I find it disheartening that this thread is 250+ pages and that there are actually TWO threads discussing the same topic.
This should put the issue to rest, and it should have been put to rest long ago.
John 8:5-11
5Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
WWJD? There is nothing wrong with abhorring evil, judging the evil of others, pointed out the error in their ways, but WHO IS FIT TO CAST THE FIRST STONE? Who is fit to execute the criminal? Who is holy enough to execute a homosexual (if one did indeed think their acts worthy of execution)?
I believe that to be a BIG part of what Jesus was trying to convey. Even if a persons crime (sin) causes them to be worthy of death, repentance and mercy will overcome the perceived evil more efficiently than executing the guilty.
You both kept going on about "it's not about sin", but that is all it can be about, because it is not about a crime. Homosexuality IS NOT A CRIME, much less a capital crime, worthy of execution.
Are you really that daft?
Are you also going to say that God never commanded for homosexuals to be put to death when caught in the act?
Seriously. God commanding such clearly shows that at least at one time He deemed it a crime, a capital crime, worthy of execution. And I don't see anywhere in the Bible that repeals that.
Another thing. Are you suggesting we don't punish anyone, ever, for any crime? We just forgive them?
I disagree that your method would be as efficient as Jesus' was. Where you (and Mystery, no doubt) would condemn the guilty to death, whereas if the guilty had truly repented (change their ways, not simply ask for forgiveness), there would be no need for punishment (execution).
First off, there were no witnesses. Why would I, or Mystery, condemn someone when there are no witnesses?
I think a homosexual waiting to be executed for their "crime" (sin because it is NOT a crime anyway, at least in the US) would be defiant and angry at a political system that would put them to death for something they see as blameless.
They would only be waiting upon execution if it was a crime, moron. And they see it as blameless because the government acts as though it is. They don't treat homosexuals as the deviants they are. If they did, then the homos might actually be able to see that it is an abominable act.
And what makes you think some of the people sitting on death row for murder feel as though they aren't blameless? And what about child molesters? They don't see anything wrong with what they do, even after being sent to prison. If the government executed them for it, they might actually think about it some more, and possibly see that it is abominable. Same goes for rapists.
How is simply executed them going to make them see their error? You assume people on death row have a sudden realization that the system that is going to kill them is right for doing so. I disagree with that assumption. Through mercy and compassion a person may be converted and learn to repent. Just because someone is about to be executed does not mean they are going to finally realize they deserve their fate. It would also cause sympathy with enablers and make them fight even harder for their cause, which they perceive as right.
But there are those who do see their error, as their death approaches, because they take stock of their lives, looking over it, and realizing how they did harm others to the extent of deserving to die. And they accept their fate, because they know they deserve it. And some of them even give their lives to God, and still walk, willingly, to give up their lives for their crimes. Paul was willing to die, if he had committed a crime worthy of death. Anyone who truly loved God would be.
So Paul said, “I stand at Caesar’s judgment seat, where I ought to be judged. To the Jews I have done no wrong, as you very well know. For if I am an offender, or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying; but if there is nothing in these things of which these men accuse me, no one can deliver me to them. I appeal to Caesar.”
-Acts 25:10-11
If other citizens perceived such an execution as unjust, it would force more away from God's word. They would need to gain spiritual understanding before they would change their opinion. Such law worked in Moses' time because they were living under a theocracy and all citizens understood the divine providence of the law they lived under and all acknowledged the judge was God himself. In the constitutional republic that we live in (in the US) God is not the lawmaker, but rather man is, and we are judged by fellow men under the law of men, not under the law of God. Therefore, such a sin (crime in your eyes) is between the sinner and the spiritual judge (God) and no one else, because it is not a capital crime inside our constitutional republic.
But it should be. This society would be better off, because homos would stop being homos. And if men would stop trying to make laws based on their emotions, and defer to God, as they used to, then we wouldn't be in the state we're in. Homosexuality used to be a capital crime in this country, and homos weren't parading in the streets. That was a law passed by the men who started this country, because they believed God knew what He was doing. It was later that men who believed they knew better than God who changed the law. And why did they think they knew better? Because instead of telling people who complained to pack up and leave, they let them dictate what the lawmakers did, and eventually we had a country full of people who think of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as a joke.
Jesus had the power to condemn the adulterer, but he chose to show mercy. Was he breaking God's law by not condemning here to death like the scribes and pharisees had? Don't you see with all of your "knowledge" of scripture you still lack understanding of it? You are the modern day scribes and pharisees IMO.
She could have fallen down dead, but He had no right to sentence her to stoning, because He was not a priest, or a judge. He would have been hauled off by the Romans, and executed before His appointed time.
He was not breaking the law, because He had no standing to enforce the law. He was a civilian.
What do you THINK it is about, and why do you think everyone else should agree with what you THINK it is about?
Because I'm the one saying it should be a capital crime, you moron! So when I tell you that I am talking about it as a crime, and not as a sin, for you to tell me I'm not, is accusing me of lying!
And not only that, but when Paul was saying that we are no longer under the law, He was saying that we are no longer under it as it pertains to righteousness. He made that clear when he said that Christ was the end of the law for righteousness.
For Christ
is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
-Romans 10:4
And did you notice he said that it was the end of righteousness to everyone who believes? What about the unbeliever?
But we know that the law
is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for
the lawless and insubordinate, for
the ungodly and for sinners, for
the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.
-1 Timothy 1:8-11
Repeatedly stating something makes it redundant, it does NOT make it true.
And lying about what I believe doesn't make your statement's true. It makes them lies.
I see insults spew forth from your tongue as fast as Mystery's. You defile yourself by speaking to others in such a manner.
Let's see: brood of vipers, whitewashed tombs, children of the devil, sons of Hell, etc. Those sound like insults to me. Do you think the person who said those things to other people was defiling himself by saying them?
