Should homosexuals be given the death penalty?

Should homosexuals be given the death penalty?


  • Total voters
    344

CleverDan

New member
Thank you Lighthouse for responding to my post and for clarifying your positions on this issue. Now I would like to elaborate on items you responded to my post.

Lighthouse said:
I am saying certain aspects should still be in effect, as civil laws, because they would be good laws for all societies, outside of religion.
Certainly, government could institute these laws and would not be ruling against God’s will. God’s hand is seen in civil government regardless of whether they recognize Him as God. He allowed King David to rule as much as the godless Pharoah. He allows George W. Bush to rule as much as He allows rulers of Iran or Pakistan to exist. God puts them in power to keep order in the world (1 Peter 2:13-14.)

Lighthouse said:
I am saying that the government should follow God's command above their own reasoning and desires. Because God's reasoning and desires are best, for He knows best.
However, God has not established His Word as a handbook of laws that governments or rulers are expected to follow. In 2 Timothy 3:16-17 Paul clarifies for Pastor Timothy the purpose of God’s Word. The focus is the relationship of God in Christ Jesus to His Church and the Church to His believers (Ephesians 2:19-22 and Colossians 1:18-20.) If God thought it was best to institute His laws through government, then Christ’s message (and the Apostles following) would have advocated the overthrow of the Roman government and reinstituted Israel as a sovereign nation. Instead in Matthew 28:18-20, He commanded that individual believers go out to all nations and make disciples through baptizing and teaching, and to therefore use God’s law as the guide to follow for those saved under His grace and mercy. We are the ambassadors of His Word, showing men and women their sin, but also showing people their Savior and the salvation He offers by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Lighthouse said:
That's your assumption. Romans 1 relates to the verses on homosexuality in Deuteronomy.

This brings me to often quoted verses of Romans 1:26-32. Actually if one starts reading from verse 8, Paul explains that his purpose in writing the letter to the church at Rome was to preach the Gospel by the Word of God for the purpose of instilling faith, with the result that individuals may be saved. Verses 18-32 Paul presents the condemning Law, casting a wide net on a number of sins that all people are committing. So if one doesn’t commit the sin of homosexuality, a number of other sins exist from which all of us commit at least one. It’s easy to read these verses and think that the “they” refers strictly to unbelievers. Then in Romans 2:1-ff, Paul introduces a “therefore” statement, tying in the thoughts of the previous chapter to the point he makes about judging people. If we pass judgment without realizing that we, ourselves, are sinners than we are condemning ourselves, so the Roman Christians are included in the “they” of chapter 1:18-32; a point reinforced in Romans 3:10-18 and 3:23. However, passing judgment does not mean that we can’t point out another believer’s sin (Matthew 18:15-19), but there needs to be a purpose in showing someone their sin, which is what Paul is doing in Romans 1. The purpose is to bring about repentance, described in Romans 2:4 as propelled by God’s kindness, tolerance (forbearance), and patience (longsuffering). A pattern exists throughout the New Testament Church where God’s Word is proclaimed so one can confess their sin and receive salvation, or for the believers to confess their sins to be renewed in the faith. (For other examples, see Acts 2:14-41 for the unbelievers and 1 John 1:8-10 for the believers.) Nowhere in Romans 1 does Paul tie sins “worthy” of death to a civil enforcement process like was described for adultery in Deuteronomy 22:23-24. The death being described here can be tied to God’s wrath fully revealed on Judgment Day (Romans 2:5)

Lighthouse said:
Actually, as Jesus was not recognized as a governing authority He would have been breaking His own command by demanding that the woman be executed, even if the scribes and Pharisees had been following the law otherwise, which, by the way, they weren't. And how do you know Jesus didn't give a suggestion that the man be brought forward? You don't know what He wrote in the dirt. And if He wrote the law that these men were referring back to, then He did at least suggest that the man be brought forward.

Also, when Jesus looked up at the end, there weren't any witnesses. So at that time, if Jesus had stoned her, or even merely condemned her, He would have been breaking His own command that there should be two or three witnesses.

I agree with your Old Testament legal analysis of the flaws in bringing charges against this woman. The point here is that the teachers of the law and the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus into advocating something not allowed under Roman law. It’s interesting to note that Jesus did not use this opportunity to correct their misapplication of Old Testament Israelite law, nor did He advocate returning to that system in order to deal with the situation at hand. Instead He went right to the heart of the matter in dealing with the same kind of problem that it appears Paul is addressing in Romans 2:1-4. Christ is the example of what Paul is describing.

The purpose of my comments in this post was to point out that Jesus is as much God as He is man. As God, Jesus (or His heavenly Father) could have condemned this woman of sin, and/or condemned her to death, using His divine nature and power. Instead in His State of Humiliation, He used the opportunity to bring about repentance, telling her “Go, and sin no more.”

Lighthouse said:
Calvinist much? What makes you think it was God's will that the Jews not follow His commands? Just because another nation invaded, and took them over?

It is God’s will that the Jews follow His commandments. Much of Jesus’ earthly ministry focused on correcting, and therefore re-establishing the proper interpretation of His Word, often times signified by Jesus saying, “It has been said…but I say to you.” A great example of this is found in Matthew 5:31-32 regarding divorce, where Jesus quotes from Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and then corrects the misinterpretation and misapplication of the text. By the way, Matthew records Jesus had to do this correction again regarding divorce in Matthew 19:1-9. These are great examples of interpreting Old Testament Law through the lens of Jesus and the Apostles of the New Testament. Again, Jesus was not interested in re-establishing the good old days of a sovereign nation but leading people to the idea of His kingdom on Earth through His Church. This is most vividly seen in the faith of His believers of His Church, and how they give witness to Him through their actions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

S†ephen

New member
I can agree with that.
That's a bit of a generalization. I'm sure there are Christians who are completely secure in their own sexuality, and that their homophobia is completely free from any unease caused by the discomfort of confronting something that is different. I am also sure that there are those who are stuck in an adolescent phase of xenophobia and are using religion as a means of justifying their bullying. As for morality and sexual discretion, well, that's just a little off the wall isn't it? There are sexually immoral and indiscrete Christians of every stripe, just as there are among homosexuals. There are broken vows and promises and sexual assaults. Trying to tie morality down to sexual orientation is meaningless. The exact same behaviours can be found in both groups. I've read Cameron's baloney-ridden attempts to show that homosexuals are fare more likely to commit sexually "immoral" acts, and it is so full of holes it should have collapsed under the weight of its own folly years ago. Unless you start with the premise that homosexuality is immoral you're just whistling "Dixie".

Well, think this through with me.

What is the purpose of sexual intercourse? Reproduction

Now, anything that doesn't accomplish that (including forms of heterosexual intercourse) can be said to be against nature. It's the same premise behind guns. The gun isn't bad and killing isn't bad if you are killing an animal to eat it or killing someone in defense of you or your family. Once you start murdering people you are using the gun for something it wasn't meant for.

I'm simply using the same premise with homosexuals. What was sexuality meant for? Now, if homosexuals engage in sexual activity that does not aid in reproduction I really don't understand how they can jump all over someone who only engages in sexual activity that does.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Thank you Lighthouse for responding to my post and for clarifying your positions on this issue. Now I would like to elaborate on items you responded to my post.


Certainly, government could institute these laws and would not be ruling against God’s will. God’s hand is seen in civil government regardless of whether they recognize Him as God. He allowed King David to rule as much as the godless Pharoah. He allows George W. Bush to rule as much as He allows rulers of Iran or Pakistan to exist. God puts them in power to keep order in the world (1 Peter 2:13-14.)
Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good.
-1 Peter 2:13-14

What in the world makes you think this supports the idea that God actually put these people in power? There is no Biblical support for that idea. There's certainly common sense support for the idea that He allows them to be in power, but not that He put them in power.

Also, the verse you referenced just goes to show how far removed from God's plan our government is. This entire thread is about how our government is not punishing certain evildoers, and we've even gotten into the fact that the ones they do punish are not being punished properly.

However, God has not established His Word as a handbook of laws that governments or rulers are expected to follow. In 2 Timothy 3:16-17 Paul clarifies for Pastor Timothy the purpose of God’s Word.
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
-2 Timothy 3:16-17

Paul also wrote to Timothy:
"But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust."
-1 Timothy 1:8-11

Do you see that? The law was made for the lawless. But what good is it if it is not enforced? It then points no one to what is right.

The focus is the relationship of God in Christ Jesus to His Church and the Church to His believers (Ephesians 2:19-22 and Colossians 1:18-20.)
Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.
-Ephesians 2:19-22

And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.

For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.
-Colossians 1:18-20

You do realize that all this has to do with the relationship with God and the Body of Christ, in regard to righteousness, and nothing else, don't you?

If God thought it was best to institute His laws through government, then Christ’s message (and the Apostles following) would have advocated the overthrow of the Roman government and reinstituted Israel as a sovereign nation.
Actually, one of the disciples did advocate it. But he was doing that before he was a disciple.

However, that's irrelevant. Christ did not come at that time to set up His kingdom. He came to die, to reconcile the world to God. So your point is false, and moot.

Instead in Matthew 28:18-20, He commanded that individual believers go out to all nations and make disciples through baptizing and teaching, and to therefore use God’s law as the guide to follow for those saved under His grace and mercy.
And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, [Jesus]“All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”[/Jesus] Amen.
-Matthew 28:18-20

Actually, He only commanded His disciples to do that. In fact, Paul even says that He was not sent to baptize. And even that the law no longer applied for believers in regard to righteousness.

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.
-1 Corinthians 1:17

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

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
-Romans 10:4

We are the ambassadors of His Word, showing men and women their sin, but also showing people their Savior and the salvation He offers by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9).
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.
-Ephesians 2:8-9

And? Does this means we should never punish criminal behavior? And should the government be preaching the Gospel, or should individuals?

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.
-Romans 13:1-7

This brings me to often quoted verses of Romans 1:26-32.
For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
-Romans 1:26-32

Yeah.

Actually if one starts reading from verse 8, Paul explains that his purpose in writing the letter to the church at Rome was to preach the Gospel by the Word of God for the purpose of instilling faith, with the result that individuals may be saved.
8 through what? 32? I read it. See below for my response.

Verses 18-32 Paul presents the condemning Law, casting a wide net on a number of sins that all people are committing. So if one doesn’t commit the sin of homosexuality, a number of other sins exist from which all of us commit at least one.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Romans 1:18-25 [since I already posted 26-32]

What makes you think everyone has committed a sin from that particular list?

It’s easy to read these verses and think that the “they” refers strictly to unbelievers.
What makes you think it doesn't?

Then in Romans 2:1-ff, Paul introduces a “therefore” statement, tying in the thoughts of the previous chapter to the point he makes about judging people. If we pass judgment without realizing that we, ourselves, are sinners than we are condemning ourselves, so the Roman Christians are included in the “they” of chapter 1:18-32; a point reinforced in Romans 3:10-18 and 3:23.
Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.
-Romans 2:1

As it is written:


“ There is none righteous, no, not one;
There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.”
“ Their throat is an open tomb;
With their tongues they have practiced deceit”;

“ The poison of asps is under their lips”;
“ Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.”
“ Their feet are swift to shed blood;
Destruction and misery are in their ways;
And the way of peace they have not known.”
“ There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
-Romans 3:10-18

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
-Romans 3:23

And if we have realized we are sinners, and have removed the log from our own eyes...

In Romans 2:1 Paul is referring to those who are guilty. Not those who are not guilty [Christians, who have been declared not guilty in the eyes of God, by the shed blood of Jesus Christ.]

What about Paul's claims that though they once were wicked, they no longer are? Does that not mean anything to you.

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
-1 Corinthians 6:9-11

However, passing judgment does not mean that we can’t point out another believer’s sin (Matthew 18:15-19), but there needs a purpose in showing someone their sin, which is what Paul is doing in Romans 1.
[Jesus]Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
“Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
“Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven.[/Jesus]
-Matthew 18:15-19

Personally I like Matthew 7:1-5 for reference to the fact that we can point out another's sin.

[Jesus]Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.[/Jesus]

Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. Through Him we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations for His name, among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ;
To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints:

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of His Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers, making request if, by some means, now at last I may find a way in the will of God to come to you. For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift, so that you may be established—that is, that I may be encouraged together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me.
Now I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that I often planned to come to you (but was hindered until now), that I might have some fruit among you also, just as among the other Gentiles. I am a debtor both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to wise and to unwise. So, as much as is in me, I am ready to preach the gospel to you who are in Rome also.
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”
-Romans 1:1-17 [just so it's all here]

The purpose is to bring about repentance, described in Romans 2:4 as propelled by God’s kindness, tolerance (forbearance), and patience (longsuffering).
Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?
-Romans 2:4

And? Did I ever say that the purpose was not to bring about repentance?

A pattern exists throughout the New Testament Church where God’s Word is proclaimed so one can confess their sin and receive salvation, or for the believers to confess their sins to be renewed in the faith. (For other examples, see Acts 2:14-41 for the unbelievers and 1 John 1:8-10 for the believers.) Nowhere in Romans 1 does Paul tie sins “worthy” of death to a civil enforcement process like was described for adultery in Deuteronomy 22:23-24. The death being described here can be tied to God’s wrath fully revealed on Judgment Day (Romans 2:5)
But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words. For these are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:
‘ And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God,
That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh;
Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
Your young men shall see visions,
Your old men shall dream dreams.
And on My menservants and on My maidservants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days;
And they shall prophesy.
I will show wonders in heaven above
And signs in the earth beneath:
Blood and fire and vapor of smoke.
The sun shall be turned into darkness,
And the moon into blood,
Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the LORD.
And it shall come to pass
That whoever calls on the name of the LORD
Shall be saved.’

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know—Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it. For David says concerning Him:


‘ I foresaw the LORD always before my face,
For He is at my right hand, that I may not be shaken.
Therefore my heart rejoiced, and my tongue was glad;
Moreover my flesh also will rest in hope.
For You will not leave my soul in Hades,
Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.
You have made known to me the ways of life;
You will make me full of joy in Your presence.’

“Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.
“For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself:


‘ The LORD said to my Lord,

“ Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”’

“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”
Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”
Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”
And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.” Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.
-Acts 2:14-41

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.
-1 John 1:8-10

If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor’s wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you.
-Deuteronomy 22:23-24

But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,
-Romans 2:5

Renewed in the faith? Sorry, but you can't renew the faith of the Son of God, which is what we live by. His faith is constant. 1 John 1 is to unbelievers, by the way. Read verse 3

that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.
-1 John 1:3

Paul does tie the law into the death penalty in Romans 13, which I have already shown you. And Paul even says that he would not object to dying if he was guilty of anything deserving death, in Acts 25:10-11

So Paul said, “I stand at Caesar’s judgment seat, where I ought to be judged. To the Jews I have done no wrong, as you very well know. For if I am an offender, or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying; but if there is nothing in these things of which these men accuse me, no one can deliver me to them. I appeal to Caesar.”

And what makes you think God has not delegated the authority to be a minister of wrath to the government, as stated in Romans 13? God's wrath is completely separate from the wrath He has commanded of the government. God's wrath is for sin, not crime.

I agree with your Old Testament legal analysis of the flaws in bringing charges against this woman. The point here is that the teachers of the law and the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus into advocating something not allowed under Roman law. It’s interesting to note that Jesus did not use this opportunity to correct their misapplication of Old Testament Israelite law, nor did He advocate returning to that system in order to deal with the situation at hand. Instead He went right to the heart of the matter in dealing with the same kind of problem that it appears Paul is addressing in Romans 2:1-4. Christ is the example of what Paul is describing.
Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?
-Romans 2:1-4

Those men were certainly guilty of breaking the law. And they may very well have been guilty of adultery, maybe even with the very woman they brought forth.

The purpose of my comments in this post was to point out that Jesus is as much God as He is man. As God, Jesus (or His heavenly Father) could have condemned this woman of sin, and/or condemned her to death, using His divine nature and power. Instead in His State of Humiliation, He used the opportunity to bring about repentance, telling her “Go, and sin no more.”
And yet, He could not have gotten away with condemning her to death, unless she were to just fall down dead, when He was not around her. He was not recognized as God. You have to remember that.

It is God’s will that the Jews follow His commandments. Much of Jesus’ earthly ministry focused on correcting, and therefore re-establishing the proper interpretation of His Word, often times signified by Jesus saying, “It has been said…but I say to you.” A great example of this is found in Matthew 5:31-32 regarding divorce, where Jesus quotes from Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and then corrects the misinterpretation and misapplication. By the way, Matthew records Jesus had to do this correction again regarding divorce in Matthew 19:1-9. These are great examples of interpreting Old Testament Law through the lens of Jesus and the Apostles of the New Testament. Again, Jesus was not interested in re-establishing the good old days of a sovereign nation but leading people to the idea of His kingdom on Earth through His Church. This is most vividly seen in the faith of His believers of His Church, and how they give witness to Him through their actions.
[Jesus]Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.[/Jesus]
-Matthew 5:31-32

When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife, if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife, then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.
-Deuteronomy 24:1-4

Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these sayings, that He departed from Galilee and came to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. And great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there.
The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”
And He answered and said to them, [Jesus]“Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”[/Jesus]
They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”
He said to them, [Jesus]“Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”[/Jesus]
-Matthew 19:1-9

Jesus was not interested in that, because He came to die, that time. He will set up His own sovereign nation, with His own rules, when He returns for the Millennial reign.
 

PlastikBuddha

New member
S†ephen;1588727 said:
Well, think this through with me.

What is the purpose of sexual intercourse? Reproduction
Really? People have sex for a lot of reasons- reproduction actually being pretty far down on the list. Physical pleasure and emmotional bonding are two popular reasons that people "do it".
Now, anything that doesn't accomplish that (including forms of heterosexual intercourse) can be said to be against nature.
Not against human nature. Did you know that human females are the only ones that can experience an orgasm and are always sexually "ready" (we don't rely on a fertility cycle with visual or olfactory cues as to when she's in heat)? This is because sex is an important part of being human and it is not solely linked with reproduction. Any cursory glance through any anthoropological history of man will tell you that.
It's the same premise behind guns. The gun isn't bad and killing isn't bad if you are killing an animal to eat it or killing someone in defense of you or your family. Once you start murdering people you are using the gun for something it wasn't meant for.
And if your using your other "gun" to kill people I would agree. The two don't reallyy correlate, though.
I'm simply using the same premise with homosexuals. What was sexuality meant for? Now, if homosexuals engage in sexual activity that does not aid in reproduction I really don't understand how they can jump all over someone who only engages in sexual activity that does.
By this logic the infertile or the elderly should refrain from sex also? Sexuality is "meant" for a lot of things- not exclusively reproduction. If it were only for making babies then every single teenage boy since the evolution of the thumb would be a monstrous pervert.
 

ColoSkier

New member
Well, think this through with me.

What is the purpose of sexual intercourse? Reproduction

Now, anything that doesn't accomplish that (including forms of heterosexual intercourse) can be said to be against nature. It's the same premise behind guns. The gun isn't bad and killing isn't bad if you are killing an animal to eat it or killing someone in defense of you or your family. Once you start murdering people you are using the gun for something it wasn't meant for.

I'm simply using the same premise with homosexuals. What was sexuality meant for? Now, if homosexuals engage in sexual activity that does not aid in reproduction I really don't understand how they can jump all over someone who only engages in sexual activity that does.

Um, guns aren't "natural" regardless of what they are used for. :) Regardless, the creation of Eve for Adam wasn't for reproduction (and genetically speaking, they'd be fraternal twins -- brother/sister), it was for lonliness. But God must of had a sex-ed class for them that was left out of the Genesis story. :)
 

S†ephen

New member
Really? People have sex for a lot of reasons- reproduction actually being pretty far down on the list. Physical pleasure and emmotional bonding are two popular reasons that people "do it".

I'm not talking about why people do it. I'm talking about its natural use. Pleasure is second on the list if you look across the entire organism slate.

And if your using your other "gun" to kill people I would agree. The two don't reallyy correlate, though.

They correlate entirely. The gun has a good use and a bad use, just like sex.

By this logic the infertile or the elderly should refrain from sex also?

By this logic the infertile or the elderly go to natures second purpose as the primary for the act. If you judge things on any given purpose it may have you can monstrously pervert its true meaning.
 

S†ephen

New member
Um, guns aren't "natural" regardless of what they are used for. :) Regardless, the creation of Eve for Adam wasn't for reproduction (and genetically speaking, they'd be fraternal twins -- brother/sister), it was for lonliness. But God must of had a sex-ed class for them that was left out of the Genesis story. :)

Correct, they were created for each other. Not man for man or woman for woman.
 

PlastikBuddha

New member
S†ephen;1588930 said:
I'm not talking about why people do it. I'm talking about its natural use. Pleasure is second on the list if you look across the entire organism slate.
Not really since sex is something that is done by individuals, not species. It may ultimately serve the purpose of reproduction, but so do budding and fission. Even among "lesser" animals the lavish displays, brutal fights, and shows of dominance and submission that precede successful intercourse show that it goes beyond just reproduction.
They correlate entirely. The gun has a good use and a bad use, just like sex.
So do toothpicks or extension cords. I still don't see it.
By this logic the infertile or the elderly go to natures second purpose as the primary for the act.
Uh huh. So do homosexuals. They don't need an OK from anyone else to use their own bodies as they choose.
If you judge things on any given purpose it may have you can monstrously pervert its true meaning.
:confused: What "true meaning" are you talking about? The "true meaning" of sex is the biological exchange of genetic material to form a new and different generation of organisms from two parent organisms. On an individual level, however, sex means a lot of different things.
 

PKevman

New member
A quick lesson for the benefit of the newbies who may not have heard this:

The Bible contains what can be viewed as three tiers of laws:

Tier 1: Involves the greatest command- to love God.
Tier 2: Involves the 2nd greatest command-to love your neighbor.
Tier 3: Symbolic laws which symbolized a deeper spiritual meaning.

Anytime in the Bible when a symbolic law (such as healing on the sabbath) conflicts with one of the laws above it, the higher law was always followed. That is why Jesus said it was good to heal on the sabbath. Because love your neighbor is a far more important commandment then the sabbath which was symbolic and for Israel.

God's laws that involve loving your neighbor have not changed as it relates to HOW a criminal justice system is to be run if the people running it CARE what God has to say. Thus the death penalty should still be required for murder. The death penalty is a deterrent to murder and violent crimes. (check the murder rate in Singapore compared to a similar population-say Los Angeles-then tell me the swift death penalty isn't a deterrent).

Symbolic laws (such as eating shrimp) were specifically given to Israel as a sign that they were set apart to God. God's symbolic laws were ONLY for Israel.

To refute another of those popular liberal arguments: the death penalty is NOT murder. The death penalty is good and righteous. A Godly government puts wicked people to death instead of letting them back on the streets again to harm themselves and one another.

We do not have a Godly government, so we are stuck with praying for our government and trying to teach and instruct people and make a difference the best we can. That does not include individuals murdering people. We are not condoning vigilanties. As has also been pointed out, if the DP were ever instituted for homosexuality again it would NOT be retroactive, and would only apply to those caught committing that crime AFTER the law was passed.

Here is a big question that I would like all of those following this to answer honestly: If those of you who say that homosexuality should not be against the law and punishable by death found that you were wrong, and that God does in fact want this to be the case, would you:

A. Submit your will to God's even if you don't agree with Him?
B. Refuse to submit to God on this topic no matter what He might say about it?


If you'll answer this question honestly, we might have a good discussion on our hands and see where everyone stands.

Here is my answer: I seek to be obedient to God in every area of my life. I love the Lord, and He has saved me and forgiven me of all of my sin and wickedness, which act of grace I did not deserve. I also believe that God knows better than we do how a criminal justice system should be run.

I used to be against the death penalty for homosexuals because I believed like many of you believe, but I found that God speaks very clearly on this subject in His Word if one will simply remove the blinders and examine it.
 

PlastikBuddha

New member
If those of you who say that homosexuality should not be against the law and punishable by death found that you were wrong, and that God does in fact want this to be the case, would you:

. Refuse to submit to God on this topic no matter what He might say about it



An interesting question. A God that is that morally different from myself would be unworthy of my worship and I would be bound to follow the dictates of my own conscience. If God spoke to you and asked you to do something morally repugnant or even something that you believed was completely evil would you do it or would you wonder if maybe that voice wasn't coming from God after all?
 

PKevman

New member
An interesting question. A God that is that morally different from myself would be unworthy of my worship and I would be bound to follow the dictates of my own conscience. If God spoke to you and asked you to do something morally repugnant or even something that you believed was completely evil would you do it or would you wonder if maybe that voice wasn't coming from God after all?

See here is the problem though, it is not morally repugnant in the least. Think of it this way:

You have some children, and in your back yard are some poisonous berries. You know if your children EAT those berries they will get sick and that they could die. So you warn them to NOT eat the berries because you know what is best for them. They might think they'd like to try the berries, and they might even think you were being mean and unreasonable.

Who knows better in that situation, you or them?

This is what we are discussing with God and homosexuality.
 

Farisee

BANNED
Banned
See here is the problem though, it is not morally repugnant in the least. Think of it this way:

You have some children, and in your back yard are some poisonous berries. You know if your children EAT those berries they will get sick and that they could die. So you warn them to NOT eat the berries because you know what is best for them. They might think they'd like to try the berries, and they might even think you were being mean and unreasonable.

Who knows better in that situation, you or them?

This is what we are discussing with God and homosexuality.

Thank God you aren't God.
 
Last edited:
Top