>>
>
>I was estimated at running. If you never said christianity was
>about "that type" then what was the purpose of bringing up the
>"divorcing porn lovin' christians"?

Because there are plenty of Christians like that, including some on this board who go hard on topics like this, then are all up in a post about a porn star. "divorcing porn lovin' christians" applies to Christians who are divorced and/or porn lovin', not to all Christians. It's pretty basic reading comprehension.

>
>
>>>
>>>How many times has OKP bent over backwards to say terrorism
>>>isn't all that islam is about? Is that a white priviledge
>>>equivilent also? Shouldn't I be able to call out muslims
>>about
>>>the terrorist muslims?
>>
>>So it's ok for you to talk about terrorism, but not me to
>talk
>>about some Christians being hypocrites. That is a white
>>privilege equivalent.
>>
>>>
>
>I was saying for OKP to say 'terrorist muslims aren't
>significant in islam', why can't I say 'hypocritcal christians
>are not significant in christianity'?

You can say that all you like, but it doesn't have any bearing on what I said or your response that I was apparently a Christian once and have changed so much.


>
>You are calling different states of existence a grade. You've
>already said there are christian who are hypocritcal (and
>since you have recently state that isn't totally what all
>christian are) then there are, in your estimation, some
>christian WHO ARE NOT HYPOCRITICAL.
>
>IS THAT GRADING TOO? SOME HYPOCRITICAL AND SOME NOT?

The way you put it yes. You're the one who brought up "extremely flawed". If that's not a grading up from flawed I don't know what is. A sinner is a sinner, and this still doesn't actually address what I said, rather than you conjuring up something so that you can have a retort.


>>
>
>This is a group of flawed christians. I already admitted there
>are flawed christians. Just like many on OKP say there are
>some non-terrorist muslims.
>
>Are you going to emphasized flawed christians? Is it wrong to
>emphasize terrorist muslims?
>

Wow. "Many on OKP say there are some non-terrorist muslims". You can't come to that conclusion yourself? People say it but, what, you don't believe it so you'll only vouch for the fact that other people say it? That's very prejudicial.

There's nothing wrong with talking about terrorists when it's appropriate. Bringing it up here in this fashion is weird and looks prejudicial.


>
>I was just struck by a message from someone who I had thought
>to be a christian that was looking for negativity about
>christians.

Because I should only be looking for negativity about non-Christians? And that makes me not a Christian? What's so bad about calling out hypocrisy in Christians?

>
>I really couldn't communicate with you until I got your frame
>of reference straightened out. I literally was shocked at what
>I perceived to be a big change.