15 Dec 12
1 edit
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodyactually no johnny, the only snippets i get of FMF's posts are when someone else reply's
Well he obviously is reading them.
and quotes them, otherwise, they remain shielded from my eyes, the principle being,
(Proverbs 6:12-14) . . .A good-for-nothing man, a man of hurtfulness, is walking
with crookedness of speech. . . . . .He is fabricating something bad all the time. He
keeps sending out merely contentions.
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOh dear, robbie. Did I ask you some questions you didn't have an answer for? Did I disagree with you once too often?
(Proverbs 6:12-14) . . .A good-for-nothing man, a man of hurtfulness, is walking
with crookedness of speech. . . . . .He is fabricating something bad all the time. He
keeps sending out merely contentions.
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCan you post the Biblical references that prohibit sodomy and oral sex?
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.
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOk, I will post what I think the JW position is and you can correct me if I am wrong.
To be clear, the only instance that i am aware of that homosexuality was considered a
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 ...[text shortened]... the mandates of the
mosaic law, why there should be any ambiguity about the fact i cannot say.
1. God once instructed (not simply permitted) men to execute any man caught indulging in homosexual acts.
2. God later removed the requirement to execute people in these circumstances but did not state that it was not permitted.
3. Though Mosaic Law no longer applies in practice, it applies 'in principle'.
4. The JWs use this principle to justify their belief that the use of the death penalty remains acceptable in the eyes of God.
5. They also use Mosaic Law to justify their belief that homosexuality is a gross sin.
6. The translation used by the JWs is stronger than some others in terms of its translation of Leviticus 20 : 13 in that it adds, for example, the words 'without fail' that is absent in some translations.
Conclusion
From the above, it is seems perfectly reasonable for me to conclude that I could be a JW and advocate the death penalty for acts of homosexuality. In doing so, not only would I not be committing any sin, in fact I would be acting in accordance with God's express wishes. Hence my comment earlier when I said I was surprised that anyone who accepts the whole of the Bible says anything else.
If you do not agree with this, you have to explain why you are able to so confidently accept some bits of Mosaic Law (the death penalty, acts of homosexuality are a gross sin) but not others (the penalty for acts of homosexuality should be execution).
15 Dec 12
3 edits
Originally posted by Rank outsiderWhat! Do you not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not
Can you post the Biblical references that prohibit sodomy and oral sex?
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,” Today’s English Version], nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards,
nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God’s kingdom.” Note that Paul specifically
mentioned those who evidently take on a passive sexual role and those who assume a
more active “male” role in their immoral relations. Thus he made it plain that God
disapproves of all homosexual acts. 1 Corinthians 6: 1-6
oral sex may be considered under the premise of being an unclean act, as the Bible
does not mention it specifically, but that does not mean that there are no principles
which might have a bearing, although seemingly unrelated, the same as to commit
murder with hand guns is not mentioned, but clearly its morally wrong.
(1 Thessalonians 4:3) . . .For this is what God wills, the sanctifying of you, that you
abstain from fornication*. . .
The Greek word porneia, translated “fornication,” has a fairly broad meaning. It
relates to sexual relations involving persons not married to each other and focuses
on the misuse of the sexual organs. Porneia includes such acts as oral sex, anal sex,
and masturbating another person—conduct commonly associated with houses of
prostitution.
The Greek word porneia covers a broad meaning. Bauer, p. 693, says under the
word porneia that it means “prostitution, unchastity, fornication, of every kind of
unlawful sexual intercourse.”
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by Rank outsiderI have stated our position, it seems perfectly clear and free of ambiguity to me,
Ok, I will post what I think the JW position is and you can correct me if I am wrong.
1. God once instructed (not simply permitted) men to execute any man caught indulging in homosexual acts.
2. God later removed the requirement to execute people in these circumstances but did not state that it was not permitted.
3. Though Mosaic Law no longer ...[text shortened]... re a gross sin) but not others (the penalty for acts of homosexuality should be execution).
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 YOU ARE NO LONGER UNDER, do you
understand.
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, it is still principally wrong
to practice homosexuality as dictated by the Law which we are NO LONGER UNDER.
The Law is annulled in practice that is why people are no longer put to death for
these acts, that is why when you steal a sheep you are no longer required to make
reparation with four sheep, that is why adulterers are no longer stoned to death .
This is our position, i have tried to explain it to the best of my ability, if after reading
this text you are still in some confusion then i am sorry, i can do no more. I will not
repeat myself again.
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo why do JWs justify the use of the death penalty by reference to Mosaic Law if you are NO LONGER UNDER ITS MANDATES?
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.
15 Dec 12
5 edits
Originally posted by Rank outsiderIt was justified UNDER THE LAW, a law which we are NO LONGER subject to because the
So why do JWs justify the use of the death penalty by reference to Mosaic Law if you are NO LONGER UNDER ITS MANDATES?
Law was deemed to be from God and was thus an expression of Gods sovereignty.
15 Dec 12
3 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseRank Outsider asked the question he got the answer. The death penalty was justified
nice bit of circular reasoning.
under the Law, why this should be difficult to grasp I have no idea? The law is an
expression of Gods sovereignty and that's it. God says it was a capital crime, it was a
capital crime, you want to argue with God, be my guest.
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOf 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 that the person deliberately taking someone else's life forfeits his own life. Today, however, many governments are abandoning God's view of capital punishment, this doubtless contributing to increased crime and violence." - Questions From Readers; 8/1/72 Watchtower
Rank Outsider asked the question he got the answer.
God deemed acts of homosexuality a capital offence. Even if this is no longer mandated by God, there is nothing you have cited that prevents a JW from advocating the death penalty for homosexual acts.
As the above makes clear, JWs believe that you can legitimately use the death penalty for offences which are not explicitly mandated by God as deserving the death penalty.
How much easier for one that was explicitly mandated as deserving the death penalty?