Would They Die for a Lie?

[Drich]

-or, for that matter, be told not to seek them out for the same.  

Pliny is one of the few sources we have for early christianity...and as such christers need it...but it argues against the establishment legend contained in magic book and christian folklore from start to finish.

what a typically 'gae' statement. just a complete jab with no supporting quotations or examples. like we are to simply take your word that pliny's letter contradicts the Gospel account. When in fact it was not 6 weeks ago you yourself were claiming there were no 1st century accounts of Chrisisdom, outside the bible. then I introduced this letter to you so you would stop pretending there was nothing in recorded history that pointed to the existence of Christ before the 3rd century. (as witnessed by your snarky note: "As christers need this letter.") yet here we are just a month or so later and you are commenting as if you are now the leading authority on this letter?!?! Bologna! I say nothing in pliny's letter contradicts any portion of the gospels nor any of the epistles. (the whole of the NT/Magic book)

From the officials ignorance of christianity a full 70 years after the alleged events, to the nature of christian leadership...

Ah, no. Pliny's whole letter is to check in with Rome to assure himself that he is meeting the current expectation/treatment of Christians which points to a standing decree.
That's said in the bible the Christian falling out with rome did not happen till mid to late 60's AD to early 70s. (when they ordered the execution of the apostles which btw did happen in the mid to late 60's AD and even then the focus of rome was on Christian leadership and not the church.)

Once the first gen apostles were gone Rome found out the church was well established and remained, which prompted rome to up the anti in attacking known/openly not 'gae' members. If you take these two things into consideration Pliny's letter could have been at the very beginning or even towards the middle of this campaign. yes it was 70 years after chirst but again Rome did not have a problem with the church till towards the end of the century when this letter was written.

 (deaconesses?).... to the tolerance shown by the roman apparatus both within and without the proceedings.   One can hear the palpable sigh as they're given the option to escape death by mere formality..three times.  It goes so far as to provide a resounding counterargument to christian apologetics, specifically in regards to the notion of why, if christian myth weren't true, did no one say so at the time?  "Excessive and depraved superstition", anyone?

what a non-gay response...

What if the church gave openly gay people 3 chances to deny their life style and if by the third they did not recant or refute/confess their sin, the church executed the openly gay person. what if they like Rome went after women and children as well as the very old?

Would you then say the church is persecuting gay people? what if the church gave 3 chances to repent? That's Gae logic for you though isn't it.. when the church has been given three chances to deny Christ, and then executed it is ok. However put the church in a reversing role to his fellow gays.. then it becomes persecution!
Again calling bologna on your fake morality, and hypocritical logic!!