Reply With Quote
Yeah, it kinda' does when what you say is moronic and irrelevant. Nobody cares what you say so I guess you can just argue with the voices in your head.
The guy bashes every single poster who expresses a different opinion, plagues every single thread with the same Manu BS just like TGY does, and refuses to admit when he is dead wrong no matter how irrefutable the proof is.
What do you call someone like that?
Yeah, it kinda' does when what you say is moronic and irrelevant. Nobody cares what you say so I guess you can just argue with the voices in your head.
What happened to the agreement to stop bashing? I am keeping my end.The guy bashes every single poster who expresses a different opinion, plagues every single thread with the same Manu BS just like TGY does, and refuses to admit when he is dead wrong no matter how irrefutable the proof is.
What do you call someone like that?
That's your choice. This is why we call it FAITH. One day we will all find out who was right.
What? You want to extend it to every single thread no matter what the subject matter is, or stupid we happen to think the post is?
I suppose I can do that if that is what you are talking about.
But I still intend to correct that idiotic TGY if he posts something ignorant or redundant.
Let me know how you feel about it.
As someone said already, can you two take this to a PM or even another forum if possible?
It is a euphemism, brah. Come on now.
Works for me. No sense getting derailed at every turn. The season is about to start, too. A word of advice: if you don't like what TGY says then debate it with facts not insults. The guy is a good dude. You don't have to agree with his opinions, but I think they are valuable.
I never insulted TGY until after he insulted me a number of times first.
I don't sling insults indiscriminately, I prefer to debate things without insults and only do that after being accused of things that I obviously am not. I tend to respect others opinions, because after all, they are just opinions no matter how much we like to think they are facts. But being accused of things like Manu , Popsucker, etc., tends to irk me because it is the farthest from the truth.
In fact at first I was very critical of Manu and his unexpected failures in the finals, although I saw valid reasons for it which other posters have come forward and since pointed out.
It was only After being bashed and dealing with his ignorant accusations toward me, not just toward Manu, that I rose up to correct his inaccuracies and fallacies and this escalated as it did with you, TE, and killer. The Mexican food opinions didn't help matters either, rather inflamed things further.
And then of course all the recriminations over scripture meanings and usage just amplified things worse between you and I.
Even so, I never hold a grudge and try to get to a common ground whenever I can. With TGY it appears to be impossible simply because he has a definite point of view and will not even entertain the notion that maybe, just maybe, there are reasons that Manu had such a bad finals that TGY is not even taking into consideration. To my way of thinking, that is irrational and blind. We never stop learning in this life no matter how old we get, however if we do stop, then next we die.
The more we learn, the more we realize that there is even more we do not know and have yet to learn.
I am only telling you this, not to lecture you, but because I have read some rational posts from you, and believe that for the most part you are a rational individual who thinks beyond and outside of the box. You seem to me to be someone who does not take anything for granted just because someone tells you to.
For what it's worth I've tried reasoning with him like I am doing with you now, but he will have none of it.
I think "benefactors" post really said it all, and that is of the differences between the old guard and some of the new guard Spurs fans.
We old guard fans like to think we Spurs fans are classier than other teams fans like L.A., Mavs, etc. whether in actuality we really are or not.
And ironically I've defended both TGY, and Leetonidas too, on a couple of occasions after they were bashed by other ignorant posters and/or trolls.
Go figure!
Last edited by xmas1997; 09-20-2013 at 01:15 PM.
the spaghetti monster will send both of us to pasta because we didn't believe in him.
honestly, i don't care if you believe in the silly Bible or not, just as long as you keep your faith and your problems with gravity out of public policy.
I thought it was a veiled parable
Except that you are arguing with me and you have no clue what you're arguing about.
Oh, but I know exactly what I am arguing about. So kindly shut up. Argument over. Thanks.
"It's CAKE!! I did not go around NOT raping and NOT pillaging for it to be pie! It's CAKE!! SKY CAKE MOTHERF***ER!!!!!!!!!' (Patton Oswalt) As for public policy I believe in the Cons ution. Government is to protect individual liberty. Everything else is secondary.
Last edited by Skull-1; 09-20-2013 at 10:55 PM.
What a goofy you are.
Goofy is a choice. In your case, ignorance is a curse. And probably genetic.
Thanks for proving my point.
who brought this stinking pile of into my club?
The mods. at them.
You don't have a point--never did.
Improper exegesis of 2 Corinthians 3:14-15 could lead you to believe that. Paul was referring to the Jews which I am clearly not and he was referring to the veil over their hearts and minds, not over the scripture. This isn't the same veil that covered the face of Moses btw.
So no, there's no veil over the scripture. Sure you can find instances of the term "veil" being used and sure you can interpret it to suit your cause, that's what most of Christianity does with the bible anyhow, but no decent theologian or Christian apologist would suggest what you're suggesting.
Wall of text... abort abort abort
Seriously, if you cannot take time to properly format your responses and use quote tags, you're not really invested in the discussion anyhow and I'm not sifting through your WOT to find your points, if you have any.
Jesus is speaking to his disciples saying that, although he had been using proverbs and parables, he will speak plainly. He's not saying the scriptures are veiled, as the NT scriptures didn't exist at that time, and he's not saying the OT scriptures are veiled. In fact, he's not saying anything is veiled. The word is being used wrongly by you. The KJV uses "proverb" and not "veiled" but I see you are chasing rabbits through the different versions to find a matching word. The proceeding verses state the following "His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb. Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God."
So you've failed in your attempt to show that the bible mentions scriptures being veiled. If you and cosmored aren't the same person, you're his long lost brother.
Already went through this. The Son can only do what He has seen the Father doing. So if Christ spoke in parables that means He saw God do that. And the Law and Prophets PROPHESIED until John.
"You search the scriptures because in them you think you will find eternal life. It is these that testify of me."
Prophecy. Testimony. Parable.
Game over. You lose.
Welcome to Page six.
Veiling is mentioned in the Epistles as well.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
