Jesus Camp closed

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I know the pericope you're alluding to. The sentence you posted was so grammatically horrid I couldn't make out what your point was.

Somehow, Mr. Snotnose, the other posters in the thread easily accomplished that task.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
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.

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 no1marauder
Somehow, Mr. Snotnose, the other posters in the thread easily accomplished that task.

The other poster (singular).

Originally posted by no1marauder
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.

He speaks quite directly when He wants to (and even the tough parables are explained for those who couldn't get it).

Originally posted by lucifershammer
He speaks quite directly when He wants to (and even the tough parables are explained for those who couldn't get it).

So he didn't want to in this case. The message is pretty clear to the non-dense.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The other poster (singular).

There were a few others. That still puts you on the left side of the Bell Curve.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The other poster (singular).

I didn't reply directly to that post, but I found it easy to understand, despite English not being my first language.

Originally posted by no1marauder
So he didn't want to in this case. The message is pretty clear to the non-dense.

Of course it is. But which one are you?

Originally posted by Nordlys
I didn't reply directly to that post, but I found it easy to understand, despite English not being my first language.

He's edited it since to make it more coherent. Read the extant version at the time I replied.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
He's edited it since to make it more coherent. Read the extant version at the time I replied.

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.

Originally posted by no1marauder
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.

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 saying -- especially since you were using sarcasm (remember how that works? You say one thing but imply the opposite).

Originally posted by lucifershammer
He's edited it since to make it more coherent. Read the extant version at the time I replied.

I 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.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
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).

You really are an insufferable a-hole.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You really are an insufferable a-hole.

The feeling is mutual.

Cheerio,

LH

Originally posted by Nordlys
I 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.

Which is?