How do we respond to the use of Leviticus?

[RollTide1987]

You know you have seen it happen in debates, on television, and in movies. Some crazed Bible thumper brings up the fact God condemns homosexuality when an enlightened progressive says something along these lines:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They
claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus
21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for
her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how
do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend
of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you
clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2
clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill
him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality.
I don’t agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.
19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different
crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of
two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to
curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the
trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? -
Lev.24:10-16.

My question is….how do we respond intelligently to something like the above when defending the Church’s position as it relates to gay marriage and homosexuality?

 

[RollTide1987]

Double post.

 

[devoutchristian]

The ceremonial law was superseded by Christ, the moral law wasn’t.

 

[RollTide1987]

The ceremonial law was superseded by Christ, the moral law wasn’t.

Is it possible to expound upon that? I tried explaining this but the person hit me with the whole “you’re just picking and choosing!” rebuttal.

 

[meltzerboy]

You know you have seen it happen in debates, on television, and in movies. Some crazed Bible thumper brings up the fact God condemns homosexuality when an enlightened progressive says something along these lines:

My question is….how do we respond intelligently to something like the above when defending the Church’s position as it relates to gay marriage and homosexuality?

Christians would have an easier time explaining this than Jews. The Written and Oral Torah Law have been fulfilled by Jesus, except for those laws regarded as moral absolutes. Further, the Law was, in the first place, never applicable to Gentiles, only Jews. Gentiles, including most Christians, are bound by the Law of Noah rather than the Torah.

 

[devoutchristian]

Is it possible to expound upon that? I tried explaining this but the person hit me with the whole “you’re just picking and choosing!” rebuttal.

The whole of the moral law is in some way encompassed by the Ten Commandments. The third commandment deals with obedience to supernatural authorities, this included the ceremonial law for the ancient Jews. Moral teachings regarding sexuality fall under the sixth and ninth commandments and are part of the unchanging moral law. Matters such as sacrifice were part of the ceremonial law.

 

[Scottgun]

You will also notice that Leviticus condemns bestiality and incest. If someone accuses you of cherry picking, ask them why they these are morally acceptable.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

You know you have seen it happen in debates, on television, and in movies. Some crazed Bible thumper brings up the fact God condemns homosexuality when an enlightened progressive says something along these lines:

My question is….how do we respond intelligently to something like the above when defending the Church’s position as it relates to gay marriage and homosexuality?

You tell them that you are not Jewish nor a scholar of Jewish theology; and if they can’t bother to trouble themselves enough to go to the library and get a book on basic Christian theology and a book on common logical fallacies and actually read them than you really don’t see why you should bother responding to an ignorant comment.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

You tell them that you are not Jewish nor a scholar of Jewish theology; and if they can’t bother to trouble themselves enough to go to the library and get a book on basic Christian theology and a book on common logical fallacies and actually read them than you really don’t see why you should bother responding to an ignorant comment.

There is so much wrong with this, I hardly even know where to begin. But very well:

It is mean spirited, for one thing.

Additionally, if you don’t know why you believe something, how can you possibly demand that someone else know why you believe something?

 

[Sky_Pilot]

Christians would have an easier time explaining this than Jews. The Written and Oral Torah Law have been fulfilled by Jesus, except for those laws regarded as moral absolutes. Further, the Law was, in the first place, never applicable to Gentiles, only Jews. Gentiles, including most Christians, are bound by the Law of Noah rather than the Torah.

This one makes the most sense to me … thank you meltzerboy, I think this states it well!

 

[snarflemike]

Is it possible to expound upon that? I tried explaining this but the person hit me with the whole “you’re just picking and choosing!” rebuttal.

So is the other person. There are laws in both the Old and New Testament that any sane person would say still hold. You MUST be prepared to throw that argument back in their faces.

We are Christians, not OT Jews. We believe and follow what the Church teaches, which can be found in some detail in the Catechism. If it’s not in the Catechism, don’t saddle us with it.

 

[snarflemike]

You will also notice that Leviticus condemns bestiality and incest. If someone accuses you of cherry picking, ask them why they these are morally acceptable.

That old picking and choosing thing again.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

There is so much wrong with this, I hardly even know where to begin. But very well:

It is mean spirited, for one thing.

Additionally, if you don’t know why you believe something, how can you possibly demand that someone else know why you believe something?

No, it’s not mean spirited. It’s calling the person on their willful failure to gain any sort of basic understanding of the subject matter being discussed. Mean spirited would be to not bother to do some basic research on the subject matter being discussed but instead cherry pick passages and tack on snarky questions.

As for how I can demand someone know about my faith, its easy.
-What’s the general subject of the discussion? My faith
-What’s the specific subject of the discussion? Teachings within my faith
-What is the purpose of the person’s response? To challenge said teachings of my faith
-What does the person use as the source for their citations? The holy book of my faith
-What concepts and definitions of said concepts are used in the discussion? Concepts from my faith with the definition of these concepts coming from my faith

Notice what one has to have a basic understanding of in order to not only take part in the discussion, but also in order to present a non-ignorant comment or response?

The better question to ask is why should I be expected to provide any sort of intelligent or helpful answer outside of “you have no clue what you are talking about, go read a book on the subject and come back to me” to someone who obviously hasn’t bothered to educate themselves on the subject?

 

[Crux_Sacra]

Better than telling someone to go read a book is to speak the answer to them. Jesus said, “he who hears you hears me.” He did not tell people to go read a book before he would talk to them. The Gospel is meant to be spoken and heard.

I think rather than being mean-spirited, telling someone to go read a book before we discuss something with them is simply impatient. But showing impatience with our neighbors is not showing our love for them. As St. Paul writes, “Love is patient.” Also, we are meant to be a light to the other Gentiles…

Learning the answer and learning to give the answer out of love of our neighbor, is a better choice than being impatient. While it may be a waste of time, it may not. Not every seed takes root, but we broadcast so that as many as possible will. Even if they are being willfully ignorant, it may be that a little merciful light is all that it takes for them to open the door of their heart to the Holy Spirit.

Meltzerboy has it right, I believe. The Law applied to the Jews, but the Gentiles did not have the Law, according to Romans 2. And most Christians today are Gentiles.

Happy Easter! And God Bless!

 

[snarflemike]

Another thing I would do with such a reply is to ask which of the violations were violations of the natural law. That will let you immediately get to the natural law objection to homosexuality.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Better than telling someone to go read a book is to speak the answer to them. Jesus said, “he who hears you hears me.” He did not tell people to go read a book before he would talk to them. The Gospel is meant to be spoken and heard.

I think rather than being mean-spirited, telling someone to go read a book before we discuss something with them is simply impatient. But showing impatience with our neighbors is not showing our love for them. As St. Paul writes, “Love is patient.” Also, we are meant to be a light to the other Gentiles…

Learning the answer and learning to give the answer out of love of our neighbor, is a better choice than being impatient. While it may be a waste of time, it may not. Not every seed takes root, but we broadcast so that as many as possible will. Even if they are being willfully ignorant, it may be that a little merciful light is all that it takes for them to open the door of their heart to the Holy Spirit.

Meltzerboy has it right, I believe. The Law applied to the Jews, but the Gentiles did not have the Law, according to Romans 2. And most Christians today are Gentiles.

Happy Easter! And God Bless!

Telling them to go read a book and learn the basics prior to having a discussion with them would only be impatient if the person was ignorant (willful or not), willing to understand, and willing to hold an actual discussion. The comment quoted in the OP clearly indicates that the person is not the last two. Had the comment been worded in a manner similar to “How do you determine which laws have to be followed and which can be ignored” or “I don’t understand” or simply “None of this makes sense” my comment would be a sign of me being impatient. But, look at the comment. It’s simple mockery with no desire or attempt to communicate or understand.

The patients and our responsibility for spreading the Word required for such an individual is to point them in the right direction and wait until they are actually willing to hear and try to understand. It would be impatient to ignore the fact that the individual does not want to hear and does not want to try to understand. When remembering what Christ and the Church teach about spreading the Word, we need to also remember what they teach about deaf ears and shaking the dust off our sandals.

 

[Crux_Sacra]

I have seen people quickly go from mocking to sincere questioning when presented with the simple and honest truth of the Catholic Faith. And in my experience they learned something, even if only a little. And people in the same room who overheard the conversation stopped what they were doing and turned their attention to the answers I gave, even commenting that they knew it was the truth.

We are told in Scripture that if we recognize that someone is naked and hungry, and we tell them to go their way and be warm and feel full without actually giving them what they need for that to happen, then we haven’t helped them.

That verse is about corporal mercy. I believe we should approach another’s spiritual poverty the same way. What does it benefit someone to be told to go somewhere else to find the truth, when they could have it laid out for them right there? Why should we only engage in conversation those who have come prepared for debate? Jesus tells us to teach “all nations,” not just those who have read the required texts. We’re not talking apologetics; we’re talking evangelization. These people have presented the Christian with an opportunity to do what Jesus commanded us to do.

As I recall, the question was asked, how do we respond to these questions when challenged to defend the Church’s position on “gay marriage” and homosexuality. These questions being truly irrelevant to the discussion, I find the easiest way to deal with them is to answer honestly and simply move on.

We need to remember that many people who support the devil’s agenda, despite a claim of argument based in logic, argue from pure emotion. Sentimentality plays a large role in their choice to support that agenda. Their ability to come to the right conclusion is hindered. If they knew the facts about what marriage is, and the things which need to be present for that marriage to be valid, some of them might actually realize their error. And they are very much people of the moment, so telling them to go read this or listen to that or watch those…just isn’t going to do anything other than reinforce their ignorance, since if they were into looking up legitimate sources they wouldn’t be arguing nonsense.

 

[Nita]

You know you have seen it happen in debates, on television, and in movies. Some crazed Bible thumper brings up the fact God condemns homosexuality when an enlightened progressive says something along these lines:

My question is….how do we respond intelligently to something like the above when defending the Church’s position as it relates to gay marriage and homosexuality?

It’s not only the Old Testament that condemns homosexual acts. The New Testament does too.

Romans 1:25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 1:27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. 1:28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.

1 Tim. 1:9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 1:10 immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,

**Jude **7 just as Sodom and Gomor’rah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

 

[odgers]

My question is….how do we respond intelligently to something like the above when defending the Church’s position as it relates to gay marriage and homosexuality?

First off, we need not rely on Leviticus to defend against homosexual acts. The New Testament does indeed address the issue on several occasions…
catholic.com/quickquestions/a-family-member-argues-that-the-new-testament-doesnt-deal-with-the-issue-of-homosexual

Secondly, this article will help explain Leviticus… catholic.com/magazine/articles/why-we-are-not-bound-by-everything-in-the-old-law

 

[Zekariya]

“I answer that, As is evident from what has been stated, the judicial and ceremonial precepts derive their force from their institution alone: since before they were instituted, it seemed of no consequence whether things were done in this or that way. But the moral precepts derive their efficacy from the very dictate of natural reason, even if they were never included in the Law.” - St Thomas Aquinas, newadvent.org/summa/2100.htm

We must follow the moral precepts. The judicial and ceremonial precepts of the Old Testament are not permanent (think of it like disciplinary canons for the Old Testament Israelites). The moral laws are permanent and cannot be changed.