Atheism's Contention: According to Biblical Morality are all wrong, evil, and unnatural. However, are all perfectly fine and natural.
ATHEISM’S ASSERTION
|
Eating Pork
Leviticus 11:7 ...which does indeed have hoofs and is
cloven-footed, but does not chew the cud and is therefore unclean for you.
All hoofed animals that are not cloven-footed:
such as the horse and the ass.
Eating shellfish
Leviticus 11:9-12 "Of the various creatures that live in the water, you may eat
the following: whatever in the seas or in river waters has both fins and scales
you may eat. But of the various creatures that crawl or swim in the water,
whether in the sea or in the rivers, all those that lack either fins or scales
are loathsome for you, and you shall treat them as loathsome. Their flesh you
shall not eat, and their dead bodies you shall loathe.
CATHOLIC TEACHING
|
Christians
do not follow the old Jewish laws, (known as the Mosaic Laws, after Moses the
lawgiver), which the Catholics rely on with respect to the authority of the
Church[1] (Catechism of the Catholic Church 747-780) which
draws directly on Sacred Scripture.
The
Church has authority. Catholics accept the Church's infallible teaching together
with its role in interpreting scripture.[2] (Catechism of the Catholic Church 574-594, 1961-1986)
The Catholics
eat shellfish and not kosher-slaughtered food basically, “the Church says so”,
and she says so because Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit passed this knowledge
to the Apostles.
Regardless of whether or not this knowledge is
explicit in the New Testament, the fact that certain aspects of the Mosaic law that it is no longer applicable is taught by the Church. Jesus provided this
knowledge to the Church when the latter was just apostles and passed down
through Apostolic Succession over the past 2000 years.[3]
Old Testament law included many dietary
regulations which were instituted as a preparation for His teaching on the
moral law , which Jesus discussed:
"Hear me, all of you, and understand: there
is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things
which come out of a man are what defile him." And when he had entered the
house, and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. And he
said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see
that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him, since it enters,
not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?" Thus he declared all
foods clean. (Mark 7:14-19)
ATHEISM’S ASSERTION
|
Homosexuality
Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an
abomination.
CATHOLIC TEACHING
|
This is constantly directed at Christians because
of what the opposition sees as racism/intolerance and hatred towards
homosexuals, which is contrary to truth because the Catholic Church neither hate
the “homosexuals per se” but its abominable practices which compromise the
common good.
Homosexual
sex[4] is considered to be a sin
because sexual relations between unmarried persons are sinful, and that
marriage can only be between one man and one woman. Homosexuals cannot be
married to each other, and therefore any sexual activity outside of marriage. Hence,
by definition homosexual sex is fornication (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2353).
The
unifying and pleasurable aspects of sex cannot be separated from the
procreative aspect. Thus, the Church condemns all forms of artificial
contraception. Homosexual unions can never produce children. The sole purpose
of homosexual sex is physical pleasure with no intent of producing children, which
falls on the level of contracepted sexual intercourse.
Lastly,
the Bible very specifically denounces homosexual unions (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, and the Sodom narrative in
Genesis 19) and Saint Paul clearly tells
that homosexuality is condemned (Romans 1:27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:9-10). Likewise, the Scripture makes it very clear that the matrimonial
union between a man and a woman is sacred and considered necessary state.
Homosexual
acts are condemned but not same-sex attraction unless it leads to homosexual
acts (e.g. lustful thoughts deliberately indulged in and directed at a member
of the same sex). (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357-2359)
While
the Old Testament is not rendered null and void or inappropriate by the New
Testament, where the New Testament of Jesus Christ expands upon or changes
information contained in the Old Testament, it is the New Testament that the
Christian must follow.
In
the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:1-7:28, for example, Jesus Christ says
“You have heard it said that . . . but I say to you . . .” many times. He
proceeds to provide a number of examples of how the new law is harder and a
higher standard than the old. For example, He replaces the Mosaic Law of “eye
for an eye” with “turn the other cheek”. Apparently in here, Jesus is entirely
prepared to replace and expand upon the Mosaic Law.
Mark 7:18-23 clarifies that the defilement
associated with eating certain foods under the Mosaic dietary laws is stripped
of by Jesus – verse 19 clearly says that all foods are declared clean.
There
are additional examples of Biblical passages supporting the removal of the
Levitican dietary laws. In Acts 10:10-16 Saint Peter has a vision,
wherein the Lord tells him to eat of "unclean" animals. But these
verses only speak of which animals are clean – it neither tell of an allowance
of methods on killing of animals other than the kosher method, nor does it strip
off all other Levitican laws (such as those concerning diseases and female
menstruation). The significant Scriptural passage for this is the Council of
Jerusalem (considered as the first ecumenical council of the Catholic Church)
in Acts 15:1-35. It is clarified here that Gentile converts to the Catholic Church
are not to be bound by circumcision and the Mosaic Law (Acts 15:5) affirms this is what the
council was about) but rather simply to keep away from “pollution of idols,
unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood.”
Saint
Paul reminds the churches he writes to of this decision - Ephesians 2:9 makes it clear
"works" (of the law) cannot save. This does not advance the doctrine
of sola fides but rather asserts that the
"works of the law" cannot save. The whole of Galatians 3 delves into this theme. Saint
Paul says that humanity now justified by faith than legalistic observance of
the law. The denial of sola fides makes it clear that this does not mean that good
works are of no avail, but rather that the works of the Mosaic Law are of no
avail. If holding on to the Mosaic Law cannot save, then not holding to
it cannot condemn anyone. Galatians 5:2-6 asserts that those who seek to be
justified by the law must obey, which clarifies that Christians are not only
not bound by the Mosaic Law, but that they should not wish to be bound by it.
Christians
condemn certain practices which are in the Mosaic Law even if the Mosaic Law no
longer applies because the reasons for condemning some practices (such as
homosexuality) are not removed by the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law. These
behaviors are morally intolerable in all respects, and damage individuals,
society and their relationships with God. Further, the Scriptures denounce these
actions themselves as clarified in 1 Corinthians 5 that sexual immorality is undesirable. Galatians 5:19-21 provides a clear list of sins and immoralities which lead to suffering.
Briefly,
Catholics (and all Christians, who took their moral laws from the Catholic
Church in the main) do not follow the Mosaic Law at all, but a moral code which
is akin to and which was given to the humanity by Jesus Christ during the
Incarnation. Just as the people
living in the modern United States accustomed to follow British Law, and now
follow American Law – there are similarities on these two legal systems
which are based on the natural law and fundamental moral truths of the
universe, but different legal systems.
Others
point to Acts 15:20 and say that Christians
should eat no strangled animals and no blood. There is neither formal
prohibition in the Catholic Church concerning these foods nor does it transgresses the Sacred Scripture.
It’s
interesting to note that sola scriptura (by Scripture alone) is a false doctrine and that the Church
has authority. The pronouncement made at this Council was not a doctrine, but
rather a discipline of the church as hinted in the “pollution of idols” - strangled
foods and blood were often part of pagan ceremonies. Moreover, the Jewish
converts to Christianity had lived for years and years without eating these
foods and so found them particularly nauseating. The Council of Jerusalem was trying
to find to incorporate two dissimilar halves of the Christian world – the
Gentiles and the Jews. By instituting the discipline that foods which the
Jewish converts found gross should not be eaten within these mixed communities,
the Church was ascertaining that there would be no cause of division.
Once
these concerns no longer existed, when the proportion of Jewish converts
dropped, or in areas where there were very few Jews to begin with and most
converts were Gentiles (such as the Greek churches) the Church lifted these
restrictions. Saint Paul (1 Corinthians 10) speaks about acceptance to eat the flesh of animals sacrificed to
idols, warning the Corinthians to only be concerned about causing scandal,
rather than any sin or wrongdoing which might be attached to eating the food
itself. This implies that the decision of the Council of Jerusalem to avoid
certain foods was not doctrinal, but rather a discipline, as likewise shown in Mark 7:19 that all foods were made clean .
Specifically, the Jehovah's Witnesses (a
quasi-Christian sect) assert that blood transfusions are unacceptable, which
absurd notion not supported by any reading of Scripture so the teaching cannot
be inferred from existing moral laws- the verses speak of the eating of blood
from animals than transfusion of human blood to save a life. Even Orthodox Jews
today allow blood transfusions, although they meticulously avoid the eating of
blood.
ATHEISM’S ASSERTION
|
Wearing clothes of mixed fabrics
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
kinds of thread.
CATHOLIC TEACHING
|
There
are two passages in the Mosaic Law that forbid the wearing of different types
of fabric - the wearing of blended fabrics and those woven from two different
materials[5] Leviticus 19:19, Deuteronomy 22:9-11).
While
the Deuteronomy passage specifically prohibits wearing a woven garment of wool
and linen, the Leviticus passage seems broader, prohibiting clothes woven of
two different types of fabric, regardless of material. Nonetheless, wool
and linen would have been the main alternatives for the ancient Israelite when
making thread for weaving. Woolen thread would have been made from the hair of
a sheep or goat, although today it is made from different animals as well
(llamas, alpacas, etc.). Linen was made from fibers in the stalk of the flax
plant (Joshua 2:6). There is neither a proof that ancient Israel cultivated
cotton nor have synthetics like nylon or polyester. Hence, it can be assumed
that wool and linen are in view in the Leviticus passage, even though the
materials are not specified.
There
is no passage which says anything about wearing two garments out of different
kinds of material, like linen undergarment worn with a woolen outer garment may
have been acceptable. Likewise, no commandments which say anything about
clothing that is not woven, such as leather or animal skins, being used with a
lining made of wool or linen. The proscription pertains only to wearing a
single garment woven with both wool and linen.
The
rule against wearing different types of fabric was not a moral law, and
therefore there is nothing intrinsically off beam with weaving a mixture of linen
and wool. In fact, the ephod of the high priest was made of linen and dyed
thread (Exodus 28:6-8; 39:4-5). The dyed thread would have been made of wool. In all
probability, this fact can be the key to comprehension of the prohibition. The
high priest’s ephod was the only garment that could be woven of linen and wool
and no one else was allowed. It appears that, this rule was to place some
distance between the high priest and the people, with the definitive objective
of reminding Israel of how holy God truly is. A comparable proscription in the
Law looked at anointing oil wherein God gave a special recipe for it, and it
was strictly prohibited to duplicate the recipe for common use. Israelites were
prohibited to make this oil for own purposes (Exodus 30:31-38).
The
Biblical references that forbid wearing clothes woven with wool and linen
include a list of other prohibitions against mixing of various kinds. It must
be noted that ancient Hittite laws also prohibited the sowing of different kinds
of seed in the same field. Apparently, the mixing of this kind was reserved for
sacred purposes, disallowing the average person to engage in these practices. The
prohibitions in the Old Testament may have been to maintain distance between
the people and the high priest (and therefore God, whom the high priest
represented). In other cases, these may have been formulated to keep the
Israelites from emulating the surrounding pagan nations’ superstitious or
religious practices.
Therefore
it is not wrong for a Christian today to wear apparel made of two different types
of material. As identified, the prohibition was only for linen and wool, which
would be uncommon today, anyway. Other types of blends were simply not in view.
Beyond that, the prohibition was for ancient Israel than the New Testament
Christian. The ceremonial laws for ancient Israel as accounted in the Old
Testament simply do not apply today.
ATHEISM’S ASSERTION
|
Shaving
Leviticus 19:27 Do not clip your hair at the temples, nor trim the edges of your
beard.
CATHOLIC TEACHING
|
The
Old Testament law prohibited priests from shaving of heads or beards (Leviticus 21:5). Men usually had long beards in the ancient Hebrew
culture and it was considered a disgrace for an adult man not to have a beard
(2 Samuel 10:4-5). Men taking the Nazarite vow were not to cut their hair
until completion of vow, at which time they were to shave their heads. Conversely,
the Scripture says that it is disgraceful for a woman to shave her head (1 Corinthians 11:5-6) and that her hair “is a glory to her” (verse 15). Nowhere in the Bible that directly mentions about
shaving any other part of the body other than the hair and beard.[6]
Apparently
God has given us great freedom on what to do with the hair. The only New
Covenant principle that applies today is masculine hairstyles for men and
feminine hairstyles for females (1 Corinthians 11:3-16). However, there is a lot of flexibility in here as masculinity
and femininity vary from one culture to another. Anyone could live a healthy
life with no hair whatsoever. The fact that hair grows back when cut or shaven
likely hints that God intends everyone to have hair. The fact that hair is
flexible to adjust and alter likely hints that God allows everyone to shave,
cut, style, etc., according to personal preferences.
There
is a trend today that people shave their entire bodies (and even use laser for
permanency) - heads, legs, arms, armpits, chest, eyebrows, and private areas.
While it is in the realm of personal preference and liberty, completely clearing bodies of hair does not seem to be consistent with the fact that God gave it
for a purpose. While a person is Biblically free to shave any part of his/her,
the body-shaving trend may be more about vanity than preference or necessity. The
latter is the only issue a person should consider concerning shaving.
ATHEISM’S ASSERTION
|
Slavery
Exodus 21:7 "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go free
as male slaves do.
CATHOLIC TEACHING
|
In the book of Philemon , Paul during an imprisonment, perhaps in Rome between
A.D. 61 and 63 (see Introduction to Colossians), writes about Onesimus, a slave from Colossae (Colossians 4:9), who had escaped
from his master, perhaps guilty of theft in the process (Philemon 1:18). The latter was converted to Christ by Paul (Philemon 1:10) who sends him back
to his master (Philemon 1:12) with this letter
asking that he be welcomed freely by his old master (Philemon 1:8-10, 14, 17) not just as a
slave but as a brother in Christ (Philemon 1:16). Paul uses very
strong arguments (Philemon 1:19) in his touching appeal on behalf of Onesimus. It is improbable
that Paul is cleverly suggesting that he would like to retain Onesimus as his
own slave, lent to Paul by his master. Rather, he proposes he would like to have
Onesimus work with him for the gospel (Philemon 1:13, 20-21).
Paul's letter deals with an accepted institution of
antiquity, human slavery. However he breathes into this letter the spirit of
Christ and of impartiality within the Christian community. He does not pounce
on slavery directly for this is something the Christian communities of the
first century were in no position to do, and the expectation that Christ would
soon come again gives importance against social reforms. Thus, by Paul’s
presenting of Onesimus as "brother, beloved . . . to me, but even more so
to you" (Philemon 1;16), articulate an idea radical in that day and destined to crash
worldly stumbling block of division "in the Lord."[7]
ATHEISM’S ASSERTION
|
Rape
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 "If a man comes upon a maiden that is not
betrothed, takes her and has relations with her, and their deed is discovered,
the man who had relations with her shall pay the girl's father fifty silver
shekels and take her as his wife, because he has deflowered her. Moreover, he
may not divorce her as long as he lives.
Exodus 22:16-17 “If a man seduces
a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride price
for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to
him, he shall pay money equal to the bride price for virgins."
Child Abuse
Proverbs 22:15 Folly is close to the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it
far from him.
CATHOLIC TEACHING
|
Actually,
the 22:15 atheism's pointing to Proverbs is not the verse that talks about rape but about disciplining a child which I will course through as it is self-explanatory.
Deuteronomy
22:28-29 is frequently associated to by atheists, skeptics, and other Bible
attackers as proof that the Bible is backwards, cruel, and misogynist, and
therefore, not the Word of God. At a glance, this passage seems to command that
a rape victim must marry her rapist, which is an erroneous interpretation of
the text.
Deuteronomy
22:28-29 and Exodus 22:16-17 clearly state that if
a man has sex with a virgin who is not betrothed (regardless of whether or not
it was rape or consensual) he is indebted to marry her. He should have obtained
her father's permission first, negotiated a bride-price, and taken her as his
wife. Since he did not, he is punished for this, must pay up, cannot take a
back seat anymore and marry her.
It
should be noted likewise that "he may not divorce her all his days" –
this initially doesn't seem significant but is actually a major punishment. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (restated more
clearly in Matthew 5:32 h(restated more clearly in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9) allowed for divorce, but only in the case of sexual
immorality (the word "uncleanness" refers to this and was translated
as such in the LXX - The Septuagint was the Greek translation of the Hebrew
Old Testament which is abbreviated as LXX, or the Roman numerals for 70, which
comes from a legend that the first part of the Septuagint was done by 70 translators). This man now may not divorce his wife even for this
reason, but is indebted to support her all his life whatever she does.
Nevertheless,
her father is ultimately in authority over her, as her head, until he dispenses
this authority over to her husband. If unacceptable, the father can refuse to
give his daughter to the man, as no father would give their daughter to a
rapist, not unless with permission. Generally, a rapist would actually have to
pay a 50 silver shekel fine to her father, and not get a wife at all (Exodus 22:16).
No
rape victim is ever recorded (in the Old Testament) forced to marry a rapist. Nevertheless,
it is conceivable that otherwise occurs. In Samuel 2:13, Amnon, a son of David, rapes his half-sister, Tamar. The
victim was not forced to marry the culprit,although, Tamar seemed to have
wanted to marry Amnon after the crime (2 Samuel 13:13-16). Evidently, she would desire such a thing considering its cost in this particular culture. It would have
been very difficult for a woman who was not a virgin, and especially a rape
victim to find a man to marry her. It seems that Tamar would have rather
married Amnon than deserted and be single forever, which is what happened to her
(2 Samuel 13;20).
Therefore
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 could be regarded as merciful to the woman, who, because
of the rape, would be considered unmarriageable. In that culture, a woman
without a husband would have a very difficult time providing for herself and
often had no choice but to sell themselves into slavery or prostitution just to
survive. Hence, the passage leaves marriage to the judgment of the father,
because every situation is different, and it is better to be flexible than have
a blanket rule.
Likewise,
there is a different penalty between having sex with an unbetrothed virgin and sex
with a married or betrothed woman. Sex with a married or betrothed woman is
adultery which was punishable by death including the victim, if uncontested, or
the death of the man once a rape (Deuteronomy 22:22-27).
ATHEISM’S ASSERTION
|
Prejudice
2 John 1:10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not
receive him in your house or even greet him; for whoever greets him shares in
his evil works.
CATHOLIC TEACHING
|
At
the time, false teachers were deemed so dangerous and divisive who were to be
completely avoided. Taken from this narrative, they seem to be wandering
preachers spreading evil nonsense problems faced by missionaries 3 John 1;10, so it's but natural to be mindful of security.
ATHEISM’S ASSERTION
|
Misogyny
1 Timothy 2:1-12 A woman must receive instruction
silently and under complete control. I do not permit a woman to teach or to
have authority over a man. 4 She must be quiet.
CATHOLIC TEACHING
|
God
did not give women a place, in the Church, the family, or society, to teach men
or to have authority over men.[9]
Men
and women have different roles in the Church, the family, and society. Men are
intended to be teachers and leaders in the Church, the family, and society.
Women should neither possess any kind of teaching role over adult men nor hold
any kind of leadership role over adult men.
That’s
why no women priests can be found in any Catholic Church.
Women
may teach and lead children, both boys and girls (even into the teenage years).
God gave them the ability of pregnancy and give birth to children. In this way,
God gave them also the primary role in teaching and leading children.
They
may teach and lead other women. An older and wiser woman may be a leader and
teacher over other women, especially if they are younger or less knowledgeable
than her. But it is not right for a young woman to take a role teaching or
leading much older women (unless mentally-incapacitated).
Moreover, anything that
pertains to the Mosaic Law as narrated in the Pentateuch (the
first five books of the Bible - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) are partly of an historical, partly of a legal
character. They provide the history of the Chosen People from the creation of
the world to the death of Moses, acquainting us too with the civil and
religious legislation of the Israelites during the life of their great
lawgiver, Moses.
The basis of this law is the Decalogue (Exodus 20),
and its center is the Book of the Covenant (Exodus 20-23). The civil
legislation is chiefly in Exodus (18-23), and Deuteronomy (16-26). The moral
laws are in Exodus (20-23), supplemented by Leviticus (11-20) and Deuteronomy
(5). The religious and ceremonial precepts are in Exodus (25-30) and particularly Leviticus (1-27).
The
Mosaic Law is the body of
civil, moral, and religious legislation found in the last four books of the
Pentateuch (Deuteronomy) and traditionally ascribed to Moses. As early as the Davidic era, the name
torah was prevalently used to designate this compilation. The Torah, as a
whole, was neither miraculously communicated from heaven, nor was it arduously contemplated
and put together by Moses unaided of external influences.
References:
[1] http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/6j.htm, The Pillar and
Foundation of the Truth (CCC 748-780) Church Fathers
[2] http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/4l.htm , The Mosaic Law
and Christianity (CCC 574-594, 1961-1986)
[3] Jim Blackburn, Why We Are Not Bound by Everything
in the Old Law, http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/why-we-are-not-bound-by-everything-in-the-old-law
[4] What and Why is the Church Teaching on Homosexuality?
(CCC 2357-2359) Church Fathers, http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/8h.htm
[5] http://www.gotquestions.org/different-types-of-fabric.html, Why does the Bible speak against wearing clothing made
of different types of fabric?
[8] http://www.gotquestions.org/Deuteronomy-22-28-29-marry-rapist.html, Does
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 command a rape victim to marry her rapist?"
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment