Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » The Passion of the Christ
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Passion of the Christ [message #164746 is a reply to message #164699] |
Fri, 29 July 2005 18:12   |
 |
amid_tha_rubble
Messages: 97
Registered: November 2003
Location: Canada
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
no offense, but i don't accept your family as evidence that the 'catholic church' is messed up. I accept it as evidence that your family is messed up (you said it, not me). My family is catholic, as is the family of a number of my friends, and we're doing just fine. Sorry.
Down with the Liberal Thieves in Ottawa!
[Updated on: Fri, 29 July 2005 18:22] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: The Passion of the Christ [message #164747 is a reply to message #164699] |
Fri, 29 July 2005 18:20 |
|
amid_tha_rubble
Messages: 97
Registered: November 2003
Location: Canada
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| j_ball430 wrote on Fri, 29 July 2005 10:18 |
| amid_tha_rubble wrote on Thu, 28 July 2005 00:28 |
You, on the other hand, have likely never opened a book about catechism and therefore are not yet ready to debate me on the issue.
|
You're right, I never have, BUT I went to a Catholic school up until the end of 6th grade, and then I had a class or two on Catholicism in my Protestant school. I know the contradictions. I know the stupidity of the church. Hell, my family is a prime example of how messed up the Catholic church is.
|
there's your problem. You go sola scriptura from the bible, which is the real farce. The bible is the Official Canon of the Roman Catholic Church. It was never meant to supplant church teaching, but to supplement it. The real authority on Jesus' teachings IS the church. It always was. The bible is a supplement to those teachings.
The thing that i find funny is that you take the bible to be the be-all-end-all. If you accept the bible as the absolute authority on all things related to Jesus, then don't you have to accept the absolute authority of the Church which uses it as it's official canon?
There is no hypocrisy or contradiction in church teaching. Now that doesn't mean i don't agree with everything the church says (i.e. 'no women priests') but at the same time, core church doctrines are fine, with absolutely no contradictions. And I'm sorry if you thought I was going ad hominem, i assure you that was not my intent. But as I've said, i'm really notin the mood to keep arguing this. Neither of us is going to change each other's opinions, so i suggest that we respectfully agree to disagree. 
Down with the Liberal Thieves in Ottawa!
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Passion of the Christ [message #164749 is a reply to message #164747] |
Fri, 29 July 2005 18:44 |
 |
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| amid_tha_rubble wrote on Fri, 29 July 2005 21:20 |
The thing that i find funny is that you take the bible to be the be-all-end-all. If you accept the bible as the absolute authority on all things related to Jesus, then don't you have to accept the absolute authority of the Church which uses it as it's official canon?
|
No, you don't. The "absolute authority" of the catholic Church lies entirely on one single misinterpreted line in the entire logos. ONE! On top of that, lol, is that such line never establishes an absolute authrority! It doesn't establish anything at all! The Papacy and the cardinals did that themselves, and like much of the world, they played you all really good. REALLY good.
The worst part is that the Church, (more specifically, Constantine) opted that Jesus must have implied that a hierarchal construct is to be created as a result of him using a metaphor on Peter. What's even funnier though, is the way that organization is run. I mean, it is really a ridiculous thing! Conclave?! Where is conclave inferred from in the Bible? Where is this self proclaimed immutable correctness of a man elected through the redundant democracy of a bunch of old men who vote amounst themselves in the Bible? How exactly is nepotism something that you, me, or anyone else alive today have the authority to call truth when God never said--OR IMPLIED-- anything even REMOTELY like that.
The problem with your interpretation of scripture is that your Church has created their own doctrine, called it dogma, and somehow calls it infalliable-- kind of like what Stalin and Kim Jong Il did in their respective nations.
The Catholic Church consistently uses inverted Aristotilian logic to validate themselves. A highly generalized but accurate example is as follows: "God exists, therefore Jesus exists, therefore the Church exists, therefore the legitimacy of the Papacy exists, therefore whatever the Papacy says is capital T Truth....because God exists." And it is a flat out idiotic thing that, has only existed this long because of the very popular and powerful influence of faith based on the one good man who lived and died. It seems to be one of the very few things that Catholicism has gotten right-- the existence and nature of Jesus.
I ask you to prove to me, using the ancient texts, that Peter was given absolute authority in such a fashion (and this is important, because I know exactly what you're going to say) that it unarguably implies that Peter's nepotismic decendants are to inherent this authority and that these descendants are also to be elected by old men ordained by God and God alone. Because you know as well as I that no one has the power to embue the power of God into man but God Himself.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Passion of the Christ [message #164753 is a reply to message #164746] |
Fri, 29 July 2005 20:41 |
 |
cheesesoda
Messages: 6507
Registered: March 2003
Location: Jackson, Michigan
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
| amid_tha_rubble wrote on Fri, 29 July 2005 20:12 |
no offense, but i don't accept your family as evidence that the 'catholic church' is messed up. I accept it as evidence that your family is messed up (you said it, not me). My family is catholic, as is the family of a number of my friends, and we're doing just fine. Sorry.
|
That's because you're Catholic, you can't afford to look at it from a different perspective. I was a Catholic for some time, therefore, I have the ability to look from both perspectives.
Also, I'll let Java finish the fight, he actually likes to research his information and is damn good at it, too.
whoa.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Passion of the Christ [message #164924 is a reply to message #164753] |
Sun, 31 July 2005 12:50 |
|
amid_tha_rubble
Messages: 97
Registered: November 2003
Location: Canada
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Ugh. Still thumping the bible again. I'm done with this argument, i'm am just sooo tired of explaining the same shit over and over again - and you completely missed the point of my post. I'm sorry you don't like catholics, really. Ttyl
Down with the Liberal Thieves in Ottawa!
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Passion of the Christ [message #164925 is a reply to message #164753] |
Sun, 31 July 2005 12:52 |
|
amid_tha_rubble
Messages: 97
Registered: November 2003
Location: Canada
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| j_ball430 wrote on Fri, 29 July 2005 23:41 |
| amid_tha_rubble wrote on Fri, 29 July 2005 20:12 |
no offense, but i don't accept your family as evidence that the 'catholic church' is messed up. I accept it as evidence that your family is messed up (you said it, not me). My family is catholic, as is the family of a number of my friends, and we're doing just fine. Sorry.
|
That's because you're Catholic, you can't afford to look at it from a different perspective. I was a Catholic for some time, therefore, I have the ability to look from both perspectives.
Also, I'll let Java finish the fight, he actually likes to research his information and is damn good at it, too.
|
i have plenty of friends who aren't even christian, and i can look at my catholic friends families from a different perspective. Right now, I'm heading back to a family party for my second cousins who were just baptized into the church. It's also a party for my aunt and uncle who are having their 40th wedding anniversary. We're having a great time.
Down with the Liberal Thieves in Ottawa!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Re: The Passion of the Christ [message #164999 is a reply to message #164926] |
Mon, 01 August 2005 12:18 |
|
amid_tha_rubble
Messages: 97
Registered: November 2003
Location: Canada
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
ROTFL.
Serious quick argument time.
| Quote: |
No, you don't. The "absolute authority" of the catholic Church lies entirely on one single misinterpreted line in the entire logos. ONE! On top of that, lol, is that such line never establishes an absolute authrority! It doesn't establish anything at all! The Papacy and the cardinals did that themselves, and like much of the world, they played you all really good. REALLY good
|
Listen, you keep claiming that 'i'm wrong' but you never offer any proof. My point does exist: There is no contradiction in catechism. Only God can forgive sins? Then why the passage "He whose sins you forgive will be forgiven; he whose sins you retain shall be retained'. As for your requirement that everything christian be founded in the bible, what about 'Now Jesus did many more things than are written down here but if written out, I suppose the whole world could not hold them'. There's that point.
For someone who claims to base things from the bible, you sure do ignore the hierarchies existant in Paul's letters, and in the Acts of the Apostles and in all the other letters to the Churches. Had you read them carefully you can see that church leaders and hierarchies are already taking shape in the time of the Apostles; that is to say, The apostles are forming the Roman Catholic Christian Church!! Jesus Gave the apostles the authority to become 'fishers of men'. So they did, and following that they did so by growing Jesus' Church on earth. They had the Holy Spirit to guide them, as Jesus says, 'I will send the Helper'. So, if on Authority from Jesus, and in Union with the Holy Spirit, the Apostles started the Catholic Christian Church, it would seem that the Chruch does Indeed have complete apostolic authority; other man made churches simply do not. The bible clearly shows that the hierarchical church is taking shape in Peter, Paul and the rest of the apostles' time. | Quote: |
Where is conclave inferred from in the Bible?
|
Say it with me, one more time: "The bible is the Canon of the Roman Catholic Church. It is not a stand alone document. It supplements Church teaching, it does not supplant it
I am sure that you will say the RC Chruch isn't the original Christian Church; to that i will simply say that surely no protestant Church is, so that kinda narrows it down, don't it?
I recall you saying that there was only one line in the bible that proves authority of the church 'I tell you you are petros...on this rock i will found my church' etc. Notwithstanding the fact that I've already proved that the bible is the Canon of the RC church and therefore not the be-all-end-all of God's Word, I'll humour you. You said 'it was only one line' - I'll humourously question you, how many lines does it take for God's Word to be true? One? Three? Five? Are we counting to determine importance? How many lines of Scripture that reveal Jesus' complete glory to the Israelites are jsut that - ONE LINE!
Part of your problem is that (here's the shocker) you lack faith in Christ; Faith that His apostles, led By The Holy Spirit (God Himself!) and directed by Jesus (Ditto) grew His Church into what it is today; Seriously, how on earth could you think that God would tell the apostles 'Grow my Church' and then dodder off for two thousand years? Do you think Jesus would give authority to His apostles (in His name) and then just go AFK?
It comes down to Faith.
I figured you would take my apathy for responding to yet another anti-catholic hack (now i am ad hominem, but so are you) as being 'defeated' in my argument. You can think what you like. I have spent FAR too long online arguing the Chruch's authority to apostates such as yourself and, as I have said, I am simply no longer willing to do it. Period. End of story. And I realy wish you'd stop baiting me by continuing this pointless tit-for-tat BS because you will not take my eye off of Truth, nor will I lead you from your mistaken blindness. If you choose to respond to this forum, fine. But i'm taking off my e-mail alerts for this topic and i'm not coming back. It is a waste of my time.
Perhaps what is most amusing about your vitriolic anti-catholic attitude is that your church hasn't once come up; not once have I asked what denomination, if any, you belonged to. Not once have I made any attempt to attack your denomination, your beliefs about Christ, or your devotion to your faith. Not once have i questioned your dogma. Never. But you don't seem to have any problem launching a good-ol'-catholic bashing. If you aren't catholic, why should you care? Why'd you bring it up? Why so judgemental? Despite the truth that protestant churches are clearly in apostasy from God's One True Mother Church, I haven't made it an issue. Because I don't care. Because that's between you and God. I will never understand the protestant drive to slander the roman Catholic Church's teachings, other than the fact that moral-relativist-nihlists can't stand to see someone take a stand on anything.
Anyways, that's it, i'm done, no more arguing, reminders are off, see you later. Enough rambling. Bye. Have a good life.
Down with the Liberal Thieves in Ottawa!
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Passion of the Christ [message #165031 is a reply to message #164999] |
Mon, 01 August 2005 16:11 |
|
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
I'm not sure you're aware of your own self-validiation throughout your flawed argument. You've gone out and crapped ot more of that Aristotilian logic that simply doesn't work here.
And I would very much like to clarify to you: I was baptized Anglican-- but I very much not Anglican in practice. I find your organized worship to be a hinderance and the sheeplike following to be a plague. Your Church, established on the name of God and in the acts of good has done some very evil things and continues to blaspheme God. What's worse, you do it in total ignorance of it. The protestants had the right idea by cleaning up the Catholic bastardization of the Bible but in their own right have messed up a fair bit. The confederation of altered faiths you could potentially categorize protestantism is, is in itself another blasphamy. As such, I want to make clear to you that your conception and blind tracking of such a flawed organization, be it catholic or protestant is a problem and you are quite wrong to categorize me into either of these.
| amid_tha_rubble wrote on Mon, 01 August 2005 15:18 |
Listen, you keep claiming that 'i'm wrong' but you never offer any proof. My point does exist: There is no contradiction in catechism.
|
Actually, as I've already stated and you convieniently ignored: The Catechism already works fine... if you accept that which is in it as an extention of the Bible. The problem is though-- it's not. Much of what is in the Catechism, the blantantly obvious rules which come from the Bible are accurate. Except for when it comes down to dealing with falsehoods such as the Papacy, the divinity or "specialness" of Mary, just about everything in the Vatican, it's dead wrong. THOSE are contradictions. They have no Biblical criterium or reinforcement. THERE IS NO TIGER CLAW. YOU'RE MAKING SHIT UP.
Now, since you're obviously getting worked up and have already stated you won't be replying again, I'll ask you to find some proof that actually reinforces the divinity of Mary, and the authority and justification of Papacy and the Cardinals. You know, from the Bible? Because you have yet to do it, and have already responded when you said you wouldn't. I'm calling your bluff and I have a feeling you'll cave like the crusades did.
| Quote: |
Only God can forgive sins? Then why the passage "He whose sins you forgive will be forgiven; he whose sins you retain shall be retained'.
|
You're not thinking again. Stop that.
There is a very clear and distinct difference between the forgiveness of sins between men and the forgiveness of sins between men and God.
Matthew 6:15 But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
Wait a second here, but doesn't the Catholic doctrine say that men can forgive men? You're self-proclaimed, and you said that yourself. But uhh...
Wait a second! Mark 2:7 "Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?"
Read the rest of Mark 2, it's a fair and fully valid context. Jesus completely reinforces this quotation Himself.
The fact of the matter is, men can forgive the transgessions of men. But that's as far as it goes. Since when was I allowed to harness the power of God and abolish a sin? Do you even know what a sin is? Sins are ALWAYS between man and God. Never between man and man. Man transgresses between other men, but the act of disobedience against the Word is always between man and God. So when did Judge Judy get the divine power to absolve such a transgression? I'm sorry, but your faith fails here.
Oh, and take a look at this chief:
Catechism falsehoods
| Quote: |
As for your requirement that everything christian be founded in the bible, what about 'Now Jesus did many more things than are written down here but if written out, I suppose the whole world could not hold them'.
|
What are you trying to say here? That because the entire live and times of Jesus weren't documented in a book that somehow a bunch of old farts in red dresses can fill in the blanks 2000 years later, call it ice cream and condemn all those who disagree? Don't you find it slightly odd that God *wouldn't* pick and choose what to inspire into the writers of the Bible? It seems to me that God would have put in exactly what He wanted to and what was necessary. Obviously you disagree.
| Quote: |
For someone who claims to base things from the bible, you sure do ignore the hierarchies existant in Paul's letters, and in the Acts of the Apostles and in all the other letters to the Churches. Had you read them carefully you can see that church leaders and hierarchies are already taking shape in the time of the Apostles; that is to say, The apostles are forming the Roman Catholic Christian Church!! Jesus Gave the apostles the authority to become 'fishers of men'. So they did, and following that they did so by growing Jesus' Church on earth. They had the Holy Spirit to guide them, as Jesus says, 'I will send the Helper'. So, if on Authority from Jesus, and in Union with the Holy Spirit, the Apostles started the Catholic Christian Church, it would seem that the Chruch does Indeed have complete apostolic authority; other man made churches simply do not. The bible clearly shows that the hierarchical church is taking shape in Peter, Paul and the rest of the apostles' time.
|
There is a very key and very distinguished difference between the authority in the Acts and Letters and the authority and hierachy of the Catholic establishment.
Do you realize what the Catholic hierachy entails? It says that a man, a MAN elected through democratic means ALONE (sometimes days, or weeks, or YEARS of voting) becomes a proclaimed mediator and High Priest between man and God. Aside from the fact that Jesus Christ is already the High Priest as defined in Hebrews (Read me!111111) and was and is to be considered the FINAL High Priest, your pontiff has erroneously called himself this name himself! How? Where is his Biblical authority to do this? Was Peter a High Priest? The democratic process leading to this falsehood is even more ridiculous. They claim the pontiff is elected through the will of God and always is someone chosen by God and was predestined to such a position. And when the vote fails for days, months, even years on occasion, the excuse is "well, I guess they weren't aware of the will of God yet." Every time I hear that explanation it makes me chuckle, because it's the foundation of faith for so many people that have no idea how it even came about.
In fact, the only mention of a real hierachy or any means of administrative authority in the Church is established in 1 Timothy.
It's actually a humourous thing to talk about, because the very existence of your Priests is a farce. There is no mention of the necessity of Priests after the death of Christ. God intentionally did this; Jesus was the High Priest, sinless, and absolved us from bondage with Satan. Priests became redundant and unnecessary. Here's a little history lesson for you.
Before Christ, all mankind was in bondage. They were without a complete mediator between man and God and required the services of priests in order to perform the rituals that would otherwise COULD not be done. It was basically the old Jewish law. The old covenant. When Jesus came, as you know He took the sins of all mankind and upon his death created the eternal mediation between man and God. This nullified the usefulness of Priests. For them to do what they did after the death of Christ might as well be considered a blasphamy. It would be like saying to God: "Well, that's nice your kid died for us, but you know, I think I'm just gonna keep doing what I did before". It seems to me that would be an insult to God for priests to do what they did before Christ... AFTER Christ. As such, the very existence and arrogence of your pontiff has very dangerous and blamphamous roots. You might as well rename Catholicism to Hebrewism because you're not doing anything better. They ignore God and claim it His will. Bravo.
| Quote: |
Say it with me, one more time: "The bible is the Canon of the Roman Catholic Church. It is not a stand alone document. It supplements Church teaching, it does not supplant it
|
The Word of God IS a standalone document. Why would God leave out important details? I'd like to point out, however, that those who you claim to have been embued with the Holy Spirit to guide the Catholic church have this nasty habit of doing things which have no Biblical endorsement and are very much to be considered sinful. Remember indulgences? The pompous Popes? The crusades? THESE are the people you think God chose to run a Church? These are the "infalliable" men to whom claim to know the thoughts and will of God?
| Quote: |
I am sure that you will say the RC Chruch isn't the original Christian Church; to that i will simply say that surely no protestant Church is, so that kinda narrows it down, don't it?
|
The only true Church is the one created by Jesus Christ. And it is definately not the same as the Catholic one.
| Quote: |
I recall you saying that there was only one line in the bible that proves authority of the church 'I tell you you are petros...on this rock i will found my church' etc. Notwithstanding the fact that I've already proved that the bible is the Canon of the RC church and therefore not the be-all-end-all of God's Word, I'll humour you. You said 'it was only one line' - I'll humourously question you, how many lines does it take for God's Word to be true? One? Three? Five? Are we counting to determine importance? How many lines of Scripture that reveal Jesus' complete glory to the Israelites are jsut that - ONE LINE!
|
You left out the misinterpretation of it which is the basis for you entire organization. You're right though, God only needs one line to get a point accross. It's certainly not HIS fault that the self-proclaimed leaders of the Church miscontrued it to suit their own needs. I'm not sure how versed you are on Church history, but I think you should know that the early Church was not all good and happy. It was a greedy foundation where men in power got into power playing on people's faith. It's where the Church has been led to this day, and it's quite obviously still racking in foolish sheep.
| Quote: |
Part of your problem is that (here's the shocker) you lack faith in Christ; Faith that His apostles, led By The Holy Spirit (God Himself!) and directed by Jesus (Ditto) grew His Church into what it is today;
|
There is a Church today. It's not the Catholic denomination. The Church exists in every person who accepts Jesus as their savior. It doesn't rely on silly, pointless and redundant sacraments that give man the power of God. It certainly doesn't create a barrier between man and God through one man who could pull off a role in Star Wars. Most importantly, it doesn't play on people's fear of God's wrath to pass its often distorted agenda.
I suggest you sit down and think about just how the Kingdom of God and the Church are related. Do you even know what the Church is?
| Quote: |
Seriously, how on earth could you think that God would tell the apostles 'Grow my Church' and then dodder off for two thousand years? Do you think Jesus would give authority to His apostles (in His name) and then just go AFK?
It comes down to Faith.
|
He did, and it does. The Church is growing. It isn't growing nearly as fast as the Catholic or Muslim faiths-- and that's a shame.
| Quote: |
I figured you would take my apathy for responding to yet another anti-catholic hack (now i am ad hominem, but so are you) as being 'defeated' in my argument. You can think what you like. I have spent FAR too long online arguing the Chruch's authority to apostates such as yourself and, as I have said, I am simply no longer willing to do it. Period. End of story. And I realy wish you'd stop baiting me by continuing this pointless tit-for-tat BS because you will not take my eye off of Truth, nor will I lead you from your mistaken blindness. If you choose to respond to this forum, fine. But i'm taking off my e-mail alerts for this topic and i'm not coming back. It is a waste of my time.
|
You said this before, and you came back. I suspect you'll falter. It suits the denomination.
| Quote: |
Perhaps what is most amusing about your vitriolic anti-catholic attitude is that your church hasn't once come up; not once have I asked what denomination, if any, you belonged to. Not once have I made any attempt to attack your denomination, your beliefs about Christ, or your devotion to your faith. Not once have i questioned your dogma. Never. But you don't seem to have any problem launching a good-ol'-catholic bashing. If you aren't catholic, why should you care? Why'd you bring it up? Why so judgemental? Despite the truth that protestant churches are clearly in apostasy from God's One True Mother Church, I haven't made it an issue. Because I don't care. Because that's between you and God. I will never understand the protestant drive to slander the roman Catholic Church's teachings, other than the fact that moral-relativist-nihlists can't stand to see someone take a stand on anything.
|
I don't belong to any denomination. I was baptized against my will when I was too young to think in the Anglican denomination and that is where it stopped.
I find it interesting how you assume I'm attacking your faith because it is different than mine. I'm not against Catholics: many of my good friends, even my "good" friends are Catholic. I'm against ignorance. You preach ignorance and call it capital T truth. Do the math. I would do the same thing to you, or anyone else if you were speaking on matters you clearly knew nothing about, be the war in Iraq, the morality or logistics of controversial topics, anything. You and your faith are not special, sorry.
| Quote: |
Anyways, that's it, i'm done, no more arguing, reminders are off, see you later. Enough rambling. Bye. Have a good life.
|
Talk to you tomorrow. 
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
[Updated on: Mon, 01 August 2005 16:16] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: The Passion of the Christ [message #165044 is a reply to message #71346] |
Mon, 01 August 2005 17:39 |
 |
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
Whether it's contradictory or not, the question that should be asked is, "Is it wrong?"
I don't think so. I can't speak for the priesthood, but I do think that the idea of "forgiveness on behalf of God" is something that is necessary, even if not entirely proper. The priesthood forgiving on belhalf of God gives people an authenticity to the act, as well as prevents disillusioned people from thinking they have recieved forgiveness, even when there is no intent to repent, and self deluded enough to think that what they are doing is forgiven, simply because the individual thinks that it is for the proper reason.
[Updated on: Mon, 01 August 2005 17:40] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Passion of the Christ [message #439824 is a reply to message #165152] |
Sun, 21 November 2010 05:37 |
 |
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
shame i wasn't around for this thread, it's a perfect example of how religion can make obviously intelligent people say extremely stupid things, and make decent people say wicked things.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Passion of the Christ [message #439846 is a reply to message #71346] |
Sun, 21 November 2010 14:33 |
|
|
Uneeded bump, Spoony.
We get it, you don't like religion. Go take it elsewhere.
Renguard is a wonderful initiative
Toggle Spoiler
| BBC news, quoting... |
Supporters of Proposition 8 will argue California does not discriminate against gays, as the current law allows them to get married - as long as they wed a partner of the opposite sex.
|
| halokid wrote on Mon, 11 October 2010 08:46 |
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 11 October 2010 15:35 |
|
the hell is that?
|
|
|
|
|
| Pages (8): [ 8] |
  |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Nov 25 15:16:05 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02132 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
