Old Testament Satire Letter

[dairygirl4u2c]

What's all ya'll's thoughts on the letter below? Moreso thougts on the OT reference, and not so much on the President remarks. I do know we can make a distinctin between natural law that continues after the OT and custom, but are all these custom? How do you square what's below with contemporary christian thougt?

[quote]Dear President Bush,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I
have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would
propose and support a constitutional amendment banning same sex
marriage.

As you said "in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man a
woman." I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can.
When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I
simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an
abomination... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements
of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may 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?

2. 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?

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

4. 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?

5. 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, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. 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? Are there 'degrees'
of abomination? Oh, sorry. IS there degrees .

7. 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?

8. 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?

9. 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?

10. 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. Couldn't we just burn them to
death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep
with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy
considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and
unchanging.

In Jesus name,[/quote]

[N/A Gone]

are you seriously asking how to respond to this; or posting this so we can have a early morning giggle? I dont know your background so I cant guess.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1173113' date='Jan 22 2007, 10:33 AM']
What's all ya'll's thoughts on the letter below? Moreso thougts on the OT reference, and not so much on the President remarks. I do know we can make a distinctin between natural law that continues after the OT and custom, but are all these custom? How do you square what's below with contemporary christian thougt?
[/quote]

It's actually pretty simple.

[quote name='The Sacred Oecumenical Council of Florence']It [The Holy Roman Church]firmly believes, professes and teaches that the [i][color="#FF0000"]legal prescriptions[/color][/i] of the old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning. Whoever, after the passion, places his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits himself to them as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally. It does not deny that from Christ's passion until the promulgation of the gospel they could have been retained, provided they were in no way believed to be necessary for salvation. But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation. Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation. [/quote]

The legal perscriptions are no longer in force (such as the punishments, the ceremonies, the eating restrictions); the natrual law is unrealted to the legal perscriptions that one must do (such as to believe in the Truths God has revealed, not to take His name in vain, publicly adore Him, honor and obey our superiors in all things are not sinful, not to murder, not to engage in extra-marital sex, not to steal from others, not to comitt detraction, not entertain impure thoughts, not to lust after earthly posessions) and is still and always will be in force.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation. [/quote]

On a tangent of this thread, I know lots of christians who have been circumcized. Was it a mortal sin for them to get circumcized?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1173454' date='Jan 22 2007, 08:16 PM']
On a tangent of this thread, I know lots of christians who have been circumcized. Was it a mortal sin for them to get circumcized?
[/quote]

Yes, it was their parents' sin. Roma locuta est, causa finita est.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1173457' date='Jan 22 2007, 10:19 PM']
Yes, it was their parents' sin. Roma locuta est, causa finita est.
[/quote]
Circumcsion is NOT a sin.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1173461' date='Jan 22 2007, 08:27 PM']
Circumcsion is NOT a sin.
[/quote]

[quote name='The Sacred Oecumenical Council of Florence'][b]Therefore it [the Holy Roman Church] denounces all who after that time observe circumcision[/b], the sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. [b]Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, [i][u]since [color="#FF0000"]whether or not they place their hope in it,[/color] it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.[/u][/i][/b][/quote]

How else can those words interpreted?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1173487' date='Jan 22 2007, 11:08 PM']
How else can those words interpreted?
[/quote]
What century is that from?

Catholics can and do circumsize their children with no problems from the Catholic Church
Its called a medical decision.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1173489' date='Jan 22 2007, 09:14 PM']
What century is that from?

Catholics can and do circumsize their children with no problems from the Catholic Church
Its called a medical decision.
[/quote]

Why does it matter what century it was from? The Church's offocial stance on circumcision after the promulgation of the Gospel is taken from Session Eleven of the Sacred Oecumenical Council of Florence which took place on 4 February AD 1442. The Council of Florence was an [i]infallable[/i] Ecumenical Council, and is to be held equal with all the other twenty-one Ecumenical Councils.

[quote name='Catholic Encyclopedia article "Infallibility']An ecumenical or general, as distinguished from a particular or provincial council, is an assembly of bishops which juridically represents the universal Church as hierarchically constituted by Christ; and, since the primacy of Peter and of his successor, the pope, is an essential feature in the hierarchical constitution of the Church, it follows that there can be no such thing as an ecumenical council independent of, or in opposition to, the pope. No body can perform a strictly corporate function validly without the consent and co-operation of its head. Hence:

* the right to summon an ecumenical council belongs properly to the pope alone, though by his express or presumed consent given ante or post factum, the summons may be issued, as in the case of most of the early councils, in the name of the civil authority. For ecumenicity in the adequate sense all the bishops of the world in communion with the Holy See should be summoned, but it is not required that all or even a majority should be present.
* As regards the conduct of the deliberations, the right of presidency, of course, belongs to the pope or his representative; while as regards the decisions arrived at unanimity is not required.
* Finally, papal approbation is required to give ecumenical value and authority to conciliar decrees, and this must be subsequent to conciliar action, unless the pope, by his personal presence and conscience, has already given his official ratification (for details see GENERAL COUNCILS).

2. That an ecumenical council which satisfies the conditions above stated is an organ of infallibility will not be denied by anyone who admits that the Church is endowed with infallible doctrinal authority. How, if not through such an organ, could infallible authority effectively express itself, unless indeed through the pope? If Christ promised to be present with even two or three of His disciples gathered together in His name (Matthew 18:20), a fortiori He will be present efficaciously in a representative assembly of His authorized teachers; and the Paraclete whom He promised will be present, so that whatever the council defines may be prefaced with the Apostolic formula, "it has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us." And this is the view which the councils held regarding their own authority and upon which the defender of orthodoxy insisted. The councils insisted on their definitions being accepted under pain of anathema, while St. Athanasius, for example, says that "the word of the Lord pronounced by the ecumenical synod of Nicaea stands for ever" (Ep. ad Afros, n. 2) and St. Leo the Great proves the unchangeable character of definitive conciliar teaching on the ground that God has irrevocably confirmed its truth "universae fraternitatis irretractabili firmavit assensu" (Ep. 120, 1). [/quote]

[quote name='The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by L. Ott'] The totality of the Bishops is infallible, when they, either assembled in general council or scattered over the earth, propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful. (De fide.) [/quote]

So do you throw out the documents of Nicaea, Trent and Vatican I, too? Are they "too old"?

It appears that in your opinion Catholics are no longer obliged to believe in the the Trinity, Transubstantiation or Papal Infallibility... sad.

You could call abortion a medical decision, too, but in reality, both circumcision (post-promulgation of the Gospel) and abortion have to do with MORALS, one of the two areas where God's Church is infallable, along with FAITH.

Edited January 23, 2007 by StThomasMore

[Jaime]

[quote]1150 Signs of the covenant. The Chosen People received from God distinctive signs and symbols that marked its liturgical life. These are no longer solely celebrations of cosmic cycles and social gestures, but signs of the covenant, symbols of God's mighty deeds for his people. Among these liturgical signs from the Old Covenant are circumcision, anointing and consecration of kings and priests, laying on of hands, sacrifices, and above all the Passover. The Church sees in these signs a prefiguring of the sacraments of the New Covenant [/quote]


read your catechesism

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1173505' date='Jan 22 2007, 09:52 PM']
read your catechesism
[/quote]

That quote in now way says that circumcision is still allowed. It says it prefigured a Christian Sacrament, obviously, Baptism. That paragraph in the CCC corresponds with this one in the Catechism of the Council of Trent:

[quote name='The Catechism of the Council of Trent']From what has been said of sanctifying grace, the first effect of the Sacraments, it clearly follows that there resides in the Sacraments of the New Law, a virtue more exalted and efficacious than that of the sacraments of the Old Law. Those ancient sacraments, being weak and needy elements,43 sanctified such as were defiled to the cleansing of the flesh,44 but not of the spirit. They were, therefore, instituted only as signs of those things, which were to be accomplished by our mysteries. The Sacraments of the New Law, on the contrary, flowing from the side of Christ,45 who, by the Holy Spirit, offered himself unspotted unto God, cleanse our consciences from dead works, to serve the living God,46 and thus work in us, through the blood of Christ, the grace which they signify. Comparing our Sacraments, therefore, with those of the Old Law we find that they are not only more efficacious, but also more fruitful in spiritual advantages, and more august in holiness.[/quote]

Moreover, Oecumenical Councils are more authoritative than offocial Church Catechisms.

[Jaime]

[quote]2297 Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. [b]Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.[/b] [/quote]

[quote] The Advantages

For healthy, normal newborn sons, medical studies suggest that circumcision might decrease the risk of some health problems, including:

* Urinary tract infections in the first year of life
* Penile cancer
* Sexually transmitted diseases
* Cervical cancer among female partners
* Contracting HIV infection

[/quote]

[Resurrexi]

I'm not going to aruge over the alleged health benefits of circumcision, I just quoted the infallable documents of a Sacred Oecumenical Council which said that it was a grave sin to circumcise after the promulgation of the Gospel. As I have already said: Roma locuta est, causa finita est, Rome has spoken, the matter is finished.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1173493' date='Jan 22 2007, 11:41 PM']
Why does it matter what century it was from? The Church's offocial stance on circumcision after the promulgation of the Gospel is taken from Session Eleven of the Sacred Oecumenical Council of Florence which took place on 4 February AD 1442. The Council of Florence was an [i]infallable[/i] Ecumenical Council, and is to be held equal with all the other twenty-one Ecumenical Councils.


So do you throw out the documents of Nicaea, Trent and Vatican I, too? Are they "too old"?

It appears that in your opinion Catholics are no longer obliged to believe in the the Trinity, Transubstantiation or Papal Infallibility... sad.

You could call abortion a medical decision, too, but in reality, both circumcision (post-promulgation of the Gospel) and abortion have to do with MORALS, one of the two areas where God's Church is infallable, along with FAITH.
[/quote]

The Catholic Church Allows CIRCUMCISION FOR MEDICAL REASONS.
WHAT PART OF THIS DON'T YOU GET?
If You Would ACTUALLY READ Something In This CENTURY, Maybe You Would Know That.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1173581' date='Jan 22 2007, 10:23 PM']
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ALLOWS CIRCUMCISION FOR MEDICAL REASONS.
WHAT PART OF THIS DON'T YOU GET?
IF YOU WOULD ACTUALLY READ SOMETHING IN THIS CENTURY, MAYBE YOU WOULD KNOW THAT.
[/quote]

CIRCUMCISION AFTER THE PROMULGATION OF THE GOSPEL WAS DECLARED MORTALLY SINFUL IN AN INFALLIBLE AND IRREFORMABLE DEFINITION BY AN OECUMENICAL COUNCIL. WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT GET?
F YOU WOULD READ THE DOCUMENTS OF THE OECMENICAL COUNCILS WHICH CONTAIN SACRED TRADITION, MAYBE YOU WOULD KNOW THAT.

Edited January 23, 2007 by StThomasMore

[Aloysius]

circumsision as a sign of judaizing within Christianity is wrong, whether or not one actually puts their hope in it as a means of covenant with God. what's wrong is for any Catholic to circumcise their child in order to be similar to the jewish religion or mix old testament ordinances with the Catholic faith. one can do this with or without hoping in it as a sign.

there was no ideas (to my historical knowledge) at the time of the Council of Florence that circumsision might have health and higeine benefits. Therefore, it was a judaization of Christian belief to partake in this sign, even if no hope was placed in it. however, if any Christian comes to the idea that it may have health or hygeine benefits, they commit no sin in seeking those health benefits by circumsising their child. they would commit a sin if they did it as a sign in connection to the old testament (whether or not they considered an actual hope for salvation)

Personally, I don't think Catholics should go about circumcising any more than they should cremate their dead. Its foundations in American culture are in religious relativism and judaizing tendencies in protestants... and there really are in the end no objective medical benefits; the natural state of the human body is perfectly fine and can be perfectly hygenic and healthy.

but when doctors tell families circumsision is good for their child's health, a Christian in good faith commits no sin by circumsising for the sake of health benefits.

STM, you're way overstepping the linein jumping to conclusions here. The infallible documents of Ecumenical Councils are not created in a void, they have historic context. Delve into what the Council Fathers here meant by "whether or not they hope in it" and you will discover: they had no intention of stopping people from medically based circumsisions: they had all the intentions of stopping the judaizing sects and even Christians with judaizing tendencies who were circumsising children. they weren't always doing it placing their hope in it: sometimes they were doing it just to connect to old testament rituals with no hope in it (and that's what they would've argued had the Council not said "whether or not they hope in it") and that is the intention of the Council Fathers.

[Paddington]

Male circumcision is pretty ill, IMO. It's not that different than female circumcision.
I don't blame my parents because they thought it was a good MEDICAL thing.
So I don't think they went against the magisterium at all.

St.ThomasMore,

If a police officer has to work on Sunday.
He gets two days off a week.
One is Saturday.
The other is some other day. I'll just say Wednesday.
Should he purposely do his housework on Saturday and be blatantly religious on Wednesday?
If he chooses Saturday to be his day of rest, would he be condemned by the council you quote?
I am pretty sure it wouldn't matter which day he chose to be restful and religious on.
If it were Saturday, then it wouldn't be because he thought he HAD TO choose Saturday. If he thought HE HAD to choose Saturday, then he would be a semi-judaizer and he would be condemned by that council.
That is how it appears to me. The circumcision for medical reasons is the same concept.

Peace,
Paddington

Edited January 23, 2007 by Paddington

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1173634' date='Jan 22 2007, 10:48 PM']
Male circumcision is pretty ill, IMO. It's not that different than female circumcision.
I don't blame my parents because they thought it was a good MEDICAL thing.
So I don't think they went against the magisterium at all.

St.ThomasMore,

If a police officer has to work on Sunday.
He gets two days off a week.
One is Saturday.
The other is some other day. I'll just say Wednesday.
Should he purposely do his housework on Saturday and be blatantly religious on Wednesday?
If he chooses Saturday to be his day of rest, would he be condemned by the council you quote?
I am pretty sure it wouldn't matter which day he chose to be restful and religious on.
If it were Saturday, then it wouldn't be because he thought he HAD TO choose Saturday. If he thought HE HAD to choose Saturday, then he would be a semi-judaizer and he would be condemned by that council.
That is how it appears to me.

Peace,
Paddington
[/quote]

If a Catholic police officer must to work on Sunday, then so be it, but he should try to hear Mass and avoid all other servile labour other than that required by his job. And when he gets off work, try to spend the rest of the day in rest and prayer.

If he chooses to get his day off on Saturday, he shouldn't go out of his way to avoid servile labour and shopping, and he should treat that Saturday as if it he were getting a weekday off. He need not hear Mass on this day, unless he wants to out of personal devotion for non-Judaizing reasons.

[Paddington]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1173648' date='Jan 23 2007, 03:28 AM']
If a Catholic police officer must to work on Sunday, then so be it, but he should try to hear Mass and avoid all other servile labour other than that required by his job. And when he gets off work, try to spend the rest of the day in rest and prayer.

If he chooses to get his day off on Saturday, he shouldn't go out of his way to avoid servile labour and shopping, and he should treat that Saturday as if it he were getting a weekday off. He need not hear Mass on this day, unless he wants to out of personal devotion for non-Judaizing reasons.
[/quote]


StThomasMore,

I want to make sure I understand you. You are saying that Sunday is ALWAYS the ONLY day? So Mass is still mandatory and work can have exceptions to the rule.
If Sunday doesn't pan-out work-wise, then there is no obligation to be restful and/or extra-holy on any other day.

I'm more experienced with Protestants and they often take ONE (ANY) day off during the week and believe in going to church on Sunday.

Peace,
Paddington

[Paddington]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1173113' date='Jan 22 2007, 03:03 PM']
What's all ya'll's thoughts on the letter below? [/quote]

dairygirl,

I want somebody to explain WHY the OT law/ordinances were a good thing.
I can only think of "it is part punishment." Along with orderliness and inheritance and God making people jump through hoops to show love (like giving flowers to the wife x 10,000). And to maybe "give people what they want" even though it isn't what God wanted to do. That last sentence sounds insane. Maybe it is. But PART of human nature wants insane detail and boundaries and death for dissenters.

Peace,
Paddington

Edited January 23, 2007 by Paddington