5 votes

Don't you just hate Leviticus?

Who doesn't? Even the Commander in Chief wants in on the action.


This is normal. It's not just the president that feels this way. I have seen the following list of questions on Leviticus floating around social media, and I thought, well, let's just answer these questions directly.

So that's what I'm going to do. You will be able to find my responses to the questions below in [brackets].

Remember, we hate this law. Romans 8:7 makes that quite clear. "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." Romans 8:7 KJV Translation

Here we go...


On her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger 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 response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, written by a U.S. man, and 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 other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are 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?

[There are 2 reasons you cannot own Canadians. First, in our country, only the state can own slaves. So, if you want to own anyone, you are going to have to take it up with them. Second, the Canadians are from the same stock as Americans. Just a few generations ago we shared common blood. They would fall under the law of brothers, Hebrew servants. That means, according to Deuteronomy 15:12, they have to be released every 7 years. *Or he could sell himself to you through the year of Jubilee, or he could voluntarily stay with you forever. Lev 25:39-42; Deut 15:16-17]

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?

[Marriage in Hebrew law is a 2 party contract between the man and the father of the bride. The man takes over guardianship of the woman and the liabilities that come with her. That is, he has to feed and clothe her. Exodus 21:10-11 makes that clear. With that in mind, you are free to charge as much as you like. Jacob agreed to work 7 years for his wife Rachel. But she may have been more valuable and better looking than your average girl. If you take the girl without asking the father, you pay 50 pieces of silver and the father can still refuse to give you his daughter. Deuteronomy 22:29 and Exodus 22:16-17.]

3. 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.

[It is the responsibility of the woman to keep herself separate during menstruation. Menstrual blood is a bio hazard. If you touch an unclean woman or her bed, you wash and are unclean till evening. *It's not sin unless you are approaching the woman to uncover her nakedness or lie with her during her period. Lev 18:19 and 20:18]

4. 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?


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, or should I ask the police to do it?

[No. If the police, judges, or elders will not enforce the law, then you have no right to take the matter into your own hands. Your neighbor has a right to stand before the judges and plead his case.]

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? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

[Some abominations require capital punishment. The death penalty is not commanded for dietary laws, although the health and social effects may prove deadly.]

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?

[This law applies to the Aaronic priests. Normal people do not keep the service of the altar. Glasses would pose a problem in this service.]

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?

[The death penalty is not commanded for a violation of this law.]

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?

[Better to use a different football. But if you do pick up a pig skin, wash your clothes, and be unclean till evening. Lev 11:25 *EDIT* Turns out, footballs are not made of pigskins.]

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)

[No, the death penalty is not commanded for mixed seed or clothing. For blasphemy, yes, they are stoned. But there must be due process. Deuteronomy 17:2-4 *Also, the word "private" here is wrong.]

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

[*Edit* I think it was falsely attributed to]
James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of Curriculum,
Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia

P.S. It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


You either get your rights from God...

or you get them from the government!

You choose.

I get mine through my human

I get mine through my human reason and my willingness to fight by any means neccessary those who would take them and turn me into a slave.

But if you're right and its god giving us our rights, could you please go tell your pillow to ask god if he'll kindly give them back? Because the government has taken most of them away. Im getting sick of door knocking, making calls and trying to take my liberty back. Id really rather you just ask god to do it.

Gilligan's picture

Magwan77, do you see any difference in the rights held by people

in officially athiestic countries, vs. the rights held by people in countries where religion flourishes?

Google is government.

This is a tough question

This is a tough question because there has never been a largley athiestic individualist nation. Wether religeous or athiest, collectivist nations still engag in religeous worship, be it gods or state. Their rights depend wholly on the whims of those who interpret their choosen idol of worship's desires. Your right in Stalinistic Russia was to starve for the almighty state, while the ancient Aztec's were blessed with the right to have their hearts cut out and their heads tossed down the steps to the cheering of thousands. All forms of collectivism are insanity. Just differant flavors of it.

The better question would be: "Do you see any differance in the rights held by people in officially Collectivist countries, vs. the rights held by people in countries where Individualism flourishes?"

My answer is, if a people are Individualist, it doesn't matter if they are 100% religeous or 100% athiestic. So long as your right to life, liberty & property are protected by rule of law, both of them would be a paradise of prosperity and human progress. Of the two, I would expect the athiestic nation to have a distinct advantage in scientific progress since Athiests don't believe they already have all the answers. Either would be great and in constant need of vigilance against the ever lurking collectivists.

I feel that the wording in

I feel that the wording in the Declaration of Independence is best, because it leaves out a designation of God and instead says "endowed by their Creator", so that regardless of one's spiritual belief it can be understood that we ALL have rights, inherent upon creation, whether by God, nature, or whatever one believes, and that they are unalienable; NOTHING can take them away.

End The Fed!
BTC: 1A3JAJwLVG2pz8GLfdgWhcePMtc3ozgWtz

Sorry, incorrect

While all of the founders were not Christian (including Jefferson), many of them were. And even Jefferson did not write the Declaration to be vague - it wasn't "God, nature, or whatever one believes." In the first paragraph of the Declaration he refers to rights we are entitled to by "Nature's God" and in the final paragraph he is "appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world."

There is no question as to the meaning of our "Creator."

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

Many of the founders were Deists.

Including, notably, Thomas Jefferson. You can look this up. Deists of the time believed in a supreme God, based on the evidence of the natural world, without relying on supernatural intervention or miracles as evidence. I don;t know if that made then "Christians," according to our modern definition, but they definitely came from Judeo-Christian backgrounds.
I am, by the way, a Christian libertarian (there must be more of us out there, somewhere), although I would describe my husband as more of a Deist.

It is both. "by the laws of

It is both. "by the laws of nature and nature's God". The ending is an appeal to God for all the men assembled, not designating who gave who rights.

End The Fed!
BTC: 1A3JAJwLVG2pz8GLfdgWhcePMtc3ozgWtz

Too many goddamn posts on

Too many goddamn posts on this site from neocons recently.


Too much foul and disrespectful language, too.

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

Wasted energy

When will our society finally realize they can truly be free ? It's a matter of letting go of all these institutions in our lives and realize how awesome we truly are.

Until then, we are doomed to be slaves.....

For Freedom!
The World is my country, all mankind is my brethren, to do good is my religion.

But that makes me feel like you think I shouldn't believe in God

like I am holding us all back because of my belief. I think it is awesome when we can all let each other believe without feeling like it is wrong to believe. Honestly, God is not an institution to me...He is my comfort and strength and a shelter when I had cancer. My whole eternity is staked on the the blood of His Son so that I can truly awesome throughout eternity, never having to struggle with sin ever again.

But I am not dooming you.

It is. In order to believe

It is. In order to believe in god, you require a few things:

1) To be able to submit to authrority, and believe there are those who deserve to rule and own you.

2) You must be able to accept fantastical things as true without a shred of reasonable proof. Faith is exulted.

3) You have to believe that monarchy under the rule of a powerful authority figure with an absolute surveilance state is the greatest form of government possible.

These requirements, every Christian must have to be able to believe in god, even if they don't know it, or won't admit it. They also happen to be the exact same ingrediants that make up the collectivist mind.

Not all christians support earthly collectivism, however by accepting the christian religeon, they have prooved that their willingness to submit is simply a question of how much power. They may not bend the knee to an earthly king unless he displays power on par with their notion of god. They simply don't accept lesser rulers, such as mortal men. However I venture that given a powerful enough dictator with 100% surviellance and control systems, most collectivist minds would soon realize how much they "love" and "revere" their supreme leader. Absolute certainty of getting caught coupled with horrific consequences has a way of warping the human mind in all sorts of Orwelleon ways.

The collectivist mind will always be a limitation which holds back the individual. Traditionally its held back the entire human race, but things are changing. You're free to believe as you wish of course, and its my "belief" that you're belief's won't hold the rest of us back in the end. We will have a Libertarian golden age with or without you 100% on board. Of course you're still welcome to join in even if you're only partially on board and still maintain your belief in cosmic monarchy.

Did you know

that the Amish would not fight in WWII while the rest of the "good Christians" went? I think people have been brainwashed and some people are waking up.

Christians came to this country because they would not bend the knee to the king(s) and had been persecuted, set on fire, drowned, drawn and pulled, etc. etc. etc. for centuries.

There are true and false Christians. Not everyone who claims the name of Christ is known by Christ. It is a very individual situation.

When push comes to shove true Christians will die for their faith as they are martyred by the collective. I was at an Amish home a couple of weeks ago and saw a very thick book on the handmade shelf. A book I had never heard or seen before:


It contains a thousand pages of individual accounts of Christians who did not submit to the collective, even when the collective was supposedly "Christian."

In those collective societies, it is the Christians as well as others who are slaughtered because they will not go along with the collective rouge state.

You see, Jesus said this:

Matthew 23:9 KJV
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

I have one King: The Lord God Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, and I am learning more each day, exactly what that means as I realize the brainwashing that I and many other Christians have been subjected to in the name of nationalism and patriotism without even knowing it.

It seems to me that it takes more imagination to look out the window and see all of creation and reason that it created itself. And that my friend, is the very testimony that God has given humanity of His existence.

Romans 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse...

or in plainer everyday English:

Romans 1:19 For the truth about God is known to them instinctively. God has put this knowledge in their hearts. 20 From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God. http://www.biblestudytools.com/nlt/romans/passage.aspx?q=rom...

And it seems to me that in the 1800's the knowledge that there was a Creator was separated from the created and if you want to know more about that you can read it here: http://www.biblestudytools.com/nlt/romans/1.html


Pretty good summary

Lots of merit

For Freedom!
The World is my country, all mankind is my brethren, to do good is my religion.

There are good people and bad

There are good people and bad people. The amount of each more often than not can probably be drawn parallel with how individualist or collectivist that person is. What supersticions they choose to believe or not believe is irrelivant. All that truly matters is wether they believe they can deprive others of their right to life, liberty and property.

There are some Christians I hold in the highest reguard. I don't hold their belief's againt them because they don't hold their belief's against me. At the same time, I know pleny of collectivist big-government parasite athiests whom I would happy trap in a pane of glass and send spiraling off into space.

Individualism and Collectivism are all that matters. While I don't think any Christian can "truly" be Individualist, they can get close enough to keep me happy.

Not at all

I also don't hate Sauron or Lex Luthor or Mark Duquesne -- because they are all fiction.

However, if I WERE a Christian, I'd still not hate Leviticus, because, after all, didn't the Risen Rabbi teach us (Matthew 5:17?) that he "came not to destroy the law but to fulfill it"?

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
to be continued

GoodSamaritan's picture

Well said

You are correct about Jesus fulfilling the Law.

Despite the fact that Leviticus (and the rest of the OT) was not written to followers of Jesus Christ, it was written for us. In addition to Matthew 5:17, see: Romans 15:4, 1 Corinthians 10:1-11, Hebrews 10:1-18, Colossians 2:13-14, and Ephesians 2:11-22.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

echo echo

double post opportunity for more super villains?

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
to be continued

More hooey

You would have to be a 2000 year old Jew for this to apply. Only a simple mind would fall for this nonsense.

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

So if I lived 3000 years ago,

So if I lived 3000 years ago, these rules would apply to me?

Just curious, why did god wait so many years before declaring these rules obsolete? After all, mankind has existed for hundreds of thousands of years...

jruss, I think that I'm an

jruss, I think that I'm an evangelical, fundamentalist Christian -- many of my close friends and even my husband disagree, but whatever; I am -- and I'm head-over-heels about your post.

I think that the text of the Bible is the Greatest Story Ever Told. It's not a one-way story. God created mankind because of His need. We make so many mistakes from failing to understand this basic idea. God needed us.

It's not the story of some authoritative God pronouncing one-way abominations. You'd have to be blind to see it that way. Before God even created man, he'd created a tree that could transform man into knowing like Himself. He created man in his image and waited. Sure enough man had enough God in him to take from the tree. Just like God wanted.

The Fall is just symbolic of the fall into being like-God, responsible --for whatever happens next -- to what God really wanted.

If you haven't read "God a Biography" by Jack Miles, do so. I think it won a Pulitzer.

The story elucidated in the Bible is then a relationship between God and the God-man he created. God's pissed that some of his man-god creation wants to f--- when it can't be procreative. He smites them. The text of the Bible, in fact, makes a tragic hero of a woman who turns back to mourn God's decision. It makes heroes out of Abraham and Lott who bargain for saving the "abominations." It makes heroes out of a man who offers his daughter to the "degenerates." At every turn the Biblical story begs the question -- what's right? God doesn't know. Lott is okay in God's eyes despite that offers up on his daughters in place of an angel.

Only an idiot would read such an account and fail to see Lot's failure. He was willing to let his girl child die by rape to save a stranger. Either he did not believe this stranger was an angel, capable of supernatural feats. Or he didn't give a crap about his daughter.

Either way, the Biblical account calls readers to judge. To judge God. For me, this is the beauty. I see a unveiling story of God's desire to create a race that will fight and inform his nature. So God didn't care about women and slaves and fags. Until...we did. I kinda think God is outside morality. He created us because he longed for relationship, which necessitates morality. We give that notion to God as much as he gives it to us.

That may seem all heretical, but I'm a evangelical, fundamentalist Christian. And I think and read the whole of the Bible as much about God trying to understand what he created and being moved by his creation enough to change his mind. (Like He does over and over in the Bible -- in fact you could think of the Bible as a naked, no-PR story of God changing in response to his creation.)

Also morality doesn't exist with out man in concert with other men; or God in a life-less universe. When God created life, he then became involved with morality. God's conscious creatures teach God morality as much as God teaches us. It's a relationship. God learn' we learn.

Hard to pin-point the crux of

Hard to pin-point the crux of disagreement. But allow me to try.

1. Can we take as a given that morality does not exit until we have two morally culpable agents? Right? I mean if it's just me with no living creatures on a desert island, can I act immorally?

2. If we accept that give, than God in his existence pre-creation was not a moral being in the given sense. He's just a being; just existing. Morality doesn't even spring into being a concept until that God creates other creatures.

3. We have some scraps of Scripture that intimate God created at least some angels before he created man. (Certainly, there was at least one angel created be the time Adam and Eve were frisking in the Garden, and from what we read that angel was able to convince a bunch of angels to rebel against God. So there were, at least a bunch of angels.)

4. We're not sure what sort of words God spoke, what sort of Scripture those angel beings got from God's mouth.

5. We know that God condemned such angels for their rebellion. We can only assume that those condemned angels knew God and rebelled anyway. But maybe they didn't know God, maybe they weren't intimate with God; maybe their rebellion was an assertion of their own morality, arrived at through consort among themselves. We don't know.

6. We know that God condemned half the first generation of the sons of Adam and Eve. We know that a few generations later, God condemned almost the whole of the human and animal and plant creation he'd pronounced "good." We know that a few generations later, he's picked one guy produce the seed that will whoop up on the rest of the human seed that he's saved.

7. God's non-PR version of his history with mankind is replete with what any of us moderns would consider immoral. His "law" back in the day had women who were raped being made whole by being married to her rapists. It included slavery as part of economic justice. It killed thousands (millions?) of babies to make a point. (Weird how the pro-life folks now want to claim God gives a shit about babies? He didn't back in the day.)

8. So what's changed? Has God changed? Why is that such an anathema? If God desired to created a race that would come out of the gate with rebellion, why would we not assume that he desires man to teach him morality as much as he teachers us?

The Bible is all over the place with relationship -- RELATIONSHIP! Hello that's no one-way street. God created man with a purpose, and it's not just to have some tawdry soap opera to spy on beneath the clouds. It's because God was a lonely being, amoral (by definition) and we wanted more. He wanted to create a being who would be capable of relating. When WE came on the scene, MORALITY came on the scene.

God, then, contended with what He wanted, a real relationship with real creatures who wouldn't just go all oh-because-you-said-it. You can call that faith, and I'm guessing God will be all oh-another-one-of-those-pansies. Then He gets a David or a Saul or a Luther or a Jana who curses God's current agenda. And God goes, "Un-huh, that's what I mean."

The Bible is replete with men and woman who call God out, who are in real relationship, as they were created to be.

A pox on get-along with God types. That's no-where and no-way what God created us to be. Real relationships. Not some shamefaced-Oprah-I'm-just-consigned-to-be-co-dependent crap. We are designed, created, by God to be contenders. We shape God; for the very fact that he created us because he was bored being the end all beat all. He admitted us into his trajectory. We are cowards if we don't accept the challenge. Contend with your God. That's what God created you to do.

GoodSamaritan's picture

Marvel Comics Christianity

"That may seem all heretical..." Um, yeah.

There is no way you can be a true Christian and say something like this:

"...what's right? God doesn't know." You are calling Jesus Christ a liar:

"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.'" John 14:6-7

Jesus clearly stated that He is both Truth and God.

There is so much else wrong with what you wrote it would take at least a full page to debunk from Scripture and it's not worth my time. Exposing your lie about Jesus is sufficient to make the point.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

Zactly right

You are exactly right - there is no way a Christian would have written that, and it would take paragraphs to refute each sentence.

God has no needs. That's another of the "errors" made in that post.

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

Sophistry & Craft

Whatever it is you are reading, reconsider your understanding.

"I will speak to my people with stammering lips, line upon line, precept upon precept, hear a little, there a little, shall I speak to my people".

The scripture is not meant for us to understand (unless you study to find yourself approved and you will know beyond a shadow of a doubt when the Holy Spirit approves because it will be a very spiritual and revealing experience). In fact Yahashua (Jesus) stated to his apostles that he spoke to the people in parables so they do not understand.

Now since all mankind has been deceived by Satan, it could be your analysis of the scripture needs to be reconsidered [He created man in his image and waited. Sure enough man had enough God in him to take from the tree. Just like God wanted].. The premise you offer could even be considered filthy speech which also carries a severe penalty according to the Law.

It is my hope you reconsider your understanding of the Law.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”


You could think that you're a car, too, but that wouldn't make you one.

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul


You could think your replies sound intelligent but that doesn't mean they are.

More hooey

Well, thanks for your opinion. But if you had read with the intention of understanding rather than criticizing, you would have realized I made no such claim - unlike the OP. (But unlike your reply, mine was intelligent.)

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

No.7's picture

This is funny as hell


The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson