"both of them shall be put to death"

[TheFathersDaughter]

Are you a priest, a judge, a law enforcement official of any kind? If not, then why don’t you leave the responsibility for enforcing the law to those whom are so appointed? If you and another “witness,” or two, see somebody violating God’s law, the both of you should report it to the proper authorities, and your responsibility ends there.



Are you “the government?” See the O.T. requirements for imposing the death penalty, above. If, and when, God appoints you as a judge or executioner, then you might be justified in worrying about this. Until then, why not concern yourself with scripture that directly affects you, personally?



In the commandment the word translated “you shall not kill,” is the specific word for “murder,” not a general term for killing. It was not “murder” for those officially appointed, to carry out a lawfully adjudged death penalty.



Still ignoring Jesus' reinterpretation of the applicable scripture. Since you seem bound and determined to impose the death penalty on someone, you go and convene the Jewish Sanhedrin, of, not less than, 70 Jewish Elders, in the temple, in Jerusalem, call your 2-3 prosecution witnesses, and at least 2 defense witnesses, and get'er done.

Der Alter, I'm surprised that you would so blatantly deny the word of God! The OT strictly gives the punishments as stated by God Himself. We are to follow authority until it denies God's word. God is giving judgement by telling us how to give judgement. Who are we to not pass what God told us to do. It's in the Bible after all.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Der Alter, I'm surprised that you would so blatantly deny the word of God! The OT strictly gives the punishments as stated by God Himself. We are to follow authority until it denies God's word. God is giving judgement by telling us how to give judgement. Who are we to not pass what God told us to do. It's in the Bible after all[/SIZE].

I have found it is very helpful to actually read the Bible before trying to discuss it.

Did you by any chance read Jesus' restriction on capital punishment? John 8:12

Jewish Encyclopedia- Capital Punishment

Capital punishment in rabbinic law, or indeed any other punishment, must not be inflicted, except by

1. the verdict of a regularly constituted court (Lesser Sanh.) of three-and-twenty qualified members (Sanh. i. 1; Sifre, Num. 160), and except

2. on the most trustworthy and convincing testimony of at least two qualified eye-witnesses to the crime (Deut. xvii. 6, xix. 15; Sotah vi. 3; Sifre, Num. 161; ib. Deut. 150, 188; Sanh. 30a)

3. who must also depose that the culprit had been forewarned as to the criminality and the consequences of his project (Sanh. v. 1, 40b et seq.; see Hatraah).

4. The culprit must be a person of legal age and of sound mind,

5. and the crime must be proved to have been committed of the culprit's free will and without the aid of others (see Abetment);

6. and if any one wilfully kills him before conviction, a charge of murder will lie against such perpetrator (Tosef., B. Ḳ. ix. 15; Sifre, Num. 161; compare 'Ar. i. 3, 6b).

7. Nor may an execution be deferred, except in the case of the "Zakhen mamre" (Sanh. xi. 4), or of a woman about to be delivered of a child ('Ar. i. 4), nor may it be carried out on a day sacred to religion (Mek., Mishpattim, 4; ib. Wayyakhel; Yeb. 6b; Sanh. 35b).

8. On the day that the verdict is pronounced, the convict is led forth to execution (Sanh. 34a). Looking upon the sinner as upon the victim of folly (Sotah 3a), and considering death an expiation for misdeeds (Ber. 60a; Sanh. vi. 2; see Atonement),

9. the Rabbis would not permit the protraction of the interval between sentence and execution, which they considered as the most terrible period in the convict's existence.

These considerations prompted them to afford the convict every possible alleviation of the pains and sufferings concomitant with the execution, and to direct the execution itself so as to prevent the mutilation of the body, or to reduce such mutilation, where it is unavoidable—as in stoning or slaying—to a minimum.

The Pentateuchal law (Lev. xix. 18) prescribes, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy-self"; and the Rabbis maintain that this love must be extended beyond the limits of social intercourse in life, and applied even to the convicted criminal who, "though a sinner, is still thy brother" (Mak. iii. 15; Sanh. 44a): "The spirit of love must be manifested by according him a decent death" (Sanh. 45a, 52a).​

 

[RMDY]

I'm not arguing that active homosexuality is not wrong. I'm asking if since this commandment is still in force, shouldn't the corresponding punishment listed in leviticus also still be in force?

Of course not. For one thing, Jesus said those without sin may cast the first stone. You and I do not qualify to stone one another.

Secondly, we are to rely on God's mercy and forgiveness and show love to one another rather than anger, hate, and other wicked emotions like these.

Even if an someone sins, we are to still show them love.



All of us sin. All of us fall short of the glory of God. All of us are unrighteous, wretched people who continually condemn ourselves and should be stoned to death for what we do. But we do our best to follow Jesus and take up our cross and keep his commandments. We do our best to sin no more and if we do, we ask God for forgiveness and repent.

I don't enjoy sinning, even if its something I need.
I don't enjoy sinning because I hurt God's feelings and separate myself from Him through this way.
Everytime you sin you hurt God's feelings. If you read Hosea it will give you a better understanding as to why God hates people sinning against them and punishes them, not to teach them a lesson, to to get their attention out of love for them.

 

[TheFathersDaughter]

I have found it is very helpful to actually read the Bible before trying to discuss it.

Did you by any chance read Jesus' restriction on capital punishment? John 8:12

Jewish Encyclopedia- Capital Punishment

Capital punishment in rabbinic law, or indeed any other punishment, must not be inflicted, except by

1. the verdict of a regularly constituted court (Lesser Sanh.) of three-and-twenty qualified members (Sanh. i. 1; Sifre, Num. 160), and except

2. on the most trustworthy and convincing testimony of at least two qualified eye-witnesses to the crime (Deut. xvii. 6, xix. 15; Sotah vi. 3; Sifre, Num. 161; ib. Deut. 150, 188; Sanh. 30a)

3. who must also depose that the culprit had been forewarned as to the criminality and the consequences of his project (Sanh. v. 1, 40b et seq.; see Hatraah).

4. The culprit must be a person of legal age and of sound mind,

5. and the crime must be proved to have been committed of the culprit's free will and without the aid of others (see Abetment);

6. and if any one wilfully kills him before conviction, a charge of murder will lie against such perpetrator (Tosef., B. Ḳ. ix. 15; Sifre, Num. 161; compare 'Ar. i. 3, 6b).

7. Nor may an execution be deferred, except in the case of the "Zakhen mamre" (Sanh. xi. 4), or of a woman about to be delivered of a child ('Ar. i. 4), nor may it be carried out on a day sacred to religion (Mek., Mishpattim, 4; ib. Wayyakhel; Yeb. 6b; Sanh. 35b).

8. On the day that the verdict is pronounced, the convict is led forth to execution (Sanh. 34a). Looking upon the sinner as upon the victim of folly (Sotah 3a), and considering death an expiation for misdeeds (Ber. 60a; Sanh. vi. 2; see Atonement),

9. the Rabbis would not permit the protraction of the interval between sentence and execution, which they considered as the most terrible period in the convict's existence.

These considerations prompted them to afford the convict every possible alleviation of the pains and sufferings concomitant with the execution, and to direct the execution itself so as to prevent the mutilation of the body, or to reduce such mutilation, where it is unavoidable—as in stoning or slaying—to a minimum.

The Pentateuchal law (Lev. xix. 18) prescribes, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy-self"; and the Rabbis maintain that this love must be extended beyond the limits of social intercourse in life, and applied even to the convicted criminal who, "though a sinner, is still thy brother" (Mak. iii. 15; Sanh. 44a): "The spirit of love must be manifested by according him a decent death" (Sanh. 45a, 52a).​

Yeah, I also noticed that Christ never said anything about homosexuality.

 

[Murdock]

~leviticus 20:13~

We often use leviticus 18:20 to show God's disgust for homosexual sex, my question is that if leviticus 18:20 is still in force today does that not mean that leviticus 20:13 is also in force today? Should we be stoning people?

The OT laws were written to show that we all deserve death for our sins. The NT shows God's forgiveness if we want it even though we don't deserve it. So those who don't ask for forgiveness from God, will indeed, die.

 

[MercyBurst]

Yeah, I also noticed that Christ never said anything about homosexuality.

Does He have to say anything?

He never said anything about cannabilism, necrophilia, beasto, and a lot of other gross stuff.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

Does He have to say anything?

He never said anything about cannabilism, necrophilia, beasto, and a lot of other gross stuff.

I guess the point is that he did not share your obsession with Homosexuality. If he did , he might have commented on it. I find it odd that you would lump Beastiality and necrophilia with Homosexuality. Is that a device meant to hurt others? I mean I disagree with your objections to my Human rights, but I don't compare you to the Westboro Baptist church.

 

[TheFathersDaughter]

Does He have to say anything?

He never said anything about cannabilism, necrophilia, beasto, and a lot of other gross stuff.

Again, those have obvious physical and mental consequences. But I notice that everytime I say this, no one has an answer. It appears that no one can honestly claim that homosexuality has any physical or mental problems attatched too it. I love how I've asked this question three times and no one ever answered it. Those things are obviously wrong because cannabilism is murder, necrophilia and beastality has no consent, and "a lot of other gross stuff" generally comes out with disease and the like. He went over things like adultery and lying because the consequences aren't as obvious. But why didn't He ever address homosexuality? Why didn't he give some word too something that the only thing different from everything else was that there weren't any children (before you say how unnatural that is, remember that abstinent and infertile people can't or won't have children either).

If you use your head, it means Christ never condemned it and never expected us to condemn it. Paul was the only one out of the entire New Testament that even CARED.

 

[UnitedInChrist]

Again, those have obvious physical and mental consequences. But I notice that everytime I say this, no one has an answer. It appears that no one can honestly claim that homosexuality has any physical or mental problems attatched too it. I love how I've asked this question three times and no one ever answered it. Those things are obviously wrong because cannabilism is murder, necrophilia and beastality has no consent, and "a lot of other gross stuff" generally comes out with disease and the like. He went over things like adultery and lying because the consequences aren't as obvious. But why didn't He ever address homosexuality? Why didn't he give some word too something that the only thing different from everything else was that there weren't any children (before you say how unnatural that is, remember that abstinent and infertile people can't or won't have children either).

If you use your head, it means Christ never condemned it and never expected us to condemn it. Paul was the only one out of the entire New Testament that even CARED.

You won't get an answer from them because it's not literally written in the bible for them to cut and paste from. They'll have to THINK for themselves..and it gets a bit challenging. Keep asking though...eventually you may get something.

 

[PinkTulip]

Again, those have obvious physical and mental consequences. But I notice that everytime I say this, no one has an answer. It appears that no one can honestly claim that homosexuality has any physical or mental problems attatched too it. I love how I've asked this question three times and no one ever answered it. Those things are obviously wrong because cannabilism is murder, necrophilia and beastality has no consent, and "a lot of other gross stuff" generally comes out with disease and the like. He went over things like adultery and lying because the consequences aren't as obvious. But why didn't He ever address homosexuality? Why didn't he give some word too something that the only thing different from everything else was that there weren't any children (before you say how unnatural that is, remember that abstinent and infertile people can't or won't have children either).

If you use your head, it means Christ never condemned it and never expected us to condemn it. Paul was the only one out of the entire New Testament that even CARED.

Wrong...did you read my thread on Acts 15?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Again, those have obvious physical and mental consequences. But I notice that everytime I say this, no one has an answer. It appears that no one can honestly claim that homosexuality has any physical or mental problems attatched too it. I love how I've asked this question three times and no one ever answered it. Those things are obviously wrong because cannabilism is murder, necrophilia and beastality has no consent, and "a lot of other gross stuff" generally comes out with disease and the like. He went over things like adultery and lying because the consequences aren't as obvious. But why didn't He ever address homosexuality? Why didn't he give some word too something that the only thing different from everything else was that there weren't any children (before you say how unnatural that is, remember that abstinent and infertile people can't or won't have children either).

If you use your head, it means Christ never condemned it and never expected us to condemn it. Paul was the only one out of the entire New Testament that even CARED.

I had a discussion with a guy at work recently... he came out with the usual AIDS stuff and STD rates that anti-homosexuals so often trot out... I asked him directly... does a heightened mortality or morbidity rate endemic to a minority prove the minority is sinful? He said yes.

I then pointed out that males are a minority, with a higher mortality/ morbidity rate then women. Therefore, being a man is sinful.

I'm still waiting for him to recover from his catastrophic logic failure.

 

[brightmorningstar]

The thing about STD's is that a recent UK report reveals that new cases of AIDS were occuring much greater proportion amongst gay men.
Now what that actually means could be a number of things but lets not dismiss any stats that are unfavourable to the gay community just becuase it might seem homophobic.

The thing here is that when it comes to sin, the incident with the woman caught in adultery is very important. Jesus does not say they mustnt stone her according to the law, but that only those who are sinless can cast the stone. Jesus also tells her to go and sin no more. So the law is right, the act is sin, but Jesus saves from condemnation. As one who once comitted adultery and who still struggles to avoid having adulterous thoughts... thats good news for me. But I guess if I thought adultery was not wrong and I valued it, I might not think it was good news.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The thing about STD's is that a recent UK report reveals that new cases of AIDS were occuring much greater proportion amongst gay men.
Now what that actually means could be a number of things but lets not dismiss any stats that are unfavourable to the gay community just becuase it might seem homophobic.

And my question is... so what?

Can you name ANY human activity that doesn't have associated health risks?

Does the liklihood of illness or injury directly correlate to the morality of an act?

Because if that is the case, female homosexual sex is one of the safest activities around... MUCH safer than heterosexual sex... so, you know... if we are consistent about these things...

 

[brightmorningstar]

Dear EnemyPartyII

Can you name ANY human activity that doesn't have associated health risks?

death?

Does the liklihood of illness or injury directly correlate to the morality of an act?

Can be definately. STD's are unlikely with abstinance, less likely in a faithful marraige and most likely with promiscuity. Furthermore the human sexual organs are designed for opposite sex, the fluids the membranes etc. but as you say female homosexual sex is one of the safest sexual activities around, but that doesnt help gay men. However, thats just a nature observation which supports God's created man/woman purpose.

 

[TheFathersDaughter]

Dear EnemyPartyII
death?

Can be definately. STD's are unlikely with abstinance, less likely in a faithful marraige and most likely with promiscuity. Furthermore the human sexual organs are designed for opposite sex, the fluids the membranes etc. but as you say female homosexual sex is one of the safest sexual activities around, but that doesnt help gay men. However, thats just a nature observation which supports God's created man/woman purpose.

Those fluids are also designed to create children. Does this mean those who are infertile are sinning if they have sex? Does this mean couples who can no longer have children are sinning if they have sex? Does this mean using birth control because you and your husband can't afford to have a child is sinning? Saying "oh well the body was made to do THIS" is completely illogical. Our bodies were also MEANT to last forever, says God, but we messed up.

On that note, what makes you think a gay man or woman can't be in a faithful relationship?

 

[SwordOfGod]

Can be definately. STD's are unlikely with abstinance, less likely in a faithful marraige and most likely with promiscuity. Furthermore the human sexual organs are designed for opposite sex, the fluids the membranes etc. but as you say female homosexual sex is one of the safest sexual activities around, but that doesnt help gay men. However, thats just a nature observation which supports God's created man/woman purpose.

I agree, we should allow for gay marriage so that the STD rate would go down. While we're at it, let's forbid marriage with African Americans, after all, they have a FAR higher AIDs rate then the other races, coincidence, I think not.

 

[MercyBurst]

~leviticus 20:13~

We often use leviticus 18:20 to show God's disgust for homosexual sex, my question is that if leviticus 18:20 is still in force today does that not mean that leviticus 20:13 is also in force today? Should we be stoning people?

Not observing the sabbath was also on the stoning list as well as disobedience against authority, adultery, murder, bestiality, to name a few. Strict times to say the least.

I think most of us can agree there is something badly wrong with anyone that habitually violates any of these rules -- including the sabbath -- Whatta slouch!!!

 

[BigBadWlf]

The thing about STD's is that a recent UK report reveals that new cases of AIDS were occuring much greater proportion amongst gay men.
Now what that actually means could be a number of things but lets not dismiss any stats that are unfavourable to the gay community just becuase it might seem homophobic.

The thing here is that when it comes to sin, the incident with the woman caught in adultery is very important. Jesus does not say they mustnt stone her according to the law, but that only those who are sinless can cast the stone. Jesus also tells her to go and sin no more. So the law is right, the act is sin, but Jesus saves from condemnation. As one who once comitted adultery and who still struggles to avoid having adulterous thoughts... thats good news for me. But I guess if I thought adultery was not wrong and I valued it, I might not think it was good news.

can you provide an actual reference?

The references I find do not support your claims:

"Since 1999 there has been a steep increase in the number of HIV diagnoses. During 2006, reports show that at least 6,642 people were diagnosed with HIV in the UK. This number is expected to rise as further reports are received (there were 7,645 diagnoses in 2005). The major component of the rapid increase in recent years has been in heterosexually acquired infections."
http://www.avert.org/uksummary.htm

"Up until 1998, men who have sex with men formed the main exposure category for new HIV diagnoses. However, in 1999, heterosexually acquired HIV became the largest category, and has continued to be so ever since."
http://www.avert.org/uksummary.htm

"The number of heterosexually acquired HIV infections diagnosed in the UK has risen hugely over the last 15 years. In 1999, for the first time, the rate of heterosexually acquired HIV diagnoses overtook the rate of diagnoses in men who have sex with men. During 2006, there were 3,194 reports of heterosexually acquired HIV, and a total of 35,709 had been reported by the end of March 2007."
http://www.avert.org/uksummary.htm

"Infections acquired heterosexually have accounted for the much of the rapid rise in the numbers of new HIV diagnoses (4,049 in 2005 compared to 840 in 1996)" http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=654

"Since 1999 the number of new HIV diagnoses among heterosexuals have outnumbered those among gay and bisexual men."
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=654

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Dear EnemyPartyII
death?

Can be definately. STD's are unlikely with abstinance, less likely in a faithful marraige and most likely with promiscuity. Furthermore the human sexual organs are designed for opposite sex, the fluids the membranes etc. but as you say female homosexual sex is one of the safest sexual activities around, but that doesnt help gay men. However, thats just a nature observation which supports God's created man/woman purpose.

Shouldn't this lead us to the conclusion that female homosexual sex is actually the model God had in mind?

Least likely to result in STDs or other pathologies...

 

[EnemyPartyII]

can you provide an actual reference?

The references I find do not support your claims:

"Since 1999 there has been a steep increase in the number of HIV diagnoses. During 2006, reports show that at least 6,642 people were diagnosed with HIV in the UK. This number is expected to rise as further reports are received (there were 7,645 diagnoses in 2005). The major component of the rapid increase in recent years has been in heterosexually acquired infections."
http://www.avert.org/uksummary.htm

"Up until 1998, men who have sex with men formed the main exposure category for new HIV diagnoses. However, in 1999, heterosexually acquired HIV became the largest category, and has continued to be so ever since."
http://www.avert.org/uksummary.htm

"The number of heterosexually acquired HIV infections diagnosed in the UK has risen hugely over the last 15 years. In 1999, for the first time, the rate of heterosexually acquired HIV diagnoses overtook the rate of diagnoses in men who have sex with men. During 2006, there were 3,194 reports of heterosexually acquired HIV, and a total of 35,709 had been reported by the end of March 2007."
http://www.avert.org/uksummary.htm

"Infections acquired heterosexually have accounted for the much of the rapid rise in the numbers of new HIV diagnoses (4,049 in 2005 compared to 840 in 1996)" http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=654

"Since 1999 the number of new HIV diagnoses among heterosexuals have outnumbered those among gay and bisexual men."
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=654

Awww! There you go putting facts into the story again! No fair! How are they supposed to maintain their assumtions about the way the World should be if you go putting relaity back in the picture?