Should homosexuals be given the death penalty?

[Sozo]

Your saying this to someone who cannot use the "promiscuous" correctly?

Everyone but you knows that I used the term correctly!

Your pathetic attempts to follow me all over this board to chime in with your lies and blatant ignorance is getting old.

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/promiscuous.html

Definitions:

1. sexually indiscriminate: having many indiscriminate or casual sexual relationships


2. choosing without discriminating: choosing carelessly or without discrimination

3. confusedly mixed: mixed in an indiscriminate or disorderly way ( formal )

4. random: occurring without any set or specific pattern or time ( literary )
a sail caught by a promiscuous wind

[Early 17th century. < Latin promiscuus, literally "mixed forward" < miscere "to mix"]

 

[Sozo]

Nice try...

I suggest you take some time to examine the rest of the posts before you continue to make a fool of yourself.
I explained what I meant by that statement in a subsequent post when the same question was brought up.
Adultery is more then just about the particular 'sex' act itself or would you consider intercourse of some sort the deciding factor on whether or not someone cheated on a spouse and commited adultery against the relationship sanctioned by God. Perhaps it's best to start discussing and define what exactaly "adultery" is especially since it looks like we're about to start killing people for it.

After I obliterated your false ideas in post # 537, all you can come up with is your inability to define what adultery is? I was simply pointing out that you ignored the fact that it is one of the 10 commandments. Get a clue.

How about addressing the rest of the post that proves you both ignorant of civil obedience, and anything concerning the gospel..

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=950279&postcount=537

 

[shilohproject]

2. choosing without discriminating: choosing carelessly or without discrimination

You don't get to decide for the rest of the world what "discriminantly" means, Sozo. Simply saying that a person does not follow God's law, even if that statement is correct, does not mean that they are "indiscriminate" or "promiscuous" in their sexual life. Words mean nothing unless they communicate an idea. And your attempt to attatch your own petty notions to a word we all know is goofy and simply wrong. It's an attempt at the legalism which Jesus so condemned in the Pharasees.

I don't, however, expect you to learn anything from my comments. That's why I always stop to read and consider responding to your posts. Theyre like trowing hush puppies to my dogs!

 

[Sozo]

I don't, however, expect you to learn anything from my comments.

That's not true, I am absolutely certain that you are a blithering idiot.

You don't get to decide for the rest of the world what "discriminantly" means, Sozo.

I do when I use it in context of lesbians choosing to be indiscriminate in their choice of who they have sex with. God's standard is for females to marry and be intimate with males, not other females. To choose to ignore God's standard and indiscriminately have sex with another woman is being promiscious. It is choosing carelessly and without regard to God's standard.

 

[Lighthouse]

This is where we disagree. Forgiveness does not necessarily equal no punishment.
My nephew bit me the other day. I forgave him yet he was still given a timeout.

A timeout? You really taught him a lesson. I bet he never bites anyone ever again.

 

[Lighthouse]

Yes he has answered my questions of him, which is appreciated.

This question was for you. So sure feel free to continue tomorrow. I am looking forward to further explanation of those verses. I would like to try to understand what you meant by those
statements.

There is no furhter explanation of those verses.

Army of One has shown that homosexuality is still immoral and wrong, just like murder is. And the Mosaic law said murderers should get the death penalty. And they still should. So should active, unrepentant homosexuals.

 

[Lighthouse]

With the exception of "adultery," each of these rediculous extremes involves an element without choice. It's a clear picture of a speaker who simply will not be honest about the issue.

And they all also involve an element of choice, on the part of the rapist, murderer, molester and animal raper. And all those people deserve to die for what they've done. It is criminal behavior. And detrimental to so many people. Not just the immediate victims. Besatiality is the source of AIDS. And now we have people who were born with it.

And no one ever suggested that the victim committed a crime, or that they should be punished as if they did!:doh:

 

[Lighthouse]

Hello! Anything but married missionary is a lapse into the urges of the flesh.

No it isn't.

Unlees of course, when you say "urges of the flesh," you mean that it is human nature to desire sex. Then the missionary position is an urge of the flesh.

 

[Lighthouse]

Is there anyone who would disagree with the definition of adultery being "sexual acts with someone who is not your spouse?"

 

[shilohproject]

Is there anyone who would disagree with the definition of adultery being "sexual acts with someone who is not your spouse?"

That's not quite it. Adultry is the commission of a sexual act by a married person with someone who is not the spouse. Otherwise it's fornication. Not the same thing.

 

[Army of One]

That's not quite it. Adultry is the commission of a sexual act by a married person with someone who is not the spouse. Otherwise it's fornication. Not the same thing.

I suspect that Lighthouse simply forgot to include that qualifier. Thanks for the clarification though.

 

[Lighthouse]

That's not quite it. Adultry is the commission of a sexual act by a married person with someone who is not the spouse. Otherwise it's fornication. Not the same thing.

Are you a Christian? Didn't Jesus say that those who lust after someone have committed adultery? Did he say that they had to be married for that to be the case? No. So, wouldn't fornication between two unmarried people be adultery as well? I would say, "yes."

Even most, if not all, would say that if one of the people in the affair is not married while the other one is the unmarried person is committing adultery as well.

I didn't forget to add anything.

 

[TruthSeeker68]

Are you a Christian? Didn't Jesus say that those who lust after someone have committed adultery? Did he say that they had to be married for that to be the case? No. So, wouldn't fornication between two unmarried people be adultery as well? I would say, "yes."

Even most, if not all, would say that if one of the people in the affair is not married while the other one is the unmarried person is committing adultery as well.

I didn't forget to add anything.

It seems to me that there are 2 kinds of adultery: (1) adultery committed in one's heart; (2) adultery acted out. They are both sins beginning with (1) and ending with (2). If you criminalized adultery, you could only criminalize (i.e., as in "death penalty") the second one.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Are you a Christian? Didn't Jesus say that those who lust after someone have committed adultery? Did he say that they had to be married for that to be the case? No. So, wouldn't fornication between two unmarried people be adultery as well? I would say, "yes."

Even most, if not all, would say that if one of the people in the affair is not married while the other one is the unmarried person is committing adultery as well.

I didn't forget to add anything.

Stricktly speaking, shiloh is correct. If God had thought that adultry and fornication were entirely the same then He would not have given different punishments for the two crimes.

 

[Army of One]

Stricktly speaking, shiloh is correct. If God had thought that adultry and fornication were entirely the same then He would not have given different punishments for the two crimes.

:thumb:

 

[TruthSeeker68]

Should homosexuals be given the death penalty?

If so, why so? If not, why not?

I did not read all of the replies. So, if I am repeating anything, I apologize.

To me, having a homosexual orientation and "acting on it" are 2 different things. To those who believe that anything homosexual (whether orientation or behavior) is a sin or plain "out of whack" with God's design of creation, I don't think you could or should argue for the death penalty for the orientation because that is sort of like being born with a tendency and living with a temptation that you might give into occassionally by thinking thoughts in your heart but not acting on them. I am 100% that there are folks in this category.

NO, I do not believe that homosexuals (orientation or behavior) should get the death penalty. (NOTE: If it could be proven that a homosexual (or anyone for that matter), purposefully transmitted a fatal disease like AIDS to someone, then I think they should get the death penalty).

If the argument of "death penalty" comes from the Bible, then is it not basically based on the OT? I thought Christians are not to live under that Law. The Torah contains 613 rules (including the Ten Commandments). Jesus Christ advocated violating some of these in favor of putting people above rules (Example: Jesus declares ALL foods clean (Mark 7:18-19)). "Abominations" were connected with the breaking of several different rules (e.g. eating certain animals). Not sure if that resulted in the death penalty.

I know that Lev. 18:22 and 22:13 says that male homosexual behavior (NOT lesbian behavior) is an "abomination". Lev. 22:13 calls for the death penalty. However, as in ALL things, we must understand a command in context of everything else in Scripture that surrounds that command. I know that some professing Christians will accuse me of trying to justify sin. But hear me out....

In the NT are examples of 2 rules that I know many evangelical/fundamental Christians DO NOT follow because they cite historical things that put those rules in context:

1. Women being silent in the churches (1 Cor. 14:34-35)
2. Women not wearing head coverings when praying or prophesying (1 Cor. 11:15)

Why can't we apply the same approach to other commands such as the ones in Leveticus?

As stated in Scripture, the purpose of the Lev. rules were to prevent the Israelites from doing what the Canaanites did. That is why I believe EVERY PERMUTATION of every kind of sin is not listed, only the ones which were practiced. Furthermore, I believe that the what the Lev. passages is condemning is a particular "type" of homosexual behavior. According to Biblical historians, Canaanite religions included fertility rites with "sexual" rituals in which whole families would have sex with one another. Also included was sex with "temple prostitutes", and yes, HOMOSEXUAL sex. I believe this is what the commandment is addressing.

 

[firefighter]

Yes they should be executed, swiftly and painfully so. Every last one of them.

 

[Granite]

:yawn:

 

[Clete]

Are you a Christian? Didn't Jesus say that those who lust after someone have committed adultery? Did he say that they had to be married for that to be the case? No. So, wouldn't fornication between two unmarried people be adultery as well? I would say, "yes."

Even most, if not all, would say that if one of the people in the affair is not married while the other one is the unmarried person is committing adultery as well.

I didn't forget to add anything.

I have to disagree with you on this one Lighthouse. As some have already pointed out there is more than one aspect to adultery. The actual act is a crime, but not the lust which is a sin but not a crime. Jesus was not elevating lust to the level of a capital crime except perhaps on a spiritual level. He was pointing out that just because you haven't done anything super bad like adultery, if you have done something as simple as lust, you've blown it as far as God is concerned. He's contrasting two sins that are related to one another but that are on opposite sides of the spectrum as far as severity goes and thereby pointing out that even a small infraction is enough to separate you from a holy and flawlessly righteous God.

The proof of this is that a couple that had been caught in fornication weren't executed they were simply made to get married, so if fornication is not a capital crime, lust certainly cannot be.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[shilohproject]

I didn't forget to add anything.

Yes, I am a Christian, one who owns a dictionary. Two sixteen year old high school juniors getting after each other behing the gym are not committing adultery! The word requires a violation of one's marital vows.

Then again, were you one of the folks supporting Sozo's goofy definition of "promiscuous?" Some people thing they can just make works mean what ever they want!