Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

You are a bit dated, Frank. Things have changed since the 3rd century AD, you know?

The new breed of anti-Empire religious nuts are called Muslims. They are the victims-cum-beneficiaries of the modern lions that the drones are...

I believe you are saying that Frank's confirmation bias is motivated by desire for license.

Oh! Perish the thought!

One of the things you will have to clean up in order to become the great Internet force that you apparently think you already are....is your inability to acknowledge when you screw up.

Sure! Like you can understand what Spendius is saying!

Frank Apisa wrote:

Sure! Like you can understand what Spendius is saying!

But Frank. You don't understand what I am saying . . . .

Frank Apisa wrote:

One of the things you will have to clean up in order to become the great Internet force that you apparently think you already are....is your inability to acknowledge when you screw up.

I'm not dated...you simply applied an inappropriate analogy. We were talking CHRISTIANS and lions...you brought up the drones.

Does that mean you consider the old Christians to be religious nuts?

neologist wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

One of the things you will have to clean up in order to become the great Internet force that you apparently think you already are....is your inability to acknowledge when you screw up.

This is one of those times when I do not understand what you are intending to say without saying anything. Any explanation you are willing to offer will be appreciated.

I believe you are saying that Frank's confirmation bias is motivated by desire for license.

Quote:

I'm not dated...you simply applied an inappropriate analogy. We were talking CHRISTIANS and lions...you brought up the drones.

I brought up drones because you asked why I was not asking for more lions. Lions are now a protected species, and totally obsolete as an ideological or military tool. So are war horses and elephants, BTW.

Why do you think my analogy was inappropriate?

Quote:

Does that mean you consider the old Christians to be religious nuts?

That's certainly how they were seen by classic, pagan Romans... and if those had won the fight, we would have inherited that view. For better or for worse, they chose to fight Christianity with arms that only strengthened the new faith, and they lost.

Frank Apisa wrote:

neologist wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

One of the things you will have to clean up in order to become the great Internet force that you apparently think you already are....is your inability to acknowledge when you screw up.

This is one of those times when I do not understand what you are intending to say without saying anything. Any explanation you are willing to offer will be appreciated.

Just an observation of your flawless reasoning, Frank.

Quote:

I believe you are saying that Frank's confirmation bias is motivated by desire for license.

Bearing in mind his age I think it may be more of a habit conditioned at a time when such a consideration was uppermost in his thoughts.

Why he is fearful of attacking the Church on the basis that it's restrictions on such license are unreasonable and unnatural in this day and age I cannot imagine. There are, after all, many academic sources to cite in support of such a position. Although most of the ones I have read take the same escape hatch as rl's man did and have the theology on ignore.

I'm obsessed with you Frank. I think it's your beard that does it.

Take another look at what you wrote that I called inapproriate. You should be able to figure it out.

Is that a "yes?"

More of a don't know, really. Pros and cons... You should be proud of me not making a call when I don't think I can. :-)

You should be proud of me not making a call when I don't think I can. :-)

Are you able to make a call on whether there is a possible existence of fairies and elves?

Yes I can. Anything else you want to know?