Dr. "Doctor Sex" Sex on Nostr: >that isn't what I said Verbatim? Sure, I didn't quote your word to the precise ...
>that isn't what I said
Verbatim? Sure, I didn't quote your word to the precise letter, but please explain to me how that post (see attached picture) should be interpreted then, because at least three seperate people, all fluent in English, have read it as such.
>He didn't point that out. He posted a picture of Christ, with an implication.
Yes, the "implication" that Christ did not have biological children. Unless you are some sort of weird Gnostic type, I'm sure you would be inclined to agree.
>and because of the foolishness of thinking it a valid rebuttal to posit that somehow Christ wouldn't be a serious thinker on Christ...
Right, the point is that you said people who don't have children should not be considered serious thinkers with regards to Christ (you insist that isn't what you've said, but up to this point you have been either unwilling or incapable of explaining how else it's supposed to be interpreted; feel free to change this at any time though.) Nobody disagrees it would be ridiculous to insinuate Christ would not be a "serious thinker" on himself, which is why it was brought up against your charge that someone with no biological children of his own can't be taken seriously as a thinker on Christ.
>He's going full clown in the quoted thread
Can you provide specific examples of this? A screenshot of said clownish behavior perhaps? It shouldn't be that hard for you to do, since you seem awfully confident in this.
>He is doing so again here.
Ditto, as stated above
Verbatim? Sure, I didn't quote your word to the precise letter, but please explain to me how that post (see attached picture) should be interpreted then, because at least three seperate people, all fluent in English, have read it as such.
>He didn't point that out. He posted a picture of Christ, with an implication.
Yes, the "implication" that Christ did not have biological children. Unless you are some sort of weird Gnostic type, I'm sure you would be inclined to agree.
>and because of the foolishness of thinking it a valid rebuttal to posit that somehow Christ wouldn't be a serious thinker on Christ...
Right, the point is that you said people who don't have children should not be considered serious thinkers with regards to Christ (you insist that isn't what you've said, but up to this point you have been either unwilling or incapable of explaining how else it's supposed to be interpreted; feel free to change this at any time though.) Nobody disagrees it would be ridiculous to insinuate Christ would not be a "serious thinker" on himself, which is why it was brought up against your charge that someone with no biological children of his own can't be taken seriously as a thinker on Christ.
>He's going full clown in the quoted thread
Can you provide specific examples of this? A screenshot of said clownish behavior perhaps? It shouldn't be that hard for you to do, since you seem awfully confident in this.
>He is doing so again here.
Ditto, as stated above