Moderator: Community Team
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
Yeah, he's so fucking hot, dude. Except he's such an obnoxious goody goody. I mean, he gets tempted for forty days by Satan. You'd have to be a total, obnoxious, self righteous prude to resist that.Frigidus wrote:Well, see, Jesus is super great, like, awesome. Did that help clarify things.
Nothing like starting a thread where the very first comment is a bold face lie.[b]Simon Viavant wrote:God designs humans to be sinful[/b], then commits genocide on them for their sinfulness, then promises to never do it again, then impregnates a woman and is born as her baby and sacrifices himself to himself to atone for the sinfulness he created in humans, then commits genocide on them for their sinfulness as he promised never to do again.
That time I killed a bunch of idiots because I thought it would be funny.Hologram wrote:Wait, I'm confused, what was the second genocide?
I call this a prime example of how a retard who know of nothing he talks about spews his comprehansion of the bible with the same cognitave ability of an ostirich. You my now wear the label "Douche bag".Simon Viavant wrote:God designs humans to be sinful, then commits genocide on them for their sinfulness, then promises to never do it again, then impregnates a woman and is born as her baby and sacrifices himself to himself to atone for the sinfulness he created in humans, then commits genocide on them for their sinfulness as he promised never to do again.
If you program a computer to surf the web, and that's what it does, is it the computer's fault for being sinful by surfing the web. So you're saying that 6,000 years ago two people ate a piece of fruit and because of that we have all consciously chosen to be sinful little bitches? It all makes sense now.Gregrios wrote:Nothing like starting a thread where the very first comment is a bold face lie.Simon Viavant wrote:God designs humans to be sinful, then commits genocide on them for their sinfulness, then promises to never do it again, then impregnates a woman and is born as her baby and sacrifices himself to himself to atone for the sinfulness he created in humans, then commits genocide on them for their sinfulness as he promised never to do again.
It's called the Book of Revelations. It hasn't happened yet but it will.Hologram wrote:Wait, I'm confused, what was the second genocide?
Actually our sinful nature was caused by Eve eating the fruit.Simon Viavant wrote:If you program a computer to surf the web, and that's what it does, is it the computer's fault for being sinful by surfing the web. So you're saying that 6,000 years ago two people ate a piece of fruit and because of that we have all consciously chosen to be sinful little bitches? It all makes sense now.Gregrios wrote:Nothing like starting a thread where the very first comment is a bold face lie.Simon Viavant wrote:God designs humans to be sinful, then commits genocide on them for their sinfulness, then promises to never do it again, then impregnates a woman and is born as her baby and sacrifices himself to himself to atone for the sinfulness he created in humans, then commits genocide on them for their sinfulness as he promised never to do again.
Sin is and always has been code for free will.Gregrios wrote:Nothing like starting a thread where the very first comment is a bold face lie.[b]Simon Viavant wrote:God designs humans to be sinful[/b], then commits genocide on them for their sinfulness, then promises to never do it again, then impregnates a woman and is born as her baby and sacrifices himself to himself to atone for the sinfulness he created in humans, then commits genocide on them for their sinfulness as he promised never to do again.
william18 wrote:I call this a prime example of how a retard who know of nothing he talks about spews his comprehansion of the bible with the same cognitave ability of an ostirich. You my now wear the label "Douche bag".
Lol, I rushed that.Frigidus wrote:william18 wrote:I call this a prime example of how a retard who know of nothing he talks about spews his comprehansion of the bible with the same cognitave ability of an ostirich. You my now wear the label "Douche bag".
Sure.william18 wrote:Lol, I rushed that.Frigidus wrote:william18 wrote:I call this a prime example of how a retard who know of nothing he talks about spews his comprehansion of the bible with the same cognitave ability of an ostirich. You my now wear the label "Douche bag".
But the bad grammer doesn't hide it's truth.Hologram wrote:Sure.william18 wrote:Lol, I rushed that.Frigidus wrote:william18 wrote:I call this a prime example of how a retard who know of nothing he talks about spews his comprehansion of the bible with the same cognitave ability of an ostirich. You my now wear the label "Douche bag".
william18 wrote:Let me rephrase that.
"I call this a prime example of how a retard who knows nothing of what talks about spews his comprehension of the bible with the same cognitive ability of an ostirch. You my now wear the label "Douche bag"."
But it does make baby Jesus cry.william18 wrote:But the bad grammer doesn't hide it's truth.Hologram wrote:Sure.william18 wrote:Lol, I rushed that.Frigidus wrote:william18 wrote:I call this a prime example of how a retard who know of nothing he talks about spews his comprehansion of the bible with the same cognitave ability of an ostirich. You my now wear the label "Douche bag".
And this is your third try.william18 wrote:Let me rephrase that.
"I call this a prime example of how a retard who knows nothing of what talks about spews his comprehension of the bible with the same cognitive ability of an ostirch. You may now wear the label "Douche bag"."
Thats called correct grammer. In the english language we are allowed to phrase things in more ways then one.Simon Viavant wrote:And this is your third try.william18 wrote:Let me rephrase that.
"I call this a prime example of how a retard who knows nothing of what talks about spews his comprehension of the bible with the same cognitive ability of an ostirch. You may now wear the label "Douche bag"."![]()
![]()
Third time's the charm?william18 wrote:Let me rephrase that.
"I call this a prime example of how a retard who knows nothing of what talks about spews his comprehension of the bible with the same cognitive ability of an ostirch. You may now wear the label "Douche bag"."

That is nowhere near correct English. If perhaps you had added a "he" in between "what" and "talks" and spelled "ostrich" right, you may have an argument.william18 wrote:Thats called correct grammer. In the english language we are allowed to phrase things in more ways then one.Simon Viavant wrote:And this is your third try.william18 wrote:Let me rephrase that.
"I call this a prime example of how a retard who knows nothing of what talks about spews his comprehension of the bible with the same cognitive ability of an ostirch. You may now wear the label "Douche bag"."![]()
![]()