Should homosexuals be given the death penalty?

[csuguy]

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.

No, that's what you all are trying to do. I say stop trying to make our justice system resemble the OT Law.

 

[csuguy]

It is a crime to be envious of your neighbor? Yes or no?

According to the OT Law, yes. According to God's righteousness, yes it is a crime. I'm trying to tell you to stop trying to nit pick parts of God's Law. Either take the entire Law or take Grace, and let the poor homo's live.

 

[Delmar]

No, that's what you all are trying to do. I say stop trying to make our justice system resemble the OT Law.

Good idea! Let's take thou shall not murder off the books. Grace it is!

 

[Memento Mori]

Good idea! Let's take thou shall not murder off the books. Grace it is!

Don't forget every person shall write a scroll of the Torah for himself, affix the mezuzah to the doorposts and gates of your house, read the Shema in the morning and at night, recite grace after meals, not to demand from a poor man repayment of his debt, when the creditor knows that he cannot pay, nor press him, sound the Ram's horn in the Sabbatical year, and not to wear garments made of wool and linen mixed together.

Credit to jewfaq.org for providing an easy access list of all 613 Laws.

 

[red77]

Yes. :duh:

:duh: is about right, what a bloodthirsty society that is advocated on here at times, some of you really were born 2000 years too late... Jesus himself saved a woman from the same self righteous hypocrisy and yet there's people here who want to bring in the death penalty for these people and even the same barbaric forms of execution, truly sickening :vomit: Christianity this aint......

 

[red77]

Fortunately it's exactly this kind of theological back and forth and inhouse fighting that will more than likely prevent you guys from ever realizing the more nightmarish of your fantasies...

That truly is something to be thankful for......

 

[kmoney]

Circumcision was given to Abraham before the law, and it was symbolic of God circumcising ALL believer's hearts (Col 2:11; Rom 2:29). So while flesh circumcision might have been symbolic, all believers are still required to have circumcised hearts. Therefore, even though a law may have had a symbolic meaning, it does not necessarily mean it no longer applies to all believers in some sense.

Right, but I was talking about fleshly circumcision.

 

[csuguy]

2 stories out of the bible come to mind when I think of this thread.

1) John 8:1-11 Here the Pharisees bring an adulteress to Jesus and ask them what they should do, as the Law clearly says she must be stoned. He said that the one among them without sin must cast the first stone. Irionically, he was the only one who could have tossed the stone, but he did not. When all had gone he told her to go and leave her sinful life behind. In the same way, we need to not condemn people, but try to guide them along the right path, and save them when they need help.

2) Acts 8:9-25 Here Simon the Sorcerer tried to buy the Holy Spirit. Did they apostles kill him as the Law commanded? NO! They told him to leave and repent for his evil thoughts.

Also notice in both cases neither Jesus nor the apostles are out there looking to persecute those who break the Law. Rather, is was the pharisees whom did so. So tell me, should we act like the Pharisees, trying to enforce the Law, or like Jesus and the Apostles?

 

[red77]

2 stories out of the bible come to mind when I think of this thread.

1) John 8:1-11 Here the Pharisees bring an adulteress to Jesus and ask them what they should do, as the Law clearly says she must be stoned. He said that the one among them without sin must cast the first stone. Irionically, he was the only one who could have tossed the stone, but he did not. When all had gone he told her to go and leave her sinful life behind. In the same way, we need to not condemn people, but try to guide them along the right path, and save them when they need help.

2) Acts 8:9-25 Here Simon the Sorcerer tried to buy the Holy Spirit. Did they apostles kill him as the Law commanded? NO! They told him to leave and repent for his evil thoughts.

Also notice in both cases neither Jesus nor the apostles are out there looking to persecute those who break the Law. Rather, that is what the pharisees whom did so. So tell me, should we act like the Pharisees, trying to enforce the Law, or like Jesus and the Apostles?

:up: I know who I'd sooner act like.......

 

[lovemeorhateme]

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.....

No, it isn't a choice. I wish it was, for if it was I would choose to be attracted to females. I would never have chosen to be attracted to other guys. So long as I abstain from sexual activity, I am not sinning.

 

[Kimberlyann]

A few more clues:
Col. 2:20-23

Heb. 9:9

The scriptures you post are not clear and they don't tell me how you discern what sins still warrant the death penalty.


My questions aren't about all of the 613 commandments in the OT, many of which are ceremonial and serve as symbols to remind the people of their duties and responsibilities.

I'm just asking about the 23 laws regarding capital crimes.

What clear guidelines do you use to decide which ones still apply?

 

[ebenz47037]

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.....

And, Red, you know that most of the people you are talking about don't consider a person homosexual unless they commit homosexual acts.

 

[Kimberlyann]

Here's a little more to add to what Shimei has said....

There is no single thing to look at for this topic but here are a couple things to look at to determine if there really is a separation between moral and symbolic laws and if so, how to determine what is "moral" and what is "symbolic"......

1) I'd say the vast majority of Christians believes in absolute morality. If absolute morals exist, then anything that God would tell some people to do but tell others they don't have to wouldn't be considered a "moral" law. One example of this is what Shimei has given already, circumcision. If you'd like more examples just ask.

2) A few scriptures....

Col 2:13 And you, being dead in the deviations and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all the deviations,
Col 2:14 blotting out the handwriting in the ordinances against us, which was contrary to us, even He has taken it out of the midst, nailing it to the cross;
Col 2:15 having stripped the rulers and the authorities, He made a show of them in public, triumphing over them in it.
Col 2:16 Then do not let anyone judge you in eating, or in drinking, or in part of a feast, or of a new moon, or of sabbaths,
Col 2:17 which are a shadow of coming things, but the body is of Christ.
​

Right there gives a few broad areas that could be considered "symbolic", i.e. food, drink, festivals/holidays, sabbaths.


Those are a couple things, but those can only take you so far. There are a variety of laws in the Mosaic Law that can't easily be categorized and it seems (to me) that if a particular law is hard then it's just put in the symbolic category. One example of that is the one about a woman grabbing a man's junk. No one wants to say that should be put into practice today (the law, not the grabbing. :chuckle: ) but I don't think I've ever seen a great explanation of what that symbolized. Maybe someone has a reasonable one though. :idunno:

Thanks

Despite the difficulty of some laws, the belief for the existence of moral and symbolic laws has merit. When the context is capital punishment, however, I think it behooves us to be cautious and side with not killing them, at least on the sketchy laws, which is why I asked Delmar the question that I did.

Agreed. :thumb:

 

[uk_mikey]

No, it isn't a choice. I wish it was, for if it was I would choose to be attracted to females. I would never have chosen to be attracted to other guys. So long as I abstain from sexual activity, I am not sinning.

As nobody who advocates the death penalty for homosexuals has answered my question about who would qualify for this penalty, I'll ask you to help me in my lack of understanding of who this would apply to.

Would it condemn to death all who had committed homosexual acts, or would it apply to only those who refused to repent of those acts?... would those who repented be 'off the hook'?

 

[kmoney]

As nobody who advocates the death penalty for homosexuals has answered my question about who would qualify for this penalty, I'll ask you to help me in my lack of understanding of who this would apply to.

Would it condemn to death all who had committed homosexual acts, or would it apply to only those who refused to repent of those acts?... would those who repented be 'off the hook'?

I did answer you. The execution would stand regardless of repentance.

 

[uk_mikey]

I did answer you. The execution would stand regardless of repentance.

Yes, I know you did. You said "I voted No in this thread"

My question this time was specifically to LMOHM and those who are promoting it.

Concidering what a vitally important question i think I'm asking, I'd hope that one of them would answer it. It could possibly turn the thread from being a hypothetical theological fancy, into a feasable arguement.

At the moment, the question of the thread doesn't appear to mean anything, since it doesn't specify who it's talking about. That's why I keep putting this question.

 

[kmoney]

Yes, I know you did. You said "I voted No in this thread"

My question this time was specifically to LMOHM and those who are promoting it.

Concidering what a vitally important question i think I'm asking, I'd hope that one of them would answer it. It could possibly turn the thread from being a hypothetical theological fancy, into a feasable arguement.

At the moment, the question of the thread doesn't appear to mean anything, since it doesn't specify who it's talking about. That's why I keep putting this question.

I know I voted "No", but you can trust my answer. This is not the first time this question has been asked and I know what the answer is. If you still want to wait for them to answer then go for it, but let me add this......

Throw the issue of homosexuality out of it. Do you favor the death penalty for any crime? Murder? rape? If so, do you believe that if the person repents they should be let go? Or does that person still get the punishment, i.e. death. Take any crime for that matter, if the person repents, do you believe the punishment should be waived? I assume you'd answer no to those questions and if that is the case, why would death for homosexuality be any different? A crime is a crime and it deserves punishment regardless of the criminals repentance or lack thereof.

 

[zoo22]

Mikey, may I ask what you mean about feasibility? Towards your own thinking, or in general?

Also, Kmo's is the answer that you're going to get.

 

[aikido7]

Someone help me figure out if the people here who are pro homo death are literally taking things to such a degree that they never would in "the real world."

Defending the literalism of the Bible to sanction one's prejudices and inclinations takes place in a totally different domain than it would in one's daily life--right? I mean, this is theology and not reality. Right?

Sometimes maybe I take posters too seriously.

I just hope to God no one here really believes some Old Testament biblical tribal law should be followed. And that's just half the Bible!

 

[aikido7]

Someone help me figure out if the people here who are pro homo death are literally taking things to such a degree that they never would in "the real world."

Defending the literalism of the Bible to sanction one's prejudices and inclinations takes place in a totally different domain than it would in one's daily life--right? I mean, this is theology and not reality. Right?

Sometimes maybe I take posters too seriously.

I just hope to God no one here really believes some Old Testament biblical tribal law should be followed. And that's just half the Bible!

The poll shows that nearly 30 per cent (30 !!!!) are in favor of this. Help!