Should homosexuals be given the death penalty?

[Jadespring]

Where in the world did you get that? Of course not everything that is immoral is deserving of execution. I was merely pointing out that homosexuality is a moral issue.

And this topic is about homosexuals and the death penalty. The argument proceeded to the question of what laws of the OT were kept and what weren't in this context. I apologize if I assumed that by lumping homosexuality into the "stay criminalized" category that you for supporting the death penalty for this particular moral issue.

If you do indeed believe that this particular moral issue is indeed equated with death then again my question would be, why this "moral" issue and not other.

So, I can't be correct in my position until everyone else agrees with me? Well, my list never included those things. And my point was, no one argues against murder and rape being a crime on the basis that it is included among symbolic crimes in the Bible, so why would you use that tactic against the criminalization of homosexuality?

It's about the death penalty. Perhaps you are correct. My point is that it is not as cut and dry as the laws against killing. If you believe this then you are not reading your scripture properly and kidding yourself.
And why the tactic? Because murder and rape are in other places besides just the prohibitions against penetrative sex, shrimp and mensturating women. (refering to OT) Thus its criminal nature-at the same level as murder and rape is more questionable. I have no doubt that you personally feel that it is at this level, that it makes you feel ill and icky etc etc. Doesn't make it so though.

So are you against the punishment of all crime, since "if God has a problem with it, He'll deal with it."? Obviously not. Yet you apply that logic to the act of homosexuality.:think:

Nope I' m not against punishment for crime.
What I' m against is selective punishment for selective crime based on bias and predjudice. Homosexualty is not a crime anywhere near the same level as murder. That's my point.

You're right. I'm in complete support of re-criminalizing adultery. Yes, I do know a few. Yet, I wouldn't compromise what I'm convinced is just, out of an emotional attachment to those I know. In fact, it is that emotional attachment that motivates me to advocate an appropriate sentence for such a crime. Because, if such a penalty existed, I'm confident that my friends and family members that have committed adultery, wouldn't have out of fear for the consequences.

And if they did? You would have no problem killing them like God said? Are you sure that this is what God wants? Are you absolutely 100% beyond a doubt sure that Jesus would kill them? Could you actually pull the trigger? What if you found out that your best friend or sibling was gay? Could you personally kill them too? Is this truely the love that your God wants?

 

[Jadespring]

*ahem* One of the "big Ten" is a sex act (hint: it's the one that says "Thou shalt not commit adultery").

Adultery is more then just sex.
It's a compromise of a relationship, beyond just a flesh act.
You can commit adultary in numerous ways. It's a big picture faux pax.

The OT "Homo" law in Leviticus refers to a particular sex act, a technical description of a particular action of penetration. That's my point Leviticus does not refer to the broad issue at all. Over the years the Hebrew has been translated to match our ,modern concept of what we figure they must have been refering too. It would be easy enough for a homosexual to be with a man and never circumvent this particular law.

In my mind it's not smart to kill somebody by right of out modern 'figuring". The mistake might be eternal...

 

[Jadespring]

Love does not equal imprisonment either! Forgiveness? You don't advocate forgiveness of criminals, just a different form of punishment! How is putting someone in jail (or whatever you're preferred method of punishment is) considered "forgiving"? Do you hate people that much, that you would lock them away in some cell?

Yes, I do advocate forgiveness of criminals just as Jesus and God does. God forgives or did you miss that part. Doesn't mean that when you forgive you let them get away with it or deem what they did any less horrible. Doesn't mean that you forgive and all skip lightly through meadows either. I believe people should be punished and make amends for their crimes, definately.

Okay so let me get this. I hate because I won't kill people for having the wrong sort of sex? ) And you love because you kill.. :blink:
Cause that's really what you seem to be saying here.
Wow...and they say the left is looney tunes.

 

[Army of One]

Yes, I do advocate forgiveness of criminals just as Jesus and God does. God forgives or did you miss that part. Doesn't mean that when you forgive you let them get away with it or deem what they did any less horrible. Doesn't mean that you forgive and all skip lightly through meadows either. I believe people should be punished and make amends for their crimes, definately.

My point is, you are not being any more forgiving than I am, just because you support a different form of punishment. You would still punish the offender, and therefore you have not truly forgiven them.

Okay so let me get this. I hate because I won't kill people for having the wrong sort of sex? ) And you love because you kill.. :blink:
Cause that's really what you seem to be saying here.
Wow...and they say the left is looney tunes.

I was being sarcastic (I know tone in not communicated well in this type of exchange), and illustrating that the very things that you are accusing me of (being unforgiving, and unloving), would equally apply to someone like yourself who is merely advocating a different form of punishment.

 

[Jadespring]

My point is, you are not being any more forgiving than I am, just because you support a different form of punishment. You would still punish the offender, and therefore you have not truly forgiven them.

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.

I was being sarcastic (I know tone in not communicated well in this type of exchange), and illustrating that the very things that you are accusing me of (being unforgiving, and unloving), would equally apply to someone like yourself who is merely advocating a different form of punishment.

Fair enough on the sarcasm front though I still don't consider it exactly the same.
There is a huge difference when the punishment being advocated is death. Death is extreme.
We are arguing about death as punishment in the case of homosexuality not about punishment in general.

 

[Lighthouse]

"You are God and I'm the man" - Jason Upton


I've never thought of it that way. And as far as the victims having a say that might not be a bad idea, but in practice it might not work very well. The victim may not be in a rational state of mind when making that decision....
but on the other hand they deserve death anyway so even if the victim makes a vengeful decision to have the person killed it's not that bad....

Well, if the victim makes a bad decision, the judge should have the power to overturn it, in accordance with the law.

 

[Lighthouse]

Not sure I totally see that. The only line I can find that pertains to cleaniness is this which I think does more to contradict your argument then support it.

"And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. me that I should not call any man common or unclean. "

If this line only pertains to "men of otehr nations" then it doesn't work and if it pertains to every other law (clothing, mensturation etc etc) I don't see any caveat here----*except this and this and this

This particular arguement has and always will be a non starter. Yes it seems that Jesus spoke about the "Jewish purity laws" of the OT, but no where is a specific list that covers them all. Hence we cannot be 100% sure expect for the most blantant. Killing. Thou shalt not kill. Seems pretty clear-not sure how killing people for sex and clothing choices figures into this.
Damn grey area thinking!

I never said that those verses referred to the other things.:nono:

And the commandment was not "Thou shalt not kill." It was "Thou shalt not murder." Otherwise God would never have told the Israelites to use the death penalty, or to kill all people of certain nations when they went to war.:think:

 

[Lighthouse]

Perhaps, but I don't recall Romans saying we should kill people for it.

Paul didn't have to, because God already did.

 

[Lighthouse]

But it does destroy the argument that the law against homosexuality in the OT is just one of many symbolic laws (such as laws against garments of mixed fibers, eating shrimp, etc.). Clearly, homosexuality is a moral issue, just as theft, murder, and kidnapping are.

So, does the inclusion of symbolic laws within the Mosaic covenant negate the moral aspects of it? Do we argue against the prohibition of murder, simply because the same Book which outlaws that act also contains laws of a symbolic nature? Of course not. Rather, we as Christians should examine the Law, to determine which laws were only applicable to the nation of Israel, within their unique covenant with God (ie, circumcision, dietary laws, etc.), and which could be applied to all of mankind (ie, murder, rape, kidnapping, and yes, homosexuality).

B-e-autiful!

 

[Jadespring]

I never said that those verses referred to the other things.:nono:

Okay then I misunderstood you when you said that the next verses refered to the other things I was asking about. What are these next verses refering to exactly then?
The question still stands then. You haven't The verses you quoted from Peter refered to food. Where is the list of all the other things?

And the commandment was not "Thou shalt not kill." It was "Thou shalt not murder." Otherwise God would never have told the Israelites to use the death penalty, or to kill all people of certain nations when they went to war.:think:

Okay, again translation issues. Still doesn't make your argument any more or less strong or weak.

 

[Lighthouse]

Army of One has sufficiently answered your questions. If you don't feel that is true, then we cna continue this tomorrow.

 

[Jadespring]

B-e-autiful!

Except that's not the root of what the argument is about.


This is about degree of punishment dealt as related to the level of moral indiscretion and what kind exactly.

 

[Jadespring]

Army of One has sufficiently answered your questions. If you don't feel that is true, then we cna continue this tomorrow.

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.

 

[Melody]

Death Penalty;

For what? For making poor choices in lifestyle? Their lifestyle provides enough harm without involving capital punishment. Which btw does end up as a death sentence for many of them.

 

[Granite]

Perhaps, but I don't recall Romans saying we should kill people for it.

Paul's attitude seems to have been let the dead bury their dead. He had a prime chance to advocate capital punishment for this offense and he did not.

 

[Sozo]

I believe that people have the right to freedom of choice in the matters of the bedroom. It's up to them who or what moral code they follow.

That is a pretty broad statement. Does that apply to ALL choices in the bedroom? Is it okay to rape, murder, molest, commit adultery, beastiality, etc.?

If you want to keep telling people that its wrong and they're going to hell for it. Fine I guess. That's freedom of speech. However as soon as it crosses the line into the "Christian Moral Killzone" as we like to call it goes to far.

Too far? So your answer to sinful aberrant behavior is that it's okay to warn people of hell, but other than that they can basically do whatever they choose?

Bringing people to Christ is not about beating people over the head and crying like a child when they don't listen.

What does sharing the gospel have to do with the subject at hand? Are you suggesting that police officers start handing out tracts instead of tickets for speeding through stop signs?

Love does not equal killing.

Really? I guess you think the course of action in WWII should have been showering Nazi Germany with gospel tracts while they were feeding the incinerators.

Do you guys really hate people that much?

Do you? Apparently the whole idea of punishment to maintain a civil society is antiquated in your world. Paul's statement concerning the authority of God in governing a nation is simply old school to you, right?

But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.

Perhaps you just think that Paul wanted us to use a sword to administer spankings, or are you against those also?

What ever happened to all of that forgiveness, humilty etc etc that Jesus spoke of ?

Nothing. We are all guilty before God and need to humble ourselves, and be forgiven of our sins through faith in Christ. Should we then also be exempt from punishment if we decide we don't like our co-workers and take them out with a shotgun?

Boy is that Satan guy having a heyday right now.

I'll bet he's cheering on your message!

Sex acts are not at the same level as "Though shall not kill/murder " else they would have been at the level of the big Ten.

You mean like Adultery?

I suggest you take some time to examine your bible before you continue to make a fool of yourself.

Paul actually revealed in Romans 1:18-32 that homosexual behavior is the apex of ALL evil. It is the one thing that reveals the heart of man as having turned from God to self-indulgence and is manifested in an array of evil behavior.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; [they are] gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and, although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

 

[shilohproject]

That is a pretty broad statement. Does that apply to ALL choices in the bedroom? Is it okay to rape, murder, molest, commit adultery, beastiality, etc.?

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.

 

[Sozo]

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.

I simply responded to his ludicrious statement, you pathetic piece of worthless crap!

 

[shilohproject]

I simply responded to his ludicrious statement, you pathetic piece of worthless crap!

Where? Your comment was in the post immediately proceeding mine. Rape is not a matter of choice for its victim, neither murder, molestation nor beastiality, you lame personal-insulter-who-can't-understand-the-issue-much-less-stay-on-it!

 

[Granite]

What some people can't understand is that as a choice, consensual homosexuality does not harm or victimize anyone. There is no abuse of age (pederastry). There is no abuse of power or force (rape). There is no betrayal of family (incest). It is two adults acting like adults, period. Comparing homosexual behavior to rape or pedophilia is inaccurate and absurd.