Here's my rebuttal to the fundamentalist smart ass:
Q. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Leviticus 1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
A. No. You need a Israelite priest to offer the sacrifice for you in the Temple in Jerusalem; you can't just do it yourself in your back garden. You have a problem! The Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. But stop believing in the pleasing odour of animal sacrifices anyway, for it is written that the blood of bulls and goats can never take away sin (Heb 10:4). You need to believe that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross takes away all your sin, now and forever. As to offering violence against your neighbours, that will have you hauled up in front of the magistrates for a breach of the peace and actual bodily harm at a minimum under any system of law, ancient or modern.
"The inner organs and the shanks, however, the offerer shall first wash with water. The priest shall then burn the whole offering on the altar as a holocaust, a sweet-smelling oblation to the LORD." - Leviticus 1:9
The "temple" was a relatively "modern" construction, so it is utterly irrelevant to mention the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in A.D. 70., and I doubt that a bunch of ex-slaves wandering through the Sinai Peninsula had a formal temple.
And your mention of the New Testament is irrelevant, as well, considering at the time this was written, Dr. Laura was an Orthodox Jew that doesn't believe in the New Testament, and, as such, Mosaic Law is important. So let's stick to Old Testament theology, alright?
But even then, what's a "priest" anyway? We have a lot of self-proclaimed ministers in Protestantism, so why not have a self-proclaimed Levite priest to burn a holocaust to the Lord?
Q. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of uncleanliness (Leviticus 15:19-24). How do I tell? I have tried asking but most women take offence.
A. This is to do with purity of worship in the Temple . Not just sexual intercourse (we would all be agreed on that) but even touching a menstruating woman made the one who touched her unclean. It has passed. When the Temple in Jerusalem was sacked in 70 AD, as Jesus prophesied, it was already 40 years past its use-by date. The sacrifice of Jesus in AD 30 (+/- a year or two) had rendered the doings of the Temple obsolete. Even the veil of the Temple (which separated the Holy of Holies from the rest of Temple ) was torn in two (Matt 27:51) at His death. Believe in His death and you will be forgiven. Believe in His resurrection and you will live. If the matter you raise still troubles you, you should avoid all contact with women other than your own wife. And if you don't know when she is in what you describe as her period of uncleanliness, then heaven help you.
"When a woman has her menstrual flow, she shall be in a state of impurity for seven days. Anyone who touches her shall be unclean until evening. Anything on which she lies or sits during her impurity shall be unclean. Anyone who touches her bed shall wash his garments, bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. Whoever touches any article of furniture on which she was sitting, shall wash his garments, bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. But if she is on the bed or on the seat when he touches it, he shall be unclean until evening. If a man dares to lie with her, he contracts her impurity and shall be unclean for seven days; every bed on which he then lies also becomes unclean. When a woman is afflicted with a flow of blood for several days outside her menstrual period, or when her flow continues beyond the ordinary period, as long as she suffers this unclean flow she shall be unclean, just as during her menstrual period. Any bed on which she lies during such a flow becomes unclean, as it would during her menstruation, and any article of furniture on which she sits becomes unclean just as during her menstruation. Anyone who touches them becomes unclean; he shall wash his garments, bathe in water, and be unclean until evening." - Leviticus 15:19-27
Is that all you can do is mention the New Testament? It's irrelevant to Orthodox Judaism, as I said before.
Q. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to the French but not to the Scots. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Scottish people?
A. It doesn't actually say slaves, it says 'bondmen and bondmaids'. People who were poor bonded themselves or their children to someone wealthy. It was a form of social security. It is also written (Exod 21:16) that anyone who steals a man to sell him shall be put to death. So those Muslim slavers who took and sold black slaves to the white man were flat out of order and worthy of death. Don't forget that the man who had slavery outlawed in Britain was William Wilberforce, an evangelical Christian. Atheists were quite happy with slavery.
"Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you buy them from among the neighboring nations." - Leviticus 25:44
No, it says "slaves." I'm sure the Bible you're quoting from makes nice words for all the things that could humiliate Christians, while putting in the word "homosexual" (an 1874 word) for all the bigoted passages. But should I expect anything less?
And how is your argument here remotely relevant? One could argue that William Wilberforce is defying God and he's burning in hell. After all, the Bible clearly says you may purchase slaves from neighboring nations, and who are we to start interpreting nuance?
Q. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
A. It actually says 'maidservant' not slave. I should have thought you were doing well enough at Capital not to have to sell your daughter as a bonded servant. What a rotten dad you are, to want to get rid of her even though you can afford to keep her. Daughters are precious. So are sons, come to that. You'ld have to be in pretty dire straights 3,000 years ago to sell your children as servants, but I guess they would at least get fed and housed then. Anyway, back to your daughter. I think you would do better to send her to college and then see if she can't get a job. Mind you, most jobs today are just wage-slavery, aren't they? We spend 45% of our time working for the tax-man. Who can be totally free? Only those who trust in Jesus and know the truth will be free, as it is written, 'The truth shall make you free.' (John 8:32)
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go free as male slaves do." - Exodus 21:7
Here's that "slave" word again. I'd really be interested in what translation you're using.
And here you are, yet again, making a completely irrelevant modern commentary. The Bible is not a living, breathing document like those "activist judges" do to the U.S. Constitution.
And did you know that a good portion of the third-world still engages in illicit slavery? I guess the Bible will support those fathers who sell their daughters into sexual slavery.
Q. 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 obliged to kill him myself or may I arrange for our vicar to do it?
A. Neither. You need to remember that the ancient principle of 'due process' still persists in our law today, despite a succession of Home Secretaries, including dear David Blunkett, wanting to get rid of it as a bit of an impediment to the Government just locking up whoever they want. So you can't go around putting people to death yourself, that is what we Christians call murder. OK, if someone killed your son or raped your daughter, you might call it vengeance, but you have no personal interest in what your neighbour is doing, it just gets up your nose a bit. Report your neighbour to the police, support your allegation with two witnesses, and see if the police can find a law against what your neighbour is doing. They won't. This country doesn't do a day of rest in any form any more.
"On six days work may be done, but the seventh day shall be sacred to you as the sabbath of complete rest to the LORD. Anyone who does work on that day shall be put to death." - Exodus 35:2
Are you getting a little sleepy here? What does secular law have to do with Mosaic Law? After all, even in places like Nigeria, there's places with secular law and then there's places with Koran-based "sharia law." So I think you might agree that there's precedent for secular law being separate from religious law, yes?
In fact, here in the U.S., there's a movement called "Christian reconstructionism" that's looking to reinstitute Mosaic Law punishments, and I believe the CEO of "Diebold"--the company making all the electronic voting machines with no paper trails--is one of them. So maybe after a few generations of rigged elections, good Christian patriots will prove you wrong.
Q. 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?
A. This applies to the High Priest of ancient Israel, who entered into the Holy of holies once a year on the Day of Atonement. I suppose God has a right to say who was going to approach Him in the Holy of holies. But even if you are a cohen, (a) you won't find the Temple still standing today and (b) all that Temple ritual is past. Jesus has been and has offered Himself for the sins of all who will believe in Him. Job done. Finished.
"The LORD said to Moses, "Speak to Aaron and tell him: None of your descendants, of whatever generation, who has any defect shall come forward to offer up the food of his God. Therefore, he who has any of the following defects may not come forward: he who is blind, or lame, or who has any disfigurement or malformation, or a crippled foot or hand, or who is hump-backed or weakly or walleyed, or who is afflicted with eczema, ringworm or hernia. No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any such defect may draw near to offer up the oblations of the LORD; on account of his defect he may not draw near to offer up the food of his God." - Leviticus 21:16-21
Wow...so much for "intelligent design," right? These people are fucked up in the eyes of God, and He created them!
I guess that if Judaism ever bothers to rebuild the Temple, they'll have to make sure that the temple priest lives in a sterile bubble, but, aside with my usual disagreement with you putting in Christian theology into a Jewish argument, you're correct on one account: it only refers to priests. I figure we'd have to agree sometime!
Q. 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. How should they die?
A. God did not want His people looking like the pagan priests of the nations round about with dodgy haircuts and peculiar beards. Getting your hair cut as such isn't wrong in the eyes of God. Exekiel the prophet (Ezek 44:20) says that the rule for the priest is to have his hair cut neatly, not shave his head nor grow his hair stupidly long like what the pagans do. Can't see this was a capital offence, though, even then.
"Do not clip your hair at the temples, nor trim the edges of your beard." - Leviticus 19:27
It does not explicitly say what the punishment for cutting your hair is. However, that's why Dr. Laura is being asked how they should die. Perhaps it is a relevant question, considering that, just prior, if a man has sex with a female slave living with another man, but has not been freed, he shall be put to death (Lev 19:20). So does God want to kill you for trimming your hair or just severely maim and/or ostracize you?
Q. 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?
A. Clean and unclean animals are done away with by Peter's vision in Acts 10:11-15. My advice if this really worries you is to play as a forward or a back, and not as a midfielder, as they do most throwing in and place-kicking, and certainly don't play in goal. And don't handball either, as that is against the laws of the game.
"But you shall not eat any of the following that only chew the cud or only have hoofs: the camel, which indeed chews the cud, but does not have hoofs and is therefore unclean for you; the rock badger, which indeed chews the cud, but does not have hoofs and is therefore unclean for you; the hare, which indeed chews the cud, but does not have hoofs and is therefore unclean for you; and the pig, which does indeed have hoofs and is cloven-footed, but does not chew the cud and is therefore unclean for you. Their flesh you shall not eat, and their dead bodies you shall not touch; they are unclean for you." - Leviticus 11:4-8
Acts schmacts. Old Testament arguments for Orthodox Jews. New Testament arguments for Christians.
And I see that God doesn't even know his own creation all that well, since the "rock badger" (hyrax syriacus) is an ungulate and the hare is a rodent. Neither one of them are ruminants, and, hence, neither one of them makes cud (so much for "God" writing this text, right?).
But I think the writer of the original question should take comfort in that most modern footballs are probably synthetic.
Q. A friend of mine feels that though eating shellfish is an abomination (Leviticus 11:10) it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
A. They are different words in Hebrew, so your friend is right. But in any case, the clean and unclean animals distinction has gone with Peter's vision. So the New Testament abolishes the Old Testament food laws. But the New Testament confirms that homosexual activity is an abomination. Shellfish don't agree with me, but that's another matter. You tuck in to that prawn curry.
"But of the various creatures that crawl or swim in the water, whether in the sea or in the rivers, all those that lack either fins or scales are loathsome for you, and you shall treat them as loathsome. Their flesh you shall not eat, and their dead bodies you shall loathe." - Leviticus 11:10-11
The New Testament does not confirm that all homosexual activity is an abomination, but I've made this argument before to deaf ears. It's a sloppy translation of archaic pagan / Greco-Roman sexual practices that have absolutely no bearing on modern sexuality.
But that's besides the point. New Testament arguments are irrelevant, and Jewish scholars have mentioned more than once that supposed condemnations of "homosexuality" are on equal footing with condemnations of eating shellfish. They are all "toe'vah," or "ritually taboo" (otherwise mistranslated as "abomination" in modern texts).
But should I be surprised? You've let your own prejudices get in the way of Christian theology. Isn't all sin equal in the eyes of God? For shame.
Q. My friend 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 him as commanded in Leviticus 24:10-16 ?
A. Yes, because it is all a matter of due process. You are a bit for taking the law into your own hands, aren't you? Does your friend actually curse the Name of God like the man in Leviticus did? Anyway, next you must find a judge and jury who will convict him. Unless his blasphemy really is scurrilous, abusive or offensive to God, Jesus Christ or the Bible, and tends to vilify the Christian religion, you are unlikely to see a conviction in our land today. Best let your friend know how offended you are and if he persists, get another friend. He sounds a bad sort, anyway.
"Tell the Israelites: Anyone who curses his God shall bear the penalty of his sin; whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall be put to death. The whole community shall stone him; alien and native alike must be put to death for blaspheming the LORD'S name." - Leviticus 24:15-16
Where is the mention of a judge and jury? God's justice isn't open to interpretation. And, besides, you might get a wishy-washy activist judge who might declare the law unconstitutional and set him free. I mean, if blasphemers are left unstoned, what kind of slippery slope will go from there? Freedom of religion? Seafood restaurants? God forbid!
Q. 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/polyester blend).
A. Doesn't sound much of a farmer. How is he going to harvest it? Mind you, he could put a fence down the middle, then he would have two fields, and he could sow one crop on one side and the other on the other side, I suppose. As long as his wife does not wear a mixture of wool and linen, she should be OK to go and take part in ancient Israelite society. Back to the future!
"Keep my statutes: do not breed any of your domestic animals with others of a different species; do not sow a field of yours with two different kinds of seed; and do not put on a garment woven with two different kinds of thread." - Leviticus 19:19
You aren't aware of modern farming, are you? In some cases, there are "test fields" with several different kinds of seed in the same field organized in neat little rows. I'm sure it's all a Masonic plot to overthrow God.
And God's laws are not just for the ancient Israelites. They are for modern man too, right?
Q. 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)?
A. You don't half have a vicious streak. Once again, in God's design for mankind, the State has the responsibility for the judicial death penalty, not the family. God's law does not allow people to put members of their own family to death. You are thinking of Islam and Hinduism. Oh, and Britain today. When our Parliament passed the Homicide Act 1965 and the Abortion Act 1967, they took away the death penalty from the guilty, by the State, where it belongs, and placed it on the innocent, within the family, where it does not. Macabre or what?
"If a man marries a woman and her mother also, the man and the two women as well shall be burned to death for their shameful conduct, so that such shamefulness may not be found among you." - Leviticus 20:14
That's because Islam and Hinduism are true to their Scriptures, while wishy-washy moral relativists like you cede God's authority to the state and activist judges who find such immorality to be legal.
And going on an abortion and death penalty tirade is rich from someone who just opposed the death penalty for what God proclaims an offense worthy of death. What kind of slippery slope does this picking-and-choosing bring?
P.S. Another silly question was added later:
Q. A reading of 2 Chronicles, 4:2 makes clear that mathematicians have for many years been under a misconception that the number pi (the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter) was a transcendental number which is approximately 3.1415. The true value of pi, as the Bible makes clear in this passage, is actually 3. Am I personally obliged to burn all maths textbooks, put to the sword as blasphemers all who propagate the false value of pi and forbid all false images of the true circle?
A. Do you really think the ancients didn't know the value of pi? What we have here is something us engineers call 'rounding'. You really must deal with your bloodthirsty nature, though. All this taking the law (or what you think it is) into your own hands just will not do. And nit-picking over a couple of Biblical decimal points is not blasphemy. My, isn't there some God-hating ignorance out there!
"He also made the molten sea. It was perfectly round, ten cubits in diameter, five in depth, and thirty in circumference" - 2 Chronicles 4:2
"You engineers" should realize that rounding pi will give you an incorrect answer, just as it would have given them one.
The ancients did know pi, but whether ancient Israel knew it is a good question. We're dealing with the difference between a major civilization (ancient Greece) and a minor one (ancient Israel). But I guess we'll have to leave it an open-ended question, along with when badgers and hares stopped making cud.
Melon
