|
|
 |
John
DiMascio
wrote:
|
|
Hi, guys —
A friend sent me this as a joke.
- How would we reply to this?
In defense of Leviticus?
Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality,
who dispenses advice to people who call
in to her radio show. On her recent radio show, 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 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 thought-provoking. |
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 other elements of God's
Laws and how to follow them.
- Leviticus 25:44 states that I may 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 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. (Leviticus 15:19-24)
- The problem is how do I tell?
I have tried asking, but most
women take offense.
- When I burn a bull on the altar as
a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing
odor for the Lord. (Leviticus 1:9) The problem is, my neighbors. They
claim the odor is not pleasing to them.
- I have a neighbor who insists on working
on the Sabbath but 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?
- A friend of mine feels that even though
eating shellfish is an abomination (Leviticus 11:10), it is a lesser abomination
than homosexuality. I don't agree.
- Can you settle this?
- Are there "degrees" of abomination?
- Leviticus 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 Leviticus 19:27.
- I know from Leviticus 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 Leviticus 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 and 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? (Leviticus 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? (Leviticus 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively
and thus enjoy considerable expertise in
such matters, so I am confident you can
help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's
word is eternal and unchanging.
Signed,
An Adoring Fan |
John
|
| {
How
would we logically reply to these reasonable-sounding
objections in the books of Leviticus and Exodus? }
|
|
Andrew replied:
|
Hi, John —
This line of shtick has become a
stock argument for the defenders
of sodomy.
First, the writer picks
the weakest argument against the
sin, pretends that the whole case
against the sin rests on Leviticus
alone, and then he raises reasonable-sounding
objections to it. When I used to hear the "Dr. Laura Show" locally, Leviticus was not at all her only
reference point on the subject, so
the writer is misrepresenting the
lady's argument.
He sets up a straw man, only to put
on a show by knocking it over, and
congratulates himself that he's defeated
the arguments of a prominent, moral
conservative. This is typical of
the dishonest, immature, and sterile
level to which public discourse has
sunk — qualities that mirror
the very perversion the writer is
defending.
It's also an example of how necessary
the natural-law tradition is to Catholic
moral thought.
Arguments that depend
on Scripture alone, apart from what
reason tells us, are indeed easier
for unbelievers to challenge.
— Andrew
|
|
|
|
