madhatter85
Transhumanist
oh says the madhatter. not me
not me, Scriptures.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
oh says the madhatter. not me
madhatter, you say "when in doubt do without" pretty sums it up. if you have to wonder "is this "REALLY" OK?? it's best to leave it alone.
i thought the lds mission is "perfect the saints". not to turn away those that are imperfect.
advice, but not spiritually worthy.
btw, post 82 scripture?
It's impossible to know who your remarks are addressed to when you fail to use the quote function. Your first statement appears to me directed to me, but your second one appears to be addressed to Madhatter. It makes responding kind of difficult.NEVERTHELESS, my point is made
its easy to use someone elses views and adopt them as your own (puppeteering), especially when they are the mainstream to ones affilliation AND UNCONTESTED.
there's nothing wrong nor unfaithful about forming your OWN views, be they may not be mainstream to the lds church.
Actually, the post I just quoted (in my post #89) was from your post #78. It didn't directly follow MadHatter's post; it followed my post #77.duh, it directly followed his post. no reply in between. one on one. if another interjected, i addressed them by name beginning my reply.
Sniper, you and I see all posts in the same order. Post #77 is mine. Post #78 is yours. It is pointless for you to try to tell me that post #78 directly followed any other post than the one it actually followed.those are YOUR posts out of order.
I'm not. I've asked you repeatedly not to debate on the LDS DIR forum. You continue to do so anyway. I've asked you repeatedly to use the quote function. You refuse to do so. I don't see this as being vindictive on my part at all, but something tells me we're about to get into an argument as to what "vindictive" means.why you so vendictive toward me?
You said it directly followed "his" post. I'm not a "him" and MadHatter is, so I thought you were referring to "him."as i said, my post 78 directly follows and adresses your post 77.
Well, you sort of seem to be debating MadHatter, who evidently doesn't know that it's against forum rules to debate in a DIR forum any more than you do. All I'm trying to do is figure out which of your remarks are addressed to me and which are addressed to Madhatter. So far, I haven't been able to do so, since you are either incapable of using the quote function or just too stubborn to do so when asked.btw, it takes two to debate, im one, whoe's the other?
Well, I'm glad to finally know who you were talking to. What a process! By the way, see the little button at the bottom right-hand side of this post that says "Quote"? Try clicking on it and then posting your remarks at the end of the post that pops up. You will be pleasantly surprised at what happens. It's like magic!!! :yes:the last six posts have been exclusively btwx you and i. before that, mh and i. when you made your debate comment, it was referencing "our" previous debate.
good scripture, but not pertinent to the subject.
try again
Well, I hope you draw better than you write.thanks, i'll try drawing pictures in the future. lol