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."
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.