Bible Verses - Some We Keep Some We Ignore

[The_Wizard]

Not sure this is the right forum but if it is not someone will move it. Was listen to a radio talk show this morning on the way to work and the host (who is no friend to Christians)(OK, it was Peter Boyles on KHOW 630 in Denver, Colorado) was saying how Christian adhere to some Bible verse and yet ignore others. His topic was gay union and how Christians use certain verses in the Bible against it but are silent about the Bible’s prohibition against tattoos(where are the protestors outside tattoo parlors like the ones outside abortion clinics). No one came up with a sound arguement why we hold to the verses againat homosexual acts and ignore the ban on tattoos.

 

[The_Holy_War_11]

Because the government isn’t forcing Catholics to give people tattoos like they are abortion.

 

[ahs]

…because the government isn’t forcing us to support tattoos with our tax dollars like they are forcing us to support abortion and “gay rights”. So far there is no federal law prohibiting someone from speaking out against tattoos as being sinful, if one chooses to do so.

It’s when the gov’t starts reaching too far and cramming laws down our throats, laws that violate basic human rights (abortion) or natural law (homosexual “unions”) that we begin to speak up about it. So far I can’t think of any pre-born baby that was killed as the result of its parent getting a tattoo. I can’t think of any laws passed preventing preachers from preaching against tattoos in the way they are now being prevented (or at least the attempt to shut them up is there) from preaching against homosexuality (not to be confused with same-sex-attraction, mind you).

 

[ahs]

In other words, if that radio host wants to decry tattoos and use the Bible to do it, more power to him. But if wants to point that out and simultaneously support abortion or homosexuality…well…whose being hypocritical?

 

[Rich_C]

He is attacking the Protestant claim that the Bible is their sole source of truth and that they follow everything it says.

This is not what Catholics claim, however.

Catholics claim that the Church has been entrusted the whole deposit of faith, given to the Apostles by Christ, and that it’s teachings are drawn from both scripture and Tradition (oral teachings unanimously held by the Apostles and written by the next few generations). Only the Church has the authority to interpret the Bible, and the Church teaches that the new law established by Christ superceded the old law established by Moses, and perfectly fulfilled it. Therefore, what continued to be held by Christ and the Apostles continues to be held as morally binding, and what was discarded is not morally binding.

In short, the Bible does not speak for itself, the Church speaks. And the Church teaches that homosexual acts are a grave sin, but that having a tatoo is not a sin.

 

[JRKH]

Let us consider what this person says in the larger context - not simply in terms of Catholicism…

His comments seem to be directed at “Christians” in general. He does not seem to be making a distinction between those who are SS Christians and those who, Like Catholics hold to an authoritative Church. As such his comments actually fit better when directed at the SS “independent local community” model than the Authoritative Church model.

We - As Catholics recognize that The Church has, since the very beginning exercised it’s authority to “bind and loose” various portions of the OT law, (See Acts 15) a point that this person obviously does not bring out.

To me - such comments point out a problem with the retort - “because the Bible says so” as a justification of some religious position. Naturally the Catholic does not generally use such a retort, but Christians of other traditions (SS) do use this response.
The Catholic will say that, “The Church teaches thus and so…”, and in discussion will show how that teaching is supported by various bible passages as well as other historical church writings and teachings.

So - what I am saying here is that - While the person referred to in the OP is obviously guilty of a gross and inaccurate generalization, it does contain an element of truth in it…

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

He is attacked the Protestant claim the the Bible is their sole source of truth and that they follow everything it says.

This is not what Catholic claim.

Catholics claim that the Church has been entrusted the whole deposit of faith, given to the Apostles by Christ, and that it’s teachings are drawn from both scripture and Tradition (oral teachings unanimously held by the Apostles and written by the next few generations). Only the Church has the authority to interpret the Bible, and the Church teaches that the new law established by Christ superceded the old law established by Moses, and perfectly fulfilled it. Therefore, what continued to be held by Christ and the Apostles continues to be held as morally binding, and what was discarded is not morally binding.

Rich - you and I were obviously writing at the same time…

Peace
James

 

[The_Wizard]

Hate to say this but still no real answer to the question! Aren’t we being “cafeteria” Bible believers when we scream about one thing and are silent about another. Doesn’t that weaken are arguement. Forget about government involvment. Isn’t wrong wrong whether government is involved or not. If you are going to use the Bible to condemn one thing should you not condemn all things condemn in the Bible with equal force. Are we to obey ALL of God’s Word? Is the prohibition against gay union in the Bible equal to the prohibition against tattoos equal to the prohition against eating pork? Where in the Bible does it say this “Word of God” you need to be militant about holding up but this “Word of God” you can ignore.

 

[The_Wizard]

Rich C,
What is the teaching of The Church on tattoos? And if The Church has not address this matter is the prohibition from the Old Testment still in force?

He is attacking the Protestant claim that the Bible is their sole source of truth and that they follow everything it says.

This is not what Catholics claim, however.

Catholics claim that the Church has been entrusted the whole deposit of faith, given to the Apostles by Christ, and that it’s teachings are drawn from both scripture and Tradition (oral teachings unanimously held by the Apostles and written by the next few generations). Only the Church has the authority to interpret the Bible, and the Church teaches that the new law established by Christ superceded the old law established by Moses, and perfectly fulfilled it. Therefore, what continued to be held by Christ and the Apostles continues to be held as morally binding, and what was discarded is not morally binding.

In short, the Bible does not speak for itself, the Church speaks. And the Church teaches that homosexual acts are a grave sin, but that having a tatoo is not a sin.

 

[JRKH]

Hate to say this but still no real answer to the question! Aren’t we being “cafeteria” Bible believers when we scream about one thing and are silent about another. Doesn’t that weaken are arguement. Forget about government involvment. Isn’t wrong wrong whether government is involved or not. If you are going to use the Bible to condemn one thing should you not condemn all things condemn in the Bible with equal force. Are we to obey ALL of God’s Word? Is the prohibition against gay union in the Bible equal to the prohibition against tattoos equal to the prohition against eating pork? Where in the Bible does it say this “Word of God” you need to be militant about holding up but this “Word of God” you can ignore.

This was the argument of the Judaizers in the NT…
Read Acts 15 and then come back and then consider - what parts of the OT law we are bound by…

The OT says to be circumcised…The NT says - not necessary…The OT says don’t eat pork…the NT says - not a problem…
But when you look at where the NT tells is this it is - The Church - in council (Acts 15). It is the Church exercising her authority to “Bind and Loose” “whatever” (See Mt 18:15-18).

Hope this helps.

Peace
James

 

[The_Wizard]

This was the argument of the Judaizers in the NT…
Read Acts 15 and then come back and then consider - what parts of the OT law we are bound by…

The OT says to be circumcised…The NT says - not necessary…The OT says don’t eat pork…the NT says - not a problem…
But when you look at where the NT tells is this it is - The Church - in council (Acts 15). It is the Church exercising her authority to “Bind and Loose” “whatever” (See Mt 18:15-18).

Hope this helps.

Peace
James

JRKH,

I have no problem with The Church’s authority to “Bind and Loose”. And I am cool with the circumcised and pork thing. But as I asked Rick C, what about things like tattoos? If The Church has not come out with a “teaching” does the Old Testment still apply? And work just as hard against tattoos as we do against gay union.

 

[Publisher]

Hate to say this but still no real answer to the question! Aren’t we being “cafeteria” Bible believers when we scream about one thing and are silent about another. Doesn’t that weaken are arguement. Forget about government involvment. Isn’t wrong wrong whether government is involved or not. If you are going to use the Bible to condemn one thing should you not condemn all things condemn in the Bible with equal force. Are we to obey ALL of God’s Word? Is the prohibition against gay union in the Bible equal to the prohibition against tattoos equal to the prohition against eating pork? Where in the Bible does it say this “Word of God” you need to be militant about holding up but this “Word of God” you can ignore.

We all are “cafeteria” Bible users…some decry homosexuality on a few obscure OT verses…and a few NT verses…yet ignore verses to me that seem more “important” like…loving one’s neighbor, caring for the needy, being kind to the “stranger with in our gate” among others…we all “pick and choose”…we all either decide for ourselves what verses to embrace…or rely on our particular religious community to tell us what to believe.

There is no verse from what I know that separates “militant” from “ignore”.

 

[Rich_C]

Hate to say this but still no real answer to the question! Aren’t we being “cafeteria” Bible believers when we scream about one thing and are silent about another. Doesn’t that weaken are arguement. Forget about government involvment. Isn’t wrong wrong whether government is involved or not. If you are going to use the Bible to condemn one thing should you not condemn all things condemn in the Bible with equal force. Are we to obey ALL of God’s Word? Is the prohibition against gay union in the Bible equal to the prohibition against tattoos equal to the prohition against eating pork? Where in the Bible does it say this “Word of God” you need to be militant about holding up but this “Word of God” you can ignore.

Let me put it another way. By your definition, are we being "cafeteria Bible believers?

Yes. I admit it. You got me.

But you’re imposing a requirement here that isn’t part of the Catholic Faith.

 

[Maryann_C]

So - what I am saying here is that - While the person referred to in the OP is obviously guilty of a gross and inaccurate generalization, it does contain an element of truth in it…

Peace
James

Amen and I would ask was he directing his call to a Catholic radio show? Was his point that Catholics are hypocrites? Was he saying that all sin is equal if so then he is a hypocrite too because ‘The Bible says’ some sin is greater than others? …let’s not even go down the road that I am sure that he does not take Jesus literally in John 6! I think the caller just sounds like an agitator and not a real thinker…with all due respect and in MHO

 

[Rich_C]

JRKH,
If The Church has not come out with a “teaching” does the Old Testment still apply?

The answer is ‘no.’ Christians are bound only by the new law, established by the death of Christ.

 

[anrmenchaca47]

JRKH,

I have no problem with The Church’s authority to “Bind and Loose”. And I am cool with the circumcised and pork thing. But as I asked Rick C, what about things like tattoos? If The Church has not come out with a “teaching” does the Old Testment still apply? And work just as hard against tattoos as we do against gay union.

As far as th OT goes, what is worse? Gay union, which is CLEARLY AND EXPLICITLY prohibited in Leviticus among other utrocious acts, or getting inked?

The Church is the interpreter of scripture and handle issues on faith and morals. Gay union would be a far more MAJOR moral issue to be concerned about as opposed to the idea of getting inked.

 

[The_Wizard]

As far as th OT goes, what is worse? Gay union, which is CLEARLY AND EXPLICITLY prohibited in Leviticus among other utrocious acts, or getting inked?

The Church is the interpreter of scripture and handle issues on faith and morals. Gay union would be a far more MAJOR moral issue to be concerned about as opposed to the idea of getting inked.

anrmenchaca47,

Tattoos are also CLEARLY AND EXPLICITLY prohibited in Leviticus. Check this out. Leviticus 19:28, “Do not cut your bodies for the dead, and do not mark your skin with tattoos. I am the Lord.”

Am I to obey God (I am the Lord)? Now if The Church tells me God has reconsidered the issue and it is now OK to get inked I can deal with that. But until that time it sure looks like God don’t like it!

 

[JRKH]

JRKH,

I have no problem with The Church’s authority to “Bind and Loose”. And I am cool with the circumcised and pork thing. But as I asked Rick C, what about things like tattoos? If The Church has not come out with a “teaching” does the Old Testment still apply? And work just as hard against tattoos as we do against gay union.

I want to be very careful here so as to not give the wrong impression.
Also - please understand that, as a layperson, I do not purport to speak for the Magisterium of The Church…Therefore the following represents my understanding of these matters.

The direct answer to your question - and I am taking my cue here from Acts 15 is this. The OT law of Moses does NOT apply except as taught by the Catholic Church.
This had been generally applied by the Church so as to keep the underlying principles of the OT law while discarding the many and more specific “rules”.
For instance. We keep the ten commandments even though Jesus reduced the whole thing to “Two Great Commandments” (Mt 22:36-40) because of their very good foundational principles and help to us.
We discard things like eating pork because Jesus tells us that it is not what goes into the mouth but what comes out that is important. (Mt 15:11)

As far as Tattoos are concerned THIS might help.

Also, HERE you can see that this has been thoroughly discussed here on CAF.

Peace
James

 

[StevenFrancis]

I want to be very careful here so as to not give the wrong impression.
Also - please understand that, as a layperson, I do not purport to speak for the Magisterium of The Church…Therefore the following represents my understanding of these matters.

The direct answer to your question - and I am taking my cue here from Acts 15 is this. The OT law of Moses does NOT apply except as taught by the Catholic Church.
This had been generally applied by the Church so as to keep the underlying principles of the OT law while discarding the many and more specific “rules”.
For instance. We keep the ten commandments even though Jesus reduced the whole thing to “Two Great Commandments” (Mt 22:36-40) because of their very good foundational principles and help to us.
We discard things like eating pork because Jesus tells us that it is not what goes into the mouth but what comes out that is important. (Mt 15:11)

As far as Tattoos are concerned THIS might help.

Also, HERE you can see that this has been thoroughly discussed here on CAF.

Peace
James

Thank you for the link. It is the most coherent catholic view I’ve read about the tattoos.

 

[The_Wizard]

JRKH,

Thank you for your response. It was very good. But there is something interesting in the article your refered to on tattoos. From the article I quote “Many commentators believe that this prohibition was intended to separate Israel from its Canaanite neighbors; some believe that the cuttings in the flesh and tattoo marks to which the verse refers were part of idolatrous Canaanite worship.” If the prohibition against tattoos then was to separate God’s choosen people from “pagans” because tattoos were part of idolatrous worship, can it not be said the same today? I would say, and like you I am not an expert, that a large percentage of tattoos are “part of idolatrous worship”. Should we not also be separate?

It is now confession time. I have a tattoo. I was young, stupid and I think drunk. And I admitt the “EAGLE, GLOBE AND ANCHOR” is a cult symbol. SEMPER FI!