Posted on 12/09/2012 8:09:40 AM PST by NKP_Vet
The U.S. Department of Education (DOE) has launched a federal investigation over a conversation between a Huntsville JROTC instructor and a lesbian student about the Bible and homosexuality.
Last April, Virgil Grissom High School student Taylor Sisk, 15, asked a local homosexual activist to file a complaint on her behalf after 1st Sgt. Lynn Vanzandt allegedly told her that he believed the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. It is unclear how the conversation began.
Sisk, who leads her schools Gay-Straight Alliance club, claimed she was talking to another girl about wanting to live in San Francisco when Vanzandt made his remarks. Other witnesses have said the girls directly asked Vanzandt his opinion on homosexuality. Sisk claimed they then asked him to stop talking about it and, when he refused, her friend ran crying from the room.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
You took that verse completely out of context. Nice try.
There is not a single instance of real intercourse (marital and in the procreative form) which is condemned in Scripture.
How's that for context?
There is not a single instance of falsified intercourse (non-marital/ not in the procreative form), which is blessed or pronounced pleasing to God in Scripture.
How's that for context?
Moreover, the sin of Onan was not merely that he would not reproduce with Tamar. There was no "death penalty" simply for the refusal to have children with the brother's widow. The penalty for such refusal --- for turning way from the obliations of levitate marriage --- was a public shaming (Deut. 25). The refused woman could take the man to the city gates, strip his sandal off of his foot, and in the presence of the elders, spit in his face.
But the Genesis episode with Onan doesn't say he merely declined to reproduce. It wasn't merely what Onan *didn't* do. It says that what he DID do --- his action --- was evil in the eyes of the Lord: "Therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing."
You can't get a much stronger message, Scripturally, than that.
The clincher is that every single Christian denonimation saw it that way until the abandonment of sexual morality in the 20th century. No Christian denomination in history approved of contraception until 1930, when the Anglicans broke ranks and officially iapproved of it at their Lambeth Conference in 1930.
So the whole weight of testimony for 5,000 years, BC, AD and into the 20th century, is: yes to God's design for real, lovemaking-lifemaking, honest marital intercourse; no to any sex act that intentionally negates that design.
God gave the man a direct order. He failed to obey it. God killed him for his disobedience. Not for what you term as “contraception.” Such an idiotic statement to make. You’re trying to insert the dogma of man into a supposedly Biblical discussion.
The fact is, I know from personal experience that contraception is merely a case of “man proposing, God disposing.” If you’re going to have a child, you WILL have a child, I don’t care what pill you’re on or whatever method you can come up with.
If you don’t get that concept, then I don’t know what to tell you.
At my age, I should sincerely hope that it was not the latter; so I must confess that it is probably the former.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.