[MortMan]

Of course we disagree. That’s OK. What I am saying goes against the status quo, popular culture, mode-o-day conventional wisdom, and like many in the past who have done the same, understand that people don’t necessarily like new, innovative ideas that challenge long-held, but unexamined or unquestioned beliefs.

This is a prime example of my point that you do not present a rationale, but rather provide the assertion as self-evident. Your statement that others' beliefs are long-held but unexamined or unquestioned is an attempt to cast the opposing opinion as uninformed, which consequently means that yours is the only informed opinion.

The example you cited has long been taught as Christ's repudiation of the legalistic punishment meted out by the church, as opposed to the government. It is, further, unrelated to the crime of murder.

It is not that I disagree with your answer, but rather that your answer is insufficient to the question, and the envelope in which you deliver your answer is made of unsupported assertions about other people's state of mind, including my own.

[PapaNew]

Your response rambles and you are unclear about what reason or rationale you are looking for that I haven’t already provided