Should homosexuals be given the death penalty?

[aikido7]

How so?

First of all, we are all hypocrites. The only way I can point out anything in someone else is because I myself have done the same. I think that's pretty universal....

But Lighthouse, you know the difference between right and wrong. I've been on these threads long enough to know that.

I call out your hypocrisy because you parrot these ancient tribal social codes that have no use today. You champion these relics because you've been taught to take the Bible literally and you use a bit of computer capacity telling us this.

But that's not how you live in the real world. It's not how you conduct yourself with others (except on computer, of course). You seem to be putting out some sort of dogma as cover for your own likes and dislikes. But that seems like all it is when you say these ridiculous things is bluster and show to prove that you "follow the Bible" or "follow Jesus."

It is my opinion that when you do this you are hypocritical. And God bless you for that! We don't need crazy people running around executing people for these ancestral patriarchial morals.

Anyone who literally follows these near-prehistoric laws would be in a prison for the criminally insane.

And all this theology about the "Old Testament law" and "dispensations" and how this doesn't really mean that and how the Bible gets used for llegitimizing personal politics and innate persuasions is totally bogus--made up to ease one's modern Chrstian conscience.

The reason more people don't become humble and godly Christians is that they simply do not take him seriously.

Let him speak for himself. He was a Jew on the cutting edge of a new relationship with God.

 

[Lighthouse]

First of all, we are all hypocrites. The only way I can point out anything in someone else is because I myself have done the same. I think that's pretty universal....

But Lighthouse, you know the difference between right and wrong. I've been on these threads long enough to know that.

I call out your hypocrisy because you parrot these ancient tribal social codes that have no use today. You champion these relics because you've been taught to take the Bible literally and you use a bit of computer capacity telling us this.

But that's not how you live in the real world. It's not how you conduct yourself with others (except on computer, of course). You seem to be putting out some sort of dogma as cover for your own likes and dislikes. But that seems like all it is when you say these ridiculous things is bluster and show to prove that you "follow the Bible" or "follow Jesus."

It is my opinion that when you do this you are hypocritical. And God bless you for that! We don't need crazy people running around executing people for these ancestral patriarchial morals.

Anyone who literally follows these near-prehistoric laws would be in a prison for the criminally insane.

And all this theology about the "Old Testament law" and "dispensations" and how this doesn't really mean that and how the Bible gets used for llegitimizing personal politics and innate persuasions is totally bogus--made up to ease one's modern Chrstian conscience.

The reason more people don't become humble and godly Christians is that they simply do not take him seriously.

Let him speak for himself. He was a Jew on the cutting edge of a new relationship with God.

You don't know that about me. You have no idea what I support and propose in my real life. Ask Jefferson, or Philetus [who happens to disagree with me] what I propose and support when I'm not on the computer.

And if you think for one second anyone here is proposing that we go out and kill adulterers, or homosexuals, ourselves, you need to learn some reading comprehension. Not only is it currently illegal, but even when God commanded it of Israel, they were never to just go around doing such a thing. The government had to be involved. And what I propose is that the government make these things illegal, and punishable by death. And my reason for this is that I want people to stop doing them. Did you know that those laws used to be on the books in the US? And we're only 231 years old. I'm proposing that we go back to those laws. I also propose that murder [including attempted murder] always gets the death penalty, and rape, as well. Even some other things. And my reason is because I believe people should not do these things. And if you can't convince people to live morally [which we obviously can't. ex: you] then give them a reason they will follow.

 

[CabinetMaker]

You don't know that about me. You have no idea what I support and propose in my real life. Ask Jefferson, or Philetus [who happens to disagree with me] what I propose and support when I'm not on the computer.

And if you think for one second anyone here is proposing that we go out and kill adulterers, or homosexuals, ourselves, you need to learn some reading comprehension. Not only is it currently illegal, but even when God commanded it of Israel, they were never to just go around doing such a thing. The government had to be involved. And what I propose is that the government make these things illegal, and punishable by death. And my reason for this is that I want people to stop doing them. Did you know that those laws used to be on the books in the US? And we're only 231 years old. I'm proposing that we go back to those laws. I also propose that murder [including attempted murder] always gets the death penalty, and rape, as well. Even some other things. And my reason is because I believe people should not do these things. And if you can't convince people to live morally [which we obviously can't. ex: you] then give them a reason they will follow.

Do you want people to stop doing them because they will be executed if they don't or do you want them to stop because they come to Christ and they want to stop because they love God?

 

[Lighthouse]

Do you want people to stop doing them because they will be executed if they don't or do you want them to stop because they come to Christ and they want to stop because they love God?

I would definitely prefer the latter. But I know, just as God knows, not everyone will come to Him. And I want people to stop because of the harm it is doing to society. And for the people who don't consider God to be reason to refrain from such wickedness, nor do they consider the harm they do to themselves or others a reason, then we should give them a reason they will listen to.

 

[aikido7]

And if you think for one second anyone here is proposing that we go out and kill adulterers, or homosexuals, ourselves, you need to learn some reading comprehension. Not only is it currently illegal, but even when God commanded it of Israel, they were never to just go around doing such a thing. The government had to be involved. And what I propose is that the government make these things illegal, and punishable by death.

I have read and, I believe, comprehended what people have said on this thread. But it's "WE the people" here, and if you live in a system that does this, you are necessarily implicated. Most German people in the 1940s knew full well what was coming out of the camp chimneys.

And my reason for this is that I want people to stop doing them...I'm proposing that we go back to those laws.

Your underlying intention, I believe is a good one but I think you may be unaware of it. Go deeper into the question WHAT IS MY 'BASELINE' INTENTION in wanting "people to stop" being adulterers. Whatever is your underlying intention, Lighthouse, it can certainly be addressed in many different useful ways other than criminalizing what may not be a choice (in the case of homo sex)--for even closeted or dishonest (adulterers?) members of your own family and friends.

And if you can't convince people to live morally [which we obviously can't. ex: you] then give them a reason they will follow.

Uncalled for.

You don't know that about me. You have no idea what I support and propose in my real life. Ask Jefferson, or Philetus [who happens to disagree with me] what I propose and support when I'm not on the computer.

But you seem to know about me? First of all, I take it bottom line that both of us are reasonable human beings who want to do the right thing by God. Of that I am certain. And I am also certain that when push comes to shove, you will stand up with integrity and refuse to participate in any of this. Right--there used to be a lot of laws on the books. Stupid ones. And there still are a few. But by and large we have left those behind. Some laws are not useful for a moral and sensible society. If the churches haven't yet learned how to really reach out to these people it doesn't mean the churches can't sometime in the near future.

There are some amazing things out there to help bring on the Kingdom of God that most of us have not even begun to learn and utilize.

Of course I see most churches--like most secular Americans--out of touch with Jesus.

 

[Lighthouse]

I have read and, I believe, comprehended what people have said on this thread. But it's "WE the people" here, and if you live in a system that does this, you are necessarily implicated. Most German people in the 1940s knew full well what was coming out of the camp chimneys. Your underlying intention, I believe is a good one but I think you may be unaware of it. Go deeper into the question WHAT IS MY 'BASELINE' INTENTION in wanting "people to stop" being adulterers. Whatever is your underlying intention, Lighthouse, it can certainly be addressed in many different useful ways other than criminalizing what may not be a choice (in the case of homo sex)--for even closeted or dishonest (adulterers?) members of your own family and friends. Uncalled for. But you seem to know about me? First of all, I take it bottom line that both of us are reasonable human beings who want to do the right thing by God. Of that I am certain. And I am also certain that when push comes to shove, you will stand up with integrity and refuse to participate in any of this. Right--there used to be a lot of laws on the books. Stupid ones. And there still are a few. But by and large we have left those behind. Some laws are not useful for a moral and sensible society. If the churches haven't yet learned how to really reach out to these people it doesn't mean the churches can't sometime in the near future.

There are some amazing things out there to help bring on the Kingdom of God that most of us have not even begun to learn and utilize.

Of course I see most churches--like most secular Americans--out of touch with Jesus.

What kind of laws do you think Jesus will implement when He returns, to rule?

 

[red77]

Reporting their own spouse? No. Plenty of people can figure out that someone is having an affair.

You have absolutely no regard for family, at all. That's sad.

So what do you mean then? If you figured out that your spouse was having an affair you wouldnt need to report it as a capital crime? :liberals: and what the heck do you mean I have absolutely no regard for family at all?! Because I woudnt want to see people put to death for an affair which would automatically destroy a family if there are children involved?? Lets make one thing clear here LH, I do not condone adultery because it can wreck relationships and family, that being said many cases can be resolved whereas executing a parent gives no chance at all....

You have one story that you think says that adulterers are not to be put to death. And they weren't even allowed to stone her under the Mosaic law, let alone the Roman law. But it's obvious you didn't know that. And I'm not surprised.

We've already been thought this, either way its pretty obvious that we're neither under Roman or Mosaic law anymore so the kind of dark age mentality that would put people to death for this has long since gone (thankfully).....
Oh, and I'll ask you again, supposing that this woman could have been stoned under law do you think Jesus would have said anything different to the crowd?

 

[aikido7]

What kind of laws do you think Jesus will implement when He returns, to rule?

I don't know for sure. What about Jesus right now?

I believe we don't need much beyond the Sermon on the Mount. That's Jesus. Anything else is secularism--the Kingdom of Empire.

 

[Lighthouse]

So what do you mean then? If you figured out that your spouse was having an affair you wouldnt need to report it as a capital crime? :liberals: and what the heck do you mean I have absolutely no regard for family at all?! Because I woudnt want to see people put to death for an affair which would automatically destroy a family if there are children involved?? Lets make one thing clear here LH, I do not condone adultery because it can wreck relationships and family, that being said many cases can be resolved whereas executing a parent gives no chance at all....

I didn't say I wouldn't need to. I'm saying that the cuckold is not the only one who may know.

Do you condone the death penalty for murder?

We've already been thought this, either way its pretty obvious that we're neither under Roman or Mosaic law anymore so the kind of dark age mentality that would put people to death for this has long since gone (thankfully).....
Oh, and I'll ask you again, supposing that this woman could have been stoned under law do you think Jesus would have said anything different to the crowd?

I don't think they would have used this as a trap, if it was legal. Of course, if they did, He would have most likely asked where the man was. Seeing as how the law requires the man to be executed with the woman.

P.S.
Adultery was a capital crime when this country was founded, and that was well after the Mosaic law.

I don't know for sure. What about Jesus right now?

Take a wild guess what my answer is.

I believe we don't need much beyond the Sermon on the Mount. That's Jesus. Anything else is secularism--the Kingdom of Empire.

So the other words of God are useless?

 

[aikido7]

Take a wild guess what my answer is.

Waiting for Jesus to "return" seems more important to you than Jesus right now? In other words, the Kingdom of God comes by his will in heaven first? It seems to me that Jesus thought Heaven was in good shape and could take care of itself. His focus was the Kingdom of God, the poor, the outcast: Thy will be done, as in Heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins

It's simple: love God and your neighbor. This is what it all comes down to.

So the other words of God are useless?

What "other words"? You mean words that have Jesus contradicting who he is? I put my faith in Jesus and the God of his incarnation. He walked his talk. He didn't preach a God who loves everyone and then set up outcasts to rail against, dump on and condemn.

 

[red77]

I didn't say I wouldn't need to. I'm saying that the cuckold is not the only one who may know.

Do you condone the death penalty for murder?

So someone else could report an ofending spouse to the authorities then? Real nice....

Murder as has been pointed out on so many occasions by now is hardly the same thing as an affair!

I don't think they would have used this as a trap, if it was legal. Of course, if they did, He would have most likely asked where the man was. Seeing as how the law requires the man to be executed with the woman.

P.S.
Adultery was a capital crime when this country was founded, and that was well after the Mosaic law.

Do you think Jesus would then have allowed the execution to go ahead? He wouldnt have said any of those powerful words to a crowd to convict them of their own guilt?

It's just as well America woke up and became less of a barbaric nation than when it was founded then really......despite there being some who would seemingly prefer us living in medieval times.... :rain:

 

[Daniel50]

Loving Homosexuals to Death
I am honored to have my commentaries carried by several different websites. I'll be surprised if this one makes it on most. Unfortunately, many people today love homosexuality more than they do children.

Fighting the wrong battle seems to be a way of life with "conservatives." As the old saying goes, "He who frames the argument wins the debate."

Nowhere is that more apparent than with the issue of homosexuality. As is so common with most of the cultural issues, we continually find ourselves on the defensive when standing for Christian moral values. Our opponents have been fabulous at boxing us in.

The argument for abortion has swung on the fulcrum of "choice." Those who are in favor of the slaughter of little innocent babies have turned the attention of the debate away from whether or not abortion is the taking of a human life to the issue of whether or not a woman has a right to make that choice. On its face the debate is ludicrous.

http://www.ptsalt.com/commentary/loving_homosexuals_to_death

 

[Daniel50]

The deep roots of homosexuality in the Nazi party are brilliantly exposed .


The Pink Swastika

“The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party is a thoroughly researched, eminently readable, demolition of the “gay” myth, symbolized by the pink triangle, that the Nazis were anti-homosexual. The deep roots of homosexuality in the Nazi party are brilliantly exposed . . .”
Dr. Howard Hurwitz, Family Defense Council
“As a Jewish scholar who lost hundreds of her family in the Holocaust, I welcome The Pink Swastika as courageous and timely . . . Lively and Abrams reveal the reigning “gay history” as revisionist and expose the supermale German homosexuals for what they were - Nazi brutes, not Nazi victims.”
Dr. Judith Reisman, Institute for Media Education
“The Pink Swastika is a tremendously valuable book, replete with impressive documentation presented in a compelling fashion.” William Grigg, The New American
“...exposes numerous lies, and tears away many myths. Essential reading, it is a formidable boulder cast into the path of the onrushing homosexual express...”
Stan Goodenough, Middle East Intelligence Digest
“The Pink Swastika is a powerful exposure of pre-World War II Germany and its quest for reviving and imitating a Hellenistic-paganistic idea of homo-eroticism and militarism.”
Dr. Mordechai Nisan, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
http://www.abidingtruth.com/pfrc/boo...on_-_final.htm

 

[aikido7]

The deep roots of homosexuality in the Nazi party are brilliantly exposed .


The Pink Swastika

“The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party is a thoroughly researched, eminently readable, demolition of the “gay” myth, symbolized by the pink triangle, that the Nazis were anti-homosexual. The deep roots of homosexuality in the Nazi party are brilliantly exposed . . .”
Dr. Howard Hurwitz, Family Defense Council
“As a Jewish scholar who lost hundreds of her family in the Holocaust, I welcome The Pink Swastika as courageous and timely . . . Lively and Abrams reveal the reigning “gay history” as revisionist and expose the supermale German homosexuals for what they were - Nazi brutes, not Nazi victims.”
Dr. Judith Reisman, Institute for Media Education
“The Pink Swastika is a tremendously valuable book, replete with impressive documentation presented in a compelling fashion.” William Grigg, The New American
“...exposes numerous lies, and tears away many myths. Essential reading, it is a formidable boulder cast into the path of the onrushing homosexual express...”
Stan Goodenough, Middle East Intelligence Digest
“The Pink Swastika is a powerful exposure of pre-World War II Germany and its quest for reviving and imitating a Hellenistic-paganistic idea of homo-eroticism and militarism.”
Dr. Mordechai Nisan, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
http://www.abidingtruth.com/pfrc/boo...on_-_final.htm

Careful readers of history can discover that the Nazis put gays and homos into the same category as the Jews. Both were thought to be threats to the Third Reich and to German society. So the idea sure flies in the face of past historical scholarship. I doubt that writers such as William R. Shirer and Joachim Fest would have missed stuff like this.

I'd check the sources on this book. It just sounds weird. I know one of the top early on Nazis was into homo sex but Hitler definitely had him killed early in the movenemt. And, of course, the term "Nazi" is frequently used by people to denigrate anyone they don't believe in.

The Nazi credo of believing they needed healthy, heterosexual Nordic types to purify their race seems to have more to do with a fascist regeme than anything gay. In fact, it seems closer to the ideas of the Familiy Research Council than anything else!

BTW, I couldn't get your link to work.

 

[Lighthouse]

Waiting for Jesus to "return" seems more important to you than Jesus right now? In other words, the Kingdom of God comes by his will in heaven first? It seems to me that Jesus thought Heaven was in good shape and could take care of itself. His focus was the Kingdom of God, the poor, the outcast: Thy will be done, as in Heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins

Are you trying to be obtuse? Whatever laws Jesus will implement when He reigns are the ones He would like to see in place, now. That's all I'm saying. And I'm not talking about His kingdom in Heaven. I'm speaking of the Kingdom He will establish on Earth, before He creates the new Earth.

It's simple: love God and your neighbor. This is what it all comes down to.

So how do you love your neighbor. Do you let them continue in self destructive behavior, and "love" them in spite of it?

What "other words"? You mean words that have Jesus contradicting who he is? I put my faith in Jesus and the God of his incarnation. He walked his talk. He didn't preach a God who loves everyone and then set up outcasts to rail against, dump on and condemn.

Jesus never contradicted Himself. I'm talking about the words God spoke to Moses, and the prophets, and such other things.

And I don't preach a God who merely loves everyone, no matter what. You know why I don't? Because Jesus never did.

So someone else could report an ofending spouse to the authorities then? Real nice....

Yes. Just like anyone who catches someone committing a crime can report it to the police now.:dunce::duh:

Murder as has been pointed out on so many occasions by now is hardly the same thing as an affair!

That's irrelevant to the point. The existence of children is a moot point, because anyone who has children and commits any capital crime will be leaving those children behind in such a system.

Do you think Jesus would then have allowed the execution to go ahead? He wouldnt have said any of those powerful words to a crowd to convict them of their own guilt?

No. He would not have let them, because they weren't following the Mosaic law anymore than they were following Roman law.

It's just as well America woke up and became less of a barbaric nation than when it was founded then really......despite there being some who would seemingly prefer us living in medieval times.... :rain:

Nobody woke up. They just started ignoring God.

 

[aikido7]

Are you trying to be obtuse? Whatever laws Jesus will implement when He reigns are the ones He would like to see in place, now. That's all I'm saying. And I'm not talking about His kingdom in Heaven. I'm speaking of the Kingdom He will establish on Earth, before He creates the new Earth.

How nice for Jesus and how nice for Christian theology/dogma. But I am concerned with Jesus' words and deeds before the resurrection. Sorry.

So how do you love your neighbor. Do you let them continue in self destructive behavior, and "love" them in spite of it?

You cannot change another person. God willing, you can only change yourself. And you can love.

Jesus never contradicted Himself. I'm talking about the words God spoke to Moses, and the prophets, and such other things.

I agree that Jesus never contradicted himself and I also believe that--because the gospels are theological and not all historical--not everything attributed to Jesus in the Bible he actually said. And it is fairly easy, using common sense, to separate what Jesus actually said to what the early church placed into his mouth after his death.

Thomas Jefferson said it was "like separating diamonds from a dunghill."

Of course, mainstream biblical scholars use more exacting criteria that they can apply to Jesus' words and deeds which are written in the Bible to determine probabilities of his words being true history or the early church's theology.

And I don't preach a God who merely loves everyone, no matter what. You know why I don't? Because Jesus never did.

Yes, he did.

Matthew 5:43-48:
You have heard that it has been said, Thou shall love thy neighbor, and hate your enemy. But I say unto you, "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you."

That you may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

For if you merely love those who already love you, then what reward is that? Even taxpayers do that.

Be ye therefore perfect*, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

*"PERFECT" is not an accurate translation. There was no concept of perfection in Judaic Law or society--It was seen as against the Second Commandment. The Greek word "teleos" is not what we commonly think of as perfection. It was seen as a "moving toward" a distant ideal. The actual Aramaic word Jesus spoke was shalem, which means wholeness or completeness. Taking that part of the Sermon on the Mount literally is probably responsible for a lot of mental anguish by believers who feel that unless they are "perfect" they will not experience God's love.

He would not have let them, because they weren't following the Mosaic law anymore than they were following Roman law.

This is either/or theology and does not speak to history.

Jesus was not a theologian. He was a preacher. The church needs to start taking him seriously. Either we discover the God who causes the sun to rise on both the evil and the good or we may have no more sunrises.

 

[jgarden]

Should homosexuals be given the death penalty?
If so, why so? If not, why not?

Leviticus - Chapter 20

9 - "Anyone who curses his father or mother shall be put to death; since he has cursed his father or mother, he has forfeited his life...........

10 - If a man commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death...........

13 - If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives...........

27 - "A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortune-teller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death."

I particularly like verse 9 whereby anybody who curses their parents shall be put to death. That would certainly control the population explosion.

According to verse 10, Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker should no longer be in the land of the living. :sheep:

 

[Daniel50]

Teaching homosexuality to kids
Quick question: Who thinks there isn't enough frank sexual information forced on today's kids? Is the bar for acceptable sexual behavior still too high? You would think so when reading a recent Washington Post article titled "A More Candid Approach to Sex-Ed."

As many parents know, most sex-ed classes are already candid enough, thank you very much. The last thing we need is for anyone to spice them up or further complicate what should be a pretty simple subject. But that's what schools in Montgomery County, Md., plan to do by introducing lessons on homosexuality to eight- and 10th-graders – lessons that serve to further the radical homosexual activist agenda.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56511

 

[Lighthouse]

How nice for Jesus and how nice for Christian theology/dogma. But I am concerned with Jesus' words and deeds before the resurrection. Sorry.

Why before? Why not after? And why not with the words of God before He was incarnated as Jesus?

You cannot change another person. God willing, you can only change yourself. And you can love.I agree that Jesus never contradicted himself and I also believe that--because the gospels are theological and not all historical--not everything attributed to Jesus in the Bible he actually said. And it is fairly easy, using common sense, to separate what Jesus actually said to what the early church placed into his mouth after his death.

Why does God have to be willing for me to change myself? Why can't I just be willing?

Did Jesus ever contradict the Father? Did He ever contradict the commands given to Moses, for instance?

And can you give an example of something the church fathers "placed" in Jesus' mouth?

Thomas Jefferson said it was "like separating diamonds from a dunghill."

You must be the dunghill.

Of course, mainstream biblical scholars use more exacting criteria that they can apply to Jesus' words and deeds which are written in the Bible to determine probabilities of his words being true history or the early church's theology.

Such as?

Yes, he did.

No. He didn't.

Matthew 5:43-48:
You have heard that it has been said, Thou shall love thy neighbor, and hate your enemy. But I say unto you, "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you."

And? That's not merely "loving" someone. You don't bless those who hate you by letting them continue in self destructive behavior. You bless them by pointing them to Christ, and you do that by showing them their need for Him. Which is done by teaching them that they are living against His word, and that He hates those who live that way. And when that sinks in, you tell them that He also loves them. In fact, He loves them so much, that He died for them, despite the fact that He hates them so much.

That you may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

And?

For if you merely love those who already love you, then what reward is that? Even taxpayers do that.

See?

Be ye therefore perfect*, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

*"PERFECT" is not an accurate translation. There was no concept of perfection in Judaic Law or society--It was seen as against the Second Commandment. The Greek word "teleos" is not what we commonly think of as perfection. It was seen as a "moving toward" a distant ideal. The actual Aramaic word Jesus spoke was shalem, which means wholeness or completeness. Taking that part of the Sermon on the Mount literally is probably responsible for a lot of mental anguish by believers who feel that unless they are "perfect" they will not experience God's love.

And what is that to this conversation?

This is either/or theology and does not speak to history.

Can you back that up?

Jesus was not a theologian. He was a preacher. The church needs to start taking him seriously. Either we discover the God who causes the sun to rise on both the evil and the good or we may have no more sunrises.

He was God incarnate, and knew all the truth of Himself. He did not need to figure out theology, He did not need to study God, He is God. Yet, I must ask, what is the point, in regard to this conversation?

 

[aikido7]

...Yet, I must ask, what is the point, in regard to this conversation?

Now we are talking past each other. I would like to distinguish between historical fact/probablitiy and theology. "Jesus is God, etc." is a faith statement. "Jesus was a first-century Galilean teacher, etc." is a statement of history.

I never wanted the "point" of this dialogue to result in a barrage of questions that don't really want an answer and a lot of insensitive, decidedly non-Christian "digs" and juvenille name-calling.

Admit you don't understand me or are frustrated. Please don't project it out and make it my fault.