How about a new Council of Nicea?

[Mare Tranquillity]

LOL.

I have done nothing except educate you for the longest time, it seems. You really need to be more respectful of your betters. Oh, and you need to stay away from dung. Your posts have become particularly odious.

Betters? You're the one who can't figure out a 4 word commandment and the one with a feces fetish.

 

[numinus]

Betters? You're the one who can't figure out a 4 word commandment

It could very well be a 1000 word commandment and it would just as easily amount to your nonsense without a context.

In almost all the arguments you inevitably find yourself into, you have been ROUNDLY REFUTED. So, yes, you need to be more respectful of your BETTERS.

and the one with a feces fetish.

LMAO.

Am I the one who brought up eating feces?

Am I the one looking to legalize a marriage that would inevitably bring the intending parties in close proximity to feces?

Am I the one in the company of dung beetles?

I don't think so.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

It could very well be a 1000 word commandment and it would just as easily amount to your nonsense without a context.In almost all the arguments you inevitably find yourself into, you have been ROUNDLY REFUTED. So, yes, you need to be more respectful of your BETTERS.LMAO.Am I the one who brought up eating feces?
Am I the one looking to legalize a marriage that would inevitably bring the intending parties in close proximity to feces?Am I the one in the company of dung beetles?I don't think so.

Knowing your feces fetish, I have tried to write to you in a way that would speak to your proclivities.

I doubt that anyone who can't figure out "LOVE OTHERS AS YOURSELF" can truthfully accuse me of having my arguments soundly refuted, nor can such a person claim truthfully to be anyone's "better".

It's okay for you to have a feces fetish, the Bible indicates that God has one too, so you're in good company.

 

[Dr.Who]

I doubt that anyone who can't figure out "LOVE OTHERS AS YOURSELF" can truthfully accuse me of having my arguments soundly refuted, nor can such a person claim truthfully to be anyone's "better".

I seem to remember you saying that "LOVE OTHERS AS YOURSELF" is not a sexual thing.

Yet in another thread you just argued that Jonathan must have had a sexual relation with David because Jonathan loved David "as himself"

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I seem to remember you saying that "LOVE OTHERS AS YOURSELF" is not a sexual thing.

Yet in another thread you just argued that Jonathan must have had a sexual relation with David because Jonathan loved David "as himself"

Why do you do this, Who? You know the Bible doesn't say that. I didn't base my comments about their relationship on either of them saying that they loved the other "as themselves". It was stripping naked, pledging love, lying on the ground kissing... etc. that led me to the conclusion. Read the scripture and you'll see what I mean. You look foolish when you make arguments that are palpably false.

 

[Dr.Who]

Why do you do this, Who? You know the Bible doesn't say that. I didn't base my comments about their relationship on either of them saying that they loved the other "as themselves". It was stripping naked, pledging love, lying on the ground kissing... etc. that led me to the conclusion. Read the scripture and you'll see what I mean. You look foolish when you make arguments that are palpably false.

In that other thread where you argued that they had a sexual love I tore that ludicrous notion apart. I'll see what you have to say when I get to it.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

In that other thread where you argued that they had a sexual love I tore that ludicrous notion apart. I'll see what you have to say when I get to it.

Saying "no sir, no sir!" is hardly tearing my argument apart. All you did was substitute your "interpretation" for what is actually written by God in the Bible.

 

[Dr.Who]

Saying "no sir, no sir!" is hardly tearing my argument apart. All you did was substitute your "interpretation" for what is actually written by God in the Bible.

Actually both what you said and what I said were interpretations.

Just that yours was stretched and illogical and mine was not.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Actually both what you said and what I said were interpretations.

Just that yours was stretched and illogical and mine was not.

That is YOUR interpretation. The quotes from the Bible are there for anyone to read. It may be that you get naked with your male friends and swear undying love, and knit your souls together, and lie on the ground kissing. You may even state that your love for them surpasses the love of women, buy if you do those things you will have the Bible-beaters down on you like white on rice.

 

[Dr.Who]

That is YOUR interpretation. The quotes from the Bible are there for anyone to read. It may be that you get naked with your male friends and swear undying love, and knit your souls together, and lie on the ground kissing. You may even state that your love for them surpasses the love of women, buy if you do those things you will have the Bible-beaters down on you like white on rice.

Yep, the passages are there for anyone to read and I encourage all to read them as I am confident that any reasonable reader will conclude as I did. What you write seems to be the result of an inability to see things without a gay agenda. Most people do not share you agenda and care so little about the matter that they will be able to see objectively.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Actually both what you said and what I said were interpretations.

Just that yours was stretched and illogical and mine was not.

Mine was closer to what was actually written. Is your love of your male friends "wonderful, passing the love of women"? You don't like what is actually WRITTEN in the Bible, don't feel bad, lots of people have felt the same way. Joseph Smith set out to fix the Bible by rewriting it, you use a modern, "fine tuned" version too I note.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Yep, the passages are there for anyone to read and I encourage all to read them as I am confident that any reasonable reader will conclude as I did. What you write seems to be the result of an inability to see things without a gay agenda. Most people do not share you agenda and care so little about the matter that they will be able to see objectively.

Most Christians were in denial about slavery and the subjugation of women too. Nobody even thought about those subjects until someone with an "agenda" pointed out how wrong the Christians had been. Your religious history is littered with the broken bodies of those who "care so little" despite the commandments of Jesus.

 

[Dr.Who]

Most Christians were in denial about slavery and the subjugation of women too. Nobody even thought about those subjects until someone with an "agenda" pointed out how wrong the Christians had been. Your religious history is littered with the broken bodies of those who "care so little" despite the commandments of Jesus.

Yet again and on another topic you just get it wrong. I'll include this one with the goatherder and the flat earth comments.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Yet again and on another topic you just get it wrong. I'll include this one with the goatherder and the flat earth comments.

Oh yeah, I got it all wrong, that's why it took so long for women to get legal rights, that's why the Christian church campaigned against women's right to own property because, they said, it would prevent men from controlling their wives and would destroy the institution of marriage. Denial is working good for you, Who.

 

[numinus]

Knowing your feces fetish, I have tried to write to you in a way that would speak to your proclivities.

But you are the one arguing for a LOVE that inevitably brings people in close proximity to feces, not me.

I doubt that anyone who can't figure out "LOVE OTHERS AS YOURSELF" can truthfully accuse me of having my arguments soundly refuted, nor can such a person claim truthfully to be anyone's "better".

But I gave you the CORRECT interpretation of 'love others as yourself', an interpretation that unfortunately for you (and fortunately for the rest of us) DOES NOT require being anywhere near feces.

It's okay for you to have a feces fetish, the Bible indicates that God has one too, so you're in good company.

A person who thoroughly enjoys his state of ignorance, like a pig besotted with its own $hit, would most likely see $hit in everything -- including the bible.

It really is just a figment of your imagination brought about by -- guess what? -- all those years of obsessing with homo a$$ and existential contemplation of dung beetles.

Duh?