Conquer Club

A side note and an unrelated question. Since that's the kind of thing I'm all about.

The name "Neplilim" sounds like one of the guys in the book of morman.

Is Beastly a female?

The Nephilim were the hybrid offspring of men and angels, mentioned in Genesis 5 or 6 i believe, and i've always assumed Beastly was a woman. Oh, and in answer to mustafa's "rhetorical question", Roman Catholocism is about as far from true Christianity as one can get (let's see how quickly that draws flies).

Cool I never heard the word before. I've kind of wondered if they might have been the dinosaurs, I know that's kind of silly.

rallison wrote:
Good points Beastly.
We also believe that our redemption rests solely upon the death of Christ. He died for our sins, and if it were not for Him, there is nothing we could do. He saves us.

Well not according to LDS scripture also says, "Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world than any other man that ever lived in it" (D. & C. 135:3).
And Brigham Young said, "No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith. From the day that the priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding-up scene of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith Junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are - I with you and you with me. I cannot go there without his consent. He holds the keys of that kingdom for the last dispensation" (J. of D., Vol. VII, p. 289).
Also, the LDS "Church News" declared, "No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith" (Deseret News, "Church News," November 2, 1968, p. 14).

Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, "Salvation is twofold: General - that which comes to all men irrespective of a belief (in this life) in Christ - and Individual - that which man merits through his own acts through life and by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel" (D. of S., Vol. I, p. 134).

Jesus said, "By Me if any man enter in he shall be saved" (John 10:9). Paul and Silas told the Philippian jailer, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved" (Acts 16:31). Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life; no man cometh to the Father but by Me" (John 14:6; Rom. 10:9-10, 13; Acts 2:21, 4:12; II Tim. 3:15).

LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie declared:

Full salvation is attained by virtue of knowledge, truth, righteousness, and all true principles. Many conditions must exist in order to make such salvation available to men. Without the atonement, the gospel, the priesthood, and the sealing power, there would be no salvation,. Without continuous revelation, the ministering angels, the working of miracles, the prevalence of gifts of the spirit, there would be no salvation. If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration there would be no salvation. There is no salvation outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (M.D., p. 670).

rallison wrote:About being married in the temple, it is similar to other ordinances of the gospel. In the bible it clearly states that we have to be baptized. If Christ died for us, why do we need to be baptized. Its the same answer. He established the church, and the church includes certain ordinances we should do.

Baptism is important because anything Christ commanded is important! But, not everything He commanded us to do "saves" us. For example, He commanded us to pray, so prayer is very important to Christians, but prayer does not save anyone. Jesus Himself is the Savior who "saves them to the uttermost that come to God by Him" (Heb. 7:25).

rallison wrote:We believe in the Bible as well. We believe that it contains the fullness of the gospel. We believe that any errors it might contain are mans errors, not God's.

If this is true will you please give me which scriptures have errors so that i don't use them.

rallison wrote:Yes the book or mormon is another testament. just like Mark is another testament of the life of Jesus next to Matthew, Luke and John. All four are good. Why do we need all four, isn't one enough?

I just have to say, that if you think about all the religions that go by the bible only, it is enough for all of them.

The book of mormon never mentions "eternal marriage". it does mention, just like the bible, that what God joins, man cannot separate. (mark 10:9, matt 16:19) Just like the bible, it makes the point that "neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord" (1 cor 11:11)

LDS Apostle Erastus Snow preached the following on Sunday, Oct. 4, 1857:

Do the women, when they pray, remember their husbands?... Do you uphold your husband before God as your lord? "What!—my husband to be my lord?" I ask, Can you get into the celestial kingdom without him? Have any of you been there? You will remember that you never got into the celestial kingdom [during the temple ceremony] without the aid of your husband. If you did, it was because your husband was away, and some one had to act proxy for him. No woman will get into the celestial kingdom, except her husband receives her, if she is worthy to have a husband; and if not, somebody will receive her as a servant. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 291)

Do you see why other christians don't believe that mormons Salvation completely rely on Christ death. A woman cannot go to heaven without her husbands approval, looks like Salvation does not come by Christ alone.

I am trying to show all the things that are NOT said when mormons come and say they believe in Salvation by Christ death.

rallison wrote:Beastly, do you speak other languages? I've been interested in learning french or german, and wondered if you liked one better or anything.

I do not speak other languages, my daughter speaks Spanish, so I have picked up some words.

2dimes wrote:
Is Beastly a female?

Funny I was asking the same question about you today? lol

yes I Am a woman.

Beastly wrote:

2dimes wrote:
Is Beastly a female?

Funny I was asking the same question about you today? lol

yes I Am a woman.

No, sorry, I've stolen Stacey Hamilton's identity for a while.

Backglass wrote:

b.k. barunt wrote:like backglass with his sanctimonious "religion should only be discussed in private", while you see him and his opinions on any and every religious thread.

Hypocritical would be me starting yet another thread about religion/non-religion...which you will never see me do, thanks. Nice try though.

Jenos Ridan wrote:You are stubborn, foolish and cowardly because you refuse to admit that you are wrong.

Wrong about what? Did you mis-quote?

You refuse to even accept the 'remote' possibility that you're wrong about God, or any thing supernatural. Also, you're not adding to the discourse at all; All you do on ANY religon thread is try to tear others down. b.k. barunt, I think, made that much very clear.

Backglass wrote:

Jenos Ridan wrote: Those of us to bother to humble themselves before God are not so.

Whatever the hell THAT is supposed to mean...as "Those of us who believe in Leprechauns are not so" either.

Currently you don't get it. It's ok, either you will now, while you have time or you'll realize the truth before the Lord YOUR God.

Backglass wrote:

Jenos Ridan wrote:I'm not preaching a 'holier-than-thou' word (that is contrary to my beliefs and thus I don't do so), but if you refuse to see the truth and the light, there is very little I can do 'cept be a lantern of God's love in your life. Which is what christians are called to do anyway. I pray that you'll have a change of heart.

I can play this game too!

You have been brainwashed and preached to, most likely since birth, and believe wholeheartedly the stories you have been told. I hope that you will one day awaken from your stupor, learn to think for yourself and see that your are living your life for fairy tales, legends and myths, instead of for the here and now. You can save your prayers...I don't believe in superstitions or rituals.

I'll have to clarify this yet again, I was raised in a non-religious home, as both my folks are, for the most part, agnostic. I used to be just like you, I blamed religion for most of the troubles in the world and wanted to abolish it all. I changed when it occured to me, all I was doing was fulling myself with useless garbage ("pleasures of the world") that is here today and gone tomarrow, forcing me to seek more poison. I'm not that same selfish person. And if I'm wrong, then what you and I believe or don't is a moot point, 'cause we never even mattered in the first place, just two lumps of bio-mass continuing the unending cycle of eat, sleep, breath, breed, die......
Depressing, and most pathetic. Still gonna pray. If your right, what could it hurt?

Jenos Ridan wrote:You refuse to even accept the 'remote' possibility that you're wrong about God, or any thing supernatural. Also, you're not adding to the discourse at all; All you do on ANY religon thread is try to tear others down. b.k. barunt, I think, made that much very clear.

You refuse to accept the 'remote' possibility that your're wrong about magical gods or any fairy tale story, All you do on ANY religion thread is try to pump up your delusional beliefs in gods, demons, angels and magic. (See how that works?)

Jenos Ridan wrote:Currently you don't get it. It's ok, either you will now, while you have time or you'll realize the truth before the Lord YOUR God.

Ahhh...the infamous Jay threat: "You'll see..WHEN YOUR DEAD!". Sorry buddy, I don't believe in superstitions so fear tactics have no affect on me. I also don't knock on wood, throw salt over my shoulder or worry about walking under ladders and broken mirrors. When you die...you die. Game over. Sorry, to burst your happy-bubble but there is no "Never Never Land" to float around in with Sky-Daddy. You'll see...WHEN YOUR DEAD!

Jenos Ridan wrote:I'll have to clarify this yet again, I was raised in a non-religious home, as both my folks are, for the most part, agnostic. I used to be just like you, I blamed religion for most of the troubles in the world and wanted to abolish it all.

Sorry young Jedi, but again you put words in my mouth. I have no desire to abolish religion(s). Many church going people (like Luns) do wonderful things for those in need. He could do it without religion of course, but it's a social thing for him and his fellow worshipers I suspect. Religion is also obviously necessary for many people who cant otherwise cope with life's finality, or the mysteries of the universe. It's easier to say "it's in gods hands" and boom! The weight is lifted off your shoulders and you no longer have to worry about anything. If that works for you, great! You can go to your church and pray all day for all I care. Chant to a rosary...sacrifice a chicken...only eat Kosher...smudge your forehead with ashes...kneel on a mat and pray to a far off city several times a day, I don't care what rituals you choose. Knock yourself out! But none of that makes any of it real.

Jenos Ridan wrote:I changed when it occured to me, all I was doing was fulling myself with useless garbage ("pleasures of the world") that is here today and gone tomarrow, forcing me to seek more poison. I'm not that same selfish person.

Good for you, but the fact that YOU were screwed up does not mean everyone is screwed up. YOU changed your life...way to go! But ya see...not everyone screws up there life like you did and needs to be saved from destruction. You needed religion to help you...others help themselves (which, actually, is what you did).

Jenos Ridan wrote: And if I'm wrong, then what you and I believe or don't is a moot point, 'cause we never even mattered in the first place, just two lumps of bio-mass continuing the unending cycle of eat, sleep, breath, breed, die......Depressing, and most pathetic.

And thats exactly what life is. Human beings have a very difficult time with this. So...assume there is no afterlife, no gods and this is it. WHY is that so depressing & pathetic? Life is wonderful! Start living THIS LIFE TODAY and quit living for a fantasy afterlife. One doesn't need mystical beings to enjoy music, art, children, the love of a woman, family, good food, a nice dark beer, etc. Life rocks and it is all around you. Get off your knees and go outside and get some sun.

Jenos Ridan wrote:Still gonna pray. If your right, what could it hurt?

Ah yes, Pascals wager. Well, in my opinion it would be an immense waste of time, money and servitude to something that didn't exist and could have been better spent on worthwhile endeavors. Other than that...I guess it wouldn't hurt.

So following your logic, what if your wrong and the Muslims, Hindu's or Buddhists are right? Should you not cover all your bases and start praying to ALL the gods that exist in the minds of human beings? What could it hurt? Do you still send letter to Santa Claus? Why not? What could it hurt...he could be real.

Every time Backglass posts, I like him a little bit more. In fact, if I didn't think it'd clutter up this thread uneccesarily, I'd quote him for truth.

Hey Jenos, guess what: "Religion sucks. Period".... Geddit?

Gustaf Wasa wrote:Addendum to my own post.

Not only did there exist xtians for centuries without the Bible, but also: Catholics believe in a whole lot of rituals that you don't find in the Bible, other than by a severe stretch of the imagination.

--Like the Communion; so Jesus had a meal, great. That means you have to eat oblates given to you by a priest every week?

--The confession booth: where does Jesus say you should sit in a booth and tell a priest all your secrets?

--The Pope: Jesus said "I'll build my church on you" to Peter, but how does that translate into the Catholic Church?

--Monks and nuns: yeah, enough said.

--The saints: why would saints somehow become mini gods that you should pray to? And why would their bones be sacred? Where does the Bible say that?

--Mary: why should you pray to her, when you have a god? What will she do for you that God won't do?

--Little interesting bits of magic that most people are not aware of: for example, there is a large door in the Vatican State that the Pope only opens every fifteen years or so. If you walk through it, you will be blessed and go to heaven!


The Catholic Church has invented a lot of stuff that is not in the Bible. Yet who would contend that Catholics are not Christians?

word up. although i don't agree with everything gustaf said, this post gets to a point that i was trying to raise a while back. it seems that we hold LDS folks to a different standard than other "Xtn" groups. we harp on their non-biblical practices or doctrines but ignore the same features of other, less controversial groups. i'd think a lot of the objections to LDS on these grounds could be ruled out immediately.

oh, and beastly, just wanted to say: those folks out there that think baptism is necessary to enter heaven. they could point to Acts 2:38, it is a pretty easy one (not saying i agree or disagree, just noting that)

Well Nephilim, it was an excellent thread. Great discussion, and well moderated on your part. You should ease up on Beastly though. I think she contributed more informative, well documented points than anyone else here.

b.k. barunt wrote:Well Nephilim, it was an excellent thread. Great discussion, and well moderated on your part. You should ease up on Beastly though. I think she contributed more informative, well documented points than anyone else here.

ok, cheers and thanks, b.k. i think you're probably rite about beastly, and i tried to note that she had raised key issues in some previous posts. of course, i got a little pissy in some exchanges, too. i hope it's not over, i think we made a little headway w/ gustaf's observation concerning catholics.

i also hope folks remember this isn't just a debate w/in Xty, it is also a serious academic debate for people that study religion. the question of where the LDS church belongs is a methodological one for religious studies. cheers

Beastly wrote:Well not according to LDS scripture also says, "Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world than any other man that ever lived in it" (D. & C. 135:3).

I bolded some text here, should be self explanatory… Should also be noted that this was written right after his death.

Beastly wrote:I asked him to show me where in the bible it says you have to be baptized to be saved, and of course he got angry, because its not there.

As nephilim pointed out, there are quite a few scriptures that mention that baptism is necessary. I’ll list just a few here:

John 3: 5
Except a man be born of water . . . he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Acts 2: 38
Repent, and be baptized every one of you.
Acts 10: 48
commanded them to be baptized.
1 Pet. 3: 21
baptism doth also now save us.


I respect your opinion that baptism is not needed. I’ll be honest, I am a little surprised because I thought that was pretty generally accepted. Are you of the opinion that once a person accepts Christ into their heart, that is everything that is necessary? I don’t agree with that point of view, but I think that might explain a lot of our different opinions on things.

Beastly wrote:No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith

Yes, and there will probably be more as well. I’d be willing to bet Adam, Noah, Moses and more will be there.

Beastly wrote:I just have to say, that if you think about all the religions that go by the bible only, it is enough for all of them.

That’s why we are different. Just because a lot of people do something, anything, doesn’t make it right.

Beastly wrote:

rallison wrote:The book of mormon never mentions "eternal marriage". it does mention, just like the bible, that what God joins, man cannot separate. (mark 10:9, matt 16:19) Just like the bible, it makes the point that "neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord" (1 cor 11:11)

LDS Apostle Erastus Snow preached the following on Sunday, Oct. 4, 1857:

Do the women, when they pray, remember their husbands?... Do you uphold your husband before God as your lord? "What!—my husband to be my lord?" I ask, Can you get into the celestial kingdom without him? Have any of you been there? You will remember that you never got into the celestial kingdom [during the temple ceremony] without the aid of your husband. If you did, it was because your husband was away, and some one had to act proxy for him. No woman will get into the celestial kingdom, except her husband receives her, if she is worthy to have a husband; and if not, somebody will receive her as a servant. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 291)

That seems to go exactly hand in hand with what the bible says. It is also true the other way, men should pray for their wives.


I think it would be interesting if you tell us what you believe is necessary. You mentioned earlier that baptism and prayer, while good, are not needed. What is needed?
btw, nice new avatar

--Also, I’m working on the comparisons between us and the Nicene Creed. Should have time to finish that up soon.

Beastly wrote:Well not according to LDS scripture also says, "Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world than any other man that ever lived in it" (D. & C. 135:3).

Beastly wrote:No woman will get into the celestial kingdom, except her husband receives her, if she is worthy to have a husband; and if not, somebody will receive her as a servant.

Beastly wrote:No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith

I added this to show, that there are 2 different doctrines.. Is it Joseph Smith or Jesus?

rallison wrote:John 3: 5Except a man be born of water . . . he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

It’s not a reference to water baptism. This was said to Nicodemus from the mouth of Jesus.
Jesus knew what water Nicodemus would understand (for that you go back to Ezekiel chapter thirty-six). If Nicodemus was a teacher of Israel and an authority on the Old Testament he would have only thought of one passage. One familiar, famous, well known passage and that would have been the key to interpreting to what Jesus said. And that is why Jesus never went any further with His statement then to say “water and Spirit” and leave it there--because Nicodemus would have understood.

In Ezekiel chapter thirty-six verse twenty-four, we have the promise of God to the nation of Israel to be fulfilled when the Messiah comes. “I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.” Now watch, “Then will I sprinkle clean water on you, and ye shall be clean; from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you…”

Now notice, He says, “I will wash you with water, and cleanse you of sin and place my spirit in you.“ That’s the water Nicodemus would have understood.

rallison wrote:Acts 2: 38
Repent, and be baptized every one of you.

Simply put this is a concept of cleansing that occurs at the point of regeneration and salvation. You must have that promised cleansing (NOT by baptismal water) and the implanting of the Spirit, to enter into the Kingdom Of God. Water is also a symbol of The holy spirit.

Water baptism follows salvation as one of the first steps of obedience for the new believer.

In Peter's message, a great deal was said before verse 38 came out of his mouth. In fact, he even told his listeners how to be saved before verse 38! In Acts 2:21, Peter quotes from Joel 2 and says, "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

In Acts 8, an individual from Africa is saved (before baptism). In Acts 9, an individual from Asia is saved (before baptism). In Acts 10, an individual from Europe is saved (before baptism). Why didn't these individual conversions occur before Acts 7

rallison wrote:Acts 10: 48
commanded them to be baptized.

easily explained this verse says nothing about salvation and baptism. I can see how this would be considered a ordinance though... so I understand the ordinance you were speaking of.. thank you.

rallison wrote:1 Pet. 3: 21
baptism doth also now save us.

This is not teaching us that baptism is what saves us. because, water symbolizes a spiritual cleansing through the power of the Holy Spirit gained through Christ’s victory over death.

This is the only verse that says "baptism now saves you." to rightly understand it, we need to look at its context.

"For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, 20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21 And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience — through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him,"

Fortunately, though, we don’t have to guess at what Peter means in this verse because he clarifies that for us with the phrase “not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience.” While Peter is connecting baptism with salvation, it is not the act of being baptized that he is referring to (not the removal of dirt from the flesh). Being immersed in water does nothing but wash away dirt.
Peter is simply connecting baptism with belief. . First belief and repentance, then we are baptized to publicly identify ourselves with Christ.

Peter explains, does not wash away the filth of the flesh, either in a literal sense as a bath for the body, nor in a metaphorical sense as a cleansing for the soul.

he defines what he means by salvation, in the words 'the answer of a good conscience toward God," and he explains how this is accomplished, namely, 'by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,' in that the believing sinner is identified with Him in that resurrection.”




I know a person who has been baptized in 7 different churches including LDS, and is now Satanic... well i don't really know this, but what if?
The point is.
Just because a person is baptized does not make them a christian or have salvation....People do get baptized and then turn away from Christ or Join another church..
What I have seen, is many churches use baptizm to declare you are a member of that church.
in the days of Jesus and before Jesus, people were baptized and didn't belong to a Sect.


The fact is that most of what the New Testament says about salvation doesn't include baptism at all! (John 5:24, John 11:25-26, John 14:6, Romans 4:5, Romans 10:9-13, Eph. 2:8-9, etc.), and the few places that do mention water baptism do not include it as part of one's salvation.

Jesus said to the thief on the cross “This day shalt thou be with Me in Paradise” and He never entered into baptism.

Beastly wrote:No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith

rallison wrote:Yes, and there will probably be more as well. I’d be willing to bet Adam, Noah, Moses and more will be there.

So if mormons believe this.... Which is it? You have to be baptized and married in the temple, or is Christ Grace sufficent enough?

rallison wrote:I think it would be interesting if you tell us what you believe is necessary. You mentioned earlier that baptism and prayer, while good, are not needed. What is needed?

I believe following ordinances or even the law of the land, will not get you in heaven. The only thing necessary to go to heaven, and be with God, is to believe that Christ died for my sins. When someone accepts this simply they then Repent and become baptized because that what is said to do. When a Person accepts that Christ is there salvation and then believes what is said in the bible, they start a transformation of spirit. You don't just become some godly perfect person at that point. Its a process of God or the Holy spirit working inside you. When you come to realize what repentance is and baptism is, then you do it, because that is what the Word says to do. I believe if someone is on there death bed and accepts Christ at that point, and never becomes baptized they will still be with god. I believe if a baby is born and is not baptized or even repented they are with God.

I don't believe that I have a right to judge who will go to heaven or hell. That is for Jesus to judge, and not anybody else.

I don't believe you have to do anything else. You don't have to be a model citizen or go to church. or read your bible.

I believe that reading your bible feeds your mind, What feeds your mind feeds your soul. I believe that going to church is a place to Worship. but you can worship just the same in your own home, or the wilderness or anyplace else for that matter. However going to church is healthy to congregate so that you can meet people to pray with or to get council from, or help in times of need. I seem to have a hard time finding a church that keeps things simple.

I even went to a pastor of a church and asked whats wrong with saying the word "f*ck".. after all its just a word.

I learned alot from that. But not saying f*ck or doing anything on my own, is going to get me to heaven. Christ death is Sufficient for me, and nothing I can do will get me to heaven. I was born into a sinful world, I am sinful, and without believing I will go to hell.

Believe me I am no angel..... I do obey the law of the land. But even that doesn't give me salvation. I only gave my personal opinion because you asked.

wow beastly, congrats. i think that is the longest post i have ever seen on CC.

you've definitely made good posts in this thread, and i thank you. i do want to quibble with a couple things from your novel, though.

primarily: plenty of Xtns would disagree with your view of baptism. in fact, plenty would disagree so strongly that they would not consider you truly Xtn. now, does that mean you are not, either theologically or academically? these folks would quote scripture same as you do. i think that could be a good point for you considering your vehemence against LDS as Xtns. i'm not trying to negate any of the solid points you made, just remind you that perspective is, as always, an issue.

and about baptism: i appreciate your strong feelings about salvation, your intensity is clear. however, to my eyes, your exegesis of the 1 peter passage is lacking. it seems that you insert belief into the text from out of nowhere. the author says nothing about it; it looks like you are reading it in w/ no discernible reason. the text is talking about baptism, belief is not there, yet you insist that it is.

also, i'd ask you to read thru the passages you mentioned in acts 8, 9, and 10. i don't see what you mean about salvation before baptism. and your exegesis of the john passage is also clearly contestible.

it's important to remember that much of our theology depends on certain readings of scripture. these are tenuous; if you one day change your mind about a certain exegesis or interpretation, a whole bunch of other dominoes might fall. to me, this is a powerful caution against dogmatic views. we could change our minds in a few years or overnight, so discussions might be left best as open-ended.

cheers

To both Backglass and Dancing Mustard; I'll make this brief

I could spend my entire life trying to be that light in your lives, but since all you want it darkness, I can't help but leave you both there. And by the way, If, by some insane chance, you are right, either of us mattered in the first place. By your own admissions Backglass, you invalidated your own life. I'm not going to argue this beleaguered point any further.

Oh by the way, If you both hate religion threads so much, THEN DON'T POST ON THEM!!!! Jeepers, dudes, are you both so dence? I don't recall even invading one of your anti-religion threads. So leave off and stow it.

God bless.

Jenos Ridan wrote:To both Backglass and Dancing Mustard; I'll make this brief

I could spend my entire life trying to be that light in your lives, but since all you want it darkness, I can't help but leave you both there. And by the way, If, by some insane chance, you are right, either of us mattered in the first place. By your own admissions Backglass, you invalidated your own life. I'm not going to argue this beleaguered point any further.

PLEASE don't leave us in the darkness! For the love of all things good and unholy, please man don't do this! Think of the children!
Plus, I need a light in my life, particularly to read my evil atheist textbooks at night. Will you be the light in mine?

Oh by the way, If you both hate religion threads so much, THEN DON'T POST ON THEM!!!! Jeepers, dudes, are you both so dence? I don't recall even invading one of your anti-religion threads. So leave off and stow it.

God bless.

You are a sanctimonious douchebag.

God bless.

heavycola wrote:

Jenos Ridan wrote:To both Backglass and Dancing Mustard; I'll make this brief

I could spend my entire life trying to be that light in your lives, but since all you want it darkness, I can't help but leave you both there. And by the way, If, by some insane chance, you are right, either of us mattered in the first place. By your own admissions Backglass, you invalidated your own life. I'm not going to argue this beleaguered point any further.

PLEASE don't leave us in the darkness! For the love of all things good and unholy, please man don't do this! Think of the children!
Plus, I need a light in my life, particularly to read my evil atheist textbooks at night. Will you be the light in mine?

Oh by the way, If you both hate religion threads so much, THEN DON'T POST ON THEM!!!! Jeepers, dudes, are you both so dence? I don't recall even invading one of your anti-religion threads. So leave off and stow it.

God bless.

You are a sanctimonious douchebag.

God bless.

If I honestly thought you were serious, I'd consider it. But since it was not, I hope you feel all warm and fuzzy all over.

And when did name-calling get anybody anywhere? I'll going to leave it at that.

Have a nice life (for however long it lasts)

Jenos Ridan wrote:To both Backglass and Dancing Mustard; I'll make this brief

Oh thank god, because I'm sick of hearing you spout drivel at length.

Jenos Ridan wrote:I could spend my entire life trying to be that light in your lives, but since all you want it darkness, I can't help but leave you both there. And by the way, If, by some insane chance, you are right, either of us mattered in the first place. By your own admissions Backglass, you invalidated your own life. I'm not going to argue this beleaguered point any further.

We could spend our whole lives trying to make you see sense and stop believing in "Sky Daddy" (my new favourite phrase, btw), but since all you want is comforting fictional fairytales, we can't help but leave you there.
God, you're right. It is fun to write sanctimonious sermons to other posters!

Jenos Ridan wrote:Oh by the way, If you both hate religion threads so much, THEN DON'T POST ON THEM!!!! Jeepers, dudes, are you both so dence? I don't recall even invading one of your anti-religion threads. So leave off and stow it.
God bless.

We don't hate religion threads at all, but we do enjoy demonstrating that your arguments turn to dust in the face of logical and rational debate. So if you don't mind, we'll stay here as long as we like, freely expressing our point of view, regardless of the fact that you don't like it. Trust me, if you want a safe and closeted environment where everybody will slap you on the back and quote old books at you; then there's masses of Chrisitan only forums out there.
Oh yeah; and the reason you've never invaded one of our "anti-religion threads" is because they don't exist. We've never made one. I don't even think I've seen a current-affairs thread that was generated with the desire to push atheist values either. If such a thread ever does exist however, we'll welcome your views with open arms; then we'll prove how ridiculous and illogical they are. We are a benevolent and forgiving movement you see; we welcome all comers, no matter how needy, and no matter how far they have strayed from the logical path.
So I guess we're going to be seeing a whole lot of each other in the future Jenos! Suck it up Cupcake!

May Sky-Daddy be with you always.

I rest my case.

Jenos Ridan wrote:I rest my case.

...and it lays in tatters.

Better luck next time eh?

Jenos Ridan wrote:I rest my case.

Well, sorry to see you go young Jedi. Perhaps a few hours of prayer and $100 in the collection plate will make you feel better.

Backglass wrote:

Jenos Ridan wrote:I rest my case.

Well, sorry to see you go young Jedi. Perhaps a few hours of prayer and $100 in the collection plate will make you feel better.

lol....I love how backglass continually posts misguided views of Christianity. Its comical at best.

lol...... I love how Jay continually posts threads IN BIG CAPITAL LETTERS in which he tries to promote his belief system; only to be exposed as a bigot who lacks the debating skills to defend his position. Its comical at best.


Come off it mate; if we're debating then let's stick to that. If you just want to toss petty aspersions about then there's a Flame Wars forum next door.

jay_a2j wrote:Its comical at best.

Exactly! Glad you got the joke for once.