BIBLE Requires
Death Penalty
for Homosexuals
This is a Christian answer to this question:
The Old Testament theocratic law required the death
penalty for incest in
When a man committed incest in the
Leviticus 20:13 (“If a man also
lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman,
both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death;
their blood shall be upon them.”) required the death penalty for homosexuality
in
My
reply is that the change in the Law referred to in Hebrews 7:12 does not imply that the moral rules of the Old Testament, such
as the duty of the God fearing state to destroy gay people are wrong or changed
or obsolete.
When
Judaism was only a temporary religion that was meant to evolve into
Christianity its fulfilment it doesn’t necessarily imply the law had to be changed
except in the sense that it was made tougher or more explicit. It is worse to sin when you have experienced
the fulfilled faith than the preparatory one.
The
Bible time and time again says that the Old Testament is full of moral
example. As for the incest case the
Christians did try to execute the guilty man but by cursing him and urging God
to destroy him in the hope that the suffering this entails might make him turn
to God again. And the law to execute does
not require one to execute where it is impossible. The rulers of
However,
the Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis argues that
handing the man over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh does mean
execution. The Christians saw secular
and pagan states as the emissaries of Satan though God still used them to
punish the wicked (Romans 13). Handing
over to Satan may mean handing him over to the civil authorities and the
destruction may be civil punishment, capital punishment. The fact that Paul sounds so certain the man
will be destroyed indicates that he did mean execution. He wants the man put to death so that he may
repent before he dies.
http://www.catholicintl.com/qa/2004/qa-aug-04.htm#Question%2026
Note: The Same Source says that the Church has the right to use torture to destroy heresy. Question 41.
CONCLUSION
The
Law of Moses with its superstitions and cruelties is still in force according
to the Bible. Jesus could not and did
not teach that the days which we have to obey it are
gone. The Law is said to be no longer
obligatory for us in the sense that we want to obey it so it is no longer like
a Law and in the sense that if we fail Jesus has obeyed the Law for us in our
place so we are still counted as obeying the Law perfectly. The fact that we need Jesus to do some of the
work for us indicates that the Law has his sanction as being fair and correct.
The Law of Moses is not for the Hebrews
alone but for the world.
The Bible is an evil book that deserves to
have its pages torn out and used to shine windows. Any other use is criminal. Stop calling it the good book. It should be banned for it opposes social
order and commands religious murder.
WORKS CONSULTED
Alleged
Discrepancies of the Bible, John W Haley,
Christ
and Violence, Ronald J Sider, Herald Press,
Christ’s
Literal Reign on Earth From David’s Throne at Jerusalem, John R Rice, Sword of
the Lord, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, undated
Early
Christian Writings, Editor Maxwell Staniforth,
Penguin,
Essentials,
David L Edwards and John Stott, Hodder &
Stoughton,
Eunuchs
for the
God’s
Festivals and Holy Days, Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide Church of God,
California, 1992
Hard
Sayings Derek Kidner InterVarsity
Press,
Jesus
the Only Saviour, Tony and Patricia Higton, Monarch,
Kennedy’s
Murder, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord,
Martin
Luther, Richard Marius, Belknap Press of
Moral
Philosophy, Joseph Rickaby SJ,
Stonyhurst Philosophy Series, Longmans, Green and Co,
Not
Under Law, Brian Edwards, Day One Publications, Bromley, Ken, 1994
Radio
Replies Vol 2, Frs
Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press,
Sabbath
Keeping, Johnie Edwards, Guardian of Truth
Publications,
Secrets
of Romanism, Joseph Zacchello, Loizeaux
Brothers,
Set
My Exiles Free, John Power, Logos Books, MH Gill
& Son Ltd,
Storehouse
Tithing, Does the Bible Teach it? John R Rice, Sword of the Lord,
Sunday or Sabbath? John R Rice, Sword of the Lord,
The
Christian and War, JB Norris, The
Christadelphian,
The
Christian and War, Robert Moyer, Sword of the Lord Murfreesboro
The
Encyclopaedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason W Archer, Zondervan,
The
Enigma of Evil, John Wenham, Eagle, Guildford,
The
Gospel and Strife, A. D. Norris, The Christadelphian,
The
Jesus Event, Martine Tripole SJ,
Alba House,
The
The
Metaphor of God Incarnate, John Hick, SCM Press,
The
Plain Truth about Easter, Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide
The
Sabbath, Peter Watkins, Christadelphian Bible
The
Ten Commandments, Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide
The
Truth that Leads to Eternal Life, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of
The
World Ahead, November December 1998, Vol 6, Issue
6
Theodore
Parker’s Discourses, Theodore Parker, Longmans, Green, Reader & Dyer,
Those
Incredible Christians, Hugh Schonfield,
Vicars
of Christ, Peter de Rosa, Corgi Books,
War
and Pacifism, Margaret Cooling, Scripture Union,
War
and the Gospel, Jean Lasserre, Herald Press,
When
Critics Ask, Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, Victor
Books,
Which
Day is the Christian Sabbath? Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide
THE
WEB
The
Law of Moses: Is It Valid Today?
www.ark_of_salvation.orgJewish_law.htm
The
Law of Moses and the Law of Christ by
Is
Old Testament Law for New Testament Christians
www.souldevice.org/writings_law_gospel.html
This
Christian site accepts that the New Testament did not run the Law of Moses out
of town but accepted it. It argues that
Matthew 5 has Jesus stating that he has no intention of doing away with the Law
of Moses and what he does with it is he gives out a stricter interpretation of
it. But strangely it argues then that
Jesus did discontinue some parts of the Law.
1 Samuel 15:22,23/Isaiah 1:11-17/Jeremiah
7:21-23/Proverbs 21:3/Matthew 9:13/23:23 are said to make no sense unless the
law can be given three distinctions which are Moral, Ceremonial and Civil. Not once however in these verses does God
even hint that the Moral laws and the Civil laws and the Ceremonial laws are to
be treated as three units. What they are
is three different kinds of law in one law based on love. The first two cannot
be changed because of the link with morality but the latter can if it is only
temporary and states that clearly. You
can’t change what love is. The law
plainly commands and practices hatred so God is assuming that we need to hate
in order to love properly so that is how a law of love can encourage and foster
hatred.
Christians,
assuming that they are to have any distinctions at all, are to have just Moral
and Ceremonial law. The Christians make
the distinctions for they hold that the moral law of God is unchangeable while
the civil and ceremonial law of God is changeable. But when there is no evidence that moral and
civil are not the same they can only hope for the abolition of the Ceremonial
law. They simply have to hold that it is
right to slay homosexuals and other sinners Moses wanted dead in the name of
God.
A
case for holding that Paul believed that the law that could not save was a
legalistic interpretation of the Law and not the law itself as it actually was
is dismissed. Paul never hinted that he
meant only the interpretation of the law was dangerous for salvation not the
Law itself. Paul’s word for the Law
backs this dismissal up.
Then
the site suggests the correctness of the shocking statement of the theologian Geisler that all God’s laws must be in accord with God’s
nature but need not be necessitated by that nature and so they can be
changed. In other words, God can forbid
you to pay taxes to the temple so that the poor may be given the money and then
he could change that law. But that does
not explain how he could command the stoning of certain sinners. Any law he makes, changeable or unchangeable
is designed to bring about the best. So
if the Israelites were better rid of these sinners so were we. If the temple can do without money it can at
other times so the law would have to be reinstated. There is a sense then in which all his laws
are permanent. They are permanent but if
other permanent laws become more important than them they are just put to the
background and not done away until they can be put back to the foreground
again. Not one of the laws in the Torah
are claimed to be changeable or even look like that kind of law. They are all different from the one about
paying money to charity instead of the temple.
God in the Law said you could murder a burglar who breaks into your
house at night with impunity. Now is
that a law that isn’t necessitated by God’s nature? It does no good at all. It clearly indicates that God does not accept
the view that he has any laws that his nature does not require him to make but
which he makes anyway. It is unnecessary
and it is against the nature of a good God.
Geisler is wrong.
The
Law claims to be right. In other words,
we are meant to see that it is right even if we don’t believe in God. God told the Hebrews that other nations would
consider them to be the wisest nation on earth because of their Law
(Deuteronomy 4:6,8).
At
least Geisler would admit that stoning people to
death is not necessarily incompatible with God.
He would say that if God doesn’t allow it now, he still wants us to have
the mindset that we would do it if he asked.
We want to do it but it is because he asks us not to that we don’t. The fanaticism is still there.
Is
Old Testament Law for New Testament Christians
www.souldevice.org/writings_law_gospel.html
BIBLE
QUOTATIONS FROM:
The
Amplified Bible
13/06/2008