Conflict?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JoeLatics
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JoeLatics

Guest
google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gp2aMZdnCOYWPEzzKe0nLFbybCkg?docId=8bee33917c6d458f806a4c866c3e71e8

"A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27)

Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15)

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 )

From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. “Go up baldhead,” they shouted, “go up baldhead!” The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces. (2 Kings 2:23-24)

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. (Psalms 137:9)
 
Hi there JoeLatics and welcome to the forums!

Please help me to understand…Your point being what exactly?

Subrosa
 
Just that the Pope is (correctly IMHO) fighting the death penalty, despite several Biblical passages saying that it’s how things should be done?
 
JoeLatics said:
Just that the Pope is (correctly IMHO) fighting the death penalty
Click to expand...
The Church discourages the death penalty, but does not prohibit it, although the circumstances under which it is permissible are rare in modern society.
 
JoeLatics said:
Just that the Pope is (correctly IMHO) fighting the death penalty, despite several Biblical passages saying that it’s how things should be done?
Click to expand...
OK, that’s fair. Please keep in mind, the culture from which those verses originated was pre-christian and was accepted practice throughout the known world. You will find the same sort of attitude in Greek writings, such as Euripides* The Trojan Women*.

In the Christian era we understand Jesus’ teaching of “turn the other cheek” to be one of non-violent opposition. Martin Luther King, Jr., Mahatma Ghandi, and Nelson Mandela are examples.

Christ was all about building a culture of life, not death. He became what He despised on the cross in order to show us the way. He “raised the bar,” so to speak, from the old testament laws.

Subrosa
 
Subrosa said:
OK, that’s fair. Please keep in mind, the culture from which those verses originated was pre-christian and was accepted practice throughout the known world. You will find the same sort of attitude in Greek writings, such as Euripides* The Trojan Women*.

In the Christian era we understand Jesus’ teaching of “turn the other cheek” to be one of non-violent opposition. Martin Luther King, Jr., Mahatma Ghandi, and Nelson Mandela are examples.

Christ was all about building a culture of life, not death. He became what He despised on the cross in order to show us the way. He “raised the bar,” so to speak, from the old testament laws.

Subrosa
Click to expand...
See, this is one of my biggest issues with my faith at the moment - if we can disregard some bits of the Bible as only being supposed to be taken in the context of that particular period of time, why not all bits, or, at the very least, all bits of the Old Testament? Or is it only bits of the OT which are directly contradicted by the NT (eye for an eye etc) which
are overruled?
 
JoeLatics said:
See, this is one of my biggest issues with my faith at the moment - if we can disregard some bits of the Bible as only being supposed to be taken in the context of that particular period of time, why not all bits, or, at the very least, all bits of the Old Testament? Or is it only bits of the OT which are directly contradicted by the NT (eye for an eye etc) which
are overruled?
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church has a rich history and tradition of bible reading. Have a look at this website and order “A CATHOLIC GUIDE TO THE BIBLE”. Its free. I didn’t know how to read the Bible until I read the booklet. Feel free to order up the other booklets also. They helped me when I wanted to know more about our faith.

Just a short note, the Catholic Church is not a fundamentalist church that takes every word of the Bible literally. There is a spiritual understanding in the Word. If you read St. Augustine’s “Confessions,” you will find that he also had a very literal understanding of the Bible until he listened to St. Jerome’s sermons. There he found that there are spiritual readings of the Bible, which in turn helped him to convert to Catholicism.

Good luck on your journey. Christ’s peace be with you…(And with your Spirit! Remember! I blew it a few times this morning myself…:D)

Subrosa
 
JoeLatics said:
Just that the Pope is (correctly IMHO) fighting the death penalty, despite several Biblical passages saying that it’s how things should be done?
Click to expand...
Things such as the Levitical law are not binding on Christians–what is binding is the moral law i.e see the 10 commandments. It’s like the divorce issue. God ended up letting Moses allow it but when Christ came he returned things to their intended state.

Peace,
Mark
 
JoeLatics said:
See, this is one of my biggest issues with my faith at the moment - if we can disregard some bits of the Bible as only being supposed to be taken in the context of that particular period of time, why not all bits, or, at the very least, all bits of the Old Testament? Or is it only bits of the OT which are directly contradicted by the NT (eye for an eye etc) which
are overruled?
Click to expand...
Let’s start with the portion on Levitical Law…

Throughout history, there have been five kinds of moral/behavioral laws. These are/were:
  1. The Divine Moral Law
  2. Levitical Law
  3. Rabbinic Law
  4. Canon Law
  5. the various forms of secular law.
The rabbinic law is not contained in scripture, although references are made to it. It was the man made laws that governed certain aspects of the life of the faithful, meant to help them to acheive the moral law. Canon law, today, is similar to Rabbinic law, although by the time of Christ Rabbinic law had overstepped it’s bounds and was being abused (and treated as though it were equal to doctrinally revealed Divine Law). Rabbinical law passed away when the authority of the levitical priesthood and the rabbis passed away (at least, in terms of their authority over God’s New Covenant People).

Levitical laws are those precepts given by God, but were directly related to the punitive/sacrificial character of the old covenant… They were laws meant as partial atonement for sinfulness. The atoning acts of the levitical laws were no longer needed when the Old Covenant was fulfilled, so the Levitical laws do not apply any more. Why do we say that they have to be judged on the standard of their time rather than ours? Because, if evolution is true, humanity is on an upward spiral in terms of development, and we have to recognize that humans 6,000 years ago were in a vastly different level of development. Since the law is made for man, those laws had a use in developing mankind to the point that we were ready to accept and grow under the New Covenant. That time has been fulfilled, as has the old covenant.

Divine Moral law is unchanging, perfect, and eternal. These are moral strictures that God gives us with the intention that they last forever. They are codified in the Ten Commandments, and a few other places (Many of Christ’s teachings being major ones). These do not ever become unbinding as Levitical laws have.

So it is not incorrect or bad to state that the levitical laws had their time and place, they did, and that time and place was the old covenant.
 
JoeLatics said:
Just that the Pope is (correctly IMHO) fighting the death penalty, despite several Biblical passages saying that it’s how things should be done?
Click to expand...
This isn’t a matter of disregarding bits of Sacred Scripture. This is a matter of how tradition has seen the implementation of what is contained in Sacred Scripture.

These quotations of the Old Testament are very important in the course of the history of the world and even now; they cannot be disregarded. However, the last three are not mandates of the law, but rather a prophecy, a true story, and an excerpt of a psalm.

There are no contradictions in the Sacred Scriptures, only the appearances of such. The New Testament does not remove the necessity for the “eye for an eye;” the fulfillment of the law by Christ brought with it the necessary grace by which a man can now chose to forgive his offender or tresspasser in a fruitful or meritorious way (i.e., “turn the other cheek,” etc.). The “eye for an eye” is still necessary to restore bare justice; however, since the institution of the Sacraments of the New Law, a man can be forgiven of his mortal sins in this life even if he cannot possibly restore bare justice without losing his own life. A new concept was able to be operated fruitfully in the lives of men (in grace) since the restoration of man by Christ: mercy. Bare justice in the eyes of those operating under the Old Law did not admit of mercy, because there was no way as of yet for men to have recourse to a supernatural remedy for the ills caused society.

Since we now have recourse to the Sacraments, we have more than the ability to instill a bare justice, we also have the ability to instill mercy. Justice, also, can NOT be disregarded in the name of a mercy, as such action would be both unjust and not merciful. In regard to capital (or any other) punishment, this mercy can be enacted through clemency, that is, forgiveness of a deserved punishment. Clemency allows for a man to have greater time in his mortal life to reconcile to God and the Church if he has committed a capital crime.

In the Old Law, this was not possible.

Now, from what I have read of the Popes’ writings on capital punishment, it is easy to see that since, in first world countries, incarceration is easily accomplished, there is no need for capital punishment. That is not to say that the condition is the same outside first world countries, and so they could be permitted recourse to capital punishment in a regular fashion.

Recourse to capital punishment outside the “first world” does not contradict Christ’s call for mercy, either, since civic leaders have a duty to safeguard the common good of their subjects. A priest for confession and viaticum can be provided to those condemned so that they have ample opportunity to “get right” with God and the Church before they die, which is in itself, a mercy.

The Summa Theologica would also be a good place to look for insight on the concepts of justice, mercy, clemency and punishment of crime.

– Nicole
 
JoeLatics said:
See, this is one of my biggest issues with my faith at the moment - if we can disregard some bits of the Bible as only being supposed to be taken in the context of that particular period of time, why not all bits, or, at the very least, all bits of the Old Testament? Or is it only bits of the OT which are directly contradicted by the NT (eye for an eye etc) which
are overruled?
Click to expand...
I don’t see the conflict. The old testement or was a covenant between God and Abraham. That was fulfilled with Christ. A new covenant, the new testement, was made.

The old testement is a wonderful history lesson, but we are no longer bound by it’s rules.
 
Another thing to keep in mind is that in the OT times they were limited on punishment options:

They had no prisons. The only punishments were:
cash … case closed
indentured serviture (slavery) … Long Term
death … Permenant.

The whole concept of life in prison without parole would be impossible. Now, with prisons, this is available over the death penalty.

With prisons we can have sentences without (servants).

We still have cash settlements.
 
Evan said:
Another thing to keep in mind is that in the OT times they were limited on punishment options:

They had no prisons. The only punishments were:
cash … case closed
indentured serviture (slavery) … Long Term
death … Permenant.

The whole concept of life in prison without parole would be impossible. Now, with prisons, this is available over the death penalty.

With prisons we can have sentences without (servants).

We still have cash settlements.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top