Is this sentence over the top considering what some people get away with ?.

[andoireabu]

Bible law would have had him stoned.

Do you mean the Koran? ah but we won't go there... right andoireabu ?

No pretty sure i meant the bible. As for going to the Koran, I have no knowledge of and i tend not to talk about things I know nothing about.

St Stephen was stoned to death and the story appears in the BIBLE in the book of Acts

[Hoof Hearted]

Bible law would have had him stoned.

Do you mean the Koran? ah but we won't go there... right andoireabu ?

No pretty sure i meant the bible. As for going to the Koran, I have no knowledge of and i tend not to talk about things I know nothing about.

St Stephen was stoned to death and the story appears in the BIBLE in the book of Acts

jesus, a swatragh man quoting out of the bible, ive heard it all now 

[The Iceman]

1The people who get away with worse crimes and less times should be your focus then surely?

My reference to anyone being able to quote whatever they wanted to back up a point does not negate what the example I gave you. My point was you could argue whatever you wanted - the relevance is the difference in my opinion. And yes your reference was from the NT but 2it was still out of context. The bottom line has to be this man committed a crime. But in true fashion we complain about the sticking plaster. 
As I said above why not do something about the people getting away with worse crimes. Better yet there's 100s of homeless people freezing this winter, I'm sure you've plenty of room and they wouldn't be doing any harm at your house....

He broke the law.

1. totally irrelevant to the thread and the man in question.
2. how is it out of context?

Nice metaphor with the plaster but why would you waste a plater (punishment) on what is barely broken skin (the trivial nature of the "crime")?

Bit strange to me that someone who lives the christian life would see him in jail when me who wouldn't claim to be religious would see this as a pointless waste of money that could have been spent helping the man rather than locking him up.  But sure it could have been worse.  Bible law would have had him stoned.

Why is Number 1 totally irrelevant to the thread and the man in question? It was referenced several times by posters throughout the thread that this seemed harsh based on other getting away with worse for far less.  Therefore I suggested people should focus on this group then and make sure their sentences are "correct".

We can argue back and forth all day. The man broke the law. Could it have been a shorter sentence? Maybe. Should the charges have been overlooked because the man had a sad story? Definitely not. The law is the law is the law.

I'm glad you are now a writer of the law and we can all rely on you going forward to decide whether or not something is "trivial" or "serious" when it comes to crime.
The law is the law is the law.

[tyssam5]

I don't know if it is harsh at all.
He stole keys, broke into her house. Being homeless or cold or hungry doesn't mean you live above the law of the land.

If he had wrecked the place and/or cleaned it out the sentence would have been more I think.

'For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.'Then the righteous will answer Him, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?' The King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.' Matthew 25:35-41

Can you see a parallel here between your belief in the bible and the law of today.  which do you follow most closely?  and we all know which peter chose.  if you can't see this parallel then why choose the link between here and leviticus for homosexuality?. surely the whole of the bible carries the same meaning therefore one book can't carry more meaning than the other.  I'm not trying to destroy your belief in religion, i actually admire anyone with such profound faith, but your belief in the catholic church (which i assume you are a part of) i think is flawed because the catholic church is built upon men who were flawed from the beginning.  Peter denied Jesus, Popes carried out witch hunts, to the very men who abused children and their position within communities, the catholic church has been built by men, and that is why it is in the state it is in.  Not because of all of them, but by those who didn't want to bring the whole thing down because of the criminals they hid.

One of the beatitudes says " blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy".  Does your post show mercy and does the judge show mercy?

Anybody can quote anything from the Bible to argue a point.
For the record my stance on homosexuality has nothing to do with Leviticus so please don't jump to conclusions.

If you want to use the Bible lets focus on the New Testament and Jesus' new law and new covenant.
One example that seems quite relevant here is when Jesus was challenged about paying taxes. Give to Caesar what is Caesars was His answer.

As Christians (if you're claiming to be one) we are called to follow the law of the land. If we follow your logic we would let anyone off with something as long as they said sorry......

That sounds like what happens at confession.

I like the Caesar quote, one of my favorites. I always took it to mean that Jesus had no interest in politics and the affairs of men, in line with his being a spiritual king. I never took it as call to obey the law of the land.

[The Iceman]

I remember doing a Bible Study on it when i was at university and that was discussed.
Romans 13 makes it quite clear too.

[red hander]

From PA


A homeless man who squatted in an apartment to escape freezing temperatures over Christmas has won his appeal against being sent to jail.
Robert Lewandowski (29) was originally ordered to serve six months in prison for stealing keys and then moving into the south Belfast flat once the woman
who lived there left for the holidays.
But that has now been reduced to a three month suspended
sentence following a successful challenge. 
The Polish national was said
to have taken nothing during a four-day stay when he used a stove, watched television and cleaned up after himself.
Lewandowski pleaded guilty
to theft and wrongfully taking possession of the property at Tates Avenue between December 24 and 28.
At his original hearing it emerged that he had been sleeping in apartment block communal areas after losing his home and job with a recycling charity earlier this year.
He had stolen the keys weeks earlier when he spotted that the door to the flat was lying open and entered following a party on December 5.
A lawyer for Lewandowski, of no fixed address, said he had left the property exactly as he had found it.
He told the court that when the woman and her partner returned to find him there the defendant did not try to leave.
The solicitor said his client was apologetic, but had only gone in on Christmas Eve when temperatures were down to minus 10.
The court was told Lewandowski let himself in to keep out of the cold, using the television and a stove to heat some food.
It was claimed that the woman and police were both sympathetic to Lewandowski's plight.
His solicitor also argued that Lewandowski had taken nothing from the house despite having the opportunity to "clean the place out".
He was given concurrent six months jail terms for each of the two offences at Belfast Magistrates Court.
But the Northern Ireland Court Service yesterday confirmed
that an appeal against the sentence was allowed earlier this month.
Lewandowski, who is now understood to be considering returning to Poland, will instead have a three-month term suspended for two years.