Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
This is pathetic. I simply quoted what you said. It is totally obvious why I think they are contradictory. I am going to cut them down to the essence. I am not changing what they say in any way, or changing their meaning.
|
Bullshit, Spanky. You are editing these quotes to delete language (see italics) that says exactly what I keep telling you I meant:
- "I wasn't offended by Serrano. I'm sure others were, but I'm not sure I understand the basis for their offense, other than that they felt disrespected and marginalized. That's a little different than a situation where the very act of depicting God (or G-d, as some of my MOT friends call him) is blasphemous.
"I understand why (some) Christians take offense. But it doesn't have to do with Christian doctrine, so far as I know. Want to cite chapter and verse to me?"
"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
The image of The Prophet was blasphemous to the religion of Islam. The image of Mary, Mother of God with elephant feces thrown all over it was blasphemous to religion(s) as well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's stick to Christianity. What makes that blasphemous?"
Give me a fucking break. If you were really trying to understand what I'm saying, you wouldn't keep editing this stuff so it doesn't make any sense.
For about the fourth fucking time: Anyone might be offended by a depiction of a religious figure in urine or dung. But no Christian doctrine that I'm aware of specifically makes that blasphemous.
