Species mixtures, wrong or not?

[Timidity]

BryPGuy89:

In the Bible it says not to do this.

No… IN the Bible the ancient Jews are told not to do this as part of The Law. But we are not ancient Jews and we are not saved through The Law, which is the same reason men no longer need to be circumcized.

Read the Acts of the Apostles.

 

[deb1]

For those who want to know the verse it is in Leviticus 19: 19

Keep my statutes: do not breed any of your domestic animals with others of a different species; do not sow a field of yours with two different kinds of seed; and do not put on a garment woven with two different kind of thread.

 

[BryPGuy89]

Timidity:

No… IN the Bible the ancient Jews are told not to do this as part of The Law. But we are not ancient Jews and we are not saved through The Law, which is the same reason men no longer need to be circumcized.

Read the Acts of the Apostles.

We are still subject to the laws in the Bible I don’t remember ever learning that the laws set forth in the OT where no longer practical or for us to follow. Circumcism is not a law, it is a sign of their agreement with God to live his way following His laws for guidance. Laws set forth and the circumcism are different things, its like saying that the ten commandments are no longer needed to be followed because Jesus died on the cross.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

What is the basis of presuming that this verse must be referring to any mixing of species and not just a practical / production instruction, especially considering very, very few translations use “species” in Lev 19:19? A relevant cross-reference I found implies the same practical / production meaning:

9Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled. 10Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ***{alt: donkey} together. 11Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

IOW, I don’t see how the Bible (using a consensus of mainstream translations) states this clearly enough to presume there is a prohibition against individual instances of mixing lines for either experimental or “dead end” purposes (as opposed to the willy-nilly mixing of lines).

 

[Timidity]

BryPGuy89:

We are still subject to the laws in the Bible I don’t remember ever learning that the laws set forth in the OT where no longer practical or for us to follow.

That’s because you didn’t read the Acts of the Apostles, like I told you to.

 

[BryPGuy89]

Timidity:

That’s because you didn’t read the Acts of the Apostles, like I told you to.

I’m familiar with the book of Acts. I’m saying that I don’t remember ever reading that the old laws are obsolete. I understand that salvation is no longer dependent on the OT laws and what not to cover ones’ sins, but they are still applicable to today and everyday life in most cases. Jesus’ blood cleanses us of our sins, but we are still capable of falling and living by the laws set forth are good guidlnes to live a life away from sin. To my knowledge the Ten Commandments are still encouraged to be followed even though they are the basis for the other laws in most cases. Please enlighten me for I don’t see your point.

 

[Timidity]

BryPGuy89:

I’m familiar with the book of Acts. I’m saying that I don’t remember ever reading that the old laws are obsolete … Please enlighten me for I don’t see your point.

I try to avoid quoting, because verses need to be read in context, but I will quote here:
It has been decided by the Holy Spirit and by ourselves not to impose on you any burden beyond these essentials: you are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from illicit marriages. Avoid these, and you will do what is right. Farewell.

Acts of of the Apostles, 15:28-29

​

In context, the “you” in the verse are Christian gentiles, and the “burden” is the old Law. In this letter, the Holy Spirit makes it clear that the Gentiles are not subject to the whole of the Law.

Which brings us back to my original statement:

Me:

In the Bible the ancient Jews are told not to do this as part of The Law. But we are not ancient Jews and we are not saved through The Law…

 

[BryPGuy89]

Timidity:

I try to avoid quoting, because verses need to be read in context, but I will quote here:
It has been decided by the Holy Spirit and by ourselves not to impose on you any burden beyond these essentials: you are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from illicit marriages. Avoid these, and you will do what is right. Farewell.

Acts of of the Apostles, 15:28-29

​

In context, the “you” in the verse are Christian gentiles, and the “burden” is the old Law. In this letter, the Holy Spirit makes it clear that the Gentiles are not subject to the whole of the Law.

Which brings us back to my original statement:

I again return to the Ten Commandments, we then now can murder, steal, and commit adultry?

 

[deb1]

BryPGuy89:

I again return to the Ten Commandments, we then now can murder, steal, and commit adultry?

If a person is put on a deserted island with only the New Testament then I would guess that they could figure out that murder, stealing and adultery were wrong.

 

[Timidity]

BryPGuy89:

I again return to the Ten Commandments, we then now can murder, steal, and commit adultry?

Of course not, because the Church using the authority given to Her teaches that these things are wrong.

She does not teach anyhting about mixing species.

 

[BryPGuy89]

deb1:

If a person is put on a deserted island with only the New Testament then I would guess that they could figure out that murder, stealing and adultery were wrong.

Slightly confusing way to put it. My basic point would be if these things weren’t in your quote and are present in the OT. You said we no longer had to follow the old laws right? This means that sexual sin and immorality are no longer wrong if you were to follow that ideaology as well as others. This basically approves homosexuality and other even worse pervertions. I don’t see this ideaology of yours as possible or beleiveable. I must say that I beleive the CHurch has a different standing somewhat than that.

 

[BryPGuy89]

Timidity:

Of course not, because the Church using the authority given to Her teaches that these things are wrong.

She does not teach anyhting about mixing species.

The Church knows these things are wrong because God told the Jews in the OT. There is already a set of laws they just continued to follow them, because they knew that God wanted them to follow the laws of old. The Church didn’t invent or think up the laws they knew they already existed and where of God’s will, so they enforced them. I know She doesn’t teach anything about species mixing, that is why I’m asking, because personally I think it is wrong and I know it at least addresses it in the OT a little bit.

 

[Timidity]

BryPGuy89:

The Church didn’t invent or think up the laws

Yes, she does. We call them “disciplines”, and they include things days of fast and abstainence, and Holy Days of Obligation, and a myraid of other things.

 

[deb1]

BryPGuy89:

Slightly confusing way to put it. My basic point would be if these things weren’t in your quote and are present in the OT. You said we no longer had to follow the old laws right? This means that sexual sin and immorality are no longer wrong if you were to follow that ideaology as well as others. This basically approves homosexuality and other even worse pervertions. I don’t see this ideaology of yours as possible or beleiveable. I must say that I beleive the CHurch has a different standing somewhat than that.

Sorry about presenting this in a confusing manner. My point was that the all the moral laws can be gotten from reading the New Testament. Homosexuality is discussed negatively in the New Testament, also.

I am not suggesting throwing the Old Testament out. It has wonderful lessons for us, but even the Jewish people had their own oral traditions surrounding the Pentateuch. The Talmud is partly a commentary on the Mosaic laws. Jewish people, for example, don’t mix meat and milk products. So no cheeseburgers for an Orthodox Jew. This is based on a verse in the Mosaic laws that says not to boil a kid in its mother’s milk. The ancient Jewish scholars interpreted this to mean that meat and milk were not to be eaten together. So, although the Talmud was not written down until after Jesus and the destruction of the Temple, Jesus probably followed these rules and traditions. If you are going to follow the rules in the Old Testament then you need to study the Talmud to see how the laws, both moral and ceremonial were traditionally interpreted.

Some people use the Old Testament as a means to buttress their views on what should and shouldn’t be a sin. They claim that they only follow the moral laws and not the ceremonial laws but when you question them, then you discover that they are often only using the verses that agree with their definition of morality. For example, most people would not agree with the Old Testament law about stoning women who were not virgens, yet there is no reason why this isn’t less of a moral law then the mixing of species.(Not that I am advocating stoning women!!)

Luckily, we have the Catholic church to help us with this.

 

[deb1]

BryPGuy89:

Slightly confusing way to put it. My basic point would be if these things weren’t in your quote and are present in the OT. You said we no longer had to follow the old laws right? This means that sexual sin and immorality are no longer wrong if you were to follow that ideaology as well as others. This basically approves homosexuality and other even worse pervertions. I don’t see this ideaology of yours as possible or beleiveable. I must say that I beleive the CHurch has a different standing somewhat than that.

I just wanted to add that sexual laws are covererd in the NT. Romans 1:24-28 is one example.

 

[BryPGuy89]

Timidity:

Yes, she does. We call them “disciplines”, and they include things days of fast and abstainence, and Holy Days of Obligation, and a myraid of other things.

Those are not laws, they are traditions and they are addressed in the CCC.

 

[BryPGuy89]

deb1:

Sorry about presenting this in a confusing manner. My point was that the all the moral laws can be gotten from reading the New Testament. Homosexuality is discussed negatively in the New Testament, also.

I am not suggesting throwing the Old Testament out. It has wonderful lessons for us, but even the Jewish people had their own oral traditions surrounding the Pentateuch. The Talmud is partly a commentary on the Mosaic laws. Jewish people, for example, don’t mix meat and milk products. So no cheeseburgers for an Orthodox Jew. This is based on a verse in the Mosaic laws that says not to boil a kid in its mother’s milk. The ancient Jewish scholars interpreted this to mean that meat and milk were not to be eaten together. So, although the Talmud was not written down until after Jesus and the destruction of the Temple, Jesus probably followed these rules and traditions. If you are going to follow the rules in the Old Testament then you need to study the Talmud to see how the laws, both moral and ceremonial were traditionally interpreted.

Some people use the Old Testament as a means to buttress their views on what should and shouldn’t be a sin. They claim that they only follow the moral laws and not the ceremonial laws but when you question them, then you discover that they are often only using the verses that agree with their definition of morality. For example, most people would not agree with the Old Testament law about stoning women who were not virgens, yet there is no reason why this isn’t less of a moral law then the mixing of species.(Not that I am advocating stoning women!!)

Luckily, we have the Catholic church to help us with this.

Ok thank you for clearing that up a bit. I understand not everything should be taken to a extreme, but earlier it sounded like they were saying that we should completely disregard the OT laws. I know that interpretations differ and one needs a guiding hand (the Church) for proper interpretation, but it is confusing when the Church doesn’t have any specific guidelines for certain subjects.

 

[BryPGuy89]

deb1:

I just wanted to add that sexual laws are covererd in the NT. Romans 1:24-28 is one example.

Ok bad example, it does very clearly discuss that in the NT. How about drugs and what not, in the OT it says "do not do drugs or take anything with addictive tendencies, (cigarettes, marajuana, alcohal abuse, etc…), yet I don’t hear any Church official words on some of those kind of things. My over all question is where did this follow some things, but not all the others of the OT laws that are practical to this day and age, come from. Why do we have some definite answers on certain subjects, but not others? I wonder if some subjects are now more possible and rampant and the Church has yet to react to the sudden outburst of certain behaviors?

 

[Timidity]

BryPGuy89:

Those are not laws, they are traditions and they are addressed in the CCC.

They carry the force of law, and are, in fact, codified into the Code of Canon Law.

 

[BryPGuy89]

Timidity:

They carry the force of law, and are, in fact, codified into the Code of Canon Law.

The CCC does diferentiate between law and tradition and one has so much more bearing over the other. Laws like Christ is the son of God are in no way similar in the same way as Obligatory fastings, tradition. Laws and traditions are different and carry a differnet weigt in their existence.