It's very common for people arguing for Christian (as opposed to Jewish or Islamic) acceptance of homosexual acts to quote the Old Testament, partly because of the tabus on shellfish and mixed fibres mentioned in the same passage. Even the film 'For The Bible Tells Me So', which is aimed at Christians to persuade them that homosexual behaviour is not sinful, does this. It makes a good rhetorical point and it's very well-intentioned, but is it actually useful?
Christians generally understand themselves to be under a new covenant and see many of the provisions of the Law as explicitly repealed. In a sense, the Old Testament is the sacred text of a different religion, though still very relevant to our own.
The relevant passages in the debate concerning homosexuality are in the New Testament, not the Old. They include the first chapter of Romans, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Timothy 1 and various others.
It may be fun to point out the problems with accepting the Old Testament view, but most homophobic Christians don't base it on those passages so they're irrelevant. Isn't the point to persuade them they're wrong? To do that, you have to engage with the New Testament, because they clearly believe these verses to condemn homosexuality.
So why quote the Old Testament in this respect at all?
Seed Life, you're sort of making my point for me because there's controversy there. There's no controversy in the New Testament and the issue is therefore clearer and easier to debate.
Chester - that concerns homosexuality as an identity, not the act. Tyndale, 1534:
Romans 1 (no verses in my edition) - "...man with man wrought filthynes..."
1 Corinthians 6 - "...weaklinges, abusars of them selves with the mankynde..." (interesting one that)
1 Timothy 1 - "...to them that defile them selves with mankynde; to menstealers..."
So yes, a couple of very significant differences but clearly also references to sexual acts between men. Not homosexuality the _identity_, but still homosexual behaviour.
Christians generally understand themselves to be under a new covenant and see many of the provisions of the Law as explicitly repealed. In a sense, the Old Testament is the sacred text of a different religion, though still very relevant to our own.
The relevant passages in the debate concerning homosexuality are in the New Testament, not the Old. They include the first chapter of Romans, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Timothy 1 and various others.
It may be fun to point out the problems with accepting the Old Testament view, but most homophobic Christians don't base it on those passages so they're irrelevant. Isn't the point to persuade them they're wrong? To do that, you have to engage with the New Testament, because they clearly believe these verses to condemn homosexuality.
So why quote the Old Testament in this respect at all?
Seed Life, you're sort of making my point for me because there's controversy there. There's no controversy in the New Testament and the issue is therefore clearer and easier to debate.
Chester - that concerns homosexuality as an identity, not the act. Tyndale, 1534:
Romans 1 (no verses in my edition) - "...man with man wrought filthynes..."
1 Corinthians 6 - "...weaklinges, abusars of them selves with the mankynde..." (interesting one that)
1 Timothy 1 - "...to them that defile them selves with mankynde; to menstealers..."
So yes, a couple of very significant differences but clearly also references to sexual acts between men. Not homosexuality the _identity_, but still homosexual behaviour.