Should homosexuals be given the death penalty?

[jsjohnnt]

well hey - thanks for taking the time to show us how it should be done

:think:




oh wait - you haven't bothered


never mind

You need someone to show you "how it should be done?" Try reading any of the New Testament scriptures, for starters. Nothing, absolutely nothing in the New Testament that even hints at killing homosexuals. Or you sure you're not a Muslim . . . . seriously7??

 

[Christian Liberty]

You can do all the scripture twisting you want, but the fact of the matter is that, under the New Covenant, there is not a word, not a hint, of a death penalty (in this life) for sin.

If this was not such a dangerous heresy, it would be funny. Instead, it is anything but.

Romans 13?

 

[Lighthouse]

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

I never said it wasn't a religion. You have failed to show that opposition to homosexuality is a religious issue. By that I mean you have failed to show that homosexuality isn't so perverse it is criminal.

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

Good luck with that.

Appeal to authority? Really? I thought you were smarter than that.

What the law states is not always correct. As evidenced by the fact the law states that it is OK to kill an innocent child.

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

Because I recognize that that which is specifically for Israel is not for us, and vice versa.

The law, insofar as that which was not solely for Israel, is for all.

 

[TracerBullet]

I never said it wasn't a religion. You have failed to show that opposition to homosexuality is a religious issue. By that I mean you have failed to show that homosexuality isn't so perverse it is criminal.

you just did that yourself

 

[Christian Liberty]

Because I recognize that that which is specifically for Israel is not for us, and vice versa.

The law, insofar as that which was not solely for Israel, is for all.

OK, I agree that the ceremonial law is for Israel alone. But, everyone agrees with that. Dispensationalists believe a bunch of other stuff that I don't agree with. I don't believe Israel is an actual divinely ordained (except in the normal predestinarian sense) institution today, rather the church is true Israel and true Israel is the church.

 

[Lighthouse]

you just did that yourself

Did what?

OK, I agree that the ceremonial law is for Israel alone. But, everyone agrees with that. Dispensationalists believe a bunch of other stuff that I don't agree with. I don't believe Israel is an actual divinely ordained (except in the normal predestinarian sense) institution today, rather the church is true Israel and true Israel is the church.

And your Scripture to support that?

 

[Rusha]

I never said it wasn't a religion. You have failed to show that opposition to homosexuality is a religious issue. By that I mean you have failed to show that homosexuality isn't so perverse it is criminal.

Considering the law disagrees with you, it's up to you to show evidence.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Did what?


And your Scripture to support that?

John 10:14-17

14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. 17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again.

One flock (the church), one shepherd (Jesus Christ.) Christ has one flock and one bride, the church. Dispensationalism teaches that there are two. This isn't Biblical.
Romans 9:6-13

6But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

It has nothing to do with being a biological child of Abraham, rather, being a child of the promise (that is, being divinely elected.) Calvinism and covenentalism are closely connected for a reason, and there's a reason why theonomy is a Calvinistic and Covenental doctrine.

Galatians 3:7 says that it is those who have faith who are sons of Abraham. Nothing to do with geneaology at all. Christ died for all, not every single individual, but all the nations.

17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root[c] of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. 19 Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. 23 And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.

Yet again, it is about FAITH. Gentiles who have faith are grafted in and Jews who don't believe are broken off. One olive tree, one church.

Plus, the Greek word in Acts 7 for "Israel" is ekklesia, the church.

 

[Lighthouse]

Considering the law disagrees with you, it's up to you to show evidence.

Maybe in a court of law if we were in the process of trying to change the law.

Where we are, though, is on an internet message board run by Christians who believe homosexual acts to be an abomination to God and a perversion of His design.

You have come here and disagreed. Thus the onus is on you to provide proof in order to change our minds.

Then there is also the fact that we have posted plenty of evidence to support our position over the years, and you have seen most of it, if not all.

John 10:14-17

That doesn't make us Israel.

One flock (the church), one shepherd (Jesus Christ.) Christ has one flock and one bride, the church. Dispensationalism teaches that there are two. This isn't Biblical.

Dispensationalism teaches no such thing. And the Bible does not teach anything regarding Christ having a bride. There are merely illustrations relating relationships.

Romans 9:6-13

That is about Israel being rejected for their denial of Jesus as Messiah.

It has nothing to do with being a biological child of Abraham, rather, being a child of the promise (that is, being divinely elected.) Calvinism and covenentalism are closely connected for a reason, and there's a reason why theonomy is a Calvinistic and Covenental doctrine.

Being children of the promise doesn't make us Israel.

The Body of Christ is not Israel, but all who are in the Body are one and there is no Jew or Gentile in the Body.

Galatians 3:7 says that it is those who have faith who are sons of Abraham. Nothing to do with geneaology at all. Christ died for all, not every single individual, but all the nations.

And being a son of Abraham does not make us Israel. Abraham had many sons and only the seed of his grandson Jacob became Israel. The descendants of Isaac other than Jacob did not. And the descendants of Ishmael certainly did not.

Yet again, it is about FAITH. Gentiles who have faith are grafted in and Jews who don't believe are broken off. One olive tree, one church.

Grafted into what? Christ? Certainly! Israel? No.

Plus, the Greek word in Acts 7 for "Israel" is ekklesia, the church.

What translation reads "Israel" in Acts 7:38?

Because all instances of "Israel" I found in Acts 7 NKJV/ KJV/ NASB/ HCS are all "Ἰσραήλ."

 

[jsjohnnt]

Romans 13?

Excellent. Thanks for the reminder. So, let these clowns go out and start with their purge, all the wannabe tough guys who preach hate, on this thread. Let's see what happens. BTW, I do not support "gayness" but it is the law of the land, and we all have to live with it. This thread should have been "history" long ago, and, I have to believe, that most who come to this pathetic discussion, agree. Heresy, pure and simple.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Excellent. Thanks for the reminder. So, let these clowns go out and start with their purge, all the wannabe tough guys who preach hate, on this thread. Let's see what happens. BTW, I do not support "gayness" but it is the law of the land, and we all have to live with it. This thread should have been "history" long ago, and, I have to believe, that most who come to this pathetic discussion, agree. Heresy, pure and simple.

I think I'm the only legit theonomist on this board (most here who would claim to be such aren't Calvinistic or covenental). I do not necessarily endorse everything other people have said here.

What I'm advocating isn't a "purge." I'm only advocating enforcing such a law when there were multiple witnesses to an act, which won't happen often.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Maybe in a court of law if we were in the process of trying to change the law.

Where we are, though, is on an internet message board run by Christians who believe homosexual acts to be an abomination to God and a perversion of His design.

You have come here and disagreed. Thus the onus is on you to provide proof in order to change our minds.

Then there is also the fact that we have posted plenty of evidence to support our position over the years, and you have seen most of it, if not all.

Agreed.

That doesn't make us Israel.


Dispensationalism teaches no such thing. And the Bible does not teach anything regarding Christ having a bride. There are merely illustrations relating relationships.


That is about Israel being rejected for their denial of Jesus as Messiah.


Being children of the promise doesn't make us Israel.

The Body of Christ is not Israel, but all who are in the Body are one and there is no Jew or Gentile in the Body.


And being a son of Abraham does not make us Israel. Abraham had many sons and only the seed of his grandson Jacob became Israel. The descendants of Isaac other than Jacob did not. And the descendants of Ishmael certainly did not.


Grafted into what? Christ? Certainly! Israel? No.


What translation reads "Israel" in Acts 7:38?

Because all instances of "Israel" I found in Acts 7 NKJV/ KJV/ NASB/ HCS are all "Ἰσραήλ."

OK, I just disagree with you on all this. Not sure how to argue it further if you are convinced of your stance.

 

[Rusha]

Maybe in a court of law if we were in the process of trying to change the law.

Where we are, though, is on an internet message board run by Christians who believe homosexual acts to be an abomination to God and a perversion of His design.

You have come here and disagreed. Thus the onus is on you to provide proof in order to change our minds.

It doesn't matter if your mind is changed. The laws are what they are. I can't ... nor do I *have to* change your mind. Did you miss the part where this is a DISCUSSION board with a poll asking members their opinion? I am sorry that agreeing with you is your criteria for debate.

 

[TracerBullet]

Maybe in a court of law if we were in the process of trying to change the law.

Where we are, though, is on an internet message board run by Christians who believe homosexual acts to be an abomination to God and a perversion of His design.

You have come here and disagreed. Thus the onus is on you to provide proof in order to change our minds.

to do that you would have to actually look at evidence presented.

 

[Lighthouse]

Excellent. Thanks for the reminder. So, let these clowns go out and start with their purge, all the wannabe tough guys who preach hate, on this thread. Let's see what happens.

You do understand that the people in this poll who voted "yes," such as myself, do not support the idea of a purge type event to rid the world of any [not just homosexuals] who deserve the death penalty, don't you?

Let me ask you a question: Do child molesters deserve the death penalty?

And, no, I am not saying homosexuals are child molesters. I am simply using the most extreme example of perverts/criminals who most think deserve the death penalty if anyone deserves it who don't actually get the death penalty.

BTW, I do not support "gayness" but it is the law of the land, and we all have to live with it. This thread should have been "history" long ago, and, I have to believe, that most who come to this pathetic discussion, agree. Heresy, pure and simple.

So your stance is legal positivism? "It's the law, so we have to live with it; we can't oppose it or change it at all"? That's weak and simple minded.

OK, I just disagree with you on all this. Not sure how to argue it further if you are convinced of your stance.

Can you find the phrase "Bride of Christ" anywhere in the Bible? Or something related that might support your position?

And can you at least answer the question regarding Acts 7?

Also, I know you don't disagree with me on every detail of what I posted in that segment.

It doesn't matter if your mind is changed. The laws are what they are. I can't ... nor do I *have to* change your mind. Did you miss the part where this is a DISCUSSION board with a poll asking members their opinion? I am sorry that agreeing with you is your criteria for debate.

It is also a place for debate, which has the purpose of changing minds. I am a prime example of one whose mind has changed as a result of discussion on this board, either directly or indirectly. Including on this very subject. Although, to be fair, I already believed homosexuality to be a sin and a perversion... and an abomination as it is called in the Bible.

to do that you would have to actually look at evidence presented.

Who needs to look at the evidence?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Can you find the phrase "Bride of Christ" anywhere in the Bible? Or something related that might support your position?

Revelation 19:7-10

Ephesians 5:25-27

And can you at least answer the question regarding Acts 7?

I wish I knew, but I don't. That fact is something I've heard second hand.

Also, I know you don't disagree with me on every detail of what I posted in that segment.

Probably not.

 

[Lighthouse]

Revelation 19:7-10

Ephesians 5:25-27

Illustrations of comparison.

And Revelation was written by John, one of the 12 apostles to the twelve tribes of Israel. Revelation 21:12

I wish I knew, but I don't. That fact is something I've heard second hand.

Well, I showed it to be false, so there goes that argument...

Probably not.

Definitely not.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Illustrations of comparison.

And Revelation was written by John, one of the 12 apostles to the twelve tribes of Israel. Revelation 21:12

Yeah, you are forcing your stupid and heretical hermaneutic. Good day.

 

[Lighthouse]

Yeah, you are forcing your stupid and heretical hermaneutic. Good day.

Prove me wrong.