Memo to James Dobson: NEVER quote Leviticus 18:22 again

From what I gather, Senator Obama, in his appeal to evangelicals, mentioned the Book of Leviticus, which says (among other things) that slavery's okay but eating oysters isn't. My buddy James Dobson claims Obama's twisting these Old Testament writings that (in his words) "don't apply anymore" with the words of Jesus.

The most common passage used by evangelicals and whatever the fuck Phelps is, is Leviticus 18.22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is an abomination." Leviticus is an Old Testament writing...did James Dobson just say the Old Testament prohibition against homosexuality doesn't apply anymore? I think he did.

When you dine at the cafeteria, you only hafta eat what you put on your tray.

Sometimes you can even throw some of that away if it's inconvenient.

When I read Dobson's rant, I was surprised because I thought folks like him had embraced the OT and ignored the NT, but considered Jesus to be the OT God. :shrug:

no longer applies, but clinging to a 2,500-year-old understanding of human sexuality is okie dokie. Bigotry, anyone?

ETA: Recommended.

:kick:

Look at the list of animals you're not supposed to eat from Leviticus and you'll notice one common thread: all of them can carry human illness. Pigs carry trichinosis, which is spread by undercooked pork. I'm going to assume they ate a lot of raw meat back then--the region was at a permanent state of war, and every soldier knows you don't make cooking fires in a combat zone. Shellfish carry a whole string of toxins--red tide, ciguatera, paralytic shellfish poisoning, like that. In Biblical times they didn't understand PSP, but they did understand the last thing Elihu, Aaron and Joshua (probably real common names then) ate before they died was a bowl of clams. Let's see...all those guys are dead from eating clams, and Joseph, Moses and Jesus all started bleeding from the eyes and shitting liquid after they ate pork. So let's tell everyone they're not allowed to eat shellfish or pork.

faith healing - yes, ye olde testy-ment sure did help out humanity. 3500 yrs after adam and eve were inserted in eden. Of course those rules still apply now.

Most subsistence farmers do mix crops in a field--they'll grow different kinds of vegetables, right?

Where the "don't mix two ___s" came about stems from Christianity's origins. The people being drawn/forced into Christianity were, by and large, pagan. What "don't mix two fibers" really means is "don't mix paganism and Christianity." I'm certain they mixed two kinds of material in some of their garments--old military uniforms would have had leather where it was needed and linen or cotton where those fibers were good enough...that way you could make more uniforms out of one hide, and the uniforms wouldn't have been as hot and heavy to wear.

symbolism. If it says you can't wear clothing of two fibers it means you can't wear clothing made of two more fibers.

and let's not forget how many interpretations and adaptations the Bible has gone through over the years.

Or a really tiny camel.

Is not a rule of Christianity but of Judaism and yes, it refers to crops, and garments. Those 'laws' were established thousands of years before the advent of Christianity. And millions still practice these laws world wide. These are not alagorical laws.

The only time you wouldn't want a camp fire is in a sneak attack. But otherwise yeah campfires were allowed. They would do some crazy stuff like take breaks in battles. They would fight for an hour or two. Then bothsides would call a retreat. This was so the soldiers could rest, get some water, and food. Then they would meet on the battle field again and resume the fighting. That's just crazy by todays standards.

Which, interestingly enough, is not a prohibited food according to the Old Testament. :hi:

Swine were domesticated at least 5,000 years ago, possibly as far back as 7,000 years. Evidence that they were hunted for food goes back more than 25,000 years. Their use as food is documented throughout Asia, Europe and Africa. In the western hemisphere, the peccary (a distantly related species) has been hunted for food since humans first arrived in the Americas although it was never domesticated. Judaism is one of very few cultures to have ever prohibited eating swine; if it were so dangerous, why have pigs been a human staple for millennia?

Likewise, shellfish have been eaten by humans very widely. Even in the Middle East at the time of the Kingdom of Judah, shellfish were a staple. Again, if they were so deadly, why was Judaism the only culture to prohibit their consumption? And what about crabs, lobsters, shrimp and catfish, all of which are "abominations" along with scallops?

A much more likely explanation, based on actual scholarship and comparison with other religions and cultures of the day, has to do with cultic beliefs. Animals which could be eaten were those deemed suitable in some way for sacrifice to Jawheh: kine, sheep, goats, doves, fish with both scales and gills. Animals which could not be eaten were those deemed unsuitable in some way for sacrifice to Jahweh: swine, camels, horses, rabbits, snakes, fish without both scales and gills. Other related cultures, who were dedicated solely to different gods with different tastes in sacrifices, had dietary restrictions which paralleled the sacrifices their god expected.

But I think there's also some sort of underlying cannibalism fear.

The animals listed generally have some sort of access to human flesh--wild pigs, for example, will attack and eat humans. Shellfish are bottom feeders who may eat whatever has fallen to the bottom of the ocean. Eating something that may have eaten human flesh would certainly be "unclean."

I assume the meat/dairy separation was also a health issue--probably a good way to keep disease pathogens from spreading between food sources?

http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/index.html#fashion

This shows how the laws in the Old Testament, particularly Leviticus, are ridiculous in a very humorous but highly accurate way!

I was raised in the fundamentalist vacuum and that's just how it is. You can't even have a rational argument with some of them. It's scary. Kind of like the FLDS people. Each denomination has it's cult like qualities.

Never realize how similar they look. :rofl:

Or diet Koo-Aide?

Dobson is an ass.

what Jesus meant and didn't mean. They decide what is currently relevant and what isn't.... :crazy:

someone might want to point that out to him-

peace~

You're expecting logic?

I thought a lot of the appeal of these so-called "holy books" was how malleable they are... you get to pick and choose from among dozens of contradictory statements, so you can delude yourself into feeling self-righteous no matter what the situation.

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. 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. 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?

"Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the water, that shall be an abomination unto you" Leviticus 11:12



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


http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp

:thumbsup:

Thanks for posting it. I'm bookmarking it so I can send it to my RW religious nut cousin in California next time she sends me some crap.

He had plenty to say about greed and hypocrisy - but not one single word about teh gay. They like to use words from Saul, the Terrorist of Tarsus who never met Jesus and ate bad mushrooms and fell off a jackass outside Damascus. :eyes:

Otherwise, Xian churches would have no objection to pedophilia, rape, and incest.

Not important to Jesus, those. "Righteousness" was, but apparently that's undefined, since there's no context.

Dobson is an idiot. This is going nowhere.