How do I answer

[mrs_miggins]

… those people who say we (Christians not just Catholics) pick and choose what to uphold from the bible. I had a conversation with my mum (not really religious) about homosexuality and I said its not good (obviously) and quoted her from the OT.

Thankfully (I guess) she is not well versed in scripture and did not counter with all the normal replies that someone who knows the Bible would - i.e. we don’t still stone people for adultery, or working on the Sabbath, or wearing different clothes together. These are all the things that people bring out to back up their version of things - the ‘that was then, this is now’ kind of thinking.

I first heard this argument on the West Wing and I’m sure those who are familiar with the program will remember the scene. Now I love the West Wing and thought most of what it said was positive - I wish our politicians were that interested in helping the country rather than themselves to the kitty. However that scene really irked me. But then I started wondering - how can a reasonable person make the case that all those things that were said in Leviticus (and I have read it and boy were there lots of commands !) have gone by the wayside but this one still stands. I understand that many of them were to do with cleaniless and cultural reasons (no pork and such - although why did they keep pigs if they couldn’t eat them - were they wild or were they livestock on non-jewish tribes?).

But how can we counter with ‘well this one was not cultural and more heinous than those so we still adhere to it’. And why, if it was a big NO NO for God was it never mentioned in the New Testament.

So if anyone can help me with this I’d be really grateful - I’d really like to be able to counter people’s arguements with a well founded rebuttal.

 

[LilyM]

Simple - those ones were designed by God to be temporary.

Like a curfew for children that the parents will change and extend as the child gets older. Or a rule that might be made for young children that they’re not to use knives or the stove or walk to the shops by themselves, that gets thrown by the wayside once the child is old enough and responsible enough.

Does a parent throw away EVERY rule that it teaches its child as a young’un? Surely not - if I ever have children I certainly intend to teach them to eat their vegetables and brush their teeth, and these are things I hope they will do their whole life long.

We see even in the OT that God didn’t create Adam and Eve and straight afterwards lump them with the fullness of the Mosaic law - it too was revealed by Him over time, as His people became ready for them.

Put it this way - if ALL those OT commands were meant to stand as written until the end of time then what need for an NT at all? And how, no matter how detailed scripture were to get - if it were 100 times its length - could scripture ever hope to encompass explicitly EVERY possible past, present and future situation for which a rule might be needed? That’s why Jesus came to Earth to found a Church and made IT the pillar and bulwark of truth, that we are to refer all our disputes to, and gave us in scripture the example of the Council in Jerusalem.

 

[LSK]

I think it is necessary to explain to people that there is a difference between how Catholics and Orthodox approach Holy Scripture and how those who are not Catholic or Orthodox approach Holy Scripture. We (both the right and left lungs of The Church) do not ‘pick and chose’; rather, we remember that you cannot pick and chose. The Bible must be read in its totality, with an understanding of Church Teaching and Sacred Tradition. We believe that if one does not do this, then one can pretty much justify anything and everything by picking and chosing what to read or adhere to in Holy Scripture.

A really good source for this is BibleChristianSociety.com.

 

[mlchance]

I first heard this argument on the West Wing and I’m sure those who are familiar with the program will remember the scene. Now I love the West Wing and thought most of what it said was positive - I wish our politicians were that interested in helping the country rather than themselves to the kitty. However that scene really irked me.

Intellectual dishonesty should be seen as irksome. For some clarity, please see this.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[GJx86]

I had a conversation with my mum (not really religious) about homosexuality and I said its not good (obviously) and quoted her from the OT.

Thankfully (I guess) she is not well versed in scripture and did not counter with all the normal replies that someone who knows the Bible would - i.e. we don’t still stone people for adultery, or working on the Sabbath, or wearing different clothes together. These are all the things that people bring out to back up their version of things - the ‘that was then, this is now’ kind of thinking.

The important distinction to make is between things that are intrinsically immoral and things that are intrinsically neither moral nor immoral, but that God has nonetheless outlawed. Old Testament law has precepts that cover both areas.

There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with eating pork products or combining certain clothes. God doesn’t make those things intrinsically immoral by outlawing them. In doing so, He simply imposed a discipline on the Israelites, one which He could (and did) later withdraw. (A modern example: There’s nothing intrinsically immoral about being both married and ordained, but the Church forbids this on a disciplinary level. That’s not a statement about morality; it’s just a statement about Catholic practice.)

On the other hand, homosexual actions are intrinsically immoral. If you look at the physical characteristics of human sexuality, you find that the “parts” “fit together” (ahem) for male-female intercourse in a way that they simply don’t for homosexual intercourse. You also discover that human sexuality is oriented toward procreation, and a homosexual act can never be procreative. Thus, you can conclude, if nothing else, that these acts are contrary to human nature–and forcing someone or something to do something that is contrary to its proper nature and end is immoral. When God outlaws these things, He isn’t adding restrictions that weren’t already there; He’s simply making aspects of this natural law explicit.

So, to sum up: Jewish ceremonial law imposes disciplinary restrictions, but it doesn’t comment on morality. (If you are bound by such laws, breaking them is disobedient and therefore wrong, but the actions themselves are not intrinsically immoral.) In contrast, homosexual actions are discoverably wrong because they are contrary to the purpose and design of human sexuality. No one–not even God–can abridge that law because it’s “embedded” in human nature.

Does that help?

 

[Scoobyshme]

A really good beginning point is to review the “Origins of the Bible” (parts 1, 2, & 3) which are videos that one can view for free at the following website:

alabamacatholicresources.com/bible.html