spin

Gosh, Jn 8:48, huh? How trivializing. One of the thorniest problems in understanding early Judaism is the relationship between the Jews and the Samaritans and yet you so subserviently kowtow to the Jewish polemic on the matter, forgetting about the good Samaritan and the Samaritan woman at the well. Being accused of being a Samaritan, indeed! Worse than being accused of being a Democrat in Texas.

Funnily enough though you maintain an anti-Semitic bias even here, evincing your faux outrage of the "vicious little shites". Bloody christ killers.

But you do. You have an impressive fluency, don't you.

sotto voce

Do come back when you have something to say. It's all spin.

spin

You've confused "something to say" with "something you want to hear".

I can see you've been working on your repartee.

sotto voce

No. No, no. Listen. When you have something to say you will have a strange thing called a fact. Not loony ideas, or personal comment. The whole point about the 'good Samaritan' is that if a Samaritan was a neighbour to a Jew, every mother's child was. It was like telling the Ku Klux Klan that they must invite black people to dinner. As every schoolchild knows. Or used to.

So get yerself beyond school level, dear chap. That's what I want to hear.

No work required, old chum. If you will present your own demise on a plate....

spin

You have shown no aptitude for recognizing, let alone dealing with, facts, so to have you trying to sound serious about them only causes amusement.

Quite the eisegete. Yes, that "Not loony ideas, or personal comment" brims with self-irony.

You just want to learn what it's like beyond school.

When someone is just so dull as to try making fun of a member's name, they really need to work more on their repartee.

The only thing that gets presented to you on a platter is yours and you should try to sit on more often. It would be safer.

sotto voce

I suppose it would, if buggery is to be as free and easy as seems to be ordained by the real message of ancient religion.

spin

You being a believer in an ancient religion, you could be right. I was more interested in you not having it presented to you on a platter.

sotto voce

So is buggery wrong?

Well, yes, you do seem to have jumped into this discussion for merely personal reasons. But the Samaritans, as it happens, do have interest, I'm sure you'll agree. They have links with Ishtar, aka Easter, so beloved of skeptics, and possibly Christmas, to whom atheism is even more devoted. This was through that splendid king Ahab, and his lovely wife Jezebel, who nevertheless came to a sticky end, of course. Now the southern kingdom certainly wasn't perfect, but it didn't whoop up the decadence the way the north did.

spin

You seem quite interested in it for some reason.

Oh certainly. The problem concerns how the schism really happened. The temple at Gerizim was considered significant to the writer(s) of 2 Macc 6:2. What happened has been obfuscated because we only have one side of the story and that went through the tradition mill. What we know about the Samaritans is really very little.

I don't know where you got this weird stuff, but what follows has nothing to do with history, being merely a recital of bible literalism....

sotto voce

There you are, stephan, spin says that buggery is wrong. Perhaps you can offer him enlightenment.

Weird? Come now:

'For since Easter I've not been the same.' spin, 18.05.'12