>>16493984You are literally factually wrong at this point.
Check the flags and the ids I did never say
>>had to be interpreted allegorically and not literallyYou are thinking of a different anon.
However it is literal schizophrenia I suspect.
>I have proved myself correct using the Biblical examples/comparison you requested.No. I started talking about Matthew and what it says you did go like a retard
>REEE muh context for Matthew 5I demanded you prove this context that makes the commandments in Matthew 5 ironic jokes or something. And you failed this and are now pretending Matthew 5 does not exist.
Everyone can check the chain of conversation.
So want to now talk about matthew 5 or will you like a christian/vampire run away when the atheists open the bible ?
