Homosexuals should be killed?

[idav]

It still commands death for trivial "crimes," and commands savage punishment for crimes which should probably have a bit less of a penalty.

You want the honest truth. God/man was trying to weed out the "bad" seeds to keep the jewish tribes pure. Same mentality when god decided to destroy the whole world with some weird notion that this would get rid of the impurities. Well the jews failed as expected so then comes the savior to take care of the fact that nobody can actually abide by all the laws even when the laws aren't ridiculous. Well maybe keeping it pure didn't exactly fail if supossedly a "pure" savior came of it. BTW, their ideas of impurities was pretty ridiculous since they even hated midgets. To be more honest it reminds me of hitlers version of eugenics.

Leviticus 21:17-23
“Speak to Aaron, saying, None of your offspring throughout their generations who has a blemish may approach to offer the bread of his God. For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, a man blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb too long, or a man who has an injured foot or an injured hand, or a hunchback or a dwarf or a man with a defect in his sight or an itching disease or scabs or crushed testicles. No man of the offspring of Aaron the priest who has a blemish shall come near to offer the Lord's food offerings; since he has a blemish, he shall not come near to offer the bread of his God. ...

 

[Starsoul]

Is it safe to assume from this discussion that as long as civilization will be, the christian faith will keep on amending/ignoring one or the other thing from the bible and there could even be a newer testament, revised version? Just a question, in the context of, How can people find it so easy to believe/adjust in a faith which is constantly changing, or not being followed as per its original standards and gets revised after a couple of centuries or so, that would put its authenticity of being divine, at great risk?

 

[imaginaryme]

“‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Leviticus 20:13


If you are Christian or Jewish and you don't believe this, why not?

Goes to show the sin of American democracy.

 

[Starsoul]

I guess you missed the context of my last response, where I said that even if there wasn't that there are still plenty of examples of death penalties for trivial things in the Bible. If you want an explicit answer, I know now that it doesn't command death for eating shrimp since I looked it up (apparently it's just an "abomination.")

Regardless, you're just splitting hairs. It still commands death for trivial "crimes," and commands savage punishment for crimes which should probably have a bit less of a penalty.

(Hey hi there, how you doing? : ) read your previous posts and answering to them and just giving a perspective and a question; have you ever been hurt by someone so much that it made you wish they died? and now other questions)

Lets say that God loves you so much , he cant see you opting to choose to not to proliferate your genes into another wonderful being by limiting yourself to homosexuality? And He really hates that? ( Now don't go into defensive, just a perspective )

Now don't say that why cant God see me happy, what If He knew that you would definitely be a happier person with heterosexuality and cute intelligent babies? and those babies were going to bring peace and happiness to so many people around them because their mother raised them so well.( now dont say adopted kids could be the same, genes count a lot, and when we are talking about God, fate counts a lot too, maybe your genes were genetically programmed to bring some awesome people in the world, who were destined to bring out the best in this world, and you prevented that, that would make him angry with your choice wouldn't that?)

Now you would say that God can give other kids better genes if you choose not to use them, but thats the problem with God, He likes you more ; ) Not that He dislikes the others, but others may have their own fate, of being helped/supported/taught/treated probably by your kids?

Now you would say then you were destined to be a homosexual, but maybe God says if that was the case, you wouldn't have been born with a ovaries and a baby producing uterus and your biology, along with your psychology would have to be significantly different than heterosexual females, but it aint. Maybe He'd say that You had the freewill and you chose to violate /mis-use that freewill to your dis-advantage, and he does not want that, and by choosing to do so for a long time, you will influence upon all those who might want to mis-use their freewill as well, and prevent all those awesome intelligent human beings that were programmed into your system, from ever happening!

(just a perspective, this aint no personal commentary : ) )

 

[ReligionBro]

This is a subject that religious people should draw their own conclusions about. Not only would a rational person find the murder of a group of people just because they're different detestable, they would think it's downright crazy.

Follow your religion, but make the right judgement about important subjects. Just because the Bible says something, doesn't mean you need to believe in it 100%.

 

[fallingblood]

You want the honest truth. God/man was trying to weed out the "bad" seeds to keep the jewish tribes pure. Same mentality when god decided to destroy the whole world with some weird notion that this would get rid of the impurities. Well the jews failed as expected so then comes the savior to take care of the fact that nobody can actually abide by all the laws even when the laws aren't ridiculous. Well maybe keeping it pure didn't exactly fail if supossedly a "pure" savior came of it. BTW, their ideas of impurities was pretty ridiculous since they even hated midgets. To be more honest it reminds me of hitlers version of eugenics.

You simply do not understand the reason for the Laws or really purity for that matter.

There was no need for a savior. A savior would not make people pure. In fact, the Jews were not looking for such. And since the only ones who the Law was actually for was the Jews, the fact that they weren't looking for a savior to rid them of the Law speaks volumes.

The Jews had various ways to purify themselves. These are mentioned in both the Written and Oral Torah. And a savior was not one of those ways.

More so, no one is expected to be able to abide perfectly by the Law. That is an impossibility, and is not expected in the first place. It is more of a guideline. The Jews keep the Law as a sign of Love for God, and they see it as a Gift. It isn't some burden that they fail. And it is definitely not something they need to be rescued from.

As for your comment about the Flood, that simply is ridiculous. When most people see that Flood as a symbolic story, and not historical, one then has to see it in that light. Really, you're just missing the point.

So no, what you said is not the honest truth. It is a misconception based on ignorance. The truth is, most people simply do not understand Judaism or the Law.

 

[fallingblood]

Is it safe to assume from this discussion that as long as civilization will be, the christian faith will keep on amending/ignoring one or the other thing from the bible and there could even be a newer testament, revised version? Just a question, in the context of, How can people find it so easy to believe/adjust in a faith which is constantly changing, or not being followed as per its original standards and gets revised after a couple of centuries or so, that would put its authenticity of being divine, at great risk?

Most don't believe the Bible is divine. They may believe that it is inspired, but that is greatly different from being perfect or divine.

And really, the basics are not constantly changing. Yes, Christianity has evolved over time. Any religion or idea must change throughout time, or die. Cultures, context, etc change over time. What is morally right today, or what is seen to be true today, is not necessarily true in the past, nor the future. However, the basics do remain the same.

Really though, the religion was not intended to remain solid and unchanging. It evolved from a religion that was changing in the first place. Judaism has been what can be called a living religion as from the beginning, it has been changing. Yes, writings have been put down, but they were not meant to remain unquestionable and set in stone. This can be seen by the fact that the oral part of the religion kept going on, refining the actual religion.

We see this as well for Christianity. From the very beginning, it was based on oral sources. Yes, eventually they were written down, but even just looking at the Gospels, we can see that they were not intended to be the final word on the subject.

So, the religion was meant to change. It was meant to evolve. And from the beginning, it has been doing just that. However, at the center, the very basics, have been constant.

 

[idav]

You simply do not understand the reason for the Laws or really purity for that matter.

There was no need for a savior. A savior would not make people pure. In fact, the Jews were not looking for such. And since the only ones who the Law was actually for was the Jews, the fact that they weren't looking for a savior to rid them of the Law speaks volumes.

The Jews had various ways to purify themselves. These are mentioned in both the Written and Oral Torah. And a savior was not one of those ways.

More so, no one is expected to be able to abide perfectly by the Law. That is an impossibility, and is not expected in the first place. It is more of a guideline. The Jews keep the Law as a sign of Love for God, and they see it as a Gift. It isn't some burden that they fail. And it is definitely not something they need to be rescued from.

As for your comment about the Flood, that simply is ridiculous. When most people see that Flood as a symbolic story, and not historical, one then has to see it in that light. Really, you're just missing the point.

So no, what you said is not the honest truth. It is a misconception based on ignorance. The truth is, most people simply do not understand Judaism or the Law.

They knew exactly what they were doing. You think they didn't take the flood thing seriously then? It is more than clear they were trying to keep the priesthood clean as well as the jews in general. Same god who said kill your drunken son for purity reasons.

Deuteronomy 21
18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

 

[fallingblood]

They knew exactly what they were doing. You think they didn't take the flood thing seriously then? It is more than clear they were trying to keep the priesthood clean as well as the jews in general. Same god who said kill your drunken son for purity reasons.

I think you need to reread what I said, because I think you missed my point.

Yes, I believe that they didn't take the flood thing completely seriously. Was there a flood that they could recall? Probably. Was it mythologized? Of course, and they would have known that.

Again though, you fail to realize what the Law was for, and how purity was accomplished. One could break the Law, and still become purified. They did not need a savior.

More so though, taking verses out of context (they need to be placed within the whole Law), simply will not work.

 

[Meow Mix]

You want the honest truth. God/man was trying to weed out the "bad" seeds to keep the jewish tribes pure. Same mentality when god decided to destroy the whole world with some weird notion that this would get rid of the impurities. Well the jews failed as expected so then comes the savior to take care of the fact that nobody can actually abide by all the laws even when the laws aren't ridiculous. Well maybe keeping it pure didn't exactly fail if supossedly a "pure" savior came of it. BTW, their ideas of impurities was pretty ridiculous since they even hated midgets. To be more honest it reminds me of hitlers version of eugenics.

So, to get this straight, you're defending God's choice to command murder over homosexual acts is consistent with the idea that God is loving and just?

What's wrong with exile? If you worry about people joining any enemies as some excuse to kill them instead of exile them, aren't we forgetting that God could have magic'd people across the globe rather than killed them?

The "God" you describe seems to be a bloodthirsty monster. Are you sure you don't believe in a demon rather than a god?

 

[Twig pentagram]

That is only a problem is that this is only a problem if one takes the Bible 100% literally. It is only a problem if one does not put the Bible into context, and do no realize that the Bible is not one book, but a collection of books.

Great, there are contradictions in the Bible. There are disagreements. However, pick up two philosophy books, and you will probably find the same.

And none of this negates the fact that Matt, 5;17-20 clearly is in favor of following old testament law.

 

[Meow Mix]

(Hey hi there, how you doing? : ) read your previous posts and answering to them and just giving a perspective and a question; have you ever been hurt by someone so much that it made you wish they died? and now other questions)

Hi Starsoul No, I can honestly say that I've never wished for someone to actually die. In weaker moments I've wished that they would have a taste of their own medicine, but not for revenge: I wonder sometimes if that wouldn't be the only way to get someone to see what they're doing to other people.

For instance, I've wished before that people who vote against gay marriage would for a week live in a society where other people told them that they can't marry their lover just because other people don't like it.

In reality though, if given the choice to inflict that on someone, I'd never do it. As I said, I only wish it in moments of weakness but I'd never follow through with it, e.g. I'd never vote for such an oppressive bill.

Lets say that God loves you so much , he cant see you opting to choose to not to proliferate your genes into another wonderful being by limiting yourself to homosexuality? And He really hates that? ( Now don't go into defensive, just a perspective )

You're assuming here that I choose to be attracted to women rather than men -- I don't choose it. I don't choose who I'm attracted to anymore than I can "choose" what my favorite color is.

Secondly, if God loves me then He will respect any choices I make (such as not having children) just as I would respect any choices my loved ones make. This can't work both ways -- either God allows us free will or He doesn't. If I had a child that ended up homosexual, I may not be happy about those circumstances (because I wouldn't want them to go through what I go through) but I would respect it.

I guess that was a bad analogy since sexual preference isn't a choice for many, so I'd have to respect it. So, a better analogy would be if I had a child and said child decided to join some religion that I don't believe in. I might not like it, but my child has that choice, and I'm going to love my child regardless of making that choice. I would never punish my child for making some choice that I frown on unless it was a choice that directly hurt people. I might try to reason with them, but I'd never force them to follow my plan for them to the letter -- that would be cruel and make a mockery of any so-called "free will" in the situation.

Now don't say that why cant God see me happy, what If He knew that you would definitely be a happier person with heterosexuality and cute intelligent babies? and those babies were going to bring peace and happiness to so many people around them because their mother raised them so well.( now dont say adopted kids could be the same, genes count a lot, and when we are talking about God, fate counts a lot too, maybe your genes were genetically programmed to bring some awesome people in the world, who were destined to bring out the best in this world, and you prevented that, that would make him angry with your choice wouldn't that?)

I can't just decide to start being attracted to men. That's not my fault. If it's really that big of a deal to God, why couldn't he have fixed whatever it is about me that causes me to be disinterested in men and interested in women? Please don't say that I can change it if I try. That's a lie that's destroyed a lot of lives; and besides, I don't want to change who I am because I'm happy, I'm with the person I'll spend the rest of my life with (and love it), and I simply see no reason to try to "change" my sexuality.

Could you decide to start being attracted to women?

There, did you feel that? That feeling of wrongness, possibly revulsion, that probably cropped up in your mind at the thought of that? Well, that's what it's like for me if I think about being attracted to men. (No offense guys, I love you as friends!)

Now you would say that God can give other kids better genes if you choose not to use them, but thats the problem with God, He likes you more ; ) Not that He dislikes the others, but others may have their own fate, of being helped/supported/taught/treated probably by your kids?

Now you would say then you were destined to be a homosexual, but maybe God says if that was the case, you wouldn't have been born with a ovaries and a baby producing uterus and your biology, along with your psychology would have to be significantly different than heterosexual females, but it aint. Maybe He'd say that You had the freewill and you chose to violate /mis-use that freewill to your dis-advantage, and he does not want that, and by choosing to do so for a long time, you will influence upon all those who might want to mis-use their freewill as well, and prevent all those awesome intelligent human beings that were programmed into your system, from ever happening!

(just a perspective, this aint no personal commentary : ) )

Either God wants us to have free will or He doesn't.

"Do as I say or else you'll face these dire consequences, but remember you have free will" isn't really free will.

Besides, as I've already explained, my attraction to females and disinterest in men isn't a free choice. It's just there, it's always been there since I was younger. When I dated boys in Junior High and High School just because that was the "normal" thing to do (rather than because I really wanted to), I still found myself thinking about girls when we held hands or kissed.

There are some people who have an amount of choice in their sexuality (such as some bisexuals and pansexuals), but some of us just don't. If God made me, then He made me this way.

 

[idav]

So, to get this straight, you're defending God's choice to command murder over homosexual acts is consistent with the idea that God is loving and just?

What's wrong with exile? If you worry about people joining any enemies as some excuse to kill them instead of exile them, aren't we forgetting that God could have magic'd people across the globe rather than killed them?

The "God" you describe seems to be a bloodthirsty monster. Are you sure you don't believe in a demon rather than a god?

If can't follow that sort of god, thanks for asking. Thats just what I think the OT says. I would not defend genocide for any reason especially the petty reasons found in the bible.

 

[idav]

I think you need to reread what I said, because I think you missed my point.

Yes, I believe that they didn't take the flood thing completely seriously. Was there a flood that they could recall? Probably. Was it mythologized? Of course, and they would have known that.

Again though, you fail to realize what the Law was for, and how purity was accomplished. One could break the Law, and still become purified. They did not need a savior.

More so though, taking verses out of context (they need to be placed within the whole Law), simply will not work.

Well if they could just be purified then killing for crimes wouldn't have been necessary. They did it and I showed that they considered some people unclean for having "defects". God wanted a special breed of human and he called them jews. Once christians got a hold of it the laws weren't necessary anymore because it is impossible to follow those laws. You say they were just guidelines but guidlines that warrant death for disobeying? I'm not taking anything out of context I just choose not to ignore certain evil aspects coming from the OT.

 

[fallingblood]

And none of this negates the fact that Matt, 5;17-20 clearly is in favor of following old testament law.

Of course it doesn't. However, Paul "contradicts" Jesus as well, so obviously, we are not looking at something that is set in stone; that is clear cut.

You also have to take the statement that Jesus made in context. Jesus was a Jew. He was preaching to the Jews. Thus, his statement was to the Jews. Jesus wasn't addressing Gentiles. He was addressing Jews.

The Law was meant for the Jews. The Jews are still in favor of following it. So really, what you are saying isn't as clear as you try to make it.

 

[Meow Mix]

If can't follow that sort of god, thanks for asking. Thats just what I think the OT says. I would not defend genocide for any reason especially the petty reasons found in the bible.

Oooh, okay. I misinterpreted you -- sorry! I thought you were actually defending that sort of God.

 

[fallingblood]

Well if they could just be purified then killing for crimes wouldn't have been necessary. They did it and I showed that they considered some people unclean for having "defects". God wanted a special breed of human and he called them jews. Once christians got a hold of it the laws weren't necessary anymore because it is impossible to follow those laws. You say they were just guidelines but guidlines that warrant death for disobeying? I'm not taking anything out of context I just choose not to ignore certain evil aspects coming from the OT.

Yes, you are taking it out of context. Yes, there was a death penalty. However, to enact such a death penalty would have been difficult in the first place as murder simply was not a tolerated thing.

And you didn't show that people with defects were considered unclean. More so, you didn't show that they couldn't be purified.

What you are ignoring is a vast portion of the Law, as well as the Oral Torah. Purity could be achieved in many different ways. There was no need for death to get rid of these unclean people. They just needed to be purified.

And no, the Law is not impossible to follow. Yes, one can not follow it without ever making a mistake. However, it is not intended to be something that one has to be perfect with. That is why one can be purified. Why they can repent.

Your view is based on ignorance. It is based on not understanding the Law. That is the problem many in this thread are having. They are not taking it in context, and they are ignoring a great portion of it.

 

[idav]

Yes, you are taking it out of context. Yes, there was a death penalty. However, to enact such a death penalty would have been difficult in the first place as murder simply was not a tolerated thing.

And you didn't show that people with defects were considered unclean. More so, you didn't show that they couldn't be purified.

What you are ignoring is a vast portion of the Law, as well as the Oral Torah. Purity could be achieved in many different ways. There was no need for death to get rid of these unclean people. They just needed to be purified.

And no, the Law is not impossible to follow. Yes, one can not follow it without ever making a mistake. However, it is not intended to be something that one has to be perfect with. That is why one can be purified. Why they can repent.

Your view is based on ignorance. It is based on not understanding the Law. That is the problem many in this thread are having. They are not taking it in context, and they are ignoring a great portion of it.

Well I'm not familiar with the oral part of it I just know what I read. Perhaps I'm just taking the whole blood line thing too literally but it is there and making it symbolic doesn't make it sound any better. BTW I'm familiar with the cleansing aspects and repentance from the jewish standpoint but like I said it doesn't make the verses I've pointed out any better.

 

[idav]

Oooh, okay. I misinterpreted you -- sorry! I thought you were actually defending that sort of God.

No problem, I didn't think what I was saying was going to be taken very nicely so I probably should have been clearer cause no telling what people believe these days.

 

[Rakhel]

I just have to ask.

How many were stone for being homosexual?

(Keeping in mind that many believe homosexuality to be genetic, btw.)