that I have is that you are completely certain that your interpretation of a translated 2000 year old piece of literature is completely right, and anyone who disagrees must be an idiot. You can believe it if you want to, but don't shoot down other possibilities if you have no evidence beyond your own interpretation.

If it's a small thing, then yeah, but some things (such as "LOL XIANS R MEURDRRZ") are just plain stupid. The Bible is not that vague. Beisdes, the Church is 2000 years old too, and when they first interpreted these things, it was relatively new.

But all in all, my faith is not just in the Bible, but in the Church as well. So whatever the Bible says, I believe in the Church as well, so it has to be interpreted in such a way that both are 100% true. The Bible and the Church never contradict each other.


Many christians think that this is the case. I've never actually read the bible, but I'm sure that there are passages that both refute it and support it, depending on how literally you take it. And who really knows how literally it was intended to be taken? No one knows the authors, so no one can say one way or the other without a doubt.

See? There's the heart of the argument - you've never read it. The Bible is really not that vague. In fact, "thou shalt not murder" is about as far from vague as you can get.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

I believe in the Church as well, so it has to be interpreted in such a way that both are 100% true. The Bible and the Church never contradict each other.

Once more, I don't have any problem with that. Just don't go around instantly telling people that they're idiots because they raise questions about what you've been taught is the truth. It's belief, no more than that. People who disagree with your belief may be right, and you may be right. We won't ever know which while on this Earth.




" See? There's the heart of the argument - you've never read it. The Bible is really not that vague. In fact, "thou shalt not murder" is about as far from vague as you can get.

Yet I've heard that there are passages that also set certain conditions where it is okay. You are no more right to say that people who take these into effect are wrong simply because your morals are at a higher standard than theirs.

[General Septem]

Once more, I don't have any problem with that. Just don't go around instantly telling people that they're idiots because they raise questions about what you've been taught is the truth. It's belief, no more than that. People who disagree with your belief may be right, and you may be right. We won't ever know which while on this Earth.

Like I said, in most cases I agree with you. But not when some bozo is sarcasically pointing out the Bible verses that make Christianity appear to be something it isn't.


Yet I've heard that there are passages that also set certain conditions where it is okay. You are no more right to say that people who take these into effect are wrong simply because your morals are at a higher standard than theirs.

They're probably referring to "stone so-and-so if they do such-and-such". The point of the verse is "don't do such-and-such". Before Jesus came along, the Jews actually did stone people for committing what we think of now as mortal sins. But now we have a Saviour. Now we have forgiveness. Jesus already said "Let the man who has never sinned cast the first stone" anyway, so it's obvious that "stone X for Y" means don't do Y and that Y is a very serious offense. If you can come up with a better interpretation I'm all ears.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Jesus already said "Let the man who has never sinned cast the first stone"

Right there is where your argument may have some merit. Jesus came along and clarified things, and that which is contradictory to what he said would then be wrong.

[General Septem]

Right there is where your argument may have some merit. Jesus came along and clarified things, and that which is contradictory to what he said would then be wrong.
Not wrong. Just no longer necessary, at least in the literal sense. Before Jesus, there was no salvation, and no forgiveness, so people who sinned were just killed. But Jesus came and changed that. However, the "stone X" part of the equation is still helpful - it tells us that the sin in question is a serious one, but because we all sin, we should not be the ones to cast stones - it would be like judging ourselves, because we do the exact same things.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Yes, one of the best messages that the bible has. Love the least of my brothers as you would love me. <<Or something to that intent anyways>>

[General Septem]

Exactly. Now do you see why the guy trying to spite Christians is an idiot? He's trying to say Christianity is against loving your neighbor as yourself.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

He's not necessarily an idiot. He brings up valid points, but nobody has properly explained to him this point that we are talking about now.

[General Septem]

He's not necessarily an idiot. He brings up valid points, but nobody has properly explained to him this point that we are talking about now.
More likely he's just too arrogant to listen. But we'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Thanks, I needed some slack!:o

[General Septem]

Thanks, I needed some slack!:o
...you wrote that letter?

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

No, but I didn't understand why it was so far off until just now.

[General Septem]

Ohh. I hope you don't think I was calling you an idiot back there. :D

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

I could care less what you thought...I was just trying to understand why you had such strong convictions.

[General Septem]

I could care less what you thought...I was just trying to understand why you had such strong convictions.
Ah, ok. Perhaps I took your arguments too personally then. I apologize.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Forget it. If my writing skills were perfect enough that everyone would understand them the way I intended I'd probably be a novelist.

[General Septem]

I'm a novelist and people still misinterpret what I say. :D I think it's just largely the voice that people assign to various texts. That's why it's always a good idea to assume good faith.

[curmudgeon]

"Not wrong. Just no longer necessary, at least in the literal sense. Before Jesus, there was no salvation, and no forgiveness, so people who sinned were just killed. But Jesus came and changed that. However, the "stone X" part of the equation is still helpful - it tells us that the sin in question is a serious one, but because we all sin, we should not be the ones to cast stones - it would be like judging ourselves, because we do the exact same things."

you're wrong about salvation and forgiveness in the Jewish Religion in the time before Jesus' life and today. If you know Scripture as well as you say you do, you know this to be true. The ritual sacrifices themselves were done to atone, to redeem, to beg forgiveness, as prescribed by the various offerings for various transgressions, first of all. But overall, the Bible, what you call the Old Testament, is full of pleadings to G-d for forgiveness, and many references to G-d forgiving, averting his anger, giving the Jews MANY additional chances to redeem themselves even though the Jews repeatedly doubted G-d. Your characterization of the Jewish religion as having no mercy or forgiveness is unfortunately a widely held Christian notion without merit.

[General Septem]

Well technically, the Catholic belief is that before Jesus came, there was this place called Sheol, and everyone went there when they died, either in preparation for Jesus to come and cleanse them so that they can go into Heaven, or waiting for hell. So technically there was salvation in that people who died before then could still go to Heaven, but they didn't actually go into Heaven until Jesus's death and ressurection.

The fact remains that while Jews used to stone people to death for what we think of as mortal sins, even though they may have been justified at the time, it would not be justified today because Jesus said not to. Also it would not have been justified for just anyone to throw stones at people; that had to be done by the Jewish "government".

Are you Jewish?

[curmudgeon]

that concept of "the grave" is a meaning bestowed upon the word sheol by minds ignorant of Jewish teachings and sage interpretations of the Torah. It must be established that in any intelligent discussion of the 5 written books of Moses, they were accompanied from the start by the Oral Torah, which was handed from father to son, teacher to pupil, until codified into the Talmud as the Jews were dispersed after the destruction of the Second Temple. This Oral Torah set forth interpretations, explanations, and expositions of the Written Torah that clarifies and expands upon what is written. Without thorough study and understanding of Oral Torah, countless non-Jewish translators and interpreters of Jewish Scriptures get all kinds of concepts and definitions completely wrong.

Having said that, the supposition by Catholicism that all Jews were in "the pit", waiting for Salvation by the Messiah, which you believe was Jesus, is quite a stretch and a direct contradiction of the Torah, both written and oral (Torah/Talmud). Jews go to heaven after being judged by G-d to be worthy of heaven. Period. When the Messiah comes, speedily in our days, we pray, the Kingdom of Heaven will reside on earth. All souls of the dead will be resurrected. That is not to say that they are currently in "Sheol". That is a twisting and a corruption of G-d's word. But, of course, it's well known that Christians have rewritten the Bible to suit their own needs from the very start, including Scriptures as basic and fundamental as the Ten Commadments, so what's to stop the Catholic Church from bastardizing and corrupting any other part of the Bible it sees fit?

I hope your question of my being Jewish or not has also been answered. :)

[General Septem]

Actually no such evidence has been presented to support the notion that the Catholic Church has changed the Bible in any way, and certainly not the Ten Commandments. I've seen the Jewish Ten Commandments and they're exactly the same except for the numbering. That's like saying merely translating it is a "bastardization". As for the rest of your post it doesn't really matter. I was merely defending the Bible against people who would claim that it says to kill people for random things.

[Paisleyspeaker]

General in your rush to defend your religion , I think you missed the point of the first post. It was addressing something many non-christians and sorta christains wonder about. Why are people told that the teachings of Leviticus don't really matter, because Jesus made a second covenant with us. Yet the far right will turn around and quote the same book as reasons for or against behavior. Either it matters of it doesn't. And I did re-read the verses about Sodom and Gommorah and God killed them for being immoral, but does not specifically call them for homosexuality, it could be for rape, or being poor hosts (which in the desert was a matter of importance) it is assumed that God wan't to kill them because the want to "know" Lot's guests.
So either stop quoting Leviticus in you arguments against homosexuality, or put down the lobster.

[General Septem]

And it appears not only have you missed my points, Helen (can I call you Helen? You can call me John if you wish), but all the words in between them too.

I don't know where you got the idea that Christians think Leviticus doesn't matter. If it didn't matter, the conference of Catholic Bishops in circa 200 AD would've voted to have it removed, when they came up with the official books of the Catholic Bible.

Why do we eat whatever we want regardless of Leviticus's guidelines of what you can and can not eat? Because Jesus told us numerous times that we can eat what we want. "Nothing that goes into the mouth can defile, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles. (Thus, he delcared all foods "clean")." But Jesus also said that not one jot nor tittle would disappear from the Law and the Prophets. How can all foods be clean and unclean at the same time? The only explanation is that they are unclean in that they are potentially unhealthy for the body, yet it is not a sin to eat them.

As coincidence would have it, many doctors have found Leviticus's food guidelines to be very healthy. On the other hand, pigs used to have a worm in them that could cause serious illnesses if not properly cooked. This issue wasn't actually fixed until fairly recently.

So what about stoning people to death? The command to stone people to death wasn't a command to stone people but rather a warning as to the seriousness of the sin. Jesus said, "let the man who has never sinned cast the first stone", but this does not mean "any man who has sex with another man should be stoned to death" is made invalid; the "should be stoned to death" just means something different now: it means "it is a very serious offense".

So like I said, I don't know where you got the idea that Leviticus doesn't mean anything anymore, and that presumption almost puts you on the same level with whomever wrote that letter.

[Paisleyspeaker]

I say that about Leviticus, because when I ask about it most people just say "Oh were Christian not Jewish so we don't have to worry about that" I always thought that the dietary laws showed logic and foresight, for reasons you stated. But being the book of/for the Tribe of Levi it also contains a lot of information on offerings and other rituals that we don't follow. I didn't mean to imply the book held no value, but that we as christians are not held to the letter of all those laws, and I wonder about the process of picking and choosing.

[General Septem]

and I wonder about the process of picking and choosing.
If you'd read my posts, you needn't. First off, some things are said to be "unclean" and some things are said to be an abomination. There is a difference. Other things, if taken at face value, would be against Jesus's teachings, so they must have a deeper meaning. I've gone into a few of the specifics.

[Nobody]

that concept of "the grave" is a meaning bestowed upon the word sheol by minds ignorant of Jewish teachings and sage interpretations of the Torah. It must be established that in any intelligent discussion of the 5 written books of Moses, they were accompanied from the start by the Oral Torah, which was handed from father to son, teacher to pupil, until codified into the Talmud as the Jews were dispersed after the destruction of the Second Temple. This Oral Torah set forth interpretations, explanations, and expositions of the Written Torah that clarifies and expands upon what is written. Without thorough study and understanding of Oral Torah, countless non-Jewish translators and interpreters of Jewish Scriptures get all kinds of concepts and definitions completely wrong.

Having said that, the supposition by Catholicism that all Jews were in "the pit", waiting for Salvation by the Messiah, which you believe was Jesus, is quite a stretch and a direct contradiction of the Torah, both written and oral (Torah/Talmud). Jews go to heaven after being judged by G-d to be worthy of heaven. Period. When the Messiah comes, speedily in our days, we pray, the Kingdom of Heaven will reside on earth. All souls of the dead will be resurrected. That is not to say that they are currently in "Sheol". That is a twisting and a corruption of G-d's word. But, of course, it's well known that Christians have rewritten the Bible to suit their own needs from the very start, including Scriptures as basic and fundamental as the Ten Commadments, so what's to stop the Catholic Church from bastardizing and corrupting any other part of the Bible it sees fit?

I hope your question of my being Jewish or not has also been answered. :)..Rooney; I don't remember any of Jewish desent being from Ireland. And how does anyone know, that the 'ANDY ROONEY' was making a post? Go on 60 minutes, and make some type of related statement. There are enough people here, that someone will conferm it.

[tommygun]

hahahahahaha