The Dr. Laura Gambit Redux.

[Rev. Rye]

You've probably discovered the essay where somebody points out the fallacy in Dr. Laura Schlessinger's argument that homosexuality is wrong because of Leviticus, by showing that there are a lot more absurd laws in Leviticus that we don't follow today. However, many Christians will say that the argument doesn't stand because they divide the Mosaic code into the ethical and the ritual, and it is only the ritual section that Christ made invalid. We will ignore, for the time being, that Dr. Laura is an Orthodox Jew and likely doesn't believe that Christ made any part of the law invalid, and for that matter, that there is little evidence that Jesus intended for any of the law to become invalid. Instead, we will focus on a reformulated version of the argument.

A Teacher has trouble with her unruly students. It must be noted that the Bible contains excellent advice for this problem in Deuteronomy 21:18-21. "If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid."
Some dilemmas arise from this situation:

1) Do teachers have the same authority to condemn the children under their care as parents, especially since they act "in loco parentis" (in place of the parents)?
2) Should heavy drinking on the student's part be required for a stoning to take place, or is rebellion enough?
3) Does one need stones to carry it out or would a bullet be a useful alternative?
4) Is the fact that a rule is in the Bible enough of a reason to keep it alive?
5) If you're going to use the argument that Jesus made some parts of the Mosaic Code obsolete, then how do you explain Mark 7, where Jesus criticizes priests for failing to follow this particular rule?

[downbeatplumb]

You've probably discovered the essay where somebody points out the fallacy in Dr. Laura Schlessinger's argument that homosexuality is wrong because of Leviticus, by showing that there are a lot more absurd laws in Leviticus that we don't follow today. However, many Christians will say that the argument doesn't stand because they divide the Mosaic code into the ethical and the ritual, and it is only the ritual section that Christ made invalid. We will ignore, for the time being, that Dr. Laura is an Orthodox Jew and likely doesn't believe that Christ made any part of the law invalid, and for that matter, that there is little evidence that Jesus intended for any of the law to become invalid. Instead, we will focus on a reformulated version of the argument.

A Teacher has trouble with her unruly students. It must be noted that the Bible contains excellent advice for this problem in Deuteronomy 21:18-21. "If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid."
Some dilemmas arise from this situation:

1) Do teachers have the same authority to condemn the children under their care as parents, especially since they act "in loco parentis" (in place of the parents)?
2) Should heavy drinking on the student's part be required for a stoning to take place, or is rebellion enough?
3) Does one need stones to carry it out or would a bullet be a useful alternative?
4) Is the fact that a rule is in the Bible enough of a reason to keep it alive?
5) If you're going to use the argument that Jesus made some parts of the Mosaic Code obsolete, then how do you explain Mark 7, where Jesus criticizes priests for failing to follow this particular rule?

Ah leviticus, most troublesome of all books.
I read this recently and came to the conclusion that Leviticus was a git.

[Violet]

If your argument against homosexuality is based on the Bible... then you ain't got much of an argument Nuff said