Open Letter to Dr. Laura can still work when debating fundie

[fgalkin]

There are people who take this seriously. They are called Christian Reconstructionists or Theonomists.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Believe it or not, fgalkin, I also take this very seriously. I have yet to see anyone, Christian or Jew (and I was raised Orthodox) who doesn't ignore some of the laws of Leviticus because in our modern world, they truly are inconvenient. I find it interesting that we feel justified in stating some laws are archaic, but can state the a law in the next verse is still relevant.

I apologize to anyone who is offended by my next statement, but the ONLY thing I found from religion is hypocracy. I am not saying that hypocracy only exists in religion, but it seems to have more than it's fair share of it. I am SO tired of people telling me how to live my life and what I am doing wrong, but still do not live by the laws in the same book that contains the laws that I am supposedly breaking. I am tired of all these pots calling this kettle black.

There is a difference between not ignoring the laws of Leviticus and living accoriding to the letter of the Bible (as in stoning disobedient children). The letter in the first post would have been real, had it come from a Theonomist.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Sobbastchianno]

There are people who take this seriously. They are called Christian Reconstructionists or Theonomists.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Believe it or not, fgalkin, I also take this very seriously. I have yet to see anyone, Christian or Jew (and I was raised Orthodox) who doesn't ignore some of the laws of Leviticus because in our modern world, they truly are inconvenient. I find it interesting that we feel justified in stating some laws are archaic, but can state the a law in the next verse is still relevant.

I apologize to anyone who is offended by my next statement, but the ONLY thing I found from religion is hypocracy. I am not saying that hypocracy only exists in religion, but it seems to have more than it's fair share of it. I am SO tired of people telling me how to live my life and what I am doing wrong, but still do not live by the laws in the same book that contains the laws that I am supposedly breaking. I am tired of all these pots calling this kettle black.

There is a difference between not ignoring the laws of Leviticus and living accoriding to the letter of the Bible (as in stoning disobedient children). The letter in the first post would have been real, had it come from a Theonomist.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

You have GOT to be kidding me! So now, whether or not the questions should even be entertained depends upon who sent them?

By the way, I am not at all sure I understand your first sentence in you last response, that being "There is a difference between not ignoring the laws of Leviticus and living accoriding to the letter of the Bible (as in stoning disobedient children)." Leviticus, according to my Orthodox Jewish upbringing (and, to coin a phrase, we wrote THAT book), is a holiness code for Hebrews (Jews if you like). It is not for humans to pick an choose which laws are now relevant and which are not.

So, if we take Leviticus into account, I could sell may daugher (if I had one) into slavery as Leviticus tells us that this is ok. However, if I had a wife, I could not occupy the same abode with her during her menstrual cycle, because she is then unclean. In fact, Ancient Hebrews used to have a separate housing situation for women during this time.

I think you are totally missing the point of the letter here. These are questions stating that while yes, Leviticus teaches us the homosexuality is wrong, how come it is no longer wrong to, for example, have contact with women during their menstrual cycle, and why aren't straight men going to Hell for that one? The point of the letter is very clear, and as I stated in my last posting, One should not condemn someone for a set of laws that they do not fully follow themselves.

[fgalkin]

You have GOT to be kidding me! So now, whether or not the questions should even be entertained depends upon who sent them?

By the way, I am not at all sure I understand your first sentence in you last response, that being "There is a difference between not ignoring the laws of Leviticus and living accoriding to the letter of the Bible (as in stoning disobedient children)." Leviticus, according to my Orthodox Jewish upbringing (and, to coin a phrase, we wrote THAT book), is a holiness code for Hebrews (Jews if you like). It is not for humans to pick an choose which laws are now relevant and which are not.

That sentence comes from my misreading of your post preceeding it. Please disregard it.

So, if we take Leviticus into account, I could sell may daugher (if I had one) into slavery as Leviticus tells us that this is ok. However, if I had a wife, I could not occupy the same abode with her during her menstrual cycle, because she is then unclean. In fact, Ancient Hebrews used to have a separate housing situation for women during this time.

I think you are totally missing the point of the letter here. These are questions stating that while yes, Leviticus teaches us the homosexuality is wrong, how come it is no longer wrong to, for example, have contact with women during their menstrual cycle, and why aren't straight men going to Hell for that one? The point of the letter is very clear, and as I stated in my last posting, One should not condemn someone for a set of laws that they do not fully follow themselves.

I understand the purpose of the letter. My point is merely that there are groups of "uber-fundies" that accept the bulk of the Leviticus code (although even they have "reasons" why some of the laws aren't applicable to modern life).

Unfortunately, most of the Theonomist works, such as the books of R.J. Rushdoony are not available online. However, this document sums up the Theonomists' views.

As you can see, your statement that all Christians and Jews reject some form of Biblical law is not enitely accurate.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Sobbastchianno]

You have GOT to be kidding me! So now, whether or not the questions should even be entertained depends upon who sent them?

By the way, I am not at all sure I understand your first sentence in you last response, that being "There is a difference between not ignoring the laws of Leviticus and living accoriding to the letter of the Bible (as in stoning disobedient children)." Leviticus, according to my Orthodox Jewish upbringing (and, to coin a phrase, we wrote THAT book), is a holiness code for Hebrews (Jews if you like). It is not for humans to pick an choose which laws are now relevant and which are not.

That sentence comes from my misreading of your post preceeding it. Please disregard it.

So, if we take Leviticus into account, I could sell may daugher (if I had one) into slavery as Leviticus tells us that this is ok. However, if I had a wife, I could not occupy the same abode with her during her menstrual cycle, because she is then unclean. In fact, Ancient Hebrews used to have a separate housing situation for women during this time.

I think you are totally missing the point of the letter here. These are questions stating that while yes, Leviticus teaches us the homosexuality is wrong, how come it is no longer wrong to, for example, have contact with women during their menstrual cycle, and why aren't straight men going to Hell for that one? The point of the letter is very clear, and as I stated in my last posting, One should not condemn someone for a set of laws that they do not fully follow themselves.

I understand the purpose of the letter. My point is merely that there are groups of "uber-fundies" that accept the bulk of the Leviticus code (although even they have "reasons" why some of the laws aren't applicable to modern life).

Unfortunately, most of the Theonomist works, such as the books of R.J. Rushdoony are not available online. However, this document sums up the Theonomists' views.

As you can see, your statement that all Christians and Jews reject some form of Biblical law is not enitely accurate.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

I read it, and is it frightening. America was NEVER intended to be a theocracy nor were many of its founding fathers even Christian. Theists, yes (meaning they beleived in a higher power), but many, such as Jefferson and Franklin, actually had very open disdain for the Christian religion. Democracy is not the same as theocracy, and I totally disagree with their assertions that all civil law comes from Biblical law. Much of it also comes from common sense, and in some cases, even a lack there of, and from trial and error.

I truly wish that the fundies would get off this kick that we are a Christian nation. We need to get "In God We Trust" off our money and religion out of all aspects of government (not easy, but doable in a bit by bit fashion). Remember, separatoin of (any - writer's insertion) church and state.

[fgalkin]

Remember, separatoin of (any - writer's insertion) church and state.

Godless Communist! How dare you defile the ideals of our country with your heathen views! Burn in hell!:D

Unfortunately, there is quite a number of people who would have said the above statement seriously.

I've actually done quite a lot of reasearch on the Religious Right, the of which you can find if you click on the "Fundie Guide" link in my sig.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Sobbastchianno]

Thanks for pointing out the link. I am going there to read it. By the way, I am Godless, and rather proud of it. I was raised an Orthodox Jew. However, my parents always encouraged me to read, and I was reading by the time I was three. I started reading some "heavy" materials by the time I was nine, much to the chagrin of my parents as I told them by the time I was eleven that I no longer believed in organized religion, or any sort.

Communist, no I can't put myself there. I like keeping what I earn. I am very much a capitalist, however, I do believe in some socialized services, provided they are administered properly (something our country has a lousy track record of doing).

BTW, I do understand that your first sentence was a joke.

[fgalkin]

Communist, no I can't put myself there. I like keeping what I earn. I am very much a capitalist, however, I do believe in some socialized services, provided they are administered properly (something our country has a lousy track record of doing).

Bah, excuses, excuses. *Watches on as Sobbastchianno is being seized by the members of the John Birch Society*

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin