Should homosexuals be put into jail?

[trofimus]

Should homosexuals be put into jail?

And adulterers? Or liars? Or...

No. In history, it was never good for Christianity to become a state policy. We should never physically attack or restrict people just because of our belief.

The Lord himself will do his judgement, not state, government or police.

 

[UnderGrace]

[QOUTE] Should homosexuals be put into jail?

And adulterers? Or liars? Or...

No. In history, it was never good for Christianity to become a state policy. We should never physically attack or restrict people just because of our belief.

The Lord himself will do his judgement, not state, government or police.[/QUOTE]

So the church should not have any influence on what the world does?

 

[trofimus]

So the church should not have any influence on what the world does?

To put people in a jail for what is written in the Bible is not "influence on the world", but "becoming the worldly power", similar do medieval RCC. We know how bad it was for everybody...

BTW, in Russia, its still a crime I think. And it was a crime during communism.

 

[UnderGrace]

To put people in a jail for what is written in the Bible is not "influence on the world", but "becoming the worldly power", similar do medieval RCC. We know how bad it was for everybody...

BTW, in Russia, its still a crime I think. And it was a crime during communism.

Yes I agree to a degree, we were not called to create a theocracy.

Well we put people in jail for murder? In ancient Greece there were no laws on the books so to speak, the fact that we have the criminal code we do is based largely on the Judaeo-Christian ethic and the involvement of those people in the law making process.

The ability to influence "the world" is part of us being the salt and light of the world.

 

[trofimus]

Yes I agree to a degree, we were not called to create a theocracy.

Well we put people in jail for murder? In ancient Greece there were no laws on the books so to speak, the fact that we have the criminal code we do is based largely on the Judaeo-Christian ethic and the involvement of those people in the law making process.

The ability to influence "the world" is part of us being the salt and light of the world.

Murder is a dangerous act for any society. But moral sins are a sloppery road. First, we will jail adulterers. Then, we will jail muslims, then we will jail other Christians and Jews. Then, we will jail communists and other political oponents...

BTW would any of us not be jailed, in the end? ;-) The general civil law should be as narrow as posible, IMHO. The rest is freedom.

 

[Ugly]

If one could picture homosexuality like the devils that possessed the 2 men, in Matthew 8:28, that Jesus "cast off" them, and fled into a herd of many swine, like the "twisted minds", that "relish" in their accepting "Radical islam, and sharia law, rather then REPENTENCE? In their "war against children/sons of light?" Who would have No QUALMS, WHATSOEVER, in "thinning them" from their midst? Whom even a "herd of swine" wouldn't "suffer their presence?"

It would "seem", the saying: "love is blind" has that effect in more ways, then simple "puppy love!" Eh? How the "emotions" "Bind and Blind" the light from one's being able to "Put that which is true in its PROPER PLACE/S?" To a "point" that even "Christian DISCIPLINES" lose AUTHORITY?

Can you not understand?

Ezekiel 13
10 Because, even because they have seduced my people, saying, Peace; and there was no peace; and one built up a wall, and, lo, others daubed it with untempered morter:

11 Say unto them which daub it with untempered morter, that it shall fall: there shall be an overflowing shower; and ye, O great hailstones, shall fall; and a stormy wind shall rend it.

12 Lo, when the wall is fallen, shall it not be said unto you, Where is the daubing wherewith ye have daubed it?

13 Therefore thus saith the Lord God; I will even rend it with a stormy wind in my fury; and there shall be an overflowing shower in mine anger, and great hailstones in my fury to consume it.

14 So will I break down the wall that ye have daubed with untempered morter, and bring it down to the ground, so that the foundation thereof shall be discovered, and it shall fall, and ye shall be consumed in the midst thereof: and ye shall know that I am the Lord.

15 Thus will I accomplish my wrath upon the wall, and upon them that have daubed it with untempered morter,

Lord God, is speaking concerning Blind love! The "wall" to which Lord God speaks, is the "FIRST FRUITS" of AGAPEO LOVE! Love that is offered TO God! And, ONLY Him! ("Press On", pilgrim! Press on!) First fruits "sacrificed" TO Christ, are "passed onto" the Father! The Father and Christ ARE one! Yet? They "EACH", have their own, yet SEPARATE, "AREAS OF EXPERISE!" For lack of a better way to explain it. BOTH, are Holy! Jesus' "area of expertise", is "Milky", whereas the Father's "area of expertise" is more "meaty", which is why it is harder in the discerning of!

Homosexuality, is an ABOMINATION, in God's eyes! Yet? "The Church/es" are not only "allowing" these "reprobates" "in?" They are even "allowed" to preach and teach in the NAME of GOD? LISTEN to the "lamenting" of God to Jermiah, in chapter 4.
22 "For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish (silly/foolish) children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.

Unless, one uses "jail" as a "collection station", where, after a certain number has been reached, then taken out to be executed? In that case? Yes!

Hopping between caps, bold and quotation mark's doesn't provide emphasis when used that much. It creates a visual chaos that makes it difficult to focus on the words because our brains are too busy jumping through hoops to get around the stream of variations. In short, all that you did makes it nearly unreadable. Though the but I did read sounded like nonsense so perhaps keep it up.

 

[trofimus]

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.


Martin Niemöller

 

[UnderGrace]

Murder is a dangerous act for any society. But moral sins are a sloppery road. First, we will jail homosexual. Then, we will jail mothers after abortion. Then, we will jail muslims, then we will jail other Christians...

BTW would any of us not be jailed, in the end? ;-)

You are really stretching things out here.

Laws against certain immoral behaviours used to be on the books if one goes back 50 years, so the reason for the shift is because the church is no longer an influence as it once was in society, for better or worse that is the fact.

If you are a libertarian or anarchist that is fine but the reality is North American society had such laws in place right down to the personal life of a teacher, as society has become more liberal the laws were repealed.

Not every law is about serving jail time.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

He was wrong on the two natures tho. I also used to believe for a while we only have one nature.

That's probably my main issue with what he believes. I have gotten the impression from reading some of his stuff that he thinks it's just a matter of man willing to do good.

 

[trofimus]

You are really stretching things out here.

Laws against certain immoral behaviours used to be on the books if one goes back 50 years, so the reason for the shift is because the church is no longer an influence as it once was in society, for better or worse that is the fact.

If you are a libertarian or anarchist that is fine but the reality is North American society had such laws in place right down to the personal life of a teacher, as society has become more liberal the laws were repealed.

Not every law is about serving jail time.

Stretching out... yes. Because, in history, it was always stretching out. If we start to jail people for moral things, the state will go astray, to a dictature with the only one true opinion and the rest will be persecuted.

 

[UnderGrace]

Stretching out... yes. Because, in history, it was always stretching out. If we start to jail people for moral things, the state will go astray, to a dictature with the only one true opinion and the rest will be persecuted.

Well like I said I know the law, those laws already were in place and have since been removed. Canada and the United States were not theocracies it was just that most people agreed they were wrong.

There are some lies that will cause you to end up in court btw.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

You do know that the concept of free will, which is indeed a concept was birthed in ancient Greek philosophy.

Free will predates the Greeks; as it is written, "Choose this day who you will serve", and "I set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore, choose life".

 

[UnderGrace]

Free will predates the Greeks; as it is written, "Choose this day who you will serve", and "I set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore, choose life".

Not a statement of free will by any means.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Not a statement of free will by any means.

Of course it is. You just choose a definition that suits you.

 

[trofimus]

Well like I said I know the law, those laws already were in place and have since been removed. Canada and the United States were not theocracies it was just that most people agreed they were wrong.

There are some lies that will cause you to end up in court btw.

Were not black people also somehow under the white people in those days? Were not Japanese and Chineses seen as less worthy, too? Its never about one group only...

BTW, were white heterosexual adulterers put in jail, too? Or were they priviledged not to?

 

[UnderGrace]

Free will predates the Greeks; as it is written, "Choose this day who you will serve", and "I set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore, choose life".

The ability to choose is not "free will" as defined originally by the Greeks.

So Morrell's whole argument of juxtaposing free will against Calvin's total inability, is only using more error.

Gnosticism is not nearly as clear cut as one would think.

 

[UnderGrace]

Were not black people also somehow under the white people in those days? Its never about one group only...

BTW, where white heterosexual adulterers put in jail too?

As I said the punishment for laws was not singularly about jail time.

I gather you have not read the Scarlett Letter.

 

[UnderGrace]

Of course it is. You just choose a definition that suits you.

Hardly, try reading Plato.

 

[UnderGrace]

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.


Martin Niemöller

So you think I am advocating facism?

That is not even close to what I am saying....this conversation will end soon.

I believe all drugs should be decriminalized ... do you?

 

[NayborBear]

Hopping between caps, bold and quotation mark's doesn't provide emphasis when used that much. It creates a visual chaos that makes it difficult to focus on the words because our brains are too busy jumping through hoops to get around the stream of variations. In short, all that you did makes it nearly unreadable. Though the but I did read sounded like nonsense so perhaps keep it up.

Thanks for your "critique", Ugly! And, for a surety? I shall!

Here! Let me state my case a little more clearly for you, and those whom you speak for, eh?

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate nor abusers of themselves with mankind.....

So, as Paul states, and I myself, believe, these shall not "inherit" the Kingdom of God. Right?

Why then, oh why, would, or should we allow these one to "continue" inheriting the planet? Eh?

Not to many "hoops" for you, or those you speak for is it?