Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

Patrick H

Bible God Requires Death Penalty for Homosexuals


Capital punishment is seen as an act of just and unavoidable war by a state against its own citizens who need destruction for being so dangerous and for killing others.  That is the belief of the Church even though it may now say that there is too much injustice to risk allowing capital punishment for it will be abused.  The principle is still maintained.  You can be sure that if the Church visualised a world where gay men were continually giving killer diseases to each other it would have gay men put to death.  It already dwells on the alleged harm that homosexuality does.
Does the Bible Require the Death Penalty for Homosexuals?

This is a Christian answer to this question:

The Old Testament Book of Genesis mentions no sin of Sodom and Gomorrah but homosexuality.  Abraham begged God to spare the cities if enough good people resided there.  But there were none and God burned the cities up.  Abraham and God clearly agreed with the cruel and savage destruction of the wicked.  Abraham was not condoning or forgiving the sins.


The Old Testament theocratic law required the death penalty for incest in Israel (Lev. 18:7-17, 29; 20:11-12). In the fullness of time (Gal. 4:4), the Messiah came and brought forth His catholic or universal church from its Jewish swaddling bands, necessitating a change in the law (Heb. 7:12). The apostles and prophets, whom God used to write the New Testament, set forth the will of Jesus Christ for His catholic church (Eph. 2:20; 3:5; 4:11).

When a man committed incest in the church of Corinth (I Cor. 5:1), Paul did not require the death penalty for him. Instead, the apostle required excommunication from the church and kingdom of God, unless the man repented (I Cor. 5:4-7). Both terrible divine judgements—execution in the Old Testament theocracy and excommunication in the New Testament church—preserve the holiness of God’s church, a reflection of the holiness of God Himself.

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 Israel. Some say that this ban was done away by Jesus when he banished the ceremonial law like when the ban on eating pork was removed. But the same chapter condemns incest, bestiality, adultery and rape. Are we to believe that he doesn't forbid them anymore? Nowhere does the Bible teach that the ban on homosexuality is just based on ceremonial law or tradition. It teaches it is banned because it is wrong and not even God can make it right. The law gave a mild punishment for eating pork. But with homosexuality it required that the sinners be put to death by stoning. Leviticus 18:24 says that the people of God must not defile themselves by practices such as homosexuality like the nations around them have defiled themselves. So God regards it as sinful for the non-Israelites too. Read Leviticus 18:22, 29. Similar to the example of incest, the New Testament does not require the death penalty for homosexuals. There were converted homosexuals in the church of Corinth (I Cor. 6:9-11)! The execution of homosexuals in Israel (the Old Testament church) is equivalent to excommunication from the New Testament church. Thus it is a contradiction in terms to speak of gay church members or gay church office bearers or gay Christians. Any churches, therefore, that receive or tolerate impenitent homosexuals as members are therefore false churches in rebellion to the will of Christ.

Note: The Same Source says that the Church has the right to use torture to destroy heresy. Question 41.
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 supposed 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 Corinth would have destroyed the Church if it went and killed the man. If you can get away with executing you can do it. That is the New Testament doctrine for not once does it hint that the execution laws are done away. Perhaps more importantly, the Old Testament never says that gay people are to be destroyed for any other reason than that they are evil. In other words, its just right. The Law of Moses didn’t make it right to kill these people. It said it only RECOGNISED that it was right. God told the people that the Law was in their mind and heart and whole being and how could it be if it didn’t make sense or didn’t claim to be rational?
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.
It is certain however that if a man lives with his stepmother as a lover that Paul wants him excommunicated or cursed if nothing else can be done to him. Now what the man was doing was hardly a huge scandal for few men would be doing what he did. For Paul homosexuality would have been a worse scandal. Paul handed him over to Satan by God’s authority meaning God approved. That Christianity is so afraid of being loathed if it does that today that it won’t obey God speaks of the duplicity of this religion.   Paul decreed that for a believer to have sex with a prostitute was for him being part of Christ’s body to unite Christ with evil and so must be a very great sin indeed. He would have seen a man having sex with a man like trying to fuse two toes together and breaking the organisation of the body of Christ.
The book of Leviticus in relation to sexual sinners who were put to death by stoning has God saying that they have nobody but themselves to blame for their deaths (20:27). In other words, it was the right thing to do. It is only if it is wrong or unnecessary to kill them that the question of who else is to blame for their deaths comes in. The Bible says it is both right and necessary to slay homosexuals and to do it with cruelty.
The Bible says that if a man takes his brother's wife that is incest and they will die childless (Leviticus 20:21). The will die childless bit would suggest that the man has his penis cut off or something by the God police. It is suggested that this means legal childlessness - their children will not be given any legal status. But that explanation is a bit stretched. God could have commanded that the genitals of homosexual people be cut off. He abhorred the sin so much that nothing less than the death penalty would suffice.
Jesus upheld the death penalty for adultery and by implication for homosexuality as well. He called for the accusers of the adulteress to cast the first stone to kill her if they were not implicated in adultery themselves (John 8:7). Some Christians say that the death penalty for adultery and sodomy was only imposed if there were two or three witnesses of the sins taking place (Deuteronomy 17:6). They say that no law should then criminalise anybody for being gay but only those who promote adultery and sodomy and homosexuality and who practice these sins openly. They say the death penalty does not cover men who sin consensually in private.
The men about to kill the woman must have been a lynch mob. If they had been legally delegated, the woman would have been stoned and not allowed to go free. Jesus certainly was inferring that the killings of people caught committing sodomy and adultery by at least two people could be put to death righteously regardless of the legal consequences. This was justified for God is the real lawmaker and the countries are only trying to make laws independent of his rule. Jesus' logic about the non-relationship between divine and civil law in this case is correct.


The Infallible Word Speaks!
Christians believe that God inspired the Bible and is so tough on certain sins because he has high standards.
The Old Testament, especially the Book of Leviticus, teaches that God commanded that certain sinners must be stoned to death without mercy. Christian belief is that God wrote the Bible as much as man did. Some go as far to say that God dictated even the words. But all agree that the Bible is infallible.
Jesus claimed to have inspired the Old Testament. The Bible claims to have two authors, God wrote it as much as man did.
Christians use speculation not argumentation to show that we must not stone people today. That they have to use opinion in a matter so serious is itself telling. A truly good religion makes it fact that it is wrong to stone gay people or adulterers or whoever. Opinion is not enough. And today's opinion is yesterdays opinion tomorrow.
Hebrews 6:4-6 warns that it is impossible for some sinners to repent. The same idea recurs in the First Letter of John. The logic is that the sinners will not repent because they are being put to death which leaves it too late. If a sinner is dying in his bed then the Christian thinks God is taking his life as in death penalty and thus is endorsing the death penalty by proxy. Or did stonings to death still happen?
The Church
Pius XI, in his encyclical letter, Casti Connubii, stated that God detests deliberately sterile sex even between man and wife "with the deepest hatred and has sometimes punished it with death." He goes on to indicate his approval of how God put Onan to death for preventing conception. If contraceptive sex between a husband and wife is so bad imagine how bad gay sex must be! The letter logically proves that the Catholic faith even if it does not execute gay men does not think it is intrinsically bad to put them to death. Catholic teaching that a doctrine accepted as correct by the whole Church is necessarily infallible for God protects the church from error in such matters. The whole Church did accept the doctrine. It has only been met with dissent in more recent years.
Catholic teaching is that Jesus is still with us and teaches through the Church. So to reject the Church is to reject Jesus. The Church teaches that in a real sense, the Bible is Christ.


What revering the stoning texts says about Jesus
If Jesus claimed to be the Bible God then Jesus took responsibility for commanding the murders. Even if he just claimed to be God's Son or right hand man, he is saying he would have done the same as God. So he is still a villain. To worship a God who commands murder is to worship a murderer. Jesus and those who adore him and call him infallible are murderers by proxy.
Jesus never apologised for the murder of gay men as endorsed by God in the Bible. Not only were they murdered under the laws of Leviticus, the laws of Moses, but they were tortured to death by stoning. Jesus even went as far as to say the Old Testament was all God's word and infallible. For him, whatever the Old Testament said, God said (see Mark 7:5-13). He claimed to love and know the God who wrote it. If he had been Moses he would have done the same thing.
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. He said the law needed to be kept better and not abolished and warned against any Jewish leader who waters down its teaching.
The Bible of Jesus, the Torah, is full of God sanctioned violence and has very little love. Surprise surprise! And what does it say about Jesus that he had to honour a book like that as sacred and his foundation? Those who say that religion is always good are talking a pile of nonsense. If one religion says Jesus is God and other says he is not one of them is not in tune with the truth and corruption always starts with failing to give priority to truth and to follow where it leads. And corruption leads to violence in one form or another.
A vote for Jesus is a vote for hate at least of the gays who lived before and up to his time in Israel.
If we want to help gay rights the only proper way to do it is to condemn not just Christian bigotry but how it is inspired by a bigot called Jesus Christ. Condemning the bigots not the cause of the bigotry, namely Jesus and the Bible, is really a waste of time. Cancer needs to be cut at the root.
What revering the stoning texts says about Christians
Christians are not disgusted enough by the murderous laws of the Old Testament in which God commanded that gays be stoned to death to hate the Bible. New Testament teaching is that the law of Moses is perfectly right. Even if Christians think some laws need no longer be kept it does not mean they can think they were wrong!
Even if Christians don't believe in killing gays today, they only mean that the circumstances are not right for doing so. Killing gays in itself is not bad for God commanded it in the Bible. There are more commands in the Bible by God to put people to death than there are from God about loving sinners. Christians don't really believe that killing gays is wrong - they might think its wrong now which means they think it was right to kill gays in Old Testament times.
The Bible believer today usually does not stone homosexuals (in some parts of the world he does!) but he approves of the fact that it was done in the past at God's behest in the Bible. Jesus upheld the Old Testament doctrine that its laws are infallible and from God. Jesus never apologised for the killings. He even said that killing the adulteress by stoning her is fine if you are without sin (John 8). If you praise violent scriptures as God's word, you take responsibility for the contents and the consequences. If somebody thinks the rules about stoning are in force today you need to take responsibility for that and the results.
When you praise the Bible as being unerring in its teaching and doctrine, you are saying it is right to say that God commanded that homosexuals be stoned to death. That is to mention one evil out of many that it commands. This is extreme evil. Respecting and approving of it makes you no better than those who picked up the stones. To praise the Bible is to indirectly respect and approve the evil. To praise the God of the Bible is to implicitly respect and approve the evil. The evil being implicit or indirect does not make it any less bad. It is still as reprehensible and intolerable. In one way, you are worse than the killers for they had more chance of feeling bad about it than you!
And what is loving about some religions saying we have the power to be bad for all eternity? What about innocent until proven guilty? Even the worst of us is more good than bad inside. And Jesus even if he did stop stoning of adulteresses to death did not apologise for or repudiate the stoning of adulteresses prior to that. In fact he said the Law of Moses was indeed written by God like it claims meaning the cruel command to stone came from the God he put forward as a sign of perfection to be emulated and worshipped. He supposedly claimed to be that God! Jesus used the expression bad people. It shows that Christianity's foundational doctrine that he regards actions as bad not the people is hypocrisy.
I think a devout Christian who has converted to Islam and who knows of the violence in the Bible that was commanded by God and for which Jesus never apologised and was okay with could easily turn into an ISIS convert given the right chance. The openness to violence is already there. That person does not hate violence and evil enough. Particularly he does not hate religious violence and religious evil enough. That person is delivering a grave insult to gay people by following his faith for gay people were killed by that faith's belief that it was in touch with God. To insult the gays of the past is to insult their modern brothers.
The Church has never apologised for Jesus that man of violence and never will. I would like to add that saying it is intrinsically evil to have a loving gay relationship is bad enough. But the Church makes it far worse by saying Jesus was right before he became man to command the Jews to stone gay men to death. The Church says that if you don't repent you are bad enough to go to hell forever and you will.

Christians who cherry-pick the Bible are giving the message: "My opinions are as good as God's. If I don't honour the whole Bible why do I honour any of it? Because it is sacred and I am just too stubborn, inconsistent and naughty to obey it all". Cherry-picking is paying homage to the Bible and the Bible should get no homage at all. It is bad advertising for the goodness of the Bible but still advertising.

Christians accepting the Jesus of the Bible and the Church that preaches the Bible as true and from God are indirectly and implicitly approving of their violent spirit and the barbaric deaths of those who faced that spirit.

If your empathy and decency are not tainted by faith, you will abandon faith in the Bible and in Jesus without hesitation. No religion with violent revelations from God should be adhered to.

And why did Catholic countries that took their rules from bishops such as Ireland put gay men in jail until relatively recently? Because of the influence of the Church. And it is a fact that the Church regards God as the author of the Bible not in spite of the fact that it demands in God's name that gays be stoned to death but because of it. The Church still teaches that homosexuality is bad for society - that implies support for the law banning it. A vote for Jesus who claimed responsibility for writing the murderous laws of the Bible through men is a vote for homophobia.
It is an insult to the people murdered as a result of the Leviticus law to say, "We don't do that now so it is okay". That is saying killing gay people isn't wrong - its just not done any more. Talking like that is really saying, "They deserve to be killed but I am too good and too superior to slaughter them." It is a smug boast. It is using death to glorify yourself.
The Catholic catechism that you Catholics so adore refers to Old Testament texts that condemn homosexuality. To use texts from violent scriptures, even the non-violent texts, implies that you are not very upset about the violence. You are treating the text as a source of authority - of a supernatural authority that supposedly knows better than we do. You are still honouring that text - if you were disgusted by the violence you would be looking elsewhere for an authority to condemn homosexuality.

It is alarming how somebody can quote a murderous law as having been given by God and half the world says it is fine for God doesn't ask for gays to be stoned any more. It is a callous insult against the gay men who died. If you would be okay with such a law and such a God what will you be okay with next? Jesus did not apologise for those laws and indeed stated they were correct. If it is true he does not require stoning any more it could be a matter of seeing the laws as out of date rather than wrong. He did not apologise for the murders which would have taken place in his own day. For all we know Jesus could have stoned gay men to death before he decided the law had had its day. Christianity is man made which is why man's flawed and bloody handprints are all over it.

It is an insult to the people murdered as a result of the Leviticus law to say, "We don't do that now so it is okay".
"Christian so and so is such a nice person despite his belief in the Bible." Don't even think that. Human nature is notorious for enabling evil with a smile. A truly decent person does not even contemplate honouring an evil book as the word of God. He throws it away. The good bits are a reason for rejecting it not accepting it. Something that advocates good and teaches good and then teaches its opposite is worse than something that means well but does little else but damage. Evil needs to be softened by having lots of good put into the mix. That way it does more harm than shamelessly blatant and undiluted evil.
Some look at Christian good deeds and practically ignore the diabolical aspects of Christian doctrine. They say, "Actions speak louder than words". But the Christian adoration of a God who is not intrinsically anti-cruelty or anti-violence is an action. And a bigger one than any good deed they do. They put their devotion to him at their very core.

The New Penalties are not lighter
The New Testament says that penalties are worse under the New Testament not lighter.


"Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctifies him, and has insulted the spirit of grace? For we know God who said, "It is my job to avenge and I will repay!" - Hebrews 10.


The text will consider gays to be among those who reject the law. It has no sympathy for those who died. It implies that the law is from God for it cannot be an example of how God gets revenge unless it is from him.


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 Roman Church argues that God will punish all unrepented sin. But there are four sins which cry to God for vengeance - they try to provoke him. They are then necessarily sins of self-destruction. One of those sins is sodomy - having unnatural sex with another person. Sodomy most often refers to anal sex between gay men. What if the sin is not intentional? The Church says that if you do something forbidden without knowing it is evil, you do a grave evil yes but you are not intentionally evil or sinful thus you will not be punished. Evil results will follow but they are not punishment. Suppose the claims about sodomy are true. Suppose it is calling down evil and suffering - even when its not meant to provoke God. The sodomite cannot say he doesn't intend to do evil. It would follow that the sin is always intentional. The gossip may tell herself that her evil is unintentional but she is aware of the consequences of her chatter so she cannot expect us to think she is not intentionally evil.
The New Testament promises hellfire to those who die in unforgiven homosexual sin. Any rational person would prefer to be stoned than tormented forever!
The holocaust
We must not forget that in Catholic doctrine, God formed a religion under Moses and the prophets that murdered gay people by stoning at divine command. This religion was fulfilled and added to and updated by Christ. The new Testament claims to be in continuity with the Old and denies that Christ formed a new religion but says he completed genuine Judaism. Many of the Jewish people did not accept the updates or Christ's right to administer them and so are considered breakaways. The Catholic Church then implicitly claims it had its own holocaust. A religion honouring evil brutal books as something to be read by all and taken by all as being God's revelation and God's writings through men needs to be firmly opposed. It is an outrage for violence should be abhorred outright. There are better books than the Bible out there!
Romans 2:11 says that God will give the Jews special treatment when he is saving the universe at the end. If you think he meant spiritual Jews - which he claimed saved believers were though they were not Jewish by race - Christians have to be Jewish in a sense. That demands respect for the law.
Christians justify the murders
The bible Jesus upheld scriptures as from God that endorsed the stoning of gay people to death. That seems to be fairly common knowledge. Read which shows that Christianity today condones all the murdering done and commanded by God in the past. The religion might be non-violent in some nations, but it is not non-violent in how it approves fanaticism. I would prefer to be taught atheism in school than that sick tripe.
The texts are intrinsically dangerous
God according to the book of Leviticus ordered that the people must stone gay men to death. Bishops cite that verse to oppose gay sexuality. We must remember that God threatened the people with horrendous disasters including plague if they did not comply with his laws. That shows how much "God" wanted gay men murdered.

The bishop, Huonder, cited the bloodstained Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 with approval. He said, “These two parts would be sufficient to give us the right direction with regard to homosexuality, in the light of our Faith.” He will not take responsibility if somebody goes out and kills gay people because of the quotes from the Bible. If the bishop says he does not believe in killing gays today and that it was a law for the past that does not get him off the hook for he is saying, "Its only my opinion". That opens the door to people to disagree and think the killings would be endorsed by God at best or understandable at worst.

If somebody hears the bishop quote the Bible and approve of the murders that were carried out, that he may not advocate murder now, the Bible is not going to discourage that person much if the person wants to kill gay people.

While it is good that decent people oppose the Church saying that gay sex is a serious sin, the problem is that Jesus said it - that is the main one.

If Jesus really set up Roman Catholicism to teach the "truth and be the only right religion" (as the Church claims) then he is to blame for the bishop and the pope's anti-gay teaching.

Pink Cross perceived the bishop to be calling for a restoration of the death penalty for gays. This is the reason why it is suing him for hate speech. They are right to say that if he wanted gays executed that this would be hate even if it were legalised again. But problems will arise. What if people argue, he is still not arguing for anything illegal. He wants them dead if the law allows it. It would be odd if anybody reasoned, "It is not hate to approve of the people being murdered by the Leviticus law. He does not hate today's gays if he does not want this law applied today." If a person said they wanted black people killed but only if it is legal that would be obeisance to law but still murderous.

The bishop is a disgrace. And those who applauded at his sermon are no better.
The excuses for not stoning
The Christian cannot give you a single text that shows that the command to stone is done away. The door is opened for stonings to resume.
They give nonsensical reasons for why the law does not apply any more. Thus they are still to blame if somebody sees through them and then starts stoning.
The Law of Moses is not for the Hebrews alone but for the world. The law says that it is a wise and good law meaning that non-Hebrew nations should learn from its principles at least if they won't follow all the laws. And one principle is that people viewed as very bad should be stoned to death.
Some argue that we cannot interpret the Bible God as urging the killing of gay people for as God is love we must take the most charitable interpretation. But that does not change what the text says. You simply cannot interpret the law for killing as charitable unless you are going to say that gay men are better off dead. And it is possible to think you are being charitable by killing gays when God tells you to for God knows what is best.
Why do members of a religion argue that a violent interpretation of the word of God in the holy book is possibly valid? They cannot say that unless there are violent texts in that book. And it could be right or if wrong then it is still a reasonable or understandable interpretation. If God likes violence and you engage in it in a way he does not approve of then it is hardly a huge mistake considering he is usually okay with violence anyway. Violent scriptures give an excuse for violence. A religion with violent messages from God be it Islam or Christianity is giving evil people an excuse for violence - giving the means to make an excuse. The less chance there is for making an excuse the better. Excuses should not be enabled by religion. The better the excuse, the more the religion is to blame.
I recall how the New Testament teaches that the Jewish Law wherein God commanded that homosexuals be stoned to death is right. The New Testament is said to favour mercy over such "justice". But even if it does it still regards it as justice. Mercy is not a repudiation of the executions but only means the criminals are being forgiven. It is not true that the executions were based on Torah civil law - the Torah claims to be a religious law not civil law. So Christians cannot say, "It was only the law for the Jewish theocracy so it does not apply to us for we have no Jewish theocracy today."
And what about the violent God who Christ gave allegiance to? God commanded that brides who didn't seem to be virgins on the wedding night be stoned to death. And there were many other "sins" that got that fate. Christ never apologised for the murders carried at at God’s behest in the Old Testament and indeed insisted on believing in the Old Testament as having been written by God through men. The fact that most Catholics today do not obey these commands only means the following: that they think they don't apply in current circumstances, that somebody else can put them into action instead - not everybody has the same job to do in life, that they don't have enough faith. None of these reasons are praiseworthy. If their faith is too weak for them to consider killing then it is proof that they refuse to kill in so far as they are not touched by their faith. They are not being very Catholic if they would refuse to kill if God commanded them to. It would be foolish to point to them as proof that people as Catholics are not enablers or doers of violence.

The stoning of gays still in force

God declared in the Bible that a man lying with a man is an abomination and they have nobody to blame but themselves for being stoned to death. They are killed simply because it is retribution. It is not about any social good or anything else. The rule cannot be done away for it is about principle and not about anything else.
Jesus said he advocated love your neighbour as it was in the law of God - the law is clear that this law does not exclude killing adulterers or homosexuals. He was not taking the command out of context. He said he was using the commandment as the law gave it. The command comes from Leviticus 19 the most murderous book God ever allegedly wrote. The rule is about how people should act from day to day not about how the law should be applied. So the commandment in essence means, "Be good to your neighbour except when the law tells you." And the rule specifies that you must not hold a grudge against your kinsman but love him as yourself meaning that the law of love does not apply to non-Hebrews or those who excommunicate themselves and become ex-Hebrews such as gay men.
Jesus stated that he had no intention of relaxing any law of God in the Old Testament. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not - not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven".

Jesus told the Jews off for giving people who cursed their parents a light penalty and not the death penalty as required by God's law (Mark 7).

Jesus did not say that it was wrong to stone the adulteress to death. He said if you were any better than her it was okay to cast the first stone. That is saying the death penalty is right in principle even if not always practical or possible. Obviously if it is not wrong in principle it is not the worst sin if you go out and murder an adulteress!

Jesus did not say, "I abolish the laws of the Old Testament commanding that homosexuals be put to death." You need that in such a serious matter and if you want to say Jesus was all about peace and love.

Jesus never apologised for the deaths.

Jesus even if he did not demand stoning to death of people made it clear that he is going to murder them himself. Vengeance is mine I will repay - Romans 12:19. Jesus keeping the law for us means the law is still in force. See also Romans 1:31 "God’s righteous decree is that those who do such things deserve death". The decree refers to the death penalty in the law of Moses.

Jesus authorised Paul's teaching and Paul taught that gay sex is a serious sin and results in everlasting damnation.

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.  Liberal Christians tend to argue that the Bible only condemns gay people using each other lustfully instead of desiring each other as partners in love.  But a condemnation of lust would cover that!  And why single gays out when most lust is heterosexual?  If homosexuality is okay if it is done in love then why put two men to death for having loveless gay sex?  The Liberals are distorting.