Funny email my buddy received

[Shell B]

Forgive me if any of you have already seen this, but I laughed my ass off when I read it, so I thought I would share. I have no idea who actually wrote it, just so you know.

Some enlightening Biblical guidelines for modern living:

In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlessinger 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. It's funny, as well as informative:

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? Should I smite him?

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 e 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

P.S. It would be a damn shame if we can't own a Canadian

[Rev. Rye]

I'm not entirely sure, but I think I posted something like this somewhere before. I've heard that the "proper" reply is that the laws mentioned, for the most part, fall under the ritual section of the Mosaic law, and that the rules against homosexuality falls under the ethical section. So, I countered with another example: In Exodus 21:15 and 17, a chapter after the Ten Commandments are written, God says it is okay for parents to kill unruly children. Deutoronomy 21:18-21 further expounds upon this.

Edit: I found the thing as I mentioned on this very forum:

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) 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?
5) Is the fact that a rule is in the Bible enough of a reason to keep it alive?

I'd love to see what some theists think of this argument, since I didn't get any replies from theists the first time around.

[chasm]

Hilarious!

[theophilus]

When God made a covenant with Israel his commands included some which were intended only for them and are no longer in effect. However the fact that homosexual practice is wrong can be shown from other parts of the Bible.

Genesis 2:24 says, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." This passage is quoted by Jesus in Matthew 19:5 as referring to marriage and by Paul in 6:16 are referring to sexual intercourse. This shows that God's intention was for sex to be only between a man and woman who are married to each other and any other kind of sexual union is a sin.

First Corinthians 6:9-11 says "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

This shows that homosexual practice is a sin but it is no different from other sins and can be forgiven just as any other sin can.

[downbeatplumb]

Can I have a canadian?

[Edwardo Piet]

This shows that homosexual practice is a sin but it is no different from other sins and can be forgiven just as any other sin can.

And you believe it is wrong because God says so right?

Why don't you think for yourself instead? What harm do some of these "sins" really cause?

EvF

[Minimalist]

This shows that homosexual practice is a sin but it is no different from other sins and can be forgiven just as any other sin can.

There are a lot of catholic priests who will be delighted to hear you say so.

[Rev. Rye]

When God made a covenant with Israel his commands included some which were intended only for them and are no longer in effect. However the fact that homosexual practice is wrong can be shown from other parts of the Bible.

Genesis 2:24 says, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." This passage is quoted by Jesus in Matthew 19:5 as referring to marriage and by Paul in 6:16 are referring to sexual intercourse. This shows that God's intention was for sex to be only between a man and woman who are married to each other and any other kind of sexual union is a sin.

First Corinthians 6:9-11 says "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

This shows that homosexual practice is a sin but it is no different from other sins and can be forgiven just as any other sin can.

Quite honestly, I'd like to see what you think of this scenario:

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) 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?
5) Is the fact that a rule is in the Bible enough of a reason to keep it alive?

[The Omnissiunt One]

Quite honestly, I'd like to see what you think of this scenario:

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) 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?
5) Is the fact that a rule is in the Bible enough of a reason to keep it alive?

From the perspective of a Christian, following Jesus' principles of love and forgiveness, my advice would be... STONE THE LITTLE BASTARDS!

(P.S. shooting them is less fun).

[Godscreated]

Rev. Rye this was covered in another post a few months back and I do not remember which one it was so lets do this again. In ancient times the integrity of the family name was extremely important, it was more valuable than most everything else mainly because it's all most people had. Now this was no reason to stone kids to death and that is not what the passage intends. This passage and others I quoted in the previous post are referring to adults (the children of such and such) not small children. Little kids were not drunkards as you would have the Bible read nor were they profligates again trying to make the Bible state something it doesn't. Maybe it would help if you studied the two underlined words. This law was given to protect the family name against uncaring adult childern that had no respect for their parents or the good name they were born to. People today have a hard time understanding this and I believe it's because of the attitude of selfishness (get out of life what you want and forsake all others).