"Since my other attempts have failed to get through, I'll go back to ""Fisking"".

Heqwm, continuing to make edits against consensus is unhelpful.
Consensus?  What planet are you on?  There have been only two other editors commenting, and one seems to agree that other sources are required, and the other agrees that ""Wikipedia can't accept an editors own personal interpretation of the Bible"".

I will not further address your points on civility. We're here to discuss issues, not people. At the same time, calling my responses ""ridiculous"" sours the debate.
Ah, so you won't discuss civility... except to criticize me.  Posting ridiculous arguments is what sours the debate.  I can't have a discussion with you if you insist on making up new definitions for words, such as ""plain reading"" meaning ""whatever I say it means"" and ""opinion"" meaning ""anything people disagree on"".

I have not labeled your views in such a way and am carefully avoiding this.
So declaring your interpretation ""plain meaning"" is not in any way conceited and a clear declaration that my position is without any merit?

I have ""cited the Bible like it directly says"".
Did you even read what I wrote?  Your editing of my words indicate that you didn't even bother trying to understand what I'm saying.

I have explained why even on plain reading one is not forced to accept that ""ten commandments"" there must refer to the ritual decalogue,
And I have said, again and again and again, that I am not saying that.  And yet you insist on misrepresenting my position.  
  

"