StewpidLoser said:
I didn't say "You're wrong!" to you or anyone else in this thread.
That's right. You weren't saying anything. Which was what made me mad.
StewpidLoser said:
Well, since I am not likely to ever marry, I'm truly glad that I'm not in your church.... the Jesus I know has already secured a place for me just the way I am.
Well, I'm glad that you're confident in your faith. You can go ahead and say "yeah, riiiight
" again, but it's the truth.
StewpidLoser said:
Again, taken out of context, that one single verse can be interpreted any way you want. But when I read it in the context in which it's written, the man and woman who are married need to both be living for Christ in order to be in the Lord. It says nothing about single people being less worthy or unable to be in Christ or not being able to be with God for eternity.
Ahhh, now we're getting somewhere.
What's the context that makes you think you're right?
[qutoe=StewpidLoser]Sooooooo..... how does your doctrine's explanation of families and marriages lasting for eternity translate into people who are not married not being in Christ.... or is this just YOUR interpretation of a single verse taken out of context?[/quote]Once again, what's the context of the verse that you think I took it out of? As for my doctrine's explanation of families etc., people who aren't married by a priesthood holder in the temple won't get resurected to the highest glory, where they will live with the Father, but they will get resurected into a glory that is definitely better than anything around here.
StewpidLoser said:
Just because I don't respond to it doesn't mean I'm ignoring it.
No, it was the fact that you
did respond to one post and didn't bother responding to the rebuttle that made me think you were ignoring it.
StewpidLoser said:
Just as I haven't ignored the many other posts in this and in other threads. I'm one of those who tends to read a whole pile more than I post. You're out of line telling me what I looked at and what I didn't and what I'm thinking.
You're right. I was out of line, because you may have actually looked at it.
[qutoe=StewpidLoser]So? This is a debate, not a discussion.[/quote]Yes.
StewpidLoser said:
I had no intent to participate in this debate/discussion. Does that mean I'm not allowed to ask questions or make comments?
No, but it does mean that if you make questions or comments, people are going to assume you want a debate, so if people actually try to debate with you, don't get so offended.
StewpidLoser said:
Your 'rebuttal' of "Did you read people's replies? Because it would be helpful if you would adress the replies, instead of us having to re-post them, and then you adress them." didn't do much to further the 'discussion' either. Nor did your attack on me.
That wasn't the rebuttle. The rebuttle was to the person who originally posted those quotes. I think it might have been glasgowchick. That's what the rebuttle was.
