Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, of course. However, a man can have sexual relations and love his wife as God commands without lusting after her. Don't you believe that was possible for Jesus?

Que whodey with another joke about how married sex is always free of lust. 😵

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Que whodey with another joke about how married sex is always free of lust. 😵

I just got this feeling that it would be good for you to look up the word "lust" in a good English dictionary.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Please answer the question FMF, have I anywhere claimed that my behaviour on this forum is synonymous with Pauls?

Yes previous page (page 3) you said in response to being accused of "cherry picking"

Originally posted by robbie carrobie:
"Rather interestingly the ancient Greeks also termed Paul a 'seed picker', and yet he managed despite their criticisms to pen many of the Biblical books that nourish a Christians spirituality."

Clearly you posted this to compare Paul with yourself. To deny it is childish and dishonest.

Originally posted by divegeester
Yes previous page (page 3) you said in response to being accused of "cherry picking"

Originally posted by robbie carrobie:
"Rather interestingly the ancient Greeks also termed Paul a 'seed picker', and yet he managed despite their criticisms to pen many of the Biblical books that nourish a Christians spirituality."

Clearly you posted this to compare Paul with yourself. To deny it is childish and dishonest.

No i posted it to demonstrate that the accusations were similar, I have not compared myself to Paul and if you can find any evidence other than that which you can fabricate from the confines of a cynical mind, let us know. In fact if you read the post I even mentioned why I posted it, for the edification of the reader, but its ok, I understand that you would rather fabricate lies than acknowledge the truth. Its like your lord and master FMF, the way you operate for like him you seem utterly incapable of divorcing the content from the persona, sure signs of a troll at work.

As for honesty, I will not be lectured about it from a man who has dishonestly posted excerpts from third party sites, out of context, from articles that he has not even read. You simply cannot be trusted.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No i posted it to demonstrate that the accusations were similar, I have not compared myself to Paul and if you can find any evidence other than that which you can fabricate from the confines of a cynical mind, let us know. In fact if you read the post I even mentioned why I posted it, for the edification of the reader, but its ok, I understand that ...[text shortened]... seem utterly incapable of divorcing the content from the persona, sure signs of a troll at work.

How could you have been comparing the criticism of the behaviour of both you and Paul and yet somehow insist that you were not comparing the behaviour [of both you and Paul] that drew the criticism [...that you were comparing]? I don't think it's even possible.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No i posted it to demonstrate that the accusations were similar, I have not compared myself to Paul and if you can find any evidence other than that which you can fabricate from the confines of a cynical mind, let us know. In fact if you read the post I even mentioned why I posted it, for the edification of the reader, but its ok, I understand that ...[text shortened]... y sites, out of context, from articles that he has not even read. You simply cannot be trusted.

I'm not lecturing you, I'm calling you dishonest.

You posted what you posted and it is a comparison of the criticism of Paul and what he went on to do, and of the criticism against you; it is demonstrably obvious that you are comparing yourself to Paul.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
In fact if you read the post I even mentioned why I posted it...

I did read it robbie, but as usual you edited the post multiple times (5 in this case) and added the "reason why you posted" retrospectively.

Originally posted by divegeester
I'm not lecturing you, I'm calling you dishonest.

You posted what you posted and it is a comparison of the criticism of Paul and what he went on to do, and of the criticism against you; it is demonstrably obvious that you are comparing yourself to Paul.

and yet you cannot provide a shred of evidence that I have done so other than the fabricated insinuations, a product of your own mind. The only thing that is demonstrable is your willingness to believe your own propaganda.

Originally posted by FMF
How could you have been comparing [b]the criticism of the behaviour of both you and Paul and yet somehow insist that you were not comparing the behaviour [of both you and Paul] that drew the criticism [...that you were comparing]? I don't think it's even possible.[/b]

and yet we are still waiting to see how you managed to construe that citing two similar accusations construes itself into someone comparing their behaviour to someone else, i dont even think that its possible to do that either expect in the mind of a cynical individual.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
and yet you cannot provide a shred of evidence that I have done so other than the fabricated insinuations, a product of your own mind. The only thing that is demonstrable is your willingness to believe your own propaganda.

The post you wrote is self evident robbie.

Originally posted by divegeester
I did read it robbie, but as usual you edited the post multiple times (5 in this case) and added the "reason why you posted" retrospectively.

and it stated what it did when you read it, did it not? making your assertions nothing more than the fabrications of a dishonest and cynical mind. Clearly you cannot be trusted to convey the sentiments of even a simple post without insinuating that it means something other than it does. After all as someone who can take the situation of a contributors ageing parents and use it to badger and chide them from the site, i dont think we shall be taking lessons in morality from you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
and yet we are still waiting to see how you managed to construe that citing two similar accusations construes itself into someone comparing their behaviour to someone else, i dont even think that its possible to do that either expect in the mind of a cynical individual.

Getting back to the OP, why is it forbidden that JC could have been married and his genes still extant in the population?

Originally posted by divegeester
The post you wrote is self evident robbie.

oh its self evident meaning that you dont actually have any evidence other than what you have fabricated with your mind, thanks, when you do find some let me know.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Getting back to the OP, why is it forbidden that JC could have been married and his genes still extant in the population?

thankyou these trolls know no bounds of decency, not content to slobber and drool their way through the forums they must hijack every thread with needless irrelevancies, a product of their cynical minds, so to your question.

It was forbidden for Christ to marry not for genetic reasons, although its interesting in itself (he would have been genetically perfect) but because of scriptural reasons, for you see he became a father in a figurative sense, in that everyone exercising faith in his sacrifice would get life. So he kind of forsook being a husband and a father for scriptural reasons.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
and yet we are still waiting to see how you managed to construe that citing two similar accusations construes itself into someone comparing their behaviour to someone else, i dont even think that its possible to do that either expect in the mind of a cynical individual.

I don't think it makes any sense for you to now claim that you were comparing only the criticism whilst (somehow) not comparing what the criticism was for.