Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Philosophy/religion

Join our Philosophy forum to discuss religion and spirituality.

Leviticus view of homosexuality

10 replies

flameboy · 24/01/2008 17:38

just thought I would share this with you all

Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show.

Recently, she said that homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned in any circumstance.

The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet:

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 I 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 specific laws and how to follow them.

a) 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 neighbours. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) 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?

c) 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 offence.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbour 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?

f) 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?

g) 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?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by ev.19:27. How should they die?

I) 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?

j) 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 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 disciple and adoring fan.
Jake

OP posts:
DaddyJ · 24/01/2008 17:54

Amusing and welcome reminder that fundamentalism comes in lots of different guises.

To bastardise a funny from Omid Djalili:
It's not just Muslims who know how to put the fun back into fundamentalism!

ruty · 24/01/2008 17:56

it is odd that the christian right seem to get obsessed about that one little bit of Leviticus and conveniently miss out the rest. I wonder why that could be? Bigotry, sexual repression, low IQs? Never.

ruty · 24/01/2008 17:57

LOL about owning Mexicans and not Canadians.

smeeinit · 24/01/2008 17:57

thats is very very good!
thanks for sharing it.

Tamum · 24/01/2008 17:58

That's a superb letter, it really is. I liked g and j particularly.

Tommy · 24/01/2008 18:02

excellent - I used to use a similar argument (though not so eloquent or amusing unfortunately) in my RS classes

Peachy · 24/01/2008 18:08

That's great, I have a few mates I can sned that on to LOL.......

Very similar to an argument we used yesterday actually in Uni

And of course the absic Christian idea that Jesus and the covenant of love supersedes the OT stuff

Thanks for posting X

Sugarmagnolia · 24/01/2008 18:48

very, very good!

Heathcliffscathy · 24/01/2008 18:53

literal interpretation of the Bible is entirely indefensible isn't it? not to say nonsensical.

SueBaroo · 24/01/2008 18:59

I've got a rebuttal of that somewhere, actually, but I can't find it on my links right now.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page