On another thread you told me you were Catholic and it did not work for you. This quote of yours honestly demonstrates that you never learned your faith or what we believe or how we interpret the OT and NT.
.
I learned it quite well, thank you. That I no longer profess the faith is hardly an automatic invalidation of anything I say – let my arguments stand or fall on their own merits.
I’ve got nothing against that quote from Mark (other than the fact that I don’t particularly believe in any deity), but I fail to see how it is ‘the Catholic teaching about reality’ rather than a basic moral code. I wholly agree with the sentiment of treating others as one would be treated, but the nature and schema of reality it isn’t.
Very Excellent point you bring up. Muslims are supposed to be against abortion as far as I know.
We have a spiritual reality as well as a physical reality (or those are two aspects of reality if you prefer), as I geuss you know. The quote I hope describes the spiritual reality we strive toward.
It did not render it obsolete; it fulfilled it. The levitical laws were for their time, so I think the disciplary laws are invalid, yet the moral laws remain in force.
It used to be, Meedo, it used to be.
In my opinion it describes the way things should ideally be specifically with regard to moral behavior (with the usual caveats about my lack of faith in a deity, etc). It of course does not have anything to do with physical reality, nor does it touch on the root nature of metaphysics. It is a purely moral statement; it does not describe God or the soul, for instance.
You got me there, ‘obsolete’ was a poor choice of words
Are you driving at the sexual mores? Sexuality is aligned to the virtue of chastity and how one conducts oneself in line with this virtue has an impact on one’s spirit. The sexual prohibitions then have an impact on the soul, far different from the discipline of not wearing certain fabrics or even a laudable discipline of a hair shirt. Obedience to such virtues has an impact on our immortal soul and are part of the new covenant as well. If it’s the virtue of chastity we’re talking about there is plenty of New testament, from Jesus and St. Paul, so that nothing is “needed” from the OT to condemn impure behaviour. A good point to recollect here is that Christianity defines man as body and soul (death being an unnatural separation of body and soul), so bodily activities impact the soul in the unity of the one person and can then turn one toward or away from God.In my opinion it describes the way things should ideally be specifically with regard to moral behavior (with the usual caveats about my lack of faith in a deity, etc). It of course does not have anything to do with physical reality, nor does it touch on the root nature of metaphysics. It is a purely moral statement; it does not describe God or the soul, for instance.
You got me there, ‘obsolete’ was a poor choice of words
Still, I find it odd and more than a little hypocritical that some Christians hold forth specifically on the OT prohibitions of certain behaviors being the only basis needed for their condemnation while devouring bacon and ham, and wearing cotton/poly blend fabrics.
The laws prohibiting pork and fabric of mixed fibers are clearly not disciplinary in nature; if they are moral, they have no hold on Christians – in particular, the distinction between clean and unclean foods was explicitly removed by God in the book of Acts.
)
The rules about who one can and can’t have sex with are one example, yes; however, the book also includes rules banning witchcraft under penalty of death, banning the worship of other gods, and so forth.
I think the Baptists are still on your side there
Yeah, I’m not at all comfortable with the OT depiction of God. Not that any deity would necessarily care how ‘comfortable’ I am with it – but the picture painted by the Old Testament is definitely at odds with the loving, kind New Testament God.This is close to the limit of my understanding about Leviticus, though. I find Deuteronomy far more disturbing–and perhaps more ancient I suspect than Leviticus–in how God dealt with people. To fathom it one needs almost a pre-civilized or primeval consciousness. It is the God who allows the innocent to die, the Lord of providence and the Alpha and Omega, where Death and suffering are as naught against the value of Truth, the dawn of God revealing Himself to Man after the horrendous plummeting disgrace of the fall that so alienated him from justice, truth and charity (but that is all rampant speculation on my part and a bit poetical
Well I geuss anyone can speculate, not just me. Of course, I’d speculate that any such “god of war” was a pagan corruption of the natural law desire for the One True God. Whether Abraham, who of course also had a fallen nature, was influenced by pagans distorting his view of God is, I suspect, known only to Abraham now and God.
But then their views on alcohol are distorted with biblical teaching, leaving the Church standing alone again still after millenia standing fast against the gates of hell.I think the Baptists are still on your side there
.
Having a pope has to be my number one reason for never becoming Orthodox or Protestant. Now I know I’ll never become Muslim either.