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?

[JLB32168]

He did not disagree and he did not show that I was in error. Therefore, his claim remains demonstrably wrong and from the sounds of it, a retraction is not coming.

How do the names of the confessions you cited support the contention that Paul is only condemning sexual practices as aberrant if done in pagan worship? They don’t. You’ve just cited a series of Churches that are at odds w/traditional Christian teaching and who also reject most of the historical tenets of the Christian faith.

These words [I think it’s unloving to support something that condemns people’s soul] have no meaning for us unless you can show that we have souls and that they will be condemned if they participate in SSM.

You asserted that my practice of the Christian faith was unloving in that I wished to deny SSM. I responded that I don’t regard it as “loving� to facilitate the destruction of people souls. Whether or not they actually have a soul isn’t relevant to the question.

You are free to attempt to demonstrate otherwise and you are of course free to follow your own code.

I feel that it does harm others. That you feel otherwise is quite irrelevant. If I didn’t feel something was deleterious, but supported it anyway, only then could I be faulted.

No JLB, to treat a group of people unfairly based off of race, religion or sexual preference is to discriminate. I'm not changing this into some other issue. Discrimination is the issue.

And you’re okay with discrimination in certain cases. Discrimination causes harm. You’re okay with causing harm in certain cases. It’s simple logic.

Please name something I hold dear for myself that I restrict towards another adult.

. . . marriage to polygynous, polyandrous, or polyamorous advocates as evidenced by your clear avoidance of articulating positions on those types of marriages.

[Clownboat]

How do the names of the confessions you cited support the contention that Paul is only condemning sexual practices as aberrant if done in pagan worship? They don’t. You’ve just cited a series of Churches that are at odds w/traditional Christian teaching and who also reject most of the historical tenets of the Christian faith.

Yes, I cited Churches and demonstrated that your claim was wrong. Is this your retraction? Do you now understand that there are many denominations that support SSM?

These words [I think it’s unloving to support something that condemns people’s soul] have no meaning for us unless you can show that we have souls and that they will be condemned if they participate in SSM.

You asserted that my practice of the Christian faith was unloving in that I wished to deny SSM. I responded that I don’t regard it as “loving� to facilitate the destruction of people souls. Whether or not they actually have a soul isn’t relevant to the question.

I find the fact that we don't know if souls exist to quite relevant when someone is claiming to stop the destruction of people souls, especially when they are willing to cause harm over it. Relevant, but still meaningless.

You are free to attempt to demonstrate otherwise and you are of course free to follow your own code.

I feel that it does harm others. That you feel otherwise is quite irrelevant. If I didn’t feel something was deleterious, but supported it anyway, only then could I be faulted.

Then I rightfully fault you. When asked what harm would come of you if Susie married Jane, you said "none". As in, no harm.

No JLB, to treat a group of people unfairly based off of race, religion or sexual preference is to discriminate. I'm not changing this into some other issue. Discrimination is the issue.

And you’re okay with discrimination in certain cases. Discrimination causes harm. You’re okay with causing harm in certain cases. It’s simple logic.

Please list the areas I am willing to discriminate. Also include the group that I am treating unfairly in each instance.
1,2,3, go.

Please name something I hold dear for myself that I restrict towards another adult.

. . . marriage to polygynous, polyandrous, or polyamorous advocates as evidenced by your clear avoidance of articulating positions on those types of marriages.

Having many marriage partners and marrying children is not something I hold dear for myself, nor is it something I have ever sought to restrict from a fellow human.
Perhaps you should put your shovel down? How far do you plan to dig?

[JLB32168]

Yes, I cited Churches and demonstrated that your claim was wrong. Is this your retraction? Do you now understand that there are many denominations that support SSM?

I’ve already addressed on the thread specifically started for that so perhaps we should get back to the topic of the thread, which is essentially the question of if Christians claim to follow the Bible and its condemnation of homosexual behavior, why don’t they also stone homosexuals to death as the Bible commands.
This question has already been answered. The minutia of the OT are no longer binding for Christians as evidenced by the NT which says that the Law – known as the OT to Christians – was a tutor/schoolmaster for man until Christ, Who is the completion of God’s revelation, arrived on the scene.

Then I rightfully fault you. When asked what harm would come of you if Susie married Jane, you said "none". As in, no harm.

You fault me for causing harm. I fault you for causing harm in that you advise people to do that which condemns their souls. That you don’t feel that souls exist is irrelevant to the question of my motives, which you are faulting as harmful.
Stoning people is harmful to their souls in that it gives them no opportunity to repent.

Having many marriage partners and marrying children is not something I hold dear for myself, nor is it something I have ever sought to restrict from a fellow human.

You’re the one bringing up marrying children. I’ve not advocated marriage for children. I oppose it as well. Suggesting I’ve advocated it, which is what you’re doing, is a straw-man arguing – a misrepresentation of someone’s argument for the purpose of knocking it down and claiming victory over the opponent. Why don’t you try addressing arguments that I actually present rather than fabricating arguments you wish I had made and falsely attributing those fabrications to me.

Also, take this discussion to the thread designed for it.

[Clownboat]

Yes, I cited Churches and demonstrated that your claim was wrong. Is this your retraction? Do you now understand that there are many denominations that support SSM?

I’ve already addressed on the thread specifically started for that so perhaps we should get back to the topic of the thread,

Be careful with the claims you make and there will not be a need to demonstrate that they are wrong.

which is essentially the question of if Christians claim to follow the Bible and its condemnation of homosexual behavior, why don’t they also stone homosexuals to death as the Bible commands.
This question has already been answered. The minutia of the OT are no longer binding for Christians as evidenced by the NT which says that the Law – known as the OT to Christians – was a tutor/schoolmaster for man until Christ, Who is the completion of God’s revelation, arrived on the scene.

Cool!
Now all I have to do is ignore scriptures that say god is the same yesterday, today and forever?
And ignore scriptures that say not one jot or tittle will change from the law?
And ignore scriptures that say that Jesus did not come to abolish the law?
Perhaps I should ignore just how ignorant those 'laws' are while I'm at it as well.
No wearing of mixed fabrics and stoning unruly children to name a couple.
Perhaps I should just ignore how ignorant and barbaric these 'laws' are and how they suggest to me that they are man made and not inspired by an all powerful and all knowing god.

How do you get over the fact that these 'laws' are ignorant and barbaric while also coming from a god?

Then I rightfully fault you. When asked what harm would come of you if Susie married Jane, you said "none". As in, no harm.

You fault me for causing harm. I fault you for causing harm in that you advise people to do that which condemns their souls. That you don’t feel that souls exist is irrelevant to the question of my motives, which you are faulting as harmful.
Stoning people is harmful to their souls in that it gives them no opportunity to repent.

You are ignoring a very large difference.
You see, you have been shown to be doing something harmful.
You can only pretend that a soul might exist and then pretend that these souls are being condemned.
The harm you would cause is real. You can only imagine something that just might be harmful.
I prefer to deal in reality myself. Pretend I'll reserve for when I'm playing with my girls.

Having many marriage partners and marrying children is not something I hold dear for myself, nor is it something I have ever sought to restrict from a fellow human.

You’re the one bringing up marrying children.

You are the one that continues to bring up non-traditional marriages. Stop it, and I will have no reason to defend false accusations made about me in regards to non-traditional marriages. You act as if I am the one that wants to talk about them while at the same time you accuse me of avoiding them like the plague.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I’ve not advocated marriage for children. Suggesting I’ve advocated it, which is what you’re doing, is a straw-man arguing

JLB, I have no desire to talk about non traditional forms of marriage. You keep bringing them up and claim that I discriminate against them. I have encouraged you to create the appropriate thread. To accuse me of creating a straw man here, I find that charge very dishonest.

Also, take this discussion to the thread designed for it.

In truth, I'm not having a discussion here, just defending what I find to be faulty charges made against me. (Besides my observations listed under 'Cool' above I suppose. Feel free to address them if you would like).

[JLB32168]

Be careful with the claims you make and there will not be a need to demonstrate that they are wrong.

Um . . . okay

Now all I have to do is ignore scriptures that say god is the same yesterday, today and forever?

What specific scripture says that god is the same yesterday, today, and forever? If it actually says that, how is it relevant to the point that God established the Law explicitly for the Jews – not everyone else?

And ignore scriptures that say not one jot or tittle will change from the law?

And the law was accomplished when Christ said, “It is finished� – namely, a man lived w/o ever violating any part of God’s law.

And ignore scriptures that say that Jesus did not come to abolish the law?

He completed it. That’s why it is no longer necessary.

You can only pretend that a soul might exist and then pretend that these souls are being condemned.

That has nothing to do with the price of a carton of eggs in China. My actions are only objectively harmful if the soul does not exist, which you don’t know. If the soul exists then you are the one causing harm – not me.

You are the one that continues to bring up non-traditional marriages. Stop it, and I will have no reason to defend false accusations made about me in regards to non-traditional marriages.

There is already a thread on marriage. This one deals with whether or not Christians are picking and choosing when they refrain from capital punishment for people who engage in homosexual behavior.

[Clownboat]

Now all I have to do is ignore scriptures that say god is the same yesterday, today and forever?

What specific scripture says that god is the same yesterday, today, and forever? If it actually says that, how is it relevant to the point that God established the Law explicitly for the Jews – not everyone else?

Hebrews 13:8 - Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
Since he and the father are one, it stands to reason that since they are unchanging, that if they didn't want people to wear mixed fabrics thousands of years ago, he/they would still not want people to wear mixed fabrics.

And ignore scriptures that say not one jot or tittle will change from the law?

And the law was accomplished when Christ said, “It is finished� – namely, a man lived w/o ever violating any part of God’s law.

If you say so. Like I said, I would still have to ignore this scripture that says Jesus said, "For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished."
Did heaven and earth pass away and we just missed it?
What about this one?: “It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.� (Luke 16:17) I can try to pretend that it is not in the Bible as well I suppose.

And ignore scriptures that say that Jesus did not come to abolish the law?

He completed it. That’s why it is no longer necessary.

If you say so, but how do you get over the fact that these 'laws' are ignorant and barbaric while also coming from a god? Or the fact that nothing will change from the said law until heaven and earth have passed away? Where is the scripture that allows JLB to decide that the law can pass when Jesus says "it is finished"?
Seriously, nothing in your mind goes 'woh woh woh, wait a gall darn minute.? Can't wear mixed fabrics and we should kill our unruly children and it's OK to own other people as property. Nothing, nothing at all there give you any pause?

You can only pretend that a soul might exist and then pretend that these souls are being condemned.

That has nothing to do with the price of a carton of eggs in China. My actions are only objectively harmful if the soul does not exist, which you don’t know. If the soul exists then you are the one causing harm – not me.

It has been show that if you were to discriminate against SSM, actual people would be actually harmed (legal, medical and just not being treated like everyone else harm).
You are threatening me with pretend harm to pretend souls at this time. I would argue that pretend harm is not the same as actual harm. Can you show that souls are not pretend?

If not, I submit that it is more harmful to harm real things that it is to harm pretend things. Seriously, you might was well tell me that whenever I hear a bell, a fairy gets their wings and if I were to say that I didn't believe in fairies, that a fairy dies. Yes, you may have chosen to believe in fairies, or in this case Bible tales, souls and demons, but to claim that I might be harming a soul is no different than telling me I would kill a fairy if I said I didn't believe. Fairies, or in this case souls, are your claim. Show me if you can that I should pay your claim more mind than a claim made about fairies.

If you can't, put yourself in my shoes, but imagine I was claiming that you would be harming fairies. Would such a claim really be impactful? I would assume not.

[JLB32168]

Hebrews 13:8 - Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

Your argument says that the writer wished to convey the idea of immutability in all aspects w/o exception – universal application in all things.
The writer had to have been told that A)Christ was an infant, then teenager, then adult, was executed, and then came back to life – all of which entail a change. That means that the writer did not wish to convey the idea that no change of any type occurred. The statement falls in a paragraph describing elders who brought the faith and for the readers to follow that faith, which is unchanging. I can pull a verse out of context and say the Bible teaches anything. I can say that the Bible teaches “There is no God� by leaving out the preceding verse which says, “The fool has said in his heart.�

Like I said, I would still have to ignore this scripture that says Jesus said, "For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished."[emphasis JLB’s]

What are you ignoring? It won’t pass “until all is accomplished� and Christ said, “It is finished� meaning that all was accomplished. You’re just repeating your previous argument and it seems you’ll just repeat it until challenges dry up, at which point you’ll assert it as fact because it’s not been contradicted.
As for heaven and earth having not passed away, ancient teaching is that Christ has rebooted the ontology of all created things; therefore, the former heaven and earth have passed away. Even Paul said, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.�

If you say so, but how do you get over the fact that these 'laws' are ignorant and barbaric while also coming from a god?

They were written for a Bronze Age time and for the time they were quite progressive.

It has been show that if you were to discriminate against SSM, actual people would be actually harmed (legal, medical and just not being treated like everyone else harm).

Once again, you are merely repeating the same argument over and over in the hopes that all challenges will dry up; whereby, you’ll proclaim victory. Two can play at that game. I do not consider it helpful to people to encourage them to embrace things detrimental to their soul or the souls of others.

I would argue that pretend harm is not the same as actual harm. Can you show that souls are not pretend?

Whether or not it is pretend is the issue up for debate, Sir. You cannot presuppose that you’ve already proved that harm won’t occur.

[Clownboat]

Hebrews 13:8 - Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

Your argument says that the writer wished to convey the idea of immutability in all aspects w/o exception – universal application in all things.
The writer had to have been told that A)Christ was an infant, then teenager, then adult, was executed, and then came back to life – all of which entail a change. That means that the writer did not wish to convey the idea that no change of any type occurred. The statement falls in a paragraph describing elders who brought the faith and for the readers to follow that faith, which is unchanging. I can pull a verse out of context and say the Bible teaches anything. I can say that the Bible teaches “There is no God� by leaving out the preceding verse which says, “The fool has said in his heart.�

Take it up with your book, it is not my argument.
If God is unchanging, and if he really didn't want you to wear mixed fabrics thousands of years ago, why would he change his mind about the mixed fabrics? It makes sense that if a god was not behind the original barbaric laws like I would sure hope, but you seem to want to believe that there was a god behind them. Kindly explain the logic behind changing such a law? Why did he change in regards to this law and what does a man being tortured and killed have to do with why wearing mixed fabrics would no longer be naughty?
These observations gave me pause as a Christian for their nonsensical nature.

Like I said, I would still have to ignore this scripture that says Jesus said, "For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished."[emphasis JLB’s]

What are you ignoring? It won’t pass “until all is accomplished� and Christ said, “It is finished� meaning that all was accomplished. You’re just repeating your previous argument and it seems you’ll just repeat it until challenges dry up, at which point you’ll assert it as fact because it’s not been contradicted.
As for heaven and earth having not passed away, ancient teaching is that Christ has rebooted the ontology of all created things; therefore, the former heaven and earth have passed away. Even Paul said, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.�

Where did the "until all is accomplished" come from? When I read my Bible, I don't see those additional words. Are you adding words to the Bible to support your preconceived idea?
Then you claim support from some ancient teaching. I do admire your mental gymnastics.

If you say so, but how do you get over the fact that these 'laws' are ignorant and barbaric while also coming from a god?

They were written for a Bronze Age time and for the time they were quite progressive.

There is nothing progressive about not wearing mixed fabrics nor owning people as property nor to treat women as second class citizens. There just isn't.

You want to know what I would find progressive? The teaching that humans are equals, whether male or female, black or white. Also, perhaps with the Bible ending with, 'and by the way, the earth is round'.

That you find not being able to wear mixed fabrics and such as progressive is on you.

It has been show that if you were to discriminate against SSM, actual people would be actually harmed (legal, medical and just not being treated like everyone else harm).

Once again, you are merely repeating the same argument over and over in the hopes that all challenges will dry up; whereby, you’ll proclaim victory. Two can play at that game. I do not consider it helpful to people to encourage them to embrace things detrimental to their soul or the souls of others.

Mine has meaning in reality, you might as well be talking about fairies or bigfoot. You're not playing right.

I would argue that pretend harm is not the same as actual harm. Can you show that souls are not pretend?

Whether or not it is pretend is the issue up for debate, Sir. You cannot presuppose that you’ve already proved that harm won’t occur.

And I don't. What I did do was to show that your argument is akin to discussing the death of fairies. From there I trust the readers will evaluate the 'harm' claims.

[JLB32168]

Take it up with your book, it is not my argument.

“If God is unchanging� – God’s Essence is unchanging. He doesn’t age. He’s impassible. He has no needs and never will have them. Of course, you’re saying that if God established the law as a tutor for a time – a time that ended with Christ’s “It is finished� – then God changed. Nothing of God’s essence has changed. The period of time that the law was in effect didn’t change. You’re manufacturing change rather desperately.

Why did he change in regards to this law and what does a man being tortured and killed have to do with why wearing mixed fabrics would no longer be naughty?

The whole mixing things is quite obvious. It’s a lesson on mixing or the need to avoid mixing – as in a syncretism of Hebrew worship w/pagan practices. This theme of the people in Canaan “being a snare to you� and how every vestige of their presence was to be eradicated is reinforced repeatedly throughout the OT.

Where did the "until all is accomplished" come from?

Matthew 5:18 – NKJV – it’s not gymnastics. It’s English.

There is nothing progressive about not wearing mixed fabrics nor owning people as property nor to treat women as second class citizens.

Hebrews were allowed to own other Hebrews for X number of years. After that they had to be freed. You cannot be oblivious to the practices of other societies of the time.

Also, perhaps with the Bible ending with, 'and by the way, the earth is round'.

The Bible speaks of the earth as a circle, Dude. It never teaches flat earth. In Christ time the idea of a flat earth had been abandoned for centuries. Try to use facts when you argue.

[Clownboat]

Take it up with your book, it is not my argument.

“If God is unchanging� – God’s Essence is unchanging. He doesn’t age. He’s impassible. He has no needs and never will have them. Of course, you’re saying that if God established the law as a tutor for a time – a time that ended with Christ’s “It is finished� – then God changed. Nothing of God’s essence has changed. The period of time that the law was in effect didn’t change. You’re manufacturing change rather desperately.

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? 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. Oh well, its not like any of this makes sense unless we start making assumptions anyway.
Either way, when I read the Bible, the god of the Old Testament is nothing like the god of the New Testament. IMO, the god people spoke and later wrote about clearly changed. Exclusive to inclusive. From an evil entity willing to commit genocide to a much kinder and loving idea of a god.
I see humans being involved, not some magical 'it is finished' words.

Why did he change in regards to this law and what does a man being tortured and killed have to do with why wearing mixed fabrics would no longer be naughty?

The whole mixing things is quite obvious. It’s a lesson on mixing or the need to avoid mixing – as in a syncretism of Hebrew worship w/pagan practices. This theme of the people in Canaan “being a snare to you� and how every vestige of their presence was to be eradicated is reinforced repeatedly throughout the OT.

This Us vs Them attitude is just cult behavior. Yes, it is quite obvious, we have just arrived at different conclusion as to why it is there. During a time of warring tribes, why would the leaders invent a god concept that included their enemies? Sure, once you have taken them over, like Rome in Jesus's day (and after), then I could see a reason to make a religion more inclusive like we observed happened.
Old Testament days, while tribes were warring has the leaders describing a god that excludes their enemies. New Testament days and we have Paul creating a religion that includes outsiders and then later on the Empire even embracing (for control reasons IMO) it.
It all seems so human to me, not like how I would expect an all powerful god to act.

Where did the "until all is accomplished" come from?

Matthew 5:18 – NKJV – it’s not gymnastics. It’s English.

You are correct, it is there. I'm honestly not sure what verse I was looking at where I didn't see it included. I must have been thinking about Luke. It is included in Matthew.

There is nothing progressive about not wearing mixed fabrics nor owning people as property nor to treat women as second class citizens.

Hebrews were allowed to own other Hebrews for X number of years. After that they had to be freed. You cannot be oblivious to the practices of other societies of the time.

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.
Derp.
One of the worst examples IMO: Numbers 31:18
(Kill everyone) Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves).
"You mean Moses, we get sex slaves if we go to war!?! Mmm, Mmm. I want me some virgins."
How anyone reads this and sees a god's nature and not human nature is lost on me. At least they got their virgins while on earth and didn't have to wait until heaven like the Muslims. Again, it's all so human.

Also, perhaps with the Bible ending with, 'and by the way, the earth is round'.

The Bible speaks of the earth as a circle, Dude. It never teaches flat earth. In Christ time the idea of a flat earth had been abandoned for centuries. Try to use facts when you argue.

You're funny.
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.

We have debated the flat earth idea here already extensively, but it was before your time.

A sphere (from Greek σφαῖ�α — sphaira, "globe, ball"[1]) is a perfectly round geometrical object in three-dimensional space that is the surface of a completely round ball, (viz., analogous to a circular object in two dimensions).[2] Like a circle, which geometrically is a two-dimensional object
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere

The earth is two dimensional?

Either way, like I was saying, I would have found such a statement to be progressive just by being included. But to expect clarity from the Bible would be foolish IMO. The ambiguity and the ability to say, "what this verse really means" is what has helped to keep the religion somewhat relevant. I say somewhat because it is getting less and less relevant every day in the civilized world.