Should homosexuals be given the death penalty?
- Thread starter lovemeorhateme
- Start date
Sentinel
New member
Nineveh said:
Just because some people whine and complain because there is the word "Christ" in Christmas doesn't mean that all of us non-Christians are so foolhardy. And it is not ignorance of history that has lead us to this point, it is base, human nature.
*laughs* So you are saying that because Christians set up this nation that it ought to cater solely to their beliefs? So much for freedom. Freedom for Christians, oppression for the rest of us that live here. I pity dogmatic people like you that are too scared or ignorant to realize that the world doesn't revolve around religion and personal beliefs. Your God was nowhere named as the authority. And the United States is a baby country- a paltry 200 years old- so trying to say "Look at another constitution that is at least as old as ours" makes me laugh.
Of course I'll reply, I am not merely going to let something drop. And I've not disgregarded it, I've read it, considered it, and then dismissed it as being distasteful to me. That doesn't mean I didn't read or understand it.
I never claimed that your God's morals change. I claimed that mankind's perception of them changes- try reading what I wrote before accusing me of disregarding things. And just because the founders based this country on their personal faith does not mean that they would have wanted Christianity to be so insanely imbalanced against the rest of us. And for that matter, the founders would have wanted us to have black slaves, only the upper eschelon of society voting, and the laypeople staying as lower class. So if you want to argue what our founders would have or would not have wanted, I'd look more at the times at that point, and everything else that was occuring and the historical state of things before going on about how Christianity should rule America.
I have read them. Multiple times. You act as though I am speaking from an uninformed and ignorant standpoint and it is there that you underestimate me. I only cited one because I didn't feel like searching the internet to find *all* of them. That one was the first I found and if you would like me to go find the others and reference their desire for seperation of church and state, I shall meet your challenge.
To them, half of what we take as commonplace and normal would be heinously immoral. Consider that we no longer live in the 19th century but the 21st and look at the sociological, economic, theological and moral changes that have occured between then and now and you will quickly realize that your argument is founded upon outdated ideals that you, yourself, likely would disagree with.
I am not missing your point, I am disagreeing. Those are two entirely different matters.
I never claimed it did. But it changes what we think God's standard is, now doesn't it?
I am quite happily pro-choice. Why? Not because I, myself, would *ever* have an abortion. I would never, ever, have one unless there was danger to myself of my babe that required such an action. Then why, you ask, am I pro-choice? Because I believe in freedom. Just because I do not believe in something (such as abortion) does not mean that I will enforce my moral idioms upon the rest of my fellow mankind. And insofar as Terri Schiavo goes- she was never going to wake up and living one's life hooked up to machines is... would you want to live like that? I am sure that somewhere in the back of her mind she was screaming "please kill me". I would ask anyone that if I am ever in a vegitative state that they just unplug me and let me die with what little dignity I'd have left at that point. And even if I thought they shouldn't have let her go, I again would not let my personal viewpoints interfere with the knowledge that we live in a supposedly free country. And, for that matter, I think that it was entirely wrong of Terri's case to be thrown to the media, what family would want that kind of thing to happen when they are making such a decision?
My standard of morality is a good deal higher than that of most any of my Christian friends or anyone else I know. What about your standard of morality? And honestly, I don't care what you think of my morals because I think about the same of yours. Morality is subjective- everyone's morals are a little different. And I don't see Wiccans out there killing in the name of their gods and subjegating races because they want to conquer the infidels. Most of the so-called pagan religions are far less bloody and haughty than the Christian religion, so you talking down to me will get you absolutely nowhere.
And Christians don't?
No, my belief that I am correct is not self-righteousness any more than your belief that you are correct. I am basing my thoughts and actions on personal study and experience- as every other human on this earth does. Me, you, Jesus, and anyone else you wish to cite. Insofar as homosexuality goes- I honestly don't think that it's that big a deal, if your God is as loving and forgiving as you like to say he is, how dare you turn around and shun people for doing something that infringes upon a small fraction of the religious dogma that you so staunchly spout. Hm? Jesus wouldn't have turned away homosexuals and I see nowhere in the 10 commandments that God ever says "Thou shalt not be homosexual". There are places in the Bible that say that it's questionable, but those were bits written by men supposedly under the hand of a God. But can it be proven that they were not merely insane? You can prove nothing, you only have belief. Just like everyone else.
Anyway, have a pleasant weekend, should you be expecting a reply from me, you shall have it tomorrow
I hope your Easter is a good one and that your weekend is also and I shall indeed be expecting a reply from you at some point.
Nineveh
Merely Christian
Sentinel said:
I guess you will need to take that up with the Grinches in the pullik skools who even take away red and green napkins.
No, I'm saying because Chrisitans set up this nation pagans just have to deal with that fact. Once again, Christians don't appeal to a majority on the issue of "thou shalt not murder". It's an absolute, even when a majority of pagans think up justifications for it.
Poor murderers
: sigh : All us mean ol' Christians stopping them from taking innocent life... gee.Pity the babies who are ripped apart in their mother's wombs. Pity the invalids who now have no "quality of life" based on someone else's standards.
Feelings mutual
And yet... God's standard remains untouched.
Rather, it's your replies that point out your ignorance of the topic. Although I must commend you for not also falling for the "most of the founders were deist" tripe as well.
And all this time...murder and rape are still immoral. Unfortunatly no one is put to death for it, so we now have an epidemic.
God's standard is still the same no matter how hard men try to change it. Murder is still murder even when SCotUS declares it's ok to murder some folks based on age. Murder will still be murder if/when SCotUS declares it's ok to murder folks based on "quality of life". Just as murder was still murder when hitler declared Jews sub human.
Your morals aren't nearly as noble as you would have me believe then. Good thing it's not your personal standard the founder's used
Your own words belie your standard.
Now the question is, since I think your morals are about as high as the underbelly of a slug, and you think the same of mine....
Who gets to set the standard for law?
Christ followers have Christ's Righteousness.
God's enemies should be His follower's enemies. The thing is, God doesn't want enemies. In that light, His followers are in the business of recruiting for His Army from the enemy's camp
There is no ambiguity in Scripture against the misuse of sex, not even where homos are concerned. God created the natural order. When humans think better of that order and do as they see fit the only thing that comes of it is death and misery. Ask the half a million homo men who have died/are dying of AIDS. In fact, ask James Hartline, he's around TOL now and then. I'm sure he wouldn't mind explaining this point to you from a first hand perspective.
The picture of Christ that you try to paint is an inaccurate one. This same Christ who bought our redemption is the same Christ who is returning with a Sword in judgement.
Sentinel
New member
*Shakes head* I am not going to bother replying beyond this: your dogmatic narrow-mindedness fails to impress me or endear you to me. I am finished debating with you over this issue. Don't take this as me conceeding- this is me just walking away before I get angry and say something that will get me banned.
Real Sorceror
New member
Well Nineveh, it seems you have been busy while I was gone. I would say a few choice things to you, but its my first Fellowship Week...............*smiles relunctantly*
To anyone who says that homosexuality should be punishable by death because the bible says so - do you also support the execution of people who work on sunday, as the bible demands? And by not killing these people, are you in fact angering god? (in terms of the continued survival of both homosexuals and work-o-holics).
To those who think homosexuality should be illegal but not a death penalty offense, do you consider such a position to be (in fact) in disobedience to god?
To those who think homosexuality should be illegal but not a death penalty offense, do you consider such a position to be (in fact) in disobedience to god?
according to...?
But of course, those who denote the bible as being cryptic/symbolic can escape having to hedge the bible against modern laws, because they can then say that some passage is figurative rather than literal (although saying x should be executed for doing y is a pretty darn dangerous way to speak figuratively - i'm sure there was better ways to do it).
Such christians arn't really my target audience for that quesiton.
kmoney said:
I see - i'll put aside questions about how god could change his mind on things, and how Jesus is said to have said that he came not to abolish the old laws, because there are life-ending offenses not covered by that passage: what, for instance, of witches and female rape victims (in the city)? They are also ordered executed - and don't appear to me to be questions of meat, drink, or holidays etc. Should they be executed?
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
I included 22:25 just so you can see that if she was raped in a field, thats ok on her behalf.
There's other stuff in there, like if a husband doesn't like his new wife, and thinks she was not a virgin at the start of the marriage - he can complain - and if her parents can't produce evidence that she was a virgin, she gets executed. Etc.
But anyways - back to the question at hand.
22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
I included 22:25 just so you can see that if she was raped in a field, thats ok on her behalf.
There's other stuff in there, like if a husband doesn't like his new wife, and thinks she was not a virgin at the start of the marriage - he can complain - and if her parents can't produce evidence that she was a virgin, she gets executed. Etc.
But anyways - back to the question at hand.
kmoney said:
I wholly disagree with you there, but I am happy to take your interpretation of what those verses mean, as in doesn't make a spot of difference - for then all we are saying is that adulterers are to be put to death. Ok - simply frame the question that way - are adulterers to be put to death?