Should homosexuals be given the death penalty?

Should homosexuals be given the death penalty?


  • Total voters
    344

red77

New member
You have got to be joking. I checked that thread. How many pages of material do you estimate you're insisting I review here?
Why don't do me the courtesy of simply providing a rough percentage of those convicted of capitol crimes unjustly that you feel is relatively accurate? In fact, I don't think you'll have to guess. I'm sure that number's out there. Go fetch it and bring it back.
As far as your attempt to sidetrack into yet another point of debate, why don't you just lay out why you feel the laws on sexual immorality don't apply? I personally think it's because you can't. You intend, rather, to niggle and rant over every tangential point you can in order to avoid defending your position. Again.

Edit: Red77, I bowed to pressure from you once to provide data just a couple pages back. You insisted it was essential so I took considerable personal time and spent it on that effort and you completely ignored all of it. Why then should I do this again? I honestly don't think you care about the truth here. I truly believe you've given me cause to think you're just here to :blabla:

Just the OP Mary and the links provided, I didn't say you should trawl the entire thread....the links themselves clearly show the ineptitude of our judicial systems do they not??! Those links are what you asked me to provide and what I asked you to address..... :rolleyes:

And still, you can't explain even the basics of why certain laws apply to mosaic times and others to now.......

What a surprise.......
 

red77

New member
Try this one out for size!

Um, yes, I remember this thread obviously, I was the first to post a reply! But I fail to see just how this thread totally and utterly explains beyond any shadow of doubt just what should be regarded as symbolic law and what should still apply today in relation to the topic of this thread.........
 

MaryContrary

New member
Hall of Fame
Um, yes, I remember this thread obviously, I was the first to post a reply! But I fail to see just how this thread totally and utterly explains beyond any shadow of doubt just what should be regarded as symbolic law and what should still apply today in relation to the topic of this thread.........
Anyone with a single active brain cell can see what is symbolic and what is moral law. The funny (and kinda sad) thing is that it's so blatantly obvious that you're setting an impossible standard and insisting no one else is right unless they meet it. You refuse to recognize the simplest truth because *gasp* *horror* it might weaken your argument. The same thing you've tried to do with God. He, likewise, doesn't meet your impossible standards so don't have to accept His word either.
Whatever, Red. You're a waste of time. :loser:

And thanks, Delmar, for answering the question and forcing him to verbalize his stupidity but I still refuse to defend myself by Red's standard. Let him be blind if that's his insistence.
 

johana

Member
You have got to be joking. I checked that thread. How many pages of material do you estimate you're insisting I review here?
Why don't do me the courtesy of simply providing a rough percentage of those convicted of capitol crimes unjustly that you feel is relatively accurate? In fact, I don't think you'll have to guess. I'm sure that number's out there. Go fetch it and bring it back.
As far as your attempt to sidetrack into yet another point of debate, why don't you just lay out why you feel the laws on sexual immorality don't apply? I personally think it's because you can't. You intend, rather, to niggle and rant over every tangential point you can in order to avoid defending your position. Again.

Edit: Red77, I bowed to pressure from you once to provide data just a couple pages back. You insisted it was essential so I took considerable personal time and spent it on that effort and you completely ignored all of it. Why then should I do this again? I honestly don't think you care about the truth here. I truly believe you've given me cause to think you're just here to :blabla:

I could provide cases of people executed who were believed to be innocant after they were executed but it's never a certainty because once a persons executed they stop investigating. For obvious reasons.

Would that do it for you?

Also, I really am curious- should children be handed the death penalty for back chatting to their parents?
 

Delmar

Patron Saint of SMACK
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I could provide cases of people executed who were believed to be innocant after they were executed but it's never a certainty because once a persons executed they stop investigating. For obvious reasons.

Would that do it for you?
That might depend on the political agenda of the person doing the research.
Also, I really am curious- should children be handed the death penalty for back chatting to their parents?
You are referring to Deuteronomy 21:18-21 and it never applied to a simple case of "back chatting" this is talking about a serious out of control young person who is destroying his life! You should also read Mark 7:10 by the way!
 

Silk Queen

New member
How can a dead homosexual repent?
If they are put to death, there is no hope for repentance according to many here.
If I believed this a homosexual is worse than a Murder.
 

Silk Queen

New member
What really gets to me is many X homos practice homosexuality for years then God works with them and convicts them they come out of the lifestyle, they are greatful but then they think they deserve special favors of God but believe those that are in that lifestyle now should be excuted.
I don't go along with homosexuality but if we put them to death they can't repent in this life.
I say if God wants them dead let him do it!
 

red77

New member
Anyone with a single active brain cell can see what is symbolic and what is moral law. The funny (and kinda sad) thing is that it's so blatantly obvious that you're setting an impossible standard and insisting no one else is right unless they meet it. You refuse to recognize the simplest truth because *gasp* *horror* it might weaken your argument. The same thing you've tried to do with God. He, likewise, doesn't meet your impossible standards so don't have to accept His word either.
Whatever, Red. You're a waste of time. :loser:

And thanks, Delmar, for answering the question and forcing him to verbalize his stupidity but I still refuse to defend myself by Red's standard. Let him be blind if that's his insistence.

Well if 'anyone' can tell the difference it should have been easy enough for you to clarify then shouldn't it? As usual it's a case of the ad hom and the evasive tactic, something you feel inclined to accuse others of when it suits you....
:rolleyes:
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
I never said that people who commit those things should be free from any punishments, but punishments of death are no longer acceptable, as Christ showed us when he said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" when people tried to execute a woman who committed adultery as the laws of Leviticus stated.
How many times do we have to go over this one case?! The men who brought the woman to Jesus were not following the law!
1] They brought her to Jesus, who was not a recognized legal authority.
2] They didn't even bring the man.
3] The Romans were not allowing the Jews to execute anyone according to their laws.

And to top it off, when Jesus looked up there were no witnesses left. No witnesses, no sentence. That was the law.
 

red77

New member
How many times do we have to go over this one case?! The men who brought the woman to Jesus were not following the law!
1] They brought her to Jesus, who was not a recognized legal authority.
2] They didn't even bring the man.
3] The Romans were not allowing the Jews to execute anyone according to their laws.

And to top it off, when Jesus looked up there were no witnesses left. No witnesses, no sentence. That was the law.

When Jesus 'looked up'...?!

What, do you think he would have condemned the woman if there was someone who hadn't been convicted by their conscience of their own sin?

:dizzy:
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
How can a dead homosexual repent?
If they are put to death, there is no hope for repentance according to many here.
So, they can't repent while they're awaiting trial? Or while they're awaiting execution?

If I believed this a homosexual is worse than a Murder.
How so? Murderers should die too.

When Jesus 'looked up'...?!

What, do you think he would have condemned the woman if there was someone who hadn't been convicted by their conscience of their own sin?

:dizzy:
No. Because of the first point I made, you brain dead twit! But no one could convict her without witnesses. Nor could they without the man being present as well. Not according to God's law.
 

red77

New member
So, they can't repent while they're awaiting trial? Or while they're awaiting execution?


How so? Murderers should die too.


No. Because of the first point I made, you brain dead twit! But no one could convict her without witnesses. Nor could they without the man being present as well. Not according to God's law.

so if you don't believe Jesus would have condemned the woman even if there WERE witnesses why even mention it then?! :dizzy:

you really are just an absolute legalist, you still can't see that people were convicted by their consciences that day, not by the law....

:doh:
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
so if you don't believe Jesus would have condemned the woman even if there WERE witnesses why even mention it then?! :dizzy:
Because no one would have been able to, moron.

you really are just an absolute legalist, you still can't see that people were convicted by their consciences that day, not by the law....

:doh:
How am I a legalist? Go ahead, back up your claim.
 

red77

New member
Because no one would have been able to, moron.

Noone would have been able to what? you're the one who's just admitted it wouldnt have made a difference whether there was anyone still standing there or not.....

How am I a legalist? Go ahead, back up your claim.

I hardly need to, your posts do that by themselves, you make this event all about the law and repeatedy ignore the fact that these people were convicted by their consciences - not because of not adhering to the law....
 
Last edited:

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Noone would have been able to what? you're the one who's just admitted it wouldnt have made a difference whether there was anyone still standing there or not.....
:maxi:

If the men had brought the woman to the correct authorities, and had been following the law [bringing the man as well], and Rome was not disallowing them to perform their laws, the proper authorities still would not have been able to condemn her if there were no witnesses. And yet, even if they had not left, if they had not brought the man, the woman still could not have been condemned. Not to mention, even if both the man and woman were there, and alt least two credible witnesses, Rome would not have allowed them to condemn her, let alone execute her. Many factors played into it.

I hardly need to, your posts do that by themselves, you make this event all about the law and repeatedy ignore the fact that these people were convicted by their consciences - not because of not adhering to the law....
I have not once said that anyones salvation was dependent on following the law. However, it was at the time, but only if they followed it in faith. But that's neither here nor there. Believing that the law should have been followed does not make one a legalist, you moron. The definition of legalist has nothing to do with believing the laws of the land should be followed. Nor does it have anything to do with believing that someone's conscience convicted them because they were not following the law. You're an idiot.
 

Morpheus

New member
Acts 15
The Council at Jerusalem

1Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." 2This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the brothers very glad. 4When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.

5Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."

6The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."
12The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. 15The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16" 'After this I will return
and rebuild David's fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17that the remnant of men may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things'
18that have been known for ages.

19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."
The Council's Letter to Gentile Believers
22Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. 23With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.
I have posted this in several threads to date with no adequate response. Many here have fallen into the deception of the Pharisees in verses 1 & 5, stating that Gentiles are under at least some of the law of Moses. It just isn't so. If read in context, one will note that verse 29 does say that they are to "abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.", but it is immediately followed by, "You will do well to avoid these things." There is no mention of punishment, execution or otherwise. These things were just the stated requirements to be a part of the body of believers. Legalism has no place here any longer. The law has served its purpose of teaching us that we are unable to follow it and that we need a savior. But then again, I'm absolutely sure that there were some of the early Christians who were from the Pharisees who left after the council complaining about, "Those stupid apostles. What do they know?"
 
Top