=: 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. For example, when someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
However, I do need some advice from you regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them.
1. 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?
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. 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?
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?
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?
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, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
OT stuff from nikos blog of 4-Jan-2008
Moderator: Site Mods
Since, we are being biblical here, I could not resist posting this joke found on the Web. No offense meant!
:yawn:
That "Letter" has been bouncing around the internet for almost a decade in various forms.
ref: http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp
That "Letter" has been bouncing around the internet for almost a decade in various forms.
ref: http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp
Re: fgagnon's yawn:
What can I say? It was new to me and I enjoyed it.
The "letter's" provenance is almost irrelevant. It's the argument that matters. I find it odd that Snopes would weigh in on it. They present an interesting history of the "letter," but Snopes is all about debunking false claims and urban myths; aside from specific false claims of authorship (trivial matters), there's nothing to debunk in the "letter"--unless you want to defend a self-serving and bigoted reading of the Bible. That's a tall order and a fool's errand. That's why the "letter" is good satire.
Invoking Snopes implies there's something illegitimate about the letter itself. I say there isn't.
What can I say? It was new to me and I enjoyed it.
The "letter's" provenance is almost irrelevant. It's the argument that matters. I find it odd that Snopes would weigh in on it. They present an interesting history of the "letter," but Snopes is all about debunking false claims and urban myths; aside from specific false claims of authorship (trivial matters), there's nothing to debunk in the "letter"--unless you want to defend a self-serving and bigoted reading of the Bible. That's a tall order and a fool's errand. That's why the "letter" is good satire.
Invoking Snopes implies there's something illegitimate about the letter itself. I say there isn't.
ahh, but although snopes is best-known for debunking so-called urban legends, one of the reasons I like to check with them is that they are also a reliable resource for reporting the elements of truth in widespread stories such as this. :)
btw, the article I cited agrees with what you say, as do I: [paraphrasing] regardless of the provenance, there is a wonderful satirical truth in the content as it is.
re: so blasé - you are right about that. There was a time I was much entertained by such stuff; but I've seen the better material go around so many times, it is no longer novel to me and has lost any edge that it had. Just call me a jaded old fuddy-duddy.
btw, the article I cited agrees with what you say, as do I: [paraphrasing] regardless of the provenance, there is a wonderful satirical truth in the content as it is.
re: so blasé - you are right about that. There was a time I was much entertained by such stuff; but I've seen the better material go around so many times, it is no longer novel to me and has lost any edge that it had. Just call me a jaded old fuddy-duddy.