Executing homosexuals

[Balerion the Black]

Pick any capitol crime. When God prescribed the death penalty for that crime did He do that because he wanted people to die, or because He wanted people not to commit acts worthy of death?

He really didn't want people to do those things, we get the idea. But if he told them that the punishment for certain acts was death, he would have to have figured that people actually would take it to mean that those people should in fact die. (Although it was in fact understood that the death penalty was pretty much unenforceable as the standards for actually being allowed to put someone to death were so high as to be virtually unattainable. It should be noted that for all of George W. Bush professing to be a Bible-believing Christian he had no problems signing death warrants even in cases where the defendant was convicted by the testimony of a single witness, when the Bible expressly forbids the carrying out of a death sentence under such circumstances).

I would say that more than likely God simply told people, don't do this thing, don't do that other thing, and so on, and somewhere along the line someone who was just a bit overzealous decided that if God told people not to do certain things, if someone did those things than they were directly defying God and therefore deserved to die for it. (Whatever part of the Bible may have been "divinely inspired", it was invariably edited numerous times along the way by unscrupulous individuals seeking to advance their own political or social agendas).

Good way of putting an initial vibe. These however, are not definitive. There are good reasons for OT happenings if one isn't just looking for excuses to continue rejection. I will assert against your initial observation that God is good, even in the OT. Such needs discussion, but only if one isn't looking for excuses to believe otherwise. There are good reasons why the OT is the way it is.

And equally good reasons why the laws of the OT should not be applied today. One good example is the law that states that a rapist must marry his victim. A victim of rape was considered 'defiled' and her prospects for marriage after that were virtually nil, so it was decided that the one who went and defiled her would be required to provide for her after that. Their cultural values were rather uncivilized by today's standards (and if you think that the Israelites were uncivilized, their neighbors were absolutely barbaric.) These days not being a virgin hardly affects a woman's marriage prospects any, and more importantly women are quite capable of providing for themselves, so there is no reason to ever apply such an outdated rule (especially when rapists rightfully belong in prison.)

The eating of pork - it was due entirely to health reasons, as especially back then there was a good risk of getting sick from it, especially if the meat wasn't cooked enough.

And so on.

Warnings and bannings. You seem intelligent enough to use better terms and descriptors without offering purposeful offense. You can prove me and all of TOL wrong and continue the mundane, low-brow, and offensive if you like but I thought I'd be friendly about it and see if honey works better than vinegar.

I didn't think it was that vulgar. I figured that a certain word that rhymed with the word I used but started with a 'd' (that also happens to be - quite appropriately I might add - the first name of a certain ex-Vice President) would be considered profanity. (Perhaps "Cheney" would be a more acceptable word to use. Or how about "Nixon" instead?)

What is quite vulgar, on the other hand, is the view spouted by Lighthouse and genuineoriginal that homosexuals ought to be put to death.

 

[Balerion the Black]

And then demonstrate how we are unlike Christ.

That is very, very easy: Christ never said one single word about homosexuality, nor did he ever call for anyone's execution.

That's the way I feel about murder. Why would I feel any different about any other act I believe should be a capital crime?

Your moral values are barbaric. Spouting scripture does not make them any less so.

 

[Arthur Brain]

So you admit that you can't explain it. As expected.

When your only argument is "It's obvious," then you have no argument.

I admit no such thing. Only a sadist or a bonafide moron would fail to recognize that inflicting torturous cruelty upon a helpless animal would be barbaric. Funnily enough this is the question I asked you which you shied away from answering with your usual transparent deflection - as expected - even though you were the one to huff and puff away only to say that some things like this ARE obvious! :doh:

That doesn't change anything. Barbaric is barbaric, regardless of the circumstances of surrounding society.

This is the reason you are a waste of time.

Garbage. If you were living in a commune where average life expectancy was thirty five then it's hardly surprising that the social niceties and comforts we have now wouldn't apply to the same. For practical and survival purposes it would make pragmatic sense for females to conceive earlier for that community to live on. It would be barbaric in the present because there is simply no call for it and we're a far cry from living in such dark and harsher times. If you can't see the difference then you are ignorant beyond words.

Fool.

Liar. If you can't produce support for what you're accusing me of and persist with it then that is exactly what you are. Either quote me or man up and retract.

Really?

It may have been in another thread, and I misspoke in making it seem as though I gave it directly to you.

Here

Well, kudos for acknowledging you gave me no direct link at least. I fail to see what this link is supposed to be giving me apart from another poster's 'viewpoints' so just what exactly am I supposed to be gleaning from it?

I'm waiting for your evidence...

But all the evidence on you suggests it won't be forthcoming.

Oh hey. You've never been called the 'grammar police' on here at all then LH. Nobody has ever gotten tired of your highlighted corrections to all and sundry then. I must just have imagined it all...

Hearsay is not probable cause.

And you still haven't shown how surveillance would increase. You just keep claiming it would, without showing how.

Hearsay in itself isn't, but when added to other things it adds 'fuel to a fire'. Considering how surveillance has constantly increased through the years (CCTV, internet) it would be bizarre to think it wouldn't go further. You seriously argue against that?

Care how to show I misread anything?

Done already. You assumed I was commenting on your own opinion as regards a public vote when I was simply stating my own position on the matter within my own post. You were wrong. Could care less if you don't accept that. Makes no difference, you'd still be wrong.

What do I have to feel bad about? I'm not the one supporting my argument with conjecture.

Well neither am I but this part was about your supposedly 'smart aleck' remark which just wasn't. If you'd had a sarky quip or something then maybe but you just went on about how you weren't an actual genius and had a fairly average IQ, so what was so smart about that? I didn't think you were remotely a genius with my initial remark anyway. :idunno:

:yawn:

Touche!

No it wasn't.

Well, yes it was...

Yeah, I'm done.

Oh, okay then.

:wave2:

 

[Balerion the Black]

Garbage. If you were living in a commune where average life expectancy was thirty five then it's hardly surprising that the social niceties and comforts we have now wouldn't apply to the same. For practical and survival purposes it would make pragmatic sense for females to conceive earlier for that community to live on. It would be barbaric in the present because there is simply no call for it and we're a far cry from living in such dark and harsher times. If you can't see the difference then you are ignorant beyond words.

The average life expectancy was depressed due to a high rate of infant mortality. If one survived to adulthood they had a pretty good chance of making it to at least 60 or even 70 or longer. For a woman, as long as she didn't die in childbirth she stood a good chance of surviving past the point where she would be able to conceive and bear any more children.

However, they did have to have lots of children so that hopefully some of them would survive to adulthood (which meant starting early so as to have as many as possible. If a woman waited until she was 25 to have her first child then she would have wasted ten of her most fertile years).

Once one is able to reproduce, then physiologically they are an adult. However a 14 or 15 year old will generally not have the mental or emotional maturity to be able to make responsible adult decisions, which is why today anyone under the age of 18 is considered to be a minor and legally still a child.

 

[Arthur Brain]

The average life expectancy was depressed due to a high rate of infant mortality. If one survived to adulthood they had a pretty good chance of making it to at least 60 or even 70 or longer. For a woman, as long as she didn't die in childbirth she stood a good chance of surviving past the point where she would be able to conceive and bear any more children.

However, they did have to have lots of children so that hopefully some of them would survive to adulthood (which meant starting early so as to have as many as possible. If a woman waited until she was 25 to have her first child then she would have wasted ten of her most fertile years).

Once one is able to reproduce, then physiologically they are an adult. However a 14 or 15 year old will generally not have the mental or emotional maturity to be able to make responsible adult decisions, which is why today anyone under the age of 18 is considered to be a minor and legally still a child.

Oh, for sure. I didn't mean to suggest that there weren't a number who reached middle to old age - but rather that in the conditions at the time it was more of an exception as opposed to what we have now, where life expectancy on average (if you discount abortions at any rate) has exponentially increased on the scale.

Where it comes to physiological development then girls as young as 12 or younger have given birth but they're not even fully physically developed at such an age to safely carry through to conception.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Exactly where I started and continue to be ...

You started more left than right.
:ha:

 

[genuineoriginal]

I'm so sick of that lame disassociation ... Sure, you want homosexuals to repent. fine. And if they don't, you want them executed. You can't have it both ways. If you want homosexuals to be executed, you want them executed. You can't say you say you want them executed and then say you don't want them executed. I want criminals to go to prison. My saying that I wish they wouldn't be criminals doesn't change that. If they're not criminals, I don't want them to go to prison. If they are, I do want them to go to prison. You don't want people to be homosexuals. If they are, you want them executed. Get a backbone and stand behind what you're calling for.

See, that is the difference between you and me.
I don't WANT anyone to be punished for the evil they do.
I merely accept that there is no way to maintain a civilized society without punishing the people destroying it for their own selfish desires.

You, however, have a desire to see evil happen to the wicked.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Pick any capitol crime. When God prescribed the death penalty for that crime did He do that because he wanted people to die, or because He wanted people not to commit acts worthy of death?

:thumb:

 

[genuineoriginal]

Look, all I was saying is I'm sick of hearing the "but I don't want homosexuals to be executed, I want them to repent, but if they don't repent they should be executed, but I don't want them executed, I want them to repent, but if they are homosexuals, they should be executed, but... " argument. I've heard it so many times over the years. You've given that argument to me yourself, Delmar (even though here you seem to be saying differently). If someone advocates that homosexuals are executed, they want homosexuals executed.

You should look forward to hearing the exact same thing over and over again from Christians for the rest of your natural life.
Christians read the Bible, and can read that God does not want anyone to die, but wants everyone to repent.
It is no wonder that Christians follow after Him and want people to repent so they will not be put to death, but also acknowledge that some sins are so disruptive to a stable society that the only way to preserve the society is to impose the harshest penalty on those sins.

 

[Rusha]

You started more left than right.
:ha:

Indeed ... unlike you, we *lefties* actually insist that if someone is criminally punished that actual criminal acts are committed.

 

[genuineoriginal]

How? Explain.

Crimes against humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, "are particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of human beings." They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority.​

The crime against nature or unnatural act has been a legal term in English-speaking states for forms of sexual behavior not considered natural and seen as punishable offenses. Sexual practices that have historically been considered by some to be "crimes against nature" include anal sex and bestiality.​

 

[Arthur Brain]

See, that is the difference between you and me.
I don't WANT anyone to be punished for the evil they do.
I merely accept that there is no way to maintain a civilized society without punishing the people destroying it for their own selfish desires.

You, however, have a desire to see evil happen to the wicked.

Oh please. I think you know fine well that where it comes to what zoo is referring to it's those who commit violent crimes and violate others be it physically, abusively or theft etc, and applicably so to protect the public. (Zoo, correct me if I'm wrong on any of this)

You support people being put to death for consensual sexual behaviour if they don't "fall into line". So just man up and admit it.

Couching it in terms of "I merely accept" is just downright lame.

lain:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Crimes against humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, "are particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of human beings." They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority.​

The crime against nature or unnatural act has been a legal term in English-speaking states for forms of sexual behavior not considered natural and seen as punishable offenses. Sexual practices that have historically been considered by some to be "crimes against nature" include anal sex and bestiality.​

Well, plenty mammals and heterosexuals indulge in the secondary latter so what say you about that? Should the heteros get the hangman's noose for such as well?

 

[Arthur Brain]

You should look forward to hearing the exact same thing over and over again from Christians for the rest of your natural life.
Christians read the Bible, and can read that God does not want anyone to die, but wants everyone to repent.
It is no wonder that Christians follow after Him and want people to repent so they will not be put to death, but also acknowledge that some sins are so disruptive to a stable society that the only way to preserve the society is to impose the harshest penalty on those sins.

Most Christians won't be endorsing the same as you so why on earth should he expect that?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Indeed ... unlike you, we *lefties* actually insist that if someone is criminally punished that actual criminal acts are committed.

:rotfl:
"Lefties" are well known for killing the innocent and allowing the guilty to live.
I know you only support the latter.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Oh please. I think you know fine well that where it comes to what zoo is referring to it's those who commit violent crimes and violate others be it physically, abusively or theft etc, and applicably so to protect the public. (Zoo, correct me if I'm wrong on any of this)

You support people being put to death for consensual sexual behaviour if they don't "fall into line". So just man up and admit it.

Couching it in terms of "I merely accept" is just downright lame.

lain:

I see no reason to lie just because you are unable to understand simple truth.

I know that sexual perversion destroys society just as quickly as murder and theft.

You are blind if you think it is harmless.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Most Christians won't be endorsing the same as you so why on earth should he expect that?

Well, you are right.
Before Jesus returns there will be a great falling away.
It will only be a remnant that will stand for what God's Word says.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I see no reason to lie just because you are unable to understand simple truth.

I know that sexual perversion destroys society just as quickly as murder and theft.

You are blind if you think it is harmless.

Oh what, you mean the same 'simple truth' that Jewish children were killed in the death camps as a 'punishment' type of thing?

lain:

Heck, if you had your way where it comes to 'sexual perversion' there'd be a whole swathe of society wiped out - gay or straight.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Well, you are right.
Before Jesus returns there will be a great falling away.
It will only be a remnant that will stand for what God's Word says.

When you actually exhibit something resembling empathy and compassion you might just be part of this apparent 'remnant' you speak of?

Zealous legalists don't seem to get a good showing...

 

[Balerion the Black]

Well, you are right.
Before Jesus returns there will be a great falling away.
It will only be a remnant that will stand for what God's Word says.

Because of course the only True Christian (TM) is one whose views are in complete lock-step with your own, right?

If there was a Devil, and his goal was to visit as much misery and suffering on humanity as possible, he would most certainly be working through people like you. I am sure such an entity would be absolutely delighted in seeing countless innocents executed for something that only a truly deranged mind could see as deserving of the death penalty.