15 Dec 12
3 edits
Originally posted by Rank outsiderthere is nothing you have cited that prevents a JW from advocating the death penalty
Of course, some may question whether human authorities can rightly execute individuals for acts that God's Word does not designate as capital offenses. That is a responsibility the governments must bear before God. But there is no Scriptural basis for saying that governments are condemned for prescribing the death penalty for murderers. God's view is t ty.
How much easier for one that was explicitly mandated as deserving the death penalty?
for homosexual acts.
tell me what it is about 'we are no longer under the mandates of a law and can
therefore not advocate punishments for a law that we are no longer subject to', that
you fail to understand?
If despite the clear and unambiguous nature of my text , you are still willing to draw
the same conclusion, despite the above statement, then continue to do so, its now past
the point of relevance to me.
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWe accept the law in principle, it is still principally wrong to steal as dictated by the
I have stated our position, it seems perfectly clear and free of ambiguity to me,
No you could not advocate the death penalty for homosexuality, because we are NO
LONGER UNDER THE MANDATES OF THE MOSAIC LAW, do you understand. WE ARE
NO LONGER UNDER THE MANDATES OF THE LAW, what that means is that you
cannot advocate a punishment for a law Y ...[text shortened]... re still in some confusion then i am sorry, i can do no more. I will not
repeat myself again.
Law which we are NO LONGER UNDER, it is still principally wrong to commit adultery
as dictated by the Law which we are NO LONGER UNDER...
Is it still "principally wrong" to wear garments of "two kinds of material mixed together"? Do the JWs allow this?
Leviticus 19
19‘You are to keep My statutes. You shall not...wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneas far as i am aware there is no prohibition against polyester/cotton among Jehovahs
[b]We accept the law in principle, it is still principally wrong to steal as dictated by the
Law which we are NO LONGER UNDER, it is still principally wrong to commit adultery
as dictated by the Law which we are NO LONGER UNDER...
Is it still "principally wrong" to wear garments of "two kinds of material mixed together"? Do the JWs allow this? ...[text shortened]... You shall not...wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.
[/quote][/b]
witness, why, because the mandates of the law are no longer binding, although how the
principle of not mixing materials together is applicable at the moment quite fails me.
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf I understand you correctly, on the other hand there IS a prohibition against stealing, committing adultery and homosexuality even though the "mandates of the law are no longer binding"?
as far as i am aware there is no prohibition against polyester/cotton among Jehovahs
witness, why, because the mandates of the law are no longer binding, although how the
principle of not mixing materials together is applicable at the moment quite fails me.
In what way are JWs not picking and choosing what they prohibit?
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo who changed the law?
as far as i am aware there is no prohibition against polyester/cotton among Jehovahs
witness, why, because the mandates of the law are no longer binding, although how the
principle of not mixing materials together is applicable at the moment quite fails me.
Did GOD change the law
or was there a referendum among the Jewish people
to repeal the law.
15 Dec 12
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWas the extract from Watchtower not advocating the use of the death penalty?
there is nothing you have cited that prevents a JW from advocating the death penalty
for homosexual acts.
tell me what it is about 'we are no longer under the mandates of a law and can
therefore not advocate punishments for a law that we are no longer subject to', that
you fail to understand?
If despite the clear and unambiguous nature o ...[text shortened]... pite the above statement, then continue to do so, its now past
the point of relevance to me.
And has not Watchtower cited Mosaic Law to justify this position?
Why is Watchtower using Mosaic Law in this way when JWs are no longer under its mandates?
The question is not whether JWs can advocate the death penalty. That has already been demonstrated.
The only question that remains is whether you can advocate it for acts of homosexuality as well as for murder.
15 Dec 12
4 edits
Originally posted by apathistI have asked you once to provide evidence of those whom i allegedly hate, you could
Robbie, why the hate. Because of some stupid religious tome from close by, or did something happen to you?
not do it, have you any more empirical evidence this time or are you simply going to
state that because i do not accept some premise that you have failed to define that I
am a hater? what is hateful about pointing out that putting your willy in someones anus
is unnatural, is physiologically destructive, has led to the spread of a totally
preventable disease HIV and is morally unacceptable on that basis and from a Biblical
perspective. Will you now provide evidence as to why one should consider it a loving
act or why the hate? why do you label those who profess a different perspective from
you as haters, has something happened to you? are you going to assign mysterious
phobias to them as well as terming them haters?
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by Rank outsiderI have detailed our position, i will not do so again, sorry.
Was the extract from Watchtower not advocating the use of the death penalty?
And has not Watchtower cited Mosaic Law to justify this position?
Why is Watchtower using Mosaic Law in this way when JWs are no longer under its mandates?
The question is not whether JWs can advocate the death penalty. That has already been demonstrated.
The only ...[text shortened]... ion that remains is whether you can advocate it for acts of homosexuality as well as for murder.
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDid I miss something?
What! Do you not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not
be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural
purposes [“male prostitutes,” New International Version; “effeminate,” King James
Version], nor men who lie with men [“sodomites,” Jerusalem Bible; “homosexual
perverts ...[text shortened]... t means “prostitution, unchastity, fornication, of every kind of
unlawful sexual intercourse.”
I asked originally:
Does the Bible prohibit oral sex between a man and a wife?
And anal sex between a man and wife?
You say that the translation of porneia 'relates to sexual relations involving people not married to one another'.
In case I wasn't clear, when I said 'man and wife', I meant people married to one another.
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by Rank outsideryour definition of pornia is too narrow, it encompasses a far broader spectrum than
Did I miss something?
I asked originally:
Does the Bible prohibit oral sex between a man and a wife?
And anal sex between a man and wife?
You say that the translation of porneia 'relates to sexual relations involving people not married to one another'.
In case I wasn't clear, when I said 'man and wife', I meant people married to one another.
illicit sex outwith marriage as i have demonstrated in my text.
15 Dec 12
4 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnesimply put because these are also covered under the law and are binding upon
If I understand you correctly, on the other hand there IS a prohibition against stealing, committing adultery and homosexuality even though the "mandates of the law are no longer binding"?
In what way are JWs not picking and choosing what they prohibit?
witnesses in principle. If you can state how mixing two materials applies in principle,
then be my guest, we also tend not to boil a calf in its mothers milk, again a prohibition
under the law, just sayin, or to muzzle a bull on the threshing floor, or to yoke to
unsuitable animals together, or to cut down palm branches and celebrate the festival of
booths seven days.
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo, I have clearly demonstrated that JWs do advocate the use of the death penalty on the basis of Mosaic Law. The words of Watchtower make that clear.
I have detailed our position, i will not do so again, sorry.
I cannot understand your position as it appears to conflict with what I have read on JW.org. I would have thought you would have respected my attempt to understand your beliefs by reference to this website. If I have misunderstood, you should try and find another way to explain your position. I do not understand how JWs can believe that they may legitimately use Mosaic Law to advocate the use of the death penalty for murder, but not also legitimately advocate the use of the death penalty for acts of homosexuality.
Nothing you have said has adequately explained this. Rather like TOO, you seem to think that repeating the same thing is a good way to teach and explain your position.