Is it moral that you should die if you are gay, Blaspheme, Worship other gods etc? God thinks so

"There is 0% of truth of any kind when you answer 'yes'". Restated, "Your answer of "yes" is a lie because my answer of "no" is the truth". If you do not first support your position and rebut mine, This is begging the question and precludes the continuance of any meaningful debate. You misuse basic scripture and basic debate courtesy, Exhibit poor grammar and spelling, Engage in consistent logical fallacy and use foul language directed at me, Which objectively places your expertise in debating and this topic within the lowest level of Blooms Cognitive Dimension Matrix, Requiring one to be able to remember and communicate facts. This is fine (though any debate venue of value would have disqualified you by now), But at least be polite, Try to debate with logic, Not emotion, And edit your work so this reads smoothly, Or it is a waste of everyone's time (except mine because I enjoy the subject). If you knew my God and His Word as you say, You would love Christ (1 John 2:23), And you would not ask if capital punishment was still a legitimate punishment for offenders of God's Laws and then call me a hypocrite for breaking God's Laws if I do not put people to death. The distinction between covenants is an elementary subject (Hebrews 8:6-13). Civil penalty for breaking these Laws only applied to Ancient National Israel (Rom 7:6). God did not change. Everything He promised He fulfilled, That is why Christ said He was not overthrowing the Law, But fulfilling it. God promised to make a New Covenant in Jer 31:31, And to make a new one means that the first one is obsolete (Heb 8). John 5- God rested from His work of creation on the 7th day (Gen2:2; work He had done). We see God performing actions throughout the entirety of the Old Testament. He saved the people from Egypt, Conversed with Abram, Wrestled with Jacob and visited Moses writing the 10 Commandments on Sinai. He is still actively working in the world and still upholds it (Neh 9:6), And just as God the Father still works to the ends which He has already established, Namely the building of His Kingdom through saving His people, So to this end does God the Son, Jesus work (John 17), And there is no Law against this. The statements concerning about what I have given up are really a bit much. It is not within the purview of this debate to discuss my personal life, And you are speaking about things you could not possibly know as we have never spoken before this debate. Moving forward. Once again the applications of these verses are being presented quite incorrectly. First, It was not a command to abandon our parents, As Jesus chastises the Pharisees for neglecting theirs (Matt 15:4-6) and cites the commandment to honor your parents. His point is summarized when He states that if we love any human, Even those closest to us, More than we love Him, We are not living a life in a way that glorifies Him. He is saying that there is nothing that we could lose in this life which the attainment of would make it worth rejecting Him. Beyond this He is saying that there will be times when His people follow Him, And their family will be at odds with them because of it. History is replete with examples, Just one being a Muslim named Nabeel Qureshi who was saved and turned to follow Christ. His mother and father, Devout Muslims, Said that he was dead to them for what he did. He chose to follow Christ instead of his parents in their worship of a false god. However, If there is a whole family of four that follows Christ, None of them will be faced with this dilemma. This is not a claim that in every situation you are required to abandon at least one of your parents or siblings, Or that God will only save one or the other, But never both (wonderfully Nabeel's mother and father submitted to Christ years down the road). When you come to the Bible with a prejudice against it, You will inevitably force the most unnatural reading of a text, Often in the form of demanding false dichotomies as you have in this case. Luke 14:33. It is patently obvious that Christ does not want people to abandon every single thing in our lives as this would make it impossible to fulfill his command to not refuse those who beg or borrow from you as you can not give them anything if you do not have anything; In Acts 5, Ananias and Sapphira were not said to be in sin for owning property but were in fact told that it was their own property. If Jesus commanded we all sell everything, The apostle Peter would have charged them as guilty for owning property, Not tell them that it was their own to do with as they pleased. Furthermore, A reading of Jesus' words in this way would completely contradict the way His own apostles taught about what He said. In 2 Corinthians 8, Paul encourages the saints to give to those saints who are poor "not as a command" which he would have if Christ had, But rather, "to prove. . . That your love is genuine. . . . According to what a person has. . . Not that others should be eased and you burdened, But as a matter of fairness your abundance at the present time should supply their need, So that their abundance may supply your need". Now if everyone had just given all their belongings away, No one would have anything by which to bring relief to those who were in need. Paul, Commissioned by Jesus to teach, Taught that "if a man does not work he should not eat. . . Such persons we command (command). . . In the Lord. . . To earn their own living. (see Eph 4:28, Work so you have to share. . . ) How Luke 14 is meant "For we are the circumcision, Who worship by the Spirit of God[b] and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh" 4 though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, Of the people of Israel, Of the tribe of Benjamin, A Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, A Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, A persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, [c] blameless. 7 But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, In order that I may gain Christ. . . """". (Phil 3:3-8). He defines what he means when he says "count everything as loss", That is everything he once considered "gain" which he lists in verses 3-7. . . The object is not always material possessions as you seem to argue. We see language in the same conversation (Luke 14:27) that would be absurd to be taken the way you present it, That is that everyone must take up their cross and follow Christ. If one treats the text in the same shallow fashion, One would be led to conclude all Christians own a cross and had to carry it around as they followed Jesus. Not approaching the text sensibly, Recognizing that the speakers/writers of this time were people like us and spoke like human beings using hyperbole, Simile, Metaphor, And colloquialism common to local syntax is to preclude any useful understand the Bible. The other example of giving up riches was to an young prince who was in love with money and boastfully lied claiming he had kept all the commandments perfectly from his youth. Because he idolized wealth, Counting it as loss for the surpassing worth of Christ was his "cross to bear", As there would most definitely be great shame cast on a prince who chose to become a pauper for the sake of a man whom many regarded as only a carpenters son. Jesus is greater than the temple, And his disciples were with Him in service of God, And Jesus only ever did the work that He saw His Father doing. As we know that the Father would not break His own commandments and they flow from His very Nature, We know that Jesus, The Lord of the Sabbath, Was not in violation of the Sabbath, And by extension neither were His disciples. Jesus goes on to heal on the Sabbath in the next verses (12:9-14), And when accused states "it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath". He violated at most what the Pharisees accused His disciples of in Matthew 15 1-6, Breaking the tradition of the elders, Not the commandments of God. It was the Pharisees who sinned by making laws outside God's Law. Jesus states in Matthew 23, "Woe to you Scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in peoples faces. . . You tithe dill and cumin but neglect the weightier matters of the law: justice, Mercy and faithfulness. Rest that ignores God and His people is sin/ work that serves them is rest (Matt 12:7). Jesus says in Matthew 12:7, "Have you not read. . . David. . . And those who were with Him. . . Ate the bread of the Presence which is not lawful. . . . Or. . . How on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath (they work in the temple preparing sacrifices) and are guiltless? . . . Something greater than the temple is here. If you had known what this means, 'I desire mercy, And not sacrifice, You would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath". This is not to say that they broke the Law and God overlooked it, But rather that it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath, And it is good to do the work of God, And there is not a day, Or a law attached to a day, That forbids men from doing God's work. God would not have set up a day where it was unlawful to do work in service of Him and others. You can not just look at the word "work" and define it however you want, You have to understand the scripture as a whole and let the authors define their own terms. You have it all backwards eden. -Challenge my statement at the end of my last post about the existence of God before you make unsupported claims that I am wrong. -Support your claim of the Bible's lack of trustworthiness as it relates to being transmitted accurately. -Provide an explanation of the moral paradigm you use to judge the morality of God's actions. Respectfully, Dev