I believe you, I know there are people on here though who believe that people "choose" to be gay, from personal experience myself I know that I could not choose it, in which case it hardly seems fair that people through no choice of their own find their same gender attractive.....
Should homosexuals be given the death penalty?
- Thread starter lovemeorhateme
- Start date
I believe you, I know there are people on here though who believe that people "choose" to be gay, from personal experience myself I know that I could not choose it, in which case it hardly seems fair that people through no choice of their own find their same gender attractive.....
elohiym
Well-known member
I was. Were you?
Who gets to decide what people get put to death for, you or God? It was God that said idolatry, blasphemy and sabbath breaking are death penalty offenses, and included them in the ten commandments. Those commandments are as valid to day for any Christian as they were for Israel, and have not proven otherwise.
No. It is not mocking the Bible to ask why do you ignore other death penalty offenses and focus on homosexuality. If you get to abrogate the death penalty for blasphemy, idolatry, and sabbath breaking because "those laws were for Israel," then it is reasonable to argue that the death penalty for homosexuality should be abrogated because that law is for Israel. Therefore, it is relevant to the discussion.
uk_mikey
New member
I've never been one to promote the homosexual lifestyle, or deathstyle as it's widely know.
My own approach to it on TOL is from some decades of experience as a homo, right in the middle of the homo 'culture' and environment. It's from those years of experience that i argue against the 'right's and the marriage, adoption, and all the rest that goes to push it as something normal. There are many aspects of the lifestyle which are disgusting and quite evil at their exteme, and some of those extremes are thought to be 'normal' amongst many homosexuals out there.
There's no proof that it isn't a disorder, even if it's widely thought o be a natural occurance.
Anyway, that isn't what my post is about. I want to ask if this question of the death sentence for homosexuals (assuming it was brought into force under a theocratic rule) includes those who repent of it after being condemned in the law?
Would it only condemn to death those who refuse to renounce their actions and repent?
What about those who are proved to have indulged in homo sex, but who no longer do, even if they don't renounce it and repent?
Surely, repentance under these conditions would be seen as what it is... forced repentence out of fear of death.
So, would you put those to death who repent, since it's likely their repentence is a lie?
It's fine to say that 'Taliban' style law should be put into place, but there are many details that should be concidered beforehand.
One last thought.... in Kabul, the football arena was used to stone adulterers and homosexuals and various other sinners. My thought is that if this law about putting homosexuals to death had been in place a couple of years ago, in our countries, the way it is being suggested on this thread, neither me nor LMOHM would be alive today to make these arguements.
Those who are promoting this law, are saying that me and LMOHM shouldn't be alive now. Maybe that would be a good thing? :think:
My own approach to it on TOL is from some decades of experience as a homo, right in the middle of the homo 'culture' and environment. It's from those years of experience that i argue against the 'right's and the marriage, adoption, and all the rest that goes to push it as something normal. There are many aspects of the lifestyle which are disgusting and quite evil at their exteme, and some of those extremes are thought to be 'normal' amongst many homosexuals out there.
There's no proof that it isn't a disorder, even if it's widely thought o be a natural occurance.
Anyway, that isn't what my post is about. I want to ask if this question of the death sentence for homosexuals (assuming it was brought into force under a theocratic rule) includes those who repent of it after being condemned in the law?
Would it only condemn to death those who refuse to renounce their actions and repent?
What about those who are proved to have indulged in homo sex, but who no longer do, even if they don't renounce it and repent?
Surely, repentance under these conditions would be seen as what it is... forced repentence out of fear of death.
So, would you put those to death who repent, since it's likely their repentence is a lie?
It's fine to say that 'Taliban' style law should be put into place, but there are many details that should be concidered beforehand.
One last thought.... in Kabul, the football arena was used to stone adulterers and homosexuals and various other sinners. My thought is that if this law about putting homosexuals to death had been in place a couple of years ago, in our countries, the way it is being suggested on this thread, neither me nor LMOHM would be alive today to make these arguements.
Those who are promoting this law, are saying that me and LMOHM shouldn't be alive now. Maybe that would be a good thing? :think:
zoo22
Well-known member
That's a good good question. Seems interpretation of the laws is/has been debated by Biblical scholars widely, and is/has been taught differently in any number of different Churches. There isn't anywhere near a consensus. Some say all laws are applicable, some say some of them are, some say none of them are. Wha??
What's odd (in my opinion), is that most of them are saying they're the one's that are "right." They all "know" what's true... but they're saying different things? I know, that seems impossible. But then again, apparently Jonah lived in the belly of a whale for a few days and nights, so who's to say what's impossible??
What the hey. If someone "knows," more power to them. That must be comforting. If they're wrong, I hope they don't manage to sway too many. Or have too many millions of folks executed.
But given that there's just a little bit of dispute, I personally would err on the side of caution of not condemning folks to death. I guess some err on the side of caution by advocating a condemnation to death. And of course, some just straight-up know what God said, so there's no erring to be made. Like I'd said, that must be comforting.
But what do I know? I'm sure others here can give you a much more precise answer. Maybe settle it once and for all.
Actually, this has made me think ... I'm going to go have a look to see what Jesus Christ had to say about homosexuals. It's obviously very important, and he had a lot to say, so I'm sure he had a lot to say about it. That ought to shed some light on this.
Interesting that these homo threads go on for pages and pages. And ones about Paris Hilton and O.J. just fade out after a few posts. 
Ellen Degeneris is America's sweetheart. Every reality show has a homo cast member. Banning fags from the Army must seem totally weird to most average kids.
Let it go.
You're on the wrong side of history.
It is ironic to the extreme (and sometimes funny watching them!) when fundies and evangelicals try to balance out Jesus' openheartedness and compassion for society's dregs with our own fear, disgust and hatred of all things fag.
You can't be the incarnation of God on earth and at the same time act like every human Joe Sixpack and kick a queer or two around.
--Why is it when fundies hate, then their Jesus must hate, too?
--And when fundies want the government dismantled, their Jesus advocates the same thing?
--When capital punishment comes up, why do evangelicals look for biblical excuses to favor it? Even going so far as to re-interpret the Ten Commandments?
--When neocon, GOP or conservative politics come up, why is a sizable segment of Christianity so keen to emesh with these sorts of people?
--Why do most Christians favor war and revenge and, worse, find ways to justify them with re-interpretations of what the Kingdom of God on earth really entails?
--And poverty and economic justice--how have the fundies managed to take Jesus' major themes of his ministry and pervert them on these issues?
Ellen Degeneris is America's sweetheart. Every reality show has a homo cast member. Banning fags from the Army must seem totally weird to most average kids.
Let it go.
You're on the wrong side of history.
It is ironic to the extreme (and sometimes funny watching them!) when fundies and evangelicals try to balance out Jesus' openheartedness and compassion for society's dregs with our own fear, disgust and hatred of all things fag.
You can't be the incarnation of God on earth and at the same time act like every human Joe Sixpack and kick a queer or two around.
--Why is it when fundies hate, then their Jesus must hate, too?
--And when fundies want the government dismantled, their Jesus advocates the same thing?
--When capital punishment comes up, why do evangelicals look for biblical excuses to favor it? Even going so far as to re-interpret the Ten Commandments?
--When neocon, GOP or conservative politics come up, why is a sizable segment of Christianity so keen to emesh with these sorts of people?
--Why do most Christians favor war and revenge and, worse, find ways to justify them with re-interpretations of what the Kingdom of God on earth really entails?
--And poverty and economic justice--how have the fundies managed to take Jesus' major themes of his ministry and pervert them on these issues?
elohiym
Well-known member
Do you deny that their are homosexuals that are in monogamous relationships, and that do not engage in 'culture' you experienced?
Do you admit that a significant number of heterosexuals also have a 'culture' that could be called a "death-style" precluding them from "'right's and the marriage, adoption, and all the rest that goes to push it as something normal?" If not, why?
What specifically about homosexuality makes it a disorder, as opposed to the 'normal' wickedness in heterosexual cultures?
Kimberlyann
New member
bump....
That's what I want to know.
Do they have chapter and verse on that, or are they using their own moral judgment?
elohiym
Well-known member
It appears to me to be selective indignation based on a purely subjective reading of biblical laws they pick and choose according to their denominational viewpoint.
uk_mikey
New member
My introductiory paragraph was to explain where I was coming from. The point of my post was what I wrote after the part you picked out.
My opinions on homosexuality aren't relevent to the point of this thread, since it appears to be a purely religious point, even though it's in the politics section.
elohiym
Well-known member
Well, when someone claims to be speaking from decades experience in the "death-style" making statements that could be equally applied to heterosexuals, I have to question those opinions.
Kimberlyann
New member
Yes. :duh:
What should the penalty be for murder? Life in prison?
Does grace = life in prison?
You are mixing matters of salvation with the justice system.
Which is a worse sin, stealing a pen or murder?
I will positive rep you if I can get a direct and short answer.
heartless_Adam
New member
would executing people for being gay bring anyone closer to salvation?
It is a crime to be envious of your neighbor? Yes or no?
Question:
Answer:
You are not under the old covenant so you don’t keep the food laws. I asked you if it would be correct to say that you do not keep the food laws and you said “no.”
So which is it????
It is really a simple question and you are making it much more complicated than it needs to be. Can we please drop all theological discussion at this point and could you please just answer this simple question? It would actually explain much and help me understand where you are coming from if you just said “yes” or “no”. At that point then we could maybe discuss the theological implications of you answer.
If not, then I see no point in having any further discussion with you on this matter.
Answer:
You are not under the old covenant so you don’t keep the food laws. I asked you if it would be correct to say that you do not keep the food laws and you said “no.”
So which is it????
It is really a simple question and you are making it much more complicated than it needs to be. Can we please drop all theological discussion at this point and could you please just answer this simple question? It would actually explain much and help me understand where you are coming from if you just said “yes” or “no”. At that point then we could maybe discuss the theological implications of you answer.
If not, then I see no point in having any further discussion with you on this matter.
Kimberlyann
New member
Galatians 2:7 (New King James Version)
7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (I know it's off topic, but do you believe Peter preached a different gospel than Paul?)
No, I don't follow. And I'm really trying, but the only thing that Scripture suggest to me is that you are probably a dispensationalist. It doesn't show me how you decide which capital crimes should be enforced and which are only symbolic and apply only to Israel.
elohiym
Well-known member
I don't keep the food laws. They were abrogated on the cross.
The ten commandments were not abrogated on the cross. The fourth commandment is still valid. God said breaking the sabbath was a death penalty offense. You claim to break the sabbath.
Which of God's laws are you claiming that homosexuals should be put to death based on? Be specific.