Jump to content
Thaiway

lvdkeyes

Members
  • Posts

    1,147
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by lvdkeyes

  1. This story has been making the rounds for some time, but

    it certainly bears repeating in the current situation.

    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, penned by a US resident, which was 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. Its in the Bible - end of argument!

    I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some

    other elements of God's Laws and how best to follow

    them.

    1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may 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?

    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 uncleanliness - Lev.15:

    19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking,

    but most women take offense.

    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?

    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?

    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 wriggle 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)

    I know you have studied these things extensively and thus

    enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am

    confident you can help.

    Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is

    eternal and unchanging.

    Your adoring fan.

    James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,

    Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education

    University of Virginia

  2. World

    Questions Arise About Pedophile Priest From Pope's Old Diocese

    Dana Kennedy

    Dana Kennedy Contributor

    AOL News

    (March 12) -- The fallout from the growing Catholic sex abuse scandals finally reached as far as the pope Friday when it was revealed that Benedict XVI knew a priest was a pedophile in 1980 but approved a stint in therapy that allowed him to continue in the ministry, where he remains today.

    Benedict was an archbishop in Germany when the case began in 1980. The priest was accused of forcing an 11-year-old boy to perform oral sex on him, the German newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung reported Friday night.

    Benedict approved a decision moving the priest, identified only as "H," to a rectory in Munich where he was to undergo therapy. After about a month, according to a statement issued Friday by the Munich-Freising archdiocese, Monsignor Gerhard Gruber decided to return the priest to a Munich parish.

    But by 1985, new allegations surfaced. In 1986, the priest was convicted of sexually abusing other minors after he had been moved to the town of Grafing to do pastoral work. He received a fine, a suspended prison sentence and more therapy before again returning to pastoral work.

    Gregorio Borgia, AP

    As an archbishop, Benedict XVI approved a stint in therapy for a pedophile priest in his archdiocese. The priest was allowed to return to the ministry and was later convicted of abusing other minors.

    In May 2008, "H" was once again removed from his parish work, this time in the town of Garching, according to the diocesan statement. He works in the archdiocese's tourism operations but is not allowed to conduct any work involving children, the statement said.

    The pope, then known as Joseph Ratzinger, became archbishop of Munich and Freising in 1977 and was made a cardinal that same year. He remained head of the archdiocese until 1982. He then moved to Rome where he became the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith until he was elected pope in 2005 after the death of John Paul II.

    The German archdiocese issued a statement Friday saying Gruber, now 81, takes "full responsibility" for the decision to return "H" to pastoral work. Gruber said in a statement released by the archdiocese that he had not made the future pope aware of his decision because it was the kind of call that was often left to his underlings.

    "The cardinal could not deal with everything," Gruber said. "The repeated employment of 'H' in pastoral duties was a serious mistake. I deeply regret that this decision led to offenses against youths. I apologize to all who were harmed."

    Neither the Vatican nor Gruber commented on whether or not "H" would continue working in the church at his current post in Garching in Upper Bavaria.

    Friday's revelations are just the latest bad news for the Vatican, which has been mired in intensifying sexual abuse scandals in Germany, Austria, Ireland and the Netherlands as well allegations that the Mexican founder of one of the church's most favored orders sexually molested his illegitimate sons.

    The new information about the pope came less than a month after Irish bishops were summoned to the Vatican to discuss decades of clerical sexual abuse in Ireland and on the very same day that a delegation of German bishops met with the pontiff.

    The crisis has been growing in Germany, where more than 170 students have alleged they were sexually abused at several Catholic high schools.

    On Friday, the head of Germany's Catholic bishops apologized to victims after the meeting with the pope. He said Benedict had said he felt "great dismay" over the scandal.

    On Wednesday, the pope's older brother, Georg Ratzinger, was also drawn into the furor. Some of most explosive clerical sex abuse claims in Germany center on a prestigious choir, the Regensburger Domspatzen, that Georg Ratzinger led for 30 years.

    Several former singers in the choir have come forward with claims that at least two priests attached to the elementary boarding school allied to the choir sexually abused and brutally mistreated their charges.

    Ratzinger denied any knowledge of sexual abuse but admitted he slapped some of the boys in the choir and knew of violence on the part of a headmaster associated with a school where choir members attended.

    Filed under: World

  3. When I used my debit card at ATM, my US bank charged $5.00 per transaction. Thai ATM's will dispense 20,000 baht maximum. I started to use my debit card at the teller for what Thai banks call "cash advance". I take my debit card and passport to the teller and I can withdraw whatever I have in my account and my US bank charges me a $3.00 flat fee. Even if I only withdraw 20,000 baht I save $2.00, but I often withdraw 60,000 baht at a time and that is a savings of $12.00.

×
×
  • Create New...