That is a good point, and a lot of "Christians" will have plenty to answer for.
Executing homosexuals
- Thread starter zoo22
- Start date
That is a good point, and a lot of "Christians" will have plenty to answer for.
dreadknought
New member
Okay :up:
my point being that not everything that is legal is moral or Godly
Jesus was explaining that the sin is in the heart long before it is in the act. And God looks at the heart.
No. (Lets see if you can figure out the flaw in the question.)
That's...a pretty transparent dodge.
Go Away
dreadknought
New member
I know, our difference is delivery, unless you hold monergism against me?
Just how stupid are you?
None of this is coming from the position that it's currently a crime according to the law of the US. We're discussing the advocacy of criminalizing it. There is a difference. Why are you too dumb to understand that?
Irrelevant to the particular discussion in which I posted that statement, numbskull.
Have you ever read the book?
And as far as the abuse issue goes, why don't you ask the kid if he thinks it was abuse? He's an adult now.
Again, irrelevant to the context of that post.
If you can't follow along you should stop running your mouth.
You can't find any that show them to be worthy of equal punishment. And it is because of the fact it can't be proven, for one. And the fact that the party being lusted after is not party to any action, thus there is no violation of their marriage.
You don't know squat about me. You want to challenge me on what Jesus said, go ahead.
It shouldn't matter because it's God's law; it should matter to us for the same reasons it matters to God, which are the reasons He commanded them into law. But this has nothing to do with, "Because God said so."
Care to support that assertion?
You don't know if I'm a believer? Maybe you should pay closer attention. Look at the sidebar of my posts. Under "religion" what does it read? What have my posts indicated my beliefs regarding God, His word [the Bible], His Son [Jesus Christ] and the Holy Spirit [altogether known as the Trinity]?
And you are a fool if you don't think I seek the salvation and repentance [two separate events, neither of which is required for the other] of homosexuals. Are you going to say I don't seek those things for murderers either, since I advocate the death penalty for them, as well? What about rapists and child molesters? Kidnappers? Adulterers?
Balerion the Black
New member
What you are discussing is your fantasy of criminalizing it, as in reality it is never going to happen in this country.
If you wish to live in a country where homosexuality and adultery are illegal (and in fact punishable by death), then move to Iran. The rest of us won't be sorry to see you leave.
Quite relevant, as the biblical prohibitions on homosexuality constitute the entire foundation of your "argument." Because it has no foundation. Because anybody with a functioning brain that they actually bother to use can easily see two consenting adults doing whatever in the bedroom is not something that is so harmful to society that those who do it need to be punished.
And of course your need to use such colorful language shows your inability to actually get across any sort of intelligent point.
I admit I've had some morbid curiosity as to just what was actually in that book, but I am not spending any money on it. Doubly so considering where that money would be going.
He beat the kid with a belt, hard enough to break the skin. If the kid believes that this was okay, then Bob did even more damage than that.
I can not think of a single redeeming feature that that man possesses.
Blah blah blah...
Maybe you should follow your own advice.
Matthew 5:28 "But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
And the real reason why adultery was a capital offense in the Bible was because in that culture women were little more than property, and a man who shtupped his neighbor's wife was considered to be violating said neighbor's property rights in a major way. But a man was allowed to shtup other women who weren't his wife, so long as no other man claimed exclusive mating rights over her (i.e., as long as she was not married herself).
As for equating thinking about sin with the act of sinning, the purpose was for one to banish improper thoughts before they ever act upon them. One can't sin without first thinking about committing said sin. Of course there also seems to be the assumption that one has absolutely no control over their impulses.
I know you are a vile, deceitful hatemonger who hides behind religious scripture in order to justify his own intolerance and smug self-righteousness. That is all I really need to know about you. Jesus would pray for you, but as for me patience for worthless dreck is one virtue that for whatever reason the gods in their infinite wisdom did not see fit to bestow upon me in any noticeable quantity.
And I and most other humans are capable of independent thought and reason, and able to figure out the difference between behaviors are harmful to society (like murder), and those that are not (like two consenting adults having sex even if they are not married to each other).
alwight
New member
If it makes you violent then perhaps you need some anger management training, at least stop playing it. :shocked:
:drum:
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
aCW's sidebar reads "Christian" too, and his gospel is based on obedience and belief in the civil government. So, just the label doesn't mean anything
(Disclaimer: as far as I know you believe in justification by faith so I do not believe you are an unbeliever.)
Can an unregenerate person truly "Repent"? I mean, I know they can become externally moral, but is that real "repentance"?
And there is certainly a form of repentance that is an immediate result of salvation. Not necessarily repentance from every single sin (Which is in fact impossible) but repentance from self-righteous religion.
At the very least that would be a temptation. It seems to me like it would be asking for trouble.
Most theonomic reconstructionists that I've heard of are partial preterists. I know you and Bob aren't, but most I've heard of are. Calvinists too.
I've answered this before, but you didn't like my answer.
So if two people look at each other with lust, should they both be executed?:rotfl:
But John 8 shows us that neither should be punished by death.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
Are you saying that if you don't believe homosexuals and adulterers should be executed that you aren't a Christian?
I thought I was "Mr. Judgmental" on here, and even I wouldn't say that if you're wrong on a civil governmental issue like this one that you aren't a Christian:think:
doloresistere
New member
Hopefully you are joking or did you honestly misunderstand his play on words? This is because another poster is seriously accusing him of that very thing.
Balerion-
You decided to tell me that I'm evil for the post above. Would you care to elaborate? How, exactly, am I evil? What is your supposed evidence?
It's not a fantasy. I'm simply discussing what I believe would leave us better off, in spite of my actual desires for the situation.
What I want vs. what is necessary are mutually exclusive.
This pathetic cliche? Are you really no better than this?
If you want to have an intelligent conversation then act as though you are intelligent and put your brain to use.
Attempting to mock me by suggesting these two things are the only things I care about when it comes to governance makes you look small-minded and petty; leaving the impression that you don't actually care about the argument at all, let alone enough to attempt to convince me otherwise. And thus you are wasting your time and I should not waste any of mine upon you.
You aren't using your brain to see anything. You're using your preconceived notions instilled through the indoctrination of society.
And the fact it's in the Bible is not the foundation of my argument; the foundation of my argument is the same foundation that led to it being commanded by God.
I don't fall under the category of mindless automaton who blindly accepts God's word and lives my life as though He was being arbitrary. He had His reasons for the commands He gave, and I seek those reasons, so as ti gain a fuller understanding of the commands. I seek to know their intent and purpose. If their presence in the Levitical Code was my sole focus not only would I be seeing through a miniscule aperture, but I would be advocating for the implementation of the entire Mosaic Law, including those that are clearly stated to be for Israel, as a nation, alone. The best you could hope for if my reasons were as you suggest is that I would take into consideration any stated repeals of certain laws. But even those are shown to be repealed in regard to those who have accepted Christ; with further passages stating that the law is [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]“[/FONT][/FONT]for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers,[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]”
[/FONT][/FONT]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,
-1 Timothy 1:8-10
You call that "colorful language"?
I'm trying to get my point across to someone who is giving the impression they aren't intelligent enough to understand high vocabulary.
Christians are more than willing to spend money on books wherein profit goes to those who vehemently oppose them. Are you saying Christians are better than you?
So what if it was with a belt? As far as breaking the skin, I don't know where you get that information.
And, as I said, he's not a kid anymore. He's a grown man who knows the difference between discipline and abuse.
And so am I. And I know from experience. So does my father. We both know this story, and neither of us considers it to have been abuse.
I used to think the same thing. I was very opposed to Bob after watching his show on the local LeSEA station. And I remained so when I joined TOL in 2003. Ten years later, here I am agreeing with him. Apparently I'm more open minded than you; willing to give someone a chance to see if perhaps I was wrong.
Did you not just essentially imply that I was immature for employing similar tactics? Hypocrite.
I'm not having any trouble following the conversation. In fact, in school I was given exemplary marks for my ability to follow along and comprehend; testing at a grade level well above my classmates.
And? Committing adultery in your heart and physically committing it are quite different things. And only the latter can actually be proven to have taken place, and is therefore the only one that can actually be prosecuted if criminalized.
Care to back up any of this assertion?
Thinking about it was, and is, a sin. Jesus wasn't equating thinking about sin with actual sin; He was equating mentally committing sin with physically committing sin.
But, again, this has no relevance to the discussion at hand.
You know absolutely nothing about me. You have no idea how deep my tolerance runs; or my love.
Nor do you know me well enough to make the presumption that I believe myself to be righteous of my own accord; or that I believe myself to be any less worthy of execution than the homosexual.
As I once said to Granite, the things you don't know about me would overflow the library of Alexandria.
When you make baseless assumptions you only make yourself look asinine.
Apparently not, as you seem completely incapable of actually giving any consideration to the matter beyond what you think you see on the surface in the self-imposed mass blindness engaged in by the cowardly populace of society who fear judgment and so refuse to make any of their own, according to the facts they decided to ignore in favor of not causing strife which has led us into the dregs wherein we now reside, because we have allowed scum to violate propriety in the name of tolerance.
Being unsaved ≠ to being an unbeliever.aCW's sidebar reads "Christian" too, and his gospel is based on obedience and belief in the civil government. So, just the label doesn't mean anything
(Disclaimer: as far as I know you believe in justification by faith so I do not believe you are an unbeliever.)
They cannot become saved, but they can change their mind regarding their perception of right and wrong, and be remorseful for their own immorality.
And yet guilt for crimes committed remains.
Certainly, but as far as I know those who live together were fornicating before that. Them living together makes no difference, except that they might engage more often. Then again possibly they would engage less often, because they begin to learn they can't stand each other.
It happens. I guess.
Because it was a response based on a preconceived notion, without any actual support in the text presented. Your argument was weak.
:doh:
I've repeatedly, and clearly, stated that this should not be; let alone that it could not be enforced. The only punishable act of adultery is the physical act.
No it doesn't.
If you actually knew the laws on adultery and execution you'd understand that. But you have failed to pay attention to your tutor.
Not nearly as stupid as you. I quit reading your post after the first "brilliant" sentence.
Idiot.