Hey I thought this was a little funny. I'm trying to read the bible myself and when I came across this on a message board I thought it was kind of interesting. That's just me. You guys might have heard it before and like I said, I just found it on a message board so feel free to correct any errors, I'm no fact checker myself.


----------------------
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 under any circumstances. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US
resident:

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 him or her 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 neighbors. 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 offense.

(d) 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?

(e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on Sunday (the Sabbath). In the book of Exodus verse 35:2 it 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 know. 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 Lev.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 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, and we should do what the bible says.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

There's too much I disagree with to keep posting, but this kind of solidifies the point on why I believe Christianity is untrue. There are too many Bibles, too many translations, etc. to follow. How did the word of your god get so distorted? Why is there a need for so many bibles? Too many interpretations of the same religion make people like me skeptical of the existance of any superior being.

quote:

---

Uhm, Deuteronomy is in the Old testament, which, as I recall, we agreed was particularly invalid because you stated it was prior to the death of the man who died for the sin of mankind.

---

No…we agreed that the laws are no longer applicable today. However, I thought we were discussing the morality of slavery as it was practiced during Biblical times, when this would have been applicable.

quote:

---

The bible I'm looking at has it worded differently; Ephesians 6:9: "And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him".

---

Looking at different translations can give you better insight into the meaning. For example, the Amplified translation, known for providing greater insight from the original languages, says “that there is no respect of persons (no partiality) with Him.” It seems that “respect of persons” in the original language is more correctly translated as concerning favoritism, or partiality. (most other translations say partiality) for a good website that has just about every translation, go to www.biblegateway.com, its basically an online Bible.

quote:

---

Deuteronomy 23:15-16: “If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him.”

---

Uhm, Deuteronomy is in the Old testament, which, as I recall, we agreed was particularly invalid because you stated it was prior to the death of the man who died for the sin of mankind.

quote:

---

Ephesians 6:9:“ And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them…”

---

The bible I'm looking at has it worded differently; Ephesians 6:9: "And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him".

This verse says that god respects no one, but many other Bible verses disagree (Gen.4:4, Ex.2:25, Lev.26:9, 2 Kg.13:23, Ps.138:6). I love bookmarkers.

I have a bit of a headache from reading such small print. They should really consider condensing the bible, or making cheaper large-print versions. Oh well. Take care.

quote:

---

Okay.. I'll try to word this better: why would we need two testaments if god had already known that Jesus was going to give his life for everyone's sins?

---

Okay, I think I understand your question a little bit better. To understand the importance of the Old Testament and the old law…you have to think of Christianity without them. Man would plain and simply not realize how sinful they were…they would not see a need for Jesus, and would thus feel no need to turn to Him. Please let me know if that cleared things up, or if I am just way off topic.

quote:

---

What does Scripture say about slavery? "Cast out slave girl and son together; for the slave girl's son shall never be an heir on equal terms with the son of the born free." (Galatians 4:30) NEW Testament

---

Well you said that slavery was justified by the Bible, and this is the case, but you have to remember that it only justified slavery that followed the Bible’s guidelines and restrictions on slavery… the slavery justified by the Bible was not cruel or severe. And maybe I’m missing something with Galations 4:30…but isn’t that just saying that the child born of adultery is not equal to the legitimate son? Besides, this is a quote from Sarai, Abraham’s wife, and is simply expressing the jealous wife’s opinion. (so although it is quoted in the new testament, it is really from the old)

Here are some interesting verses:
Deuteronomy 23:15-16: “If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him.”
Ephesians 6:9:“ And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them…”
Colossians 4:1: “Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair.”

By the way, “in the same way” of the second verse is telling the master to treat the slaves with “respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart”. And the first verse is actually giving mistreated slaves an escape!

quote:

---

It's not whether god predestines man to believe in him; it's whether god determines who will and won't go to heaven BEFORE they're born. Of course everyone has the right to choose what to believe, but supposedly they can't change their position on where they're going in the afterlife.

---

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I thought you were referring to the Calvinist theory of predestination that says God predestines the “elect” to choose and accept Him, and that these “elect” are basically unable to refuse God. (so actually, according to this theory, not everybody really chooses what they believe) But now I better understand what you personally meant by predestination. I still say that predestination is crap… and my discussion of the verses that seem to support this theory (the first verses you cited) supports my opinion.

quote:

---

Thanks for assuming and jumping to conclusions, though.

---

So you just misunderstood the verses? (about how the verses meant that one son was predestined to serve another…not about salvation) And I’m truly sorry for giving the impression that I had jumped to that conclusion…I guess my saying that “I had a feeling” was my way of asking. (and I can totally understand how that came off like I’d already decided you don’t check up on your sources…that was stupid on my part) I’m sorry for not making that more clear…it really wasn’t meant as an insult or to offend you.

quote:

---

Is there still anymore confusion? I apologize, since that was a fallacy on my part.

---

No more confusion. Thanks for clearing that up, I remember telling myself to look at the rest of the chapter to see if there was mention of plagues and all, but I guess I forgot as well. Okay, so in reference to the whole plague thing…the person who added/ took away from the book has their name taken out of the book of life, meaning they are taken off the list that go to heaven and thus go to hell…I think that it is logical to conclude that this is when those plagues would come into effect.

Once again, I’m sorry to have offended you earlier… I will quote e.k….

quote:

---

so....many.....mis....under....standings....:::sigh:::

---

It's perfectly alright E.K. You weren't being a jerk. I just figured that I confused you, or myself for that matter.

gemini...sorry, i wasn't really responding to you back there, i was just pointing out those things ("me as in my opinion") so no one would get their panties in a bunch thinking that i was just trying to disagree with christians....it seems that every time i post something in these forums, someone thinks i'm being a jerk. so....many.....mis....under....standings....:::sigh::: - e.k.

quote:

---

They are not applicable today because God sent Jesus to fulfill the law. God knew that man is not capable of obeying every single law, He knew that from the start…but man had to be shown. No, God did not change His mind. He knew exactly what was going to happen the second he blew life into Adam

---

I still don't fully understand. There's an indelible line separating my question from your conclusive responses. Okay.. I'll try to word this better: why would we need two testaments if god had already known that Jesus was going to give his life for everyone's sins? There's no point, since god supposedly is omnipotent and would influence flawless scriptures. I'll come back later and try to fully explain my point.

quote:

---

The problem here is that when we think of slavery our mind immediately jumps to the slavery found in the 17-1800’s, which was based on racism and determined by birth…not to mention was extremely cruel and abusive.

---

Biblical slavery -was- cruel, depending on the owners of the slaves. There are accounts of slaves having fingers and hands castrated for not completing a job to the fulfillment of their masters. There are MANY similarities between colonial slavery and biblical slavery. In fact, many slave owners in the 18th and 19th centuries justified having and treated slaves the way that they did because the BIBLE justified it. And people who needed to pay off debts to others were generally referred to as "indentured servants" as some are now.

What does Scripture say about slavery? "Cast out slave girl and son together; for the slave girl's son shall never be an heir on equal terms with the son of the born free." (Galatians 4:30) NEW Testament

quote:

---

Each man has free will to either accept or reject God. Yes, God knows who will ultimately choose Him, but He does not choose who will do so

---

You're missing the point.

quote:

---

These both say that everyone is predestined by God to be either saved or damned; they can do nothing to affect their final destiny.

---

It's not whether god predestines man to believe in him; it's whether god determines who will and won't go to heaven BEFORE they're born. Of course everyone has the right to choose what to believe, but supposedly they can't change their position on where they're going in the afterlife.

quote:

---

The second verse (Romans 9:11) is not talking about being saved or not being saved. If you read the verses following, then you’d be able to understand the point of the scripture more thoroughly. First of all, it is not “the children,” it is actually “the twins,” meaning Jacob and Esau, who these verses are referring to. Verse 12 says that God predestined that “The older will serve the younger.” This does not address rather or not people are predestined for salvation at all. Gemini, I have a feeling that you simply read these verses from a website and didn’t look into it yourself…sometimes if you read the scriptures in question by yourself, so that you get the context in with it, they are more understandable and confusion can be avoided. (I’m not saying that it’s bad to use other web sources, just that it would be good to check their validity.)

---

Not that it's incredibly relevant, but I -do- look things up. And when I don't fully understand and/or agree with them, I ask the Christians on this site. Now, if I were to assume I was correct on everything I post, I wouldn't bother asking for anyone's input. I have three DIFFERENT bibles, a qu'ran, a torah, and a book explaining different religions of the world, including Hinduism, Wicca, Zoroastrianism, etc. I do look on websites, but most are biased in some fashion. I like researching things personally, thus WHY I have so many discrepancies with religions such as Christianity. Thanks for assuming and jumping to conclusions, though.

quote:

---

Where did you get the plagues thing from? I certainly don’t see it in the scripture you cited. The book of life means eternal life…not life on Earth. This scripture doesn’t mention plagues and it doesn’t say that adding/ subtracting from the book will take away somebody’s life on this earth. I’m confused about why you cited this verse.

---

Sorry for the confusion. I only typed one part of the excerpt. Unless the bible I have was in some freak accident and was the only one printed strangely, I'm pretty sure I'm right.

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book" Rev. 22:18

Next one: "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
Rev. 22:19

Is there still anymore confusion? I apologize, since that was a fallacy on my part.

quote:

---

No, seeing as how the arguments you used were flawed or confused...and the fact that it is not.

---

They weren't flawed; they were simply different from your own. I could blatantly say that Christianity is a flawed and corrupt religion, but that may offend some Christians.

quote:

---

Is he both able and willing?

---

God is both willing and able to stop evil, yet He chooses not to stop 100% of the evil on Earth at this time. There will be a time when evil be no more…but that is only if you live during the “end times” or if you go to heaven. The problem with Epicurus’ argument is that it makes false "if...then" statements between each question and answer. So, the real question is why God allows evil to exist for this time being…

quote:

---

Then whence cometh evil?

---

Evil is a product of men/women not following God’s will. So why doesn’t God just not let people do that? Well, I don’t know about you, but I enjoy free will. (I’m gonna quote a little from The Case for Faith…just to let you know.) Strobel, the author, interviews Peter Kreeft, and asks, “Then why didn’t God create a world without human freedom?” Kreeft says that although this would mean that people wouldn’t go to hell and there would be no evil, it also means that without choice God’s creation “would have been a world without humans.” Sure, we wouldn’t have suffering and everything that goes with evil, but “it also would have been a world without love, which is the highest value in the universe. The highest good never could have been experienced. Real love—our love of God and our love of each other—must involve a choice. But with the granting of that choice comes the possibility that people would choose” the less favorable choice. Yes, giving choice to us down here on earth is very costly to God, but it had to be done. God does not want to be a puppeteer just making all of his puppets do what He wants. He wants people to choose to be with Him, and those that choose not to be with Him, won’t be.

I know that the subject of evil and suffering is something that really bothers a lot of people, actually, it bothers everybody…so please let me know if you have any more questions or if I can clear something up.

--Jilaine

quote:

---

But I want to know why they're not applicable today. Did god change his/her/its mind and decide that the people needed a new rule book?

---

They are not applicable today because God sent Jesus to fulfill the law. God knew that man is not capable of obeying every single law, He knew that from the start…but man had to be shown. No, God did not change His mind. He knew exactly what was going to happen the second he blew life into Adam.

quote:

---

And how can anyone justify slavery- the ownership of another being? Yet, it's right the in the Bible.

---

The problem here is that when we think of slavery our mind immediately jumps to the slavery found in the 17-1800’s, which was based on racism and determined by birth…not to mention was extremely cruel and abusive. You must look at the type of slavery which was being addressed here. The slavery of biblical times was not based on race, if it followed Biblical guidelines it was not cruel or abusive, it was normally voluntary, and release was offered after 7 years (or shorter if it was a Jubilee year.) Slavery was an effective form of debt payment and, if the guidelines were followed, was not abusive. (besides…slaves could run away easily back then but it’s kinda hard to run away from debt collectors today) Look at my posts to fetch concerning slavery in the “homosexuality is wrong” forum to learn more.

quote:

---

These both say that everyone is predestined by God to be either saved or damned; they can do nothing to affect their final destiny.

---

Let me make myself very clear here. Each man has free will to either accept or reject God. Yes, God knows who will ultimately choose Him, but He does not choose who will do so. 1 Tim. 2:4 says that God “wants ALL men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” (emphasis mine) 1 Tim. 2:6 says that Jesus “gave himself as a ransom for ALL men.” (emphasis mine) 2 Peter 3:9 says that God is “not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” Hebrews 2:9 says that Jesus “[tasted] death for EVERYONE.” (emphasis mine) Clearly salvation is designed for all, not just the “elect.” We have free will. To be blunt, the Calvinist theory of predestination is crap.

Now, in reference to the verses you cited. The first one (Romans 8:29) says that those who He knew would accept Him were thus predestined to be like Jesus later on. God predestined the believers to become like Jesus, He did not predestine them to become believers. It does not say that they were predestined to accept Him.

The second verse (Romans 9:11) is not talking about being saved or not being saved. If you read the verses following, then you’d be able to understand the point of the scripture more thoroughly. First of all, it is not “the children,” it is actually “the twins,” meaning Jacob and Esau, who these verses are referring to. Verse 12 says that God predestined that “The older will serve the younger.” This does not address rather or not people are predestined for salvation at all. Gemini, I have a feeling that you simply read these verses from a website and didn’t look into it yourself…sometimes if you read the scriptures in question by yourself, so that you get the context in with it, they are more understandable and confusion can be avoided. (I’m not saying that it’s bad to use other web sources, just that it would be good to check their validity.)

quote:

---

This says that anyone who adds to the words in Revelation (or to the rest of the Bible) will be struck with plagues, and anyone that tries to remove anything from it will have his name removed from the book of life.

---

Where did you get the plagues thing from? I certainly don’t see it in the scripture you cited. The book of life means eternal life…not life on Earth. This scripture doesn’t mention plagues and it doesn’t say that adding/ subtracting from the book will take away somebody’s life on this earth. I’m confused about why you cited this verse.

quote:

---

Can I justy call the Bible BS now?

---

No, seeing as how the arguments you used were flawed or confused...and the fact that it is not.

quote:

---

Or shall I provide more examples?

---

Sigh…I don’t think that would really get us anywhere, but if there are some that just really bother you, than sure.

quote:

---

I apologize for being so rude and demeaning,

---

I was not offended by your post (other than the “Bible is BS” thing) so no prob. I apologize for the long post.

It's me again. Here:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?" -Epicurus

Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; Or he can, but does not want to; Or he cannot and does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. But, if God both can and wants to abolish evil, then how come evil is in the world?

quote:

---

I am saying, however, that not all of the laws given in the Old Testament are still applicable

---

But I want to know why they're not applicable today. Did god change his/her/its mind and decide that the people needed a new rule book? And how can anyone justify slavery- the ownership of another being? Yet, it's right the in the Bible.

Here are some examples from the NEW testament that unnerve me the most:

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." -Romans 8:29

"For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth" -Romans 9:11

These both say that everyone is predestined by God to be either saved or damned; they can do nothing to affect their final destiny.

"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." -Rev. 22:19

This says that anyone who adds to the words in Revelation (or to the rest of the Bible) will be struck with plagues, and anyone that tries to remove anything from it will have his name removed from the book of life. Can I justy call the Bible BS now? Or shall I provide more examples? I apologize for being so rude and demeaning, but I can't see how some things are justified in the Bible. Take care.

No…I’m not saying God is outdated, or that only the new testament is God-inspired. I am saying, however, that not all of the laws given in the Old Testament are still applicable. Take for example, the sacrifices that were to be given at the tabernacle…animal, food or otherwise. Christians no longer have to give these because Jesus was the final sacrifice, the final atonement necessary to bridge the gap between human and divine. I say Jesus brought a new law, when in fact he was the fulfillment of the old law, which is why it is no longer applicable. (sorry for not explaining what I meant by “new law”---love God and your neighbor) The entire old testament served to lay the scene for Jesus…the Israelites were shown God’s power and their weakness, they were shown God’s holiness and their sin...they were shown their need for God. The old law was necessary to show the world the immense need for Jesus, who was prophesied in the Old Testament as well.

The two different testaments simply mark the time before Jesus came to Earth, and the time after. The time when we were bound by the old law, and the time after the final sacrifice freed us from it.

quote:

---

the problem that I (note I, as in me and my personal beliefs) have with the bible, geminiangel, is that it was not written BY god himself. it is supposedly the ultimate word inspired by god

---

Uhm.. isn't that what I just said?

quote:

---

I thought god inspired the writings of the bible

---

But as an Atheist, I can't be swayed to believe that -any- parts of the Bible are true. Like I've said, God isn't for everyone.

okay, i hope that what i am going to say doesn't make anybody too mad (though if you can't take opinions, why are you even here?) and i wanna say first off that i am not disrespecting anyone or anyone elses beliefs...but, here is what i think about the bible...the problem that I (note I, as in me and my personal beliefs) have with the bible, geminiangel, is that it was not written BY god himself. it is supposedly the ultimate word inspired by god, but what about all the other religious texts that god (or gods or sprit or whatever) have inspired? therefore to me, i don't give the bible (old testament or new) any credibilty as to being the ultimate word of god. i think that it is the word of god ACCORDING TO christians or whatever they called em back in the days. just like the koran or the torah is the word of god ACCORDING TO muslums and jews. they all deserve respect, but are guidlines written by men for specific people and religions. they don't have to be for anybody else. beliefs and moral standards are fine, but they are YOUR beliefs and standards according to YOUR understanding of god. i don't think anyone has the right to force things like that on anyone, even if they truely believe that if they don't change and become what the bible says, they will go to hell for eternity.
to me every religion leads to the same god, just a different understanding of him and what he is exactly. and most religions have a similar core of belief. no one is right or wrong, but there is such a thing as what's right for you and what's wrong for you. so in a way everyone is right. and i'm sorry if anyone thinks that just because I (again i as in me and my OPINION) think that the bible is outdated that i think that christians are utterly wrong and stupid, because that wasn;t my intention. -e.k.

quote:

---

When Jesus came he brought a NEW law.

---

I thought god inspired the writings of the bible, which INCLUDE both the new and old testaments. So you're saying god is outdated? I thought the bible was supposed to be the "ultimate word" of god, so why should there be two different testaments? Just curious.

not a brilliant argument to use AGAINST anyone. gosh, don't get me wrong! but that dr. laura is brilliant EXAMPLE of how people can take the old testament to extremes. i'm not trying to bash anyone here or anyones religion. (but dr. laura)
so hope no one thinks i'm a jerk here. -e.k.

Okay…I’m sick of having to point out the flaw in this argument when it is used against Christians. All the things listed above from the old testament that are considered ridiculous today are part of the OLD law.

When Jesus came he brought a NEW law. Therefore, Christians and everybody else do not have to follow every Mosaic laws to enter heaven. The reason why homosexuality is still forbidden is because it is specifically mentioned in the New Testament, along with many other things that are still forbidden. (For those of you who don’t know, the Old Testament is everything before Jesus came to earth.) Many counter the above by asking a Christian if they can just pick and choose what they want to follow and what they want to disregard from the Old Testament. My answer is of course no! As far as I know, the things that Christians say God is against are mentioned in both the old and new testaments.

So EK, this is really not such a “brilliant” argument to use against a Christian, although it could be used with a Jewish person who believes the old law is still applicable.