Executing homosexuals

[Arthur Brain]

I know, I haven't convinced you, hence I'm a failure for life.

Buck up Connie, you can still change yet.

Do they teach people how to read English in England Art?

It's normally Latin first, then a nominal spattering of Welsh and then it's full on Anglo Saxon after that dude! :banana:

What part of "18 States continue to have sodomy laws (i.e. laws targeting homosexual behavior) on the books" do you not understand?

The LGBTQueer/NAMBLA crowd is still scared, as sodomy laws are still being enforced throughout the US.

How often is any such 'misdemeanour' enforced through law exactly? Strikes me that gay people have little to fear along with anyone else who 'break' that rule in their sexual lives. Disagree?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Because of someone else who set an account up, they didnt ask for it. They didnt ask for any of this and they clearly stated in the original that they serve everyone - the rest was a hypothetical posed by the lying reporter.

I think its sad to see people trying to trash them in yet another way, adding insult to injury, and i bet a whole lot of people would feel differently if this was westboro baptist threatening to burn down a gay business for refusing them a God hates gays cake, right?

Im no hypocrite, too bad so many others are who know if it were reversed, they would be screaming bloody murder, and they HAVE.

If this was absolutely legit...then I wouldn't support what was going on either.

Frankly though, this doesn't add up, at least so far and I make no apologies for being cynical.

 

[zoo22]

Because of someone else who set an account up, they didnt ask for it. They didnt ask for any of this and they clearly stated in the original that they serve everyone - the rest was a hypothetical posed by the lying reporter.

Yeah, terrible reporting. The media can be awful.

Well, anyway, that Indiana law has now been revised (that happened fast!), so businesses in Indiana can't refuse service based on sexual orientation or US military service or sex or their religion and so forth.

Does anyone have any sort of a plan for enacting law to execute homosexuals? Or executing women who've had sex before marriage?

Also, do people advocating adulterers and homosexuals be executed care if it's a Christian based law, or would a Muslim based law also be okay?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yeah, terrible reporting. The media can be awful.

Well, anyway, that Indiana law has now been revised (that happened fast!), so businesses in Indiana can't refuse service based on sexual orientation or US military service or sex or their religion and so forth.

Does anyone have any sort of a plan for enacting law to execute homosexuals? Or executing women who've had sex before marriage?

Also, do people advocating adulterers and homosexuals be executed care if it's a Christian based law, or would a Muslim based law also be okay?

As a matter of fact I do...

Any man caught wearing even a glimmer of pink (or even lilac) clothing in public should be stoned on the spot. If no stones are available then pebbles or any extraneous surrounding debris will suffice. Should said culprit remain living following such righteous justice then subjection to a Morris Dance parade shall surely finish them off...

Failing that a 'Britain's Got Talent' marathon on loop, the best or worst of depending...

lain:

 

[annabenedetti]

Yeah, terrible reporting. The media can be awful.

Well, anyway, that Indiana law has now been revised (that happened fast!), so businesses in Indiana can't refuse service based on sexual orientation or US military service or sex or their religion and so forth.

Does anyone have any sort of a plan for enacting law to execute homosexuals? Or executing women who've had sex before marriage?

Also, do people advocating adulterers and homosexuals be executed care if it's a Christian based law, or would a Muslim based law also be okay?

Sex before marriage?

For the TOL wannabe stoners out there, here's the reality of what you're advocating:

Isis: Shocking images released of blindfolded couple being stoned to death for sex before marriage

• Stones lined up all nice and tidy: Check.
• Bloodthirsty stoners all set to go: Check.
• Approving mob (including children) gathered to watch the carnage: Check.

 

[Lighthouse]

Sex before marriage?

For the TOL wannabe stoners out there, here's the reality of what you're advocating:

Isis: Shocking images released of blindfolded couple being stoned to death for sex before marriage

• Stones lined up all nice and tidy: Check.
• Bloodthirsty stoners all set to go: Check.
• Approving mob (including children) gathered to watch the carnage: Check.

1. The Bible doesn't dictate stoning for fornication.
2. We already know what we're advocating.

 

[CabinetMaker]

What more needs to be said?

 

[Town Heretic]

What more needs to be said?

Only one thing, there was one fellow there who could have and didn't. People don't emphasize that part enough to my mind.

 

[tetelestai]

What more needs to be said?

What Jesus said four verses later to the woman:

(John 8:11) ..Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

 

[Jonahdog]

What Jesus said four verses later to the woman:

(John 8:11) ..Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

So what?

 

[Lighthouse]

What more needs to be said?

For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.
-Romans 6:14

for where there is no law there is no transgression.
-Romans 4:15b

sin is not imputed when there is no law.
-Romans 5:13b

Only one thing, there was one fellow there who could have and didn't. People don't emphasize that part enough to my mind.

Except to do so would have been sin on His part. People don't seem to understand that enough.

 

[jsjohnnt]

What Jesus said four verses later to the woman:

(John 8:11) ..Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

And you have done this? You live your life without sin? Really?

So I John 1:9 is just John being kind of funny when he says, "If you say you are having no sin, you are a liar and you deceive YOURSELF?"

Or maybe it was Paul who was cracking funny, when he wrote Romans 7:14-25 and especially verse 25? Or was it the prophet who wrote, "Our righteousness is no better than filthy menstrual rags (Is 64:6) or the fact that we are not yet righteous, but are only BECOMING righteous (II Cor 5:21).

 

[Lighthouse]

And you have done this? You live your life without sin? Really?

So I John 1:9 is just John being kind of funny when he says, "If you say you are having no sin, you are a liar and you deceive YOURSELF?"

Wrong verse. 1 John 1:8 is the one you were looking for. v9 tells us what happened to the sin when we confessed it: we were cleansed from all unrighteousness.

Or maybe it was Paul who was cracking funny, when he wrote Romans 7:14-25 and especially verse 25? Or was it the prophet who wrote, "Our righteousness is no better than filthy menstrual rags (Is 64:6) or the fact that we are not yet righteous, but are only BECOMING righteous (II Cor 5:21).

Maybe you need to take a look at what Paul has to say on the flesh v the spirit.

 

[Town Heretic]

...Except to do so would have been sin on His part. People don't seem to understand that enough.

Probably because not enough people make the case when they say that. And because if it wasn't so then Jesus would have been misleading the crowd when he said that anyone without sin could do it...I mean if it couldn't be done regardless all he would have to have said was that, that it was in violation of the code of law or procedure, etc. and couldn't be done for this or that reason, but that otherwise and following that finer line have a throw.

That sort of thing. But he didn't say that.

 

[jgarden]

Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"


The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights and protects against a person being compelled to be a witness against himself or herself in a criminal case. Taking the Fifth is a colloquial term for invoking the privilege that allows a witness to decline to answer questions that might incriminate him or her, without penalty or it counting against him or her. A defendant cannot be compelled to become a witness at his or her own trial, but if he or she should testify, he or she is not entitled to the privilege, and inferences can be drawn from a refusal to answer a question during cross-examination. The Amendment requires that felonies be tried only upon indictment by a grand jury. Federal grand juries can force people to take the witness stand, but defendants in those proceedings have Fifth Amendment privilege until they choose to answer any question. To claim the privilege for failure to answer when being interviewed by police, the interviewee must have explicitly invoked their constitutional right when declining to answer questions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Executing homosexuals

Other than the government intruding into the bedrooms of the nation, "sexual orientation" is in the mind of the beholder and there is currently no method of determining what a person is thinking.

Under the existing laws, a person cannot be compelled to testify against himself.

 

[zoo22]

Executing homosexuals

Other than the government intruding into the bedrooms of the nation,

I'm pretty sure there are a few folks around here who would volunteer for that job.

Have you ever read any of aCW's "WHMBR! (excuse me I had a big dinner)" threads? Intruding into the bedrooms of the nation in search of homosexuals sounds like his dream job. Literally. I think that might be what he actually dreams about.

 

[TomO]

Have you ever read any of aCW's "WHMBR! (excuse me I had a big dinner)" threads? Intruding into the bedrooms of the nation in search of homosexuals sounds like his dream job. Literally. I think that might be what he actually dreams about.

He'd be sneaking around park men's rooms like Elmer Fudd. :rotfl:

.....Or, does he do that now? lain:

 

[Lighthouse]

Probably because not enough people make the case when they say that. And because if it wasn't so then Jesus would have been misleading the crowd when he said that anyone without sin could do it...I mean if it couldn't be done regardless all he would have to have said was that, that it was in violation of the code of law or procedure, etc. and couldn't be done for this or that reason, but that otherwise and following that finer line have a throw.

That sort of thing. But he didn't say that.

Actually He said to the crowd to let any of them who were without sin to cast the first stone. And in that instance they were certainly not without sin, as they were committing several sins in what they were doing. He made no mention of Himself, or what He could do.

As for making the case, I've done that several times. As have others. Do I need to do it again, for you?

Executing homosexuals

Other than the government intruding into the bedrooms of the nation, "sexual orientation" is in the mind of the beholder and there is currently no method of determining what a person is thinking.

Under the existing laws, a person cannot be compelled to testify against himself.

The laws commanded by God required that the perpetrators be caught in the act and could only be condemned on the word of two or three witnesses [no less]. If they were staying in their bedrooms and not doing it in public then they wouldn't be caught in the act.

 

[CabinetMaker]

For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.
-Romans 6:14

for where there is no law there is no transgression.
-Romans 4:15b

sin is not imputed when there is no law.
-Romans 5:13b

None of those versus say its okay to stone her or anybody else.

 

[Lighthouse]

None of those versus say its okay to stone her or anybody else.

They don't need to. God already said it was OK to stone those caught in adultery.

However, it would not have been OK to stone her under the circumstances of the event regardless of Jesus' presence or words, etc.

Do you know why?