Question about New Testament

[Grey Wolf]

Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) wrote:
> Thank you, everyone who answered my question. Melody, the point 
> wittily made by the comic you linked us to, is the reason I only 
> asked about the New Testament. I've heard rumors that the New 
> Testament says that Christ freed Christians from "the yoke of the 
> Law" (meaning the 613 commandments in Torah and their book after book 
> of details). Christians, not being Jews, don't have to stick to 
> kosher food, avoid wearing linsey-woolsey, be circumcised, go to the 
> mikvah seven days after the end of your period in order to wash off 
> the ritual uncleanness so as to be allowed to touch your husband 

Hi, Catholic here to express his viewpoint, and add to the mix 
(::shakes leaves off fur after lurking in the bushes::). I want to 
state clearly at the start that I am not that familiar with the Bible - 
I cannot for my life find a passage, as it will become clearer in a 
while. But I have been read the entire New Testament several times in 
my life (around 4, so far, since we go through it every four years, in 
regular mass), so even if I connot find things, I know they are there.

Anyway, my point: the rumour is indeed true, Cat. Jesus, amongst 
several other things, came to Earth, according to the Catholic 
Christianity I was taught (at least - I won't attempt to put words in 
other religions or interpretations of my own) to substitute the old 
Torah laws by a much simple code of love. The specific moment is when 
Jesus states "*Only* one commandment *I* give you: Love God over all 
other things, and the neighbour like a man like yourself" (emphasis 
mine) (New Testament, somewhere - probably close to Jesus' death, but 
not sure, sorry). 

Now, the 'Only' and the 'I' are important. First,the 'Only' makes it 
clear that there are no other commandments they need. The 'I' specifies 
who gives the commandment - Jesus Christ, thus God. This neatly puts 
and end to Jesus fight against the Torah, a fight that had lasted all 
his life, probably, and certainly his three years of teaching. Anyone 
fluent in the Bible can point out examples of Jesus teaching the 
Pharisees and Saducees how their methods and traditions were wrong.

This, you would think, would be a contradiction of God himself, since 
he had given those laws to the jews, and later sent Jesus to contradict 
them, but I was taught it was just a natural evolution of the education 
of the people - first specific, then generic as they "grew up" and 
learned better (as my priest pointed out a week ago, the jews had some 
very delighful customs back in the dawn of time like drinking the blood 
from the severed heads of their defeaten enemies - such people needed 
strong, no-nonsense sort of laws, and as they got more civilicised, the 
laws could be generalised).

I myself am going to give one example, unfortunately without any 
reference. I know it is there somewheere, because it was read in church 
once, but I'm sorry to say I don't remember where to find it. Anyway, 
it seems one of the laws in Leviticus concerns the treatment of lepers. 
According to this law, lepers where to be thrown out of town and any 
contact with any of them was, probably, punishable by death. Certainly 
physical contact was, but probably feeding them or joining them at 
dinner. Then, a couple thousand years later Jesus arrived and not only 
did he have contact with lepers, ate with them and talked to them, but 
also touched them and cured them. All this is obviously against 
Leviticus laws, and since Jesus, being who he is, takes precedence, it 
is one example of how he overrode such laws. My priest spoke at length 
about how Leviticus was, indeed, "old material" which had been 
substituted by Jesus' teachings. I cannot, however, state that this is 
so for all Christian religions - or even for all Catholic priests. Ever 
since Vatican II there has been much more liberty at "canon" 
interpretation (as could be seen by the letter the fundamentalist 
archbishop wrote a week ago).

So, where does New Testament stand in homosexuality issues? Comes down 
to interpretation. For example, *in my view*, it does *not* break 
Jesus' law - you are loving your neighbour like a person like yourself. 
It is a special kind of love that makes lots of people unconfortable, 
but sinners are not allowed to judge, only God is, so they should keep 
their mouths closed (IMO - I insist, just in case).

> >Melody:
> > Leviticus 18:22
> > "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is
> > detestable."

Word of Caution: we are now entering the realm of what the Old 
Testament says. I've just spent the better part of three pages 
explaining how that is no longer valid for Christians (or at least, the 
Catholic Christians I've been taught about). I am unsure of modern (or 
old, for that matter) Jew viewpoint. Last time I attempted it, I was 
told off-list that the view I had expressed of one Jew law was, indeed, 
correct in times past but had been modified in its interpretation 
since. So I'll just take to pieces that passage as I would any of HP.

bboy:
> The passage you site about speaks of an action; 'Lie'. I think for
> simplicity sake we can agree that it does not refer to 'taking a 
> nap'.So it speaks of 'to lie', but it doesn't not mention 'to be'.

Exactly: it seems Leviticus speaks of the physical act. And it is 
clear: you will not lie with a man as you would with a woman. It does *
not* mention what you feel about men - so it is irrelevant if you are a 
homosexual or heterosexual. According to Leviticus, the act of "lying 
with a man" is wrong.

> But here is a another point to ponder. These books are written from a
> HetErosexual point of view. For a hetErosexual man to become so
> overwhelmed by lust and desire for bodily pleasure that he would go
> against his core nature, against his natural instincts, and engage in
> sex with another man, is certainly destestable and/or an abomonation
> (depending on what version you reference). 

Ummm... no. According to the religions that accept the Old Testament, 
and thus Leviticus, as a Holy Book, it is written from the PoV of God, 
who is asexual. I will give you that they do seem to be written from a 
male perspective, since the previous passage (granted, could be out of 
context) does allow female homosexuality and prohibit female 
heterosexuality. I'm unsure how that is corrected, but the segment is 
clearly pointed at men. Their sexual orientation, however, is not 
mentioned, so it is assumed it applies to all of them (just as it 
applies to all ages, all races, all proffesions, etc).
 
> bboy_mn:
> So many of the most vocal people have no problem saying 'God hate
> fags' or 'Death to fags'. But they never get around to 'DEATH' for
> all their own sins. Where is DEATH to adulterers? Where is DEATH to
> fornicators? Where is DEATH to all the other things in the Bible says
> are punishable by death. How very convinient that the Old Testement
> DEATH no longer applies when it comes to their sins.
> 
> It's really the blatant hypocricy that drives me up the wall.

Agreed, drives me up the wall too.

> The general feeling amoung most Protestant churches it that the New
> Testement supersedes the Old Testement, and outlines a new way of
> living based on love and compassion.

Yep, happens in Catholic Church too, at least as far as I know (see 
above).

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf