this is an inaccurate, out of context reading. the man in question was killed for refusing to provide his brother and his widowed wife with an heir. read the story.

it starts in Gen 38:6. the woman was taken as judah's first son's wife. this son was a bad person, apparently, and god killed him. in hebrew culture, a widow would marry someone in the family of her dead husband to care for her, and if she had no children, the first child of that marriage would be the heir of her first husband. so tamar's second husband refused to impregnate her, giving her a son to care for her, and that's why god killed him, not because he (*)(*)(*)(*)ed on the ground.

i mean. it's probably all crap, but if you're going to cite it, do so correctly.

im not convinced of your interpretation, squishy.

in the kjv, it says he was put to death for what he did, not what he did not do. plus, there is another instance with the same scenario:

Deuteronomy 25:5-10 (King James Version)

"If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.

And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.

And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother.

Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her;

Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house.

And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed."

in both scenarios, there is disobedience, but only one is sentenced to death. spilling seed is the only variable. i cant make sense of that any other way.

__________________
Remedial English - Rule #2:

Always check your answers against Google search results.

yea im lookin for arguments for and against based on the bible, i suppose. and i dont mean sex in general, i mean sex while married.

__________________
Remedial English - Rule #2:

Always check your answers against Google search results.

No you aren't. You're just looking for arguments that will bolster your belief, whatever it may be. If you were actually open-minded you wouldn't off-hand dismiss valid points like you did. Every one of my points comes from the Bible. If you're going to base your argument for or against homosexuality from the standpoint of the Bible, are you not a "pick and choose" Christian if you ignore the rest of the Bible?

A "pick and choose" Christian? That's a good one.....

Hey, um... remember what Jesus said about "the law", right?

You gotta be careful about this stuff.

You can't really take the Bible "in its entirety".

I mean, at some point there, there was a "New Covenant", remember?

So I mean, you'll find some stuff in the Bible, that kinda "precedes" that, right? I mean, that would be like, stuff pertaning to the "Old" Covenant.

So, you know, "be careful", right? 'Cause I mean, you can really drive yourself nuts worrying about what God "wants" from you.

Seems to me, that concept of "the entire Bible", is kinda dangerous. Thtat would be a slippery slope down into outright moralism.

Just IMHO, of course.

youd be a lot more amusing if you could manage to stay on topic.

do you have posts saved on your computer that youre just itching to put online? youve missed the mark more than once on these forums; youre a little too anxious.

__________________
Remedial English - Rule #2:

Always check your answers against Google search results.

Good thing I don't have a brother. I wouldn't want his stretched-out sloppy seconds.

__________________
Believing that McAfee is going to protect you from hackers and viruses is exactly like believing that republicans can actually protect you from terrorists.

When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die.

Yep. That's another great example of "Old Covenant" stuff.

It used to be a brother's obligation - his duty - to marry his brother's widow if anything happened to him.

And that, had to do with the concept that there "weren't very many" Jews, and every kid was precious.

And so once again, to "fully" understand that, you'd have to go "outside" of the Bible, 'cause I mean, a lot of other cultures around the area had that same thing going on.

If you want a biblically based Christian point of view on what's allowed and what isn't, here it is:

Following Christ isn't a matter of following rules except for two very general ones --

1) Love God.
2) Love your fellow human beings.

Those two Jesus specifically gave as summing up all the commandments.

Matthew 22:36-40 (NKJV)

36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”
37 Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

But why isn't it a rules-based thing? Read Galatians, and let Paul explain it. It's a very short book and not a hard read at all... though if you're used to legalism it may give you a headache.

thanks, i will look into that.

another question though... is this a mainstream viewpoint on the matter?

__________________
Remedial English - Rule #2:

Always check your answers against Google search results.