TruthSeeker68 said:
To me, having a homosexual orientation and "acting on it" are 2 different things... NO, I do not believe that homosexuals (orientation or behavior) should get the death penalty
Then wasn't it foolish of you to bring up the dichotomy?
If it doesn’t matter whether it is the act or the sickness, then what does it matter the distinction?
Your were trying to water down the issue. We weren't talking about executing people for what they think, but what they do. Just as we shouldn't charge people for being addicted to alcohol or drugs when they don't act on it. Being sick in the head, and acting on that sickness are two different things for sure, but no one is talking about that. It is a strawman.
TruthSeeker68 said:
If the argument of "death penalty" comes from the Bible, then is it not basically based on the OT?
Somewhat. There are plenty of New Testament passages that support it as well. However, just because it is in the Old Testament doesn't invalidate it. It is the same God in the New Testament as that wrote the Old.
There are valid reasons we do not keep some of the rules in the Old Testament. But many are binding even today.
TruthSeeker68 said:
I thought Christians are not to live under that Law.
We are not talking about Christian living.
Not all homosexuals are Christians. The New Testament teaches that the world is still under the law. That Christians are not, does not mean that we shouldn’t still punish criminal acts … even if Christians commit them. Because Christianity is a matter of the orientation, not behavior – and as you pointed out - behavior, and not orientation, should be dealt with. Just stay consistent to your own points and you would have arrived at this.
TruthSeeker68 said:
Jesus Christ advocated violating some of these in favor of putting people above rules (Example: Jesus declares ALL foods clean (Mark 7:18-19)).
Jesus didn’t declare all foods clean to Jews. Jesus wasn’t advocating people to abandon the mosaic law here. There is no statement here that people should begin eating pork.
However, he does point out that the command to abstain from certain foods is really symbolic. I would agree that symbolic commands should not be kept today or enforced today. However “do not murder”, “do not steal”, and “do not commit homosexuality” are moral truths and should be kept as crimes.
TruthSeeker68 said:
"Abominations" were connected with the breaking of several different rules (e.g. eating certain animals). Not sure if that resulted in the death penalty.
It was an abomination to move your neighbor’s property marker. That should still be a crime today. There is a bad line of thinking taught in homosexual churches that the word “abomination” moves it out of the realm of a moral command. That is simply not true.
