Why I'm conservative

Narrock · Post by **Narrock** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 2:17 pm

Kizzy sez:

The same could be said about you.

then Taxx sez:

OMGZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

I concur. I haven't ever seen ownage, that ownage in nature before.

Langston · Post by **Langston** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 2:20 pm

Mindia wrote:Ugzugz sez:

Upon reading the entire passage, what you claim it says is NOT the case. Nice attempt at using soundbits from the Bible to try to prove your point.

The rest of your article is about Idolatry and is the words of another person. We are discussing Scriptural references here. For every "source" you can come up with, I can come up with just as many. Your initial argument is that there is no Scriptural basis to the Catholic beliefs - either use scripture or drop your claim. I will not rebutt the idolatry argument, yet, and I will only do so at such a point that you begin the argument with scripture as you stated is your basis for argument.

You got owned little altar boy.

That is the extent of your rebuttal?

OK. It's bad form... but I declare myself the victor. If the only response to my post is this, then you have lost.

Fact of the matter is, as long as we're discussing scripture, there's no way you can argue the passage from John.... unless you're willing to come right out and say "Jesus is wrong!"... which I'm guessing you won't say.

IF, however, you find scripture that contradicts the passage from John, then there is ONE thing that you have accomplished: You have proven that the Bible is a poor source to define one's religion from as it is simply a book of words written by purportedly inspired MEN. It is full of contradiction. It is full of unproveable "phenomena". Fact is, if you base your religion, ANY religion, from merely the words of the Bible, you begin your faith with a basis in innate hypocrisy.

Regardless of this, the fact is clear: The sacrament of Confession as it exists in the Catholic church DOES have precedent in the Bible. This refutes your earlier claims unequivocably.

Narrock · Post by **Narrock** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 2:43 pm

You obviously didn't even read my post, like the closed-minded freak that you are.

Langston · Post by **Langston** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 2:50 pm

Not only did I read it, I responded to it. Maybe you should scroll up to the post that you clipped 1/10 of and responded to with "I 0WN3D U!!11!!!111" and do a little reading yourself.

Narrock · Post by **Narrock** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 2:56 pm

Had you really read more than 1/10th of it, and comprehended it, you would not be going on and on with your nonsense. You have admitted defeat and conceded. You didn't. You have to go on and on like a little problem-child. But go ahead thinking you owned me... it's pretty funny to me. :wink:

Langston · Post by **Langston** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:04 pm

I once heard an interview with a Professional high stakes Poker player. He was complaining about how this new wave of interest in Texas Hold 'em is causing real trouble in the casinos for the Professionals. His complaint was that the amateurs don't understand the game, have no style, and no skill. They throw bets around on King-threes and it makes it impossible for Pros to play their game. He says that due to the erratic nature of the play of these new people, a Pro may lose interest in playing at all because the game is just frustrating and no longer requires any skill - just luck. He went on to say that these amateurs THINK they know what they're doing, but in reality, they're a mockery and everyone that DOES understand how it works is laughing at them.

So, Mindia, did you recently begin to play poker?

Muglack · Post by **Muglack** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:18 pm

Drink in the front, and poker in the back.

Kaeerwen · Post by **Kaeerwen** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:20 pm

Langston · Post by **Langston** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:23 pm

Muglack wrote:Drink in the front, and poker in the back.

Liquor in the front, Poker in the rear.

Silly boy.

Narrock · Post by **Narrock** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:27 pm

Your analogies are as stupid as you are.

Langston · Post by **Langston** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:28 pm

Actually, my analogy is dead on.

I also take your implied response to be "Yes - I've started playing poker recently. How did you know!"

Narrock · Post by **Narrock** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:30 pm

Mindia wrote:Your analogies are as stupid as you are.

Muglack · Post by **Muglack** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:31 pm

I'm half asleep, WHAT'S YOUR EXCUSE

Langston · Post by **Langston** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:32 pm

I've been arguing with Mindia for 2 days...

Muglack · Post by **Muglack** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:33 pm

game.
set.
match.

Narrock · Post by **Narrock** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:34 pm

Ugzugz is arguing with his inner self...

vonkaar · Post by **vonkaar** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:35 pm

666th post!!!

Muglack · Post by **Muglack** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:36 pm

YOu have 1337 posts as well. 2 birds. 1 stone.

brinstar · Post by **brinstar** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:36 pm

hehehe

vonkaar · Post by **vonkaar** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:37 pm

Bird in hand... bird in bush?

If I kicked a stone at both birds, do I get double points for completing 3 cliche's at once?

ValanthaStormweaver · Post by **ValanthaStormweaver** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:39 pm

Umm, yeah, hey......it's me again, just here to announce that once again...................................
Mindia just got :owned:

And for the record Mindia.....none of these people on this board are my "friends" and pretty much all of them hate me so I'm not saying you got owned just because I don't want my "friends" to be wrong, I'm saying you got owned because you got :owned:

!!!!!

Muglack · Post by **Muglack** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:41 pm

GO beat a retarded kid and leave the good citizens of this board alone.

Narrock · Post by **Narrock** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:41 pm

ValanthaStormweaver wrote:Umm, yeah, hey......it's me again, just here to announce that once again...................................
Mindia just got

And for the record Mindia.....none of these people on this board are my "friends" and pretty much all of them hate me so I'm not saying you got owned just because I don't want my "friends" to be wrong, I'm saying you got owned because you got !!!!!

I love it when the kiddies post... it's so cute :wink:

In what capacity did I get owned, young one?

Langston · Post by **Langston** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:42 pm

Mindia wrote:In what capacity did I not get owned, young one?

Fixed.

Narrock · Post by **Narrock** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:44 pm

Now now... let's let the young one explain himself. /grabs popcorn