Letter to "Dr." Laura

August 28, 2000 11:39 AM

Letter to "Dr." Laura since laura schlessinger can make biblical pronouncements on gays and lesbians, perhaps she can clear these things up as well. [and i refuse to call her doctor seeing as how she doesn't have a medical licence. but that's another discussion...]
posted by raedyn (36 comments total)

I assume now we'll all be relieved from referring to Martin Luther King as "Doctor", since he never acquired a medical license either? That seems to be a bit trivial as I'm sure that Dr. Hook, Dr. Spock and Dr. Watson don't qualify either.
As far as Mosaic law, you probably should restrict the application of that to Old Testament Jews (in that context, it makes more sense). You should consider Christ's work on the cross and look to the New Testament for God's plan for your life. A good starting point is John 3:16. Once your personal relationship with Christ is in order, the questions about homosexuality, dietary restrictions, and the purpose of sacrifices are more easily answered.

posted by mildew at 12:13 PM on August 28, 2000

can i get a *hallelujah*
posted by Sapphireblue at 12:28 PM on August 28, 2000

*hallelujah*
posted by raedyn at 12:30 PM on August 28, 2000

As for the burnt offerings, I find that a standard fume hood (remember high school chemistry?) works quite well. I most certainly don't want to upset the neighboors, even if they are going to hell.

posted by aladfar at 12:45 PM on August 28, 2000

mildew: so, um, I'm still confused as to the selective application of Mosaic law. Maybe you can help me out here. I'm aware that a new covenant was established, but who's to say that the proscription of homosexuality wasn't meant to apply only to strictly observant Jews, as well?
Oh, yeah, one more thing: Martin Luther King was a theology Ph.D. Dr. Laura is...?
posted by lbergstr at 1:18 PM on August 28, 2000

[mildew] Dr. Hook

Who's Dr. Hook? Do you mean Captain Hook?

[mildew] Dr. Spock and Dr. Watson don't qualify either

While I'm too lazy to look into the assumption that Spock and Watson weren't medical doctors, what does this have to do with anything? These are fictional characters.

[mildew] Once your personal relationship with Christ is in order, the questions about homosexuality....are more easily answered.

So, assuming you have such a relationship, what are the answers you easily found?
posted by daveadams at 1:18 PM on August 28, 2000

daveadams... there actually is a Dr. Spock. He's a child psychologist. Probably on of the best known child psychologists, actually. He wrote a book (or more) a while back that constantly gets reprinted.

I've no idea whether or not he has a medical degree, though I'd always assumed he did.
posted by cCranium at 1:31 PM on August 28, 2000

Dr Hook and the Medicine Show... know your classic pop!
posted by prolific at 1:58 PM on August 28, 2000

Watson was an M.D. :-)

And as far as the "new" covenant with God, if you read what Jesus had to say in his life, he preached strict adherence to dietary and other jewish laws. It was his followers that later decided that things like the "mark" of the covenant (circumcision) and dietary restrictions weren't necessary.

*amen*
posted by Ms Snit at 2:21 PM on August 28, 2000

actually, to be called "doctor" you do not have to have a medical licence. but you must have a Ph. D. (yes, a DOCTORATE) in /something/. and umm... the radio personality in question has... none.
posted by raedyn at 2:24 PM on August 28, 2000

I'm confused as to how people can look to a book for guidence on how to live their lives when it begins with talking snakes and half-angel, giant monster-men.

Why people who see the bible as even ALMOST factual aren't considered completely insane is just beyond me.

posted by Doug at 2:25 PM on August 28, 2000

Now that you mention it, the Bible has made me reconsider that pig roast in Wrigleyville on Labor Day.
posted by skallas at 2:31 PM on August 28, 2000

For more great stuff I recommend www.skepticsannotatedbible.com (sorry, don't know how to post a proper link in reply format).

Ah, the personal relationship with Jesus. Easily the most important crutch for getting past those nagging biblical inaccuracies/falsehoods/forgeries. As Mark Twain said (from memory, so excuse me if wording isn't exact), "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

posted by norm at 2:40 PM on August 28, 2000

"Now that you mention it, the Bible has made me reconsider that pig roast in Wrigleyville on Labor Day. "

Don't worry, I think you can still sell the pig into slavery. Or am I confused?
posted by Outlawyr at 2:43 PM on August 28, 2000

As I understand, Dr. Laura has a doctorate in physiology. Personally, I don't think she should be using the title "Dr. Laura" in the context of her preachy call-in show any more than Dr. King should have been allowed to conduct open-heart surgery.

I'm not even going to comment on mildew's post, execept to say that I learned a long time ago not to argue with these people. Anyone who uses religion as an end-all to an arguement can't be reasoned with.
posted by dandot at 2:48 PM on August 28, 2000

As far as Mosaic law, you probably should restrict the application of that to Old Testament Jews (in that context, it makes more sense). You should consider Christ's work on the cross and look to the New Testament for God's plan for your life.

An interesting theory, mildew.

I regret that I must mention that it contradicts what Jesus himself had to say.

Matthew 5:17-18: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Of course Jesus, being Jewish, probably used the term "Torah", and not "the law".

Jesus also seems to have been fairly strong in his belief that he was here only for fellow Jews: Matthew 15:24: "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Together, it would seem that Jesus never had any intent in repudiating Torah, which he lived by all his life.

posted by aurelian at 2:54 PM on August 28, 2000

Please, can no one crush my faith in Dr. Pepper?
posted by john at 3:37 PM on August 28, 2000

>>You should consider Christ's work on the cross...<<
>Hey, I'm looking for a savior here, not someone to refinish my kitchen cabinets.<

Well, he was a carpenter... :)

I heard a guy on the radio who was also a carpenter, and he said when discussions like this would come up, he'd wonder aloud, "So, whaddaya think... Was Christ a finisher, or more of a framing guy?"

Alas, most of the ostentatiously devout don't seem to realize that humor is part of "God's image", too. :)

posted by aurelian at 3:38 PM on August 28, 2000

I personally think that the church lost all rights to criticise homosexuals when it failed to excommunicate adultors and fornicators. Why should one form of "sexual deviance" be any more sinfull than the other one?

I say lets legalize homosexual marriages and compare the straight vs. gay families statistics on various family values issues 30 years down the road.

The last I checked, Church of England was created to cater to the phillandering ways of Henry VIII. The Arch Bishop of Canterburry cast his Biblical blessings on the divorce of Henry VIII and Queen Catherine (who was a devout Catholic). More recently, Pope John Paul II signed on the decree which anulled the marriage of the then Senator Al D'amato from his estranged wife (hence "bastardising," in the eyes of the Lord, his four grown up children), so that the Senator can "DATE" a Jewish woman, Claudia Cohen.

If you have faith in God, be a good man yourself and worry about your own fate in the judgement day. You are not your brother's keeper.
posted by tamim at 3:50 PM on August 28, 2000

She could be called ArchConsul Laura of the Galactic Empire, but it wouldn't mean I'd give any more of a toss about what she says on her pathetic little show.
posted by holgate at 9:06 PM on August 28, 2000

Of course the Bible itself can have no credence unless one has an a priori belief in God. It follows that citing the Bible as proof of the existence of God makes no sense. Not that rationality has anything to do with religion, but many are the door-knocking evangelists who have been flummoxed by that one. Heh.
posted by webwerks at 3:55 AM on August 29, 2000

He's not a real doctor! He knows more than you do!

posted by plinth at 6:31 AM on August 29, 2000

Ahhh...just one mention of God and a small display of faith, it's amazing how many responses and emotions they bring out. Just looking at the comments, it's evident that God exists and has an effect on His creation. This is hardly the place for serious apologetics, and I'm certainly not infallible, but a few responses are in order.

tamim - I agree that the church's lapses in judgement are easily seen and documented. All the more reason so seek what God says in His revealed word (apologies to webwerks, doug and norm - but it's the *sigh* Bible)

aurelian, Ms Snit - Christ lived His life under the Old Covenent, the New wasn't implemented until His atoning death. So it's not suprising that He lived according to OT Law.

aurelian - your comment on a sense of humor is right on - even Proverbs indicates the value of laughter (Proverbs 17:22)...and Christ most definitely was a "finisher" (Hebrews 12:2 KJV)

dandot - I would never want you to think that I was avoiding a discussion by hiding behind religious beliefs (in fact, it looks as though I've started one) I don't believe that religion is the "end-all", but I do believe that one can know God's will. I welcome discussion. (Isaiah 1:18 Come now, let us reason together...)

An honest look at the Bible and it's effect on history will preclude any statements that it's merely a collection of inaccuracies/fallacies/forgeries or a nice story about talking snakes and Nephilim.

These sites provide far better answers than I can here:

http://www.family.org
http://www.icr.org
http://www.gty.org
http://www.answersingenesis.org

Interesting reading, but I've got to get back to work....I'll check back tomorrow.
posted by mildew at 7:32 AM on August 29, 2000

Divinely flawed logic.

I can mention the chance the Cubs will win the World Series and make a small display of faith, and it will bring out many responses and emotions.

That doesn't prove it exists. (If only!)

Not that logic has a place in either religion or Cubdom.
posted by luke at 8:03 AM on August 29, 2000

Christ lived His life under the Old Covenent, the New wasn't implemented until His atoning death. So it's not suprising that He lived according to OT Law.

All one can do is show you the words of Christ, and hope that you hear. If you choose to elevate someone else's interpretation of Christ above Christ's own words... Well, that's not my problem. {shrug}

posted by aurelian at 8:55 AM on August 29, 2000

i respect mildew's attempt to open some of the closed minds here...i think the attempt is lost upon them; i learned a while back that you can't convince or reasonably discuss something with someone who doesn't want to know, believe, or understand.
posted by alethe at 8:55 AM on August 29, 2000

amen, alethe.
posted by phooey at 12:59 PM on August 29, 2000

"i learned a while back that you can't convince orreasonably discuss something with someone who doesn't want to know, believe, or understand."

True . . . but isn't it the same the other way around? If you don't want to know, believe or understand that there might not be a higher power, you're in the same boat there.
posted by Zosia Blue at 1:20 PM on August 29, 2000

I think the point of the original post has been lost here. These comments appear to be trailing into a debate on the existance of God, and there's simply no way to win that arguement. From either side of the fence.

The whole point of the original post was to poke fun at those who interpret the Bible literally. Several people have cited biblical quotes in this thread, but I have a different quote, from Dennis Miller's rant on the Religious Right:

"And you know, while I'm at it, I don't care what arcane passage you pull out of the Old Testement and run through your Jeremiah-begat-Jebediah Decoder Ring, one of the definitive tenets of Christianity is tolerance. Trust me, there's no verison of the Bible that says Love they neighbor unless he's a Peter Allen fan. Any supposedly Christian doctrine must have at the core a belief in the concept of unqualified love for your fellow man. Unless of course he proves himself to be a total asshole. Then you can ditch him. Sure, God understands that, who do you think booked Satan's flight? What he can't understand is turning against someone because you don't happen to agree with their sexual preference. Forget your linear, biblical interpretation that tells you to ostracize gays, and follow your heart. It's like when your driving test instructor would tell you to run the stop sign. And you would, and then he'd flunk you. And you'd say, "But you told me to." And he'd say, "Sorry, you never run a stop sign." And you never carpet bomb a group of people with hate because they're different from you. Case closed, Tailgunner Joe."
posted by dandot at 2:06 PM on August 29, 2000

hate the sin, love the sinner.
posted by alethe at 3:26 PM on August 29, 2000

Wake up, alethe, not only aren't we all Christian, we ain't all the same kind of Christian.
posted by dhartung at 4:01 PM on August 29, 2000

Well, someone could conclusively win the argument by proving himself to be God. Of course, after doing that, he'd probably strike down all of us non-believing heathens, thus leaving nobody to gloat to about his victory in the argument. Classic catch-22.
posted by zempf at 4:14 PM on August 29, 2000

dhartung - i didn't think we were all the same or all Christians...did i say i did?
posted by alethe at 5:36 PM on August 29, 2000

With all due respect to Mark Twain and Mr. Dennis Miller, their observations just don't seem to carry the same weight as the Sermon on the Mount or the Olivet Discourse. Mr. Miller seems to place a high priority on tolerance, but comes across as totally intolerant of any Christian morality that he doesn't particularly agree with. What he can't (or chooses not to) find in scripture he imagines that "God understands that" and urges people to "follow your heart".

Considering that men's hearts are "deceitful and desperately wicked" (Jeremiah 17:9) that is dangerous advice.

The whole of this discussion seems to hinge on whether an omnipotent God is cabable of clearly communicating His will to His creation - Christians believe that He is, and He has.
posted by mildew at 7:23 AM on August 30, 2000

and as mentioned previously, the only point was to point out how ridiculous it is to interpret the bible literally and out of context. considering translations, and changing times etcetc. and NO i will not get into a long debate about the validity of the bible blahablahblah.

it has its place.
posted by raedyn at 10:16 AM on August 30, 2000