|
25 Mar 09 - 07:44 AM (#2596841) Subject: BS: Dear Dr Laura From: Jack Blandiver This turned up in my mail box the other day: * Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she 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 is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a east coast 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 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. Your devoted fan, Jim |
|
25 Mar 09 - 08:58 AM (#2596894) Subject: RE: BS: Dear Dr Laura From: wysiwyg This is not "recently." It was read to me as "new" 5 years ago. ~S~ |
|
25 Mar 09 - 09:17 AM (#2596905) Subject: RE: BS: Dear Dr Laura From: GUEST,saulgoldie There may be some people who have not seen it. When I send recycled stuff, I almost always get a "Thank you" of some sort from someone on the list. I thought I remembered this one. But I will send it around and see what people say. Saul |
|
25 Mar 09 - 10:07 AM (#2596936) Subject: RE: BS: Dear Dr Laura From: GUEST,Steve Very good - does it really matter if it is 5 years old!! |
|
25 Mar 09 - 10:22 AM (#2596954) Subject: RE: BS: Dear Dr Laura From: meself Snopes doesn't know if the letter is "authentic" - but intimates, sensibly, that that is beside the point. |
|
25 Mar 09 - 10:52 AM (#2596980) Subject: RE: BS: Dear Dr Laura From: Wesley S On an episode of one of my favorite TV series - The West Wing - they acted out the content of that e-mail. They had the President of the United States confront a similar radio host and ask her most of the same questions. I miss that show. |
|
25 Mar 09 - 10:54 AM (#2596984) Subject: RE: BS: Dear Dr Laura From: wysiwyg corrected post I was reacting to this portion: "Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew...." I'd be more curious to know what she has said lately, as most human beans I know change and grow with time. She's a brilliant woman-- despite any flawed views she may hold-- so, I'm curious what she might be saying MORE "recently." BTW when I get a forwarded email like that (if it contains an inaccuracy like a 5-year-old "recently") I correct it before further forwarding it. Just because we receive an email suggesting we forward it doesn't mean we have to pass it on un-critically. It would be fun to look back in my saved emails to see what I was sure of 5 years ago that is no longer rigidly held. It would not surprise me if that applied to most people. ~Susan |
|
25 Mar 09 - 11:16 AM (#2597000) Subject: RE: BS: Dear Dr Laura From: Jack Blandiver New to me & fresh as a daisy! |
|
25 Mar 09 - 11:41 AM (#2597029) Subject: RE: BS: Dear Dr Laura From: wysiwyg SS, I think it was you with which I enjoyed an incipiently-rational series of posts in another thread. If I am correct, I posted back in that one and hain't seen your thoughts there yet. Was looking. Posts or PM welcome. ~S~ |
|
25 Mar 09 - 11:50 AM (#2597037) Subject: RE: BS: Dear Dr Laura From: Jim Dixon Would you believe 8 ½ years ago? Liz the Squeak, 22-Aug-2000 GUEST,Libral, 05-Feb-2001 ddw, 27-Feb-2001 Murray MacLeod, 27-Feb-2001 JennyO, 04-Sep-2004 Peace, 22-Sep-2005 Peace, 28-Jan-2006 |
|
25 Mar 09 - 11:54 AM (#2597039) Subject: RE: BS: Dear Dr Laura From: Alice Dr. Laura is no longer an Orthodox Jew. She renunciated the religion on her radio show in July, 2003. (see snopes.com) In Oct. 2000, Dr. Laura ran a full page apology for her poorly chosen words about homosexuality. I used to hear Dr. Laura's show on radio during a time when I worked at a job where the radio was on for her show. I don't agree with her politics, but I found her to be very committed to helping people have healthy, positive relationships, whether her callers were gay or straight. Gay people would call her for advice, too. Read this message from one of her gay listeners on her blog; http://www.drlaurablog.com/category/homosexuality/ The full Snopes fact finding about this email that has circulated for years is at: http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp I think people should know the truth about her, rather than just continuing to forward that email. |
|
25 Mar 09 - 12:03 PM (#2597050) Subject: RE: BS: Dear Dr Laura From: jonm Should be "renounced," too, although actually I prefer renunciated. |
|
25 Mar 09 - 01:40 PM (#2597132) Subject: RE: BS: Dear Dr Laura From: wysiwyg No shit! I'm right, already?!?!??! ~S~ |
|
25 Mar 09 - 02:06 PM (#2597149) Subject: RE: BS: Dear Dr Laura From: Amergin Back in 1992, there was a measure here in Oregon called Measure 9....which was against homosexuality and the so called promotion of such...in the voter's pamphlet there was something that was quite similar to this letter...... |
|
25 Mar 09 - 03:22 PM (#2597201) Subject: RE: BS: Dear Dr Laura From: Jim Dixon Years ago, I used to listen to Dr. Laura regularly on my car radio while I drove to work, until my local talk-radio station dropped her from its schedule. Of course her opinions sometimes made me want to puke, but—I don't know, maybe I have a masochistic streak. Once in a while she would say something that made me think. For instance, she once said something like this to a drug addict who was protesting her own inability to kick the habit (And, note, I am paraphrasing from memory, and maybe even embellishing with my own thoughts and rhetoric—I can no longer tell the difference!):
People choose to endure pain all the time. What about the person who donates a kidney to save a life? Do you think they don't experience pain? They experience lots of pain, yet they do it willingly, because they know it serves a higher purpose. You can do that, too. If you go through life avoiding pain at all costs, you simply aren't a moral person. * I was intrigued to hear that Dr. Laura had changed some of her more strident views, so I looked at the link on "Homosexuality" given above. The first thing I notice is that she puts it under the heading "Hate Mail" and she starts off whining about the awful things people have said about her. She hasn't changed all that much. |
|
25 Mar 09 - 05:38 PM (#2597311) Subject: RE: BS: Dear Dr Laura From: Slag The "Law" you refer to is the "Jewish" Law, given to the Jews! Among some 600+ laws were some most every nation keeps to this day, in one form or another, that is, the general laws such as prohibition against lying, stealing and murder. Many of the laws were and are cultural and some uniquely Jewish (Kosher). Since the destruction of the Jewish Temple by Rome in 70 AD, no Jew has been able to keep the whole Law. Compensations have been made for the physical inability to keep the Law. Slavery, in one form or another, was with Mankind for most all of history and still exists in some places. Christ came as "King of the Jews" and NOT as anything else. In many instances he would refuse to acknowledge Gentiles although he hinted through out his ministry that he had "sheep of another fold". Christ summed up the laws in this statement "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, and all thy soul, and with all thy mind (Mt 22 37)...Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." (Mt 22:39). It is the Christian position that Christ was the fulfillment of the Law and the ultimate sacrifices for ALL sin for all time (reference John 3 and Romans 8:1). In Christ ALL are forgiven. It is the height of foolishness to point to an other's sin and not consider your own self a sinner. The Law was not like a net where you could break a few strands and still be upheld. It is a single strand and a break at any point means a fall. To spare you any tedious theology let me just say this: Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. |
|
25 Mar 09 - 06:14 PM (#2597334) Subject: RE: BS: Dear Dr Laura From: Ref Dr. Laura (who is NOT a doctor of medicine, psychiatry, or psychology) is just another glib know-it-all with a shtick to sell. She stopped finding anyone to sell it to in my neighborhood a long time ago, perhaps because she became such a joke with her own sordid past and dysfunctional family. I'm sure if you look around a bit, you'll find a link to her nude pictures, though I'll warn you they're no more attractive than her repellent personality. |
|
25 Mar 09 - 06:34 PM (#2597348) Subject: RE: BS: Dear Dr Laura From: olddude I make it a point not listen to hate peddlers no matter who they are or what the background is. No room for more hate of any type in this world we have a belly full of it. Be it from liberal or conservative or any other place. I leave such things up to a higher authority. |
|
25 Mar 09 - 07:30 PM (#2597397) Subject: RE: BS: Dear Dr Laura From: Jack Blandiver Christ summed up the laws in this statement "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, and all thy soul, and with all thy mind (Mt 22 37)...Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." (Mt 22:39). Luke 16:17 |
|
25 Mar 09 - 09:11 PM (#2597462) Subject: RE: BS: Dear Dr Laura From: Ref SS: I've had self-described Christians look at me blankly when I (a UU Humanist) quoted those two commandments of Christ to them. The truth is, most of those who call themselves Christians are really Paulists, following the rigid, authoritarian model Paul set up to consolidate his own power. While I'm not convinced one man ever lived that did the things ascribed to Jesus, I doubt he'd recognize his church were he to return. |
|
26 Mar 09 - 10:46 AM (#2597761) Subject: RE: BS: Dear Dr Laura From: Jack Blandiver I was actually referring to what Christ said with respect of the Old Law in Luke 16, verse 17 - However, it is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for one stroke of a letter in the Law to be dropped. - including, presumably, the insanities of Leviticus, especially given what Jesus goes on to say in verse 18: Any man who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. The parable of The Rich man & Lazarus makes this even more bizarre. I am an atheist, not without good reason! |
|
27 Mar 09 - 01:10 AM (#2598316) Subject: RE: BS: Dear Dr Laura From: Slag Christ's "Sermon on the Mount" (Mt 5,6,7) demonstrates the spirit of the law and also the impossibility for any son of Adam to uphold the law at all points. To look upon a woman with lust was an act of adultery. To hate some one, any one, was to have murder in your heart. To envy anyone was tantamount to theft. Conclusion? The Law could save no one. It can only point out our inability to keep it. It can only condemn. This doesn't mean the Law is wrong or insane. It means that Mankind needs something other than the Law to save it. SS's solution is to nullify the Law by ignoring it or abrogating it. Try that with the State's laws and see how far that gets you with the judge. More than ditto with God's laws. That is why, within the scope of Judeo-Christian theology, it is the doctrine of the Grace of God that save all who place their faith in it. To the Jews, it is the sacrifice of the Passover which spares them. To the Christian it is the sacrifice of Christ which will bring one into the right relationship with God. Notice I said "within the scope of Judeo-Christian theology". No one (least of all I) is saying that it is your imperative. If you don't believe then you don't believe. True, Christ said "whosoever will may come" but to those who considered themselves righteous he said (quoting Hosea 6:6 in part) "'I will have mercy, and not sacrifice': for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." (Mt 9:13). So, if you believe your own standards are superior, fine. If you believe in your own righteousness, fine. If you believe none of it or your own version of it fine but for we who believe that the Bible (including the New Testament) IS the inspired word of God, we look to Jesus the Christ as our atonement with God. There. That's easy to understand and should be of no offense to any who choose to believe differently. As in most everything, if it doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't apply. |
|
27 Mar 09 - 07:22 PM (#2598920) Subject: RE: BS: Dear Dr Laura From: Jack Blandiver So, if you believe your own standards are superior, fine. If you believe in your own righteousness, fine. Is this directed at me? |
|
27 Mar 09 - 09:43 PM (#2598983) Subject: RE: BS: Dear Dr Laura From: olddude well my favourite is in John when the woman was caught in the act of adultery. the law said She is to be stoned and she was brought to the lord.. Christ said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and one by one starting from the oldest they walked away and when noone was left he said is there no one left to condemn you, no lord..then go and sin no more that is my God one of peace and love |
|
28 Mar 09 - 02:16 AM (#2599040) Subject: RE: BS: Dear Dr Laura From: GUEST,Slag Precisely! |
|
29 Mar 09 - 02:57 AM (#2599631) Subject: RE: BS: Dear Dr Laura From: Seamus Kennedy well my favourite is in John when the woman was caught in the act of adultery. the law said She is to be stoned and she was brought to the lord.. Christ said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" Then a rock came flying out of the crowd and hit the adultress on the head and knocked her out. And Jesus turned to the person who threw it and said' "Mother! Cut that out!"" Seamus |
|
29 Mar 09 - 06:13 AM (#2599680) Subject: RE: BS: Dear Dr Laura From: Jack Blandiver My favourite is when Jesus said be Passers-by (Gospel of Thomas,#42) |
|
29 Mar 09 - 11:40 AM (#2599816) Subject: RE: BS: Dear Dr Laura From: GUEST,Jack The Sailor Seamus!!! LOL! |