359 replies to this topic

[Dianne]

Colter, on Mar 9 2006, 10:29 PM, said:

Dianne, does your Gay friend have to tolerate your sex life?

That's not something we discuss, why would we? However, during our "deep" conversations, I told him I do not agree with his lifestyle and why and he accepts that.

[Colter]

Quote

It's better to have no priests. Christians are all priests, and they have the only High Priest they'll ever need.

Amen to that!

[Lebowski]

Martyn, on Mar 9 2006, 06:16 AM, said:

Colter, on Mar 9 2006, 02:01 PM, said:

* As far as I can tell Homophobic man wrote the bible with no input from Gays or women for that matter.

<lifts up cat, places amongst pigeons>

The New Testament liberated women. It gave them a voice they previously lacked.

You just can't hear that voice in church, as the Bible commands them to be silent, and hide under a covering.

Actually, what did the NT give them versus the OT?

[Martyn]

Lebowski, on Mar 9 2006, 03:45 PM, said:

Martyn, on Mar 9 2006, 06:16 AM, said:

The New Testament liberated women. It gave them a voice they previously lacked.

You just can't hear that voice in church, as the Bible commands them to be silent, and hide under a covering.

Nearly.

Women are simply not permitted to teach in church, and are required to cover their heads when worshipping.

See, that's the same as you said, but it's far less condemnatory, and doesn't make Christadephians out to be a Western branch of the Taliban.

Quote

Actually, what did the NT give them versus the OT?

That wasn't my point. I'm more interested in what the NT gave them versus the Roman society in which they lived.

[Colter]

So why would a gay person want to be raised up out of death with you guys?

[Lebowski]

Martyn, on Mar 9 2006, 07:53 AM, said:

Lebowski, on Mar 9 2006, 03:45 PM, said:

Martyn, on Mar 9 2006, 06:16 AM, said:

The New Testament liberated women. It gave them a voice they previously lacked.

You just can't hear that voice in church, as the Bible commands them to be silent, and hide under a covering.

Nearly.

Women are simply not permitted to teach in church, and are required to cover their heads when worshipping.

See, that's the same as you said, but it's far less condemnatory, and doesn't make Christadephians out to be a Western branch of the Taliban.

Quote

Actually, what did the NT give them versus the OT?

That wasn't my point. I'm more interested in what the NT gave them versus the Roman society in which they lived.

I believe you are soft-pedaling this issue. It has been my considerable experience that women can teach in church. I have had women sunday school teachers, as a child and adult. Women have often lead Bible classes.
In my experience, women are not permitted to give prayers, exhortations, or preside over the service.

No, you don't execute homosexuals as commanded by the Bible, so you are different from the Taliban.

[Martyn]

Lebowski, on Mar 9 2006, 04:12 PM, said:

Martyn, on Mar 9 2006, 07:53 AM, said:

Lebowski, on Mar 9 2006, 03:45 PM, said:

Martyn, on Mar 9 2006, 06:16 AM, said:

The New Testament liberated women. It gave them a voice they previously lacked.

You just can't hear that voice in church, as the Bible commands them to be silent, and hide under a covering.

Nearly.

Women are simply not permitted to teach in church, and are required to cover their heads when worshipping.

See, that's the same as you said, but it's far less condemnatory, and doesn't make Christadephians out to be a Western branch of the Taliban.

Quote

Actually, what did the NT give them versus the OT?

That wasn't my point. I'm more interested in what the NT gave them versus the Roman society in which they lived.

I believe you are soft-pedaling this issue. It has been my considerable experience that women can teach in church. I have had women sunday school teachers, as a child and adult. Women have often lead Bible classes.
In my experience, women are not permitted to give prayers, exhortations, or preside over the service.

No, you don't execute homosexuals as commanded by the Bible, so you are different from the Taliban.

I'm soft-pedalling the issue because this thread wasn't about women, and I didn't want to get sidetracked. I wanted you to respond to my long post about homosexuality, because it was an attempt to address some of the points you had raised.

[Lebowski]

Martyn, on Mar 9 2006, 08:24 AM, said:

Lebowski, on Mar 9 2006, 04:12 PM, said:

Martyn, on Mar 9 2006, 07:53 AM, said:

Lebowski, on Mar 9 2006, 03:45 PM, said:

Martyn, on Mar 9 2006, 06:16 AM, said:

The New Testament liberated women. It gave them a voice they previously lacked.

You just can't hear that voice in church, as the Bible commands them to be silent, and hide under a covering.

Nearly.

Women are simply not permitted to teach in church, and are required to cover their heads when worshipping.

See, that's the same as you said, but it's far less condemnatory, and doesn't make Christadephians out to be a Western branch of the Taliban.

Quote

Actually, what did the NT give them versus the OT?

That wasn't my point. I'm more interested in what the NT gave them versus the Roman society in which they lived.

I believe you are soft-pedaling this issue. It has been my considerable experience that women can teach in church. I have had women sunday school teachers, as a child and adult. Women have often lead Bible classes.
In my experience, women are not permitted to give prayers, exhortations, or preside over the service.

No, you don't execute homosexuals as commanded by the Bible, so you are different from the Taliban.

I'm soft-pedalling the issue because this thread wasn't about women, and I didn't want to get sidetracked. I wanted you to respond to my long post about homosexuality, because it was an attempt to address some of the points you had raised.

Fair enough. I would like to discuss the women issue later as well.

I will address your post, and please address mind, as I'm anxious to hear from the group regarding my points.

[twoofseven]

It has been said already, and more than once, but both Colter and Lebowski don't seem to be able to see past the idea that calling sin sin is intolerant and wrong. The point is not whether or not God "made" anyone gay, or whoether 8% of the population is gay...it is entirely about sin.

I sin, all the time, failing to keep my end of the covenant that I accepted from God. In His great mercy, He opens His arms and accepts me back without question when I acknowledge my sin and ask for His forgiveness. He loves me unconditionally, no matter how many times I fail Him, He loves me even when I am selfish and do not ackowledge that my behaviour is sin.

This is our example...it should not matter to us whether we believe 8% of a population is gay, or if God "made " them or they were "born" gay. None of that matters any more than it matters why you kept the money when you were undercharged, or padded your charitable givings a little when you did your taxes, or when you told your wife you were working late, or lost your temper and treated your child harshly, or swore at the guy in the car next to you. All of these behaviours are selfishly motivated, require rationalization on our part, and, most importantly, because they make us turn away from God and act on self interest instead of God's will...they are all sin.

Sin is sin, and to try to rationalize any of these sins away, including sexual sin, which covers homosexuality, is only a desire to have selfish desires fulfilled and not keeping our covenant with God. SO, what does this mean in our attitude toward homosexuals? Same thing as our attitude should be toward any sin...take the log out of your own eye....anyone without sin should throw the first stone....love unconditionally the way God does. That doesn't mean that we should accept sinful behaviour as ok, it just means that homosexual sin is simply sin, the way all the other selfish unGodly behaviour is that we all fall into every day. We should acknowledge that it is sin, and that's it. The forgiving and mercy part is between the sinner and God.

Colter and Lebowski...no one is saying that we are not responsible for loving homosexuals. God sent His son to be our example of perfect submission and obedience. Jesus lived his whole life in submission and obedience, and if anyone accepts those things to be true, then why would they want to purposefully live in sin, rejecting God and His son? Sin is sin...everyone sins...it's what we do about the sin that is going to matter in the long run.

[Adanac]

Colter, on Mar 9 2006, 04:04 AM, said:

Being a gay person is far more than a sex act.

Yes we know that. We're not talking about being gay we're talking about homosexual activity. That's what the Bible condemns.

[Adanac]

Colter, on Mar 9 2006, 08:10 AM, said:

So why would a gay person want to be raised up out of death with you guys?

To enjoy eternity free from the shackles of the flesh.

[Adanac]

Lebowski, on Mar 9 2006, 08:12 AM, said:

No, you don't execute homosexuals as commanded by the Bible, so you are different from the Taliban.

Well it would certainly sort out the problem. But the thing about the new covenant in Christ is that it gets to the root of the problem. The law sorted sin out by killing the sinner. In Christ the sinner dies in baptism and is raised to newness of life. Therefore a homosexual can kill their base desires and rise to a new life in Christ.

[Natajack]

Colter, on Mar 9 2006, 02:01 PM, said:

Natajack, on Mar 9 2006, 01:21 PM, said:

Colter, I'd be very interested to hear your reply to Martyn's post.

edit. oops, there it is! well done for agreeing, I did too! But you see, I think Dianne and Martyn are in general/total agreement, they just put it differently. I do think we have to be careful, though, to judge things like this in light of what the Bible says, than what we may think or want to think about the subject.

One thing to mention: if practising homosexuality is a sin, then its a mindset, and not something someone is born with. If it couldn't be conquered, it wouldn't be a sin. Does that make sense?

Personally, I go with the view that homosexuality itself results from a depraved mental state, in a similar way to bestiality, paedophilia, etc., that its subversive and sinful. Personally, I don't think people are born homosexual, just as they are not born paedophiles. But, that said, we need to help people, not shun them. But if someone wants to carry on doing something and doesn't want to think that what they're doing is wrong, they'll regard people who say such things are wrong/sinful as homophobic, intolerant, ostriches, etc.

It's easily done, that kind of response. But the bottom line is what it says in Romans ch. 1.

Hello Nat,
I will tell you exactly what I have concluded up until this point in my spiritual life about homosexuality. I was at one time more anti-gay like it was a disease that someone caught, then a lifestyle someone chooses now I'm convinced that people are born Gay and may or may not come to terms with it in latter life.

Hi Colter, thanks for replying to my post. I think society has taught people like you to denounce the position they once held. Tolerance is everywhere today, and it sure is hard to disagree, huh? Just as you are convinced people are born homosexual, I am convinced they are not. Homosexuality is not a disease any more than being sinful is a disease, Colter. It is very much a lifestyle which someone chooses. I think it comes from things like: a lack of self-respect, a lack of respect for others, a bad upbringing, an unstable background, confusion over male-female roles.. all that kind of thing.

Colter, on Mar 9 2006, 02:01 PM, said:

* I'm inclined to think that if there is a disease centered around homosexuality is is the spiritual disease of heterosexual rejection of gays.

I think this viewpoint is unfortunate, Colter. Society has grown so tolerant of homosexuality than its now everyone else who is abnormal! Quite frankly its an astonishing state of affairs!

Colter, on Mar 9 2006, 02:01 PM, said:

* I don't think the problem is homosexuality I think it's us.

Ditto to last comment.

Colter, on Mar 9 2006, 02:01 PM, said:

* I have dear friends that are gay, I can't imagine them any other way.

I understand that, but its not relevant to whether its right nor not.

Colter, on Mar 9 2006, 02:01 PM, said:

* As far as I can tell Homophobic man wrote the bible with no input from Gays or women for that matter.

I suppose anyone who doubts the divine inspiration of Scripture is likely to take that sort of view. Ultimately, the Bible is the Word of God - and what it says is what He says. If you don't like what it says, don't blame men, women, heterosexuals, homosexuals, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus. Blame God.

And one other thing - as someone already said, homophobia is a fear of homosexuals. God is not afraid of homosexuals, those who wrote down God's words weren't afraid of homosexuality, no one who's contributed to this thread is afraid of homosexuals, so far as I'm aware.. so please kindly refrain from using the words 'homophobic' and 'homophobia'. They do nothing for your argument.

Edited by Natajack, 09 March 2006 - 05:32 PM.

[Colter]

twoofseven, on Mar 9 2006, 05:11 PM, said:

It has been said already, and more than once, but both Colter and Lebowski don't seem to be able to see past the idea that calling sin sin is intolerant and wrong. The point is not whether or not God "made" anyone gay, or whoether 8% of the population is gay...it is entirely about sin.

I sin, all the time, failing to keep my end of the covenant that I accepted from God. In His great mercy, He opens His arms and accepts me back without question when I acknowledge my sin and ask for His forgiveness. He loves me unconditionally, no matter how many times I fail Him, He loves me even when I am selfish and do not ackowledge that my behaviour is sin.

This is our example...it should not matter to us whether we believe 8% of a population is gay, or if God "made " them or they were "born" gay. None of that matters any more than it matters why you kept the money when you were undercharged, or padded your charitable givings a little when you did your taxes, or when you told your wife you were working late, or lost your temper and treated your child harshly, or swore at the guy in the car next to you. All of these behaviours are selfishly motivated, require rationalization on our part, and, most importantly, because they make us turn away from God and act on self interest instead of God's will...they are all sin.

Sin is sin, and to try to rationalize any of these sins away, including sexual sin, which covers homosexuality, is only a desire to have selfish desires fulfilled and not keeping our covenant with God. SO, what does this mean in our attitude toward homosexuals? Same thing as our attitude should be toward any sin...take the log out of your own eye....anyone without sin should throw the first stone....love unconditionally the way God does. That doesn't mean that we should accept sinful behaviour as ok, it just means that homosexual sin is simply sin, the way all the other selfish unGodly behaviour is that we all fall into every day. We should acknowledge that it is sin, and that's it. The forgiving and mercy part is between the sinner and God.

Colter and Lebowski...no one is saying that we are not responsible for loving homosexuals. God sent His son to be our example of perfect submission and obedience. Jesus lived his whole life in submission and obedience, and if anyone accepts those things to be true, then why would they want to purposefully live in sin, rejecting God and His son? Sin is sin...everyone sins...it's what we do about the sin that is going to matter in the long run.

Hi 2 of 7,

It's nice to hear from you again. Did you know I'm a Pittsburgh Steeler fan?

I'm going to error on the side of not standing in judgment of people whom I feel are genetically different than myself.

I don't know of God ever instructing us that the Homosexuality that he created is a sin however we are told not to stand in judgment of people.

I wonder how God felt about Abraham and other OT figures with their multiple sex partners?

[Lebowski]

Martyn, on Mar 9 2006, 04:55 AM, said:

Second. This idea that homosexual men and women are being turned away from the gospel because of the churches' standpoint is deeply sad. In reading this thread I suspect several people have launched into 'fire opening salvo' mode without thinking that this is a very real issue for very real people. Lebowski, I imagine this has put your back up, just as it would mine. We tend to forget the need for the 'soft answer' approach because this discussion resurfaces on the forum every couple of months or so.


The Bible condemns homosexual acts. This may be a problem for people who don't like the idea of condemning others, but God does condemn homosexual acts. (This post isn't going to provide the evidence, because others have already done so.) But the Bible condemns other things too, and many of those who object to God's hatred of homosexuality are happy to read that He condemns, for example, murder or adultery. Why? Because we're human, arbitrary, and we draw our own line in the sand based on what we see around us. But in the Bible, God sets out His principles for men and women to order their lives, and if we want to buy into part of it, we have to buy into all of it.

What Christadelphians need to be able to see (particular appeal here to intractable older generations and over-zealous foot-in-mouth younger generations) is that there are men and women caught in the crossfire who need to be carefully guided. Someone who asks, 'What kind of god would say that?', and heads for the hills, is unlikely to be moved by anything. But someone who genuinely wants to deal with whatever sexual urges they may feel, set up against the Biblical standard, must be able to find help from us.

This doesn't mean that we say, 'Become straight and get married', because that's absurd. It's just as absurd as asking a straight person to become gay. But it is entirely acceptable for someone with homosexual tendencies to lead a celibate life of discipleship as it is for a straight person. In fact, there are plenty of people out there doing just that, and we need to be there for them.

However, the one thing we are not permitted to do is to say that God tolerates homosexual practice. He does not.

I agree with your assertion " But in the Bible, God sets out His principles for men and women to order their lives, and if we want to buy into part of it, we have to buy into all of it." So let's see it. I have outlined many other sexual practices and views in the Bible that are not practiced today, or practiced today that go against the Bible. For some reason, everyone is focused on the view that "God does not tolerate homosexual practice". But when it comes to other things God hates, people tend to ignore them. Like you said, let's buy into all the Bible.

BTW, most views here do need to be softened up, like you said. Homosexuals are called degenerate, mentally deranged animals here. Yet we say it is a sin like any other sin. So why not call the thief or liar a mentally deranged criminal with pedophiliac tendencies?

[Lebowski]

twoofseven, on Mar 9 2006, 09:11 AM, said:

It has been said already, and more than once, but both Colter and Lebowski don't seem to be able to see past the idea that calling sin sin is intolerant and wrong. The point is not whether or not God "made" anyone gay, or whoether 8% of the population is gay...it is entirely about sin.


Colter and Lebowski...no one is saying that we are not responsible for loving homosexuals. God sent His son to be our example of perfect submission and obedience. Jesus lived his whole life in submission and obedience, and if anyone accepts those things to be true, then why would they want to purposefully live in sin, rejecting God and His son? Sin is sin...everyone sins...it's what we do about the sin that is going to matter in the long run.

I don't believe two persons in a committed relationship are sinning. I won't go into my rationale, as I will not change anyone's minds here. Before anyone gets all upset, though, and says, "That's not what the Bible says", make sure you follow the whole Bible, and are prepared to follow all of its instructions.

I have no problem calling sin sin. I have stated that the Bible calls homosexuality a sin. Where I have a problem is with the arbitrary use of the Bible when it comes to sexual issues (and others).

[Adanac]

Yes you're quite right Lebowski. But I am not sure whether what you think is in the Bible is actually there.

[Lebowski]

Adanac, on Mar 9 2006, 10:52 AM, said:

Yes you're quite right Lebowski. But I am not sure whether what you think is in the Bible is actually there.

Read my previous posts, and see for yourself.

[Matt Smith]

Lebowski, on Mar 9 2006, 11:33 AM, said:

I don't believe two persons in a committed relationship are sinning. I won't go into my rationale, as I will not change anyone's minds here. Before anyone gets all upset, though, and says, "That's not what the Bible says", make sure you follow the whole Bible, and are prepared to follow all of its instructions.

I have no problem calling sin sin. I have stated that the Bible calls homosexuality a sin. Where I have a problem is with the arbitrary use of the Bible when it comes to sexual issues (and others).

You stated before:

Quote

prostitution, polygamy, sex with slaves, concubinage, marrying early

and some we do now, like masturbation, celibacy, birth control, sex during menstruation

I will answer them in order. This is what the Bible says about them:

1. It's wrong.
2. It's wrong.
3. It's wrong.
4. It's wrong.
5. I cannot find anything on this...
6. The Bible has nothing on this that I know of.
7. The Bible says this is a choice.
8. The Bible says nothing on this that I know of.
9. It's wrong.

I would agree with what the Bible says about all this.

[twoofseven]

Colter, on Mar 9 2006, 10:22 AM, said:

Hi 2 of 7,

It's nice to hear from you again. Did you know I'm a Pittsburgh Steeler fan?

I'm going to error on the side of not standing in judgment of people whom I feel are genetically different than myself.

I don't know of God ever instructing us that the Homosexuality that he created is a sin however we are told not to stand in judgment of people.

I wonder how God felt about Abraham and other OT figures with their multiple sex partners?

We aren't supposed to stand in judgement of anyone. That is God's job. Did you think I was saying we should stand in judgement? I thought I was saying exactly the opposite. And God did not create homosexuality...He created people with free will to chose to turn away from following Him...and we chose to do that every time we sin. That God instructs us that homosexualtiy is a sin is glaringly obvious in the Bible, but if you reject the Bible, then I can understand why you don't think He said it was a sin. But my point was, that sin is sin...there is no degrees...ALL sin seperates from God, resulting in our need for salvation, mercy and grace.

Abraham and the other OT figures who did not follow God's pattern for one husband and one wife all had problems arising from their fleshly desires too, didn't they? Abraham's illegitimate son has been the father of Israels enemy for thousands of years! David's son's fought with each other, raped each other, died young, and Solomon was turned away from his deep love for serving God by his lustfully collecting pagan women. God said sex is for a marriage between one man and one woman, and there are many examples of the consequences involved in not following this design.


Oh and you must be so proud of your Steelers! Too bad the Seahawks had to play the umps as well as the team!

[twoofseven]

Lebowski, on Mar 9 2006, 10:33 AM, said:

I don't believe two persons in a committed relationship are sinning. I won't go into my rationale, as I will not change anyone's minds here. Before anyone gets all upset, though, and says, "That's not what the Bible says", make sure you follow the whole Bible, and are prepared to follow all of its instructions.

I have no problem calling sin sin. I have stated that the Bible calls homosexuality a sin. Where I have a problem is with the arbitrary use of the Bible when it comes to sexual issues (and others).

DUDE! ( I assume thats what your avatar and name refer to?)

Well, I am not even sure what you are saying here. First you say you dont think it is a sin, then you say that yes, the Bible calls it a sin. I find it interesting that you use the word rationale as well, as that was a point I was trying to make. We rationalize all matter of sin away, so we don't have to be responsible for it. But again, sin is sin. I don't see what it arbitrary about calling sin sin. I do have a problem with judging others for their sin when I sin all the time, the sin issue is between God and the sinner. But again, that doesn't mean I can't see what God says in the Bible as to the definition of sin.

[Colter]

Quote

Oh and you must be so proud of your Steelers! Too bad the Seahawks had to play the umps as well as the team!

...yes, I'm proud of the umps as well, they were good Steeler fans.

[twoofseven]

Colter, on Mar 9 2006, 11:16 AM, said:

Quote

Oh and you must be so proud of your Steelers! Too bad the Seahawks had to play the umps as well as the team!

...yes, I'm proud of the umps as well, they were good Steeler fans.

[Lebowski]

twoofseven, on Mar 9 2006, 11:14 AM, said:

Lebowski, on Mar 9 2006, 10:33 AM, said:

I don't believe two persons in a committed relationship are sinning. I won't go into my rationale, as I will not change anyone's minds here. Before anyone gets all upset, though, and says, "That's not what the Bible says", make sure you follow the whole Bible, and are prepared to follow all of its instructions.

I have no problem calling sin sin. I have stated that the Bible calls homosexuality a sin. Where I have a problem is with the arbitrary use of the Bible when it comes to sexual issues (and others).

DUDE! ( I assume thats what your avatar and name refer to?)

Well, I am not even sure what you are saying here. First you say you dont think it is a sin, then you say that yes, the Bible calls it a sin. I find it interesting that you use the word rationale as well, as that was a point I was trying to make. We rationalize all matter of sin away, so we don't have to be responsible for it. But again, sin is sin. I don't see what it arbitrary about calling sin sin. I do have a problem with judging others for their sin when I sin all the time, the sin issue is between God and the sinner. But again, that doesn't mean I can't see what God says in the Bible as to the definition of sin.

I don't believe promiscous sex is ok. I don't really want to get into my beliefs on why I feel its ok for commited couples. Lets face it, nobody would listen.

I have asked many times why there are inconsitant applications of sexual ideas and values, and have yet to get an answer.

[Matt Smith]

You have yet to comment on post 79...

[Lebowski]

Matt Smith, on Mar 9 2006, 10:59 AM, said:

Lebowski, on Mar 9 2006, 11:33 AM, said:

I don't believe two persons in a committed relationship are sinning. I won't go into my rationale, as I will not change anyone's minds here. Before anyone gets all upset, though, and says, "That's not what the Bible says", make sure you follow the whole Bible, and are prepared to follow all of its instructions.

I have no problem calling sin sin. I have stated that the Bible calls homosexuality a sin. Where I have a problem is with the arbitrary use of the Bible when it comes to sexual issues (and others).

You stated before:

Quote

prostitution, polygamy, sex with slaves, concubinage, marrying early

and some we do now, like masturbation, celibacy, birth control, sex during menstruation

I will answer them in order. This is what the Bible says about them:

1. It's wrong.
2. It's wrong.
3. It's wrong.
4. It's wrong.
5. I cannot find anything on this...
6. The Bible has nothing on this that I know of.
7. The Bible says this is a choice.
8. The Bible says nothing on this that I know of.
9. It's wrong.

I would agree with what the Bible says about all this.

I'll start with the easiest ones, polygamy and concubinage. David, a man of God, did this in 2Sam 5:
13: And David took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he was come from Hebron: and there were yet sons and daughters born to David.

Judges chapters 19-21, ++Parental Warning Alert++, this also applies to sexual slavery.

Number 31
9: And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.
10: And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.
11: And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.
12: And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.
13: And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.
14: And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.
15: And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
16: Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
17: Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18: But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Masturbation:
Duet 23
10: If there be among you any man, that is not clean by reason of uncleanness that chanceth him by night, then shall he go abroad out of the camp, he shall not come within the camp:

Birth Control/Masturbation, depending how you look at it
Gen 38
8: And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.
9: And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
10: And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

For #10, I'm not sure if people still kick out menstrating women out of the house for a week.

[Jeremy]

Lebowski, on Mar 9 2006, 10:25 PM, said:

Masturbation:
Duet 23
10: If there be among you any man, that is not clean by reason of uncleanness that chanceth him by night, then shall he go abroad out of the camp, he shall not come within the camp:

That's not masturbation. It's talking about nocturnal emissions ("wet dreams").

Quote

Birth Control/Masturbation, depending how you look at it
Gen 38
8: And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.
9: And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
10: And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

Not masturbation again. Birth control? In a sense. Onan didn't want the responsibility of raising up seed to his dead brother. He apparently broke God's law in this regard.

[Lebowski]

Jeremy, on Mar 9 2006, 02:47 PM, said:

Lebowski, on Mar 9 2006, 10:25 PM, said:

Masturbation:
Duet 23
10: If there be among you any man, that is not clean by reason of uncleanness that chanceth him by night, then shall he go abroad out of the camp, he shall not come within the camp:

That's not masturbation. It's talking about nocturnal emissions ("wet dreams").

Quote

Birth Control/Masturbation, depending how you look at it
Gen 38
8: And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.
9: And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
10: And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

Not masturbation again. Birth control? In a sense. Onan didn't want the responsibility of raising up seed to his dead brother. He apparently broke God's law in this regard.

Your splitting hairs with the nocturanl emissions. Whether the person was dreaming or not, the fact that the seed was spilled, to use the parlance of the time, was the issue.

For Onan, he practiced coitus intteruptus, or however its spelled. At least that's what I understand when it says, he went in unto his brothes wife. Traditionally, Onanism is masterbation. What's more important, is he did not go through with the act. Do we do this today? It obviously made God a bit mad.

[Lebowski]

Matt Smith, on Mar 9 2006, 12:27 PM, said:

You have yet to comment on post 79...

Nobody has commented on my previous post, copied here.

There is no doubt the Bible is against homosexuality. I am arguing, however, that the if we take the Bible seriously we must take the Bible seriously in its entirety. Take nudity for example. According to the Bible, it is a shameful sin.
Isaih 47
3: Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet thee as a man.
Its not only embarrassing, its a cursed sin, as Gen 9 points out:
20: And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
21: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
22: And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
23: And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
24: And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
25: And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
26: And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
27: God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

Ouch. Do we look at nakedness in the same way today? sure, we aren't ready to be all European and hang out (literally) at the nude beach...but what about the locker rooms or even at home....are we to consider those as a cursed sin?

How about levirate marriage, where if no heir is born to a man that dies, his brothers take turns trying to produce one. Jesus himself left this practice uncondemned in Mark 12
20: Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed.
21: And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise.
22: And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also.
23: In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife.
24: And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?
25: For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.
26: And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
27: He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.

Why is this not practiced today, yet the rules for homosexuality are strictly enforced?????????

[Jeremy]

Lebowski, on Mar 9 2006, 10:54 PM, said:

Your splitting hairs with the nocturanl emissions. Whether the person was dreaming or not, the fact that the seed was spilled, to use the parlance of the time, was the issue.

Not voluntarily, it wasn't. That's the big difference between nocturnal emissions and masturbation.

There is no justification that I can see for calling masturbation "Onanism".

:doodnite: