Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama administration investigating sergeant who said the Bible condemns homosexuality
http://www.lifesitenews.com ^ | December 7, 2012 | Kirsten Andersen

Posted on 12/09/2012 8:09:40 AM PST by NKP_Vet

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-104 last
To: Mrs. Don-o

You took that verse completely out of context. Nice try.


101 posted on 12/09/2012 6:53:10 PM PST by Future Snake Eater (CrossFit.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Future Snake Eater
The rejection of contracepted sex acts is in line with with the entire context of Scripture.

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.

102 posted on 12/10/2012 5:33:35 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Point of correction.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

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.


103 posted on 12/10/2012 9:03:33 AM PST by Future Snake Eater (CrossFit.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: steve86
Utter ignorance or is it senility?

At my age, I should sincerely hope that it was not the latter; so I must confess that it is probably the former.

104 posted on 12/11/2012 5:07:09 PM PST by The Grammarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-104 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson