From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Tue Jul 29 2003 - 06:53:43 EDT
RFaussette@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 7/23/03 8:19:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time, gmurphy@raex.com
> writes:
>
> > But I don't intend to argue that. Try reading what I wrote with omission
> > of the
> > phrase that got you excited. You probably won't agree with it but at least
> > you'll know
> > what I said.
> >
> >
>
> The phrase that got me exicted was your error and was central to all my
> arguments. There has been no later development of Judaism. Can't you support or
> withdraw your statements instead of claiming each one I reject as tangential to
> your argument?
But it wasn't central to MY argument which you continue to avoid - not
surprisingly, since it blows your putative theological case against homosexuality
out of the water.
I do not concede your point at all and in fact the statement that "there has
been no later development of Judaism" is manifestly absurd. (E.g., no animal sacrifices
have been offered in Jerusalem for quite awhile.) But that is peripheral to my original
argument which - at least for Christians - can be stated quite well as follows:
"There is a fairly clear way of making the necessary distinction between biology
& theology. The directions in the OT for the extermination of non-Israelite populations
represent one way of guarding against "contamination" of a group's gene pool & thus
improving the chances for reproductive success & survival for that group. Yet such
tactics are profoundly inconsistent with Christian theology & ethics.
This shows that we cannot argue from the fact that some part of original
Israelite belief & practice helped to ensure reproductive success, & thus was
biologically sound, to the conclusion that that can be part of adequate Christian belief
& practice. & this is the case even if one holds that those beliefs & practices were at
some time ordained by God. The application to the OT strictures on homosexuality are
obvious.
Caveats:
1) I am not accusing anyone of favoring genocide.
2) I am not claiming that this shows that the OT prohibitions of male
homosexual activity should be ignored. The point is only that one cannot argue from the
fact that they tend to promote reproductive success success & survival to a reqirement
that Christians maintain them."
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 29 2003 - 06:52:36 EDT