Arrest me and throw away the key

[Berzerker]

Ben, why wasn't this "pastor" quoting Jesus? Why aren't you? to Old Testament "Christians".

Leviticus 18:22

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

In most cases, lying is detestable, telling the truth is much better. What if the man lies with a man like a woman lies with a man? What about women who lie with women?

Leviticus 20:13

" If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

That's strange, seems their blood is being spilled by those who find their behavior detestable.

Genesis 19:4-7

Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing."

But this was not the incident that compelled the "angels" to affirm the sin for which Sodom was destroyed. It was only after these people charged the door to break in that the angels declared their evil... That's attempted rape, not attempted sex. Furthermore, if this act was committed by all the males of Sodom - no small boys or elderly men beyond their sexual years lived in Sodom and the neighboring towns? - what about the women of Sodom? God told Abraham he'd spare the cities if 5 people were found to be innocent. Are we to believe there were less than 5 women in the city? Hell, Lot and his family numbered at least 6 alone. Why would God destroy a city with even 2 or 3 innocent people in it? Why did Lot offer these men his own daughters and hold himself qualified to judge others? What he did is detestable. And why bother if the men were all homosexuals? Lot should have offered himself.

Romans 1:24-7

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

That's a bit confusing, it appears these sexual "sins" were a punishment for idolatry. God gave them this sexual lust for worshiping the wrong thing. Then God supposedly punished them for having the lust he gave them over to?

Why does Paul contradict Jesus here? Jesus said it was not what a man puts in his mouth...ahem, get your mind out of the gutter ...but what comes out of his mouth, this defiles him. He's talking about lies, slander, speaking evil of others, conspiring to hurt others, etc... How can you defile yourself by having sex when defilement requires harming others? That's one reason why Paul's teachings are not Jesus' teachings...

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Nor wolves in sheeps' clothing. Holy smokes, there goes damn near everyone.

And children who disobey their parents too...

[Berzerker]

So say, if a religion would say that black people are bad and not God's work, would that be ok to preach around? Of course it wouldn't be.

That should be legal too.

[Ben Kenobi]

BK, So say, if a religion would say that black people are bad and not God's work, would that be ok to preach around? Of course it wouldn't be.

Of course not.

However, there is a difference between black people, and those who commit homosexual acts. The same difference between the act and the actor, and between the sinner and his sin. Even when saying that homosexual acts are sinful, it is not right to say that the person is any less of a person because of it.

Rather, it is because they are a person, that they ought to stop sinning. If they were worthless, then why would one care if they commit themselves to Hell?

I agree with you, that this reverend, if he advocated that homosexuals ought to be stoned for their actions, should be sentenced. But I have just argued that this is unlikely due to the statement made by the prosecutor.

And furthermore I am sure that jsut citing these scriptures isn't enough for conviction in the evil Sweden. Maybe he took some own liberties expressing and extending these scriptures.

All pastors interpret scripture. Ergo, any pastor who chooses to cite these passages, as I have, could be charged under this reasoning.

Bible isn't very good on other religions, like having false Gods. But I don't see pastors goign around and bashing other religions. So why would he bash gays, what is the interest in that?

Anything can be an idol Pekka, if it comes between you and God. So I have heard plenty of things about idols, and plenty of sermons devoted to the topic.

He preaches on homosexual acts, because they are sinful, and there is much confusion on this topic.

And don't get dramatic, I'm sure you're not commiting any crime here.

Your argument here, would prove no different between this pastor and me. You would have me go to jail for the same reason.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Kassiopeia
As far as I know, hets is like "prosecution" or "telling people to go do bad things to someone".

Persecution VS Prosecution

[Berzerker]

Ben -

No, and no.

Aren't you violating the OT? What's the punishment for that?

[Kassiopeia]

Oops, my bad. I knew there was something fishy there. It's definitely persecution.

[Pekka]

BK, Right. Well I do agree, that if he was merely citing these scriptures, sentencing for it would be even more stupid. Which makes me think that it wasn't the case. But we have to wait for the Swedes to arrive and explain.

Depends what he said, if he indeed encouraged acts of criminal behaviour against homosexuals, then it crossed the line of interpretation to wacko. That I believe is not legal anywhere.

I still don't understand why someone would get stuck on that topic. There are lot more to preach too. Yes, every day of the whole working career. I'd take that topic when someone asks it and wants to hear about it.

And no I wouldn't throw you in jail. Like I said, if you only cite scriptures or express your views on this, it's not a hate speech. Everyone has that right, to talk what ever they want about groups of people. But if it crosses the line of encouraging to criminal behaviour, then it's illegal as it should be. No one has that right, and it's got nothing to do with freedom of religion.

[Pekka]

I declare this day as Stone a Gay Day!

MUhahaahhaahahah, it's not illegal here .

[Ben Kenobi]

to Old Testament "Christians".

Paul is of the OT?

What if the man lies with a man like a woman lies with a man?

One of the men has to be a top.

What about women who lie with women?

Very good point, nested in the more frivolous. This is why I cited the passage in Romans, since it accounts for both ends.

seems their blood is being spilled by those who find their behavior detestable.

The blood of a murderer is on his own head, if one believes that murder ought to be subject to capital punishment. The same here. If one believes that homosexual acts are enough for capital punishment, then the blood is on their heads.

Now, I know this seems hard to see in this day and age, but if you look at some of the other passages it becomes much more clear why.

If God established his covenant among one tribe, he would fiercely guard that tribe from sin, in order to preserve his own word and testimony. The failure of this approach is why Christ had to come such that he would redeem all of us from our sins. Thus, the OT sacrificial system, including these sections of Leviticus, no longer apply in punishment, but the same attitude towards sin remains.

if this act was committed by all the males of Sodom - no small boys or elderly men beyond their sexual years lived in Sodom and the neighboring towns?

Read carefully. The passages say men, so the boys cannot be included. As for the men, what man worth his salt would pass up an opportunity for sex?

But this was not the incident that compelled the "angels" to affirm the sin for which Sodom was destroyed

True, it was the straw that broke the camels back. Sodom and Gomorrah were punished for their sins plural, of which one of these was sodomy.

It was only after these people charged the door to break in that the angels declared their evil... That's attempted rape, not attempted sex.

Then why did Lot allow his daughter to be raped, if rape were the sin that shocked him? Clearly, the homosexual act offended Lot, less than the rape of his own daughter.

what about the women of Sodom? God told Abraham he'd spare the cities if 5 people were found to be innocent. Are we to believe there were less than 5 women in the city?

Sodom had many sins, many of whom their women partook.

Why would God destroy a city with even 2 or 3 innocent people in it?

Why did God try to shuttle Lot and his family outside of the city, rather than trying to preserve them? Clearly God values the innocent, and tried to preserve them as best as he could.

However, God gives everyone a choice, and those who refused to leave the city were to suffer along with the wicked.

And why bother if the men were all homosexuals? Lot should have offered himself.

Excellent question. Clearly, he felt the men would be just as satisfied with his daughter, as they would have been with each other.

That's a very interesting question, Berz.

Then God supposedly punished them for having the lust he gave them over to?

The lusts were punishment in themselves.

How can you defile yourself by having sex when defilement requires harming others?

Defilement does not require harming others. You can defile oneself without having anything to do with anyone else.

This presumes several things. First of all, if you are your own, then it is impossible to defile yourself. But if you are a creation of God, then it is possible to defile yourself. Your body then would be on loan from God, and not yours to do with as you please.

This is why Christ used this passage that you quote, because it is not what goes into a man, but rather, what comes out of him, that defiles him. What comes out of a man shows you what is inside of him, unlike food, which is for nourishment. A man who is defiled, will produce evil things.

Holy smokes, there goes damn near everyone.

All have sinned and fallen short of the law.

[Berzerker]

But if it crosses the line of encouraging to criminal behaviour, then it's illegal as it should be. No one has that right, and it's got nothing to do with freedom of religion.

That's a can of worms...what is "encouraging"? Is that bolstering someone's courage to commit an act of violence? Most countries already outlaw inducing crimes through various incentives, e.g., contracting a hitman or telling someone under your influence to go out and attack someone. But a pastor just citing a biblical passage can "encourage" "true believers" to go out and attack the "sinners". This creates a big problem when a religion condemns certain behavior, and most do just that. What about liberals who constantly accuse "the rich" of not paying their fair share? That may "encourage" some poor people to rob the rich because they aren't being fair... Hell, a couple black teens saw the movie "Mississippi Burning" and went out and attacked a smaller white kid causing him serious damage. Do we charge the movie maker of "encouraging" a violent crime?

Hate speech laws will be used by those in power to outlaw speech against them and their favored constituents in the same way the Alien & Sedition Acts were used by John Adams and his buddies to go after their Jeffersonian opponents. They won't be applied consistently and that makes their constitutionality problematic, i.e., equal protection under the law will be a facade...

[Pekka]

"All have sinned and fallen short of the law."

True dat. I know I have! But I try better next time.

I thought of a funny situation though (not to be taken seriously), if I see a porn film with lesbians in it, clearly enjoying the show, would that make me part of gay act?
Not religious question, just an observation .

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I agree with you that it would be wrong for someone to say that one ought to kill all those who are homosexuals, but this does not seem to be the case.

I don't exactly know what the case was. You don't either. I can admit it. You can't. That makes you dishonest.

You are simply twisting the very small amount of evidence we have available so far, to support your bias against homosexuals, even though that evidence is nebulous at best.

Surely, if the prosecutor had evidence to show this, he would have cited this as his reason for arrest?

Maybe he did. He seems to have gotten a conviction, which until we know the specifics of the case can't be assumed to be proper or improper. Until we know what he was using the Bible sites for, you can't assume one way or another and expect that assumption to be treated with anything other than ridicule.

You are relying on a single source, quoting another source (the church newsletter even!) quoting the prosecutor. Very iffy 'source' there. Selective quoting by a biased source would not be a new thing. If there was damning evidence against Ake Green, I wouldn't expect his church newsletter to convey it.

However, from the statements of the prosecutor, it seems that the compiliation of passages in scripture was enough to secure his arrest.

The one I quoted makes reference to the individual's particular use of the Bible cites. Not Bible cites in general. Maybe your assumption is right (and maybe it's wrong), but in any case it is a baseless assumption.

Ignore what was actually said all you want.

If this is so, then I ought also be charged and arrested for hate speech here in Canada.

No. Canada isn't Sweden. Maybe Canada would apply their laws the same way, but to assume that because Sweden does means Canada will is ignorant.

By that reasoning, every decision ever made anywhere in the world would force every decision ever made after it to conform. Which is entirely impossible because there are decisions which are mutually exclusive.

[Pekka]

Berzerker, no it's not difficult to draw a line. Citing scriptures is not hate speech. Saying homosexualism is a sin is not a hate speech. Saying we should persecute homosexuals or do violence to them is hate speech.

[chequita guevara]

If you don't believe in killing gays for their perversion, Ben, you are disregarding God's law every bit as much as they.

Just because you believe your God commaned it, doesn't mean it's not hate speach. Would you defend Muslim's saying the Jews should be killed because God commands it?

Anyway, you should be happy to be a martyr and prove your faith.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't exactly know what the case was. You don't either. I can admit it. You can't. That makes you dishonest.

I have admitted that we don't have a precise translation of what he said.

Maybe Canada would apply their laws the same way, but to assume that because Sweden does means Canada will is ignorant.

Canada has a law worded the same as the law in Sweden that prevents hate speech against homosexuals. This is why I make the leap, and again, I am not the only one who is making this leap. If you wish to call the analysts in Canada ignorant of their own law, then please continue.

every decision ever made anywhere in the world would force every decision ever made after it to conform. Which is entirely impossible because there are decisions which are mutually exclusive.

True, but if this thread is any indication, there are no laws in Canada that would protect a pastor making a similar statement, and the law here in Canada could very well be used in a similar manner.

Precedent abroad increases the likelihood that this will be interpreted in a similar manner in Canada.