Posted on 01/25/2008 1:09:10 PM PST by tpanther
ANN ARBOR, MI – In oral arguments last week, the Thomas More Law Center asked Maryland state circuit court judge William Rowan III to overturn a Maryland Board of Education ruling that approves of public schools in Montgomery County, Maryland, teaching 8th and 10th graders that homosexuality is innate—meaning they are born that way. The schools also show how to use condoms in anal and oral sex.
Montgomery educators were forced to defend their new sex curriculum that promotes anal sex, homosexuality, bisexuality and transvestitism despite strong opposition from several pro-family groups. The controversial new curriculum was adopted as a result of pressure by homosexual advocacy groups.
"None of them violated Levirate law. It didn't exist when they were alive. Onan disobeyed his father."
You make the mistake of assuming that Levirate obligation didn't exist until it was written in Deuteronomy. In fact a Levirate obligation was common in all tribal societies of the time. Judah himself tells Onan to marry Tamar "in fulfillment of your duty as brother-in-law" (the Latin word of"brother-in-law" is levir, hence the term "levirate.")
If you say there was no such law because it occurred in pre-Deuteronomy times, I would be equally justified in saying there was no obligation for Onan to obey his father, because that is also not commanded until Deuteronomy. But that is nonsense.
In any case, Onan married Tamar, and God has decreed that the marriage of a son ends any mandatory obedience to his father. Gen. 2:24 says, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." So, if Judah had authority over Onan, his authority ended when Onan got married to his brother's widow. Therefore God did not kill Onan because he disobeyed Judah, because according to the word of God, Onan did not have to obey him.
Even if the operative word in Leviticus is "go out," it is still sharply diffrentiated from the verb used in the Onan incident (shachath), meaning something that is done so as to "ruin" or "destroy," and not neutrally, as in "to let go" or to "let depart."
"Lev 15:16-18 does not hold spilling of seed to be sinful ACCORDING TO THE WORDS WRITTEN THERE."
Yes, but the word written there (in Leviticus) is not (!) the word (!) used in Genesis (shachath). (!)
Since the entire Jewish and Christian, Protestant AND Catholic, consensus on these passages is that for a man to intentionally cast off or waste or ruin (shachath) his seed is sinful, you're saying that nobody followed "the lead of the spirit and the Word of God" in this matter--- until when? The Holy Spirit permitted all Jewish and Christian teachers to teach the wrong thing, to teach "their own doctrines" --- until when? You tell me.
The first time any Christian denomination broke from this doctrine was at the Anglican Conference at Lembeth, England in 1930.
So I guess the Holy Spirit just let ALL God's children be misled from ancient Israel to Lambeth --- until the 20th century Anglicans arose to give us the correct teaching at last!
If this is incorrect, then you tell me one Christian teacher, preacher, scholar, or believer who taught it was OK for a husband to deposit his semen someplace other than in his wife's vagina. Before the Anglicans in 1930.
If you find that, send me a link, OK?
For the rest, you don't have to convince me that nobody, so-called homosexual nor so-called heterosexual, has a God-approved right to perform deviant intercourse. But you'll be helpless to convince the so-called "gay Christians" of that, because they too have their lexicons, their scholars, and their theologians; they too claim both a careful reading of Scripture and the leading of the Holy Spirit; and ---without any Church authority to appeal to ---- it's their word against yours.
The intensity with which many people assert this new teaching suggests that it’s really all about justifying contraception. (It’s similar to the way so many liberal positions can be traced back to “keep abortion on demand legal.”) I don’t think all that many Christians would be eager for anal sex ... although I could be wrong, given the statistics on pornography consumption.
Do these self-proclaimed experts have any data on the percentage of homosexual men who were MOLESTED before continuing the behavior?
They’re afraid to acknowledge the number is greater than 80%!
Which begs the question, ‘How do they isolate the “cause” for the remaining 20%?’
I'm old enough to remember when feminism was upright. Now its favorite three positions are Metania, Kneeling, and Prone.
It's amazing how the drive for sexual imbecility has advanced like a juggernaut, crushing all things under its advance.
Yes, it is. When I read about the problems in the Anglican Church, I'm often stuned by the fact that a worldwide denomination with over 500 years of history is going to pieces over homosexuality. Countries are eliminating free-speech protections so that people won't say anything critical of homosexuality.
Whole societies being reorganized for the sake of anal and oral sex. Bonkers!
Oddly enough I only find that phrase in versions (I checked about 20) of the bible that are translated using dynamic equivalence (thought for thought). I do not find that quoted phrase in any version of the bible that was translated using formal equivalence (word for word). In short, man added that phrase to the bible. God never put it in there.
In any event, this is the first mention of this practice in the bible, prior to it being encoded into law. Whether the surrounding pagan tribes did this is of no consequence. What God tells us is what matters.
In any case, Onan married Tamar, and God has decreed that the marriage of a son ends any mandatory obedience to his father. Gen. 2:24 says, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." So, if Judah had authority over Onan, his authority ended when Onan got married to his brother's widow.
You are making an invalid assumption. Look at Gen 2:24 again. Wherre does it say a man no longer has to obey rightful authority (such as his father?). It says the son leaves the father, it doesn't say he can stop honoring him.
Therefore God did not kill Onan because he disobeyed Judah, because according to the word of God, Onan did not have to obey him.
Invalid assumption again. Onan was killed for disobedience
Even if the operative word in Leviticus is "go out," it is still sharply diffrentiated from the verb used in the Onan incident (shachath), meaning something that is done so as to "ruin" or "destroy," and not neutrally, as in "to let go" or to "let depart."
Certainly Onan ruined his seed. Intentionally. But Lev 15:16-18 says that doing so is not sinful. Or more exactly it does not say that doing so is sinful. All it says is that if a man's seed goes out from him (whether with a woman or not and whether intentionally or not) he is unclean until evening. No sin offering required because he didn't sin.
Yes, but the word written there (in Leviticus) is not (!) the word (!) used in Genesis (shachath). (!)
The word used in Leviticus includes all conditions under which the spilling of seed would happen, it is a very genereal and inclusive word, In the absence of any other biblical prohibtions or restrictions, it's meaning has to stand. And that meaning is that the spilling of seed is not sinful. Please note in Gen 38 that the spilling of seed is NEVER referred to as sinful. Please also note that nowhere else in the bible does it say that spilling seed is sinful.
The Holy Spirit permitted all Jewish and Christian teachers to teach the wrong thing, to teach "their own doctrines" --- until when? You tell me.
This would lead to a discussion that would not be profitable to have. (Do you really want to open the Catholic vs Protestant can of worms on this thread?) Lets just stick to what the Word says. Lev 15:16-18.
But you'll be helpless to convince the so-called "gay Christians" of that,...... and ---without any Church authority to appeal to ---- it's their word against yours.
1. There is no such thing as a "gay Christian" the concepts are mutually exclusive.
2. It's not their word against mine. It's their word against God's. God gave us the bible, that's all we need.
3. I don't have to convince them, My duty is to tell them the truth. Whether they receive it or not is really no concern of mine. They will either belive it to be true here or have eternity in hell to recognize it's truth. As long as I speak that truth my part is done.
In my case at least it has nothing to do with contraception. It has everything to do with correctly interpreting the bible.
Abortion is the first sacrament of feminism
Is there only one correct interpretation? It's really funny (as Mrs. Don-o keeps pointing out) that your interpretation is so different from that of the vast majority of interpretations offerred by Jewish and Christian scholars over thousands of years.
If I found myself in that situation, it would really bother me. I would begin to wonder if it were possible for all those other interpreters to be right, and me to be wrong.
Actually I used to be in that camp. During a long drawn out discussion on this topic we dissected Lev 15:16-18, the Onan incident and three quarters of the rest of the bible. The interpretation I now hold to is biblically consistent in context and across the entire bible. It is true to the original Hebrew as well as to the spirit of the Word. I have not been able to find any scripture that contradicts it. or any circumstance not covered by other areas of scripture where it doesn't make biblical sense
And I came to this belief kicking and screaming all the way. No amount of prayer or study has been able to change the words that are actually there.
Fascinating.
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.