Why can't I own a Canadian?

mattslope · 11-03-2009, 12:10 AM

Quote:

October 2002
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

Interesting thought on Levitical law and it's logical conclusion.

earlessdog · 11-03-2009, 12:20 AM

Very interesting. But as we see in the New Testament, some of God's laws changed. *jesus*

mattslope · 11-03-2009, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by earlessdog

Very interesting. But as we see in the New Testament, some of God's laws changed. *jesus*

Where did Jesus tell us we could plant two different crops in the same field.

Gwenny · 11-03-2009, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattslope

Where did Jesus tell us we could plant two different crops in the same field.

When the veil was torn in two, the old laws passed away. So basically Jesus dying on the cross for our sins, defeating Satan, death, hell, and the grave, makes it possible to plant two different crops in the same field.

However, most farmers don't plant two crops in the same field because it doesn't really help with producing a large crop or getting the most for your money.

Not that anyone cares.

Adam K · 11-03-2009, 01:46 AM

Maybe we should ask why these laws existed in the first place. How much was their existence influenced by the function of the specific culture in which they were given? What bigger story were they a part of? Then as people living in the "New Testament" we must ask ourselves: "Why did God's law 'change' from 'physical' to 'spiritual'? And how are each of these terms defined? What is the "Spirit of the Law"?

Is the "physical" aspect of God's law done away with? Not at all. It has just been realized within the context of the "spiritual". God's people, while still 'physical' are no longer defined, or tied together, by a physical race but rather are tied together spiritually by one faith in Christ.

Love is the "Spirit of the Law". It is the ultimate expression of who God is and why we exist. Love is not something that seeks its own pleasure. Love is not something that seeks entitlement. Love is not something that is private. Love seeks what is ultimately good for the community.

normajean777 · 11-03-2009, 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by earlessdog

Very interesting. But as we see in the New Testament, some of God's laws changed. *jesus*

Why did the law on homosexuality not change, while laws on planting crops, slaves, etc, did change?

Or is there a new testament passage that is against homosexuality?

Adam K · 11-03-2009, 03:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by normajean777

Why did the law on homosexuality not change, while laws on planting crops, slaves, etc, did change?

Or is there a new testament passage that is against homosexuality?

The question is not "Why did these laws change, and then these didn't?" It's understanding what God's Law has always been about: Love. The specific details of these laws were adjusted to the specific culture, but these laws were always underlined by Love. Love seeks the good of the whole, the community. These specific laws were an expression of this Love.

As for homosexuality I won't get into it much, but it seems to be the product of making Love something private and a choice that only seeks the interests of individual rather than of the community. Paul points out in 1 Corinthians 13 that this is exactly not what God's Love is all about.

mattslope · 11-03-2009, 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by normajean777

Why did the law on homosexuality not change, while laws on planting crops, slaves, etc, did change?

Or is there a new testament passage that is against homosexuality?

1 Corinthians 6
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Paul places homosexuals in the same boat as remarried women (in Matthew 19:9 and Luke 16:8 Jesus calls these people and their husbands adulterers).

normajean777 · 11-03-2009, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattslope

1 Corinthians 6
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Paul places homosexuals in the same boat as remarried women (in Matthew 19:9 and Luke 16:8 Jesus calls these people and their husbands adulterers).

Thank you very much. It seems to me that everyone points to the OT only for support on that, which made me question if there was any NT support.

**tmlfan123** · 11-03-2009, 07:40 AM

I dunno about Levitical law, but the question in the name of the thread is obviously rhetorical.

Ax · 11-03-2009, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by normajean777

Thank you very much. It seems to me that everyone points to the OT only for support on that, which made me question if there was any NT support.

Quote:

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

I believe this one here is the main verse in the NT dealing with it.