Executing homosexuals

[genuineoriginal]

You're impugning your own character by not being able answer questions honestly.

I answered honestly.

If you can't accept my honest answers, the problem is because of the wicked evil intentions of your heart, not mine.

 

[Sealeaf]

What does God want you to do with homosexuals?
" Love them as you love yourself. "
Jesus said it. Jesus is the Lord God incarnate, what He says trumps anything said by anyone else. This means that whatever OT mumblings you are referrancing have been revoked.
Forget about it.

 

[Doormat]

I do not know why that particular term was used, but the explanations show it does cover homosexual sex.

Whence do I know that pederasty is punished by stoning? — Our Rabbis taught: [If a man lieth also with mankind, as the lyings of a woman,29 both of them have committed on abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them,]30 A man — excludes a minor; [that] lieth also with mankind — denotes whether an adult or a minor; as the lyings of a woman — this teaches that there are two modes of intimacy,31 both of which are punished when committed incestuously.

29 Lit. rendering of [H] translated 'as he lieth with a woman'.
30 Ibid. XX, 13.
31 Natural and unnatural.​

That's only about pederasty. It doesn't explain what Leviticus 18:22 means, and I am not arguing Leviticus 18:22 isn't about a male homosexual act, only that it is neither a commandment against homosexuality generally nor male homosexuality specifically. As I've said, my interpretation accommodates the above commentary about pederasty. Leviticus 18:22 means a married man should not commit adultery with another man, hence the conditional clause, "as the lyings of a woman." The verse is better translated as: "And with a male thou shalt not lie down in a woman's bed; it is an abomination."

Bottom line there is no command against female homosexuality and a conditional clause attached to the only command that prohibits a specific act of male homosexuality. Though Jesus condemned the doctrines of men, presumably in the Talmud, you also have a brief comment in a poorly worded translation about pederasty with no explanation of the meaning of Leviticus 18:22. That doesn't convince me homosexuality in general is deserving of the death penalty. We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

And you have yet to show any verses that state criminal laws found within the Mosaic Law should never be applied outside of Israel.


For one thing this has nothing to do with sin. And for another none of those sins should be crimes, let alone capital crimes. With the exception of lying when it is perjury [bearing false witness] in a capital case; because that is at least attempted murder.


You keep saying that but you haven't proven it.


Irrelevant to the issue, as someone brought up unrepentant homosexuals and I was simply pointing out that penitence has naught to do with it.


I didn't acquire anything from the internet, nitwit.:doh: I came to terms with facts I had never considered regarding the actual text of the Bible. While it's true that people posting on the internet led me to take a look at what I had been taught in church vs. what's actually in the text I didn't simply concede because someone on the internet disagreed with me. I conceded because the facts were as they are: God commanded execution for homosexuals caught in the act of engaging in homosexual sodomy, that law was not secluded to Israel, He never repealed that law and these things were so for very good reasons.

You're just blinded to the fact that there's a difference between
the Old Testament, and God's dealings with the House of Israel,
and the New Testament where God is dealing with mankind
through His gift of mercy, forgiveness, and eternal life, which
is acquired through faith in Christ!

Would you have homosexuals stoned? Would you be the first
one casting that stone? Why did Christ avert a stoning of a
women caught in adultery? Consider that question!

 

[chair]

Very good point. Then again, Christians usually presume to know the Old Testament and Judaism itself better than the Jews, so...

Despite all the blah blah of how evil the Talmud is, the fact is that Rabbinic Judaism has managed to move away from many of the excesses of the Old Testament. Remember "an eye for an eye"?

I have even heard a Rabbi say that "yes, we can be more moral than what was acceptable in Biblical times."

I think we (Rabbinic Jews) have a ways to go yet, for example in the position of women in our religion, but I believe we are making progress, even if some of our Christian "friends" would prefer us to meet their Bronze Age ideals.

 

[zoo22]

You have gone a long way from
"a grieving Travis is forced to shoot Yeller."
to: "He wants to shoot old Yeller."

No I haven't. Travis looked at reality, weighed the options, and decided that he wanted to shoot Old Yeller. Although he's conflicted about it, for various considered reasons, that's what Travis wanted to do.

Maybe you have a definition of "want" that I am not familiar with.

Your definition seems to be very limited, one dimensional. There can be a lot of different things to consider when deciding what you want, and those things can conflict with one another. Sometimes getting what you want, even though you think it's the right thing, feels overwhelmingly bad. That's why sometimes making decisions about what you want, or even getting what you want, can be difficult.

When I carried my dog into the vet to be put to sleep, I didn't want him to die. Of course I didn't. But that's not the whole story. He was in pain and was struggling. It was bad and was rapidly getting worse. I wanted to keep him from suffering. After I weighed a lot of different things, I decided that he should be killed. It seemed the most humane thing to do. For me to not have the guts to say that I wanted him to die would be lame. I made the decision. How can I say I didn't want it? Sure, I wanted him to live. But when it came down to it, all things considered realistically, for various reasons, I decided he should die. Ultimately that's what I wanted. It sounds terrible to hear it that way, but it's true.

That's a dog. If you're advocating that humans be executed, it's particularly cowardly and despicable to say you don't want it. If all things considered, you really don't want homosexuals to be executed, then don't advocate that homosexuals are executed. It's as simple as that. Otherwise, get a backbone and stand up and say that's what you want. If you advocate that homosexuals are executed, hiding behind " but I don't want homosexuals to be executed..." is absurd. Take some responsibility.

 

[Lighthouse]

You're just blinded to the fact that there's a difference between
the Old Testament, and God's dealings with the House of Israel,
and the New Testament where God is dealing with mankind
through His gift of mercy, forgiveness, and eternal life, which
is acquired through faith in Christ!

Would you have homosexuals stoned? Would you be the first
one casting that stone? Why did Christ avert a stoning of a
women caught in adultery? Consider that question!

No. What I am is aware of the fact you don't have any Scripture to back up your argument.

This isn't about sin. Sin is an entirely separate issue. If it weren't then not even murderers should receive the death penalty.

And I would only be among the first to cast any stones if I were a witness to the crime.:dunce::duh:

Christ averted that stoning because the men didn't bring the man, they brought her to Him [Jesus] who was not a recognized priest or judge according to the Mosaic Law, and the witnesses all left.

As you can see I've considered that matter already. I've had to explain it to more than a few ignorant people around here.

Maybe if you actually learned the Law that was given you'd understand why Jesus did what He did as recorded in John 8.

And the fact that you ignore the New Covenant began after the cross and therefore the Law was in effect when that took place, says much about you. Jesus wasn't subverting the law, He was upholding it. He did not come to abolish the law.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Leviticus 18:22 means a married man should not commit adultery with another man, hence the conditional clause, "as the lyings of a woman." The verse is better translated as: "And with a male thou shalt not lie down in a woman's bed; it is an abomination."

Once again, adultery cannot be committed unless one of the people is a married (or bethrothed) woman.
You have made it plain that you don't understand the conditions for adultery is in the Bible, and your understanding of Leviticus 18:22 is never going to be close to the truth until you fix that.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

:e4e:

 

[Granite]

Despite all the blah blah of how evil the Talmud is, the fact is that Rabbinic Judaism has managed to move away from many of the excesses of the Old Testament. Remember "an eye for an eye"?

I have even heard a Rabbi say that "yes, we can be more moral than what was acceptable in Biblical times."

I think we (Rabbinic Jews) have a ways to go yet, for example in the position of women in our religion, but I believe we are making progress, even if some of our Christian "friends" would prefer us to meet their Bronze Age ideals.

Funny how Judaism is moving forward, and is, overall, progressive, while so much of Christianity seems intent on taking considerable steps back.

 

[genuineoriginal]

No I haven't. Travis looked at reality, weighed the options, and decided that he wanted to shoot Old Yeller. Although he's conflicted about it, for various considered reasons, that's what Travis wanted to do.

If you believe Travis wanted to shoot Old Yeller, then you are wrong.

"a grieving Travis is forced to shoot Yeller."
Travis did not do something he wanted to do. Travis was forced to do something that broke his heart despite what he wanted to do.

It is the same thing with God.
God does not want anyone to perish.

2 Peter 3:9 9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.​

God is forced to do something that breaks His heart.

Genesis 6:5-7 5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.​

God gave the death penalty as a means of keeping man's wickedness from reaching the point that would force Him to destroy man.
The first death penalty was for murder.

Genesis 9:6 6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.​

This wasn't enough, as shown by Sodom and Gomorrah, and God was forced to destroy them with fire and brimstone, even though it wasn't what He wanted.

Luke 17:29 29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.​

By the time God gave the Law to the children of Israel, He also had seen the wickedness of the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites.

When God gave the Law to Moses, He put the death penalty upon all the acts that led to those nations becoming exceedingly wicked as a way to prevent the children of Israel from doing the same.

 

[Granite]

GO, why's this issue so bloody important to you?

 

[genuineoriginal]

When I carried my dog into the vet to be put to sleep, I didn't want him to die. Of course I didn't. But that's not the whole story. He was in pain and was struggling. It was bad and was rapidly getting worse. I wanted to keep him from suffering. After I weighed a lot of different things, I decided that he should be killed. It seemed the most humane thing to do. For me to not have the guts to say that I wanted him to die would be lame. I made the decision. How can I say I didn't want it? Sure, I wanted him to live. But when it came down to it, all things considered realistically, for various reasons, I decided he should die. Ultimately that's what I wanted. It sounds terrible to hear it that way, but it's true.

It is reality that animals die, it is reality that we put animals to death.

When I took my cat to the vet after his guts were ripped open in a fight, the vet did everything he could to save my cat. I brought my cat home and tried to nurse him back to health, but he was too far gone. I decided that he should be killed because it seemed the most humane thing to do.

It would be a great injustice to the memory of my cat to say I wanted him to die. There is no way that was a true statement, I wanted him to live, not to die.

You are only trying to rationalize your decision to yourself when you say you wanted to kill your dog.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

GO, why's this issue so bloody important to you?

Its enough to know that it is important to him. The "why" is probably something that some Godless atheist can't understand.

By the way, there is no way that you are "more right than left". Your posts belie that facade

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Same-sex attraction is a mental disorder. I posted the following a while back in another thread:

Same sex attraction is a disorder according to the American Psychological Association (APA) for most of its history, until recently.

For some folks though, this disorder is now the "non-disorder formerly known as disorder." It was a disorder in the DSM I and II published by the APA. But in the last publication, DSM IV, it was removed as a disorder. Why?

Protests by gay rights activists against the APA began in 1970 when the organization held its convention in San Francisco. The activists disrupted the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, gay rights activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA's convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled, "Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you." To put is bluntly, the American Psychological Association buckled and caved to protesters, and therefore have no legitimacy now.

So the APA can be, and is, wrong. The current APA thinks that they were "wrong back then," and "right now." But certainly, the opposite can be true, that is was right back then and wrong now. I think that they were right before and wrong now because they now fear liberal retaliation and political correctness that did not exist before.

Let me add one other thing to that post: The APA is actually a lobbying group, and less than half the psychiatrists in America belong to it. They lobby on Capitol Hill and therefore engage in political correctness to garner support. Their removal of homosexuality from the list of disorders was purely a political move, and had no basis in science

 

[genuineoriginal]

If you're advocating that humans be executed, it's particularly cowardly and despicable to say you don't want it. If all things considered, you really don't want homosexuals to be executed, then don't advocate that homosexuals are executed.

Do you think God was wrong to give the Law that said homosexual sex was a crime worthy of the death penalty?
If so, how do you justify thinking you know more than God on this matter?
If God was not wrong, do you have any idea why God gave this law?

 

[genuineoriginal]

GO, why's this issue so bloody important to you?

I have lived though the years when homosexuality was something that just wasn't done, the years when homosexuality was giggled about, the years when homosexuality was first becoming accepted, and the years when homosexuality became a right that overturned the right to practice religion and the right to free speech.

During this time, I went from being raised in a Christian home, to rejecting Christianity, to getting involved in the occult, to coming back to Christianity, to studying the Bible and fully embracing my religion.

Christians are losing their businesses and being put in jail over this issue.

Why would you think it would not be important?

 

[Catholic Crusader]

I have lived though the years when homosexuality was something that just wasn't done, the years when homosexuality was giggled about, the years when homosexuality was first becoming accepted, and the years when homosexuality became a right that overturned the right to practice religion and the right to free speech.

During this time, I went from being raised in a Christian home, to rejecting Christianity, to getting involved in the occult, to coming back to Christianity, to studying the Bible and fully embracing my religion.

Christians are losing their businesses and being put in jail over this issue.

Why would you think it would not be important?

You and I disagree on many religious issues, but I am with you 100% on this post. I have seen the exact same progression of events in my own life.

 

[Granite]

I have lived though the years when homosexuality was something that just wasn't done, the years when homosexuality was giggled about, the years when homosexuality was first becoming accepted, and the years when homosexuality became a right that overturned the right to practice religion and the right to free speech.

I'm sure supporters of Jim Crow had very similar objections and concerns. By the way: Nobody, but nobody, is infringing on your right to be a bigot. You're confusing loss of acceptable prejudice as some kind of persecution. You people don't get a free pass anymore, and I'm sure that's a shock.

Christians are losing their businesses and being put in jail over this issue.

Is this something you've heard, or something you're making up?

 

[Catholic Crusader]

.......Is this something you've heard, or something you're making up?

Don't you watch the news man? There are multiple stories of peoples' religious consciences being persecuted; bakers who won't bake a cake for a gay "wedding" because it violates their personal religious views being fined by courts, photagraphers being sued for not taking pictures at a gay "wedding" because it violates their personal religious views, and tons more similar stories.

 

[Granite]

Don't you watch the news man? There are multiple stories of peoples' religious consciences being persecuted; bakers who won't bake a cake for a gay "wedding" because it violates their personal religious views being fined by courts, photagraphers being sued for not taking oictures at a gay "wedding" because it violates their personal religious views, and tons more similar stories.

Pull your head out of your sphincter.

Why don't you wash your mouth out?