In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger 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 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 neighboring 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 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?

5. 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, 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.

A former pastor of mine spent two years in his Church going through Leviticus, and tried to bring a relevant meaning from them. I figure it's a profitable testimony of Christ, but while we were sinners, Christ died for us.

Galatians 5:4 "You who are trying to be declared righteous by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace!"
Galatians 2:21 "I do not set aside God’s grace, because if righteousness could come through the law, then Christ died for nothing!"

"Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God." (2 Cor. 5:20)

Be ye reconciled to God.

So, if one is to make a decision about that statement, one must know what it says. One must know what reconciliation is, and one must know what God is. But what if without knowledge of God, reconciliation is impossible? And what if without reconciliation, knowledge of God is impossible? How do we get going?

One thing we must do is not worry---today's worries are enough for today. There have been many yesterdays, and on many of those yesterdays, the worries of the day predominated, and caused men (and women) to write down things for our use. Here is one such statement:

12 H. 8 fol. 4:


From this, we see a number of facts, determined in a judicial proceeding, an ancient one. We see that Adam is our "first father." And this, of course, means first human father, more like "dad" than like "Papa." We see that all beasts and, yea, even the elements were obedient to Adam. We don't need to read that literally---we can read that as saying that in prehistory, before man had written anything, when man lived only by divine law in relationship with GOD, there was no problem with the environment being too harsh for man.

If we want to use evolutionary language, we find that man evolved in an area where there was sufficient plant-food, tho there was apparently one plant not good to eat. Man's eating of that plant causes him to leave the garden (the area with the abundant plant food) for a desert where man will earn his bread by the sweat of his brow. And you can read all sorts of additional anthropological stories into this---about growing populations that had to move with the food, wars causing troop/population movement, etc. etc.

We find next that Adam "enfreint l' commandement de nostre Seignior Dieu", infringed the commandment of our Lord God. As "punition d's'crime," punishment of his crime, "touts bestes commencent de rebelle & d' estre sauvages," all beasts commenced rebellion and became savage. Before this transgression, the beasts and Adam and Eve were OK. They didn't fight, they didn't have any reason to fight.

So, there's the thing we need to work against if we wish to be reconciled to God---that ongoing infringment of "l' commandement de nostre Seignior Dieu," the commandment of our Lord God. And what is that commandment?

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

And what is death? There is spiritual death and natural death, the death of the body and the death of the soul. The death contemplated in Genesis is, surely, a spiritual death, that is, alienation from God by transgression of his commandment.

Being reconciled to God, therefore, is a return to our natural estate, that natural estate God intended for us, which we enjoyed until we infringed his commandment. The commandment, the one commandment.

After that, we find GOD's mercy extends so far as to appoint Moses his Vicegerent, for the purpose of delivering his Laws to the World. As translated by Alfred, King of the English:



3 and 4 are of particular note, as where the KJV says

"the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee," the authorized statutory translation says "thy father and thy mother whom the Lord hath given thee." This is a radically different translation with severe implications for the Commonwealth, as the whole of commonwealth government is drawn out of this moral law, which purportedly binds people in allegiance to temporal crowns, as "parents of the nation."

The other exceptional difference in the legislated version is the recounting of creation. Where KJV says "the LORD made heaven and earth," this proper translation says "Christ wrought the heavens and the earth." Thus we see that there are multiple heavens but only one earth. We also fine, importantly, that Christ made them.

One of the problems with Christianity these days is that the faithful are under attack, and many compromise with sinners as tho it is a foregone conclusion that Christ cannot win---that is to cheapen Christ's sacrifice. Christ has already won; the issue is one of clearly communicating what that means. Anyone who receives the signal loves it; if they do not love it, they are not receiving the proper signal.

So how, as Christians, do we help that loving signal gain enough amplitude to crush out everything else?

We just have different perspectives Antipas.

that's a continual battle. When we shine light the darkness is removed. When the light withdraws, darkness sets in. I think too often people look to Christians and say "if that's what serving Jesus is all about, no thanks"; when actually, one must look beyond the congregations of man and look to Christ himself to understand what "Christian" is.
Think about it, if Christians were just like Jesus, there wouldn't be a problem. But our shortcomings, our transgressions of Christ's commands only put dark clouds in front of his light.

SO I would say that, the more we are like Christ, and following Christ's commands, the more our light shines into the darkness. And if you're led by the Holy Ghost, you know when people see the Christ in you, and you begin to witness and minister to an open mind. That's how we shine light, by doing what Christ commands us to do.

yeah we got different world views, but we also agree on things. It doesn't divide us entirely. In example, we both think similar about cannabis. Now, we have different world views and therefore take different tracks getting there, but we both reach similar conclusions about cannabis, i.e. we think it is profitable to use.

SO if we can communicate and stand on common grounds building coalition towards the similar purpose, our differences become our diversity and our strength. In example, when you cross a just say no junkie Christian, I am capable of giving an answer to shatter their world view, or persuade them to our position. And other times I might cross an athiest full of ONDCP propaganda about pot and how it's dangerous and soceity can't afford more drugged people on our streets; in which you would have the answers to refute his position and persuade him to ours.

when we want to, our diversity becomes our strength. But if you ask me, it's more fun to argue and fuss and cuss at each other about our differences, it's more entertaining and we still get our points across

That's right. Besides we all know Jesus woulda smoked weed. He probably did smoke weed, man

Some people don't need Jesus, is all. For them, something else is their Jesus. It might be, nature, or, science, or love or art that's their Jesus. Or it might be Buddha, or Krishna. In our case, our Jesus is the actual Jesus himself.

Some people don't need Bhudda, is all. For them, something else is their Bhudda. It might be, nature, or, science, or love or art that's their Bhudda. Or it might be Christ, or Krishna. In our case, our Bhudda is the actual Bhudda himself.

The problem with your statement is like i showed it could be said about any god figure and its a little conceited to claim belief in Jesus and Science are similar faiths. Science is evidence based theories which experiments are designed to prove and utilizes logistics and technology where as religion is 100% faith with no proof or evidence of any of its claims. Science is logic based faith where as religion is blind ignorant faith. While religion itself is not destructive, the state church and religious leaders who dictated the faith and changed the scriptures to suit their needs due to mass illiteracy among the masss and throughout history have been far more destructive, controlling and corrupt then even some of todays politicians.

this is not true. The evidence of Christianity is the historical fact of the resurrection. And then it is confirmed by the history of the jewish people. We use anthropology, archaeology, mathematics, geography, all kinds of sciences in the study of the Scriptures. In fact, we've got our own "science" named for our studies, it's called "theology".

And I would also point out that "big bang" and "evolution" are nothing more than theories of the imagination, and are as equally provable as my clim that we are here because of a creator God. In fact, I would argue that the cosmoloogical argument shows that a creator God is more logical than a "big bang"

I think there's a thing called "science so falsely called", and a number of theories presented by the so called scientific community are just that, claiming to be science when it is nothing more than the thoughts of the imagination.