Dear Dr. Dobson CLICK AND SCROLL DOWN
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.
1. 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?
2. 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?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual cleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
4. 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?
5. 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?
6. 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?
7. 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?
8. 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?
9. 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?
10. 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)
Best,
Prodigal Son
At the risk of starting a "battle of the Bible verses," let me humbly offer three New Testament passages which Dr. Dobson may have overlooked. For the benefit of any non-Christians visiting this blog, I'll post the New International Version of each passage. For anyone wishing to consult a different translation (to include a large number of non-English ones), let me refer you to Bible Gateway at gospelcom.net, which I find to be an excellent resource.
ReplyDeleteI'm posting these passages without commentary, but I'd certainly be interested in anyone else's comments.
Passage 1: Matthew 19
4"Haven't you read," he [Jesus] replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[1] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[2] ?
Footnotes
19:4 Gen. 1:27
19:5 Gen. 2:24
Passage 2: Romans 1
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Passage 3: 2 Timothy 4
3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
Anonymous, I believe Prodigal Son's post was to question the way people pick and choose what they believe and what they ignore from the Bible. You cite a few passages condemning homosexuality. Fine... But what is your response to the passages previously quoted? Why are Biblical dietary laws disregarded these days? The Bible is pretty specific about alcohol abuse. Shouldn't we outlaw it? The same goes for adultery. Shouldn't we stone adulterers, or at least make adultery against the law?
ReplyDeleteAnon, as a proud member of the Christian Left, let me speak out in favor of "cutting-and-pasting" Bible verses. It's like masturbation: everyone does it, but only an enlightened, self-secure, liberal will ADMIT it. I mean, face it, that Old Testament God was an intolerant prig. Most of his stuff NEEDS to be cut out. And that's kind of the point of Jesus, right? I mean, I hope MY son lives to be a better, more enlightened, person than me. The Gospels are just generational progress writ supernatural.
ReplyDeleteAnd I know Paul also said some God-Hates-Fags sorta stuff, but Paul's words ain't printed in red.
Blogarillo, you pose a very important question, and it's only after prayerful consideration that I will even attempt to answer it. Please bear with me, as the answer is predicated on a few theological concepts that may seem irrelevant at first reading.
ReplyDeleteThe common denominator of the verses I cited was not condemnation of homosexuality per se. Each verse was taken from the New Testament, as opposed to the Old Testament verses cited by Prodigal Son. And therein lies the core of the issue.
The relationship between God and man in the Old Testament is based on the law: a comprehensive set of "Thou shalt not's" which was designed to protect the Israelites. For example, the eating of pork was prohibited because of the risk of trichinosis. Laws regarding sexual relations between blood relatives were designed to avoid inbreeding of genetically undesirable traits, as well as keeping the peace within families. I suspect the laws prohibiting planting two different crops in the same field may have had something to do with not depleting the soil of certain nutrients. The rationale behind some of these laws is more easily discernable than others.
Because the law was so comprehensive, and often counterintuitive to the nature of man, no one could obey 100 percent of the law 100 percent of the time. Since God is sinless, and man by his very nature is sinful, something had to be done to make man acceptable to a holy God who cannot stand the presence of sin. The answer was an elaborate system of sacrifices to cleanse the people of their sins. This is what Prodigal Son is referring to when he cites the sacrifice of the bull in Leviticus 1:9. (Parenthetically, the first blood sacrifice even predates the law; God provided animal skins to cover the nakedness of Adam and Eve because their own attempt at fashioning garments out of fig leaves was unacceptable to God.)
But these sacrifices were limited in duration. On the Day of Atonement each year, the process had to be repeated. Just as God provided a more acceptable covering for Adam and Eve�s nakedness than they ever could, he provided a perfect sacrifice for sin when he sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to live among us. When Jesus died on the cross, He became the ultimate sacrifice, not for a limited time or a specific group of people, but for all time and for all people who place their trust in Him. The New Testament teaches that acceptance of Jesus as your personal Savior makes a person subject not to the law (and his or her inability to fully obey it), but to God�s grace (i.e. the undeserved favor of God).
Prodigal Son's satirical ridicule of the Old Testament law is based on the presumption that prohibition of homosexuality is exclusively an Old Testament issue, and therefore as outdated as the arcane edicts he cites from Leviticus. The verses I cite from Romans chapter 2 show that the New Testament is not silent about this issue. Neither is it silent about idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, thieves, drunkards, slanderers, and swindlers. But sexual immorality is singled out: �Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.� (1 Corinthians 6:18, New International Version). Some Christians naively believe in �cheap grace� � I can do anything I want, and all I have to do is ask God to forgive me. The Bible warns against this: �What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!� (Romans 6:15, New International Version). Yet there are people who teach this type of �anything goes� Christianity, simply because people don�t want to strive to live a life worthy of the sacrifice that Jesus gave. This is what I was alluding to in Passage 3 (2 Timothy 4:3).
Now, regarding your questions about dietary laws, alcohol, and adultery (I bet you thought I�d never get there!). Christians, not being under the law, have tremendous freedom to do good, not out of fear or to earn God�s favor, but in gratitude for having already received that favor. In the book of Acts, chapter 10, Peter has a vision in which all kinds of four-footed animals, reptiles and birds are pronounced clean. Although this is open to interpretation, I believe this passage frees Christians from the dietary laws of the Old Testament. But I still feel I shouldn�t overindulge in foods that would abuse my body, which the New Testament teaches is the temple of the Holy Spirit. The New Testament is also clear about avoiding drunkenness, but I choose not to drink at all (except on very rare occasions), simply to stay close to the center of God�s will. Adultery, however, falls under the heading of sexual immorality, as well as being prohibited by one of the Ten Commandments.
Should certain types of food, alcohol, and adultery be illegal? As a conservative, I feel that governmental regulation of morality is not the answer. We already tried prohibiting alcohol, and things got even worse. Can you imagine the Big Mac �speak-easies� that would spring up if non-nutritious food were outlawed? Considering the public tolerance for infidelity, I doubt that any new laws in that area would be enforceable. Still, we shouldn�t celebrate gluttony, drunkenness or adultery.
And getting back to the original topic of homosexuality, liberals mistakenly think that Christian conservatives want to lock up all gays (or worse). As a heterosexual, I can�t imagine what it would be like to be sexually attracted to men, but I know how intense the sexual drive can be. Nonetheless, my faith teaches me that homosexuality is a sin. To equate homosexual relationships with the heterosexual relationship of marriage that Jesus describes in Matthew 19:4 is to deny my faith, which I cannot do.
(Postscript: I was up till 11:30 last night composing this response before I read r. spacedark's comments this morning. I hope to be able to respond to him tonight, but I can't guarantee anything. This free wheeling exchange of ideas is one of the things that makes the Internet so compatible with the free speech our Founding Fathers so wisely secured for us. But it does cut into my sleep time!)
Anon, I appreciate your lengthy and thorough response. For the record, I don't question your faith. That is nobody's business but yours. What I can be quite cynical about, however, is the application of peoples' faith to politics and law. Something in your response reinforces my question:
ReplyDelete"I feel that governmental regulation of morality is not the answer."
I might be more specific and say government regulation of religious morality is not the answer. Were you to gather together a group of people from disparate backgrounds (different religious denominations, agnostic, athiest, etc.) and ask them questions about morality you would see unity on many topics. Murder is wrong. Theft is wrong. But ask about gay marriage or abortion and the unity breaks down, largely because whether or not you believe those things to be wrong depends on whether or not you believe them to be sins (or believe in sin at all). A gay marriage ban actually doesn't prevent gays from getting married. They can stroll down to a gay friendly church and tie the knot if they want. The state won't acknowlege it or give the relationship legal protection, but it can't prevent that church or the people involved from performing a ceremony and calling people married.
A great many things in our world today deny Christian faith. Politicians who raise so much Cain over gay marriage and abortion don't seem to bother themselves with much else.
Dear Spacedark,
ReplyDeleteIn my last post, I promised I'd reply to your response to my post (as a paralegal, this kinda reminds me of some of the pleadings I occasionally have to deal with: "Third-Party Defendant's Surreply to Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Thirty-Third Motion for Partial Summary Judgment").
The first two things I thought of when I read your post were 1) a line from Steve Martin's hilarious routine entitled "What I Believe" ("I believe in eight of the ten commandments."); and 2)an announcement I heard years ago when I attended a Unitarian service with my brother and sister-in-law ("The Make Your Own Theology class will meet tonight at 8:00 p.m.")
I believe that Christians can disagree about the scriptures without being disagreeable. A case in point is a recent blogger on this site, Ricky Pfeil. Although I listen to KJRT fairly regularly and agree with most of what he says both politically and theologically (I hope that doesn't surprise you), I have some real issues with his positive confession theology. But like the differences between Pentacostals and Baptists, I feel its a matter of emphasis rather than heresy (ooh, that's a politically incorrect word, isn't it?). Brother Ricky and I agree on the basics: salvation through faith in Jesus Christ alone, and the inerrency of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, to name two.
Speaking of Genesis, I was just reading the following passage this morning:
Genesis 1
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [1] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
Footnotes
1:26 Hebrew; Syriac all the wild animals
When I read your assessment of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as an "intolerant prig" in need of a Messiah to set him on a more enlighened path, it made me want to paraphrase Genesis to read, "So Spacedark created God in his own image."
If God is God (i.e. omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, immutable) then by His very nature He is the same today as He was when He called the world into being, when He parted the Red Sea, and yes, when He gave the Law to Moses on Mount Sinai. If He was an "intolerant prig" in Leviticus, then He is an "intolerant prig" in the Gospels as well.
I've only read the Bible through twice that I can remember (One Year Bibles are great for that), and although I study the Word nearly every morning (I may occasionally miss a Saturday and/or Sunday),I'm certainly no expert on the Book of Books. But in the 28 years plus since I put my trust in Christ, the one undeniable truth I've gotten out of both Testaments is this: God is Love. I've already commented at some length about how the Law is a way that God protected His Chosen People, even if it wasn't always obvious, then or now. The Psalms are replete with examples of God as "my refuge ... my strength ... my fortress." Every time I read the scriptures (Old or New Testament) I try to take the attitude, "What are you trying to teach me in these verses, Lord?" Out of the detailed description of the tabernacle, I've seen a mirror of the intricacies and orderliness of Creation. From the Proverbs, I've seen that some virtues like wisdom and humility are timeless. The Psalms and Job have taught me that it's OK to pour your heart out to God; respectful disagreement and even anger at times is better than summarily dismissing Him.
Spacedark, you're not the first person to pick and choose the verses of the Bible to suit your world view. I remember reading somewhere that Thomas Jefferson wrote his own Bible, limiting it to at least some of the words of Jesus. I wonder if he did that to assuage his guilt about owning slaves and having an adulterous affair with at least one of them. More recently, a group called the Jesus Project has attempted to determine which of those red words were really spoken by Jesus and which were added by somebody else. I'm not really clear about the basis for those choices.
The problem with picking and choosing what to believe from the Bible is twofold: 1) What do you choose, and for what reasons? If you can ignore the scriptures about marriage and fidelity, can I ignore the verses about murder, stealing, or lying? What makes your choices superior to mine?; and 2) At what point does your Bible cease to be the Bible? When it becomes indistinguishable from the secular "feel goodisms" that abound in this culture, a creed so broad and shallow that it ceases to require faith?
The Bible is not meant to be light reading, although some parts read more easily than others. I find it to be a window into the very nature of God, a nature that is so multifaceted that even a lifetime is not long enough to fathom it completely. I can't imagine getting to know God by studying only those parts of the Bible that appeal to my nature.
One last word that may be considered somewhat off topic. I've noticed that since the election, there's been a lot of bad mouthing of the 60 million of us who voted for George W. Bush. I've seen us portrayed as fools, bigots, uneducated, ignorant, racists, mean spirited, rednecks, Ku Klux Klanners, hypocrites -- and that's just on this blog! If it makes you feel better about your candidate having lost to deride those of us who voted for the President, or if it makes you feel superior to paint us with a broad brush that way, far be it from me to try to dissuade you (although I fail to see what it accomplishes to further the liberal agenda). But for heaven's sake, don't sell God short.
For the record (and please hear me through before you assume I'm trying to brag), in my nearly 55 years on this planet, I've lived in four U.S. states and a total of three countries on two continents. For nine years during the Cold War, I collected strategic intelligence from East European refugees. For five years, I taught two foreigh languages at the largest language institute in the free world. I've seen operas performed by some of the best companies in the United States and Europe. I've stood at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem and waded in the Pacific at Waikiki. I've walked up the Acropolis in Athens and sipped cappucino on the Piazza di San Marco in Venice. BUT ... the greatest adventure of my entire life has been getting to know the Creator of the Universe through prayer and the study of His Word in its entirety. Whatever you may think of my politics, don't deny yourselves the opportunity to share in that adventure.