I refer to a scripture supporting a discussion I am having with someone else.
You correct me, saying I am quoting the scripture wrong.
I respond that we are both correct, and that of the three times the story is told, one agrees with your statement, and two agree with mine.
You then accuse me of not being able to read the Bible. In your reply you quote the references from my post, then spam a dozen other scriptures that are not from the original story.
I respond by fully quoting the scriptures under original discussion, showing that they say what I stated that they say.
Now you are stating that every verse you posted contained the word "cross." Indeed, they do. But whatever does that have to do with my original reference, that you corrected incorrectly?
So, once again, I now accuse you of arguing just for the sake of arguing. Since I am a mormon, I must not be able to read the Bible, when clearly, you are just blathering in a shotgun method.
If you want to discuss the cross and its symbolic relationship to the sacrifice of Christ, go for it. But don't accuse me of mis-quoting the Bible, then when shown that I wasn't mis-quoting, change the topic instead of apologizing.
Welcome to FR- internet public square. ee moderators rule for the 'thin skinned'.
So, once again, I now accuse you of arguing just for the sake of arguing. Since I am a mormon, I must not be able to read the Bible, when clearly, you are just blathering in a shotgun method.
Were I to 'shotgun', multiple topics would have been raised. I raised only one - mormon refusal to honor the cross and embrace all that it is and means.
But don't accuse me of mis-quoting the Bible, then when shown that I wasn't mis-quoting, change the topic instead of apologizing.
When you reply, you cherry picked verses deliberately excluding the cross - I just took the time to correct and expand your knowledge base.