I'm focusing on the first part of your statement which you attributed to meriweather and I, that the bible is not to be taken literally. Is that what I really said?
And I'm choosing to focus on the part of the statement in which you lied and then wrongly accused me, Christian.
That may be your position and you are free to state that as your position but that's not what you did. You stated it as my position and that is false and it is a lie.
I don't have anything to walk back because I never said what you claimed I said. You are lying and you are a liar. And that isn't a personal attack. That is a factual statement. You are lying and you are a liar.
Like I said before, if you think I have violated the rules then you should report it.
Fair enough Christian. If you want to characterize the 'big fish' story with a man in his belly as not rhetoric and allegory, then just do so. I'm not stuck on what you want to call it as long as you don't go back to square one and try to call it literal fact.
I'm not the one being contrary by misstating you. You are the one being contrary by REPEATEDLY misstating me.
But some passages are. Again... it's like you have absolutely no concept of the different literary styles employed by the authors of the books. Maybe you should google it to learn what that means and how it is applied to interpreting passages.
I think you should keep referring to me as Christian. First of all, I'm pretty proud of it. Secondly, it shows the contempt you hold for Christians. You don't do that with people of other faiths, do you?
I didn't lie and I didn't wrongly accuse you. I think this exchange has proven it.
Good. Then we have noting on which to disagree. Or at least I haven't. We'll see about you when you get that bullring thing together.
Given your history of habitually misstating me I suspect you will do it again. I have little doubt that you won't make a post claiming I said the bible should not be read literally. You've already done it like three times even after I corrected you.
No matter what you didn't say or did say, we had arrived at an understanding that the bibles must not be taken literally on many of it's claims.
No. We didn't. This is you misstating me again. Would you care to try again?
Again, we are not in agreement. If you read the bible and conclude that it teaches and condones violence then you are reading the bible wrong.
This seems like something we should debate in the bull ring. Because you don't understand the context of these accounts.
Tons. Because none of it is rhetoric. That's your word, not mine. You use the word rhetoric to imply regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content. I couldn't disagree more with that assessment. I use the words allegory and embellishment.
Then stop pretending that the bibles mean something other than what is stated, if the meaning can't be understood by anybody but a spirit!
I'm fine with your using 'embellishment' instead of rhetoric. I'll use rhetoric or embellishment in instances where they mean the same thing.
hamdardislamicus.com.pk
You shouldn't try to tell me what the word means to me!
