Originally posted by sonhouseI don't know why Jews no longer adhere to a strict interpretation of the Law.
But for sure there are people who totally reject the whole NT thing. If I am not wrong they call them Jews🙂
Why don't THEY execute gays for instance, and treat women like they are only worth 7/10ths of a man?
Originally posted by apathistAhe anus is not designed for sexual intercourse its a one way system, if you have any
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
Its an old story. Get over it.
evidence to the contrary please produce it. As for equating human behaviour with
animal is weak because there are many aspects of animal behaviour that if humans
adopted would be disastrous from them.
Robbie,
Getting back to you on an earlier point.
You have accepted that the JWs believe that the death penalty, in at least some circumstances, is acceptable in the eyes of God and they cite Mosaic Law to justify this.
Therefore, the JWs must conclude that execution is not, in and of itself, a sin in the eyes of God.
So, there must be at least one offence for which it would be acceptable in the eyes of God to execute someone. And some offences which it is not acceptable in the eyes of God to execute someone.
Let us, for arguments sake, say that child murder is one offence for which the death penalty is acceptable in the eyes of God. You can substitute any other 'capital' offence if you like.
My question is, what process do JWs go through to determine that child murder is an offence for which it is acceptable in the eyes of God to execute someone. And why is this not 'speculation' any less than applying the same principle for men committing acts of homosexuality?
Indeed, it would appear that you need far less speculation about acts of homosexuality, as you have a direct instruction from God to execute people committing homosexual acts. The fact that God has released you from the explicit obligation to execute people committing homosexual acts does not mean that God would not approve of you doing so. If you do not agree with this, then what makes you think God would approve of you executing anyone for any crime?
Put it another way, how do you reach the conclusion that the death penalty is acceptable in any circumstances and why do you think this does not apply to acts of homosexuality?
Originally posted by Rank outsiderit certainly prohibits sodomy, yes and oral sex may be considered unclean, the fact of
Neither is the mouth. Does the Bible prohibit oral sex between a man and a wife?
And anal sex between a man and wife?
the matter is, the physiologically it can be demonstrated that sodomy is not a natural
state of affairs, the walls of the rectum are not designed for intercourse, yet we are
somehow meant to believe that its a perfectly natural state of affairs, when its nothing
of the sort.
Originally posted by Rank outsiderTo be clear, the only instance that i am aware of that homosexuality was considered a
Robbie,
Getting back to you on an earlier point.
You have accepted that the JWs believe that the death penalty, in at least some circumstances, is acceptable in the eyes of God and they cite Mosaic Law to justify this.
Therefore, the JWs must conclude that execution is not, in and of itself, a sin in the eyes of God.
So, there must be at le able in any circumstances and why do you think this does not apply to acts of homosexuality?
capital crime was under the mandates of the mosaic law, now stated for the third time.
We are no longer under the mandates of that law, although it is binding in principle.
Therefore this is not some circumstances, its the only circumstance! It is the same
with murder, child or otherwise, these were capital crimes under the mosaic law, again
binding in principle, although it clearly distinguishes between murder and involuntary
manslaughter. You are asking what process? there is no process, the mandates are
clear, homosexuality and murder were capital offences under the mandates of the
mosaic law, why there should be any ambiguity about the fact i cannot say.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFirst off, the fact is that such acts occur in other species, which means it IS natural in that it
it certainly prohibits sodomy, yes and oral sex may be considered unclean, the fact of
the matter is, the physiologically it can be demonstrated that sodomy is not a natural
state of affairs, the walls of the rectum are not designed for intercourse, yet we are
somehow meant to believe that its a perfectly natural state of affairs, when its nothing
of the sort.
happens in nature.
Second, We are not separate from nature, we are part of it, so the fact that we do it is natural.
Third, claiming something is good or bad because it is or is not "natural" is the naturalistic fallacy.
Good or bad is independent of 'natural' and thus whether or not it's natural is irrelevant.
Fourth, The human body is not designed for anything, because it isn't designed.
Fifth, whether it was 'designed' for it or not, many people successfully and happily engage in both
oral and anal sex.
Sixth, anal sex is independent to homosexuality. Some strait people do it and not all gay people do.
Seventh, even if all that were not true (and it is), what two consenting adults do with or to each other
in private is their business and is nothing and nobody else's concern. And that includes your imaginary god.
In short... you are wrong on every point.
Originally posted by googlefudgeWhat he said🙂
First off, the fact is that such acts occur in other species, which means it IS natural in that it
happens in nature.
Second, We are not separate from nature, we are part of it, so the fact that we do it is natural.
Third, claiming something is good or bad because it is or is not "natural" is the naturalistic fallacy.
Good or bad is independent ...[text shortened]... n. And that includes your imaginary god.
In short... you are wrong on every point.