Re: God does exist

I starting to think that beanz was less offensive than CDJ

Re: God does exist

took you long enough to join in jenks :p

Re: God does exist

[QUOTE=cowardly dj;385386]And as we know the story Adam and Eve were decieved by Satan and ate of the tree. Adam disobeyed God and through his disobedience sin entered the world forever.[/QUOTE] cdj, are you not also guilty of eating from the tree of knowledge? :p

and as for your discussion here, once again you have cloaked any "proof" that you may have in your presumptions of "fact". You never prove the facts, you just keep assuming them and proving that the bible is true (which, in and of itself, is questionable). You can't use the bible to prove itself.

Re: God does exist

if everything in the bible is 'fact' so does that make everything that is written in the necronomicon 'facts' too??

Re: God does exist

[QUOTE=cowardly dj;385386] I hope this has cleared things up. [/QUOTE]

Yessirreeeeeebob. Makes much more sense now.

[QUOTE=cowardly dj;385386] Here are the things that I am basing my answer on. All of these statements are in strict accordance with the true teachings of the Bible, not anyone's opinion.

1. The truth can be determined on anything.
2. God exists.
3. The Bible is the infallable inerrant word of God.
4. God created man and everything we see.
5. Jesus is the son of God and was sent to the earth as God in the form of man.
6. everyone has the right to chose to do good or evil, to believe or not to believe (free will or free moral agency)
7. God is the only true and living god and all other gods are false gods. These are the facts that I will base this on. [/QUOTE]

You cannot possibly hope to prove that God exists when one of the "facts" underlying your argument is that "God exists." Moreover, you cannot prove that the Bible is accurate based upon the idea that "The Bible is the infallable inerrant word of God." I can't believe that someone has to point out the fallacy of this so-obviously-circular argument. It just leaves me dumbfounded.

The irony is that the results of the "Does God exist" poll seems to suggest that a majority on this board actually agree with the ultimate point you're trying to make, yet your posts seem to engender such a vitriolic reaction from the community as a whole -- presumably including people that do believe that God exists. It is that quality that makes this thread so hard to just ignore -- even people who agree with you are up in arms about the way you reach the conclusion.

I want to invite you out to join me for dinner. My treat, anywhere you like. I'll meet you anywhere in the continental US -- no, make that the world -- because I am convinced by this post that you are nothing but a character created by a bored forum member to whip all of us up into a froth. We have truly reached the pinnacle of absurdity.

Re: God does exist

[quote=toasty;385424]You cannot possibly hope to prove that God exists when one of the "facts" underlying your argument is that "God exists." Moreover, you cannot prove that the Bible is accurate based upon the idea that "The Bible is the infallable inerrant word of God." I can't believe that someone has to point out the fallacy of this so-obviously-circular argument. It just leaves me dumbfounded.

The irony is that the results of the "Does God exist" poll seems to suggest that a majority on this board actually agree with the ultimate point you're trying to make, yet your posts seem to engender such a vitriolic reaction from the community as a whole -- presumably including people that do believe that God exists. It is that quality that makes this thread so hard to just ignore -- even people who agree with you are up in arms about the way you reach the conclusion.

I want to invite you out to join me for dinner. My treat, anywhere you like. I'll meet you anywhere in the continental US -- no, make that the world -- because I am convinced by this post that you are nothing but a character created by a bored forum member to whip all of us up into a froth. We have truly reached the pinnacle of absurdity.[/quote]

[quote=cowardly dj;385386]In order to answer this question I am going to have to establish some things first. Bear with me as I know that some do not agree with some of the things that I am about to list but they are essential to the understanding of the answer. Keep in mind that these are the things that I find to be fact in my studies. It is my intention to simply answer the questoin but in order to do that I have to answer it the only way I know how and that is using God and the Bible as a basis or a platform if you will. That must be as the question revolves around God anyway. [/quote]

I think you missed the point of that post. That was in order to answer the question that bsully put forth not to ust that as proof of anything. That was the sole purpose of that post. Do not read into it more than is there. That was the reason I put the "disclaimer" at the beginning of the post.

As far as the poll is concerned that is all good but it is now to the point that if those of you who think God exists seem to be wondering how the Bible can prove itself. So perhaps I should take my conversation to the next step since step one has been established.:p

Re: God does exist

[quote=cowardly dj;383911]BSULLY 828

I am aware that the entire argument here is not centered around the existence of God. However there are some here who do not think He exists.

In order to understand why God is the only true and living God you have to understand the entire picture from creation to the coming judgement. If God exists then did He do what the Bible says He did? What about the other gods who claim to exist and be "the" god? Well to answer that you have to take what the Bible claims God did and then what the other god claims was done and weed out the facts form false claims.

Other religious books contain theories of the sky above that were prevalent in the times they were written

I will give an example. Lets put Gods claim of the sun and moon next to the Hindus claim, using the Vedas, sacred Hindu texts.

Hindu:

"the moon is approximately 150,000 miles higher than the sun and shines with its own light...the earth is flat and triangular...earthquakes are caused by elephants shaking themselves under it" We know that the moon is not higher than the sun, it does not shine with its own light, the earth is neither flat nor triangular and I would like someone to tell the relatives of the thousands of victims who died in the tsunami that elephants shaking themselves caused the earthquake that in turn caused the tsunami.

God:

[COLOR=#008080]Gen 1:14[/COLOR] And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years: [COLOR=#008080]Gen 1:15[/COLOR] and let them be for lights in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. [COLOR=#008080]Gen 1:16[/COLOR] And God made the two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [I][COLOR=#808080]he made[/COLOR][/I] the stars also. [COLOR=#008080]Gen 1:17[/COLOR] And God set them in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth, [COLOR=#008080]Gen 1:18[/COLOR] and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

One can not deny these are factual staements. We know that the stars are used for signs, days, and years. The "lights in the firmament of heaven" do give light upon the earth. The greater light (the sun) does rule the day, and the lesser light (the moon) does rule the night. These statements are self evident.

I ask you how many mistakes it takes to disprove a claim? One? Two? Five? Ten? If a text claims to be from a god then it should not contain any false teachings. Is that an agreeable statement?

Does this prove that Gos exists? To many it does not but it does give you a comparison and an example of how to prove or disprove a claim. Just use facts.[/quote]

i was reading through this thread and was contemplating taking it seriously, but you're quoting out of the bible. the bible is just a book, written by people. it doesn't (truly) have any more justification than the Da Vinci code, however many people may attribute significance to it.

here's the great thing about science: anyone can figure it out. using logic and observation and a lot of thought, people will inevitably be led to the same conclusions about nature- as opposed to god, which only some people will think up based on speculation, arrogance, and fear of nature. and if we merely accept god as nature, etc., then we haven't really proven anything except that we don't know what nature is either.

stop believing in fairy tales. the universe must not make sense to us in order for it to exist, nor must it be ultimately decipherable by scientists. it sure as hell isn't going to fit nicely into some neat picture of being based on a central being. if you don't know something, simply reserve judgement. don't go making claims about ghosts, gods, unicorns, leprechauns, and other imaginary creatures.

if we're ever going to advance socially, we need to put these childish ideas behind us.

Re: God does exist

which rewrite of the bible are we supposed to be going by anyway? I'm assuming the one King James made up when he needed some new pussy. Correct me if I'm wrong...

Re: God does exist

[COLOR=black][quote=Kobe;385602]which rewrite of the bible are we supposed to be going by anyway? I'm assuming the one King James made up when he needed some new pussy. Correct me if I'm wrong...[/quote][/COLOR]

[COLOR=silver]if you define rewritten as the fact that there are different versions then by all means there are only two versions that were translated strictly from one language to the other.. The King James (KJV) and The American Standard of 1901 (ASV)[/COLOR]

[COLOR=silver]I will use the New International Version for this example.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=silver]When that board came together they translated the text and then added into the scripture what they thought (the key word here) it was suppose to mean. Basically I am saying that they went into it with the preconceived idea of the content and added that to the translation instead of just going from one language to the other.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=silver]The most classic example is John 3:16[/COLOR]

[COLOR=silver]The KJVand the ASV say that whoever believes in the name of Jesus [I][B]should[/B][/I] not perish[/COLOR]

[COLOR=silver]The NIV says that whoever believes in Jesus [I][B]shall[/B][/I] not perish[/COLOR]

[COLOR=silver]There is a huge difference in should not and shall not one being optional (should) and the other being a static never changing state (shall)[/COLOR]

[COLOR=silver]If you take the entire context of the Bible you understand that one chooses to obey and after baptism you can still be lost of you leave the path God laid out.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=silver]A quick example is this:[/COLOR]

[COLOR=silver]The Baptist doctrine is based on the idea that when God says believe on the name of Jesus and you will be saved and that baptism is not essential to see heaven and that after you accept Jesus into your life you will go to heaven no matter what. You can never leave the saved state.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=silver]This however poses a problem in light if the entire teaching if the Bible. Basically it says that if you accept Jesus you are saved so if you go out on a mass-murdering spree you will still see heaven because you have mentally accepted Jesus as your savior.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=silver]So when one takes the context and changes it during translation to suit their preconceived ideas then it in not a translation.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=silver]The KJV and the ASV were simply taken from one language and translated to the other.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=silver]Since the KJV and ASV many Bible Scholars, including some who are of the Hebrews heritage who received the original Old Testament and some Greeks which is what most of the New Testament was written in have poured over the original texts and made comparisons and the KJV and ASV stand the test of being nothing more than a translation from one language to the other[/COLOR]

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][COLOR=silver]So if you want to know what Bible is not tampered with then these are the only two that have been proven to be a true translation from the original texts.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

Re: Pataky Pal does exist

:CrackUp: @ the title of the thread

Re: Pataky Pal does exist

Hey CDJ mabey change your discussion to "Does Hell exist? (A Godless eternity)"

that would be intresting to see the responses. :)

Re: Pataky Pal does exist

everytime CDJ starts a new thread, God kills a kitten

Re: Pataky Pal does exist

[quote=hulkhuss;385663]Hey CDJ mabey change your discussion to "Does Hell exist? (A Godless eternity)"

that would be intresting to see the responses. :)[/quote]

My concept of Hell: eternal theological discussion

Re: Pataky Pal does exist

LMAO @ thread name change

Re: Pataky Pal does exist

[quote=KinKyJ;385696]LMAO @ thread name change[/quote]

BRILLIANT!!

Re: Pataky Pal does exist

[QUOTE][B]Re: Pataky Pal does exist[/B][/QUOTE]

he's just MIA ... miss that dude

Re: God does exist

[quote=cowardly dj;385386]So how does all this relate to the man in the bushes of Australia? While Jesus walked the earth he taught that he was the Son of God and that through him all had the ability to return to Gods grace. (On a side note; the Jews rejected Jesus as the Christ and that is why the Jews are destined to be lost.) Jesus commanded his apostles to go into all the world and teach the gospel. That means every person had the choice to believe or not. You can read in the Bible that every man heard of the gospel of Christ. That makes sense because how could God hold a person responsible for believing that Jesus was His son and that through Jesus said person could find redemption if said person was not aware of the fact. Now to narrow it down to the man in the jungle. You have to believe that at one time every man who lives today came from a decendant who was aware of the choice to follow Jesus or not. As stated all were made aware of the gospel at one time. So some did and some did no choose to believe.t. Therefore those who chose not to follow Jesus dismissed the claim and it died when He did. No one will pass on a legacy of Jesus to his children and his childrens children if he thinks it is bogus. Are you with me still? So from the choice made by a distant descendant of the jungle man somewhere along his family line God was forgotten. BTW that is the very reason you find people going out into the world to try to teach these people about the grace of God. It was the main reason for the crusades although the methods employed by the crusaders was absolutely inappopriate and not born of God. God gave man a choice and the crusaders said follow God or die. Not much incentive to truly love God from your heart there is it. Now the man in the jungle who has not heard of God may be a good person. He may be the most honest and clean-living soul in the world today. But the reason why he will be lost is not because God has an ego. Not because God wants to see man tormented. We are told through the Bible that God wants to see all men come to repentance and be saved. The reason why that man in the jungle will be lost is because his ancestors rejected God and he has no redemption because he can not come into contact with the blood of Christ through baptism. Remember that bnaptism is the point where one is put back into the grace of God so no baptism means no redemption. Now you understand why Christians are so adamant about spreading the word. Because every day people die that needed to hear about God and be given the choice to obey the gospel. It is paramount to a sincere loving Christain to help people see that the only way to heaven is through Jesus by means of baptism. I know this was a long read but it was nescesary to paint the entire picture from start to finish. I hope this has cleared things up. If not read it a few times and then feel free to ask any questions.[/quote]

[SIZE=2]Thoughtful answer CDJ, but I think you missed my point. How is any of this relevant to the person who has never heard of Christ? Do you think the Aussie Bushman or my boy Frank from the Amazon really care if they are "lost" in the eyes of some phantom deity of whom they have no concept of or relation to? So you say that their great-great-great-great grandfather rejected Christ way back when and now Frank is left guilty by association and doomed to be out of God's light. But do you think that makes any difference to Frank? He already has a God who he honors and follows, who has heard his prayers and comforted his heart. A God who has been with Frank since his earliest days, who has helped him through troubled times and fills him with the same spiritual security that you enjoy. A God who Frank feels loved by and who he loves in return. He has a rich, complete life confident that his prayers are heard and his worship is worthwhile. What difference does it make to Frank when he hears that you feel he is "lost", exiled because twelve generations ago his forefather fucked up?[/SIZE] [SIZE=2][/SIZE] [SIZE=2]Again, I ask you, what is more important: The name you address your prayers to at night, or the sincerity, honesty, love and compassion with which you fill those prayers? God - that indefinable, indescribable being beyond all beings is not concerned with form but the function. Do you live a truthful life, do you treat those around you with kindness and caring, do you do what you can to better the world around you even in the smallest of ways - those are the questions that matter to whatever higher power is out there, not the church you choose to pray in or the name you choose to use when calling Him.[/SIZE]

Re: Pataky Pal does exist

Been following this thread for a bit now, and getting increasingly amazed.

That last answer from CDJ explains a lot of the behaviour (missionarism particularly) of christians now and in the past to me. But it also points out a fundamental issue: for CDJ everyone has through his/her ancestors been given the chance to choose the 'right path', but fro someone like me who thinks of evolution as the preferrable explanation, this cannot be true at all, since every religion has it's own geographical origin. Basically this means that it all depends on the [I]spread from it's point of origin[/I] wether someone is likely to have heard from this or not, much like languages spread for example.

But bsully, you're missing one point from CDJ which he has not explained himself either: the bible is a book, and if you take it liteally then the reasoning you and I would follow (good morals being worth more than following rulz) becomes totally worthless; no discussion is possible on this subject, because we do not use a rigid text as a guideline but our own dynamic ability to reason, think, deliberate and decide. We can change, the text CDJ uses cannot.

A mistake in CDJ's reasoning is also that to people who do not believe in the bible or god, it takes more than just a text to prove the existence of god. For him it is self-evident, but we don't see a 2000-year old text as proof: solid reasoning with logical outcome is a step ahead, and testing of theories with visible result is another. Added to that, many assumptions have been proven wrong over the course of history, but while the text of the bible is rigid, it also leaves open so many holes that it can easily be fitted to serve more than one logic. [I]But it never proves anything beyond ust saying it is so.[/I]

Re: Pataky Pal does exist

[quote=Yao;386109]Been following this thread for a bit now, and getting increasingly amazed.

That last answer from CDJ explains a lot of the behaviour (missionarism particularly) of christians now and in the past to me. But it also points out a fundamental issue: for CDJ everyone has through his/her ancestors been given the chance to choose the 'right path', but fro someone like me who thinks of evolution as the preferrable explanation, this cannot be true at all, since every religion has it's own geographical origin. Basically this means that it all depends on the [I]spread from it's point of origin[/I] wether someone is likely to have heard from this or not, much like languages spread for example.

But bsully, you're missing one point from CDJ which he has not explained himself either: the bible is a book, and if you take it liteally then the reasoning you and I would follow (good morals being worth more than following rulz) becomes totally worthless; no discussion is possible on this subject, because we do not use a rigid text as a guideline but our own dynamic ability to reason, think, deliberate and decide. We can change, the text CDJ uses cannot.

A mistake in CDJ's reasoning is also that to people who do not believe in the bible or god, it takes more than just a text to prove the existence of god. For him it is self-evident, but we don't see a 2000-year old text as proof: solid reasoning with logical outcome is a step ahead, and testing of theories with visible result is another. Added to that, many assumptions have been proven wrong over the course of history, but while the text of the bible is rigid, it also leaves open so many holes that it can easily be fitted to serve more than one logic. [I]But it never proves anything beyond ust saying it is so.[/I][/quote]

Very interesting post yao. Been wondering where you have been.

I guess I did miss the point of bsully's question. I am going to go back and read it again and give it another whirl.

But what I gather from most of the responses is that people do not give much credit to the Bible as being inspired from a higher being.

Is that the case?

Is that about what it boils down to?

Re: Pataky Pal does exist

[quote=cowardly dj;386146]Very interesting post yao. Been wondering where you have been.[/quote]he's been dodging machetes and solving famine by taking off his shirt in Gheyna for two months. Still recovering from the heat strokes and the furry legs of the local women imo ;)

[quote]But what I gather from most of the responses is that people do not give much credit to the Bible as being inspired from a higher being.

Is that the case?

Is that about what it boils down to?[/quote]I guess that is in fact what it boils down to yes. The Bible may be inspired by God, but it's written from a human perspective (... according to John, ... according to Timothy, Romans, the book of Job, ...). God might have dictated the 10 Commandments to Moses, but he didn't tell the authors of the Bible directly what to write.

Apart from that, there's also the historical distortion caused by translators (and probably also by censorship and manipulation by the Vatican throughout the ages).

When you compare the Bible to the Qur'an, this human perspective becomes even more obvious. The link between the verses in the Qur'an and the word of Allah is much stronger than the link between the word of God and the Bible. Why? Because Allah basicly "dictated" the Qur'an through the angel Gabriel to Muhammed (who couldn't read or write btw). The word "Qur'an" means "the recitation", in other words it's the literal word of Allah.

Whereas the original text of the Bible has undergone some distortion because of the translations to Latin, the Qur'an is being read in the original language it was written in. The official version is still the original text.

Re: Pataky Pal does exist

Kinky is right Cowardly, I was in Ghana getting robbed, accused, scammed, dodging STD's and women with hairy legs, beards and moustaches :D.

In answer to your question, I do think you're right partially about people not willing to accept that the bible was inspired by a higher being - the logic of this is, of course, that you must believe in that higher being to believe it could have inspired a book (wether your belief in the higher being was there before or after reading that book does not matter here).

The bible does not mean to me what it means to you for example, since I do not believe in God for starters: this also means that using the bible and it's logic to convince or my err in life is futile from the start. You might say I 'believe' in science, which simply means I do not accept any truth without either a solid logic or physical proof to back it. But then again when it comes to logic, I myself am also fallable of course. But that, I have accepted, as well as that I accept that man doesn't know everything and might not ever. This is my time on this planet and life is too short to be looking for all the answers: I just want to make my time worthwhile and enjoy it...

Kinky also has a good point that in translation, there is an error margin - which by default makes any translation of the original text fallable. Language is also a denomiator of knowledge you know...you cannot know what you cannot name. Reverse, there are a lot of things that exist but which we cannot name yet. You can easily find the truth behind this by comparing vocabularies of different languages in the world on a given set of items (the oldest trick in the book for lingu?sts) - you'll always find that there are items that do exist in one lingo, which are not (yet) named in another. You might argue here that it means that possibly god does exist even though we cannot see or touch him, but my opposite reasoning here is that maybe back then religion was a perfectly valid way to name things we didn't understand (yet). Another reasoning is that the bible is through the use of language (on top of the content) a culturally inspired book, as much as books written in the renaissance are a product of that [I]zeitgeist[/I]....

Hopefully this illuminates my way of seeing things a bit, as well as the reason why yu might not seem to 'get through' to people on this board (or anyone else that reacts the same, for that matter).

Re: Pataky Pal does exist

I just love my gold, the gold that I and my Merry Men steal from the rich.

Re: Pataky Pal does exist

The Quamran texts are at most a thousand years older than the Aleppo Codex, which was written in Israel about A.D. 900 as was, until 1947, the oldest-known Hebrew manuscript containing the full text of the Bible. What hsa surprised most scholars is that in spite of the millenium of hand copying that separates them, the Aleppo Codex and the books of the Old Testament unearthed at Quamran are virtually identical. One of the oldest of the Dead Sea Scrolls, dating to about 200 BC is the Book of Isaiah. Only thirteen minor variations from the Aleppo text (and from its modern decendants) have been identified. Duringthe approxamately three and a half centuries separating the Quamran Book of Isaiah from the version originally compiled in Babylon, one might be tempted to posit even fewer changes than during the eleven centuries separating Quamran and Aleppo. If this assumption is correct then the modern Hebrew Bible is, in most essentials, the same Bible one would have found in Babylonabout 550 BC. Evidence supporting this assumption can be found in Jerusalems silver scroll which is, next to the writing on the 750 BC wall of Deir Alla the earliest fragment of biblical text presently known. The scroll of beaten and inscribed silver was contained in a 1 inch diameter jprayer amulet. Construction workers found it in AD 1981 when they accidentally broke into a grave site under New Jerusalems cinema district. The verses on the scroll are literally microscopic and are indistinguishable from the priestly benediction in Numbers 6:24-26. The biblicalfragment dating between 700 and 500 BC is almost an exact contemporary with the Babylonian compilations and reads: "The Lord bless thee and keep thee: The Lord make his face to shine upon thee: and give thee peace." The modern biblical version reads "The Lord bless thee and keep thee: The Lord make his face to shine upon thee: The Lord lift up his countenance to thee and give thee peace." More than 2500 years...yet we witness no mutation of the text. The DNA of moths living on the Hawiian Islands has undergone vastly greater change in thta same time frame It is a testamony to the amazing fidelity of transmission, through dozens fo generations of pious scribes, once the old song stories and oral histories were commited to writing.

Re: Pataky Pal does exist

[quote=cowardly dj;386277]The Quamran texts are at most a thousand years older than the Aleppo Codex, which was written in Israel about A.D. 900 as was, until 1947, the oldest-known Hebrew manuscript containing the full text of the Bible. What hsa surprised most scholars is that in spite of the millenium of hand copying that separates them, the Aleppo Codex and the books of the Old Testament unearthed at Quamran are virtually identical. One of the oldest of the Dead Sea Scrolls, dating to about 200 BC is the Book of Isaiah. Only thirteen minor variations from the Aleppo text (and from its modern decendants) have been identified. Duringthe approxamately three and a half centuries separating the Quamran Book of Isaiah from the version originally compiled in Babylon, one might be tempted to posit even fewer changes than during the eleven centuries separating Quamran and Aleppo. If this assumption is correct then the modern Hebrew Bible is, in most essentials, the same Bible one would have found in Babylonabout 550 BC. Evidence supporting this assumption can be found in Jerusalems silver scroll which is, next to the writing on the 750 BC wall of Deir Alla the earliest fragment of biblical text presently known. The scroll of beaten and inscribed silver was contained in a 1 inch diameter jprayer amulet. Construction workers found it in AD 1981 when they accidentally broke into a grave site under New Jerusalems cinema district. The verses on the scroll are literally microscopic and are indistinguishable from the priestly benediction in Numbers 6:24-26. The biblicalfragment dating between 700 and 500 BC is almost an exact contemporary with the Babylonian compilations and reads: "The Lord bless thee and keep thee: The Lord make his face to shine upon thee: and give thee peace." The modern biblical version reads "The Lord bless thee and keep thee: The Lord make his face to shine upon thee: The Lord lift up his countenance to thee and give thee peace." More than 2500 years...yet we witness no mutation of the text. The DNA of moths living on the Hawiian Islands has undergone vastly greater change in thta same time frame It is a testamony to the amazing fidelity of transmission, through dozens fo generations of pious scribes, once the old song stories and oral histories were commited to writing.[/quote]

so what?

Re: Pataky Pal does exist

I think his point is to rule out the error in translation here, but as I know fuckall about those texts or what they look like, I cannot really argue about the things he says. Other than translation, there's also the error in interpretation by the way...which is something that takes place every time a human being reads a holy book IMO.

Re: Pataky Pal does exist

I havent read the whole thread so someone pls tell me if theres a proof to be found in it before I loose my precious time again reading some bs quotes...

... not you CDJ! :p

Re: Pataky Pal does exist

nope.

now get back to the kitchen.

Re: Pataky Pal does exist

[quote=KinKyJ;386742]nope.

now get back to the kitchen.[/quote]

[IMG]http://www.dambrewery.com/home/beer_glass.jpg[/IMG]

:p

Re: Pataky Pal does exist

can someone find a real conservative and hardline imam to participate in this mess.

Re: Pataky Pal does exist

Has anyone heard from crazypants lately?

Re: Pataky Pal does exist

[QUOTE]cowardly dj [IMG]http://www.mercuryserver.com/forums/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif[/IMG]
ZangerBob Last Activity: 11-06-2006 01:33 AM [/QUOTE]

not since this thread

Re: Pataky Pal does exist

[quote=miketpoto;463519]Has anyone heard from crazypants lately?[/quote]

jnr turned up the other day

Re: Pataky Pal does exist

[QUOTE=Huggie Smiles;463525]jnr turned up the other day[/QUOTE]

SPEAK ENGRISH!

Re: Pataky Pal does exist

Youre the one that doesnt speak the Queens English!

anyhoo see here: [URL]http://www.mercuryserver.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38855[/URL]

Re: Pataky Pal does exist

Nooo, I meant cdj when I said crazypants...

Pataky and Co are just Dom and his drinking problem...

Re: Pataky Pal does exist

[quote=miketpoto;463540]Nooo, I meant cdj when I said crazypants...

Pataky and Co are just Dom and his drinking problem...[/quote]

10/10

Re: Pataky Pal does exist

so you're trying to argue that pataky and Dom are in fact sane?? :) :) :)

Re: Pataky Pal does exist

[QUOTE=Huggie Smiles;463548]so you're trying to argue that pataky and Dom are in fact sane?? :) :) :)[/QUOTE]

No I was just clarifying who I was referring to as crazypants...

Dom doesn't wear pants... not when he pees in the yard.

Re: Pataky Pal does exist

Nope, the entire community is waiting for the 3rd comming of Christ imo

Re: Pataky Pal does exist

[quote=KinKyJ;463881]Nope, the entire community is waiting for the 3rd comming of Christ imo[/quote]

I have come.

Your missus needs a tissue.