Should homosexuals be given the death penalty?

[Nineveh]

Maybe if we look at the whole verse you will able to see it better:

23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, 27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

 

[kmoney]

I wholly disagree with you there, but I am happy to take your interpretation of what those verses mean, as in doesn't make a spot of difference - for then all we are saying is that adulterers are to be put to death. Ok - simply frame the question that way - are adulterers to be put to death?

Those who say homosexuals should be put to death ALSO say adulterers should be put to death.

 

[Nineveh]

1. So your saying homosexual outlawing is ceremonial/superficial? I don't get what point you are trying to make here...

I asked you if there was a division (aka differences) in the OT Law. Or do you feel they were all ceremonial Laws? (I'm not sure what "superficial" mean in reference to the Law.)

2. An alternate setup could have prisons as a collection of solitary confinements?

Well that sounds humane. Did you mean to say they should be treated like death row inmates, or was that an accident?

 

[Lighthouse]

Should homosexuals be given the death penalty?

Absolutely not! A homosexual should get the death penalty only if he or she committed a crime worthy of death, such as homicide. If you were to give homosexuals the death penalty for commiting homosexual acts then you would have to give: pedofiles, rapist, adulterers, fornicators, mediums and spiritists, incestual parents, partakers in beastiality, or anyone who curses his or her father and/or mother should also be put to death. All of these other than homosexual sins are spoken of in one biblical chapter, i.e., Leviticus chapter 20. Don't get me wrong homosexuality is wrong even evil. But, adultery, e.g., is no less evil according to the Scriptures. I think we go wrong in a death-to-homosexuals campain. Homosexuals are in our face in a bold way. Whereas adultery is not. When was the last time you heard of an "Adulterers Pride Week". The boldness and brazeness of some homosexuals gets under our skin and brings us much anger. This anger though can color our reading of Scripture causing us to read into Scripture what is not there. Therefore, saying "the death penalty for all homosexuals" is due to personal anger and not Scripture.

We do believe those people should be given the death penalty.

 

[Kosh3]

Maybe if we look at the whole verse you will able to see it better:

23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, 27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

no its still absolutely abhorrent to me, sorry. But i'm guessing those two extra lines do make you feel better though?

Those who say homosexuals should be put to death ALSO say adulterers should be put to death.

well, yeah - but thats not suprising. We knew that before we began. But the question to ask is do you think they should die, and for those who do think adulterers should die - is it problematic NOT to kill them (i.e. to anger god)?

I asked you if there was a division (aka differences) in the OT Law. Or do you feel they were all ceremonial Laws? (I'm not sure what "superficial" mean in reference to the Law.)

I don't see what reason god would have to have ceremonial laws - what good do they do? If they are ceremonial, they are merely aesthetic and without real force - hence superficial. And plus they are incongruent with the very purpose of the bible - to set out for humanity the meaningful rules and regulations for pious existence here and in the everafter.

Well that sounds humane. Did you mean to say they should be treated like death row inmates, or was that an accident?

If I was in prison, im pretty darn sure that I would prefer physical seperation from everyone else. You wouldn't? Or, you think its better to kill homosexuals?

 

[Sozo]

We do believe those people should be given the death penalty.

Right after fellowship week!

 

[Nineveh]

no its still absolutely abhorrent to me, sorry. But i'm guessing those two extra lines do make you feel better though?

well, yeah - but thats not suprising. We knew that before we began. But the question to ask is do you think they should die, and for those who do think adulterers should die - is it problematic NOT to kill them (i.e. to anger god)?

I've noticed through life when we ignore God it's to our own peril.

I don't see what reason god would have to have ceremonial laws - what good do they do?

They point to Christ.

If they are ceremonial, they are merely aesthetic and without real force - hence superficial.

Not if they are symbolic. They hold meaning.

And plus they are incongruent with the very purpose of the bible - to set out for humanity the meaningful rules and regulations for pious existence here and in the everafter.

As I asked before, are you of the opinion all the Law is ceremonial? I'm not.

If I was in prison, im pretty darn sure that I would prefer physical seperation from everyone else. You wouldn't? Or, you think its better to kill homosexuals?

If my crime was a capital crime, I would expect the death penalty. And no, I don't think I could come up with a "good" way to be locked up like an animal. Do you think it's better they murder themsleves (among other things)?

 

[Lighthouse]

I should have read that entire list. Not all of those listed are prescribed execution. Fornicators should be forced to get married.

 

[allsmiles]

I should have read that entire list. Not all of those listed are prescribed execution. Fornicators should be forced to get married.

fornicators getting married... what's the practical reason for that?

 

[kmoney]

fornicators getting married... what's the practical reason for that?

It'd happen a lot less, don't ya think?? :chuckle:

 

[allsmiles]

It'd happen a lot less, don't ya think?? :chuckle:

maybe yes maybe no. divorce rates would probably sky rocket, there'd be more babies being born to parents who don't love each other and aren't financially equipped to have a baby. creates a host of problems i think.

 

[Kosh3]

1) I've noticed through life when we ignore God it's to our own peril.
They point to Christ. 2) Not if they are symbolic. They hold meaning. 3) As I asked before, are you of the opinion all the Law is ceremonial? I'm not. If my crime was a capital crime, I would expect the death penalty. And no, I don't think I could come up with a "good" way to be locked up like an animal. 4) Do you think it's better they murder themsleves (among other things)?

ok
1) assuming you havn't executed anyone for adultery or homosexuality, and the world being as it is there is a very good chance that you know of examples of both, I take it that you are willing personally to be encumbered with the peril of going against gods commands? (unless you think he's being cryptic and doesn't really mean for you to execute them)
2) so your not a literalist about the bible? some parts are figurative/symbolic?
3) I don't recall saying any of it was ceremonial, let alone all of it. In fact my whole line of question was aimed explicitly towards the person who believes the bible literally on these points - a fully literal interpretation is what I wanted to look at.
4) Personally I don't think homosexuality is a criminal offense, and nor do I think prisoners who are in jail should have much contact to do with one another.

 

[Nineveh]

maybe yes maybe no. divorce rates would probably sky rocket, there'd be more babies being born to parents who don't love each other and aren't financially equipped to have a baby. creates a host of problems i think.

Look at the out of wedlock kids now. And the diseases.

Maybe people would think about the repercussion of their actions. It's a good thing for people to take repsonsibility.

 

[Nineveh]

ok
1) assuming you havn't executed anyone for adultery or homosexuality, and the world being as it is there is a very good chance that you know of examples of both, I take it that you are willing personally to be encumbered with the peril of going against gods commands? (unless you think he's being cryptic and doesn't really mean for you to execute them)

Can't you see the effects of society for going against God's commands? We have epidemics of divorce, rape, murder, STDs....

2) so your not a literalist about the bible? some parts are figurative/symbolic?

Do you think there is only one kind/type of Law in the Bible? For instance...

Is the Law about mixed fiber the same kind of law as the one about the prohibition of murder?

3) I don't recall saying any of it was ceremonial, let alone all of it. In fact my whole line of question was aimed explicitly towards the person who believes the bible literally on these points - a fully literal interpretation is what I wanted to look at.

I've asked you twice so far in previous posts if you think there is a division in the OT Law. Your first answer was, "1. So your saying homosexual outlawing is ceremonial/superficial? I don't get what point you are trying to make here..."

The second time you answered, "I don't see what reason god would have to have ceremonial laws - what good do they do? If they are ceremonial, they are merely aesthetic and without real force - hence superficial. And plus they are incongruent with the very purpose of the bible - to set out for humanity the meaningful rules and regulations for pious existence here and in the everafter."

4) Personally I don't think homosexuality is a criminal offense, and nor do I think prisoners who are in jail should have much contact to do with one another.

Well, it's a good thing I look to a higher power to base right and wrong on I don't think your desire for solitary confinement is all that big hearted. It's cruel, wasteful and serves no purpose other than for those who find some sort of pleasure in torture.

 

[allsmiles]

Look at the out of wedlock kids now. And the diseases.

Maybe people would think about the repercussion of their actions. It's a good thing for people to take repsonsibility.

and i don't disagree with you Nin, but you can't force people to take responsibility.

 

[Nineveh]

and i don't disagree with you Nin, but you can't force people to take responsibility.

No we can't. That's why the government has taken the place of fathers in this country...

If it were the law you were to marry the woman you use, then it would be quite foolish to use a woman you didn't want to be with. Which happens quite a bit these days.

 

[allsmiles]

No we can't. That's why the government has taken the place of fathers in this country.

If it were the law you were to marry the woman you use, then it would be quite foolish to use a woman you didn't want to be with. Which happens quite a bit these days.

people would be complicit for the wrong reasons, no one would learn anything.

 

[Kosh3]

1) Can't you see the effects of society for going against God's commands? We have epidemics of divorce, rape, murder, STDs....2) Do you think there is only one kind/type of Law in the Bible? For instance...Is the Law about mixed fiber the same kind of law as the one about the prohibition of murder? 3) I've asked you twice so far in previous posts if you think there is a division in the OT Law. Your first answer was, "1. So your saying homosexual outlawing is ceremonial/superficial? I don't get what point you are trying to make here..." The second time you answered, "I don't see what reason god would have to have ceremonial laws - what good do they do? If they are ceremonial, they are merely aesthetic and without real force - hence superficial. And plus they are incongruent with the very purpose of the bible - to set out for humanity the meaningful rules and regulations for pious existence here and in the everafter."4)
Well, it's a good thing I look to a higher power to base right and wrong on I don't think your desire for solitary confinement is all that big hearted. It's cruel, wasteful and serves no purpose other than for those who find some sort of pleasure in torture.

1) is that a yes or a no to the question?
2) if god wrote the bible, then yes.
3) thanks for the recap. You cannot get the answer from the second reply? if you can't (for some reason), then the answer was just before - 'if god wrote the bible, then yes'. On the first time around I had no idea what you were on about.
4) so in your eyes, on the basis of me saying that prison systems should restrict the contact prisoners have with one another, i'm basically a sadistic thrillseeker. Interesting. And at the same time it's more moral (presumably by a long shot) to execute via stoning adulterers and homosexuals? the plot thickens!

The whole purpose in fact, for my question back at the start, was to get an answer to 1), still not yet received.

 

[Nineveh]

people would be complicit for the wrong reasons, no one would learn anything.

And there would be a lot less fatherless kids and disease. Unless we forgot what irresponsibility breeds, I guess we would learn responsiblity is better.

 

[Nineveh]

1) is that a yes or a no to the question?

Yes. Would you like to answer it?