Thoughts on Jesus/Bible promoting murdering homosexuals

[BigBadWlf]

Its nothing PERSONAL... God TOLD ME to stone you to death...

its "tough love" remember

 

[BigBadWlf]

You seriously need a verse that says we shouldn't kill people? Well, there's "turn the other cheek", there's "let him without sin cast the first stone", there's "love your enemy".


I didn't say they said anything about not killing them. They show it is still sinful under the new covenant.


Again, you are confusing forgiveness with things like love and tolerance. They are not all the same thing.

turning the other cheek implies that a wrong has been done to you…what harm exactly are homosexuals doing to you personally?

 

[NeTrips]

So here we have scripture attributed to the biblegod saying unto Moses to put to death homosexuals...murdering someone just for sexual preference.... What is the rationale to support such ideology of hate?

Ezekiel 33:11 Say to them: ‘As I live,’ says the Lord GOD, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?’

Ezekiel 33:17 “Yet the children of your people say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ But it is their way which is not fair! 18 When the righteous turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, he shall die because of it. 19 But when the wicked turns from his wickedness and does what is lawful and right, he shall live because of it. 20 Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ O house of Israel, I will judge every one of you according to his own ways.”

Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

I disagree with your premise that God decreed the death of anyone just for sexual preference. Death was decreed for anyone violating God's decrees. Everlasting life is the reward for those who obey and follow God. Death is the result of willfully disobeying God.

The law Old Testament is extremely useful in diagnosing sin, but it does nothing to remove or alleviate sin. It is akin to lookiing into a mirror and finding dirt on your face, you wouldn't take the mirror down and try to cleanse yourself would you? Neither is the law suficient for cleansing oneself.

 

[xXThePrimeDirectiveXx]

Except is doesn’t say that at all.
It says thou shall not Shakab with…which is significantly different form other injunctions against having sex. In all other instances the Leviticus author specifically states that one will not have carnal relations with X. but in this instance the author uses the word Shakab…
Shakab Means "Rape"
In 52 instances the term shakab is used to describe a sexual encounter typified by deceit or force, in other words, some type of rape. Consider the following examples:
"Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie [shakab] with him, that we may preserve the seed of our father." Genesis 19:32 Lot's daughters rape their father, at least that's his story, and he's sticking to it.
"And Abimelech said, What is this thou hast done unto us? one of the people might lightly have lien [shakab] with thy wife, and thou shouldest have brought guiltiness upon us." Genesis 26:10
"And she said unto her, Is it a small matter that thou hast taken my husband? and wouldest thou take away my son's mandrakes also? And Rachel said, Therefore he shall lie [ shakab] with thee to night for thy son's mandrakes." Genesis 30:15 In this verse Rachel is trading sex for drugs, letting her sister sleep with Jacob, her husband, in exchange for mandrakes.
"And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay [shakab] with her, and defiled her." Genesis 34:2

"That she called unto the men of her house, and spake unto them, saying, See, he hath brought in an Hebrew unto us to mock us; he came in unto me to lie [shakab] with me, and I cried with a loud voice:" Genesis 39:14

"And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain [shakab] with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse:" Number 5:19
"Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished [ shakab]." Isaiah 13:16

"Neither left she her whoredoms brought from Egypt: for in her youth they lay [shakab] with her, and they bruised the breasts of her virginity, and poured their whoredom upon her." Ezekiel 23:8

And so and so on and so on
Shakab is the only word old testament used meaning rape. Rape was viewed as a property crime—property is defiled. The perpetrator and the property may be destroyed. Another remedy was that the rapist had to marry his victim. This remedy doesn't consider the damage to the victim, only the reputation of "the property" and the family that owned it (her).
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 means that a man shall not force, or in any way coerce, another man to have sex, in the way that a man is allowed to force sex upon his wife. In other words, man is not allowed to rape a man, it is an abomination.
A man raping a man is no more a description of homosexuality than a man raping a woman is a description of heterosexuality.

Ok, so are you saying the current translation of the bible is wrong? If it is, what other translations could be wrong in there? That's quite a difference. And if so, does that mean homosexuality is ok? Just by looking at the top titles in this forum, homosexuality is deemed immoral by Christians.

 

[xXThePrimeDirectiveXx]

I disagree with your premise that God decreed the death of anyone just for sexual preference. Death was decreed for anyone violating God's decrees. Everlasting life is the reward for those who obey and follow God. Death is the result of willfully disobeying God.

The law Old Testament is extremely useful in diagnosing sin, but it does nothing to remove or alleviate sin. It is akin to lookiing into a mirror and finding dirt on your face, you wouldn't take the mirror down and try to cleanse yourself would you? Neither is the law suficient for cleansing oneself.

Read again:

Leviticus 20:1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Say to the Israelites: 'Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech must be put to death. The people of the community are to stone him. 13 "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

You can disagree all you want, this is a direct quote from the Bible. It clearly says God says "they must be put to death" for their detestable homosexual act. Do you think I'm making this stuff up?

 

[BigBadWlf]

Ok, so are you saying the current translation of the bible is wrong? If it is, what other translations could be wrong in there? That's quite a difference. And if so, does that mean homosexuality is ok? Just by looking at the top titles in this forum, homosexuality is deemed immoral by Christians.

There is significant evidence that the condemnation in 1 Corinthians is mistranslated as well.

 

[NeTrips]

Read again:

Leviticus 20:1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Say to the Israelites: 'Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech must be put to death. The people of the community are to stone him. 13 "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

You can disagree all you want, this is a direct quote from the Bible. It clearly says God says "they must be put to death" for their detestable homosexual act. Do you think I'm making this stuff up?

You did not understand my post. Yes it clearly says they must be put to death. No argument with that.

But this sentence of death is not for just having a homosexual preference. It for violating God's decree and disobeying God.

There are many many other places in the bible where death is judged to be the sentence by God. Having a certain sexual preference is no where listed as one of them. Engaging in homosexual sex is listed as one of them, however.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

You did not understand my post. Yes it clearly says they must be put to death. No argument with that.

But this sentence of death is not for just having a homosexual preference. It for violating God's decree and disobeying God.

There are many many other places in the bible where death is judged to be the sentence by God. Having a certain sexual preference is no where listed as one of them. Engaging in homosexual sex is listed as one of them, however.

So what do think would be appropriate handling of someone "caught" engaging in homosexual acts today?

 

[NeTrips]

So what do think would be appropriate handling of someone "caught" engaging in homosexual acts today?

Nothing, so long as whatever act they were "caught" performing had nothing to do with children or any public venue, and is not in violation of any legal ordinances.

Why do you ask?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Nothing, so long as whatever act they were "caught" performing had nothing to do with children or any public venue, and is not in violation of any legal ordinances.

Why do you ask?

Just curious. Very happy to hear your above answer though

 

[NeTrips]

Just curious. Very happy to hear your above answer though

If I assume that your question was to determine whether or not I held that the judgements and decrees contained in Leviticus were still in place for christians today, I'd have to answer no, they aren't. Hopefully the following will help:

The term Old Law is used, by many, to refer to both the Ten Commandments of God, which are sometimes called the Mosaic Law, or Code, and to the Ritualistic Law, also called Levitical Law. The use of the title, Old Law, is misleading. The implication is that these two sets of laws have been set aside, or have been replaced. We know that according to Jesus' statement recorded in Mat 5:18, that this is not true,
- " For truly I say to you, Till the heaven and the earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any way pass from the Law until all is fulfilled."
Jesus upholds the validity of the Law both the Mosaic & Ritualistic.)

Ritualistic, or Levitical Law can be broken down into the Sacrificial Law, or Law of Atonement and the Law of Purification. There are, among Christians, those who still subscribe to following one, or both, portions of the Law of Leviticus, Ritualistic Law. However, as we look at both portions of Levitical Law, it will become clear that the Child of God no longer need be concerned with the requirements of this Law. At the same time, it needs to be understood that the Mosaic Law, the Ten Commandments of God, God's standard of conduct for His people, must be followed.
The Law of Atonement, or Sacrificial Law, required that an offering be presented to God for a sin debt. This has carried thru to some of today's Christian Churches in the form of Penance. The whole concept in its basest form is,
" If you sin, you must give God something to show your sorry."
The Law of Purification had numerous requirements that had to be followed to make one acceptable before God. They ranged from ritualistic washings, or ablutions; who could be married or associated with; what manner of dress and grooming was acceptable; prohibitions against the ingestion of blood; thru, what foods could be eaten. Again, we find this Law being observed today among some groups of Christians.
All the requirements of Ritualistic Law, both Sacrificial & Purification, were met, for all time, by the Messiah, Jesus. </STRONG>
- "Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to destroy but to fulfill."
[SIZE=-1](Mat 5:17)[/SIZE]
- "For Christ (the Messiah) is the end of the law for righteousness for everyone who believes."
[SIZE=-1](Rom 10:4)[/SIZE]
- "So that the Law has become a trainer of us until Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But faith coming, we are no longer under a trainer."
[SIZE=-1](Gal 3:24-25)[/SIZE]
Jesus, the Messiah, is the ultimate, perpetual, atonement for man's sin debt. There is nothing further that man can offer as atonement for sin; all such attempts belittle the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Further, it is God, who makes us acceptable, through faith in Jesus, something the Law of Purification could never do. Abstaining from certain foods, ablutions, etc. does not make one holy and/or acceptable before God, it never has.
- "- because by the works of the Law none of all flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law is the knowledge of sin."
[SIZE=-1](Rom 3:20)[/SIZE]
- " Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the Law."
[SIZE=-1](Rom 3:28)[/SIZE]
- "- knowing that a man is not justified by works of the Law, but through faith in Jesus Christ; even we believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith in Christ, and not by works of the Law. For all flesh will not be justified by works of law."
[SIZE=-1](Gal 2:16)[/SIZE]​

There are plenty of Deceivers running around the Christian Community. The simple fact is, that anyone proclaiming you need to follow the Law of Atonement and/or the Laws of Purification has no valid biblical basis for their teachings and requirements. You will never impress God, become justified, or pay for your sins, by anything that you do or don't do, aside from belief in Jesus. He has fully satisfied ALL the requirements of the Levitical Law portion of the Old Law for the believer.]

the above quoted from http://acharlie.tripod.com/oldlaw.html
​

 

[HypnoToad]

Oh, so we're only meant to stone homosexuals to emotional death, or spiritual death, right? Gotcha. Thats much clearer.

It doesn't say "stone them" to ANY kind of death, it says they deserve death. Do you really not get the difference?

Scripture says "the wages of sin is death" - that means everyone deserves death. That does NOT equate to an instruction to kill everyone.

no it has everything to do with hate.
Racists have and still do use the bible to justify their support of prejudice against an entire minority. That is no different from using the bible to support prejudice against blacks and using the bible to support prejudice against homosexuals or women or the handicapped

Apples and oranges.

The Bible doesn't condemn being black. The Bible doesn't condemn being a woman. The Bible doesn't condemn being handicapped. The Bible DOES condemn homosexuality.

by this logic there was nothing immoral about the Nazi death camps and the murder of millions of Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, Blacks and others because mass murder was perfectly legal in Nazi Germany and its occupied territories.

Apples and oranges.

His comment was about a theocracy. God has authority that a Nazi government (or any other human government) does not.

go read your bible…Leviticus 20:13 is one verse

Really?

That's the kind of stuff you want to quibble about?

Really?

on the one hand you wish to justify your own hatred by just applying the first half of the verse but don't wish to get your hands dirty by applying the second half of the verse.

As already shown, that homosexuality is a sin is upheld by the new covenant. That we should then kill them is not.

As noted racists happily quote bible passages to justify their hate…how is what they are doing any different from what you are doing right here?

Who's talking about hate? I don't hate them. I don't say they should be beaten or killed. Perhaps you let your emotions control you more than I do, but I'm capable of disagreeing with someone without hating them.

Further, I'd like to see what passages from the new covenant state that being any particular race in and of itself is sinful.

turning the other cheek implies that a wrong has been done to you…what harm exactly are homosexuals doing to you personally?

Sin is sin, whether it harms me personally or not.

 

[BigBadWlf]

If I assume that your question was to determine whether or not I held that the judgements and decrees contained in Leviticus were still in place for christians today, I'd have to answer no, they aren't. Hopefully the following will help:

the above quoted from http://acharlie.tripod.com/oldlaw.html​

I find it amazing how often the “ritual” and “moral” thing is brought up…yet no evidence for such a division actually exists.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I find it amazing how often the &#8220;ritual&#8221; and &#8220;moral&#8221; thing is brought up&#8230;yet no evidence for such a division actually exists.

I guess even the worst bigoted homophobe likes to be able to shave, wear underpants with elastic and eat the occasional oyster... the ritual/moral "distinction" allows this

 

[HypnoToad]

I guess even the worst bigoted homophobe likes to be able to shave, wear underpants with elastic and eat the occasional oyster... the ritual/moral "distinction" allows this

What part of "old covenant/new covenant" do you guys just not get?

Can you show where shaving, elastic underwear, and oysters are forbidden under the new covenant?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

What part of "old covenant/new covenant" do you guys just not get?

Can you show where shaving, elastic underwear, and oysters are forbidden under the new covenant?

They aren't. But then, neither is homosexuality.

 

[NeTrips]

They aren't. But then, neither is homosexuality.

The argument that if Jesus didn't talk about something then it is unimportant is false and misleading.

The idea of a subject being unimportant just because it was not mentioned by Jesus is foreign to the gospel writers themselves. At no point did Matthew, Mark, Luke or John say their books should be elevated above the Torah or, for that matter, any writings yet to come. In other words, the gospels are not more important than the rest of the Bible. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.

Not only are the gospels no more authoritative than the rest of Scripture, they are not comprehensive either. Some of the Bible's most important teachings do not appear in the gospels. The doctrine of man's old and new nature (Romans 6), the future of Israel and the mystery of the Gentiles (Romans 9-11), the explanation and management of the spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12 and 14), the Priesthood of Christ (Hebrews) all of these appear after the accounts of Christ's life, death and resurrection. Would anyone say none of these doctrines are important because they were not mentioned by Jesus?

Are we really to believe that Jesus did not care about wife beating or incest, just because He said nothing about them?

This argument is inaccurate in that it presumes to know all of what Jesus said. The gospels do not profess to be a complete account of Jesus' life or teachings. Whole sections of His early years are omitted; much of what He did and said remains unknown. John, in fact, said that this would have been an impossibility: “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written” (John 21:25).

Homosexuality, while absent from Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, is conspicuously present in both testaments and, just as conspicuously, it is forbidden.

This argument also assumes, because Jesus said nothing specific about homosexuality, that He said nothing about heterosexuality as a standard. Jesus referred in the most specific terms to God's created intent for human sexuality, “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate" (Mark 10:6-9).

Homosexuality may not have been mentioned by Jesus, many other sexual variations were not, either. But He could not have spelled out the standard for sexual expression more clearly: male to female, joined as God intended them to be. He cannot be assumed to have approved of anything less.

 

[HypnoToad]

They aren't. But then, neither is homosexuality.

Yeah, except for the verses where it is.

 

[xXThePrimeDirectiveXx]

What part of "old covenant/new covenant" do you guys just not get?

Can you show where shaving, elastic underwear, and oysters are forbidden under the new covenant?

Old/New covenant matters not to non-believers. All I see is that at one time people were commanded to kill other people over subjective "sins." The fact that you are not commanded to do it now does not change the fact that the religion you adhere to had its foundations in blood.

It's like Hitler...he may have loved someone and was nice to them in his life, but he did order the death of 6 millions Jews. Doesn't matter how many nice things you do, it doesn't change the fact that you took a life.

 

[HypnoToad]

Old/New covenant matters not to non-believers. All I see is that at one time people were commanded to kill other people over subjective "sins." The fact that you are not commanded to do it now does not change the fact that the religion you adhere to had its foundations in blood.

It's like Hitler...he may have loved someone and was nice to them in his life, but he did order the death of 6 millions Jews. Doesn't matter how many nice things you do, it doesn't change the fact that you took a life.

Apples and oranges.

Hitler doesn't have the authority and sovereignty of God.