Originally posted by lucifershammerSince he set conditions that would make it impossible for the punishment to ever be carried out, I'd say he implicitly rejected stoning. Jesus doesn't usually speak directly in the Gospels; ya know, parables and such.
I'm not trying to defend stoning as a punishment -- merely pointing out that Christ did not condemn it when he was asked a direct question.
The problem, for me, is when people make the leap from a particular punishment for a crime/sin being indefensible to the crime/sin itself being acceptable.
Originally posted by no1marauderHe speaks quite directly when He wants to (and even the tough parables are explained for those who couldn't get it).
Since he set conditions that would make it impossible for the punishment to ever be carried out, I'd say he implicitly rejected stoning. Jesus doesn't usually speak directly in the Gospels; ya know, parables and such.
Originally posted by no1marauderWell, considering how you go around giving English classes to anyone "who has ears" (in addition to classes on law, philosophy, science, history, literature, archaeology), I think you shouldn't bristle when a little fraternal correction is provided.
What a petty jerk you are. I typed "were" when I meant "would". But the context made it clear what I was saying. Grow up.
And no, the context (there wasn't much of that in this case) did not make it clear what you were saying -- especially since you were using sarcasm (remember how that works? You say one thing but imply the opposite).
Originally posted by lucifershammerI believe I read it before he edited it. Sure, you have to read it twice, and yes, it's always annoying when you have to do that due to bad spelling or grammar, but it was still quite clear what he meant.
He's edited it since to make it more coherent. Read the extant version at the time I replied.
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou really are an insufferable a-hole.
Well, considering how you go around giving English classes to anyone "who has ears" (in addition to classes on law, philosophy, science, history, literature, archaeology), I think you shouldn't bristle when a little fraternal correction is provided.
And no, the context (there wasn't much of that in this case) did not make it clear what you were say ...[text shortened]... you were using sarcasm (remember how that works? You say one thing but imply the opposite).