Homosexuals should be killed?

[javajo]

Even under those circumstances, do you honestly think that death is the best solution for violation of those rules? Doesn't killing people over petty things sort of... you know... contradict the notion that you need every person available to be alive and healthy?

Good point!

Do you think that if you threaten homosexuals with death for loving whom they will that they'll magically turn around and start becoming breeders and having sex with heterosexuals? I doubt it!

Another good point! So, I really don't understand completely why it was needed at that time. I guess it was severe enough that it needed a "nip it in the bud" solution, I don't know. Definitely seems harsh from our viewpoint. Perhaps one day I'll know what that was all about. I do believe that it was an isolated, special case and absolutely not something anyone today should follow, whether Jew or Gentile. It is sad that so many justify their hatred of others by such an obscure passage of scripture.

 

[Meow Mix]

First, the Bible never says anything about homosexuality. The idea of sexual orientation simply did not exist in that time period.

Second, one can not take the Law out of context. One can not rely solely on just the written Torah, they must also consent the Oral Torah. The oral Torah changes with time, and builds upon itself. It is worth noting that there is a movement within Judaism that is looking at verses such as these and trying to understand what they truly mean.

Third, one has to realize that the death penalty may have been the written consequence, but it was hardly enacted. That is because when one takes the whole law into consideration, murder simply is not really tolerated.

Fourth, in order for this verse to reflect on God, one has to assume that the Bible is the literal word of God. One has to basically have the mindset of a fundamentalist. That simply is not a very good mindset to have. If one studies the history of the Law, one can see that it was not all set down at one time. That, like modern laws, it was added to, edited, etc. And the driving force behind the change is humans. Now, some may feel or believe that God had a hand in this, but it would be a stretch to instantly assume that everything in the Bible reflects personally on God. Humans still have choices, and humans make law.

Finally, in a historical point of view, the problem, in my opinion, was that the Hebrews were trying to build a nation that was different from the others that surrounded them. So there are two factors here. First, since other nations indulged in homosexual sex, the Hebrews wanted to differentiate themselves from that. Second, one can not build a nation by homosexual sex. It simply is not possible. So, it could be seen as basically sabotage. And really, that would have been somewhat logically. Since they were unaware of the idea of sexual orientation, a man having sex with a man then was out of choice. That choice did very little to help expand the nation (and again, in their minds it was a choice, as they did not understand sexual orientation).

I understand what you're saying. If I had to guess how that passage got there I'd also say that it was a man-made lapse in moral judgement rather than a divine command.

I should have simply clarified that my question was specifically for those who do believe that God authored the commandments to murder those who had homosexual sex or imbibed shellfish. I want to know why they seem to stop short of thinking of the implications when they respond with something like, "That was the old law and we're not bound by it now." Why don't they think a step further and explain why it was ever a law, regardless of whether it's still practiced, if their God is a loving God?

 

[fallingblood]

Yeah, I never understood the Christians line of thought on this situation at all. The usual response is they either say, "I don't know" or "I am praying about it," which of course is a prayer that never gets answered and they are usually content with never bringing the topic up ever again.

Considering how many people God slaughtered and the extremely cruel laws that he held I think it is fair to compare him to Hitler. So I wonder if Hitler stopped the holocaust, but still thought that what he did was right and just, and never repented for his deeds. I wonder how "swell" Christians would consider him? I mean, he only burns people alive for not following his rules and the holocaust was Old Ways, so its all good.

We will start with your statement about the extremely cruel laws.

First, his laws are just for the Jews. The Law is for the Jews, and no one else has to follow them. Jews don't even have to follow them to the letter. There is leeway. That is a problem that many people have, they simply have not done the research in order to make an informed opinion on the Law.

The Law is seen as a gift by the Jews. It is not some cruel thing. It is not burdensome. It is a gift. The Jews are not expected to follow every single law to the T. It simply is not possible to do so. And God never expected such anyway. The Jews follow the law out of love.

Second, the Law is not set in stone. Along with the written Torah, there is the Oral Torah. You can't have one without the other. The Oral Torah is evolving, as it was meant to. It helps one understand the Law, and put it into context. It evolves and changes over time. All one has to do to see this is look at the various sources that record the Oral Torah.

Third, the Law has to be put into context. Yes, at points it seems to go to the extremes. However, once placed into context, it really doesn't. For instance, murder, even for breaking a law that comes with the death penalty, is not really tolerated. I think Hillel said it best: "What is hateful to thee, do not unto thy fellow man: this is the whole Law; the rest is mere commentary." There is the Golden rule.


Now we can move on to the idea of God slaughtering people. In order to believe that, you have to take the Bible very very literally. Basically, you have to have the same mindset, if not even more extreme. The Bible records men killing men. Yes, they justify it. Yes, they make much of it into epics. However, the killing is done by men. Do try to blame it on God simply is ridiculous, and is a great injustice to history.

 

[fallingblood]

I understand what you're saying. If I had to guess how that passage got there I'd also say that it was a man-made lapse in moral judgement rather than a divine command.

I should have simply clarified that my question was specifically for those who do believe that God authored the commandments to murder those who had homosexual sex or imbibed shellfish. I want to know why they seem to stop short of thinking of the implications when they respond with something like, "That was the old law and we're not bound by it now." Why don't they think a step further and explain why it was ever a law, regardless of whether it's still practiced, if their God is a loving God?

I think that can be answered quite easily. They have preconceived biases and prejudices. They don't want to seem themselves as being bigots, so they find something to hide behind. In this case, they have their Bible.

 

[Meow Mix]

Any deviation from Gods standards would make the person unclean and unfit for Gods use. Thats why death was a punishment to any and all who failed to remain holy in Gods eyes.

So anything that God can't use, He just throws away?

You call such a being "loving" and "just," just out of curiosity?

Hadn't He ever considered non-lethal alternatives such as... oh, you know, second chances or exile?

 

[Meow Mix]

I think that can be answered quite easily. They have preconceived biases and prejudices. They don't want to seem themselves as being bigots, so they find something to hide behind. In this case, they have their Bible.

Sadly, I suspect the same... though I thought I'd ask just in case someone has a reason I haven't thought of. Personally I think your explanation is probably closer to, if not identical to, the truth.

 

[Jesus4m3]

Why would God command such a thing ever, even if it was in the past?

Let's say that I'm the ruler of some country and at some point I command death for people that eat shellfish, but then later on I take it back. Would you live in my country comfortably and consider me a loving ruler?

Well at that time there wants really any obedient human being so or a savior so they had to be killed before they spread amongst others. Now we have a savior and he will do the judgment on them.

 

[freethinker44]

I still seriously want to know: why would people call a being loving if it ever at any time commanded the murder of people for something so petty as homosexuality.

I see people say "Oh that was the old law, we're not bound to that anymore," but I never see just how people rationalize calling such a god loving just because it's not as harsh now as it used to be.

I'm not just being cute, I seriously want to hear an explanation. Why is God considered loving if He ever commanded such malicious things, even if he doesn't now?

Maybe god always loves everyone all the time, but when he is being a douche it's just tough love. Like how an abusive parent really loves their kids but sometimes feels the need to brutally beat them.

 

[Willamena]

Does this mean you expect us to sacrifice bulls in our backyard?

You'd better... If you don't, the land will vomit you. (Lev 20:22)

 

[Meow Mix]

Well at that time there wants really any obedient human being so or a savior so they had to be killed before they spread amongst others. Now we have a savior and he will do the judgment on them.

This doesn't make sense to me in any respect. Are you saying that you agree people who ate shellfish before Jesus should have been murdered, and that murdering them was actually a loving and just thing to do on God's behalf?

 

[Poisonshady313]

This doesn't make sense to me in any respect. Are you saying that you agree people who ate shellfish before Jesus should have been murdered, and that murdering them was actually a loving and just thing to do on God's behalf?

That's at least the second time I've seen you reference murdering people who ate shellfish...

Are you aware that there is no death penalty anywhere in the Bible for the consumption of shellfish?

 

[Twig pentagram]

That's why we have to look at the whole thing in light of the rest of the Tradition, written and oral -- not just one snippet of text.

If one part states something and another part states the opposite that is called a contradiction, and it don't matter if you read the whole scripture or just one snippet. It still contradicts itself, and I know this because I've read the whole Bible and I noticed several contradictions.

 

[Meow Mix]

That's at least the second time I've seen you reference murdering people who ate shellfish...

Are you aware that there is no death penalty anywhere in the Bible for the consumption of shellfish?

I hardly find a difference between commanding the death penalty for eating shellfish, homosexuality, or eating fish on Tuesdays (to make up something equally as amoral). Any and all of them are petty and maniacal reasons for putting someone to death. So, I think my point comes across nonetheless.

 

[Pegg]

So anything that God can't use, He just throws away?

You call such a being "loving" and "just," just out of curiosity?

Hadn't He ever considered non-lethal alternatives such as... oh, you know, second chances or exile?

for anybody else, yes he does use 2nd chances and exiles...thats what he does under christianity

but, and I know this is hard to grasp, the Isrealites were set apart from all other nations for a specific purpose....and this is why they were not given 2nd chances. They had accepted Gods terms of the covenant and so when they did fail to live up to it, they were bound by the consequences of the covenant which was death in certain instances.

Through Christ, God (and i might get in trouble for saying this) removed the covenant that condemned to death in favor of a new covenant which did not require it. Gods love and mercy is what we have under the new covenant under Christ.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Spot on! Which is why context, both within and without the text is important.
I don't think it's possible to hold the text to one interpretation. It's multivalent.

Then why follow a socially and morally ambiguous book? Perhaps you could be a better author than the authors of that book.

 

[fallingblood]

Well at that time there wants really any obedient human being so or a savior so they had to be killed before they spread amongst others. Now we have a savior and he will do the judgment on them.

First, it has to be realized that the Law was just for the Jews. No one else. That is a big key here.

As for needing a savior, there really was no need. God was their savior. And God was the one who gave them salvation. The OT speaks of various ways in which one can gain redemption. A savior simply was not needed.

 

[fallingblood]

If one part states something and another part states the opposite that is called a contradiction, and it don't matter if you read the whole scripture or just one snippet. It still contradicts itself, and I know this because I've read the whole Bible and I noticed several contradictions.

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.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Pi

I hardly find a difference between commanding the death penalty for eating shellfish, homosexuality, or eating fish on Tuesdays (to make up something equally as amoral). Any and all of them are petty and maniacal reasons for putting someone to death. So, I think my point comes across nonetheless.

But there is no, nor has there ever been, a death penalty for eating shellfish. You know that, right?

 

[Meow Mix]

for anybody else, yes he does use 2nd chances and exiles...thats what he does under christianity

but, and I know this is hard to grasp, the Isrealites were set apart from all other nations for a specific purpose....and this is why they were not given 2nd chances. They had accepted Gods terms of the covenant and so when they did fail to live up to it, they were bound by the consequences of the covenant which was death in certain instances.

Through Christ, God (and i might get in trouble for saying this) removed the covenant that condemned to death in favor of a new covenant which did not require it. Gods love and mercy is what we have under the new covenant under Christ.

Okay, but I don't see how that's excusable. It appears from my perspective that you are simply saying "Yeah, God did command people to kill each other for petty reasons since their ancestors made a contract with Him. So what?"

Even if everything you say is true, you're still describing a horrific monster -- not a just and loving being. There are plenty of examples of bloodthirsty despots in history that murder people (or command them to be murdered) for petty reasons and blame it on a contract the victims' ancestors made.

NO contract justifies the murder of a human being for such a petty reason. Do you really think otherwise? If so, it would be a good example of what I mean when I say that sometimes religion can be dangerous by allowing people to twist horiffically immoral situations into a positive light through mental gymnastics I can never understand.

 

[Meow Mix]

Pi

But there is no, nor has there ever been, a death penalty for eating shellfish. You know that, right?

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.