Obama gets religion.

[OrangeEmpire]

more snide pls

No problem

 

[rjd970]

Wow...............you alright?

Pot kettle action going on

I'll take deflection for $1000, Alex.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Strike two, ready to address the point again, or just provide another snide remark?

Yes, we know you hate christians and believe their iqs are on par with Karl Childers

 

[OrangeEmpire]

I'll take deflection for $1000, Alex.

Lmao

 

[OrangeEmpire]

I wish gsvol would post another Obama cartoon. Those are so informative.

I agree, completely help me out

 

[The Ron Mexico]

I agree, completely help me out

I have agreed with pretty much everything you've said in this thread. Anytime someone can't make a good argument they immediately go to accusing you of deflection.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

I have agreed with pretty much everything you've said in this thread. Anytime someone can't make a good argument they immediately go to accusing you of deflection.

Its a curse, like the label of gibberish posting and being ghey

 

[rjd970]

Yes, we know you hate christians and believe their iqs are on par with Karl Childers

And Yes...we know you are incapable of carrying on a conversation in an adult manner.

I think you are a funny poster and I find you very entertaining, but I seriously doubt you can back up anything you say with any real substance when pressed. When the conversation turns into a mature debate you throw crap against the wall and when you can't back it up you revert to snide remarks and poor attempts at comedy to deflect the fact you have no idea what you are really talking about.

I find the statement "doctrine has to be backed by scripture" to be ridiculous given the infinite numbers of interpretations of the exact same words. You asked me to show you where in the bible it says something to back up doctrine. I did so with an example in this very thread, with two very differing interpretations with respect to doctrine...my point being none of this is clear cut.

You have yet to answer that, because, I bet you can't.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

And Yes...we know you are incapable of carrying on a conversation in an adult manner.

I think you are a funny poster and I find you very entertaining, but I seriously doubt you can back up anything you say with any real substance when pressed. When the conversation turns into a mature debate you throw crap against the wall and when you can't back it up you revert to snide remarks and poor attempts at comedy to deflect the fact you have no idea what you are really talking about.

I find the statement "doctrine has to be backed by scripture" to be ridiculous given the infinite numbers of interpretations of the exact same words. You asked me to show you where in the bible it says something to back up doctrine. I did so with an example in this very thread, with two very differing interpretations with respect to doctrine...my point being none of this is clear cut.

You have yet to answer that, because, I bet you can't.

Ill be honest, I have no idea what you are talking about. I saw pious and ran with it.

As for every thing else, that has to be it.

 

[rjd970]

Ill be honest, I have no idea what you are talking about. I saw pious and ran with it.

As for every thing else, that has to be it.

^

I rest my case.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

And Yes...we know you are incapable of carrying on a conversation in an adult manner.

I think you are a funny poster and I find you very entertaining, but I seriously doubt you can back up anything you say with any real substance when pressed. When the conversation turns into a mature debate you throw crap against the wall and when you can't back it up you revert to snide remarks and poor attempts at comedy to deflect the fact you have no idea what you are really talking about.

I find the statement "doctrine has to be backed by scripture" to be ridiculous given the infinite numbers of interpretations of the exact same words. You asked me to show you where in the bible it says something to back up doctrine. I did so with an example in this very thread, with two very differing interpretations with respect to doctrine...my point being none of this is clear cut.

You have yet to answer that, because, I bet you can't.

Got Midol?

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Hang on, your pissing match is doctrine based on scripture?

What else would it be based on?

The entire point of faith and your walk with God is exploration. Of course it will be differenet to different people.

Not quite sure why you are acting like it is check mate

 

[OrangeEmpire]

^

I rest my case.

Yeah, do you get a prize?

You ok?

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Got Midol?

lol

 

[OrangeEmpire]

For chits and giggles, what exactly did I say about the topic that is unfounded?

 

[rjd970]

You have said that all systems are flawed because man is flawed. Fair enough. Then why speak with such authority that it is obvious your system is right?

No reason for me to waste my time with someone who doesnt understand his own religious system.

Trut before his enlightenment was honest about the cc. You should learn from him.

Peter?

Might want to check your history

Are you serious about Luke?

The councils are what exactly? Spiritual racket

The context of text never points to any thing remotely hinting at it.

^ this one is especially good. Says who? You?

Any notion you can trace every thing back to the first baptist church at Jerusalem is fantasy

I mean, to the second paragraph referencing councils, the protestant movement is not exempt. Protestants have the luxery of taking what they want to be true.

As I mentioned before, the trail of blood being cannon which is laughable.

 

[rjd970]

...and then you have the audacity to pose this question:

Why the strong defensive mechanism?

 

[OrangeEmpire]

1.)My system is considered to be of the devil

2.) Accepted commentary by various scholars

 

[OrangeEmpire]

...and then you have the audacity to pose this question:

So the issue really comes down to me. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand?

 

[gsvol]

Warning

You two are going to make GS mad. You both are getting off the thread title topic.

:thumbsup:

I wish gsvol would post another Obama cartoon. Those are so informative.

Wish in one hand, crap in the other.

How's that work for ya'?

Consider yourself more informed.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

lol gs

 

[bamacheats]

And Yes...we know you are incapable of carrying on a conversation in an adult manner.

I think you are a funny poster and I find you very entertaining, but I seriously doubt you can back up anything you say with any real substance when pressed. When the conversation turns into a mature debate you throw crap against the wall and when you can't back it up you revert to snide remarks and poor attempts at comedy to deflect the fact you have no idea what you are really talking about.

I find the statement "doctrine has to be backed by scripture" to be ridiculous given the infinite numbers of interpretations of the exact same words. You asked me to show you where in the bible it says something to back up doctrine. I did so with an example in this very thread, with two very differing interpretations with respect to doctrine...my point being none of this is clear cut.

You have yet to answer that, because, I bet you can't.

Not really true. For the Bible to be holy, it can't contradict itself. Scripture interprets scripture. For example, God can't condemn the eating of blood on one page and Jesus command the eating (drinking) of blood on another, it invalidates the entire Bible.

Prophecy is a bit different though.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Not really true. For the Bible to be holy, it can't contradict itself. Scripture interprets scripture. For example, God can't condemn the eating of blood on one page and Jesus command the eating (drinking) of blood on another, it invalidates the entire Bible.

Prophecy is a bit different though.

Prophecy is an entirely different animal

 

[PKT_VOL]

It was sarcasm, GS. :fool:

 

[OrangeEmpire]

It was sarcasm, GS. :fool:

A lot of sarcasm being missed in this thread