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?

[Clownboat]

This is a yes or no question. If yes, then meet your burden of proof.

No

Great. Thank you for admitting that you don't know if Paul was even talking about homosexuality. You may now stop your discrimination.

If no, then acknowledge the harm you are willing to cause our fellow humans over something you are not even sure about.

As I’ve mentioned already, I don’t place much stock in your opinion of this since you’ve no problem causing pain for other forms of non-traditional marriage – only one less than me.

Whoops, you forgot to notice the harm you are willing to cause our fellow man. Instead you seem to stick your head in the sand and deflect in a pretty lame attempt IMO to turn the attention on me in regards to a point that has nothing to do with SSM. This is a lot easier I would imagine than actually coming to terms with your willingness to discriminate that comes across as a desire to discriminate.

It's this desire to discriminate that I find so confusing. You and I both don't know for sure what Paul meant, but you're still willing to discriminate (this is what makes it seem like a desire) because of something a guy 2,000 years ago may or may not have said.

Let's assume Jesus is alive and well for a minute. Who thinks he would be proud of people whom discriminate? What I notice is far to many Christians that are followers of Paul and not Jesus. Of course we are all free to worship or not worship as we please, but can't we do it without discriminating and harming our fellow man?

[KCKID]

This is a yes or no question. If yes, then meet your burden of proof.

No, w/o interviewing St. Paul we don’t know which of the two options is correct. Of course, you’d have us believe that Paul went to great length to describe how careful Christians should be when discussing the consumption of meat that has been sacrificed to idols in the temples but was ambiguous when it came to sexual practices being practiced in those same temples. That requires a suspension of common sense and “highly unlikely� cannot begin to describe your assertion. When taken at face value, one could reasonably assume that Paul was describing the behaviors w/o any qualification whatsoever.

The bolded part. Why on earth would sexual practices be going on in the temples IF NOT associated with idol worship?

[JLB32168]

Great. Thank you for admitting that you don't know if Paul was even talking about homosexuality. You may now stop your discrimination.

I’m admitting I don’t know just like I don’t know for sure that the moon isn’t made of green cheese since A)I’ve never been there and B)All I have is people who say they’ve been there or people who have heard what people who have been there said.

I don’t seriously think that there is a question on what Paul meant. It was crystal clear until Boswell’s came on the scene and the media actually took him seriously. No one else has.

Whoops, you forgot to notice the harm you are willing to cause our fellow man.

I cause harm, as you call it, because I speak out against the legalization of polygamy. I don’t feel bad about that either.

Every time we oppose something that someone else supports we're "causing harm" if we use your standard; therefore, we should never oppose something that someone else supports.

It's this desire to discriminate that I find so confusing. You and I both don't know for sure what Paul meant, but you're still willing to discriminate (this is what makes it seem like a desire) because of something a guy 2,000 years ago may or may not have said.

Who thinks he would be proud of people whom discriminate?

I'm quite convinced that Christ would have no problem with people seeking to limit the term "marriage" to its traditional definition.

What I notice is far to many Christians that are followers of Paul and not Jesus.

I'm not sure I can worry about the opinions of people regarding Jesus' teachings who criticize the alleged gross inaccuracies/contradictions/discrepancies of the same book containing those teachings.

[JLB32168]

The bolded part. Why on earth would sexual practices be going on in the temples IF NOT associated with idol worship?[/color]

Why should presuppose that Paul was talking exclusively about sexual practices going on in temples and had no problem with those same practices taking place in other places? If he specifically mentioned meat offered to idols, which occurred in temples, then it is reasonable to assume he’d explicitly mention sexual practices taking place in temples. He made no such qualifications; therefore, it isn’t logical to assume he was talking exclusively about temple sexual acts – acts that would otherwise okay elsewhere.

[Clownboat]

Great. Thank you for admitting that you don't know if Paul was even talking about homosexuality. You may now stop your discrimination.

I’m admitting I don’t know just like I don’t know for sure that the moon isn’t made of green cheese since A)I’ve never been there and B)All I have is people who say they’ve been there or people who have heard what people who have been there said.

Who is being harmed if you believe the moon is made of cheese? I see a difference when one incorrect belief causes no harm or anguish to others compared to another incorrect belief that does. You can believe whatever you want, but do you really need to harm your fellow humans? Not to mention, why should you be allowed to discriminate against gays in regards to marriage? Should I be allowed to discriminate against women and claim they should not be able to vote? Like you argued previously, 'it was allowed in the past'. If I wanted to discriminate against women in regards to voting, wouldn't you be curious as to what is driving this need/desire to discriminate?

I don’t seriously think that there is a question on what Paul meant. It was crystal clear until Boswell’s came on the scene and the media actually took him seriously. No one else has.

No one else huh? Not even the Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) affirming Christian denominations? I could supply a list, but it is very, very long and would take up a lot of space. If you cannot find them, I will list them if you would like. If/when you do find them, you can no longer make this argument from ignorance though.

Whoops, you forgot to notice the harm you are willing to cause our fellow man.

I cause harm, as you call it, because I speak out against the legalization of polygamy. I don’t feel bad about that either.

Are you trying to justify your behavior by calling it normal for you?
It comes across as: "look at all the different groups of people I'm willing to cause harm to. That I also harm this other group should be expected".
This may tell us something about you, but I'm not sure what it has to do with discriminating against gay people in regards to marriage. Sure, you are willing to harm some groups of people. 'Shame on you' may be in order, but what it has to do with why we as a society should allow you ('you' being people that support marriage except for when group 'X' does it) to discriminate is lost on me.

Every time we oppose something that someone else supports we're "causing harm" if we use your standard; therefore, we should never oppose something that someone else supports.

I personally feel that to discriminate is to cause harm, but I'm not trying to get you to stop harming people, I'm trying to figure out why you feel you should be able to discriminate against gay people when it comes to marriage. Why gay people and not blue eyed people? Why just this one group? Why do you feel like you should be able to single them out and hold something from them that you hold dear for yourself? Would your reasoning be valid if we applied it to black people for example?

I'm quite convinced that Christ would have no problem with people seeking to limit the term "marriage" to its traditional definition.

Let's test for this level of certainty that you claim is there shall we? Can you even show us that a Christ ever lived, much less said anything that was written down outside of religious promotional material that is putting forth the said concept?
No? Well, I must question your level of certainty. Can you blame me?

What I notice is far to many Christians that are followers of Paul and not Jesus.

I'm not sure I can worry about the opinions of people regarding Jesus' teachings who criticize the alleged gross inaccuracies/contradictions/discrepancies of the same book containing those teachings.

The inaccuracies/contradictions/discrepancies of this book would deserve a post all to themselves (and we have).

[KCKID]

The bolded part. Why on earth would sexual practices be going on in the temples IF NOT associated with idol worship?

Why should presuppose that Paul was talking exclusively about sexual practices going on in temples and had no problem with those same practices taking place in other places?

Well, for starters why are we equating the writings of a mere mortal with a creator God? Why? Contrary to popular mainstream Christian thinking, Paul was not God. You are aware of that, are you not? And, if you believe that Jesus was God then Jesus said NOTHING about gay marriage or, indeed, about homosexuality. Moreover, why would we today be concerned even if Paul DID have a problem with homosexuality? Why?

Secondly, Paul was clearly talking about the worship of idols in Romans 1 and the practices associated with them. Have you actually read Romans 1:18-27 or are you merely the recipient of the anti-gay bleating commonly heard from the mainstream evangelical pulpit?

If he specifically mentioned meat offered to idols, which occurred in temples, then it is reasonable to assume he’d explicitly mention sexual practices taking place in temples.

He DID!

He made no such qualifications; therefore, it isn’t logical to assume he was talking exclusively about temple sexual acts – acts that would otherwise okay elsewhere.

Well, again, I don't give a damn what Paul may or may not have said about anything. I really don't! But, since Paul is evidently so special to you, he refers in Romans 1 to idolatry practices that involved females as well as males. The ones he mentions within this context are those who were 'naturally' heterosexual but 'exchanged the glory of God for the worship of images made of mortal man, birds, animals, reptiles and birds'. Why are you not seeing this? Look up 'idolatry' on the Internet and you will find all you need to know about the sexual practices associated with idol worship ...the VERY THINGS that Paul is addressing.

That said, please stop using the letters of Paul as being any more than they were intended to be. There is absolutely no reason to apply 'divinity' either to Paul or his epistles.

[JLB32168]

Well, for starters why are we equating the writings of a mere mortal with a creator God?

First of all, Christian teaching is that Paul’s writings are divinely revealed; therefore, they aren’t merely the personal opinions of one guy contrasted against God as if God teaches something diametrically opposed.

And, if you believe that Jesus was God then Jesus said NOTHING about gay marriage or, indeed, about homosexuality.

Jesus said nothing about hacking your neighbors to death for playing their stereo too loud. Shall we assume Christ would be cool with it? He spoke at length about marriage and never deviated from the commonly defined model of it; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that this was the only form He thought was acceptable. Certainly polygamy was already considered taboo in his time.

Secondly, Paul was clearly talking about the worship of idols in Romans 1 and the practices associated with them.

There’s nothing “clearly� about it. Paul clearly – explicitly – mentioned the problems with eating meat sacrificed to idols in temples. It is unreasonable to conclude that he was talking about sexual practices taking place in temples w/o so much as mentioning the temples in which they were taking place. Boswell’s argument would have us believe that Paul cared more about how diet could jeopardize one’s salvation than about how lust could.

Have you actually read Romans 1:18-27 or are you merely the recipient of the anti-gay bleating commonly heard from the mainstream evangelical pulpit?

Are you merely the recipient of the pro-gay bleating commonly heard from the mainstream liberal apologists of like opinion as Boswell?
Why don’t we limit the accusations of brainwashing and sheep-like minds parroting what we’ve heard since neither of us have the original opinions on our respective positions but are only agreeing with the opinions we’ve heard others before us articulate?

He DID! [he specifically mentioned meat offered to idols, which occurred in temples]

Yup – type the word “meat� up on a concordance and it will show you where he discusses it.

Well, again, I don't give a damn what Paul may or may not have said about anything. I really don't!

Okay – but you asked the questions so I answered them.

That said, please stop using the letters of Paul as being any more than they were intended to be.

You don’t care what Paul said and yet you accuse me of misusing what Paul said since you (allegedly) know what Paul really said. You do see how contradictory you’re arguing, I hope.

[Clownboat]

Why don’t we limit the accusations of brainwashing and sheep-like minds parroting what we’ve heard since neither of us have the original opinions on our respective positions but are only agreeing with the opinions we’ve heard others before us articulate?

This is not an attempt to show that your beliefs are wrong necessarily, but I would like to point out that we all agree that we can't know for sure about whose position is the correct one as you once again point out above.

Christianity is claimed to be a religion of love. Their god is claimed to be 'LOVE'. Yet why are there followers of this religion that are willing to restrict something that they hold dear for themselves from a certain group of humans based off something we admit we don't know for sure? Such an act is not loving I suggest.

Boat: It is not clear about what Paul was referring to, therefore I will not discriminate (and don't think anyone else should either) against my fellow man.

JLB: It is not clear about what Paul was referring to. I would like to believe he was talking about homosexuals and I therefore feel justified to discriminate against them even though I admit my position may be wrong. I don't know why I want to discriminate against them.

You and I agree that we just don't know for sure. Yes, it is odd that the Bible does not deliver a clear message, so with this knowledge, would you guess that Jesus would hypothetically approve of my loving nature here towards our neighbors, or your discriminatory nature?

I would think that a loving person would error on the side of caution in this instance. Perhaps this is just differing personality types though?

[JLB32168]

This is not an attempt to show that your beliefs are wrong necessarily, but I would like to point out that we all agree that we can't know for sure about whose position is the correct one as you once again point out above.

I “agree� in that the 20th Amendment to the Constitution says that women can vote but doesn’t explicitly say that all women can vote – just women. Truth be told, the idea that Paul specifically mentioned meat offered in temple worship, and how consuming it was something with which Christians should be careful, but the same Paul wasn’t explicit with sexual practices performed in temple rituals, rituals or temples he didn’t explicitly mention – your argument – is an argument that is beyond absurd and that one reason why few reputable scholars take Boswell seriously.

Yet why are there followers of this religion that are willing to restrict something that they hold dear for themselves from a certain group of humans based off something we admit we don't know for sure?

Okay – so restricting something that someone else holds dear is unloving. Gotcha.
I suppose that the next time my five year old asks me if he can watch Tim Burton’s Batman I must show it to him since that’s more loving – never mind the fact that none of the Batman movies from the last few decades are appropriate for children that young.

Yes, it is odd that the Bible does not deliver a clear message, so with this knowledge, would you guess that Jesus . . .

The thing is, no one question the clarity of Paul’s words until Boswell brought in his sloppy scholarship with research and conclusions he set out to prove – rather than objectively approaching the subject to see what conclusion the evidence would logically lay out.
That is why objective scholars don’t give Boswell’s work much regard. Of course, I don’t defer to the book alone. The book teaches that the Church is what Christ established and not the Bible; therefore, I defer to the Church’s opinion on the book since She is allegedly still guided by God and has Christ as head. She interprets Paul’s words at face value w/o Boswell’s interpolations and I have concluded that this is God’s opinion on the subject.
That’s why I don’t defer to Boswell's opinion. I think it is inimical to God and if it's inimical to God it renders people's salvation defective and facilitating the condemnation of people is not loving.

[JehovahsWitness]

If Paul is talking about temple prostitution and not homosexuality that is a bit of import don't you think?

A contextual analysis indicates strongly that Paul was not limiting his points to "(male) temple prostistitution"


Paul, writing in Greek, actually used an original term "arsenokoitai", not the Greek already existing Greek word for homosexual is "paiderasste"?

The greek word "paiderasste" rather means "sexual relations b/t a man and a boy with the boy as a passive partner"; this is of course a "homosexual act" but the word is more akin to pedophilia; Paul chose to use a word directly from the Greek translation of the Mosaic law. “Neither fornicators nor men who lie with men [arsenokoitai - "man-layers"/man bedder]**

Paul used many, many original words in his writings (he coined a total of 179) but did not simply make up a few random sounds and string them together “ he used words already in existence in hebrew (in this case Leviticus) and put them together to form a compound word that clearly explained the biblical point being made.

** these 'new' words (arsenokoitai and arsenokoitais ) that Paul used while conveying the idea in Hebrew scripture sheds the connotations of prostitution, despite what some claim. It most certainly does NOT mean "male prostitute" (an idea that would be covered by the greek 'pornos' ).


FURTHER READING - Comments on Boswell's arguments
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/ ... 00145.html
http://www.webring.org/l/rd?ring=jwunit ... tickled%2F