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 wants Gays Hated

Technically the Bible does not condemn LGBT people but only their sex acts.  They are condemned to be stoned to death in public to shame them. 


Remember that in the Bible, God nearly always left it to the judges and the people who he continually complained were corrupt and unreliable to decree and carry out the executions.  If he does not hate LGBT then he could have fooled me!


Gay men usually get more hatred than lesbians.  Part of that is down to how lesbians do not inseminate while gay males often do.  It is as if people feel the male seed is going to the wrong place or it is dirty.  It is as we associate it with disease.  It is no surprise that the males get more abuse in the Bible than the females.


All honest Christians agree that the Bible, which is for Christians the book that ultimately God wrote, forbids homosexuality as a very heinous sin and says that those who commit it will be lost forever in Hell unless they stop and repent.  Attempts to cover that up hover around the allegation that the Bible never speaks of those who are naturally homosexual!  But it is obvious that it does not need to.  Homosexual in the Bible in the straightforward interpretation means a man who prefers sex with men period. 


The Bible never mentions heterosexuality as the natural condition of the human being. It merely condemns homosexual acts and has no concern about allegations about homosexuality being natural or innate.


Christians say that all laws even God's try to be for the best. So there will always be casualties. There will be people hurt by the laws. But this doesn't prove the laws bad or that they should be defied. It does seem arrogant and stupid of gay people to expect Christianity to be on their side and to let them have sex. I'm on their side but they should not be supporting a religion that can't be the religion it claims to be unless it stands by its teaching both popular and unpopular. Can Muslims offended by the Koran ask Islam to drop it? There would be no point in religious faith if it were not based on mystery and asked us to believe things we did not understand.
The Bible in Christian doctrine, is the word of God. Its condemnation of gays is therefore the word of God. The Church in opposing gays finds itself backed up by its Bible which gives no argument against homosexuality whatsoever. It is just condemned as if there could be no argument about it. This implies that those who don’t see homosexuality as bad or evil and sinful are guilty of being so blinded by their own sin that they have lost the sense of sin. It implies that for a homosexual to ask for acceptance or approval is for her or him to encourage others to sin gravely. Jesus condemned blindness as a very dangerous sin and the blindness of the scribes and Pharisees was the main reason he was so ferocious in his condemnation of them.
Good is a very broad thing. When a Christian tells you to be good they mean you must abstain from drunkenness, adultery, blasphemy, heresy, the neglect of prayer and being just to your neighbour to mention just a few things. The word good implies that many actions are good and many are bad. The word good, by implication, is saying that some things are good and must be done and others are bad and must be abstained from. It is totally unthinkable that when the Bible writers, both in the Old and New Testaments, said that God through them was commanding us to be righteous that the command wasn't saying by implication that homosexuality was evil. The Jews and the Christians of Bible times never ever believed anything other than that homosexuality was perverse and forbidden and evil. Therefore the Bible is enforcing their belief when it commands good because abstinence from gay sex was one of the things the writers of the Bible considered good and was included whenever they said we must be good.



The Church advocates more tolerance for publicans who take advantage of people’s fondness for the drink than it does for gays and they don’t cause drunks to beat up their wives and abuse their children and wreak lives and kill. This has led many gays to see the Church as a well-disguised hate-group. This is excited even more when in A Catechism of Christian Doctrine we read that the sin of Sodom, or homosexuality, is a sin that cries to heaven for God to take vengeance. This automatically sanctions the view that in times of crisis and trouble for a country that it is possible that the Lord is trying to get at the gays and that the gays are to blame and those who tolerate them and who give them support. It is undeniable that the Church does sanction queer-bashing though it dares not come out straight with it.

It is ludicrous to talk about loving the person but not the sin of homosexuality for homosexuality is a major part of the person and even more so when the hypocrisy we have seen is tolerated. A person is defective until he or she meets a good partner to bring out all the love inside them and they become giving to that person so to disparage love is to disparage the person when that love is harmless or need not harm if it is harmful.
The Church says homosexuality is wrong – not just wrong but seriously wrong. This condemnation is way over the top. It is hardly a serious sin even if it is wrong. It shows how the Church hates gay people. If heterosexuality often spread AIDS the Church would say it cannot be banned because heterosexuality is ethical and right. So it follows then that since homosexuality is wrong and bad and totally evil and if it often spreads AIDS then homosexuality is tantamount to murder and grave injury to others. It follows that killing homosexuals is only self-defence. Something that is evil can be banned for doing some people harm.
It is the abuse of homosexuality, not homosexuality that spreads AIDS. The Church cannot accept this for it regards homosexuality as an abuse.

The negativity of the Church has forced lonely vulnerable closeted gay men to substitute a sex for a loving relationship. Presumably, the Church prefers promiscuity and risking one’s life through AIDS to gay love. It prefers driving people into making mistakes through desire and loneliness that they had little control over to letting them “sin”. The Church has done a lot to promote the spread of AIDS. The way it makes much harmless sex including gay sex something to be hidden and to be ashamed of contributes to the spread of AIDS for lack of information about the person you go to bed with inevitably ensues with sometimes devastating results. The Church, when it can, murderously gets countries to legislate in ways that restrict the availability of birth control and condoms even in Africa where AIDS is a super-epidemic. The result is that there are so many infected that the wealthier nations see no point in doing anything about it so the Church is closing off the channels that can help them. The secrecy is responsible for the exposure of gay men to rapists who may even be carrying HIV. They are vulnerable for they cannot report the attack. The Church even goes as far as to make out that a homosexual using a condom to protect his partner sins more than one who does not. It does not care about those who are so completely under the spell of lust that they cannot control themselves and hopes they will use no condoms. There is real rancour in the teaching that it is better for a person to catch a disease and die horribly than for that person to live and have lots of “illicit” sex.

The Church says homosexuality is a disorder.  To have an illness is bad for you and makes the world a worse place. That is what the Church is saying you are doing if you are gay and even if you don’t practice by accusing you of having a disorder.




The Bible God says that it is not good for man to be alone in Genesis 2:18 and the Church says it is good for gays to be alone. Some think that though the Bible God made Eve for man to solve this problem it does not prove that it has to be a woman for Adam was made heterosexual. But the context of where God said the man should not be alone tells us that God brought many animals for man to be helpmates and none were suitable. Evidently, God is unintelligent and not all-knowing or all-powerful for he has to use trial and error. Anyway, the fact that God thought an animal would be a more suitable helpmate than a man shows that God is plainly homophobic. Finally God made Eve from the man’s ribs and the man said, “At last this is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh”. The man meant that the only suitable helpmate for him would have to be made of the same flesh as he was made of – God evidently agreed when he made Eve from the man. Homosexuals might jump for joy at this point but the story is still anti-gay. Since your partner has to be made from your flesh in some sense it would follow that a man’s partner should be another man but Genesis, God and the first man rejected this and said that the partner should be of the same flesh but of the opposite sex. If Genesis agreed with homosexuality its logic would actually forbid heterosexual relations which it evidently does not. The logic in Genesis is this, the helpmate needs to be made from man to be his mate so that the helpmate is like him but the helpmate is not to be another man which is out of the question though men are similar to each other in so far as they are men. Because the woman was taken from the man, men and their wives become one body according to Genesis 2:24. This refers to sexual union in marriage. It implies that man yearns for union with woman because she is made up of what is missing in him. It is as if he cannot be whole without the woman. If so, then homosexuals are grossly perverted and sick. It must be a wilful perversion. Like the eternal sin Jesus mentioned the homosexual must be so committed to her or his sin that conversion will never happen – it can in principle but it won’t happen. Some say that the habit of sin must have led to homosexuality so there can be no being gay as in orientation without excessive sin.

The Bible never allowed gay weddings or even imagined they could be possible which shows that this story is anti-gay. To deny gays marriage is to say the intimacy of marriage which God holds up as an ideal is not for them and if they are not allowed that self-sacrificing intimate marital love then they cannot be permitted to have relationships full stop. If you can give away a carrot and a nice orange and you refuse to give the orange then you are saying it is wrong to give the carrot away too. Jesus said thinking of this chapter in Genesis that God made them male and female which is why a man leaves his parents and becomes one body with his wife (Mark 10). This is really saying that the female is what the male needs and is physically different to enable sex or union to take place which is why he leaves his parents to become one with his wife. Jesus is saying that a man needs a woman not another man. Homosexuality then must be a deliberate perversion. Men are refusing to love women in defiance of God. That is what he is saying.
In reply to this some will say that Jesus means that a man only needs a woman if he has received the call from God to get married. But Jesus said it is because people are made male and female that they are drawn to one another and discover their vocation to get married. He would have believed that men can do things that destroy God’s plan for them. A man can be called to marriage by God and let God down and end up single. Jesus would have believed that a man can need a woman and not be called to marriage but be called to give that need up. Since Jesus says men need women there is no doubt that he means men whether called to marriage or not. There can be no doubt that he was saying that men who need men and women who need women are depraved sinners.
If homosexuality is wrong and it is not good for man to be alone then it follows that homosexuals are to be blamed and punished by the Church for their orientation for it must be their own fault.

The Bible never says that the Jewish law all is over and done with as a law of binding moral precepts implying that it is a Christian duty to kill homosexuals for the Law wants them stoned to death. The Book of Leviticus says that the homosexuals must be killed. The reason is not to prevent bad example – for homosexuality would have been secret then anyway and killing people even legally is a worse example – or to prevent disease – for they did not understand that but to purge the evil from the midst of the people. When it was right then it is still right now. It was to get rid of the sinners and for nothing else. When Jesus said the faith comes before life and when he had his saints died for it and since practicing homosexuals are endangering that faith by working towards acceptance it follows that they should be jailed or murdered and Christians should seek the legal right to make sure it happens to them. And if the Christians shouldn’t be then it is not really a serious sin to murder them.

Leviticus 18:22 says that it is an abomination before God for a man to lie with a man was with a woman. It even decrees that practicing homosexuals are to be put to death (20:13). It was made as bad as adultery for which the penalty was stoning to death so that was how homosexuals were killed.


Leviticus implies that to have sex with a man as a woman is feminization and is wrong. This definitely says that man and woman are designed for each other and to use a man as a woman is abuse. Philo and Josephus say that two men having sex should mean both, active partner and passive partner, are put to death for it.

The idea that Leviticus prescribes the death penalty for a man sleeping with a man as if a woman is only referring to how it is a problem to subjugate another man as you would a woman is very strange.  It is only an excuse for pretending the rule is about custom and culture not morality!  The passive partner will not feel subjugated!  Subjugation applied only to straight sex and there were many who saw man and woman as equal in the sex act.

It is said that since a man having sex with a woman was thought to declare her to be an inferior for she is dominated by the male that a man having sex with a man declared the other man to be inferior when he was not for only women and animals are inferior to men. It was thought to be unnatural to make a man inferior to man. It was thought to be unnatural to make a man inferior to a man. There is no evidence that this was supported by the Bible although it does treat women almost as sub-humans. And if this is the view of the Bible that sex between males makes equals inferior to each other, then nothing says it was the only reason for forbidding homosexuality.


Men subjugated other males by making them slaves and the Torah accepted that.  The Torah never says it accepts the cultural idea that a man  having sex with a woman is overpowering her in a sense.  It does not mention it.  It does not link its condemnation to culture at all.  If God wanted us to think the teaching could change he would say it is cultural especially when you don't need to be religious to think homosexuality is wrong.  Reading it as a divine affirmation of a human tendency to see homosexuality as wrong is the most natural thing in the world.  If God inspired the Bible he would know that and so his declarations on homosexuality are meant to be straightforward condemnations.  Condemning and not being straightforward would be irresponsible.


If God is slow to anger as Exodus 34:5,6 says then it may be that if homosexuals were stoned to death it was only after repeated offences. The Leviticus text speaks as if it is a man with the same man.  It is not clear if the sex is a once-off or spread out over a period of time which indicates a relationship. It implies that God was left no choice but to lay down draconian rules to prevent the people making things worse for themselves with too much sin.  It is best to assume the Law means what it says.  No responsible law would be that unclear.  Its logic is, "2atch the men at it and then stone them for they will do it again."  That presumes that they are we would call gay today.
Some believers hold that Leviticus is just saying that gay sex is an abomination meaning a taboo or just a religious impurity. That means it was just forbidden not because it was wrong in itself but for cultural reasons. They say that Jesus did away with this rule like he did away with the rule banning pork. But abomination is used of things that are definitely wrong and which Christianity still considers forbidden so they are lying. God did not command that people be put to death for religious taboos but for serious crimes. The fact that the Bible forbids mixing fabrics/seeds but does not prescribe a death penalty means gays who say this deprives Leviticus of credibility need their heads testing.  Why?  For they talk as if the Bible has authority and then say that! Homosexuality is not a mere religious taboo for Leviticus 18:24 says that the nations defile themselves by this sin.


Leviticus 11:9-12: “These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination onto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcasses in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.”   This shows that abomination is something to be intensely avoided  and hated.  This is more than a taboo!


To argue that a God having people killed for being homosexual and engaging in gay sex is for cultural not moral reasons is bizarre.  God having gays killed for moral reasons would not be worse than having them killed for cultural reasons.  It would be more homophobic to decree death for cultural reasons than perceived moral ones!  Also, if its about culture then as culture does not give chances it would mean that gays were being killed for once-off sex.

There is no doubt that the Law wants the homosexuals put to death as cruelly as possible. Those Christians who say they are appalled by this suggestion will mutter about since Christ we listen to the spirit of the Law and not the letter. St Paul commanded this in their scriptures that they say are written by God. But you can listen to both. Spirit of the Law means do what the law intends. Obeying the letter of the law would result in the law being taken out of context. For example, the Law would take it for granted that though the Law is always binding you do not put a homosexual to death if that person may have been insane at the time of the crime. A person who is hell-bent on taking it too literally would disagree. There is no doubt that if we are to obey the spirit of the Law we are to use force and fear to prevent homosexuality and adultery and idolatry. The Law commands that these crimes be punished with destruction which means that if you can’t do that you do all you can to prevent these sins. You use the law of the land to fight them and make it dish out the severest penalties possible. To accept a gay child, to let a gay person work in your business and to let gay people have a date in your restaurant are all definitely contrary to the Christian faith. Jesus commanded his hearers to obey all the Scribes and Pharisees said (Matthew 23). They commanded the death of homosexuals in the name of the Law so there is no doubt that the Vatican and Canterbury and all other centres of Christianity are committing heresy and expelling themselves from the true Christian faith if they condemn homophobia. They understand homophobia to mean excessive and violent hatred of homosexuals – many of them do not see it as homophobia when a man is rejected from a teaching position for being gay. Homophobia means something different to the Christians.
Their saying that they ask nothing worse of the homosexual than they do of the heterosexual, namely no sex outside of marriage, makes them look insincere. The obedient heterosexual has a bigger of chance of having sex for marriage is available to her or him. The homosexual is forbidden to have a non-physical sexual relationship while heterosexuals can date and have romances. Kissing except for pecks on the cheek is a sexual activity and so is cuddling.
The law of God actually put homosexuality on a par with child-sacrifice and bestiality! This is incredible but see for yourself (page 18, Hard Sayings, Derek Kidner, Intervarsity Press, 1972; Leviticus 18:21-23). The same punishment exists for it as for them. So, if two men sincerely say they won’t have sex if your baby is beaten up then you have to beat up your baby. Progressive theologians say the Law came out against homosexuality so strongly because it was practiced as a religious rite by the pagans and it was necessary to ban it to keep the Hebrews who were God’s people away from alien influence. Not once does the Bible make it clear that that was the reason. It is to be dismissed as speculation. The Bible never even says that the Hebrews knew that the pagans were doing homosexual rites. And there is a load of difference between two men having sex in private without any religious connotations and two men doing it publicly or privately before an idol or on an altar as an offering to the gods. The Law would have commanded that if two men were caught together and there was reason to think they were doing it for pagan gods that they should be stoned to death but it imposed a blanket ban on gays. It didn’t. Laws can’t afford to be vague. Even if they were worshipping gods there was no need to kill them at all and never mind so cruelly. The cruelty of their deaths suggests that it was about revenge not about justice or keeping the people clean. God just couldn’t stand them and wanted the state and his people to be like that too.


It is likely that when God was so harsh on homosexuality it was because it was thought to be a disorder that could be spread if it was tolerated. People knowing gay people could set in motions triggers that could lead them into similar practices. That is God’s point.




God said that David kept his commandments and that he did ONLY in his sight what was right. Read 3 Kings 14:8. It shows that though the Bible admits David's sins it talks as if he were sinless. Notably the commandments in those days were definitely interpreted as condemning homosexuality so that is important to note too. By the laws of interpretation, you read statements in the light of how David would have understood them, it is definite that homosexuality is condemned by the Bible.

The Christian religion armed with the Bible teaches the beloved superstition that homosexuality and lesbianism are gravely sinful. The fact that the Bible recognises only heterosexual marriage as the proper context for sex is sufficient proof of that.

In the time of Henry VIII, homosexuality was a capital crime.

In ancient Persia, Zoroastrianism decreed that anybody who found a couple of the same sex making love had the right to chop them up with an axe.

If God exists then he comes first. He puts himself first. He deserves all his own love. He deserves all love. He deserves all going to Hell for him if it means they value him better. We must put him first and love him with all and not some of the love in us. Heterosexual sex implies making a sacrifice to bring a child into the world for God so sex that does not create life is immoral. The consistent homosexual should be an atheist.

Asa was praised by God for expelling all homosexuals from the land (1 Kings 15:11, 12).

It is said that Jesus did not condemn homosexuality directly - he didn't condemn most sins directly.  But the argument expects him to name it.  He did not name it but did condemn it directly when he slammed fornication.  He said that sex outside marriage was wrong and that marriage is only for one man and one woman. So he frowned upon homosexuality.


The argument of some that Jesus did not mention homosexuality is odd considering Jesus condemned fornication which meant any sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman.




Some gay Christians want you to think that if the Bible God sentenced two men caught together to stoning the reason was not because he considered homosexuality wrong!  That is narcissistic: "Oh we are so great that no God could disapprove of us or what we do in bed!"  Now Muslims and Christians justify what was done to “sinners” by saying they were warned and thus asked for what they got. They drop the love for say the adulteress who gets stoned to death. They blame the victim! Even if it is true that the person asks for it we should not even think about that or let it influence us. Say a country invades us. We try to violently crush them. Instead of thinking they bring it on themselves we should keep thinking, “We need to protect ourselves." It is an outrage to say, "What terrible people they are for they force us to kill them and force God to approve and help us though he respects human life so deeply." That is sheer hate expressed in "loving" words. Hate is rarely open and clear. That is very strong hate and clearly says, "We are too good to kill but we have to." Thus the killings totally degrade the enemy.



Romans 1 is distorted by gay activists for political reasons to make it seem like it does not condemn committed loving gay relationships but only lustful ones.  Then why not condemn lustful relations instead of being pointed and just mentioning gay ones?  The arguments that it refers to temple same sex prostitution or lustful abuse of others of the same sex are far-fetched speculation.  Let the words mean what they say.


Paul said that the Law of Moses was infallible. It said that if a man has sex with a man they are to be stoned to death and condemned as sinners. Gay Christians would say that Moses had to make this rule for the people were so hard-hearted that they would have turned against God and goodness if he had not which is accusing God of incompetence. They are saying that Moses did not mean to say that gay sex was wrong. But there is no evidence that expediency was his motive. Jesus said that Moses had to allow divorce for the people were too difficult but that does not mean we can say the same about any other rule. Besides, God had made plenty of rules the people of Israel hated. Homosexuality was a virtue in the region where the people were yet it is foolish to say that God only forbade it to drive a wedge between his people and the pagans who he thought were a very bad influence. Banning religious images and intermarriage and other things was enough to encapsulate them.




Paul wrote,

"Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men  nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-10 New International Version NIV).


The only Bible they had at the time was the Old Testament so that is where this information came from.  That silences all who lie that the men who have sex with men are not homosexuals in a loving relationship!!  Even if it were it still brutally condemns the vast majority of gay men.

The Bible forbids all tolerance for homosexuals and orders that they be condemned as evil.  The gay who loves his "sin" and sees himself as a homosexual as if it were part of his personhood will not feel loved by Christians who say they love the sinner and hate the sin.

A Catechism of Christian Doctrine, Catholic Truth Society, Westminster, 1985
A Teenager’s Answer to “Shall I Go to the Prom?” Sherry Burgess, Guardian of Truth Publications, Kentucky
Courtship and the Dangers of Petting, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, 1943
Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven, Uta Ranke Heinmann, Penguin, London, 1991
Moral Questions, Bishops Conference, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1971
Rediscovering Gay History, John Boswell, Gay Christian Movement, UK, 1982
Saint Saul, Donald Harman Akenson, Oxford University Press, New York, 2000
Sex & Marriage A Catholic Perspective, John M Hamrogue C SS R, Liguori, Illinois, 1987
The Pope and Contraception, Brenda Maddox, Counterblasts 18, Chatto & Windus, London 1991
Vicars of Christ, Peter de Rosa, Corgi, London, 1993
When Critics Ask, Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, Victor Books, Illinois ,1992

How to Fight the Religious Right, Brian Elroy McKinley

UN voted to remove “sexual orientation” from a resolution that protects’ people from arbitrary executions. The voted passed 79-70.
Here is the list of countries, as of 2011, that voted for the right to kill people based on their sexual orientation:
Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Brunei Dar-Sala, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, China, Comoros, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.


Here are the countries that voted against the UN amendment to exclude sexual orientation:
Andorra, Armenia, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bhutan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Micronesia (FS), Monaco, Montenegro, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela.


The Bible has a huge enough influence in the world to lead to this.

Cardinal Avery Dulles makes it clear that God has the right to order us to administer capital punishment

The Law of Moses: Is It Valid Today?
The Lord endorses the death penalty in the Bible
Is Old Testament Law for New Testament Christians
The Law of Moses and the Law of Christ by Arnold Fruchtenbaum
The Amplified Bible