If you'd like to attempt a valid argument then do so. Otherwise stop wasting my time.
You haven't shown me to be legalistic at all, nor did you even attempt to show that I need to study Galatians. You simply made a statement with no support.
Executing homosexuals
- Thread starter zoo22
- Start date
You haven't shown me to be legalistic at all, nor did you even attempt to show that I need to study Galatians. You simply made a statement with no support.
Since I've already proven that your understanding of the passage is wrong and you refuse to see that Jesus actually said to stone her, I guess we're done.
You have proven no such thing, actually the opposite. If Jesus did not follow the law in every point, He would have not been capeable of being our Redeemer.
2 Corinthians 5:21
He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
Hebrews 4:15
For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.
A suitable sacrifice for sin, is without blemish.
1 Peter 1:18-19
knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.
If he stoned her or supported it, He would have violated the law that required both her and the man to be brought and there had to have been witnesses. They did not follow the law and was testing Him on it.
As far as reading Galatians, it seems you missed this:
Galatians 4:4: "But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law."
Christ failed in no part of the law - which is why He was unblemished, with no stain of sin and able to be sacrifice for sin.
Sorry, but you are wrong. What you are saying in essence amounts to saying that God cannot judge us unless He has two witnesses against us. Do you belive that?
Last edited:
Thats not what i said at all.
What does the Constitution have to say about the government intruding into the private bedrooms of the nation?
Given that there is no medical test to prove a same sex sexual oriention and neither partner would be willing to testify against the other, without incriminating themselves, it would next to impossible to prove in court.
No, but it is logical conclusion based on what you did say.
No, it isnt. The only logical conclusion is what scripture says and the pharisees were not following the law that they were all under and wanted to trap Jesus. He put it back on them.
You haven't proven anything of the sort.
If Jesus had been saying to stone her then He would have stoned her; as He was, as always, without sin.
False.
Jesus was not recognized by those men as the authority that He was. And He was thereby not in a legal position of authority to pass any judgment, especially since He did not witness the event.
That does not mean that God cannot pass judgment, as we recognize His authority in said matter.
And you still haven't answered the question of what would have happened if Jesus had simply answered, "Yes," without any caveats or writing on the ground.
The Constitution is somewhat irrelevant to this conversation as the discussion is about how things should be, not how they are.
Also, I have not advocated intrusion into private bedrooms.
If they kept it in private you would be right.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
Liberals: Where its "legalistic" to execute perverts on the testimony of two or three witnesses, but its totally fine to steal half of the average person's income, spy on everyone, use the TSA to grope people, engage in a war on drugs in which SWAT teams actually break into people's homes without warrants to prevent people from using substances of which the government disproves of, preventing people from owning weapons, shutting down small businesses who don't conform to odious regulations, and forcing everyone to buy health insurance is totally fine.
I'll be honest, I don't like the Biblical law that demands death for homosexuality And I'm wrong. God knows best, and I'm a sinner. One of the many reasons I'm a sinner is that I'm not totally comfortable with God's Law and every provision in it.
But, its "legalism" to add to or subtract from God's law without Biblical sanction (Deut. 4), not to advocate the use of the perfect law God wrote for civil governments even today.
I'll be honest, I don't like the Biblical law that demands death for homosexuality And I'm wrong. God knows best, and I'm a sinner. One of the many reasons I'm a sinner is that I'm not totally comfortable with God's Law and every provision in it.
But, its "legalism" to add to or subtract from God's law without Biblical sanction (Deut. 4), not to advocate the use of the perfect law God wrote for civil governments even today.
TracerBullet
New member
If you are talking about taxes then you are confused about the taxation rates of the working class verses the rates of the mega wealthy.
the super-rich pay lower tax rates than others
And the tax policies that make this possible are from conservative legislatures, not liberal.
Domestic surveillance became legal when George W. Bush signed the Patriot Act into law in 2001. The Patriot Act was written by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) and various members of the Bush cabinet.
The TSA has the power to do this thanks to the Patriot Act
reference?
what people and what weapons?
Health regulations or civil rights laws?
the individual mandate of the ACA was inserted into the law by republicans
The War on Drugs hasn't done anything to reduce the influx of them into this country, nor the usage of them among citizens. Except maybe only slightly; but so slightly it's negligible.
Maybe it's time to try a different approach. But don't expect that from the government. Their motto is: If it's broke don't fix it; just keep making it worse.
Jesus didn't want her stoned, Jesus forgave her. She was presented with ample witnesses to convict her of her guilt. Jesus could have asked the town folk to go get the men involved as I am sure that the town folk knew exactly who those people were. Yet Jesus used the moment to teach something that is much MUCH harder for people to learn: forgiveness. Jesus forgave her and today there are a great many "Christians" that would stone her.
The judge is not required to witness the even he is judging.
Unless He happens to be incarnate on the Earth at the particular moment, then, according to your interpretation, He loses His authority to judge.
But He didn't do that, did He. Since they were trying to lay a trap for Him they would have all jumped up and yelled, "Got Ya!" Instead, He taught that the woman was justly accused under the law and deserving of stoning. This is obvious from the phrase where He says, "...cast the first stone." However, Jesus also taught that to be worthy to carry out the sentence on the guilty women you had better first examine your sins to see if you are also guilty of something deserving of death. (Let he who is without sin..)
As to the writing on the ground, He was writing His name. Prove me wrong.
"Neither do I condemn you," does not equal "I forgive you."
In fact, if she is not condemned then there is nothing for which to forgive her.
Except for the fact that they all left, leaving 0 witnesses. That's less than two (2), in case you didn't know.
Why do you assume there was more than one man?
Also, I should hope they would know, since the Law required them to be caught in the act in order for them to be punished. If they didn't know then they weren't caught in the act and the men who brought the woman to Jesus were lying.
Forgiveness for what? What did those men have to forgive? She didn't sin against them.
I never said he was. The issue is that Jesus was not a recognized judge. Also, the hands of the witnesses are to be the first to throw stones; then everyone else. Since there were no witnesses to throw the first stones, and Jesus was not a witness, He could not throw any stones [even if He had been a recognized judge].
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]“[/FONT][/FONT]The hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people.[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]”[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][/FONT][/FONT]-Deuteronomy 17:7
And if Jesus had been the judge what about the priests? Or vice versa?
Then there's the fact that they were only to be brought before the priest and judge if the community could not decide on a judgment or punishment. With the Law being clear on what the punishment was to be there was no reason for them to go to the priests [Levites] and the judge.
Oh, that's right, there was to be more than one priest as well.
“If a matter arises which is too hard for you to judge, between degrees of guilt for bloodshed, between one judgment or another, or between one punishment or another, matters of controversy within your gates, then you shall arise and go up to the place which the Lord your God chooses. And you shall come to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge there in those days, and inquire of them; they shall pronounce upon you the sentence of judgment.[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]”[/FONT][/FONT]
-Deuteronomy 17:8-9
You know He was God incarnate. I know He was God incarnate. Those men did not. Otherwise this scenario would not have taken place.
This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him.
-John 8:6
Would you have tried to trick Him so you could accuse Him of wrongdoing if you knew who He truly was? Of course not!
Exactly! That is exactly what they would have done. And you want to know something else? That's also what they would have done if He had simply said, [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]“No.”[/FONT][/FONT]
You did understand that, didn't you?
And yet He did not cast a stone, though He was without sin. Why?
What was their sin?
An argument from silence. And also the act of a petulant child.
Now you might be starting to catch on. Jesus wont condemn you for your sins either.
The witness were all there when Jesus said to stone her. You can't deny that, He had already allowed the stoning if those that accused her were also without sin.
This is int he plural: "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. "
The passage above says she was caught. It seems as though those that caught her turned her over to the religious authorities.
Hmmm... You have much worse comprehension problems than I first thought. Tell me, if you have not caught a homosexual in the act, by what right to claim to be justified in stoning them? If one is accused of homosexuality yet there are no witnesses that have witnessed the homosexual act, by what right to claim to be justified is stoning them?
Jesus didn't say that only the witnesses had to be without sin, Jesus said that anybody there who is without sin could cast the first stone. Yet none did. I have this idea that when stand in the presence of Jesus and Jesus says, "let he who is without sin," those words compel you to examine yourself in a way no human could cause you to do. Those people walked away because they knew that they were no better than the woman. Even those who were attempting to trap Jesus were convicted by those words and went away.
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]
So by what law do you claim the authority to stone people for acts which you have not been witness too?
Jesus was and Is out Judge. He did not condemn the woman for her sin.
Funny how you wish to live under the law. The law brings only death. Remember that as you preach death for those that offend you.
If He threatened my power base, yes, I might try to trip Him up and get Him out of my way. They suspected something because Jesus was obviously a threat to them and they wanted Him out of their way thus this trap. And Jesus turned right back upon them.
I understand that this passage deals with far greater truths of the Gospel than just a simple notion of stoning. Keep in mind that when Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Nobody, absolutely nobody picked up a stone, not even the men who dragged the woman before Jesus. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.
Because He did not condemn her. He forgave her. It was far more important to teach the concept of forgiveness of the concept of death under the law.
What is yours?
I note though that you cannot refute my assertion. The only way for you to refute my statement would be to provide a transcript of what Jesus actually wrote. As none exists, you can make no meaningful statement about what Jesus wrote. It could have been His name. It could have been notes on the law (probably not as the Pharisees would have seen that and been totally hacked off.) Any argument you attempt to make about what Jesus wrote faces exactly the same obstacle. By stating that Jesus wrote this or that or the other thing you are adding to scripture that which is not there. Do you really want to go down that road?
So.....you sound like you are in favor of such a plan.
Or maybe I misunderstood.
Is it possible that someone in the 21st Century can really be so brainwashed and deluded and backward as to really believe that killing a person for their sexual preference is justified.
I thought people of this mindset were all gone now. Or in caves. Or mental hospitals. Or prison.
Or 12 year-old fundamentalists brainwashed by their parents.
Interesting.
A person thinking this should be on display behind glass in a zoo or a museum somewhere.
BTW..Jesus NEVER said a word against homosexuals. Check your gospels, amigo.
And..just in case you are wondering, I am straight. LOL
Who said anything about sins? The issue here is crime; regardless of our state of condemnation for sin.
I am forgiven. Therefore I am not condemned for my sin. However, if I commit any act deserving of death [such as murder] then I will not object to being executed; because that is what I deserve.
:doh:
Did He not know they were without sin?
Stop being stupid.
So she was committing adultery with all those who brought her to Jesus?
Maybe you should pay attention to the conversation.
So those who caught her also broke the Law?
I would not be justified in stoning them.
Are you really this stupid?
And how does this even relate to what I posted?
The Law stated that the witnesses had to be the first to throw stones. You are arguing that Jesus rejected the Law. That is heresy.
If there were witnesses and the judgment and sentence have been passed and the witnesses have thrown their stones then I am free, according to the Law, to then throw stones.
His being our Judge is irrelevant as He was not recognized as such by the men who brought the adulteress to Him.
I only desire to have the laws found within the Law that are good laws to have be the laws enforced by the government. This has nothing to do with salvation.
So you would, knowing He was God incarnate, try to trip Him up?
You're dumber than I thought.
I see now. You are BE-Legalist. But still a legalist.
Then go turn yourself in becaue I am absolutly sure you are guilty of some crime according the the Old Cevenant.
He know that none of those gathered before Him were without sin. He made one comments and they all knew it as well.
Doesn't really say, does it.
You are the one all wrapped up in leagistic interpretations of scripture so why don't you tell us. Remember that Jesus frequently too the Pharisees to task for being so far removed from what God had actually commanded. Those accusing her may not have caught her in the act and maybe the Pharisees no longer required that to accuse somebody of breaking a law.
Just excploring your limits of "Christian love".
Given that Jesus NEVER said not to stone her, I am spot on. In fact, in scripture, He flat out says to stone her.
Is it your contention then that the witnesses are okay to throw their stones if they are guilty of sins of their own? Jesus said they are not. So, who am I to trust? Lighthouse, who seems to be relish the thought of stoning a homosexual to death as an act of "Christian love" or Jesus who said examine yourself before you judge others. Its that whole plank in the eye thing.
If he wasn't recognized as a judge, why would they bother to bring the woman before him in the first place. If it was the Pharisees laying a trap, they told the crowd to take the woman before Jesus for judgement thus leading people to belive that the Pharisees had given Jesus their authority to judge this woman.
I rather think it does. Jesus said go forth and make believers of all men. Jesus sadi to forgive our brother 7 times 70 times. Why is it so many Christian say, "Kill Them!" instead of saying God loves you and wants you to come home.
Yes, you are quite dumb if you cannot understand that I was speaking in hypothetical wherin I assumed to be somebody in a place of honor and authority that I want to keep. Would you care to answer the principle behind the reply or just continue in your ad hominem fallacy?
Scripture is silent regarding this so we, meaning you and I, dont know.
I dont agree with your asesment. Jesus knew what sin she was guilty of and did not condemn her for it which is another way of saying He forgave her sins before His Father. If Jesus does not condemn you then He must be forgiving you because none are without sin.
Right up until you pick up that first rock to throw at your gay neighbor that you caught by peeking in their window and catching them in the act. Then it will be the most relevant thing in your life.
You were the one who first brought up the notion that Jesus wrote something in the dirt that changed peoples minds. I merely pointed out how deeply flawed such a notion is and why. I was neither petty nor petulant, I was plain and direct.
Last edited:
I would like to encourage all christians here and all christians everywhere to speak as loudly as possible so that all people can hear and proclaim as vehemently as possible that all good christians want to murder all gay people. This is important and needs to be done. There are a lot of decent people who don't think christianity is solely about hate and murder of innocent people. The sooner we get this done the sooner the nation will abandon christianity just like we abandoned slavery.
Obviously you haven't read any of the thread. Had you, you would know that very few people advocate killing gays.