Author Topic: Is it fair to quote from the Old Testament to condemn certain sins? (Read 1673 times)

Mercyandjustice · « **on:** July 23, 2016, 04:33:59 PM »

I always thought that the OT books like Leviticus and Deuteronomy were "invalid." So why do Christians quote these books to condemn ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and magick (divination, astrology,etc)? How far does this invalidation go?

Note: I am asking in all seriousness and I am NOOOOOOOOTTTTTTTTTTTT trying to argue for ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and magick, I am just curious because the OT also calls eating water creatures with no fins or scales an abomination...

Gracias

songbird · « **Reply #1 on:** July 23, 2016, 05:01:05 PM »

Where did you get the idea that 2 books of Douay- Rheim bible are not valid? I never heard of such a thing. You do need "commentaries" with your bible. Do you have commentaries?

Mark 79 · « **Reply #2 on:** July 23, 2016, 06:49:46 PM »

Portions of the Old Law were incorporated into the New Law. Those incorporated portions are valid only because they are part of the New Law.

Miseremini · « **Reply #3 on:** July 24, 2016, 12:26:13 PM »

Quote from: songbird

Where did you get the idea that 2 books of Douay- Rheim bible are not valid? I never heard of such a thing. You do need "commentaries" with your bible. Do you have commentaries?

The OP never said 2 books were invalid Re-read his post.
He said OT books LIKE......then referring to their subject matter.
He also never said which version he was referring too.

Let's not discourge new posters from seeking information from those with more knowledge: after all isn't that what this forum is for?

Miseremini · « **Reply #4 on:** July 24, 2016, 12:58:48 PM »

Quote from: Mercyandjustice

I always thought that the OT books like Leviticus and Deuteronomy were "invalid." So why do Christians quote these books to condemn ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and magick (divination, astrology,etc)? How far does this invalidation go?

Note: I am asking in all seriousness and I am NOOOOOOOOTTTTTTTTTTTT trying to argue for ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and magick, I am just curious because the OT also calls eating water creatures with no fins or scales an abomination...

Gracias

Christ never came to destroy the old law but to fulfill it, so we could understand it better.

We still follow the 10 commandments from the OT, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is against the 6th and magick is against the 1st in the OT and against both God and our neighbour in the NT.

As for the dietary restrictions in the OT, if you compile them all you will find that they are pretty much the same as those that people pay thousands of dollars to follow at fat farms or health spas. However they are not binding for Christians.

Mercyandjustice · « **Reply #5 on:** July 26, 2016, 04:12:54 PM »

Quote from: Miseremini

Quote from: Mercyandjustice
I always thought that the OT books like Leviticus and Deuteronomy were "invalid." So why do Christians quote these books to condemn ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and magick (divination, astrology,etc)? How far does this invalidation go?

Note: I am asking in all seriousness and I am NOOOOOOOOTTTTTTTTTTTT trying to argue for ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and magick, I am just curious because the OT also calls eating water creatures with no fins or scales an abomination...

Gracias

Christ never came to destroy the old law but to fulfill it, so we could understand it better.

We still follow the 10 commandments from the OT, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is against the 6th and magick is against the 1st in the OT and against both God and our neighbour in the NT.

As for the dietary restrictions in the OT, if you compile them all you will find that they are pretty much the same as those that people pay thousands of dollars to follow at fat farms or health spas. However they are not binding for Christians.

Hmmmm thanks. I asked because there are so many people on the internet who think that, because Christ "invalidated" (fulfilled) the OT laws, therefore ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is okay. And since "Jesus never condemned ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity!" then that's even more proof that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity isn't wrong. I admit, I'm not sure how to counter these arguments since, like I said in the OP, eating this and wearing that is also considered an abomination. Though I know that the Church teaches that it is evil, so that's good enough for me. But a lot of people dont understand or know about the Church's infallibility and whatnot.

P.s. Why did I get 3 thumb downs?? I swear, people on this forum downvote over anything lol

Arvinger · « **Reply #6 on:** July 26, 2016, 05:00:40 PM »

That is the matter of proper understanding of the Old Testament Law. It consists of three parts:

1. Perfect moral Law of God which is unchangeable
2. Ceremonial Mosaic Law (burnt sacrifices, circuмcision etc.)
3. Civil law governing the daily life of Israel

The first one is of course in force, the two latter ones were abrogated by the coming of Christ, as they were only part of the Old Covenant.

Thus, for example, condemnation of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, bestiality, incest etc. in Leviticus 18 and 20 falls into category 1. When Our Lord taught to love our neighbor as ourselves, he was quoting from Leviticus 19:18, becaue this is part of the perfect moral law of God.

On the other hand, prohibition of wearing clothes from two materials, eating shellfish etc. belong to category 3 and are not binding on Christians.

Quote from: Mercyandjustice

And since "Jesus never condemned ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity!" then that's even more proof that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity isn't wrong.

Jesus defined marriage in Matthew 19 in a way which absolutely excludes ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ unions, not to mention explicit condemnation of sodomy by St. Paul (1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Romans 1:26-27).

Matthew · « **Reply #7 on:** July 26, 2016, 05:08:52 PM »

Sodomy is against the natural law, written on the heart of every man.

You don't have to be Catholic, an informed Catholic, or in the state of Grace to know that Sodomy is wrong. It is against nature.

Mercyandjustice · « **Reply #8 on:** July 26, 2016, 06:23:25 PM »

Quote from: Arvinger

That is the matter of proper understanding of the Old Testament Law. It consists of three parts:

1. Perfect moral Law of God which is unchangeable
2. Ceremonial Mosaic Law (burnt sacrifices, circuмcision etc.)
3. Civil law governing the daily life of Israel

The first one is of course in force, the two latter ones were abrogated by the coming of Christ, as they were only part of the Old Covenant.

Thus, for example, condemnation of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, bestiality, incest etc. in Leviticus 18 and 20 falls into category 1. When Our Lord taught to love our neighbor as ourselves, he was quoting from Leviticus 19:18, becaue this is part of the perfect moral law of God.

On the other hand, prohibition of wearing clothes from two materials, eating shellfish etc. belong to category 3 and are not binding on Christians.

Quote from: Mercyandjustice
And since "Jesus never condemned ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity!" then that's even more proof that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity isn't wrong.

Jesus defined marriage in Matthew 19 in a way which absolutely excludes ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ unions, not to mention explicit condemnation of sodomy by St. Paul (1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Romans 1:26-27).

Thank you for this informative answer! And though there are parts in the New Testament that condemn ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, some people seriously seem to think that, if Jesus didn't explicitly condemn it, then it ain't bad. Though, Jesus didn't say anything about crimes such as abuse..so does that make it ok? No.

ClarkSmith · « **Reply #9 on:** July 27, 2016, 10:26:23 AM »

I like to remind people that I am Catholic and we're allowed to quote from the saints. It will increase your weapons against those that would deny the truth.

poche · « **Reply #10 on:** July 28, 2016, 11:09:30 PM »

Quote from: Mercyandjustice

I always thought that the OT books like Leviticus and Deuteronomy were "invalid." So why do Christians quote these books to condemn ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and magick (divination, astrology,etc)? How far does this invalidation go?

Note: I am asking in all seriousness and I am NOOOOOOOOTTTTTTTTTTTT trying to argue for ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and magick, I am just curious because the OT also calls eating water creatures with no fins or scales an abomination...

Gracias

Think about why Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed by having fire rain on them.
:scratchchin: :scratchchin: :scratchchin:

Amakusa · « **Reply #11 on:** July 29, 2016, 01:56:55 AM »

Quote

Sodomy is against the natural law, written on the heart of every man.

You don't have to be Catholic, an informed Catholic, or in the state of Grace to know that Sodomy is wrong. It is against nature.

-> In the same way, you don't have to be Catholic to know that sɛҳuąƖ intercourse during the menstruations is an evil thing, and just as God punished Sodome and Gomorrah, so too he punished all the peoples who commited this sin. Thus, when you guys told me that I was a "Judaizer" and when someone of you quoted the council of Florence about the abrogation of the old law, it was pointless, since I did not say that the old law was still in force (though some of its rules still exist) but that God had described sɛҳuąƖ intercourse during menstruations as a sin in the Book of Leviticus...

Amakusa · « **Reply #12 on:** July 29, 2016, 02:12:19 AM »

Mercyandjustice,

If you mock the Old Testament and its words, then you are not Catholic for you despise the word of God.

The fact that you cannot understand Our Lord's decrees is not a reason to mock them. All impure animals were less healthy than the pure animals: pork is the best example. Well, the Messiah was to be born among this people, who had to live in purity of soul and body - otherwise the Messiah could not have been born among the Hebrews. Many of these men had a better life and were less lustful than all those Catholic who despise the Jєωs of old times and who feel so great.

Most people were stronger than us at that time because they lived in chastity and their children were strong. Even some Pagans were more chaste than the Catholics of today. One day I have seen a French docuмentary where some French people went to live among some primitive people still in existence; and when of these women was asked about sɛҳuąƖity, she said that she had had intercourse with her husband one single time, to have her child - and the rest of the time, she refrained from doing so. The reason is that this tribe had not much food in this place.

If some Pagans have a better life than us, we will blush before our Supreme Judge.

Mark 79 · « **Reply #13 on:** July 29, 2016, 06:42:06 AM »

Quote from: Kreuzritter

...

As does St. Aquinas, you have to distinguish the moral, ritual and judicial categories of Torah...

I am troubled by this sentence.

While St. Thomas Aquinas makes a distinction among the moral, ceremonial, and judicial precepts of the Old Law, I find no mention of "Torah."
http://www.home.newadvent.org/summa/2107.htm

In Catholic theology, "Law," whether New or Old, has a specific, hence unmistakeable, meaning.

"Torah" has a multiplicity of meanings. See http://judaism.is/torah.html To use the unqualified word "Torah" introduces an imprecision that is hardly expected of Scholasticism.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #14 on:** July 29, 2016, 06:56:17 AM »

We distinguish between Divine Law/natural law and ritual law. Those things against Divine Law or natural law (as also ordained by God) remain in full force. And we follow the Church to know what these things are. We are not Protestants who use the Bible as our primary resource.