Homosexuals 'Born That Way' and Erotic Sex Taught to 8th and 10th Graders Challenged by TMLC

thomasmore.org ^

[gondramB]

>>I think sex ed should be taught at home, if there’s not a parent or there are ignorant parents, then perhaps a qualfied medical person can do it. I think the point made about NEA types that are failing to teach kids math and are hellbent on socializing kids, aren’t to be trusted with sex ed for especially young kids!<<

I would personally be will to put everything aside in public schools until/unless they have great programs in math,science, english, history and computers -those should come ahead of everything else including football.

But... if we are gonna spend hundreds of millions of dollars on sex ed, it need to be useful sex ed. and that means explaining risks and how to reduce those risks. and that means teaching about barriers.

[Mrs. Don-o]

The reason I hoped you would read the article I linked, was because it would give you a way of seeing that the passage has always had an interpretation quite different from the way you would perhaps prefer; in fact an interpretation which has been (until the morally slippage of the 20th century) exceptionless and universal.

But if every Christian's opinion --- particularly modern, post-sexual-revolution, post-playboy philosophy --- has equal weight, then further discussion is pointless. You have settled into "what is good in your own eyes," which so many have found to be a sufficient armor for invincible ignorance.

I read the bible. What more do I need? Lev 15:16-18 clearly does not consider spilling of seed to be sinful. So what did Onan do that was sinful? He disobeyed.

Onan's sin, like almost all sins, was undoubtedly multi-layered. Whenever you violate the moral law, you usually have pride and disobedience mixed into it all, in addition to the specific delict. There is no indication in the Leviticus 15 text that the spilling of some seed outside of the body of the man's wife was deliberate: I'm sure you are experienced enough to know that a spurt or dribble can happen quite inadvertently. Therefore your example does not prove that the deliberate spilling of the seed outside of the natural place --- his wife's genital tract --- is morally lovely in God's eyes.

Your dismissive attitude toward 20 cetnturies' worth of Biblical moral commentary, Jewish and Christian, Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant, however Scripture-based or linguistically expert it may be, does not provide me with any evidence that you are diligently seeking the truth. Forgive me: perhaps you are seekin sincerely. But individuals who brush aside the testimony of God's people through the millennia can be suspected of merely trying to justify what they have previously decided is OK.

"Any coupling [of Onan with Tamar]resulting in orgasm would only have been from lust, not from love. "

Whatever drives or sensations Onan may have experienced, please note that the natural drives and sensations concerning copulation are common to all mankind, and were created good by God: they arise spontaneously, and do not constitute, in themselves, sinful lust.

Additionally, and more importantly, if Onan had obeyed God and had had honest, natural intercourse with Tamar and desposted his seed in her, his motivation would have been principally obedience, not self-gratification or "lust." Even if he and she both had a heck of a good time at it. Which is, of course, what one would hope.

"How can it be not sinful to finish inside her but sinful to finish outside her when it's the same lust?"

See above. If he had had a complete and natural act of intercourse, it would have been obedience and not lust. If he intentionally failed to complete the commanded, natural act, and deliberately committed a perverse act instead, he is guilty of the perverse act, as well as of disobedience, selfishness, pride, greed, and being a general all-around jerk.

"Show me in the Bible.

(Genesis 38:9-10)"[Onan] spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also."

What he did: spilled his semen on the ground

Why he did it: to keep from producing offspring

Why God put him to death: because what he did was wicked

That's about as clear as you can get. What does it take to get the message across? Neon arrows and X marks the spot?

But then you probably move within a Catholic community while I move in Protestant communities.

Aha. There's the problem. You have dismissed every community and every teacher, including the founders of the Reformation --- Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and even the comparatively more modern Protestant Biblical scholars like Matthew Henry. And why? Because you evidently think 20th and 21st century people, in a culture profoundly and pervasively contaminated with a "sexual diversity" mindset, know better than the unanimous testimony of Spirit-led and God-loving believers in the 1st century, 2nd century, 3rd century---etc --- all the way up through the mid-20th century.

Do your really think they were all in error, but you and your acquaintances, people largely and even unconsciously influenced (whether you wanted to be or not) by a sexually corrupt 20th century culture, are not in error in what you consider to be sexually decent or indecent?

I'm not saying this to stomp all over you, and if I have offended you in any way, I do beg your pardon: please point out my offense and I will try not to repeat my offense. Nor do I imagine I am "above and beyond" the modern sex culture which has so insidiously affected us, our loved ones, and everyone around us. I am not above this culture. I am up to my chin in it.

I do earnestly hope that you will, just as a godly experiment, put away the 20th-21st centuries temporarily, and go back to the more time-honored and traditional sources of Biblical interpretation. Jewish, Catholic, Orthodox, Reformed, Protestant, Evangelical, Whatever.

These 19-and-a-half centuries of Bible-guided people, reading the same Biblical texts that you and I read, and praying to the Holy Spirit just as you and I do, stand in stark contrast with the tendencies of our playboy-influenced, gay-influenced culture, which we modern Christians are consciously or unconsciously swayed by. You will find, as I say, unanimity there on the matter we are discussing. And then you'll have to ponder why.

Best wishes to you, and God bless.

[tpanther]

the problem is we’re spending all that money and they’re teaching kids too young to know what’s even going on, as well as every “sexual orientation” out there and they’re fighting to have kids as youg as 12 go to abortion clinics WITHOUT parental consent!

[gondramB]

>><the problem is we’re spending all that money and they’re teaching kids too young to know what’s even going on, as well as every “sexual orientation” out there and they’re fighting to have kids as youg as 12 go to abortion clinics WITHOUT parental consent!<<

I do sympathize. And on the OP I agree with part of the lawsuit.

But I do want to point out a stress in your position - if they are pregnant and considering an abortion, then its hard to also argue they are too your for sex ed.

[tpanther]

I don’t think it’s the schools responsibilty, and then to expose all 10 year olds to their chaotic madness because a few kids aren’t getting their message to begin with!?

That’s kind of the point...they’re both ineffective AND they expose most of the population needlessly to their psychosis on top of it!

[gondramB]

I agree it is not the schools responsibility -unless that is what the parents and local taxpayers choose.

Nor are teacher’s union members who I would want to teach my kids anything, including sex.

But my point is that IF schools teach sex ed it needs to be as useful as possible -meaning they need to hear things (at high school age) like “anal and oral sex are not safe”, no matter what your friends heard on the street.

[John O]

You have settled into "what is good in your own eyes," which so many have found to be a sufficient armor for invincible ignorance.

No I've settled into a "this is what the word says about the topic" attitude.

There is no indication in the Leviticus 15 text that the spilling of some seed outside of the body of the man's wife was deliberate:.....Therefore your example does not prove that the deliberate spilling of the seed outside of the natural place --- his wife's genital tract --- is morally lovely in God's eyes.

And there is no indication that the spilling is not deliberate. Therefore your interpretation does not prove that it is sinful.

But individuals who brush aside the testimony of God's people through the millennia can be suspected of merely trying to justify what they have previously decided is OK.

Up until recently slavery was seen as morally OK also. By God's people as well as by most others. "We've always does it that way" does not make good theology. What does the word say? I've read through the commentaries I have available right here and while a couple condemn onanism none of them give a biblical proof that what he did (beyond disobedience) is wrong. I feel they were so blinded by their culture that they refused to read what the word says

please note that the natural drives and sensations concerning copulation are common to all mankind, and were created good by God: they arise spontaneously, and do not constitute, in themselves, sinful lust.

My point is that Onan had intercourse with Tamar. Why? Because he loved her? I think not. We know he did not want to raise up children to his brother, so since he was going to disobey anyway why did he lay with his brother's widow? Lust.

Additionally, and more importantly, if Onan had obeyed God and had had honest, natural intercourse with Tamar and desposted his seed in her, his motivation would have been principally obedience, not self-gratification or "lust."

I'll give you that one. If he was going to be obedient. (Which brings us right back to his problem, He was disobedient)

"Show me in the Bible.

(Genesis 38:9-10)"[Onan] spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also."

What he did: spilled his semen on the ground

What he did was disobey. He did not produce children for his brother. That is what God saw as wicked. He erased his brother's name from out of Israel.

That's about as clear as you can get. What does it take to get the message across? Neon arrows and X marks the spot?

I ws thinking of asking you the same question :^) He did two things. He spilled his seed, which is not called a sin in the bible. and he disobeyed, Which is called a sin in the bible. Which is more likely that God killed him for, the sin or the non-sin?

Because you evidently think 20th and 21st century people, in a culture profoundly and pervasively contaminated with a "sexual diversity" mindset, know better than the unanimous testimony of Spirit-led and God-loving believers in the 1st century, 2nd century, 3rd century---etc --- all the way up through the mid-20th century.

It has nothng to do with sexual diversity. Or with sex at all. It has everything to do with what the bible actually says. A man who spills his seed (Lev 15:16 does not restrict itself to involuntary emmsions) is unclean but not sinful. (note that accompanying thoughts may still be sinful)

Do your really think they were all in error, but you and your acquaintances, people largely and even unconsciously influenced (whether you wanted to be or not) by a sexually corrupt 20th century culture, are not in error in what you consider to be sexually decent or indecent?

It has nothing to do with sexually decent or indecent. It has to do with what the bible says. (BTW, They all believed slavery was OK too.)

if I have offended you in any way,

No offense whatsoever. Even if we disagree we can still reason together.

I do earnestly hope that you will, just as a godly experiment, put away the 20th-21st centuries temporarily, and go back to the more time-honored and traditional sources of Biblical interpretation.

What is more traditional than reading what it actually says? Earlier cultures are just as susceptible to reading it for what they want it to say as we are. I've found nothing in the bible that contradicts the interpretation of Lev 15:16-18 as given above.

Best wishes to you, and God bless.

And to you and yours

[Mrs. Don-o]

I think we might as well wind up this conversation now.

I remain convinced that you are failing to see what is right before your eyes. Many people disobeyed their fathers, disobeyed their customary obligations, and even disobeyed God Himself in the Bible and were not killed on the spot: this extraordinary penalty is clearly for the specific act that Onan did, which is mentioned in the very text: "[Onan] spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight" --- like I said, it is clear to every Biblical commentator up til the Age of Playboy.

Protestant scripture scholar Charles Provan demonstrates in "The Bible and Birth Control" that Onan was not killed for disobeying his father, Judah, or because he did not honor his brother's memory, or for anything other than spilling his seed. Provan points out that Judah's authority over his son ended when Onan got married. Provan also recalls that the punishment prescribed for failure to "raise up seed for a dead brother" is not death, but merely to have the widow publicly remove her brother-in-law's sandal and spit in his face (Dt. 25:5-10).

Additionally, Provan leads us to ask why Onan — and not Cain, Jonah and countless others — merited such harsh punishment for his disobedience? Provan's conclusion, based upon a close analysis of Leviticus 20, is that God forbids all forms of intentionally sterile intercourse.

Saying that the unanimous Christian witness against deviant sex acts is like some imagined unanimous support of slavery makes no sense at all. Revealing His will to a society which already had long embraced slavery as an institution, God takens a number of opportunities to reveal his displeasure against slavery. (To take just one of many, many instances: by the time we get to Paul's letter to Philemon, he, saying "Receive your runaway slave Onesimus back, --- but not as a slave, as a brother.")

In short, there was no unanimous Biblical support of slavery, and certainly through the Christian ages you can't find any Christian Biblical argument in favor of slavery --- until you get to the American South.

Just like you can't find any Biblical argument in favor of deviant forms of intercourse --- until you get to the post-1950's American playboy culture.

In fact, your argumnt in favor of deviant sexual intercourse follows the same lines as the "Gay Christians'") argument in favor of gay sexual relations. Which I find discouraging in the extreme, since a "personal-interpretation" method like yours has really nothing convincing to say against the Gay Christian ideology. They, too, can answer every Scriptural rebuke with "Well, I doen't think there's any rebuke of homosexuality that applies to my own practice in particular --- that's not the way I read it."

[Mrs. Don-o]

I think we might as well wind up this conversation now.

I remain convinced that you are failing to see what is right before your eyes. Many people disobeyed their fathers, disobeyed their customary obligations, and even disobeyed God Himself in the Bible and were not killed on the spot: this extraordinary penalty is clearly for the specific act that Onan did, which is mentioned in the very text: "[Onan] spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight" --- like I said, it is clear to every Biblical commentator up til the Age of Playboy.

Protestant scripture scholar Charles Provan demonstrates in "The Bible and Birth Control" that Onan was not killed for disobeying his father, Judah, or because he did not honor his brother's memory, or for anything other than spilling his seed. Provan points out that Judah's authority over his son ended when Onan got married. Provan also recalls that the punishment prescribed for failure to "raise up seed for a dead brother" is not death, but merely to have the widow publicly remove her brother-in-law's sandal and spit in his face (Dt. 25:5-10).

Additionally, Provan leads us to ask why Onan — and not Cain, Jonah and countless others — merited such harsh punishment for his disobedience? Provan's conclusion, based upon a close analysis of Leviticus 20, is that God forbids all forms of intentionally sterile intercourse.

Saying that the unanimous Christian witness against deviant sex acts is like some imagined unanimous support of slavery makes no sense at all. Revealing His will to a society which already had long embraced slavery as an institution, God takens a number of opportunities to reveal his displeasure against slavery. (To take just one of many, many instances: by the time we get to Paul's letter to Philemon, he, saying "Receive your runaway slave Onesimus back, --- but not as a slave, as a brother.")

In short, there was no unanimous Biblical support of slavery, and certainly through the Christian ages you can't find any Christian Biblical argument in favor of slavery --- until you get to the American South.

Just like you can't find any Biblical argument in favor of deviant forms of intercourse --- until you get to the post-1950's American playboy culture.

In fact, your argumnt in favor of deviant sexual intercourse follows the same lines as the "Gay Christians'") argument in favor of gay sexual relations. Which I find discouraging in the extreme, since a "personal-interpretation" method like yours has really nothing convincing to say against the Gay Christian ideology. They, too, can answer every Scriptural rebuke with "Well, I doen't think there's any rebuke of homosexuality that applies to my own practice in particular --- that's not the way I read it."

[tpanther]

It’s the typical liberal approach...their message has failed, so they drag all kids down to the very lowest common denominator.

IF that’s where they stopped, fine by me.

But MY point is they won’t!

They’ve failed and then their “solution” is to take kids off for abortions without parental notification?

Seems their solutions have failed every step of the way and only get more and more psychotic with time!

Now it’s to the point they’re hurting more kids than helping!

[Amendment10]

To my knowledge, the idea that homosexuality is genetic has never been substantiated by the consistent results of repeatable. scientific-method based experiments. Nor has macroevolution ideas or anthropogenic global warming (AGW) been substantiated with proper experimentation that I know of. These are all merely politically correct ideas.

Also, since this thread is directed at the homosexual agenda, Romans 1:25-27 tells us that same-sex sexual relationships are a consequence of idolatry. In other words, such relationships are a consequence of disobeying the 1ST COMMANDMENT, a major aspect of the GREATEST COMMANDMENT, to love God with all your being.

Homosexuals need to keep in mind, however, that the good news of the gospel is not about how God despises same-sex sexual relationships. In fact, 1 Corinthins 6:9-11 indicates that certain members of that church had formerly been slaves to such relationships but had been cleansed in Jesus' name. So these former homosexuals had evidently repented and accepted God's grace to straighten their lives out.

John 3:16
Revelation 3:20

[tpanther]

BTW...here’s an interesting link to another thread (you’ll see my thoughts on further down)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1962501/posts

[John O]

I remain convinced that you are failing to see what is right before your eyes.

Lev 15:16-18 is right before my eyes and I do see it.

Many people disobeyed their fathers, disobeyed their customary obligations, and even disobeyed God Himself in the Bible and were not killed on the spot: this extraordinary penalty is clearly for the specific act that Onan did, which is mentioned in the very text: "[Onan] spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight" --- like I said, it is clear to every Biblical commentator up til the Age of Playboy.

The only reason Onan's seed spilling was a problem is due to the circumstances under which it happened. He was commanded to raise up children to his brother and rebelled.

Is killing someone a sin? Depends on when and why doesn't it. In wartime, not only is it not a sin but it is a good. Executing a criminal, (with the proper authority of the government) is a just thing, not a sin. Killing your neighbor out of spite however is a sin.

We have a similar situation here. According to LEV 15:16-18 the action he did is not sinful, but the reason he did it is.

Provan also recalls that the punishment prescribed for failure to "raise up seed for a dead brother" is not death, but merely to have the widow publicly remove her brother-in-law's sandal and spit in his face (Dt. 25:5-10).

Onan was the first example given of refusing to raise up children to his brother. The "spit in his face" thing was added to the law after this incident.

Provan's conclusion, based upon a close analysis of Leviticus 20, is that God forbids all forms of intentionally sterile intercourse.

Lev 20 covers all sorts of sexual liaisons. Most of which would not be intentionally sterile (but are unacceptable anyway becasue God says not to do these things). It does not cover intentionally not producing life at all.

Just like you can't find any Biblical argument in favor of deviant forms of intercourse --- until you get to the post-1950's American playboy culture.

No one said there was any support for deviant sexuality, although you do have to properly define deviant. (Almost anything a man and his wedded wife do, which is not explicitly condemned in the bible, does not defile the marriage bed.)

My point is that Onan was not killed for spilling his seed, he was killed for disobedience.

In fact, your argumnt in favor of deviant sexual intercourse

I would like you to take a deep breath and show me where I argued for deviant sexual behavior (unless perhaps your definition of deviant is extremely narrow). You will find that I did no such thing. I merely point out that Onan was not killed for spilling his seed as Lev 15:16-18 establishes that it is not sinful.

follows the same lines as the "Gay Christians'") argument in favor of gay sexual relations.

Actually not. relations between two men are explicitly prohibited in the bible, both old and new testaments. Apples and oranges

They, too, can answer every Scriptural rebuke with "Well, I doen't think there's any rebuke of homosexuality that applies to my own practice in particular --- that's not the way I read it."

And they do. But they are wrong. The bible is very explicit on the matter of relations between two men.

The bible is silent on non-reproductive sexual behavior between a man and his wife, however, except to say the bed is undefiled.

[gondramB]

Thank you.

[tpanther]

You bet!

[Mrs. Don-o]

"The only reason Onan's seed spilling was a problem is due to the circumstances under which it happened."

Not so. Certainly the interior dispositions or reasons why Onan committed the offensive thing he did included selfishness, disobedience, rebelliousness, greed --- but the thing he did was to engage in a deliberately sterile, "alternative" sex act; and the Bible says "what he did" was wicked in the Lord's eyes.

In every deed, we can distinguish between the objective nature of the act, and the subjective state of the mind and will of the actor. Moral condemnation comes from both the gravity of the evil act in itself, and the intentionality.

An honest look at the text shows that God condemned Onan for the specific action he performed, and not just for his anti-Levirate intentionality. An accurate interpretation of the text is that God found wicked what Onan actually did (asher asah).

This becomes even more clear in the context of the entire chapter, Genesis 38. Onan is only one of three of Tamar's male in-laws who violated the Levirate law. Onan's father Judah, and his younger brother Shelah, also violated the Levitate law, and Judah openly admits this in verse 26.

Of course, Tamar later tricked Judah into getting her pregnant; nevertheless his refusing to do this willingly is still a sin -- and yet neither Judah nor Shelah are punished by death for refusing to comply with the Levirate law. Only Onan is punished with death. And why is he singled out? Scripture tells us: because of what he did.

"Lev 20 covers all sorts of sexual liaisons. Most of which would not be intentionally sterile (but are unacceptable anyway because God says not to do these things). It does not cover intentionally not producing life at all."

"Intentionally not producing life" is not an accurate expression of the offense. Say there's a married couple that reasonably judges that it's not a good time to have a baby. They therefore abstain from sex during the wife's fertile phase (a week - 10 days per cycle.) They are "intentionally not producing life." But their intention not to produce life is not a sin.

On the other hand, if they accomplish this by choosing the kinds of sexual gratification that gay men choose (ejaculation of semen into the mouth and anus), there they are choosing acts which are objectively disordered.

Lev 15:16-18 does NOT establish that spilling the seed is not sinful. It establishes that even inadvertent "spilling" renders one unclean, though not sinful. The Onan incident reveals that doing it deliberately, IS sinful.

Notice this difference: the Hebrew verb used in the Onan incident (shachath) means something that is done intentionally, as to ruin or destroy; it is not the same as the verb used in Leviticus (shaphak), which lacks the emphasis of intentionality, and means merely to spill forth or slip. You can find this distinction in Strong's Hebrew Lexicon

You say that your methods of argument are not usable in a pro-gay sense, because "... relations between two men are explicitly prohibited in the bible, both old and new testaments. Apples and oranges."

Not so. Your methods of argument are routinely used by pro-gay advocates. These methods would include: (1) interpreting Scripture in an innovative way which suits your personal inclination, and (2) denying what Christian pastors have taught from Scripture for century after century. This requires that either (a) the Holy Spirit permitted each and all of these pastors to teach God's people wrongly for 2000+ years, or (b)the Holy Spirit taught some things in the early days, but started teaching something quite contradictory beginning around the mid-20th century.

I will illustrate from very typical "Gay "Christian" writings. Notice how gay advocates refute the oft-quoted passages which condemn the the kind of acts which homosexuals wish to engage in.

• Genesis 19:1-5: they say it condemns rape, but not "loving" homosexual acts.

• Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13: they say it comes from the Levitical "Holiness Code" that likewise prohibits eating pork and shellfish, trimming of the hair around the temples, making clothing of two different types of fiber, etc. In other words, this is a portion of the Old Testament "kosher laws" that doesn't apply to New Testament people.

• Deuteronomy 23:17): they say this applies only to pagan temple prostitution, and not to homosexual acts per se.

• 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10: they say the people condemned in this passage (the "malakois" and the "arsenokotais") are specifically boy prostitutes, and men who use boy prostitutes. Therefore the passage condemns pederasty and prostitution, but not (what the advocates would call) "ordinary" homosexual relations, or sodomy per se.

• Romans 1:21-31 : they say this passage condemns only people who have actually discontinued their previous heterosexual relations, to do something that was unnatural for them. Men who have abandoned they wives to take up with men, and women who have abandoned their husbands to take up with women. It does NOT (they say) condemn most homosexuals, because most homosexuals aren't turning away from heterosexual relations: they never had them to begin with. Therefore same-sex relations are natural for homosexuals, and are not condemned in this passage.

• Jude 1:6-7: they say this passage condemns "going after strange flesh." It does not condemn homosexual acts; it refers to humans having sex with angels. Besides, they say, it's not "strange" for homosexual men to desire each other: to them, that's "natural." Therefore same-sex relations are not prohibited in the case of people who are "naturally" homosexual.

Gay Christians say the Bible is NOT explicit on the matter of relations between two men. They way they interpret it, the Bible is only against rape, temple prostitution, pederasty, people who abandon their spouses, etc, but not against "loving, diverse sex behavior" per se.

Most strikingly, there is no way to refute these arguments from the Biblical text alone. The gays will just say, "Well, I just go by what's in the Bible. And the explicit text of the Bible does not use the precise word of "gay" or "homosexual." It always refers to rapists, prostitutes, straight people who have abandoned their spouses in order to do something that's not natural for them, etc."

You and I don't agree with that interpretation. But you don't have any effective way to argue against it, because you think that the Church's interpretation of Scripture through the ages has no particular authority.

[Tax-chick]

Excellent discussion all around, Mrs. Don-o! I’ve been following this thread on and off, between ISP lapses.

I hear on FR that men who consider themselves heterosexual have an intense interest in sexual acts for which the sex (or species) of the other participant is irrelevant. I wonder why? Perhaps the gender roles are now so confused that men reject the simple, physical reality of women?

[Mrs. Don-o]

It's amazing how much moral decay is taken for granted both by self-described "conservatives" and self-described "Christians."

Run an article about some 35 year old schoolteacher who likes to be serviced by 8th grade boys, and 7 of the first 10 responses will be along the lines of "Run her picture!" and "Yeah, I'd hit on that!" and "How come I never had a teacher like that when I was 13? Lucky boy!"

Run an article on men-and-marriage, and the most numerous reactions will be from men who say "Marriage is a @$$#%$# racket", or "I'm so glad I divorced that @$#%% bitch."

Run an article on gays promoting anal sodomy in the public school, and you get highly exegetical gentlemen earnestly propounding that it's Biblically honorable to sodomize the wife.

It's disorienting. Where am I? DailyKos? FireDogLake?Huffington Post?

If Free Republic represents a fair cross-section of the most conservative people in America, I guess I'll have to admit that we really are in an advanced state of decomposition.

[John O]

and the Bible says "what he did" was wicked in the Lord's eyes.

And what he did was disobey.

An accurate interpretation of the text is that God found wicked what Onan actually did (asher asah).

What he did was disobey, which is sinful. And which does not contradict the rest of the bible. Spilling seed is seen in Lev 15:16 to be not sinful. To assume that is what the sin was here would contradict therest of the bible.

This becomes even more clear in the context of the entire chapter, Genesis 38. Onan is only one of three of Tamar's male in-laws who violated the Levirate law. Onan's father Judah, and his younger brother Shelah, also violated the Levitate law, and Judah openly admits this in verse 26.

Neither of them however stooped to satisfying their lust with her during an act of disobedience. So not only did Onan disaobey but he lied about it. (By looking like he was going to do it but spilling the seed instead.)

Additionally, Shelah did not sin as he was never commanded to raise up children to his brother. Judah sinned as he lied to Tamar abd defrauded her.

Of course, Tamar later tricked Judah into getting her pregnant; nevertheless his refusing to do this willingly is still a sin -- and yet neither Judah nor Shelah are punished by death for refusing to comply with the Levirate law. Only Onan is punished with death. And why is he singled out? Scripture tells us: because of what he did.

None of them violated Levirate law. It didn't exist when they were alive. Onan disobeyed his father

Say there's a married couple that reasonably judges that it's not a good time to have a baby. They therefore abstain from sex during the wife's fertile phase (a week - 10 days per cycle.) They are "intentionally not producing life." But their intention not to produce life is not a sin.

Now lets say they choose to use a barrier method of birth control. They still haven't sinned. God created sex betweena man and his wedded wife for more than just producing kids.

On the other hand, if they accomplish this by choosing the kinds of sexual gratification that gay men choose (ejaculation of semen into the mouth and anus), there they are choosing acts which are objectively disordered.

This leads to another huge discussion about what is disordered. But since that is not the topic (that onan was killed ofr disobedience) let's fight that one later (even though we'd agree on some of it. But probably for different reasons)

Lev 15:16-18 does NOT establish that spilling the seed is not sinful. It establishes that even inadvertent "spilling" renders one unclean, though not sinful. The Onan incident reveals that doing it deliberately, IS sinful.

Lev 15:16 And if any man’s seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even. (KJV)

The operative word here is "go out" which is Strongs 03318 used with a 08799 (Qal) modifier

1) to go out, come out, exit, go forth 1a1) to go or come out or forth, depart
1a2) to go forth (to a place)
1a3) to go forward, proceed to (to or toward something)
1a4) to come or go forth (with purpose or for result)
1a5) to come out of

Doesn't say anything about inadvertant or not. In fact 1a4 leads us to think planned. (with purpose)

Notice this difference: the Hebrew verb used in the Onan incident (shachath) means something that is done intentionally, as to ruin or destroy; it is not the same as the verb used in Leviticus (shaphak), which lacks the emphasis of intentionality, and means merely to spill forth or slip. You can find this distinction in Strong's Hebrew Lexicon

Strongs 8210 Shaphak is not used in Lev 15:16-18.

Not so. Your methods of argument are routinely used by pro-gay advocates. These methods would include: (1) interpreting Scripture in an innovative way which suits your personal inclination,

Actually my personal inclination has nothing to do with it. I used to believe as you did until it was pointed out to me that Lev 15:16-18 does not hold spilling of seed to be sinful ACCORDING TO THE WORDS WRITTEN THERE.

(a) the Holy Spirit permitted each and all of these pastors to teach God's people wrongly for 2000+ years, or (b)the Holy Spirit taught some things in the early days,

Or these men were teaching their own doctrines on this matter instead of following the lead of the spirit and the Word of God.

* 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10: they say the people condemned in this passage (the "malakois" and the "arsenokotais") are specifically boy prostitutes, and men who use boy prostitutes. Therefore the passage condemns pederasty and prostitution, but not (what the advocates would call) "ordinary" homosexual relations, or sodomy per se.

Actually Arsenokotais cannot be interpreted as men who use boy prostitutes. It has 4 possible meanings and the only one that fits context and is biblically consistent is "Male sexual intercourse"

So while they may try to twist scripture they are interpreting it counter to what it actually says. I interpret, as much as I am able, according to what it actually says.

Most strikingly, there is no way to refute these arguments from the Biblical text alone.

Certainly there are. The example I gave above is one of them.

The gays will just say, "Well, I just go by what's in the Bible. And the explicit text of the Bible does not use the precise word of "gay" or "homosexual."

Here we do have to leave the bible as "homosexual" or "gay" do not exist as boiblical concepts becuase they are fictional terms. No one is homosexual. Biology dictates that all are heterosexual, some are just mentally defective. The acts they choose to do are certainly condemned

But you don't have any effective way to argue against it, because you think that the Church's interpretation of Scripture through the ages has no particular authority.

I just did argue against it. You can't change what it actually says.

As to church authority that leads us into the protestant vs catholic thing which is far too messy to deal with.

[Tax-chick]

If Free Republic represents a fair cross-section of the most conservative people in America,

Probably does. There are some serious thinkers here, some just-plain-folks, some Noodles, and some who don't realize that advocating additional government information for every situation isn't "conservative"!

I guess I'll have to admit that we really are in an advanced state of decomposition.

I believe we are. Of course, it's not the first time in history!