Should homosexuals be given the death penalty?

[red77]

If that one single set of verses in the bible completely repeals every other verse in the bible, before and after, that clearly affirms the death penalty for these crimes then what, pray tell, should the penalty be? The bible gives no other penalty but death! Anywhere!
By all means, explain how if this penalty has been repealed that any punishment at all is just.

Ya, what should the penalty be for plenty of other stuff in the OT that is conveniently overlooked now? There seeems to be plenty of picking and choosing in that regard! I would darn well focus on those in society who are violating other people than those who are minding their own sexual business,
I'm off to eat some shrimp...

 

[MaryContrary]

Ya, what should the penalty be for plenty of other stuff in the OT that is conveniently overlooked now? There seeems to be plenty of picking and choosing in that regard! I would darn well focus on those in society who are violating other people than those who are minding their own sexual business,
I'm off to eat some shrimp...

I don't see anything about a new punishment in there. So. Strawman you said?

 

[red77]

I don't see anything about a new punishment in there. So. Strawman you said?

So just how much of mosaic law applied to then and today exactly? Please do tell me just precisely what was symbolic and doesn't apply today - and why.....
It's funny how certain less contentious laws don't provoke the same legalistic self righteousness as ones where folk can condemn others for sexual immorality......

 

[MaryContrary]

It's funny how certain less contentious laws don't provoke the same legalistic self righteousness as ones where folk can condemn others for sexual immorality......

I agree completely.

 

[johana]

I agree completely.

So then should kids be given the death penalty when they disrespect their parents?

 

[red77]

I agree completely.

Uh, yeah.....thanks for completely evading my post Mary

 

[Delmar]

I never said that people who commit those things should be free from any punishments, but punishments of death are no longer acceptable, as Christ showed us when he said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" when people tried to execute a woman who committed adultery as the laws of Leviticus stated.

They were not really trying to execute that woman! Why would they need Jesus for that?

 

[Delmar]

I'm not saying that imprisionment is wrong, I'm saying that killing someone for their crimes (as was the law in Leviticus) is no longer demanded by God.

Does God have the authority to commute the sentence of one guilty person without changing the law?
Was the death penalty immediately overturned when God did not have King David executed for killing Bathsheba's husband?
After Jesus wrote on the ground, there were no wittinesses who stuck around to testify is that correct? According to the "law in Leviticus" could a woman be condemned for adultery if there were no wittiness to testify against her?
Jesus did not overturn the Law! He out smarted these tricksters by following every jot and title of the Law!

 

[red77]

MaryContrary,

So just how much of mosaic law applied to then and today exactly? Please do tell me just precisely what was symbolic and doesn't apply today - and why.....

 

[MaryContrary]

MaryContrary,

So just how much of mosaic law applied to then and today exactly? Please do tell me just precisely what was symbolic and doesn't apply today - and why.....

Why?

 

[red77]

Why?

I would have thought that was obvious! If you're so sure that the law for the execution of homosexuals was never repealed and didn't soley apply to OT times then you should be equally as sure in your symbolic and literal interpretations of all the other laws! Is that not fair comment? Which is why I ask you to explain which laws apply now and which ones don't....

 

[MaryContrary]

I would have thought that was obvious! If you're so sure that the law for the execution of homosexuals was never repealed and didn't soley apply to OT times then you should be equally as sure in your symbolic and literal interpretations of all the other laws! Is that not fair comment? Which is why I ask you to explain which laws apply now and which ones don't....

This already hasn't been addressed? Many times over?

 

[red77]

This already hasn't been addressed? Many times over?

Never to the point where it's been fully resolved no, besides, I was asking you, surely you have an answer to this? Otherwise why are you so adamant that active homosexuals should be executed? :idunno:

 

[MaryContrary]

Never to the point where it's been fully resolved no, besides, I was asking you, surely you have an answer to this? Otherwise why are you so adamant that active homosexuals should be executed? :idunno:

So if you believe I've already considered this and that you've already reviewed the argument and disagree with it, then why are you demanding I present it to you again?
:think:

 

[red77]

So if you believe I've already considered this and that you've already reviewed the argument and disagree with it, then why are you demanding I present it to you again?
:think:

Because I've not seen why you believe that you know just why certain laws are symbolic and why some are still applicable to present times, have you actually posted just what laws are which and why already? If so please point out where and I'll look at it as I've not seen it in all honesty, otherwise I'm not asking you to present anything again as you haven't done so start with, I'm merely asking you to tell me why you are sure enough to advocate the execution of active homosexuals

:think:

 

[MaryContrary]

Because I've not seen why you believe that you know just why certain laws are symbolic and why some are still applicable to present times, have you actually posted just what laws are which and why already? If so please point out where and I'll look at it as I've not seen it in all honesty, otherwise I'm not asking you to present anything again as you haven't done so start with, I'm merely asking you to tell me why you are sure enough to advocate the execution of active homosexuals
:think:

No. Because I'm just about sick of defending my position on this issue over and over just because you disagree with it while you utter refuse to defend yours. I think it's your turn to defend your position.
If your argument is that the dividing of symbolic, moral and ceremonial law is off base then say that and explain it in detail as you would have of me. Then we can debate that.
If you continue to insist I restate my position over and over in every conceivable way you can imagine in order to provide you different directions to attack then it's time for you to extend to me the same courtesy. If you refuse then I'll finally have to admit you have no interest in the truth whatsoever, put you on my ignore list and keep on truckin'.

 

[red77]

No. Because I'm just about sick of defending my position on this issue over and over just because you disagree with it while you utter refuse to defend yours. I think it's your turn to defend your position.
If your argument is that the dividing of symbolic, moral and ceremonial law is off base then say that and explain it in detail as you would have of me. Then we can debate that.
If you continue to insist I restate my position over and over in every conceivable way you can imagine in order to provide you different directions to attack then it's time for you to extend to me the same courtesy. If you refuse then I'll finally have to admit you have no interest in the truth whatsoever, put you on my ignore list and keep on truckin'.

All you've been asked to do is explain just why you are so adamant that active homosexual people should be put to death, YOU hold this as a firm position correct? In which case you should know EXACTLY what laws are currently applicable in order to advocate the deaths of these people! Put me on your ignore list as you will but I am not the one who is insisting that people should be put to death without due consideration of what laws apply, you are and you are obfuscating.......

 

[MaryContrary]

you are obfuscating.......

In case you haven't noticed I've been employing your tactic for the last few posts. Glad to see your recognize it.

 

[red77]

In case you haven't noticed I've been employing your tactic for the last few posts. Glad to see your recognize it.

No, you've been called to answer something directly and have made any number of reasons to avoid doing so, if you can't answer as to why you are so SURE that active homosexuals should be executed then it's really something you have to address to yourself if you can't answer what should have been a pretty straightforward question, you are talking about peoples lives here......
As it is I'm not aware of having obfuscated to you and have just bumped the thread where you asked me to supply proof that our justice systems are woefully inadequate, I hope you do the coutresy of addressing the links provided......

 

[MaryContrary]

No, you've been called to answer something directly and have made any number of reasons to avoid doing so, if you can't answer as to why you are so SURE that active homosexuals should be executed then it's really something you have to address to yourself if you can't answer what should have been a pretty straightforward question, you are talking about peoples lives here......
As it is I'm not aware of having obfuscated to you and have just bumped the thread where you asked me to supply proof that our justice systems are woefully inadequate, I hope you do the coutresy of addressing the links provided......

You have got to be joking. I checked that thread. How many pages of material do you estimate you're insisting I review here?
Why don't do me the courtesy of simply providing a rough percentage of those convicted of capitol crimes unjustly that you feel is relatively accurate? In fact, I don't think you'll have to guess. I'm sure that number's out there. Go fetch it and bring it back.
As far as your attempt to sidetrack into yet another point of debate, why don't you just lay out why you feel the laws on sexual immorality don't apply? I personally think it's because you can't. You intend, rather, to niggle and rant over every tangential point you can in order to avoid defending your position. Again.

Edit: Red77, I bowed to pressure from you once to provide data just a couple pages back. You insisted it was essential so I took considerable personal time and spent it on that effort and you completely ignored all of it. Why then should I do this again? I honestly don't think you care about the truth here. I truly believe you've given me cause to think you're just here to :blabla: