Are Trolling Fuckwits Worth The Trouble?

[JerryJohn]

Michael:

Regarding post 1020 on 7/2 I had a response to post to you yesterday but then decided I wasn't happy with it. I would like try a new angle coming from your perspective perhaps and I believe we can find some common ground as well. My sister is an atheist as you know and you echo her concerns.

So therefore,this weekend I will post it from perhaps your angle. I have a lot going on with my business but by Monday I will have a better answer.

Regards,
JJ

[AtomJack]

Jerry is a long-time troll who has been confined to this single thread as a chew toy for the others. IIRC, he will be banned as a result of shit-posting anywhere else. The sole purpose of allowing him here is to provide a little entertainment for the other members. He even claims it's his thread. But it's really just a dump where he can fling his religious feces in the air and pretend superiority.

BTW, welcome!

[JerryJohn]

AtomJack wrote

Jerry is a long-time troll who has been confined to this single thread as a chew toy for the others. IIRC, he will be banned as a result of shit-posting anywhere else. The sole purpose of allowing him here is to provide a little entertainment for the other members. He even claims it's his thread. But it's really just a dump where he can fling his religious feces in the air and pretend superiority.

BTW, welcome!

My freedom of speech has been indeed limited to my own thread by the drunken shitfaced mod who only posts childish moronic bullshit sprinkled with the consistent use of the cunt word.

A poster such as AJ claps his little fly hands with glee thinking the troll has to be contained. Anyone is welcome on most Christian sites that can post without using big words like the cunt word. People are not primarily banned to one thread.

That is indeed unique to forums with a coward as the lead "moderator." The main reason I am "allowed" to have my own thread is that the mod himself has noted it's allowed because in nice moderator terms this forum is dead except the same stupid posters posting a plethora of boring hum drum same ole same ole cartoons, posts, etc etc ad infinitum ad nauseum.

JJ

[AtomJack]

[JerryJohn]

AtomJack wrote

Ah, so we can post an Emoji, can we? How impressive, AJ. It's nice for you to be on the "warning" committee to warn people of the troll here. ROFLMAO....

Does Smelly suck you off for that favor? To warn impending posters of the terrible troll?

JJ

[carusmm]

JerryJohn, I was once on a Ray Comfort site, posted once and was banned immediately as a blasphemer. I am very proud of this. Eat bananas. Ray Comfort does, and look! he's a genius.

[JerryJohn]

carusmm wrote

JerryJohn, I was once on a Ray Comfort site, posted once and was banned immediately as a blasphemer. I am very proud of this. Eat bananas. Ray Comfort does, and look! he's a genius.

Carusmm,

Thanks for sharing but quite frankly, I don't give a shit.

JJ

[carusmm]

JerryJohn, thank you for your kind reply, how stupid was I to think that you would give a damn about anything as silly as Ray Comfort?

[JerryJohn]

carusmm wrote

JerryJohn, thank you for your kind reply, how stupid was I to think that you would give a damn about anything as silly as Ray Comfort?

I'm truly not trying to be a bastard here but you must not give much of a damn about Ray Comfort yourself if you got banned from his board/forum what have you, by posting blasphemous material?

What did you post that pissed them off so much?

I don't know Ray Comfort personally so I have no opinion of him one way or the other. It's not that I don't give a rat's ass, it's just I don't know enough about him to have an educated opinion.

I hope that clarifies the issue better.

Regards,

JJ

[JerryJohn]

[quote=Michael;685636]You missed some quote tags in there, but I think I’ve pulled out all your responses;

It can be interpreted for hatred and is interpreted for hatred.
You, of course, say it should be interpreted to “love one another”.
So now we have two interpretations of the same text, which you claim is the unbreakable moral edict from your divine god - both contradicting each other

(I agree with the above from your point of view and that of my sister. The many interpretations are a problem in Christianity. Anyone using the Bible or religion for hatred will answer to God. Westboro Church comes to mind. Those that justify sin such as homosexuality and abortion which of course are hot button issues will answer to God. That said where else shall we go as Peter said to Jesus? Be an atheist?

The problem is, there are as many answers in atheism as to what is right and wrong as there is in Christianity. The problem is a lot of atheists say we need to be "good persons." If you think you have no sin the Bible deceives you. Anyone walking around thinking they are some awesome good person need only ask their friends and families if they have some faults and I bet that would be a good time to look in the mirror. JJ)

So even if I do you the favour of momentarily pretending this divine god exists - from an outsider’s perspective, how can we determine which one is correct, if both interpretations claim to have the correct interpretation?

Shouldn’t a divine edict be clear enough to not fall victim to interpretation - especially on things as important as how we live our lives?

(Yes you're absolutely right. I don't have a good answer for you. Baptists tend to take the bible literally. Others don't. So I agree it's not a perfect set up but atheism has the same issues as noted above. The bible lately has been incorrectly interpreted to bend to the whims of society with many issues. Ordination of women, as noted above acceptance of gay lifestyles and clergy and on and on it goes. It doesn't make it right. JJ)



Except that’s exactly what we see with a supposed authority. Even your own catholic church is rife with child molestation and other evils.

Should we assume, then, that the very organisation purporting to be responsible for enacting this divine authority does not abide by it, or should we assume then that this divine authority is okay with child molestation?

Let me put it to you again, in simpler terms: The catholic church has a problem with child molesting. Does the church ignore god’s command not to molest children, or is god okay with molesting children?

(I'm not Catholic. You'd have to talk about Mary who is a friend and my secretary about that. I have never heard of any Church that condones the molestation of children. That said perverts surround us and infiltrate society. Hell, we've had them in the Southern Baptist Church. This was on a news special on TV. I kid you not, the Southern Baptist Church has a list of available Pastors and right on that list were those quietly shushed up by local congregations and quietly let go. They soon lied like rugs and found new Pastoral positions. This of course gives you access to children. So the problem is real in Churches and I'd be happy to shoot of the dick of any sick SOB that messes with kids JJ)

If it’s the first then your own church contradicts your statement. If it’s the second then we’re back to the idea that based on your assertion that we must get our morals from god, you are required to believe that child molestation is okay if your god says it is.
I happen to think you would not say it’s okay, however - and that’s because you are more moral than both your church AND your god.

(God has never said that child molestation is Ok and even though I've seen enough excuses by Churches for their clergy, no Church I've read condones any such behavior nor should they. The church can never be more moral than God. My church certainly teaches no such BS. The Church is a hospital for sinners. The problem with atheists is they see no sin. They perceive themselves as good persons walking around with no need for God. That is a deception of Satan. We are dependent on Christ for our salvation which is the forgiveness of sins through the cross and marching forward to lie a life in keeping with the Gospel received JJ)


Firstly - 10 commandments is old testament (this will come into play more in the response to the next part).

Secondly - The bible changes its mind more often that I change socks. If we were to take out all of the things in the bible that don’t have a contradiction somewhere else in the bible, we’d likely just be left with the title page.

(The Bible does not contradict itself. People that interpret it don't change their minds. The minute they get pissed off about any issues, let's say polygamy, they set up their own perverted church that allows and promotes as such. Same with homosexuality. The bible condemns the behavior of it not the person entrapped in the sin of it. JJ)

On the one point you hand wave things away because they are “old testament” and therefore don’t matter, and on the other you use the old testament (the 10 commandments above) to assert your moral beliefs.

(The law in the old testament which has been waved away is the Mosaic law that bound people to 633 some Jewish Laws that bound the people who could not do anything without breaking the law the Pharisees determined.)

If you are beholden to the divine authority then it is either relevant or not - you cannot pick and choose when it is. To do so means you are not getting your morals from this “authority”, but using it as a source to justify your own moral choices as you see fit.

(I disagree with the above assertion. Christians all agree the mosaic law has been fulfilled in Christ. Jewish people of course are still looking for the messiah and follow this law. JJ)

Additionally, that requirement was in no way shape or form “washed out with the shedding of blood by Jesus”. Jesus says as much himself:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18*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. 19*Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20*For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.” - Matthew 5:17-20 (NIV)

( Right the new law is not based on the Pharisees mosaic law but Christ's law. To love one another as I have loved you, the greatest commandment, etc etc.JJ)

Jesus says directly that the “old law” (the old testament) is still valid. You assert that his authority is timeless and correct. That means what was true then is true now. So if Jesus says that the old testament counts until “heaven and earth disappear”, then that still counts today.

(If the OT was still valid we'd be in bad shape. We'd be worried about what food we ate, how many animal sacrifices we needed for this and that sin. The OT shows us blood was needed to atone for sin and the NT show us animal sacrifices are no longer needed for Jesus shed blood for all to atone for the sins of everyone JJ)



This means you are still beholden to everything in the old testament, based on your own assertions.

(No that's a misunderstanding of the beginner basics of the Bible. The OT shows us how sinful we can be, the NT tells us the answer to that sin is Jesus not perfect behavior nor animal sacrifices)

“Someone needs to set the rules and regulations” - why?

( Because without some moral compass pointing us in the right direction with our society would be chaos)

Please point me to societies where “someone” sets the rules.
(“someone”, of course, implies a single person. Please point me to societies where a single person sets the rules and regulations, and we’ll discuss from there using your examples. If you intended this more as a singular authority regulates then by all means you are welcome to correct yourself and we’ll continue from there.)

In Christian societies "In God we trust" is professed. That would be God who is actually 3 persons in One God of course. The Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. I was unclear I believe for not all societies are Christian in nature.
As far as society "rules" hell I have no idea the exact process of determining every such law such as the "little laws" such as speeding tickets to the big laws such as the amount of alcohol in your blood stream to be a DUI, to the biggies such as Murder, Robbery, The big felonious crimes. That said, yes it is not one person JJ.

You have almost entirely misunderstood the point I made here - which is fine, you accidentally focussed on the silly joke I was making with dogpet, rather than what I said/meant earlier.

(I will openly admit I did not understand fully your point. I did what I could with what you wrote. We are obviously on "opposide" side of the sea on the Is there a God or not issue. I might imagine what I write will not be clear to you either given this premise. We might be at an impasse. JJ)

Ok Michael, I had to shave off the bottom of my post because it exceeded the word limit. I'll leave it at that for the sake of brevity. Let me know if there is more of your post you'd like me to address.

Regards,

JJ

[JerryJohn]

Michaels 7/20 post, continued and wrapping it up. (Above post exceeded the character limit)

You have almost entirely misunderstood the point I made here - which is fine, you accidentally focussed on the silly joke I was making with dogpet, rather than what I said/meant earlier.

(Jokes are always welcome. I noted we are on opposite sides of the sea on this issue so I did what I could with what I understood as you did as well. Hell, it was worth a shot JJ)

The bible tells you you’re destined for punishment.

(That was the Old Testament which is difficult to read. God seems so angry, and wicked sending floods etc. Read it and weep.) The NT promises everlasting life after death for those who believe. Hell for those who don't.

It then tells you the only way to avoid this punishment is to do what it tells you.

(The NT states we are still sinful but we are not doomed to death as the OT. We are given as noted life after death. JJ)


That’s like a gangster telling you you’re going to be attacked, then telling you the only way to not be attacked is to do what they tell you. The only reason you’d be attacked in the first place is because of the very gangster trying to “protect” you, just as the only reason you believe you’ll be punished for not doing what the bible says is because the very same source tells you you’ll be punished.

(Not anymore we live and walk by grace now, not OT Mosaic Law thank God. Alleluia. JJ)

[JerryJohn]

Last call here: The above two posts were written quickly and may not be grammatically correct. I went back to edit and "smooth it up" but it was too late. My time limit expired so I hope it's still clear to you, Michael. Let me know if you need clarification on anything.

JJ.

[carusmm]

If God threatens me with the evil of eternal hellfire and the gnashing of teeth, please excuse me if I take it personally.

[JerryJohn]

carusmm wrote

If God threatens me with the evil of eternal hellfire and the gnashing of teeth, please excuse me if I take it personally.

Carusmm,

I think God meant it personally.

JJ

[carusmm]

JerryJohn wrote

Carusmm,

I think God meant it personally.

JJ

Of course, he means it - he's a gangster who uses extortion to get his way.