Is Mise, "Do you think that it is OK to kill homosexuals and serial fornicators??"

I have so far avoided this question for its relevance to our topic, but have decided to respond to it now, in view of your persistence. I'll start by asking you two questions:
1. Why do you keep addressing this question to me? Why not ask those whose Scripture prescribes death for these crimes:-

"Both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death". (Leviticus 20:10)

“If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die," (Deuteronomy 22:22 )

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death". (Leviticus 20:13)

2. Where is killing of these people intended to take place? Because I know, I am nobody to draft penal code for others. No one, for that matter has the mandate to impose his/her likes and dislikes on others.

The question you pose, relates to crime and punishment. There is no universal agreement on the crimes and punishments. Each society defines its laws, depending on the root of its own law; may it be natural, commandment based or manmade.

Please consider two examples to understand the point: 1) No one can be punished for eating a beef burger the world over, except in a society, where cow is worshiped as a goddess. Eating cow's meat, in such a society may be considered a crime and might as well be punishable. 2) Chewing gum is a matter of individual choice in USA and in most parts of the world, but it is a crime in Singapore. They imposed a fine of $15,000, the other day for throwing a cigaret butt on the road. Whereas throwing cigaret butts carries no punishment in most countries.

So it is for the society itself to decide the laws and rules it considers necessary to regulate its activities that it chooses to be publicly imposed.

Continues...

Continued..

You appear to be from a western country, practicing western law. Western law has its roots in both Roman law and the Bible. As Western culture has a Graeco-Roman Classical and Renaissance cultural influence, so does its legal systems. Western law on the subject has since been amended to move way from injunctions of Bible. It is society's prerogative to amend its laws from time to time; prerogative that the Western society as well as other societies have.

Law, in order to be effective, has to be in line with the nature, religion and moral code of the people it aims to regulate. Imposing a set of laws from out side, which are not aligned with the local conditions is bound to confuse and corrupt the locals. One of the reasons of the present chaos in the third world which was mostly colonized by the West, is the thoughtless imposition of western law on them without due consideration to local conditions and without first, sufficiently preparing the societies to receive it.

Every society is free to frame its laws. Although the society has to be cognizant of the consequences of the laws it frames. Remember, punishment is not an end but a mean to an end. Singapore, for example, aims to keep the city clean and its draconian laws on the subject have helped it to achieve that goal. A clean city with healthy environment is a worthwhile goal to pursue, in their reckoning, compared with some other cities in the region with laxity on littering and polluting, which has resulted in the diseased and polluted environment of those cities.
Should Singapore be made to repeal its laws because they appear be harsh to others? Or, conversely, should Singapore force other countries to adopt its laws because of their proven usefulness? Answer is obviously no, in both cases. Every country frames its own laws and reaps the fruits if it gets it right and suffers the consequences, if it falters.

Continues....

Continued

The harsh punishment laid down in the bible, reflects the importance given to the purity and sincerity of relationship of man and wife. This relationship is the glue that binds the family together and family is the building block of any society. Laxity in this relationship can result in broken or incomplete families, unhappiness, suicides and crimes etc. It is for the society to factor in all impacts and consequences, while framing their laws. It is a very tight rope to walk on. Make the laws too harsh and suffocate the people or go too lenient and have the family and consequently the society crumble. Every society has to balance its own act and reap the resultant benefits or suffer the consequences.

We have different societies, therefore we are bound to have different laws in different countries. This diversity must be respected and celebrated. Entire humanity has never thought alike and they may never do. Peaceful coexistence is possible in the realization of this fact and living with others as they are.

The implied sarcasm in your question, appears supremacist. It is for you to reconsider this stance.
Arbitrarily considering one self civilized and others uncivilized may be full of surprises. History records how the uncivilized thought themselves to be civilized and ridiculed the civilized. We need to turn to the authorities on history to understand the reality; Arnold Toynbee and Ibn Khaldun. Both of them state that the Desert is the Cradle of Civilization where human values are preserved and nurtured. It is the urbanites, in their opinion, who manifest the decadent and uncivilized behavior. Examples are many, but I will cite only one and words uttered are to the effect "they threaten the civilized way of life that our society has developed and we will not allow them." Who said that?.... We all heard, but I am referring here to Pharaoh, who uttered these words as he thought that Moses and his followers were uncivilized and threatened the way of life of the civilized super power of the time, that he thought, he was god of.

Continues..

Continues...

This may be my last post on the forum. The hateful comments and use of abusive language which has just entered the dialogue, defeats the basic purpose of discussion. Discussion remains a tool of learning, as long as the participants are open to accept the facts. Flow of knowledge is only possible where there is the realization of room for improvement. Where people enter the discussion with the stance that they know every thing already; exchange of knowledge does not occur.
The discussion, in such a situation degenerates to a match of petty point scoring, where winning is everything. It becomes like a bloody boxing bout....and winning is the sole aim; even if it is through hitting below the belt or by biting the opponent's ear off.

Finally, I thank you, and the others , for having interacted with me, which provided me opportunity to understand their point of view and enabled me to put across mine. If I have been able to reduce an iota of hatred or motivate some one to strive to seek truth, rather than blindly accepting the narrative being pedaled through mainstream media, I would consider the labour worth while.

Thanks once again and good luck.

Concluded

Gawd!!

NC

You must not have been reading what you've written.

You have already agreed that it's okay to have sex with little children, twice over:
1. because you regard Mohammed as the supreme moral example to everyone, and would IN NO WAY criticise or condemn him as an evil pervert in anything; and
2. because other people have thought it okay, and you view that as THE SAME THING AS you thinking it okay, which is the trick you just tried on me, you fool.

You're not just an idiot, you're a dishonest idiot.

McAdam
We have already established the irrelevance of other religions. It just a tactic of evasion and dishonesty on your part.

The question is: do YOU think it's okay to kill homosexuals?

Did you get that? Do YOU think it's okay? Not other people. You. Got that? Still can't understand it? YOU. Still can't understand? You. Not someone else. You. Now can you understand it, fool?

Whether OTHER PEOPLE thought or think it okay is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT IRRELEVANT. According to your moral stupidity, if other people thought cannibalism was okay, THEREFORE it's okay.

NC/McAdam

Since you both either don't know or don't care what an intellectually honest discussion would look like, it would look like this.

Is Mise: "Do you think that it is OK to kill homosexuals and serial fornicators?"
McAdam: "Yes. I think it's okay because my religion tells me it's okay."

JKJ: "Do you think it's okay for a 54-year old man to have sex with little children?
NC: "Yes. I think it's okay because Mohammed did it, and I cannot accept that he was morally wrong."

That's what you believe, remember? Because if you don't, then you regard Mohammed as an evil man, don't you?

Can't you see what an exhibition of complete and immoral idiots you are making of yourselves?

Why don't you stop conducting yourselves at the intellectual and moral level of a 5 year old child?