Charles Perry Locke wrote:
> > DAVEH: I gave my simplified definition for 'damnation' so it would be
> > easy for TTers to understand how I perceive it. (I do not necessarily
> > expect you to accept my definition though.) Let me ask you two (Kevin
> > and Perry, or anybody else who wishes to comment) what Jesus meant in
> > Mt 23:14 when he said......
> >
> > "But woe unto you........therefore ye shall receive the greater
> > damnation."
> >
> > ........Do you view 'damnation' in various degrees as this might
> > suggest? There may be varying degrees of punishment in Hell, but Hell is still Hell. Now, you have tried to derail our conversation about the fact that the non-polygamous LDS are damned, lets get back to the main point. So, from our discussion on "damned", and the fact that you have conveniently redefined "damned" to mean "impedance of eternal progression", I guess you essentially admit that you are "damned" by the LDS god's staement via JS the prophet, as is every other LDS not practicing polygamy, but that "damned" is not a bad thing.
DAVEH: I'm not sure why you think I've derailed anything, Perry. I tried to explain the way I believe, and you don't like it.....I understand that. If you want to know what I believe, ask. Otherwise I guess you will just tell me what you think I believe. Look at your above paragraph.....not a single question mark. I guess I don't feel compelled to engage in a one sided conversation.
Perry
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain Five email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
