should homosexuals be executed?

[DanieltheDragon]

The bible clearly states that homosexual acts are punishable by death.

Lev 20:13

If a man lie swith another man the way he lies with a woman , both of them have committed a detestable act, they shall surely be put to death ;they have brought this on their own heads

It appears to me anything short of the death penalty is meaningless to God. Why won't the "straight agenda" recognize this?

Question for debate should there be a death penalty for LGBT individuals?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 95 by JLB32168]

Just to weigh in with my two cents on the discussion between you and Clownboat. Ignore this or read it at your discretion.
I'm siding with Clownboat on this, and I presume this comes as no big surprise to you. There are things that cause us harm and there are things that do not cause harm. There are things that Clownboat believes cause harm, and there are things that JLB believes cause harm.
Note though, that of the two of you, only one of you can show with evidence that the things that cause harm are the same as the things that that person believes cause harm.

JLB believes that SSM will condemn souls. Clownboat doesn't, presumably because there's no evidence to support it (or the existence of souls), correct? So Clownboat (and I) see no reason to support the restriction of marriage from LGBT people over a fear that cannot be evidenced.
There are plenty of things that we in the real world take care to not do, in order to not be harmed. For example, I'm allergic to nuts and am lactose intolerant. If I eat something with nuts, I break out in hives. If I eat something with lactose, I get the worst cramps ever.
I don't just believe that those things cause me harm because some ancient book or some ancient spirit said they're harmful. I ate both of those things while growing up and then a couple years ago, my body started reacting against them. I experienced real harmful effects from them.
Nowadays, I take the time to read food labels carefully and ask the staff in restaurants about what ingredients they use. I didn't have to before, but now I do.
However, let's say I do as you do. An ancient book warns against homosexual behaviour. According to you, supporting SSM condemns souls. So I should be wary of it, in the same vein that I'm wary of nuts. However, if I were to try and restrict marriage from LGBT people, there is a clear cut case of harm NOW to those people. Susie can't marry Jane, and Jane can't marry Susie. Neither obtains the benefits that typically come from marriage (such as hospital visitation, inheritances, tax benefits etc). But you're okay with that, in that this supposedly saves their souls.
But where's the evidence for that?
A surgeon may cause harm NOW in order to prevent a worse harm later, but that's justified in that there is evidence for this. A surgeon who cuts me open to remove a cancerous tumour clearly has evidence showing the cancer. It's not like he's saying "I need to remove a lung because this ancient book says that if you live past age 20 with both lungs, your soul is condemned".

[JLB32168]

Please clarify, does the god concept in the Bible change or not in your opinion? If he at one time wanted homosexuals to be put to death, would it not be a change to then later say, I changed my mind and I no longer want you to put them to death?

Yes, but I think you’re equivocating on the word “change.� You cited a verse about Christ (e.g. “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever�) and attempt to effectively assert that the writer means to convey the idea that any and all types of change are prohibited when clearly the writer doesn’t mean it to be applied universally since Christ clearly was an adult and changed from an infant.

As far as not having needs, that is an odd claim since he is claimed to have created humans and seems to desire worship, and is claimed to love us and want to spend eternity with us.

#1 – How does creating evince a need? #2 – Where does God claim that he needs worship, that is, validation by anyone?

I see humans being involved, not some magical 'it is finished' words.

And that’s fine and good but the fact remains that “It is finished� allows for the interpretation that the Law was accomplished in Christ and that we are no longer bound by the minutia of the OT, which is the question before us.

This Us vs Them attitude is just cult behavior.

You asked about the mixing of different types of threads for weaving cloth and why God would direct people to refrain from such mixing. I gave you the answer. That you think it’s cult behavior isn’t question before us.

I find this defense so lame. Forget about all the other slavery that was going on, look how fair they were about owning other Hebrew people.

Not that it’s relevant to the question but you’ve presupposed that slavery is objectively wrong. Can you substantiate that claim? For most of man’s history, slavery has not been objectively wrong.

You mean Moses, we get sex slaves if we go to war!?! Mmm, Mmm. I want me some virgins.

In a barbaric and strongly patriarchal society, this ensured that women wouldn’t be left destitute to starve to death. It’s reprehensible thinking today, but it served a purpose at the time.

OK, it is a fact that a circle is a 2 dimensional object. The earth is a sphere not a circle and it is a fact that a circle is not a sphere.

Do you have any objective evidence that says that the people thought that the earth was flat? Are you also saying that describing the earth as a circle absolutely excludes the interpretation of being spherical? How is that question relevant to Christianity and how the idea of a flat earth was certainly not normative belief w/in the Roman Empire long before Christianity arrived on the scene? Why would the Bible a spherical earth if there wasn’t any question of it being spherical in Christ’s time?
How is it relevant to the question of why Christians no follow the teaching of the need for capital punishment for engaging in homosexual acts?

[JLB32168]

Note though, that of the two of you, only one of you can show with evidence that the things that cause harm are the same as the things that that person believes cause harm.

What is the import of this point?

So Clownboat (and I) see no reason to support the restriction of marriage from LGBT people over a fear that cannot be evidenced.

Okay but the question before us here is why Christians don’t feel compelled to practice capital punishment when it comes to homosexual acts. Supposedly, if God doesn’t change then God would want Christians to follow OT direction to stone people who engage in homosexual acts. That question has been answered. Christians are not bound by the minutia of the OT Law since a) it was always designed as a tutor and b) Christ accomplished the Law and said as much when He said “It is finished.�

According to you, supporting SSM condemns souls.

Yes – it encourages people to engage in behavior inimical to God’s design; therefore, my desire to frustrate its acceptance into law is done in good faith and not with the intention of causing harm.
Of course, there is already a thread on SSM and I won’t be discussing it anymore on this thread.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 101 by JLB32168]

What is the import of this point?

Clownboat and you both believe certain things cause harm. Of the two of you, only Clownboat is able to provide strong evidence that the thing he believes causes harm...actually causes harm.

Yes – it encourages people to engage in behavior inimical to God’s design; therefore, my desire to frustrate its acceptance into law is done in good faith and not with the intention of causing harm.

If you could demonstrate with strong evidence that SSM is inimical to God's design, you'd have a lot more support. But you can't. There is of course all the evidence found in nature of animals engaging in homosexuality. Supposedly they too were designed by God.
I contest that what you do is done "in good faith" and not "not with the intention of causing harm". Instead, what you are doing is crying wolf and not having a shred of evidence. You want society and people in society to change behaviours, to outlaw something that is now accepted, but you will not (and in my eyes, cannot) provide evidence that what you claim is harmful, actually is harmful.
What if you're wrong? What if there is a God and he's perfectly okay with homosexual marriage? What if after you die, you stand before this god and he asks why you do the things that you do? Is your response to say something like "It was written in the Bible, this is what was taught you didn't like"?

If you don't want to respond, I don't mind.

[JLB32168]

Of the two of you, only Clownboat is able to provide strong evidence that the thing he believes causes harm...actually causes harm.

Why is that important? The assertion was made that I caused harm, which would be contingent upon Clownboat’s conclusion being conclusively proved, which hasn’t happened. Since the question remains open, I only might be causing harm.

If you could demonstrate with strong evidence that SSM is inimical to God's design, you'd have a lot more support.

I’m not interested in gaining support. I’m interested in proving how my conclusion is a logical one. Whether or not it’s a “true� one cannot be known outside of time travel.

What if you're wrong? What if there is a God and he's perfectly okay with homosexual marriage?

Then I guess I’ll have to apologize.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 103 by JLB32168]

The assertion was made that I caused harm, which would be contingent upon Clownboat’s conclusion being conclusively proved, which hasn’t happened.

Let's imagine for a moment, that there's a vote tomorrow and that, as a result of your efforts, the populace votes in majority to redefine back as monogamous heterosexuality.
This would, without a doubt, cause harm NOW, in that those who are in homosexual marriages now no longer enjoy government recognition of their marriages, and those who were planning to have a homosexual marriage now no longer can do so.
You're focused on this "condemn souls" that you think happens after death, but for which there is no evidence. You're not at all worried about the harm you'd be causing in the here and now, for which there is evidence.

I’m not interested in gaining support.

But...you have said previously you campaign haven't you, to try and outlaw SSM? Unless I'm mis-remembering that is...

I’m interested in proving how my conclusion is a logical one. Whether or not it’s a “true� one cannot be known outside of time travel.

So you're willing to cause harm to large numbers of people...merely to try and prove a point of logic? Even when you admit there is no way of knowing for sure outside of time travel?

Then I guess I’ll have to apologize.

To who, might I ask?

[JLB32168]

Let's imagine for a moment, that there's a vote tomorrow and that, as a result of your efforts, the populace votes in majority to redefine back as monogamous heterosexuality.

There is already a thread that addresses the subject of SSM (i.e. [font=Times New Roman]Where does the bible say you gays can't marry[/font]). This thread deals with the implied assertion that Christians should follow OT directives to stone people who engage in homosexual acts. If you take your point to the thread designed for that purpose I’ll address it there.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 101 by JLB32168]

[quoteOkay but the question before us here is why Christians don’t feel compelled to practice capital punishment when it comes to homosexual acts. Supposedly, if God doesn’t change then God would want Christians to follow OT direction to stone people who engage in homosexual acts. That question has been answered. Christians are not bound by the minutia of the OT Law since a) it was always designed as a tutor and b) Christ accomplished the Law and said as much when He said “It is finished.� [/quote]

That is not actually the question before us. The point made is the only comments made in regard to homosexuality in the bible is they should be executed. Anything else is merely personal opinion and extra biblical.

From the op:
The title says it all folks. Where does the bible say 1.) gays can't marry 2.)you can't particpate in gay weddings 3.) you can't preside over a gay marriage(as a magistrate of the court) 4.) you can't support gay marriage

So since it is not in the bible where do these position a come from?

[JLB32168]

That is not actually the question before us. The point made is the only comments made in regard to homosexuality in the bible is they should be executed. Anything else is merely personal opinion and extra biblical.

Surely you understand that subsequent assertions were made, namely, that Christians don’t follow their own book because they fail to execute people engaged in homosexual acts. A reasoned response was given for why Christians don’t feel obligated to follow these directives.

So since it is not in the bible where do these position a come from?

I would venture a guess that they come from inferences in the Bible based upon logical conclusions. The NT doesn’t explicitly forbid parents from chopping up their children to make stew. Instead, one must infer from a collection of texts in the book and conclude that this would be evil.
Is it your contention that because these things aren’t explicitly mentioned that God is cool with them? Isn’t that an argument from silence?
As to SSM, why were two threads started on the topic? Why did one of them not even mention SSM in the title?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 107 by JLB32168]

If they are logical inferences what is yours?


Edit: it appears I did post in the wrong thread. Had wrong tab open on my phone I'll retract these comments as they are only relevant to the other topic.

As to SSM, why were two threads started on the topic? Why did one of them not even mention SSM in the title?

To separate related but separate topics.