so which political party is on the right side of these two issues?
Sycophant.
****************************************************
I presume that "madman" is referring to Leviticus 20:13 which makes the connection between committing "homosexual" acts and the death penalty.
What "madman" fails to mention is that Leviticus 20 happens to be a "package deal" and that it would be hypocritical is impose the death penalty for one and not for all!
If one were to impose the death penalty (stoning) for cursing one's parents, who would be left on earth to conduct the other executions?
madman didn't even mention the rest of Lev. 20, let alone confirm or deny any view, whatsoever, on whether the rest of it should also be applied today as criminal law.
You fail.
What difference would that make. You have already demonstrated that your behavior is based on somebodies rules and not on what is the right thing to do regardless of what rules might be in place.
You're an idiot.
Not once did I ever say I believed the rules here to be the 'right thing to do' in all instances. I stand firm in my belief that it would be perfectly right to say things to you that I am not allowed to say here. And I would never say them if they were wrong to say.
You made another non sequitur. Do you like to fail? Is that what this is?
And, FYI, respecting Knight [as TOL is his] is the right thing to do, so that is why I don't break his rules. The one time I did, and got banned for it, I thought I was within the rules.
Yes and it was wrong. The priests were originally charged with enforcing God's law. Sin was a crime and crime was a sin. If you stole from your brother then you were taken before the priests for judgment and punishment as God set forth in His Covenant with Israel. The concept of Crime and Sin being different came much much later.
Idiot.
The judges were charged with enforcing the law. WIF already explained this to you, so I will refrain from redundancy.
Once again, you rephrased my question into something I did not asked and answered your own question.
I didn't change a single word of what you posted, liar.
Because by their lax human standards, they were. They were quite happy in their completely immoral life style and their cities seemed to be economically viable.
They were doing fine by their standards so you consider them to have been doing fine? What the hell is wrong with you? Did you fall on your head?
The sexually immoral will not inherit the Kingdom. Exactly how sexually immoral can a person be before they are sexually immoral enough not inherit the kingdom?
Irrelevant.
Exactly what denomination are yo a member of? I think you are drawing distinctions between "forgive" and "not condemn" that do not exist. The Son of Man said I do not condemn you. That is a pretty powerful way of saying I forgive you!
I am a member of no denomination. I am a Christian, period.
And you're an idiot if you honestly think "I do not condemn you," means the same as, "I forgive you."
Well, using your reasoning from above, there is nothing in there that says a government cannot grant mercy, is there.
Yes, there is, you moron.
How is that odd?
Explain your response in much more detail. IT makes no sense at all as stated.
Really?
I think I might actually start to cry, because no one deserves to be as stupid as you.
The idea of murder had never even crossed God's mind, therefore He had no set punishment for it. After it happened He punished Cain with the first punishment He conceived. And then, later, He decided on a different punishment [execution] and it remained forever after. This proves you wrong.
Biblically, we know nothing other than there was a crowd. We don't know how big it was or who was in it. But, since there is nothing new under the sun, it is not hard to imagine that people saw a fight brewing and went over to watch. Everybody loves to watch a good fight. So it is not unreasonable to conclude that there were people present who had nothing to do with bringing the woman to Christ. But they could not cast the first stone because they were not without sin either.
Again, Wander In Fog explained this to you, so I will refrain from redundancy.
But I will state my agreement with him that it is sad you do not know the Law of Moses, yet you want to argue as though you do.
So, if Jesus were alive today and you saw woman being taken to Him. You are not part of the people doing the bringing but you go over to listen. Jesus looks at the crowd and says that whoever is without sin can cast the first stone. Are you telling me that you are without sin and free to cast the first stone?
Jesus is alive today. Maybe that's your problem.
Your other problem is that you don't have the first clue as to why I am without sin. It is because Christ died for sin, and I am now free. If Christ had yet to die I would not be without sin.
And, as WIF explained, even if I was without sin, in your scenario I was not among the accusers so, according to the Law, I could not cast the first stone.
I don't have to, you've already done that for me. I've yet to see a gay-debate thread on this website where scripture wasn't quoted multiple times.
Coward.
Its pretty hard to separate the two when I'm being told that the guy doing the loving and the judging is the same person.
Faulty premise. Your are full of fail in the idea that those who love do not judge.
