Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 2/20/07 03:45 AM, Ravariel wrote: How wrong does one have to be to have theists AND atheists united against them?

omg, but dre-man isn't wrong! everybody else is just crazy!!! atheism is fulfilling biblical prophecies with bullshit theories like evolution!!

Meanwhile, in the real world...

---

At 2/19/07 10:45 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 2/19/07 10:34 PM, Imperator wrote: Why don't we let the boards decide who's more intelligent, hmm?

Dre-Man:
Imperator: I

well i know who Dre-Man worships, you had better not be worshipping Jupiter Optimus Maximus or that point getting repealed.

Imperator is deffinatly smarter than Dre-man, without a dought, no one likes dre-man.

---

At 2/19/07 10:34 PM, Imperator wrote:

Making me look stupid? The only person looking stupid is you after not responding to my previous post for 3 and a half days.:

Bum ba dum dum! He's BACK! Angrier, dumber, and and faster than before! Return of Dre-Man, part IV: The idiot chronicles!!!

Imperator: -1

Do try to refrain from being an assclown in the future.

?? Which one didn't I answer? The one about me "sucking my toes" or the non-question rant about my "catholic drivel" of an education? I can't answer things that aren't posed as questions.....

You didn't answer it because you know that you were pwned by it. I asked you plenty of questions that you lack the intelligence or the resolve to answer. If you wish to prove otherwise, actually respond. If not, I will assume that you have given up.

Because you know you're being crushed under the weight of your own ignorance and uneducated foolishness.

Why don't we let the boards decide who's more intelligent, hmm?

Dre-Man:
Imperator:

Cast your votes now NG!

Now you show nothing but your own lack of self-assurance. You know that everyone on newgrounds views me in a negative light, and you wish to use this to make me feel smaller, well, you've failed. Go ahead and hold your little contest, but you know you're wrong, or at least you will in the near future.

At 2/19/07 10:25 PM, SolInvictus wrote: At 2/19/07 08:47 PM, Dre-Man wrote: I was saying that I did not need a study bible to decipher the Bible and what it says

sorry, i mistook one form of arrogance for another.

ZING! Sol Invictus by a furlong (or 56) in the lead!!

Imperator: -2

---

Science and Religion UNITE! To have a world full of Jesus/stephan Hawkin hybrids!

---

At 2/20/07 02:04 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 2/19/07 10:34 PM, Imperator wrote: Bum ba dum dum! He's BACK! Angrier, dumber, and and faster than before! Return of Dre-Man, part IV: The idiot chronicles!!!

Imperator: -1

Do try to refrain from being an assclown in the future.

Hey, some of us actually have a sense of humor.

?? Which one didn't I answer? The one about me "sucking my toes" or the non-question rant about my "catholic drivel" of an education? I can't answer things that aren't posed as questions.....

You didn't answer it because you know that you were pwned by it. I asked you plenty of questions that you lack the intelligence or the resolve to answer. If you wish to prove otherwise, actually respond. If not, I will assume that you have given up.

Soo... which questions didn't he answer? Will you pass up a chance to highlight instances of absolute "pwned"ness by Dre-Man? Rubb it in Imperator's face, for the whole BBS to see! Or well, at least the people that frequent this thread. Or at least humor us trying :)

---

At 2/20/07 02:28 PM, Togukawa wrote: Soo... which questions didn't he answer?

It just happens to be on page 17 on the thread, the only one of my posts he has succeeded in to completely overlook.

---

I cant believe care so much.

Who cares?

I've just listened to a song about god smoking cannibis, are you going to spend the next 19 pages to bash me?

God sake give it a rest.

---

At 2/20/07 02:37 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 2/20/07 02:28 PM, Togukawa wrote: Soo... which questions didn't he answer?

It just happens to be on page 17 on the thread, the only one of my posts he has succeeded in to completely overlook.

Yeah, well, there's a certain point when debating someone in which you lose the will to respond to all of their points individually and stating exactly why they are wrong when the person in question never listens and just repeats the same bullshit over and over again.

The thing is, a quick dismissal such as "you're a dumbass" works so much better. Too bad it usually just makes your opposition even more self-assured. For instance there's you, who is insisting they didn't respond in the proper manner because they were "pwned". Heh, yeah, pwned...I wonder when you're going to realise that your 14-year-old aura of omniscience isn't all you crack it up to be.

---

At 2/20/07 05:50 PM, Peter-II wrote:

At 2/20/07 02:37 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 2/20/07 02:28 PM, Togukawa wrote: Soo... which questions didn't he answer?

It just happens to be on page 17 on the thread, the only one of my posts he has succeeded in to completely overlook.

Yeah, well, there's a certain point when debating someone in which you lose the will to respond to all of their points individually and stating exactly why they are wrong when the person in question never listens and just repeats the same bullshit over and over again.

Okay, I'm so fucking tired of you saying that, it's like the 10th time. "You completley pwned him in every way imaginable, but you're just repetetive, and that's why he gave up." The truth is I introduced quite a few new things in that post, and both Imperator and you know that. He just happened to conveniantly overlook what I said, so that he could continue to spew insults and flames at me to make himself feel like he's winning. Then he actually was stupid enough to start a poll on who's the more intelligent person, clearly showing his own immaturity and stupidity.

And if you'd be so kind, why don't you actually show someone who's "given up" arguing with me. Togukawa, Sollnvictus, Imperator, etc. All of them have been continually arguing with me, without relent, for as long as I've been here. No one seems to be giving up the epic war against the ass hole known as Dre-Man.

And I'm DEFINATELY not the one you should be calling repetetive.

Imperator:

"You're a fundamentalist swine when it comes to interpreting the Bible, even though I'm the one who has the same views as the dumbass Catholic clergymen who instructed me in my ever so extensive 16 year Catholic education on theology and Christianity." Guess what Imperator, you're the one who has the same views as almost EVERY other Catholic in the world, and henceforth you shall be known as the hypocritical fundamentalist.

Togukawa:

"I know jack shit about the Bible, haven't read a page of it, yet I spend enough time on the internet googling the phrase 'why the bible is bullshit' and posting whatever I find on newgrounds to actually look like I have half of a brain." Guess what Togukawa, you're not even CLOSE to disproving my religion, so go ahead and keep thinking that you already have.

While I admit I'm wrong when I'm proven to be so, and frequently introduce new material in a debate, these two assclowns seem to be incapable of doing the same. Call me repetetive for the 11th time now, I beg you.

The thing is, a quick dismissal such as "you're a dumbass" works so much better. Too bad it usually just makes your opposition even more self-assured. For instance there's you, who is insisting they didn't respond in the proper manner because they were "pwned". Heh, yeah, pwned...I wonder when you're going to realise that your 14-year-old aura of omniscience isn't all you crack it up to be.

I wonder when you're going to realise that age doesn't mean jack shit and that the only reason you enjoy repeatedly referring the already known fact that I'm 14 is because you don't have anything else in that pitifully tiny vacant space in your head.

---

At 2/20/07 02:37 PM, Dre-Man wrote: It just happens to be on page 17 on the thread, the only one of my posts he has succeeded in to completely overlook.

Thank you, now I can go back and answer. My apologies for having a life outside of the forum, I DO have 17 credits and several upper level classes to attend to......

Besides, Ravariel had done such a fine job for me (as well as Togu), that I didn't feel the need to simply re-state what they already expressed....but if you insist.....

Ah yes, 7 is the Lord's perfect number.

Must be that "flowery language" of the bible right? Or did God just go "click"?

He's right, but why would a Catholic make that statement

Because I'm not an idiot.

Why would a Catholic speak out against his own beliefs?

Where am I speaking out against my own beliefs? I said there is no physical process that proves God's existance, which is 100% true. That says NOTHING of my belief that there are OTHER ways of showing his existance......

It makes absolutely no sense.

It makes PERFECT sense, you're just too stubborn to see the light....

It's NOT a two way street. It's two absolutely seperate streets, it's like comparing a gondola river in Venice to an autobahn in Germany.

They still both fufill the same basic purpose and principle, a street is a street, whether on land, sea, tunnel, bridge, whatever. Your analogy fails to explain this point.

What makes you think that the Bible was translated from hebrew by catholic church councils?

Where did I say that?

Why don't you tell me what you base YOUR non-literal interpretations on? The flawed teachings of your misguided little clergymen whom you think have the power to wash away your sins? Or did you actually base them off of your own reading and deciphering of the bible? Something tells me it's the words of the clergymen that are dribbling out of your divine Roman Catholic cake hole.

I base my interpretations on my own analysis of the Bible, after looking at it's history, authors, their biases and agendas, and the role of the Catholic Church both in ancient and modern times. Those "little clergymen" are historians my simple-minded fool, I read things like Eusebius, Roman Imperial decrees, and 3rd party outside sources to get a more eclectic view of the Bible.

I do not speak Greek, Latin, Hebrew, or Arabic, therefore in no way can I possibly read and decipher the Bible by myself. I rely on 2000 years worth of historical analysis to do that for me.

than an idiotic Catholic scumbag that does nothing more than give Christianity and the true words of the Bible a bad name.

Likewise Mr. Wishy Washy. You say you don't believe it literally, and that it has flowery language, but then say things that completely refute the point.....

Kudos to you Togukawa, you were right, Mr. Multi-Personality just waffled again, now he's an athiest!

Where have I claimed to be an atheist? If you wish for proof on evolution (which there is tons for), but don't give proof on God's presence, that's YOUR fault, not me being an atheist. My faith (that's blood sucking Catholicism to you Dre) is not based on simply scientific physical references for proof, I have a little thing called "faith" to back it.

And that's supposed to persuade me how? I think Catholics are idiots, yet what they think is supposed to sway my way of thinking? Logic...

Well, they've been studying more documents than I have, and get around in councils to interpret things. You sit with your family, read ONE version of JUST the Bible, and then form your opinion. I'm goin with the guys who have taken a more academic approach (Catholic clergy).

And I highly doubt you understand the true implications of "logos".......

Bible verse, bible verse, where's the bible verse? Doesn't work, sorry.

Why do you need a bible verse? How does the lack of one have any implication on what comes out of these Ecumenical Councils?

Whether or not you worhip the saints is irrelevant, the fact that you pray to them is enough to blatantly prove your direct contradiction the Bible

I'm supposed to take your word over the word of 300+ Bishops, scholars, and experts on the subject...WHY?

Call it "honoring" them, call it "idolizing" them, it's all the same.

Do you "honor" your mother and father? Cause that's a commandment, I guess that means we're supposed to "Idolize" them too, since it's all the same, right?

You ask them to be your advocate in the face of God. And they are DEAD, they can not hear you, they are not in heaven, and will not be until judgement day comes.

Guess we should stop putting up monuments of Washington, reading Homer, and even bother with History at all eh?

Read Revelation, which you obviously haven't done even in the entirety of your supposed 16 year Catholic education, and you will learn, that even the holy Saints and martyrs have not been saved yet.

Do you even know who the author of that book was, why he wrote it, and what it was meant to achieve? Or did you just read the book and take everything at face value?

A little more education to add to your supposed 16 years of religious enlightenment.

Modern education includes a strong critique of one's sources. Yours is more the ancient 'I'll believe anything written down, just cause it's written down" line.....

If I came out and said without any backing from the Bible which is the only article of Christian code existing today

Oh my word! Aparently you've missed a few documents along the way......

that praying to the angels is a legitimate practice because they are divine beings, would I be correct?

No. The difference is Catholics DO have backing from the Bible.
Where do you think all the debates arise from, thin fuckin air?

The angels are holy, and have direct contact with God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. If I prayed to them, asking them to be my advocate in the face of the Lord, would I be correct? No.

Then explain the Holy Trinity.

Thus, the father of Constatine was warding against what is now modern day Catholicism, and prayer to the Saints for that matter. He says that they are to be honored, and revered. Not prayed to, or asked to be the advocate of men in the face of God. You just quoted something that contradicts your own beliefs. Logic...

What the hell? This is so full of bullshit I don't even know where to start!
The father of Constantine was the son of a Roman general, who had absolutely no connection to Catholicism whatsoever. The fuck kind of fucked up argument are you trying to prove? Constantius has nothing to do with ANYTHING.

You just said a bunch of historically inaccurate bullshit, proving the point that you'll believe pretty much anything without researching didly squat.

Logos....

Misuse of words, I admitted to that. Drop it.

Misuse of words, but (see above) you went into a whole tirade about how I still go against the Bible by praying to Saints. I'll drop it when you admit you're wrong, until then, it's fair fuckin game.

Do try to refrain from being an assclown in the future.

Likewise.

You didn't answer it because you know that you were pwned by it.

Me; What didn't I answer?
you; You didn't answer because your an idiot!
me; ???

Way to answer my question there bub.....

Let's try another and see what happens:
Why isn't the Gospel of Judas in the bible?

If you wish to prove otherwise, actually respond. If not, I will assume that you have given up.

You have to tell me WHAT to answer before I can answer it dumbass. If I don't know what the fuck you're talking about, it's a little hard for me to debate.....

Now you show nothing but your own lack of self-assurance

"Because you know you're being crushed under the weight of your own ignorance and uneducated foolishness."

And you're showing hubris (another great greek term). I'm gonna dispel that hybris for you....

You know that everyone on newgrounds views me in a negative light,

Ever bother to ask yourself WHY?

---

At 2/20/07 06:09 PM, Dre-Man wrote: Okay, I'm so fucking tired of you saying that, it's like the 10th time. "You completley pwned him in every way imaginable, but you're just repetetive, and that's why he gave up."

Alright, what? That's not what I said at all...

The truth is I introduced quite a few new things in that post, and both Imperator and you know that.

I have a life outside of these forums. I don't have the time to read every single, incredibly extensive post by you, Togukawa and Imperator. However, every time I attempt to read the debate fully, it's always the same things from you...ranging from "oh, well they're just theories" all the way to "oh, well you worhsip saints so you're not a Christian". And they render your argument meaningless every time, without fail.

So when you say "ah, well you ignored my post on page 17", I think I'm allowed to make a few assumptions without taking the time to read whatever you put on page 17. If I'm wrong, whatever, better being wrong 2% of the time than being wrong 98% of the time....

Whatever, Imperator's responded to your post now.

He just happened to conveniantly overlook what I said, so that he could continue to spew insults and flames at me to make himself feel like he's winning. Then he actually was stupid enough to start a poll on who's the more intelligent person, clearly showing his own immaturity and stupidity.

Yeah, but it was damn funny.

:D

And if you'd be so kind, why don't you actually show someone who's "given up" arguing with me. Togukawa, Sollnvictus, Imperator, etc. All of them have been continually arguing with me, without relent, for as long as I've been here. No one seems to be giving up the epic war against the ass hole known as Dre-Man.

Imperator's done so a few times, but he usually comes back. There's also me, I'm trying to leave this debate...'course, temptation gets the better of me sometimes.

And I'm DEFINATELY not the one you should be calling repetetive.

Well done with the ad hominem there. It really made your argument more credible.

While I admit I'm wrong when I'm proven to be so, and frequently introduce new material in a debate, these two assclowns seem to be incapable of doing the same. Call me repetetive for the 11th time now, I beg you.

You're repetitive! They wouldn't be saying the same damn things over and over again if you didn't keep repeating the same damn arguments! It's like:

Dre-man: Argument 1
Togukawa: Disproves argument 1
Dre-man: Oh yeah? Well argument 1

Dre-man: Argument 2
Imperator: Disproves argument 2
Dre-man: Oh yeah? Well argument 2

I wonder when you're going to realise that age doesn't mean jack shit and that the only reason you enjoy repeatedly referring the already known fact that I'm 14 is because you don't have anything else in that pitifully tiny vacant space in your head.

Okay, let me make it clear that the fact that you're 14 doesn't automatically make your argument(s) invalid. However, the fact that you think you can discount YEARS of education in Catholicism with NO relevant education whatsoever on your part just because you're incredibly self-assured and think you know everything (two traits that, as it stands, often go hand in hand with people of your age) DOES make your arguments at least ridiculous.

Young people are allowed to debate. Young people can, in many cases, debate well. Young people, however, should accept that they still have a lot to learn and don't know more about subjects that other people have spent years studying.

See what I'm getting at now?

---

He just happened to conveniantly overlook what I said, so that he could continue to spew insults and flames at me to make himself feel like he's winning.

This isn't a hockey game fool. If I learn anything from this, then I'll "win" regardless, that's what debate is about, exchange of information and knowledge. This comment only further shows your lack of maturity.

Then he actually was stupid enough to start a poll on who's the more intelligent person, clearly showing his own immaturity and stupidity.

Go right to the source. You wanna tell me I'm saying things out of ignorance, I wanna call you a moron every second, let's bring in a 3rd party to decide.

Guess what Imperator, you're the one who has the same views as almost EVERY other Catholic in the world, and henceforth you shall be known as the hypocritical fundamentalist.

Really? You've asked all 1 billion Catholics to make that determination? No? Then SHUT UP! You don't know jack SHIT about what anyone else thinks, you're full of it, I'm calling this bluff.

Put up your research that shows that nearly all 1 billion Catholics believe exactly the same things I do, NOW.

Guess what Togukawa, you're not even CLOSE to disproving my religion, so go ahead and keep thinking that you already have.

You just don't get it. NO ONE is here to "disprove" religion. You're a fuckin MORON if you can't see past that.

and frequently introduce new material in a debate,

Bullshit. You're like a bad cold that won't go away. Same fuckin DISEASE, different symptom.

these two assclowns seem to be incapable of doing the same.

I believe I was the one who started calling YOU an assclown. Aparently I'm having more impact on you than I thought.......(talk about repeditive, he's even using MY insults in HIS "arguments").

I wonder when you're going to realise that age doesn't mean jack shit and that the only reason you enjoy repeatedly referring the already known fact that I'm 14 is because you don't have anything else in that pitifully tiny vacant space in your head.

Get the fuck off my forums you little shit! You've never done a fuckin thing for society, you're a leech, a hack, and a baby. Keep believing age doesn't matter, and try to do ANYTHING adult with that attitude. You can't even fucking DRIVE without Mommy sitting next to you, so OBVIOUSY age has a HUGE difference. People have been studying this shit longer than you've been ALIVE, and you say age has no impact? Get the fuck out of here with that attitude.

---

Fuck it, I'm done with your ass. You fail to listen to the "logos" I present, so fuck it. Fuck off Dre-Man, no one likes you cause you're an ignorant prick of a human being. If I had my way, you would have been IP banned a month ago, but thank God I'm not REALLY an Imperator I guess.....

if anyone ELSE has a question to ask, I'll still do my best to answer them about Christianity, Roman Catholicism, or whatever other religion v science thing needs to be discussed.

---

At 2/20/07 02:28 PM, Togukawa wrote:

At 2/20/07 02:04 PM, Dre-Man wrote: Imperator: -1

Do try to refrain from being an assclown in the future.

Hey, some of us actually have a sense of humor.

and know how keeping score works.

only a god may change the these rules i.e. me.

---

At 1/18/07 10:37 AM, DJ-Jerakai wrote: Ok, so religion has the bible, the koran, the holy scriptures and so fourth and so on, but Science has everything else plus logic. False.

Science has disproved many Christian theories, such as the evolution of man, contrary to the theory of Adam and Eve. False.

So! This raises several questions.
Firstly, why do people still believe that mankind descended from Adam and Eve in the face of Sheer scientific fact?

And secondly, how long will it be before Science completely disproves the theory of how god made earth and validates the big bang theory?

Thirdly, once that happends, would faithfuls continue to blindly ignore scientific facts and follow disproven religious texts?

First question: What sheer sceintific fact?

Second question: You can't prove everything.

Third Question: It won't happen. Ever. Period.

So, is your IQ 2?

---

Dre-Man: 1
Imperator: 6

Imperator is so far the winner, no surprise...

---

At 2/20/07 09:53 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: Dre-Man: 1

where did he get that point?

---

At 2/20/07 09:57 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 2/20/07 09:53 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: Dre-Man: 1

where did he get that point?

He voted for himself, sorta.

---

alright, i guess itll pass

---

At 2/20/07 09:49 PM, Fuzzboy2 wrote:

At 1/18/07 10:37 AM, DJ-Jerakai wrote: Firstly, why do people still believe that mankind descended from Adam and Eve in the face of Sheer scientific fact?

And secondly, how long will it be before Science completely disproves the theory of how god made earth and validates the big bang theory?

Thirdly, once that happends, would faithfuls continue to blindly ignore scientific facts and follow disproven religious texts?

First question: What sheer sceintific fact?

Second question: You can't prove everything.

Third Question: It won't happen. Ever. Period.

So, is your IQ 2?

I've been keeping my eyes on this thread and I really want to comment here.
1. We have plenty of fossils that prove evolutionary changes. We also have carbon dating that proves the age of the aforementioned fossils to be millions of years old. If you need religious confirmation of this, the Catholic Church embraced evolution. The Catholic church has about a billion followers.
2. While most people believe that evolution is just "we came from monkeys," they are incorrect. We didn't come from monkeys. We share a common genetic ancestor with primates and through millions of years of natural selection, we evolved into human beings. Another argument against evolution is that the "Big Bang" theory is incorrect. That, too, is a misguided assumption. The universe is structured to create black holes. Our sun, one day, will become a black hole. One of the characteristics of a universe that creates black holes is that every now and then, a planet with life is created. The odds of a planet having any life, much less life like we have here on Earth, are astronomical. Therefore, we are just the byproduct of a universal anomily (I not sure I spelled that word correctly).
3. While science can never actually disprove a deity, it does offer quite a bit of evidence for the case against deities. Might I suggest you read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. He explains a lot of these things in much greater detail than I ever could.

Another thing... Your first point actually was a question, but the second was a declarative sentence and your third point was another declarative sentence followed by two fragments. I hate to be such an ass about things like that, but I'm an English major and things like that stick in my craw.

---

At 2/20/07 06:19 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 2/20/07 02:37 PM, Dre-Man wrote: It's NOT a two way street. It's two absolutely seperate streets, it's like comparing a gondola river in Venice to an autobahn in Germany.

They still both fufill the same basic purpose and principle, a street is a street, whether on land, sea, tunnel, bridge, whatever. Your analogy fails to explain this point.

The analogy explains that Christianity and your "scientific" theories can not coexist. Proven science and Christianity go hand in hand, whilst the unproven theories of Evolution and the Big Bang contradict Genesis and its "fundamentalist" interpretations. Evolution and the Big Bang should not be seen as scientific theories when no physical processes have been shown to explain to us how this phenomena of life chemically being generated out of thin air could have been possible.

Find me a website that says that an experiment has been conducted, and that man has successfully recorded data of a natural occurance of life being chemically produced from a collection of amino acids gathering together spontaneously out of nowhere. If you can not, then you have no physical processes to explain how evolution could have been possible, or how life could have been created without a God or intelligent creator.

The Bible says, that the world was created within the time period of six days. But, I'm a fundamentalist prick because I don't follow the same blind interpretations that you do. These interpretations were instilled in you by your Catholic teachers, priests, bishops, whatever. Whilst my interpretations are based on the actual reading of the book. Why shouldn't I interpret the Bible literally? Should I try and find some kind of hidden meaning behind every single verse of the Bible? Is everything in the Bible meant to be interpreted symbolically?

I base my interpretations on my own analysis of the Bible, after looking at it's history, authors, their biases and agendas, and the role of the Catholic Church both in ancient and modern times.

The Catholic church is hardly ancient, seeing as though it has been founded in the past 1500 years. If you truly have read Genesis and the six day creation story and interpreted it yourself without biased Roman Catholic presuppositions and have still come to the outcome that evolution is possible, you're an idiot and not just ignorant as previously suspected.

You don't believe that Adam was the first man because you read it, you believe that Adam was the first man because you were taught that as a child, and refuse to see that the Bible clearly contradicts your early childhood teachings. Let me ask you a question, how exactly did Adam give birth to all of the races? Did Adam simply evolve to create the many racial sanctions of mankind? Lawlz.

I do not speak Greek, Latin, Hebrew, or Arabic, therefore in no way can I possibly read and decipher the Bible by myself. I rely on 2000 years worth of historical analysis to do that for me.

The King James version of the Bible isn't so entirely poorly translated that it is impossible to draw conclusions from its text. The majority of the problems we have with the King James version are the grammatical errors. Do you truly believe that one can not decipher the Bible if he can not read the original Hebrew and Greek scriptures?

Why do you need a bible verse? How does the lack of one have any implication on what comes out of these Ecumenical Councils?

Why do you need a Bible verse to explain why you pray to the Saints? Because there is absolutely no reason or need to pray to the Saints if the Bible does not tell us to do so.

I'm supposed to take your word over the word of 300+ Bishops, scholars, and experts on the subject...WHY?

Because your pitiful Catholic bishops have no biblical backing for their beliefs whatsoever. Prove otherwise, I beg you. Back your arguments biblically, and show me why exactly you claim that praying to the Saints is a biblically correct practice. I WANT you to show me that you have a reason.

Guess we should stop putting up monuments of Washington, reading Homer, and even bother with History at all eh?

How is building a monument the same as prayer in any fashion? Honoring and praying to a dead person are two entirely different practices.

Do you even know who the author of that book was, why he wrote it, and what it was meant to achieve? Or did you just read the book and take everything at face value?

The author of Revelation was John, the most loved of Jesus's apostles, who wrote the book because of a dream that was given to him from the Lord, and it was written to warn Christians of the unbelievers and the tribulations they would bring about the earth with the dragon and his beasts as their leader. Yes, I know quite a bit about the book, and that it undeniably states that no one is to be saved until the tribulations brought about by the dragon on Earth abruptly end. Then the living, and dead Christians who have endured the hardships brought about by Satan will be brought together before the Lord, and will be justified and saved. Heaven will await those who endure, whilst those who forsook the Lord will be judged and die the second death.

So yes, your saints are dead. They are not in heaven, and do not pray for the living. Because they are not in heaven and are dead they can not hear your prayers. So in reality praying to them actually makes you something of a necromancer.

No. The difference is Catholics DO have backing from the Bible.
Where do you think all the debates arise from, thin fuckin air?

Pretty much. The fact that you don't have a single verse in the Bible that can explain your prayer to the saints tells me that you don't have any backing from the Bible whatsoever. Therefore praying to the angels is just as biblically correct as praying to the saints.

Then explain the Holy Trinity.

One and three, three and one. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I know what the holy trinity is, why do you ask?

What the hell? This is so full of bullshit I don't even know where to start!
The father of Constantine was the son of a Roman general, who had absolutely no connection to Catholicism whatsoever. The fuck kind of fucked up argument are you trying to prove? Constantius has nothing to do with ANYTHING.

Whoever you quoted that from, whether it be Constantine, his father, or someone else, he directly contradicted your beliefs, yet you seemed to think that by quoting him you were advocating your own point, but in reality you were linking something that directly contradicted prayer to the saints. They should be honored, and revered, but prayer should belong only to God. That's what your quote was trying to get across.

Misuse of words, but (see above) you went into a whole tirade about how I still go against the Bible by praying to Saints. I'll drop it when you admit you're wrong, until then, it's fair fuckin game.

You do contradict the Bible by praying to the saints. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. The misuse of words was saying that you worship the saints.

You know that everyone on newgrounds views me in a negative light,

Ever bother to ask yourself WHY?

Because most people do not hold the same opinions as I do.

---

but I'm an English major and things like that stick in my craw.

Either you're really smart and are already in college, or your profile is wrong (Age 17).....

That your you've already decided where and what you want to do.

The last possibility is you're lying.

Care to explain how a 17 year old is an English major?

---

At 2/20/07 07:02 PM, Peter-II wrote:

At 2/20/07 06:09 PM, Dre-Man wrote: Okay, I'm so fucking tired of you saying that, it's like the 10th time. "You completley pwned him in every way imaginable, but you're just repetetive, and that's why he gave up."

Alright, what? That's not what I said at all...

Oh, so you didn't claim that I do nothing but repeat the same thing over and over again until my opponent simply gives up? Short term memory, I guess.

The truth is I introduced quite a few new things in that post, and both Imperator and you know that.

I have a life outside of these forums. I don't have the time to read every single, incredibly extensive post by you, Togukawa and Imperator. However, every time I attempt to read the debate fully, it's always the same things from you...ranging from "oh, well they're just theories" all the way to "oh, well you worhsip saints so you're not a Christian". And they render your argument meaningless every time, without fail.

Incorrect. My arguments generally orbit around "oh, well they're just theories" and "oh, well you worship the saints so you're not a Christian." but I tend to introduce new discussions in every post. Simply because I do not change my opinions does not mean that I do not refresh my arguments.

Imperator's done so a few times, but he usually comes back. There's also me, I'm trying to leave this debate...'course, temptation gets the better of me sometimes.

You don't debate, you just like to throw in an occasional "Dre-Man's an idiot and a fag." while other people debate.

You're repetitive! They wouldn't be saying the same damn things over and over again if you didn't keep repeating the same damn arguments! It's like:

I don't see a quote. Just your miserably failed attempts to jab me for supposedly repeating arguments.

Okay, let me make it clear that the fact that you're 14 doesn't automatically make your argument(s) invalid. However, the fact that you think you can discount YEARS of education in Catholicism with NO relevant education whatsoever on your part just because you're incredibly self-assured and think you know everything (two traits that, as it stands, often go hand in hand with people of your age) DOES make your arguments at least ridiculous.

I've seen more than you ever will in a lifetime, meaning the majority of Europe. And in 3 months, I'm moving BACK to Europe, to see even more than I already have. I am more cultured and experienced than you could ever even dream of being. You may have been through High School, you may have been through college, but you will not have seen or done as much as I have done at the age of nearly 15, when you are on your death bed in your 70's or 80's.

My assumption of Imperator's years of Catholic education is that he learned jack shit, because he clearly knows nothing about the Bible, probably hasn't read half of it, but likes to call my interpretations bullshit and fundamentalist, when he hasn't even read the book enough to have his own interpretations.

As for MY knowledge of Catholicism, it comes from my family. Both sides of my family were born and bred Roman Catholic, and were intelligent enough to actually read the Bible, and see for themselves that they were being misled by their own church. New Orleans, the epicenter of Catholicism, is where half of my bloodline originates. Much of my family retains its early Catholic beliefs, but many of us have seen the truth.

Young people are allowed to debate. Young people can, in many cases, debate well. Young people, however, should accept that they still have a lot to learn and don't know more about subjects that other people have spent years studying.

Once again, I have seen, done, and know more than you could ever hope to. You may be slightly more educated in certain areas, but clearly not to the extent of being able to call me uneducated or unexperienced.

See what I'm getting at now?

Humiliating yourself?

---

At 2/20/07 10:33 PM, Imperator wrote:

but I'm an English major and things like that stick in my craw.

Either you're really smart and are already in college, or your profile is wrong (Age 17).....

That your you've already decided where and what you want to do.

The last possibility is you're lying.

Care to explain how a 17 year old is an English major?

Ah, I need to clear up a few things. I am in college and I'm going to be an English major. It's just easier to say "English major" than it is to say "Well, my present educational situation is this and your grammar is completely horrid." I am very good at what I do, though. Grammar is a passion of mine. As long as that is your only complaint about my post, we'll be fine. Want some vanilla pudding? I have plenty.

---

At 2/20/07 10:53 PM, Snerd wrote: Ah, I need to clear up a few things. I am in college and I'm going to be an English major. It's just easier to say "English major" than it is to say "Well, my present educational situation is this and your grammar is completely horrid." I am very good at what I do, though. Grammar is a passion of mine. As long as that is your only complaint about my post, we'll be fine. Want some vanilla pudding? I have plenty.

Good shit. No offense meant good sir. Just tryin to nip things in the butt. Stick around long enough, and you see things that just don't add up.

And HELL yes I want some pudding!!

PS:

Not having an edit button is REALLY gonna get your undies in a bunch on here, trust me on that one (especially because of your passon as an English major)!!

---

At 2/20/07 10:57 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 2/20/07 10:53 PM, Snerd wrote: Ah, I need to clear up a few things. I am in college and I'm going to be an English major. It's just easier to say "English major" than it is to say "Well, my present educational situation is this and your grammar is completely horrid." I am very good at what I do, though. Grammar is a passion of mine. As long as that is your only complaint about my post, we'll be fine. Want some vanilla pudding? I have plenty.

Good shit. No offense meant good sir. Just tryin to nip things in the butt. Stick around long enough, and you see things that just don't add up.

And HELL yes I want some pudding!!

PS:

Not having an edit button is REALLY gonna get your undies in a bunch on here, trust me on that one (especially because of your passon as an English major)!!

1. Unless you have a penchant for sodomy, the phrase is "nip it in the bud"; I'm not judging, though... lol
2. I know about the whole "no edit button" thing. I've been around NG much longer than it says I have. My last account got hacked and later deleted and I lost interest in NG. I'm just now returning.
3. My grandfather ate the last pudding. Sorry.
4. I really wanted to represent the case for science. I have been watching this topic for some time now and I've been waiting for the proper point to step into the debate.

---

At 2/20/07 10:57 PM, Imperator wrote:
Good shit. No offense meant good sir. Just tryin to nip things in the butt. Stick around long enough, and you see things that just don't add up.

*you'll.

See what I mean about that edit button? lol....

Sentence didn't even make sense.....

Take 2:

Stick around long enough, and you'll find enough users posing as one thing or another, but most of the information they give does not add up. For instance, 9/11 conspiracy believers will claim to be the end all experts in their fields, while having absolutely no degree to back em up. Other people will claim expertise is such and such (Dre and theology), and it turns out that they're 14 and haven't had any classroom experience whatsoever on said subjects.

I still want pudding though.....

---

Fuck. Responded about 12 seconds too late......

4. I really wanted to represent the case for science. I have been watching this topic for some time now and I've been waiting for the proper point to step into the debate.

I'll give it a shot on the religious side if you wanna have a go at it. Unfortunately I don't actually believe the two are separable, so I might have trouble arguing completely one-sided.

Still, I'm up for the challenge. I'll go first!

Argument 1:
Religion is the only correct stance because science fails to adequately prove human existance from a biological standpoint. Evolution and the Big Bang are intangible theories that do not properly explain how life on this planet evolved into the forms we now know as human beings, complete with culture, entertainment, emotions, and intellect.

---

At 2/20/07 11:04 PM, Snerd wrote:
1. Unless you have a penchant for sodomy, the phrase is "nip it in the bud"; I'm not judging, though... lol

Lol! Freudian Slip perhaps?

3. My grandfather ate the last pudding. Sorry.

nnnnooooooooooooo!

---

At 2/20/07 10:32 PM, Dre-Man wrote: Proven science and Christianity go hand in hand, whilst the unproven theories of Evolution and the Big Bang contradict Genesis and its "fundamentalist" interpretations.

*click*