Author Topic: Is it fair to quote from the Old Testament to condemn certain sins? (Read 1942 times)

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 Jews 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.