It is Written..... (A defense of Sola Scriptura)

[Totnak]

^That's clear enough.

only that you obscured your purpose by asking me why I posted those (long) points if I did not have confidence in SS (not the points), and you also find it silly, yes?

so no, I did not tweaked your post.

and didn't I mentioned to stop talk-ing and start do-ing already?

again, liars go to helll

this is what I posted...

if you can't, then it only means that you don't have the confidence in what was written on your post....

and this....

so are you saying you don't believe in what you have posted? then if you don't, what's the sense in posting it in the first place?

I believe that any sane RoTer would be able to understand the clarity of my posts.....you are the one trying to tweak them so that you could try and wiggle out of this trap that you made yourself....

and one more thing....which part of if you want me to refute it, accept my challenge and I'll show you how illogical those claims are didn't you get?

[admiral__cidric]

I think this calls for another debate:

Totnak vs. Dessa

Sola Scriptura

[SmartDessa]

let me re-post the whole story for you:
I said:

I never had full confidence in the SS doctrine from the very start. the phrase "scripture alone" or sola scriptura is for me inadequate....

this is something about my confidence in SS, not the defense of the article which I posted

and you replied by quoting and highlighting:

really now? didn't you post this line?

once and for all, let the prots here, or even those who share the SS principle be equipped and be strengthened.

again, something regarding my position on SS, not the defense of the article.

which begs the question why you concluded:

so are you saying you don't believe in what you have posted? then if you don't, what's the sense in posting it in the first place?

silly.....

also, there's no point in refuting something as lengthy as that in a non-formal discussion as it would only create more questions that answers

this clearly shows, that your basis of going any further or otherwise is my confidence, my position on the SS doctrine

and not my standing up for the defense of the article which I posted
and that is why I never tweaked your agenda.

you're just like Elcid & Ferdinand.

your refutations on the article are long overdue, hirit na nang may matutunan kami sa iyo, oh great undefeated Mr. T (pbuh)

[SmartDessa]

I think this calls for another debate:

Totnak vs. Dessa

Sola Scriptura

hindi ako marunong makipag formal debate e

magkakalat lang ako.

[ElCid]

apparently you do not know how to cook, you only know how to eat.

I have a recipe for pork chop, I used it to cook pork chop because I believe that the recipe will succeed to produce a pork chop dish delicious especially to pork chop lovers.

I am vegetarian!

simply put, recipes are NOT for eating, they are for cooking

So again you would like to make us believe that you can say a recipe is good and that pork chop would taste really nice if the recipe is followed even though you haven't tasted it? lolz. Haven't you heard the phrase: 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating?'

Hay naku. Yan nangyayari pag nag-iimbento at walang gustong tindigang aral.

[SmartDessa]

So again you would like to make us believe that you can say a recipe is good and that pork chop would taste really nice if the recipe is followed even though you haven't tasted it? lolz. Haven't you heard the phrase: 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating?'

Hay naku. Yan nangyayari pag nag-iimbento at walang gustong tindigang aral.

what if the recipe is for cat food?

you will eat cat food?


*rolleyes*


you lost, your analogy was perfect, and it went against you, just admit it

[ElCid]

what if the recipe is for cat food?

you will eat cat food?

*rolleyes*

you lost, your analogy was perfect, and it went against you, just admit it

No. I've never lost yet Dess to anyone in PEX fortunately because unlike you, I know what I'm talking about lols. You on the other hand make things up as you go along like what you are doing right now as if people in PEX are stup1d enough to believe you lols.

First you make us believe that you can cook pork chop perfectly and it taste good without you tasting it lols. Classic lols. And what's a vegetarian like you doing with a pork chop recipe? lolz. Classic na naman

Second, you compare animal food with table food. How can you tell if cat food is delicious like your supposed pork chop recipe? You have the same taste as your cat? So are you saying that rats are delicious to you too since they taste good to your cat? Yari na naman. Sige mangatwiran ka pa lols.

Third, how can my analogy be perfect and at the same time would go against me? lolz

[SmartDessa]

first, I can always know if my pork chops are good if my customers tell me so, and a vegetarian cooking pork is not impossible, what if I am a chef who works in a restaurant?

second, I will know if my cat food is delicious if cats eat them and can't stop at it, or if they eat it over other type of cat food. but to you a type of food must only be delicious if you can taste it and say it's delicious. Therefore, we can surmise that your basis for an argument to be correct and valid is when you think it is or when just like it, and not what everybody objectively thinks.

third, your analogy is perfectly designed to trap you, which you actually are ignorant of.

so how bout you open your mouth and take a bit of cat food to show that the "proof of the pudding is the eating"
till then, I suggest you stop making yourself look like a fool of your arrogance

I don't need to believe in SS to approve that the article is good defense of it.

[SmartDessa]

then again, subject here is not the food but the recipe.

if my recipe is for poison, I do not need to take it to show that the recipe is effective.

[ElCid]

first, I can always know if my pork chops are good if my customers tell me so, and a vegetarian cooking pork is not impossible, what if I am a chef who works in a restaurant?

So are you telling me second hand information is better than first hand? And by the way you said - YOU YOURSELF FIND THE DEFENSE GOOD - you never referred to other sources saying the defense was Good so wrong parallelism - try again.

second, I will know if my cat food is delicious if cats eat them and can't stop at it, or if they eat it over other type of cat food. but to you a type of food must only be delicious if you can taste it and say it's delicious. Therefore, we can surmise that your basis for an argument to be correct and valid is when you think it is or when just like it, and not what everybody objectively thinks.

So are you telling me rats are delicious too?

third, your analogy is perfectly designed to trap you, which you actually are ignorant of.

so how bout you open your mouth and take a bit of cat food to show that the "proof of the pudding is the eating"

I wasn't the one who prepares recipes for cat food and say they are delicious - you do. So why don't you try eating rats since cats love em as well. Are they delicious too? Do you have recipes for rats?

till then, I suggest you stop making yourself look like a fool of your arrogance

Obviously everyone is on to you and I'm not the one who's making a fool out of himself - you do lols.

I don't need to believe in SS to approve that the article is good defense of it.

I am not arrogant. We're just tired of reading your crap lols. You aren't fooling anybody. You provide good entertainment though lols.

And for someone who doesn't believe in SS - you sure could have fooled anyone since you've been trying to prove it is valid until I've pointed out it is fallacious and indefensible.

And by the way - you're the only one left in PEX trying to defend that indefensible and untenable doctrine invented by Luther. And ironically - you don't believe in it as well hahahahahaha.

[Prikongkong]

Sa LAFI lang ako mod, heh .

Dito ka nalang mod kukurukuku at inabandona na kami ni mod ischa. Bigla nalang naglaho na parang bula ang damuho hindi namin alam kung buhay pa siya.

[SmartDessa]

So are you telling me second hand information is better than first hand? And by the way you said - YOU YOURSELF FIND THE DEFENSE GOOD - you never referred to other sources saying the defense was Good so wrong parallelism - try again.

SS = food
recipe = defense

your analogy rides on that parallelism

that is why i never said:
I FIND SS GOOD

which in parallel would say
I FIND PORK CHOPS GOOD

So are you telling me rats are delicious too?

for cats, yes
you don't know tom and jerry, do you?

I wasn't the one who prepares recipes for cat food and say they are delicious - you do. So why don't you try eating rats since cats love em as well. Are they delicious too? Do you have recipes for rats?

oh now I'm the one who is preparing recipes? you are lost. did I made that lengthy defense?
and why should I try eating rats when I'm not a cat?

there are recipes for cat food. in case you didn't know

Obviously everyone is on to you and I'm not the one who's making a fool out of himself - you do lols.

that's the problem, everyone is attacking my person when the thread is not about me.
I think the fools AND cowards are those that do not understand the thread purpose

I am not arrogant. We're just tired of reading your crap lols. You aren't fooling anybody. You provide good entertainment though lols.

you said you've never lost yet. arrogance.

And for someone who doesn't believe in SS - you sure could have fooled anyone since you've been trying to prove it is valid until I've pointed out it is fallacious and indefensible.

correction, what I said is that I don't have to believe in SS.
it doesn't matter if I believe in it or not.

And by the way - you're the only one left in PEX trying to defend that indefensible and untenable doctrine invented by Luther. And ironically - you don't believe in it as well hahahahahaha.

ironic to both the roman catholics and the prots here. ha-ha-ha

and you don't have the right to say you've won, since you haven't actually refuted a single point in that article.

hehe, you don't dare touching the points in that article, so you resort to attacking me, and you still failed at that?

[Totnak]

let me re-post the whole story for you:
I said:


this is something about my confidence in SS, not the defense of the article which I posted

and you replied by quoting and highlighting:


again, something regarding my position on SS, not the defense of the article.

which begs the question why you concluded:


this clearly shows, that your basis of going any further or otherwise is my confidence, my position on the SS doctrine

and not my standing up for the defense of the article which I posted
and that is why I never tweaked your agenda.

you're just like Elcid & Ferdinand.

your refutations on the article are long overdue, hirit na nang may matutunan kami sa iyo, oh great undefeated Mr. T (pbuh)

sarcasm won't build your credibility in RoT SmartD....

one, I never highlighted your position about the Sola Scriptura doctrine....what I did was to challenge you to a formal debate based on the article you posted......

two, you continue to tweak my posts so that you could try and escape from the pithole you yourself dug....

pathetic and cr@ppy.....

oh I forgot....you're not any better than Capt. Chin.....the only difference is that, you at least know your grammar......

[ElCid]

SS = food
recipe = defense

your analogy rides on that parallelism

that is why i never said:
I FIND SS GOOD

which in parallel would say
I FIND PORK CHOPS GOOD

Wouldn't you say it is awkward or stup1d for a vegetarian like yourself to say that pork chops are good without qualification? Ngayon gagawa na siya ng qualification ladies and gentlemen because she always makes things up as we go along lols.

for cats, yes
you don't know tom and jerry, do you?

Huli na naman! So how could you now say that rats are delicious? Di ka naman pusa? lols. Hindi naman porque't kinain masarap na. I eat ampalaya - masarap ba? Hindi ako nasararapan huy kinakain ko lang

oh now I'm the one who is preparing recipes? you are lost. did I made that lengthy defense?
and why should I try eating rats when I'm not a cat?

I was saying that the proof of the pudding is in the eating - I was talking about pudding but you (para makalusot) pinasok cat food lols. Eh di ka naman lumulusot.

there are recipes for cat food. in case you didn't know

And who cares? I was talking about pudding which is good for people to eat tapos pinasok mo cat food na kinakain mo siguro? lols. May recipe ka eh lols.

that's the problem, everyone is attacking my person when the thread is not about me.
I think the fools AND cowards are those that do not understand the thread purpose

On to you doesn't mean attacking your person. Why attack you you are so pretty to attack lols. We attack your arguments since they are stup1d. Nakakasawa na kase. Ang haba haba mo pa magposte wala namang katuturan lols. And you don't interact. May pinoste ibang sasagutin mo.

you said you've never lost yet. arrogance.

That is not arrogance but a fact lols.

correction, what I said is that I don't have to believe in SS.
it doesn't matter if I believe in it or not.

So don't you or do you believe in SS? Or do you have your own invention of SS that you adhere to different from other protestants? The kind of SS that is not bible alone since you find the bible alone principle inadequate? So kung di na bible alone at may kasama na masasabi mo pa bang sola scriptura yun? lols.

ironic to both the roman catholics and the prots here. ha-ha-ha

Ironic lang sa iyo dahil ikaw para kang nagsasayaw ng tinikling di ka makatindig ng derecho. Imagine dinidipensahan ni DESS yung hindi naman niya pinaniniwalaan? lols. Ironic di ba? At siya na lang natitira niyan dito wala na maski isang protestante o ebanghelico dito na titindig laban sa catolico regarding sola scriptura. Bistado na yang doctrina na yan kalokohan lang. Di naman itinuro ni Cristo yan o ng mga apostol.

and you don't have the right to say you've won, since you haven't actually refuted a single point in that article.

I would if you would defend it in a formal debate. Ang problema lalaban ka naman kaya? Hindi di ba? So why waste my time?

hehe, you don't dare touching the points in that article, so you resort to attacking me, and you still failed at that?

Attack you? When? We attack your arguments. Hindi ikaw since you are pretty. lols Asan ang attack diyan? *wink* Pa hug? lols.

I laban mo na lang ng debate - ako na lang huag na si tots pang derby na yan eh lols. Oh ano? Para tapos na ang dami daming abla.

[Ischaramoochie]

wala kasing "integration clause" ang bible eh...

[thoth]

wala kasing "integration clause" ang bible eh...

Uy bosing u're back. mag ahit ka muna sir.

[SmartDessa]

sarcasm won't build your credibility in RoT SmartD....

Yes I am being sarcastic, and that's it.
what makes you say that I am building my credibility by using sarcasm?

you love making up things.

one, I never highlighted your position about the Sola Scriptura doctrine....what I did was to challenge you to a formal debate based on the article you posted......

you challenged me alright, AND I HAVE ALREADY TOLD YOU THAT THAT IS CLEAR ENOUGH.

but do not lie by saying you did not highlighted my position on the SS and used it to weaken the article's defense.

I have already quoted it and showed it. the more you deny it the more you lose credibility.
unless of course you can explain (and try to escape, which I believe is too late) what you have posted.

two, you continue to tweak my posts so that you could try and escape from the pithole you yourself dug....

pathetic and cr@ppy.....

no I didn't tweak your post, there is no need since it was crystal clear, the problem is, I am confused whether you actually understood your post, or maybe you're the one who's been trying to escape from your pithole you dugged and I uncovered.

oh I forgot....you're not any better than Capt. Chin.....the only difference is that, you at least know your grammar......

whatever, now I think you already gave enough trash talk, I think it's time for you start refuting the article. stop procrastinating.

[tonton]

Funny thread.

[tonton]

wala kasing "integration clause" ang bible eh...

Oy mod iscaramonching nabuhay ka. How was your trip to China? So how's your Kung Fu? Mukhang nakalimutan mong mag-ahit ng 3 taon a.

[SmartDessa]

Wouldn't you say it is awkward or stup1d for a vegetarian like yourself to say that pork chops are good without qualification? Ngayon gagawa na siya ng qualification ladies and gentlemen because she always makes things up as we go along lols.

what is stupid is to stereotype vegetarians that they do not cook pork and any meat
and no, I am not a vegetarian, I am only using an example.

Huli na naman! So how could you now say that rats are delicious? Di ka naman pusa? lols. Hindi naman porque't kinain masarap na. I eat ampalaya - masarap ba? Hindi ako nasararapan huy kinakain ko lang

baka gusto mo ng recipe para sumarap yang ampalaya mo?
the gist here is not the food, it's the RECIPE

I can have 2 recipes for cat food, rats or whatsoever
and I can compare which recipe is better based on the cats who will eat them.

I was saying that the proof of the pudding is in the eating - I was talking about pudding but you (para makalusot) pinasok cat food lols. Eh di ka naman lumulusot.

the problem is, the point here is the recipe, not the pudding
I can make a lousy pudding or a delicious pudding, but it all depends on the RECIPE.
still, it's pudding

And who cares? I was talking about pudding which is good for people to eat tapos pinasok mo cat food na kinakain mo siguro? lols. May recipe ka eh lols.

are you saying that people who keep recipes for cat foof, eat cat food?

On to you doesn't mean attacking your person. Why attack you you are so pretty to attack lols. We attack your arguments since they are stup1d. Nakakasawa na kase. Ang haba haba mo pa magposte wala namang katuturan lols. And you don't interact. May pinoste ibang sasagutin mo.

yun nanga a ng problema e, ako ang inaatake nyo, whether person ko or argumento ko, pero ang dapat na atakihin niyo e yung ARTIKULO.

sus ginuu.

That is not arrogance but a fact lols.

they are both.
you are arrogant of that fact.

So don't you or do you believe in SS? Or do you have your own invention of SS that you adhere to different from other protestants? The kind of SS that is not bible alone since you find the bible alone principle inadequate? So kung di na bible alone at may kasama na masasabi mo pa bang sola scriptura yun? lols.

off topic na naman.
o sige, for the last time. pagbigyan ang batang ayaw ng ampalaya

I believe that scripture alone is inadequate
and tradition is not what fills this inadequacy.

Ironic lang sa iyo dahil ikaw para kang nagsasayaw ng tinikling di ka makatindig ng derecho. Imagine dinidipensahan ni DESS yung hindi naman niya pinaniniwalaan? lols. Ironic di ba? At siya na lang natitira niyan dito wala na maski isang protestante o ebanghelico dito na titindig laban sa catolico regarding sola scriptura. Bistado na yang doctrina na yan kalokohan lang. Di naman itinuro ni Cristo yan o ng mga apostol.

so ibig mong sabihin, di pwedeng ipaglaban ng isang puti ang karapatan ng mga itim?
irony, is not always negative, sometimes it's the best solution.

I would if you would defend it in a formal debate. Ang problema lalaban ka naman kaya? Hindi di ba? So why waste my time?

o yun naman pala, ano pa ang pinagpuputok ng buchi mo? kung ayaw mong i-refute yung artikulo, ok lang naman e.
pero nga, kelangan mo lang talagang atakihin ako. di mo ko matiis e, no?

Attack you? When? We attack your arguments. Hindi ikaw since you are pretty. lols Asan ang attack diyan? *wink* Pa hug? lols.

ayaw ko, away mo ko e

I laban mo na lang ng debate - ako na lang huag na si tots pang derby na yan eh lols. Oh ano? Para tapos na ang dami daming abla.

di ako marunong mag formal debate.