Are Trolling Fuckwits Worth The Trouble?

[The Judge]

JerryJohn wrote

Judge,

You were just "chastising" Andrew his reading and writing skills were you not?
Did you really mean to write "...explain this key "TENT" of your faith?

Touché but I rather think that the omission of a vowel hardly equates to the conflation of a homonym. However ad hominem attacks are rarely productive. Apologies.

[The Judge]

Andrew66 wrote

You are speaking to the mystery of the Trinity. Understand, that the nature of God (as a Trinity) is a mere hypothesis generated by the Catholic Church - as they honestly sifted through the "evidence" of the historical manuscripts they had on hand.

What you call a "mystery" is one Lynne mysterious because it is a load of cobbled together bollocks: There was no honest sifting through evidence. The divinity of jeebus was essentially the product of debate and voting by a bunch of bishops at the first counsel of Nicea, the counsel of Constantinople and a few others.

Andrew66 wrote

That "believe" in God is a "requirement" for salvation is a Church position - but it is also supported by the Words of Jesus when asked directly...I have my own theory, but its not based on scripture.

So you claim that the answer to my question is not only ecumenical but based on scripture (yet you do not offer any appropriate source, chapter or verse). However you then say that you also have an explanation not based on scripture. If there IS a scriptural answer as to WHY entry into heaven is contingent (amongst other things) upon belief in the resurrection instead of us all being saved by the mere claim to historical fact that it happened, then why is a non-scriptural explanation required at all?

[JerryJohn]

Andrew66 wrote

You are speaking to the mystery of the Trinity. Understand, that the nature of God (as a Trinity) is a mere hypothesis generated by the Catholic Church - as they honestly sifted through the "evidence" of the historical manuscripts they had on hand.

The Church had to harmonize that there is only one God, yet Jesus was attested to have an extremely intimate, uniquely authorative connection to God - and was higher status than mere human or angel.

The Trinity takes into account your concerns Judge, Jesus as a complete man on earth was not aware of his other co - part in heaven - he suffered fully as a Man. That God the father was omniscient to the fate of his Son - does not change the merit of Jesus's suffering.

Remember, the Trinity states three entirely separate entities are also one (it is illogical - beyond human understanding - there is no point to try to make sense of it, as you desperately are trying to do!). I for one am a fan of interpreting the Trinity as three entities, in a perfectly harmonized "team" (like a perfect Hockey team for example - where all the players work perfectly together towards a common goal) - then things "make sense". But now Christian will really know - until they are in heaven.



That "believe" in God is a "requirement" for salvation is a Church position - but it is also supported by the Words of Jesus when asked directly. I have suggested that "hope" hopefully (excuse the pun) may be enough, for some people who are hard wired against faith.

It is possible I suppose therefore that as long as one at least obeys the teachings of Jesus Christ (love the neighbour) - and notes the truth of Jesus's real historical sacrifice, and hopes there is something to the God story - maybe this would be enough.

Why is belief a requirement.??? That is a prime concern for you Judge, isn't it?

I have my own theory, but its not based on scripture. I personally wonder whether "belief" in itself IS NOT a pre-requisite for heaven. Satan obviously believes - but he is not a big fan of Love They Neighbour - so he's excluded from heaven.

I think that to try, earnestly, to lead an altruistic life - (the main teaching of Jesus - again Love they Neighbour) may be the real ticket God is looking for. However most, if not all? people cannot cut mustard - we are inherently a very selfish species, so by "believing" in God, and afterlife - gives us a better opportunity (it provides us an extra incentive) to walk the path of righteousness. So belief is more of a prescription to get to salvation, than a pre-requisite.

God Bless your search for truth Judge. You are obviously passionate about religious study - you will find you way.

GOD BLESS

Andrew,

What a fabulous witness you make to the Christian Faith. Your thoughts on the resurrection and now well worded post regarding the mystery of the Trinity is excellent.

I also believe Judge is seeking to understand that which he cannot comprehend currently regarding what they affectionately call us on the board "jeebus" this and that.

I do think he does use the "cunt" word which is too bad given he is obviously intelligent like both of us and well read in the OT especially.

Best Wishes and many blessings to you and yours, this 2018!

Happy New Year,

Friends in Christ,

JJ

[JerryJohn]

The Judge wrote

Touché but I rather think that the omission of a vowel hardly equates to the conflation of a homonym. However ad hominem attacks are rarely productive. Apologies.

No problem Judge,

Nice of you to apologize and I too have "thrown" a few ad hominem attacks to the atheists that use the "cunt, Christard, and many other " colorful words" to myself and Andrew because their adolescent musings frustrate me as it cuts back on dialogue.

The board was a joke to read as a Christian seeking to understand more about atheism until you came here given the use of such adolescent words and worse yet the thread "Who masturbates the most" was truly a joke.

My view of the atheists here ( my sister is an atheist in "real life" which is why I read this board )were these posters are a bunch of losers who drink excessively, use drugs, etc and have fried their brains which is why they have a lack of any productive thought.

They mostly "wait in eager await" for a Christard to post so they can use them as they say for "chew sticks." Whatever i thought, I will read until someone has a thought I am interested in such as yourself.

I have enjoyed Sinfidel's cartoons through the years albeit they were pretty simpleton stuff and copy and paste jobs But I did appreciate the obvious sense of good humor that poster has.

I think Judge, what it comes down to at the day, is that atheists DEMAND proof, chapter verse of the Bible, some PROVEN sciectific evidence the ENTIRE scientific community agrees upon , etc to explain any issue regarding Jesus and the issues surrounding him. That is my personal view from reading this thread and my own personal experience which is admittedly a handful of people.

At the end of the day some things are a mystery. It's that simple. If you read the Bible it's there. You just have to sometimes look behind all the bantering about the interpretive nature of it and find it.....staring out between the pages of what I believe is an infallible book, is Jesus the prophecy promised in the Old Testament, fulfilled in the New. Promises of forgiveness of sin of course if you believe "all people have sinned and fallen short" everlasting life.

Anyway, we agree to disagree but I do enjoy your obviously well thought out and well researched comments based on logic and the Bible.

All all the best to you and yours 2018.

JJ

1 Kings 19:12 Look for the stillness Judge. New International Version NIV

[The Judge]

I'm pleased that you're actively trying to understand more of the atheist persepctive for what are obviously quite personal reasons. I hope that it has become clear that we're not all the same and that sometimes, some of us have thought a lot about our position and had it attacked many times to which we have mounted countless defenses.

Many of us have grown tired of doing so and sometimes this results in a shortcut to ad hominem attacks and ugly slanging matches which gets no-one anywhere very quickly.
Occasionally attemptoing to engage an interlocuter can result in some more meaningful exchange as it has done with you.

I myself had been absent from this forum for a while as I was feeling a little uninspired and like a broken record but enough time has passed that I am now back to resume the worthy struggle against irrational belief.

As a scientist by training an ex-catholic to boot I enjoy trying to understand the nuances of human experience and belief and picking them apart in the process.
Exploring a persons own epistemology however will quickly tell me how deeply they have really considered their own faith and in many cases it is unfortunately not very deep but in those in whom more than a cursory self-examination is evident, often an inexplicable "becasue I just feel it is so" seems to stifle any further rational inquiry.

Happy new year to you too.

[Andrew66]

The Judge wrote

As a scientist by training an ex-catholic to boot.

Hey Judge, and JJ got a theologic question for both of you regarding "belief" in Jesus.

I asked William Lane Craig's website for an answer but I wanted both of your takes.

Judge, lets assume for a minute the Christian faith, based on the scriptures salvaged, speaks the truth.

All good Catholics and Protestants are taught that the key to salvation is that they believe in Jesus. What I questioned to Craig's website, is what actually about Jesus must we believe in?

Craig's website responder told me a follower must believe that Jesus is the risen Lord. It is all about belief in the status of the person, the status of Jesus as God. I sensed from one of your earlier posts Judge that this also doesn't sit well with you?

I asked Craig's website, or suggested (meekly) - maybe, is it possible, that the scriptures could be interpreted, that what is required in belief in Jesus is not necessarily that Jesus is God, but rather that we believe in the merit of Jesus's teachings!??

When Jesus was asked point blank by a follower "Teacher, what must I do to enter heaven" Jesus did not at that time answer "Believe I am God". Jesus answered "believe in God (presumably he was speaking of God the Father) and Love they Neighbor".

As I explained before, it is also possible that the "belief in God" part of that instruction may be a prescription to aid in the action of loving they neighbor, and not necessarily an imperative unto itself.

So making a firm commitment to love the Neighbor may be the most important part, something even an Atheist can commit to. Heck even Smelly could be saved!

Anyway - Craig's website was adamant that I was completely off track and the believe in the Status of Jesus was everything. The part about Loving they Neighbor was interestingly completely subordinated.

Don't get me wrong, I of course also believe Jesus is part of the God Head, but my question is an important distinction for the possible benefit of atheists who are hard wired for requiring proof that a God even exists.

Thoughts?

PS I took the time to spell check . I hope I haven't irritated anyone with further errors. Thanks for sticking up for me brother JJ! My apologies.

[The Judge]

Andrew66 wrote

Hey Judge, and JJ got a theologic question for both of you regarding "belief" in Jesus.

I asked William Lane Craig's website for an answer but I wanted both of your takes.

Judge, lets assume for a minute the Christian faith, based on the scriptures salvaged, speaks the truth.

All good Catholics and Protestants are taught that the key to salvation is that they believe in Jesus. What I questioned to Craig's website, is what actually about Jesus must we believe in?

Craig's website responder told me a follower must believe that Jesus is the risen Lord. It is all about belief in the status of the person, the status of Jesus as God. I sensed from one of your earlier posts Judge that this also doesn't sit well with you?

It's not necessarily that this doesn't sit well with me, it's just that it makes no sense being obliged to believe in anything in order to make it work if the act of sacrifice has already saved us all, nothing more should be required in order for it to have worked.

The respondant to your question is just sticking to what is effectively a party line that dates back to the first counsel of Nicea (a debate and majority vote that decided on the divinity of jesus which was contested at the time.

Andrew66 wrote

I asked Craig's website, or suggested (meekly) - maybe, is it possible, that the scriptures could be interpreted, that what is required in belief in Jesus is not necessarily that Jesus is God, but rather that we believe in the merit of Jesus's teachings!??

When Jesus was asked point blank by a follower "Teacher, what must I do to enter heaven" Jesus did not at that time answer "Believe I am God". Jesus answered "believe in God (presumably he was speaking of God the Father) and Love they Neighbor".

This bit doesn't sit well with me. My entire professional life and large parts of my personal life have been lived under the rubric of "love thy neighbour," and I have done it all as a non-believer yet this is not enough according to your respondant. It's not that I want to get into heaven (I do not believe in such a thing and even if it existed I would never kneel and worship what is arguably a capricious tyrant.

Andrew66 wrote

As I explained before, it is also possible that the "belief in God" part of that instruction may be a prescription to aid in the action of loving they neighbor, and not necessarily an imperative unto itself.

So making a firm commitment to love the Neighbor may be the most important part, something even an Atheist can commit to. Heck even Smelly could be saved!

Anyway - Craig's website was adamant that I was completely off track and the believe in the Status of Jesus was everything. The part about Loving they Neighbor was interestingly completely subordinated.

Internet points here. I hope I have demonstrated that it is it necessary to believe in god to act ethically and that the WLC lot seem to have split from some religionists that would have us believe that one cannot be ethical without god.

Smelly doesn't need saving. I can vouch first hand for his deeds in favour of humanity and being an all round thoroughly decent bloke.

[Smellyoldgit]

Cheers Judge, your cheque's in the post!

[Andrew66]

.

The Judge wrote

demonstrated that it is it necessary to believe in god .

Sori don't understand this part. Perhaps if you learned basic grammar? (just kidding - had to throw that in there )

Thank you for your detailed reply, but you didn't really address my question at all. Maybe I wrote too much so the question got lost.

Question re-worded in a concise manner.

According to scripture (and not the "Party Line" - the established doctrines of Christianity based on the Church's opinion of scripture ), is it possible to interpret the requirement for salvation (i.e. Belief that Jesus is the risen Lord) differently?

Can it be alternatively interpreted that what is required (specifically with respect to salvation remember) that followers merely believe in the TEACHINGS of Jesus (and not necessarily the status of Jesus). ???

The sacrifice on the cross can be thought of in part as a teaching - a teaching to be altrustic in favor of others - He died for the cause of preaching Love of Man.

FYI the council of Nicea established what they believed was the nature of God and the Nicean creed - but this does not have to do very much with my quesiton.

The Nicean creed identifies that Jesus will sit at the right hand of the father to "Judge the quick and the dead". It is the criteria by which Jesus will judge whcih I'm questioning.

When Jesus was asked about the criteria personally - he did not say that one must "believe that I am to be the risen Lord" - he said Love God and Love they Neighbour.

Maybe Love is the answer?

PS - ps I've made some spellng mistakes, my 6 year old daughter likes to try to find them and point them out to me (its a game of hers) please disregard -

[Smellyoldgit]

Dumb Twat wrote

Maybe I wrote too much ....

yes, yes you did

Knob Rot wrote

.... in a concise manner ....

Excuse me if I laugh too loudly ....

Allow me to pull out some gems that makes us sane folk chortle ..

According to scripture

.... is it possible to interpret ....

.... Can it be alternatively interpreted ....

.... can be thought ....

.... what they believed....

.... but this does not have to do very much with my quesiton [sic].

.... Maybe ....

How much more of a clue do you need in order to realise why you're considered a grade 1 fuckwit? Ho hum, do carry on ....

[Andrew66]

Smellyoldgit wrote

yes, yes you did

Excuse me if I laugh too loudly ....

Allow me to pull out some gems that makes us sane folk chortle ..

How much more of a clue do you need in order to realise why you're considered a grade 1 fuckwit? Ho hum, do carry on ....

You did alot of editorial work to respond to me. I suppose I should be flattered?

Why?

Are you sure your not a paid member of the site? If not, then you must respect my views as you respond to them with such effort.

God Bless!

[Smellyoldgit]

Yes, demonstrating how stupid and clueless you are took me all of two minutes - hardly worth my fee!

[JerryJohn]

Andrew66 wrote

You did alot of editorial work to respond to me. I suppose I should be flattered?

Why?

Are you sure your not a paid member of the site? If not, then you must respect my views as you respond to them with such effort.

God Bless!

Ah. what a puzzlement it is to me that Smelly shows up to post a few times to Andrew after the plethora of warnings through the years to NOT RESPOND to the troll to other regular posters that have showed up here a few times

I noticed recently Andy has been included in this "blanket warning." The other posters are usually "good posters" that obey Smelly like a God himself. Idolatry comes to mind.

Are you jealous Smelly that we can dialogue with Judge and have an intelligent conversation with the most intelligent poster here ever since I've been around. (Which hasn't been long enough for this forum.)

Beware the green eyes monster; might get you to be a regular poster on the personal thread you gave me.

Now back to what you do best of course, drinking yourself to death.

JJ

[The Judge]

Andrew66 wrote

Sori don't understand this part.

Apologies it should have read, "I hope I have demonstrated that it is not necessary to believe in god to act ethically..."

Andrew66 wrote

...is it possible to interpret the requirement for salvation (i.e. Belief that Jesus is the risen Lord) differently?

Can it be alternatively interpreted that what is required (specifically with respect to salvation remember) that followers merely believe in the TEACHINGS of Jesus (and not necessarily the status of Jesus). ???

I do not think it can; not on its own anyway. Scripture is quite clear on the different things a person must do and believe in order to get into heaven.

I sense a sort of open hearted optimism in you Andrew pontificating on the virtue of mere hope in a "god" and trying to stretch the criteria for heaven entry beyond that which scripture dictates but you seem to also be missing a lot of other things that the buybull says too.

Andrew66 wrote

The sacrifice on the cross can be thought of in part as a teaching - a teaching to be altrustic in favor of others - He died for the cause of preaching Love of Man.

That's a bit of a stretch I think. Jesus was crucified because the crowd wanted him to be crucified but a deeper problem is with the whole central crucifixion / salvation deal itself which is what I have alluded to in previous posts.

The equation of sacrifice cancelling out all "sin" is itself a non-sequitur: The two things just don't go together and there is no reason why one should cancel out the other especially since jeebus could only have sacrificed himself once yet there were thousands of years of "sin" both before and after him. This frankly strange and kinda pointless act is supposed to absolve all mankind of all sin gone before...AND which would occur after the act as well?!
It just doesn't make any sense.

Andrew66 wrote

FYI the council of Nicea established what they believed was the nature of God and the Nicean creed - but this does not have to do very much with my quesiton.

Actually it does since you were asking about the nature of jeebus (risen lord etc.) and the first counsel of Nicea established by a vote the nature of the "God Head" which included jeebus.

Andrew66 wrote

The Nicean creed identifies that Jesus will sit at the right hand of the father to "Judge the quick and the dead". It is the criteria by which Jesus will judge whcih I'm questioning.

And it was the nature of jeebus that I was questioning by invoking the point about the first counsel of Nicea.

But I get what your question is and since Matthew 5:18 states "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." This basically endorses all of the OT as well as the NT so there's a lot of criteria for jeebus to judge us by. Assuming he's real, I could not possibly attempt to second guess his judgment process but since it is more likely than not that he is not seated at the right hand of the father etc. I live my life as if he weren't and do not let it bother me.

Andrew66 wrote

Maybe Love is the answer?

Cute... and of course I could never argue with that; the world could certainly do with a lot more love in it but you don't have to be christian to love, care, cherish, be kind, helpful, charitable or a good citizen. All of these things are worth doing for demonstrable humanistic reasons during the one and only life we have and without the threat of the stick of "hell" or the carrot of "heaven." This is what makes humanist ethics superior to religious ethics and obviates the need for an afterlife.

[Davin]

Androo66 is just jealous that its not paid as much as us.