posted on August 2, 2007 07:50:28 PM new
Why can't I buy a Canadian?
gotta love it..............
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
posted on August 3, 2007 07:53:13 AM new
Good grief, just now finding this Mingo.
It took place in 2000. Read up before you make a fool of yourself again.
I remember reading this once before, I'm not sure but maybe during a discussion here with Logansdad about the laws in Leviticus, and I thought it was funny.
posted on August 3, 2007 08:31:45 AM new
etexbill
posted on August 3, 2007 07:53:13 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good grief, just now finding this Mingo.
It took place in 2000. Read up before you make a fool of yourself again."""
So I guess you would put me in the group of "fools" who use and quote the Bible....I believe it's even OLDER than my OP.
posted on August 3, 2007 08:57:12 AM new
Again, your logic is tiresome, just as you are.
The more you post, the more stupid you look. Keep up the good work.
[ edited by etexbill on Aug 3, 2007 08:58 AM ]
posted on August 3, 2007 09:28:07 AM new
"""Again, your logic is tiresome, just as you are.
The more you post, the more stupid you look. Keep up the good work. """
Yes, to a neocon logic is tiresome...gets in the way so much
You, etex, were the one who looked stupid...your only response was the DATE of the OP ??!!! LOLOLOL!!!!
Have you tried really really hard to READ IT ? Maybe then you could comment on it.......or not..
posted on August 3, 2007 10:41:04 AM new
sybil does this same thing all the time.
Imo, that's why she rarely lists where anything she posts actually comes from....as they're dated. And then more would see how often she posts things that happened years and years ago.
It's been her pathetic MO for a long, long time. She's desperate, as usual, for any attention....and that's also why three days later she's calling out for more attention from classic.
posted on August 3, 2007 11:07:09 AM new
linduh, ""sybil does this same thing all the time.""
(Yup, I'm always applying logic...I do it just to confuse the neocons)
linduh,"Imo, that's why she rarely lists where anything she posts actually comes from"""
(I guess linduh's too stupid to Google)
linduh, """....as they're dated. And then more would see how often she posts things that happened years and years ago."""
(Ya, like bible quotes. I guess linduh doesn't believe in the bible because it's "old" news. LOL!!)
linduh, ""It's been her pathetic MO for a long, long time. She's desperate, as usual, for any attention....and that's also why three days later she's calling out for more attention from classic."""
( Yup, logic to a neocon IS pathetic ! Three days later than what ?
I hardly have to "call out' for classic's attention....he's stuck on me
No, I was just keeping track of classic's and YOUR very vulgar posts. It was one of the funniest threads!! )
linduh, """LOL It's really pathetic...but SO mingo.""
And it's so you to be vulgar and not address the OP/issue/topic.
You're at a loss for words on this OP aren't ya ???
Oh, that's right...the neocons don't believe in the bible because it's "old news" LOLOLOL!!!!!
posted on August 3, 2007 11:17:36 AM new
BTW, apparently kiara and logansdad, (and probably most others except you) read it previously also, according to her post.
Uh, no. A little late to comment on something that happened 7+ years ago.
Gee, what a dunce.""'
So why do YOU keep bringing up dead presidents ??? The events in the bible happened more than 7 years ago...and etex, so did a lot of other things....
Are you saying that anything that happened more than a split second ago can't be discussed ?
Or is it because you just can't discuss anything but me ?
etexbill
posted on August 3, 2007 11:17:36 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, apparently kiara and logansdad, (and probably most others except you) read it previously also, according to her post.""
SO what? How do YOU KNOW who read what? You DON'T.
Show me the VENDIO rules that instruct us on the age of the topics we post.
posted on August 3, 2007 11:44:33 AM new
"BTW, apparently kiara and logansdad, (and probably most others except you) read it previously also, according to her post.""
"SO what? How do YOU KNOW who read what? You DON'T."
Maybe from kiara's statement.
"Mingo
I remember reading this once before, I'm not sure but maybe during a discussion here with Logansdad about the laws in Leviticus, and I thought it was funny.
posted on August 3, 2007 11:47:39 AM new
the bible hasn't changed, regardless of when the article is from.
or is the bible old news to you as well???
Are you adressing me or mingo, zoomin.
I haven't mentioned the Bible, and the statement being discussed here is about Dr. Laura.
[ edited by etexbill on Aug 3, 2007 11:48 AM ]
posted on August 3, 2007 12:06:06 PM new
etexbill
posted on August 3, 2007 11:17:36 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, apparently kiara and logansdad, (and probably most others except you) read it previously also, according to her post.""
SO what? How do YOU KNOW who read what? You DON'T."""
I know your aversion to logic but try to follow... I said "So what?" to your entire statement...it doesn't matter who did or didn't read it....
You state: ""(and probably most others except you)""
....again how do YOU know who read it.
As to :
""I haven't mentioned the Bible, and the statement being discussed here is about Dr. Laura.""
I know the OP had big words but if you read it you'd see it does have quite a bit to do with the bible
posted on August 3, 2007 12:14:43 PM new
eTex:
You are the one who keeps insisting the article isn't valid because it is from 2000 ~ the post was to you ~
I am trying to find the logic you are using ~
the issues that were brought up in the article are just as relevant today, aren't they?
do you feel the bible (any version thereof) is also invalid because it is a few years old?
Linda:
I ask questions that you don't answer.
Of course, I could just keep talking to myself like others do........
sorry you feel that I post and run, I have four kids, a husband, a house, three dogs and a job ~ I do not hang out here on a full time basis.
As I have stated previously, the lack of respect on this board can be offensive. It is immature, unnecessary, and takes away from many topics that could be shared.
Call me a liberal, but part of that is being openminded. I do not have to agree with you in order to understand your perspective.
posted on August 3, 2007 12:19:26 PM new
The word "probably" is in there, mingo.
The article is about a statement made by Dr. Laura, and a response. There are references to the Bible, but that is it.
You are a hoot, and a really stupid one at that. You found it and thought that it was new so you posted it without a note saying this happened in June, 2000, but you thought it was funny, which would have been the thing to do. Others have read it and told you, so don't pick me out. You made yourself look foolish and like the others, you are humming and hawing to get out of it.
Again,
Your logic is as tiresome as you are. The more you post, the more stupid you look. Keep up the good work.
posted on August 3, 2007 12:29:02 PM new
etex:
1) Good grief, just now finding this Mingo.
It took place in 2000.
2) Read it in June of 2000, mingo.
Any more "logic" on your part
3) "No comments??"
Uh, no. A little late to comment on something that happened 7+ years ago.
how are these comments meant to be interpreted if they do not imply that you find the information irrelevant since it is 7 years old?
No, you didn't mention the bible.
because you didn't respond to the opening post or article, only the repeatedly comment that was from 2000.
posted on August 3, 2007 12:29:48 PM new
I can't get over the people who read into a statement what they want and then when asked to prove it, can't. First kiara, was caught in her lie, then helen with her statement that I had edited something out, and when it was pointed out to her that it there in black and white, unedited, she insulted, then tried to change the subject and then backed disgracefully out.
You folks are breathing air that would be better used by intelligent people.
I've decided to be as blunt with my remarks as some of the other poster here to you libs.
Are YOU a Bunghole?
Dr. Laura's the one with the nude pics, right? I wonder what Leviticus has to say about that?