All right. I'm lazy right now; so don't expect much.
But the fat, and the kidneys, and the lobe above the liver of the sin offering, he burnt on the altar; as the LORD commanded Moses.
The ‘an eye for an eye’ principle is commonly known as the ‘lex talionis,’ which is Latin for the ‘law of retaliation.’ It is mentioned in the Old Testament in Exodus 21:23-27; Leviticus 24:18-20; and Deuteronomy 19:21. Rather than requiring the literal maiming of a guilty person, this law has been correctly understood as requiring equivalent monetary compensation. The law made it also clear that victims were to be compensated fairly, as determined by judges and magistrates. Victims were not to resort to ‘self-help.’
“… the Church of God has taught consistently that the ‘an eye for an eye principle’ was not meant to be applied literally in the sense of maiming a person…”
In that Q&A, we cited numerous commentaries and Scriptural evidence for this conclusion. In addition, Friedman, Commentary on the Torah, explains on pages 400-401 (in discussing Leviticus 24:20): “… the earliest postbiblical Jewish sources already understood ‘an eye for an eye’ to mean monetary, and not literal, compensation.”
To include another statement, which we did not quote in the above-mentioned Q&A, Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible explains, in discussing Leviticus 24:19:
“‘And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour’…. Does him any hurt or mischief, causes any mutilation or deformity in him by striking him: ‘as he hath done, so shall it be done unto him’: not that a like damage or hurt should be done to him, but that he should make satisfaction for it in a pecuniary way; pay for the cure of him, and for loss of time, and in consideration of the pain he has endured, and the shame or disgrace brought on him by the deformity or mutilation, or for whatever loss he may sustain thereby…”
With this background, let us review the passage in Deuteronomy 25:11-12. Was this command of cutting off the woman’s hand to be carried out literally?
Some commentaries think so.
For instance, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible writes:
“This is the only mutilation prescribed by the Law of Moses, unless we except the retaliation prescribed as a punishment for the infliction on another of bodily injuries (Leviticus 24:19-20). The act in question was probably not rare in the times and countries for which the Law of Moses was designed. It is of course to be understood that the act was willful, and that the prescribed punishment would be inflicted according to the sentence of the judges.”
Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible also allows for the literal application of this command, stating:
“‘Then thou shall cut off her hand’… Which was to be done not by the man that strove with her husband, or by any bystander, but by the civil magistrate or his order. This severity was used to deter women from such an immodest as well as injurious action… though the Jewish writers interpret this not of actual cutting off the hand, but of paying a valuable consideration, a price put upon it… and Aben Ezra compares it with the law of retaliation, ‘eye for eye’, Exodus 21:24… and who adds, if she does not redeem her hand (i.e. by a price) it must be cut off:
“‘thine eye shall not pity her’; on account of the tenderness of her sex, or because of the plausible excuse that might be made for her action, being done hastily and in a passion, and out of affection to her husband; but these considerations were to have no place with the magistrate, who was to order the punishment inflicted, either in the strict literal sense, or by paying a sum of money.”
"5Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; 6not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.…" (2)
Let me ask you something. Why do you unquestionably follow the Bible's basic morals; like not to steal and to love anyone? Yet, whenever something the Bible says contradicts the social norms or what you want to believe, you toss it aside. Just as you quoted that you find it "hard to believe" that sexuality was a choice even though evidence was right in front of you. If you believe that the Bible represented the social views of the time, then you are not Catholic. Catholics believe the Bible was written by men "inspired" by God.
They choose to become homosexual because of many reasons. Maybe they weren't raised right. Maybe they were burned by the opposite sex. There are a number of enviornmental factors that could come into play. Regardless, with the right steps, it can be changed.
Haha! That's cute. 8th grade. I remember when I was in 8th grade. Girl was good then turned bad quickly. It's called being immature and a lack of experience in dating. I look back on that part of my life and facepalm about how much I wanted to be wth her just to have events fold out to put me in a bad situation.
Due to a recent experience I had, I'm kinda not well spoken for the subject.
You can't deny evidence just because you don't want to believe it.
In conclusion, this is just your own personal opinion. Not wide-spread Catholic belief.
Something to make you laugh: