>>>
>
>I'm going to take the effort to break down your reply #85:
>
>
>>LOL at the divorced, kids out of
>>wedlock, and/or porn lovin Christians"
>
>
>that's nothing to laugh about. At all
>

Maybe not, but that's how ridiculous I find it.

>
>>So busy wringing their hands
>>over their prejudice and
>>trying to dress it up as righteous
>>anger. Funnily enough they're
>>usually down for Cosby despite
>>his serial cheating on his wife.
>
>
>From this and the previous examined statement, you're saying
>there are some porn lovin christians (presumably in this post
>being) "prejudiced" and having "righteous anger".
>
>This seems to be a comment on those christians who are
>exhibiting these traits in this post.

Yes.

>
>
>>Start holding them to task for
>>those things and watch them
>>cry about persecution, just
>>as they delight in likewise
>>'persecuting' those who don't
>>meet their double standard of morality.
>
>
>This seems to be an analysis of those christians in this post
>further.
>
>>Hypocrites.
>
>Some more evaluations of those christians in this post.

Yes.

>
>
>uh, overall, I got a very negative evaluation of some
>christians from those statements.
>

Yes.

>
>and to analyze my reply #91:
>
>
>>either I'm way off....but I thought you were christian at
>one
>>point"
>>
>
>I don't expect christians to LOL and be all "their" and "them"
>about fellow christians ("so busy wringing their", "start
>holding them").
>
>Seems like you were putting A LOT of separation between you
>and some christians.
>
>
>>If you were, you've made quite the change.
>>
>
>
>I was sure most christians would not LOL and "their" and
>"them" fellow christians.

So because I typed LOL, I'm no longer a Christian. Better to SMH? That's an exclusive an legalistic view of Christianity IMO.

But you know, well done. I underestimated you. You stuck around. Kudos. I apologise for underestimating you.