RE: Some Questions for Kamilla

From: Don Perrett (
Date: Thu May 16 2002 - 14:30:09 EDT

  • Next message: Graham Morbey: "Re: Catholic Church and Morality"

    Actually what I said was that back then, OT days, they did not know the
    cause of most ailments and therefore used a blanket exemption for those with
    handicaps, and diseased. Now that we know the causes and duration of
    illnesses and can determine if someone has regained normal health, then they
    can again go to the alter. But until the cause of problem, even diminishing
    eye sight, is determined then they should not go to the altar. Would you
    offer potentially bad food to a guest in your house. Then why do so to God?
    Once the cause of a problem is known and it is determined to be
    non-communicable, or health is regained then they should not approach God's
    altar. This is respect, something too many people today know nothing about.
    In other words the law still applies but some modification is
    understandable. Even the constitution allows for change but key rights
    cannot be changed. Same is true for the bible. Some laws are old and
    modification is warranted. Others are basic laws, such as murder, that never
    change. Even those that change do not necessarily get eliminated. Health
    issues change, moral issues, such as sex, do not. Unless man grows a new
    type of genitalia then the laws still apply. God forgives, as should we, but
    this does not mean we should commit whatever sin we choose just because
    we'll be forgiven. Christ said do as he did. He followed the OT laws and so
    should we.
    Don Perrett

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Shuan Rose []
    Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 1:02 PM
    To: Don Perrett
    Cc: Asa@Calvin. Edu
    Subject: RE: Some Questions for Kamilla

    DEar Don,
    I agree that we should make an exception for those with contagious diseases
    for public health reasons. But you spoke in blanket terms about the sick and

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Don Perrett []
    Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 1:49 PM
    To: Shuan Rose
    Cc: Asa@Calvin. Edu
    Subject: RE: Some Questions for Kamilla

    You views are well taken. I do have one problem though. Would you allow a
    person with a disease into your work place? Even in schools they send people
    home when they are sick. So why would one allow a sick person in church to
    spread the disease in God's house and to his people. No one said they
    couldn't go when they were well. Common sense is harder to find than it

    -----Original Message-----
    From: []On
    Behalf Of Shuan Rose
    Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 11:00 AM
    To: Don Perrett
    Cc: Asa@Calvin. Edu
    Subject: RE: Some Questions for Kamilla

            Sorry, Dan. It was meant to be a " bit of Fun". Ah, well,
    everyone's sense
    of humor is different. More seriously , you touch on the point of the
    applicability of OT law to our Christian life today. According to Paul,
    Christ is the end of the law. The law still remains as a guide and a pointer
    to what is sinful. But it is no longer authoritative. According to Paul,
    there is only one commandment that is authoritative as to conduct towards
    fellow human beings-love your neighbor as yourself (Rom 13:8 et seq).
    Everything you do, should be in the light of that commandment.
    As to the OT law, it was a good model for people of that time. There is much
    that remains good in it. But lets face it, many of those regulations are as
    incomprehensible to us as our tax code would be to the ancient Hebrews. You
    may be correct about the past health benefits of some of the food
    regulations. But they are pretty much irrelevant to us today. ( For the
    record, I don't even like shellfish. But I'll pig out on pork.)
    Most importantly, I totally reject the view that the sick or the handicapped
    should not have a chance to go to the altar or otherwise participate in
    worship. that to me is completely contrary to the love commandment. I find
    it arrogant that anyone would bar a sick person from going to the altar, if
    that would bring them comfort. If you don't see it that way, then I'll pray
    for you.
    Loving you in the Lord,

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Don Perrett []
    Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 9:40 AM
    To: Shuan Rose
    Cc: Asa@Calvin. Edu
    Subject: RE: Some Questions for Kamilla

    To be honest I do not wish to get back into this debate. I find it
    fruitless. I initially did so but intended only to get a clear understanding
    of JB's position. But as I read this one, I find it disheartening. I realize
    that many still feel that the OT does not apply to people today. Some would
    say that the laws you cite below are intended for the people of the time.
    Some would say that it was rescinded by Christ. The laws of the OT are not
    necessarily outdated. Even Christ admitted that. Would one say that murder
    is no longer a sin because Christ forgives? Let me start with the various
    remarks below. Sacrificing animals was part of a covenant and since Christ
    is the final sacrifice it is no longer required. This was a definite and
    clear change, few question it. Slavery is not condemned by the bible. The
    problem is that we see slavery as the type from Egypt or more recent in our
    own country. The type of slavery allowed by God is servancy. Slaves were not
    supposed to be mistreated and in fact many did better than if they were so
    called "free". This is not needed today because we have social programs to
    help those with little or no income. This does not mean that it is still
    wrong in God's eyes. Working on the Sabbath is a debatable issue. Some say
    it is required to rest others don't. I don't think this was a good example,
    since you were obviously trying to point out old laws that don't apply. On
    shellfish, are you not aware of the health benefits of eating fish with
    scales? Are you also aware that those without, including shellfish, are high
    in cholesterol? I find it amazing that a culture that had no medical
    science, as we do today, was able to determine that there were health risks
    such as this. Just as then, it is still bad for you. Glasses may still be
    unclean. The bible does not say that handicapped people cannot go to church,
    it says that they cannot approach the altar. It also allows them to take
    communion. The reasoning is that someone sick or ill, even crippled is
    unclean. Many diseases can cause loss of sight, paralysis, etc. Because of
    this they are unclean. Today we know the causes of most ailments and know
    whether the person is clean or not. I would say that a person who is
    presently sick should not go to the altar, but then I believe in the OT. God
    never said that someone that cuts his hair should die. The gloves contain no
    blood and have been clean. Again, health comes in to play. Some crops are
    still not compatible even today. In fact the recent genetic engineering of
    crops will come back to haunt us later. As with most things our arrogance
    will be punished. Most farmers will plant different crops on their land, but
    who will mix match them. usually they are separated within the field. One
    does not plant one tomato then a grape then a tomato etc. They plant one
    field of tomatoes then a field of grapes etc. The point is that unless we
    know what the outcome in nature will be, we should not be playing with
    genetics or manipulating crops. But I try to be humble others may not be. I
    understand your points and sarcasm, but again one must be humble and believe
    in His grace. Some laws may seem outdated but even at the time of Christ
    some punishments were harsher than God intended. Even when death was a
    punishment it does not mean that one was supposed to be put to death. In
    some areas it is clear, especially when it gives the means of death. In
    others it is meant to convey the idea that certain acts would bring death,
    short life. Still others were just detestable, no death required, but still
    unhealthy. We may forgive now and not put to death because Christ died for
    our sins, but they are still sins. Those detestable are still so although
    health risks may have been reduced by science and hygiene techniques. But if
    you feel that eating shellfish for example is ok, then please feel free to
    eat several a day and nothing else. I'll pray that you don't fie of heart
    disease. But until then please lower the arrogance level of the discussion.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: []On
    Behalf Of Shuan Rose
    Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 5:12 PM
    Cc: Asa
    Subject: Some Questions for Kamilla

    T This is from the website, Reluctant Journey. Maybe Kamilla can answer
    these qustions!

    A bit of serious fun that I received not so long ago!
    The following was an open letter which was posted on the internet to a
    radio/tv personality, who had converted to Judaism, and who dispensed
    'Biblical' advice and who made very unflattering comments about homosexuals,
    "Dear .......
    Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have
    learned a great deal from your show, and I 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 him 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 specific laws
    and how best to follow them.
    a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
    pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They
    claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
    b) 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?
    c) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female,
    provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine
    claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
    Why can't I own Canadians?
    d) I have a neighbour 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? Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
    e) 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?
    f) 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 room for variation here?
    g) 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?
    h) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
    unclean. May I still play football if it means wearing pigskin gloves?
    j) 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
    Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

    Shuan Rose, Attorney at Law
    2632 N Charles Street, Baltimore MD 21218

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 16 2002 - 15:37:04 EDT