Should homosexuals be given the death penalty?

[Christian Liberty]

No. They do not. Most people understand the difference between force and violence VS an activity that is consensual.

1st off, why should we?

2nd off, no they don't, because they completely ignore government violence and don't count it.

False.

True.

Some people do.

OK, that's fair, but Reformed covenental theology specifically rejects it, which is my point. In fact, we'd go further and say salvation was ALWAYS by grace alone through faith alone.

 

[OCTOBER23]

ALL SINNERS HAVE THE DEATH PENALTY ON THEM FOR TRANSGRESSING THE LAW OF GOD.

 

[Rusha]

1st off, why should we?

Freedom of religion equals freedom from having others IMPOSE their religion on others.

As far as why should we ... that's nothing I am obligated to explain being that the law already agrees with me.

IF you wish to change the laws, you need to come up with a valid reason that the majority will agree with. Not happening.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Freedom of religion equals freedom from having others IMPOSE their religion on others.

As far as why should we ... that's nothing I am obligated to explain being that the law already agrees with me.

IF you wish to change the laws, you need to come up with a valid reason that the majority will agree with. Not happening.

So basically you have no objective basis. OK. As a Christian mine is the Bible.

 

[Rusha]

So basically you have no objective basis. OK. As a Christian mine is the Bible.

Of course I do. It has to do with the right of individuals to live their life freely without interference. You do, of course, have the right to apply your religion and rules to yourself.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Of course I do. It has to do with the right of individuals to live their life freely without interference.

Where do you get that right from? Even ignoring the fact that you've rejected this right before. You have no basis to say anything is wrong, whether executions for homosexual contact or even executions for jaywalking. Without God you have no basis for anything.

The only question that's relevant to me is whether the Bible teaches that governments should execute those who openly practice such. If the answer is "yes", than it should be done whether you like it or not.

You do, of course, have the right to apply your religion and rules to yourself.

"rights" only make sense in a theocentric context. Government has a duty to execute God's Wrath on the wrongdoer. Of course, if you aren't a Christian, you aren't going to like this. And since theonomy is ground up, the majority of people would have to be converted before it would work. But, your opinion on this doesn't actually matter. WHat the Bible says does.

 

[Quincy]

Without God you have no basis for anything.

Why?

Would you if you didn't, or do people who don't believe in God, cease to exist?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Why?

You can't say that morals actually exist unless you have an objective basis behind said morals. Without God, I don't see how you can objectively even say that the Nazi Holocaust was wrong, let alone my position on homosexuality.

Would you if you didn't, or do people who don't believe in God, cease to exist?

I'm not sure I understand the question. God exists, so people who don't believe in him are still accountable to obey him and his word.

 

[Rusha]

Without God you have no basis for anything.

It's up to you to provide your proof to change the law. Good luck with that.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Without *proof* of God, you have no basis. The current laws seem to agree with me.

Yes, and the "current laws" of Nazi Germany supported the right to kill Jews. THe "current laws" of the US have created the largest prison population in the world. WHat's your point? Appealing to legal positivism is an illogical argument. Human beings do not define morality, and to claim that they do is illogical since every human and every society has his own standard.

I don't have to prove God's existance because Romans 1 claims that every single person without exception knows that God exists. That you choose to deny what you know to be true doesn't change the fact that God exists and that every institution in society, including civil government, should obey his Word. Secularism is a myth. You have a religious view based on moral relativism, legal positivism, and the denial of God's existance. You can't prove any of these things.


If the Bible is the absolute truth, than it is the standard for politics just as everything else (2 Timothy 3:16.) If it is not true, than it isn't. But you can't really allow for a middle ground where the Bible affects your "personal life" but there are some realms where it isn't authoritative. Some Christians try to do that but its ridiculous. Too many people have bought into the false myth of neutrality.

 

[Quincy]

You can't say that morals actually exist unless you have an objective basis behind said morals. Without God, I don't see how you can objectively even say that the Nazi Holocaust was wrong, let alone my position on homosexuality.

We don't need divine revelation or divine archetypes from any religion to establish moral principle and truth. I don't believe morals came from a vacuum, the morals we have are clearly from equal parts experiential knowledge, wisdom and reason in origin. Whatever creator, or creative processes exist, it stewarded us to developing these principles. The holocaust was wrong because it brought about the extermination of life and the suffering of individuals by standards detrimental to continued existence and civility. There are also innate human emotional reactions that have taught us no one wants that done to them. It's not just because the bible reports that God said "Thou shall not kill".

It's an incredibly far stretch to equate God as depicted in the bible to being the only possible foundation for moral standards.

I'm not sure I understand the question. God exists, so people who don't believe in him are still accountable to obey him and his word.

What I'm stating is, that belief in the Judeo-Christian God is not necessary to exist and have a peaceful, civil society. People today and throughout the ages have developed similar moral codes to Judeo-Christian ones. If you want people to accept your basis for the foundation of moral standards and invoke the word God, you have to prove the story of their advent depicted in the bible.

Can you prove that many cultures didn't come to exist civilly through morals developed from experience, wisdom and reason, especially the jewish tribe? I believe that is what they did, and then embellished it through mythopoetic thought.

In regards to homosexuality, I believe it was an abomination to them because it endangered survival of the tribe, by not having all possible members procreating. I'd love to see sound reason and proof of why that should be relevant today. Heck, homosexual behavior has been legal in Israel for decades and they stopped enforcing old laws a long time prior.

So why should any non-Christian accept your statement that they can't have moral standards to be true?

 

[Rusha]

Yes, and the "current laws" of Nazi Germany supported the right to kill Jews.

:chuckle: Is that really the best you can come up with? Also, did you forget that you are the person who believes it should be legal to utilize the death penalty for homosexuals? Now you are comparing how it was legal for the Nazi's to kill the Jews.

You may wish to rethink your strategy.

 

[TracerBullet]

You can't say that morals actually exist unless you have an objective basis behind said morals.

why not?

 

[Lighthouse]

True.

Maybe some form of hyper-dispensationalism believes such things, but every A9D I know believes the rest of the Bible contains applicable truth, and that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." [2 Timothy 3:16-17]

OK, that's fair, but Reformed covenental theology specifically rejects it, which is my point. In fact, we'd go further and say salvation was ALWAYS by grace alone through faith alone.

Has faith always been practiced separate from the law?

Freedom of religion equals freedom from having others IMPOSE their religion on others.

You still have yet [for years now] to show this standard to be a religious standard.

 

[Rusha]

You still have yet [for years now] to show this standard to be a religious standard.

Just because you don't accept that our country as well as most people consider Christianity a religion, doesn't mean it isn't.

Since the law agrees with me, it's up to you to prove otherwise.

Good luck with that.

 

[resodko]

traci inadvertently makes his case for pedophilia:

Sexual orientation refers to an individuals enduring pattern of emotional, romantic and/or sexual attractions to men, women or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors and membership in a community of others who share those attractions.

:nono:

 

[Christian Liberty]

:chuckle: Is that really the best you can come up with? Also, did you forget that you are the person who believes it should be legal to utilize the death penalty for homosexuals? Now you are comparing how it was legal for the Nazi's to kill the Jews.

You may wish to rethink your strategy.

What is your moral objection to any of this? The best you have is "our society says", but you and I both know that's terrible reasoning. American "society" currently allows the murder of the unborn to. Are you OK with that?

This isn't about the death penalty for homosexuality, fundamentally. Its very possible that that penalty would never be applied in practice. It would certainly be rare, considering the necessary conditions for its application. The real issue is the myth of religious neutrality. You have a moral code you can't prove that says I'm wrong. I have a moral code that is contained in the Bible that says all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Jesus Christ.

Maybe some form of hyper-dispensationalism believes such things, but every A9D I know believes the rest of the Bible contains applicable truth, and that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." [2 Timothy 3:16-17]

Hmmm... so why exactly are you dispensational then?

You still have yet [for years now] to show this standard to be a religious standard.

I actually agree with her. Its a religious standard. But so is every standard. I reject the ridiculous modern version of separation of church and state.

 

[Rusha]

What is your moral objection to any of this?

Freedom of and from religion. Liberty. You know that title you bear in your username but do not seem to understand.

 

[TracerBullet]

What is your moral objection to any of this? The best you have is "our society says", but you and I both know that's terrible reasoning.

the best you can say is that you have cherry picked a bible verse that says murder is really OK.

This isn't about the death penalty for homosexuality, fundamentally.

That is exactly what it is about. On the personal level it is about justifying the murder of people just because they belong to a minority. On the societal level it is about justifying genocide.

You brought up the Nazi's and the way hey murdered millions of Jews - either by killing them personally or standing by and saying this was God's will. You indicated that morally this was wrong. The Nazi's also butchered hundreds of thousands of homosexuals in their concentration camps. In essence the Nazi's were doing exactly what you are advocating here. So why was it "moral" for them to kill members of one minority but wrong to kill members of a different minority?

 

[resodko]

the best you can say is that you have cherry picked a bible verse that says murder is really OK.


That is exactly what it is about. On the personal level it is about justifying the murder of people just because they belong to a minority. On the societal level it is about justifying genocide.

You brought up the Nazi's and the way hey murdered millions of Jews - either by killing them personally or standing by and saying this was God's will. You indicated that morally this was wrong. The Nazi's also butchered hundreds of thousands of homosexuals in their concentration camps. In essence the Nazi's were doing exactly what you are advocating here. So why was it "moral" for them to kill members of one minority but wrong to kill members of a different minority?

the nazis also executed murderers and child molesters

should they have been spared?