Executing homosexuals

[Town Heretic]

What is "my way"?

Funny. If you don't know how could anyone else?

As for the "we" comment there is no necessity for an argument. There were at least two of us, making "we" proper.

Way to really get in there and tackle the meat of the thing...rather, making "we" an attempt at assuming/projecting authority. It's what people run to when what they have isn't standing up on its own.

Forget it. You're an idiot.

And that's about what I expect from you as per my last on it.

I provided the text of the Law, you have failed to provide any Scripture to refute my argument.

I provided you with the words and actions of the Author.

The Law was not null and void at the time of the story in question [not that it is now],

So why the qualification? Grammatically and rationally speaking that's peculiar.

and you haven't a leg to stand on to show that Jesus could have executed her without transgressing the Law.

You make a few assumptions to get there. I don't. Beyond that I noted any number of responses that would have satisfied. You appear to feel satisfied that Christ, knowing the woman was guilty, gave her a pass because of a legal technicality.

That doesn't really sound like God, does it?

 

[CabinetMaker]

These men knew the Law. Jesus did not need to tell them the Law. The Law was not null and void; it was not abolished.

Jesus also wrote in the dirt. What did He write in the dirt?

You and Town seem to be afraid to answer this question.

We don't know what he wrote in the dirt. There is nothing in scripture that gives us any idea at all.

The men all knew the law and it wasn't their knowledge of the law that stopped them. Jesus said, if you are without sin, go ahead and throw a stone. No legal games, just a simple statement that made those present stop and examine their own lives.

Continue in your ignorance if you wish. Or learn that Jesus was much more about forgiveness than condemnation.

 

[Lon]

Abuse of any sort is a horrible thing and no one should ever have to endure it. But abuse does not and cannot change your orientation.

You've no idea what you are talking about.

The simple truth remains that most homosexual men and women were never abused.

I'm just as capable of reading data as anybody and data does indeed point to this in huge numbers.

I'm sorry you don't like that truth but it remains.

That you 'think' anything is true doesn't make it true.

I'm also sorry you are so consumed by anger. You need to seek some help in dealing with that anger.

Says the arm-chair counselor who lies for a living. You are a salesman, but I don't like your product and definitely would show you the door. You've been banned from TOL several times now, because of it. Know why? Because you break your oaths. You promised to do some thing on TOL and then 'lied.' That's a ban and we have a record of one of us lying. All you. I'm sorry 'you' are the one with a problem and can't seem to understand you lie, a lot, on TOL. That you've waded through enough data to know better is inexcusable. You go ahead and 'try' again to make this about me. It is, indeed, about you and sweepings under rugs for anything you particularly don't like, regardless of actuality. I don't care if everybody else is doing it. You know better.

 

[TracerBullet]

You've no idea what you are talking about.


I'm just as capable of reading data as anybody and data does indeed point to this in huge numbers.

That you 'think' anything is true doesn't make it true.

Says the arm-chair counselor who lies for a living. You are a salesman, but I don't like your product and definitely would show you the door. You've been banned from TOL several times now, because of it. Know why? Because you break your oaths. You promised to do some thing on TOL and then 'lied.' That's a ban and we have a record of one of us lying. All you. I'm sorry 'you' are the one with a problem and can't seem to understand you lie, a lot, on TOL. That you've waded through enough data to know better is inexcusable. You go ahead and 'try' again to make this about me. It is, indeed, about you and sweepings under rugs for anything you particularly don't like, regardless of actuality. I don't care if everybody else is doing it. You know better.

again, you really need to seek some help for the anger that is eating away at you

 

[Lon]

again, you really need to seek some help for the anger that is eating away at you

:spam:

 

[Angel4Truth]

We don't know what he wrote in the dirt. There is nothing in scripture that gives us any idea at all.

Jeremiah 17:13 "...all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from me shall be written in the earth...

 

[CabinetMaker]

Jeremiah 17:13 "...all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from me shall be written in the earth...

I would not agree. This is speculation only. We do not know what Jesus wrote in the dust because it is not recorded in scripture.

 

[Granite]

Jeremiah 17:13 "...all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from me shall be written in the earth...

I've seen some out of context cherrypicking in my time but that one there takes the prize.:chuckle:

Seriously, this thread's still a thing? I'm impressed.

 

[Lighthouse]

Funny. If you don't know how could anyone else?

You're the one who proposed to tell me I have a continuing habit when I don't get my way. If you don't know what "my way" is then you cannot support your accusation.

Way to really get in there and tackle the meat of the thing...rather, making "we" an attempt at assuming/projecting authority. It's what people run to when what they have isn't standing up on its own.

I wasn't assuming anything. The only authority in this matter is God's word, and you have failed miserably at using it to support your side of the debate.

And that's about what I expect from you as per my last on it.

Perhaps a better word would be "ignoramus." As you are exceptionally ignorant of the word of God.

I provided you with the words and actions of the Author.

None of which refute, repeal or otherwise contradict the Law.

So why the qualification? Grammatically and rationally speaking that's peculiar.

Because there are those who might accuse me of saying it is now if I don't clarify. Have you not been on TOL very long? [Rhetorical]

You make a few assumptions to get there. I don't. Beyond that I noted any number of responses that would have satisfied. You appear to feel satisfied that Christ, knowing the woman was guilty, gave her a pass because of a legal technicality.

That doesn't really sound like God, does it?

1. I made no assumptions.
2. None of your responses show Jesus to have ignored the Law.
3. So God should kill everyone guilty of a capital crime, regardless of the specific commands He gave on going about enacting capital punishment?

We don't know what he wrote in the dirt. There is nothing in scripture that gives us any idea at all.

Then why do you continue to assume He did not write the things you claim He did not make note of in this situation?

The men all knew the law and it wasn't their knowledge of the law that stopped them. Jesus said, if you are without sin, go ahead and throw a stone. No legal games, just a simple statement that made those present stop and examine their own lives.

It was their knowledge of the Law that led them to try to trick Jesus. If He had said to go ahead and stone the woman what do you think those men would have done?

Continue in your ignorance if you wish. Or learn that Jesus was much more about forgiveness than condemnation.

John 3:18

If you were correct on this you would be able to support it with Scripture. You haven't even tried, beyond attempting to twist this story to suit your warm fuzzy feelings.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Then why do you continue to assume He did not write the things you claim He did not make note of in this situation?

I make no assumptions whatsoever about what He wrote in the dirt. You cannot say the same.

It was their knowledge of the Law that led them to try to trick Jesus. If He had said to go ahead and stone the woman what do you think those men would have done?

He told them that it was okay for whomever was without sin to throw the first stone. Do you really not see that?

John 3:18

Random scripture verse. I suppose its always worth a go.

If you were correct on this you would be able to support it with Scripture. You haven't even tried, beyond attempting to twist this story to suit your warm fuzzy feelings.

I have. Its plain and simple in scripture before you. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

 

[zoo22]

Seriously, this thread's still a thing? I'm impressed.

Yeah, except still, after years now, no one's been able to come up with their plan for executing homosexuals.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Yeah, except still, after years now, no one's been able to come up with their plan for executing homosexuals.

Some of us have no plan because we believe that when Jesus said go and make believers of all men He did not mean we are to kill those who do not believe as we do.

 

[Quetzal]

Some of us have no plan because we believe that when Jesus said go and make believers of all men He did not mean we are to kill those who do not believe as we do.

NOW YOU SEE HERE- oh wait... that... that makes sense...

 

[zoo22]

Some of us have no plan because we believe that when Jesus said go and make believers of all men He did not mean we are to kill those who do not believe as we do.

I understand. I was asking the folks who think homosexuals should be executed, and really, the folks who believe that homosexuals should be executed because God said so in The Bible or Allah said so in the Koran. Because that's the primary reason it's even an issue.

Though, while I understand very well that not all Christians believe this, I will say I think it's a little odd that God's very clear statement about executing people would later not only be changed, but changed and left to people's interpretation of an undisclosed "something" that Jesus drew in the sand.

I mean, really, think about it. God Himself lays out some extremely clear rules regarding who to kill and for what. Then, later, He possibly changes his mind, and leaves it up to people to understand and interpret through an explanation that Jesus wrote something in the sand? In a verse that wasn't even included in the Bible until the Middle Ages, and that Christians of all walks disagree about?

I've listened to folks argue about the meaning of John 8 for years and years. I have absolutely no reason to think there'll ever be a point that people will agree about it. That seems strange to me. Particularly given that it's about killing people. Mysterious.

But anyway, that said, I'm still waiting for someone to explain a plan for executing homosexuals. The people who believe it should be done. How will it come about? There's plenty of planning and sharing of plans for making abortion illegal... Right? Everything from shirts and rallies and banners and websites to proposed laws and political platforms and candidates or "Personhood" logos... All sorts of different things. All kinds of plans. What's the plan for executing the homosexual people?

 

[Lighthouse]

I make no assumptions whatsoever about what He wrote in the dirt. You cannot say the same.

You assume He did not write certain things. I do not assume He did, or did not write certain things. I believe it to be wholly possible that He did write certain aspects of the Law relating to the specific incident. I also believe it to be wholly possible that He did not.

He told them that it was okay for whomever was without sin to throw the first stone. Do you really not see that?

Knowing that He was the only one without sin, and that He would not cast a stone at her, He did not tell them any such thing. He was telling them that it was not OK for them to cast a stone at her, because they were not without sin.

Do you honestly think Jesus was contradicting the Law in this? Because we know God made no such caveat that only those completely free of sin could engage in stoning.

So, the only logical conclusion is that there sin was specific to the moment; they were sinning in what they were doing at that exact time. Or some of them had committed adultery with her.

Random scripture verse. I suppose its always worth a go.

Did you even read it? It speaks of condemnation, which you brought up. It says that those who do not believe on Him are condemned.

And the fact that you failed to even bring up the prior two verses in an attempt to defend your position shows just how ignorant of the Scripture you are.

I have. Its plain and simple in scripture before you. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

You are, again, doing as I pointed out you were doing.

And to make things worse, you are attempting to build a doctrine on a single verse; that always fails. Every time.

Jesus was born under the Law; He lived according to it.

But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
-Galatians 4:4

 

[CabinetMaker]

You assume He did not write certain things. I do not assume He did, or did not write certain things. I believe it to be wholly possible that He did write certain aspects of the Law relating to the specific incident. I also believe it to be wholly possible that He did not.


Knowing that He was the only one without sin, and that He would not cast a stone at her, He did not tell them any such thing. He was telling them that it was not OK for them to cast a stone at her, because they were not without sin.

Do you honestly think Jesus was contradicting the Law in this? Because we know God made no such caveat that only those completely free of sin could engage in stoning.

So, the only logical conclusion is that there sin was specific to the moment; they were sinning in what they were doing at that exact time. Or some of them had committed adultery with her.


Did you even read it? It speaks of condemnation, which you brought up. It says that those who do not believe on Him are condemned.

And the fact that you failed to even bring up the prior two verses in an attempt to defend your position shows just how ignorant of the Scripture you are.


You are, again, doing as I pointed out you were doing.

And to make things worse, you are attempting to build a doctrine on a single verse; that always fails. Every time.

Jesus was born under the Law; He lived according to it.

But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
-Galatians 4:4

Yes, Jesus was not teaching according to the law, He was teaching according to the New Covenant. Read down a couple if verses. Jesus looks up and asks the women where all those that would condemn her went. He then said that He did not condemn her either. Your interpretation if the passage is wrong and eI do not agree with you at all.

 

[Lighthouse]

Yes, Jesus was not teaching according to the law, He was teaching according to the New Covenant.

Blasphemer.

Read down a couple if verses. Jesus looks up and asks the women where all those that would condemn her went. He then said that He did not condemn her either. Your interpretation if the passage is wrong and eI do not agree with you at all.

I've read it. According to the Law Jesus could not condemn her; as there were no witnesses, nor was He a witness.

The New Covenant did not start until His death, burial and resurrection. Neither did it cause the Law to cease, even if it had begun at the time of the incident.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Blasphemer.


I've read it. According to the Law Jesus could not condemn her; as there were no witnesses, nor was He a witness.

The New Covenant did not start until His death, burial and resurrection. Neither did it cause the Law to cease, even if it had begun at the time of the incident.

Of course, Jesus had to teach what the New Covenant would be so that when He finished His work on the cross people would know what the New Covenant was. Rest assured, If it had been important for Jesus (God incarnate) to condemn the woman, she would have been condemned. Instead, He forgave her. You need to learn the love of Christ instead of the hate of the Pharisees.

 

[Lighthouse]

Of course, Jesus had to teach what the New Covenant would be so that when He finished His work on the cross people would know what the New Covenant was. Rest assured, If it had been important for Jesus (God incarnate) to condemn the woman, she would have been condemned. Instead, He forgave her. You need to learn the love of Christ instead of the hate of the Pharisees.

It was not important for Him to condemn her, and you don't even understand why.

Jesus was born under the Law: "But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law..," [Galatians 4:4]

Even when the NC was in effect the Law was not done away with; a He never taught that it had been. Else the argument Peter made during his vision as recorded in Acts 10 would never have happened. In fact, if Jesus had taught these things prior to the NC taking effect the vision wouldn't have been necessary.

 

[CabinetMaker]

It was not important for Him to condemn her, and you don't even understand why.

Jesus was born under the Law: "But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law..," [Galatians 4:4]

Even when the NC was in effect the Law was not done away with; a He never taught that it had been. Else the argument Peter made during his vision as recorded in Acts 10 would never have happened. In fact, if Jesus had taught these things prior to the NC taking effect the vision wouldn't have been necessary.

You need to spend more time studying Galatians, you are far to legalistic.