This line of attack works better for Christians who quite happily pick and choose which bits of the Torah apply to them and which don't.
If they want to claim to be Bible-believing Christians, they can do this with some Biblical justification: the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15 gives Gentile Christians a lot of latitude, but does prohibit sexual immorality (or "fornication" as the KJV puts it). So Christians could argue that the Torah's prohibitions on homosexuality were part of the sexual immorality rules while still eating pork without inconsistency (but not while eating black pudding, I hope you noticed). In the NT, Paul's letters have their own passages which can be taken to prohibit at least some forms of homosexuality, but like the OT passages, there are arguments about the cultural context.
My water-tight justification for the claim God doesn't say that homosexuality isn't intrinsically immoral is that God isn't real. This shortcuts a lot of arguments about what we can and cannot justify from the scriptures, I find.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-20 10:43 pm (UTC)If they want to claim to be Bible-believing Christians, they can do this with some Biblical justification: the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15 gives Gentile Christians a lot of latitude, but does prohibit sexual immorality (or "fornication" as the KJV puts it). So Christians could argue that the Torah's prohibitions on homosexuality were part of the sexual immorality rules while still eating pork without inconsistency (but not while eating black pudding, I hope you noticed). In the NT, Paul's letters have their own passages which can be taken to prohibit at least some forms of homosexuality, but like the OT passages, there are arguments about the cultural context.
My water-tight justification for the claim God doesn't say that homosexuality isn't intrinsically immoral is that God isn't real. This shortcuts a lot of arguments about what we can and cannot justify from the scriptures, I find.