Author:
Taxonomy upgrade extras:
Leviticus rules
Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 15:38:30 +0800
This was sent to me today. It is self-explanatory and, in my opinion, very, very funny:
In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant 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 neighbouring 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 odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. 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, 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?
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 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
(It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian :)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
Hilarious.
But sad, really. There are people using 'evidence' from the same book to justify so much. It genuinely puzzles me.
Robi
OMGROTFL...!
You're very funny. I loved this and being a Canadian I'm naturally drawn to reading the post but honestly have mixed feelings about it. If my slaves have to come from neighboring countries then I'm being forced to Buy American!
I mean buying a Brit would just be too much bother with shipping and handling and everything.
I wonder...Iceland's closer...with the volcano could I get a fire sale.
I love number 4.
It just goes to show that God considers BBQ to be holy sacrament.
Finally something to like about the guy.
Bailey Summers
Ste. Pierre et Miquelon
France still owns a couple of islands off the south end of Newfoundland that are actually French soil. I'd say they qualify, assuming you can use a fisherman for anything.
Do You Canuck?
See my story "Freedomia Rules".
http://bigclosetr.us/topshelf/fiction/4182/freedomia-rules
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
hysteric
hysterically funny, I love it, thank you, hugs Daphne
Daphne
Same Response
The President Bartlett character in the West Wing show did an almost identical response to a Dr. Laura clone in one of the episodes. I had such a good laugh at that. I love irony! Hugs and love, Cindy
Let's see....
...Glasses...check....cotton/polyester dress....check....pigskin gloves....check....polyester DRESS (A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this. Deut. 22:5)....check....Ready when you are, C.B.!
P.S. http://www.whosoever.org/
She was born for all the wrong reasons but grew up for all the right ones.
Con grande amore e di affetto, Andrea Lena
Love, Andrea Lena
cotton/polyester blend
The rules having been made before polyester was invented, don't address them at all.
The only "mixture" of fabrics prohibited (in most situations) is "shatnez," a particular mixture of linen and wool. On the other hand, shatnez is required in the garments of the Kohein Gadol, the High Priest in the Temple service, so it may in fact be a sumptuary law, like the laws preventing commoners from wearing cloth-of-gold or certain colours in antiquity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shatnez
Cheers,
Puddin'
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
More About Leviticus
Leviticus, really? Conservative Christians, are you really sure you want to use Leviticus as a religious guide? Do you have any idea what it is?
The Levites were the tribe who provided the priestly caste to the Temple. Leviticus is a guide written for the conduct of the priests and the operation of the Temple. Let's talk about Temple Judaism at the time of Leviticus for a second.
The religion practiced in the Temple bore pretty close to zero relationship to what we now think of as Jewish religious practice under the Rabbinic form of Judaism. (Jesus, in the opinion of some, was the first Rabbi in the modern tradition.) In fact, the form of Temple worship would be appalling to most people today. Prayer, singing, and religious study were only for the Priests. Most people were illiterate. Religious worship for the parishioners consisted of bringing an offering, an animal to be slaughtered upon the Altar, the life-force given to God. The priests could keep certain parts of the animal for their own use, but I gather the parishioners could cart the rest away and cook it up. So, the Temple was, functionally, a ritual abattoir, a place of blood sacrifices upon an Altar as a way of seeking favor with God.
In case anyone hasn't noticed, the Temple is gone, blood sacrifice is gone, the Jewish Priests are gone (the hereditary priestly caste still exists, but they only get to do a few honorary ritual things at religious services, if present, and if not, no biggie), literacy and study are in, equality is in, prayer is in, and the leader of a Jewish congregation is called a teacher ("rabbi") and he or she is optional. In fact, all that is necessary to conduct a Jewish service is 10 confirmed Jews. Leviticus is a relic, and that's in Judaism!
What relevance it should have in Christianity is. lemme see... Jesus was a paradigm shift, out with the old covenant, in with the new, so, um... none?
But if you're really determined to be a relic, and follow the handbook of an extinct blood-sacrifice religion, take a look at Leviticus 7 and Leviticus 19. If your critter has been dead more than two days (raw, cooked, whatever, it doesn't care), and you eat any of it, you are an abomination. Doesn't matter if you're eating a ham sandwich (for which you're already an abomination anyway) or a kosher hot dog. If that animal wasn't walking around contentedly yesterday, fail.
I'm not sure you could practice Temple Judaism today. There are too many laws you'd have to comply with, health inspectors, licenses, etc. The animal rights people would be all over your asses, for sure. But, if you want to follow Leviticus, hey, who am I to stop you, but follow the whole thing!
___________________
If a picture is worth 1000 words, this is at least part of my story.
Health Rules
I suspect that this part refers to primitive disease prevention:
"...take a look at Leviticus 7 and Leviticus 19. If your critter has been dead more than two days (raw, cooked, whatever, it doesn't care), and you eat any of it, you are an abomination. Doesn't matter if you're eating a ham sandwich (for which you're already an abomination anyway) or a kosher hot dog. If that animal wasn't walking around contentedly yesterday, fail."
In those days I guess the standard of refrigeration technology wasn't so good. Meat kept more than two days would probably have gone off. Possibly, the prohibition against pork is because it went off even quicker, I don't know. Or perhaps pigs will happily eat things that would make a human ill without themselves becoming ill.
Same thing with (human) deaths. Get the body in the ground within 24 hours before it starts contaminating everything.
I suspect most of the rules they had which we now consider arbitrary had some practical purpose originally. Of course, at this distance in time we have little chance of figuring out what.
Penny
Don't Quibble
Leviticus is a religious practice manual, not a public health guide.
Dried, smoked, and/or salted meats and fish will keep for weeks without refrigeration.
Ditto with bodies -- witness the Egyptian mummies, dessicated with salts. Still around thousands of years later.
Mmmm...
Does Mummy count as jerky?, or does it fall under manwhich meal?
Mummywhiches....(Homer drool)
Bailey Summers
Actually...
There's fairly strong support within the Jewish tradition for the view that the Temple sacrifice was deliberately meant to make us aware that we were killing living things when we slaughter animals for food, and there's a significant argument for trying to live, or at least work towards, a primarily vegetarian life. The eating of meat and the spilling of blood was a concession to human weakness, not an inherent right, and will, according to some, disappear in the Messianic Age.
The requirement to take a trip, on foot, to the Temple before you threw a few steaks on the barbie ensured that it wasn't a daily occurrence, but a special occasion, and required a little sacrifice (if you'll pardon the pun) on the part of the would-be carnivore, encouraging at least an attempt at spiritual discipline.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/ravkook_...
And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, And the leopard shall lie down with the kid; And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; And a little child shall lead them And the cow and the bear shall feed; Their young ones shall lie down together, And the lion shall eat straw like the ox.... They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain. (Isaiah 11:6-9)
There's a little story, a 'drash if you will, about a small town in Poland whose shochet, a man trained in all the requirements of kosher slaughter, had to retire because of advancing age, so the town elders advertised for a replacement. Several men applied for the post, but all were refused, and finally one stayed to demand to know how he'd failed to get the job, since his knowledge of the Law was perfect, his tools of the very best steel, so sharp they would slice a hair gently wafted by a breath of air across the edge, and his technique beyond reproach.
The elders consulted among themselves for a moment, and finally one approached, saying, "We're very sorry, young man, but we're a little exacting in our requirements. You see, our old shochet, when he drew the blade across the throat of the helpless animal, he wept."
Cheers,
Puddin'
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
Yes, I get that
On a trip Nth some years back I volunteered myself to assist with the butchery of a small Roo. Not a fun experience but it does help to keep it in perspective when I wander up to the local butcher shop. The old hunter gatherer ethos in giving thanks for the animals sacrifice comes to mind. Pretty sure a visit to an abattoir would turn most people vegetarian at least for a short while and I'd worry at anyone that found it pleasant.
Kris
Ah, Penny . . .
You forget, the Bible is the literal word of God, and us humble people are not allowed to interpret it.. Your kind of logic would lead to the conclusion that the prohibition on homosexuality was to ensure the most possible births for the small semi-nomadic tribes that were the norm then. A non-reproductive member was not contributing 100% to the survival of the tribe.
Can't allow that! ;-)
I went outside once. The graphics weren' that great.
>> Can't allow that!
That's not how it is in Judaism, at least. Jews have been arguing with God for thousands of years, and when they haven't, they've been wrestling with angels.
In the Talmud, Bava Mezia 59b, a bunch of Rabbis are sitting around arguing about whether an oven, which had become non-kosher for some reason, could be purified. Almost all of them decided that it was impossible, because the oven's walls were porous, because it was too big, so you couldn't immerse it to clean it, and so on. In fact, everyone agreed that it couldn't be done except Rabbi Eliezer, a particularly learned scholar of great personal merit. Finally, he said to them, 'If the law is according to me, let that carob Âtree prove it.'
He pointed to a nearby carob-tree, which promptly moved from its place a hundred and fifty feet, and some say it moved six hundred feet.
But the other Rabbis said, 'One cannot bring a proof from the moving of a carob tree.'
Rabbi Eliezer then said, 'If the Law is according to me, may that stream of water prove it.'
The stream of water then turned around and flowed in the opposite direction, uphill.
But the other Rabbis said, 'One cannot bring a proof from the behavior of a stream of water.'
Rabbi Eliezer then said, 'If the Law is according to me, may the walls of the House of Study prove it.'
And behold, the walls of the House of Study began to bend inward.
But Rabbi Joshua then rose up and rebuked the walls of the House of Study. 'If the students of the Wise argue with one another in matters of religious Law,' he said, 'what right have you to interfere?'
In honor of Rabbi Joshua, the walls ceased to bend inward; but in honor of Rabbi Eliezer, they did not straighten up, and they remain bent to this day.
'Well, then," said Rabbi Eliezer to the Sages, 'if the Law is according to me, may a proof come forth from Heaven.'
Then a great Voice boomed from the Heavens, saying, 'Why are you bothering Rabbi Eliezer? The Law is according to him in every respect.'
But then Rabbi Joshua rose up to his feet and said, 'It is not in the heavens!' (Deuteronomy 30:12 * It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?)
What did Rabbi Joshua mean by quoting this text?
Rabbi Jeremiah said, 'He meant that since the Torah was given to us on Mount Sinai, we don't pay attention to heavenly voices or miracles, because it is written in the Torah, 'Act according to your own conscience.' (Exodus 23:2 * Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment:).
Rabbi Nathan later met the prophet Elijah, who walked with God after being carried up to Heaven in a chariot of fire, surrounded by the whirlwind, and asked him, 'What was the Holy One, Blessed be He, doing in that same hour?'
Elijah answered, saying, 'He was laughing and then He said, "My children have defeated me, my children have defeated me." '
We can't live our lives looking backwards, nor can we expect daily miracles as crutches to help us decide between right and wrong. We have to look forward, and decisions have to be made in the context of the community we live in. Times change. We change with them.
Cheers,
Puddin'
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
Hahahahahahaha!!!!
Beautiful! Thanks Joanne! :)
Saless
"But it is also tradition that times *must* and always do change, my friend." - Eddie Murphy, Coming To America
very funny.
i only wish that there were not people who really felt like dr. laura in positions of authority