Are Trolling Fuckwits Worth The Trouble?

[hertz vanrental]

JerryJohn wrote

Hertzy,

I agree with many of the statements you've made so now you know you are getting closer to reality and the truth,

"Clergy claim to be better" is simply not true. Clergy don't claim to be better for we have ALL sinned and fall short of the Glory of God. (Romans) That includes clergy.

Thus you can't expect clergy to be "better" because they are simply not. They sin and that includes raping and molesting children. I completely agree they should be held accountable and prosecuted like Joe Blow regular non clergy citizens. It is a disgrace that Churches covered it up.

I know from several Catholics that many people left the Catholic Church for the massive cover up and widespread problem of pedophilia issues and I am sure it happens in all Churches, much of it swept under the rug so no one knows. The bigger the money pockets of the Church the more likely they are to be sued. Also given the nature of their hierarchy you can sue not only the Church but also the diocese, the Vatican etc.

My baptist Church is independent in nature so you sue only the Church there is no "upper" level to sue as well. Plus the Baptist parishes with which I am most familiar demand a fair trial for the safety of innocent clergy and these 60 year old claims are hard to prove. Unfortunately, Hertzy, there are also false claims for money hungry mongrels trying to make a quick buck, usually suing the larger Church with a structure that allows more levels to sue.

ANYONE raping and molesting kids is in serious trouble hopefully with the law from an atheist position and from a Christian position will answer to God for their behavior in addition to any prosecution on a secular level. The problem is Hertzy, is that pedophilia is difficult to prosecute because people don't want their kids to have to be involved in testifying in some fashion in court because
1: It's a horrifying stress for kids and
2: Kids can make poor witnesses by being confused, not very vocal etc.
Check in with a prosecutor for more info regarding this.

Society is getting "fucked over" because they plead these child abuse charges down to appease parents and they are difficult to prove because there often are no witness just a child's account to an adult. Often these guys scare kids to death and tell them they will kill their parents etc, if they tell. Sick, cunning son of a bitches. If I had my way I'd be happy to volunteer to shoot their balls off but that would
A Land me in jail and I prefer not to be there and get raped in the ass and all the loss of freedom etc
B: and not be what is in keeping in with God would like us to do.

Even if pedophiles are prosecuted they often get a kick in the ass and slap on the hand and are not put in prison and if so for a short period of time. Hell,
Hertzy, just look up the number of registered sex offenders in any area walking around free on some worthless sex offender registry.

It's not just a Church problem, it's a society problem as well. Pull your head out of your ass, you should be able to discern that yourself.

Your comment that you know of no other institution that "does that"( Cover up child abuse) is plain ignorant of the facts. School Districts have done it and what about Penn State and their cover up for Sandusky the serial rapist? Perhaps you don't consider School Districts and Universities/colleges institutions?

YOU may not want clergy to be held to higher standards but it's clear from the Bible they will be, and no Christian cares want YOU want, Hertzy. We don't give a rat's ass because you are not God although you sure seem to think you have all the answers. That's delusional. Step it up a Notch, Herzy with your logic skills.

James 3:1 NIV

"Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly."

People WILL be judged after their death, the Bible is clear on that. If you have read the Bible, read it again and see for yourself.

Matthew/ NIV

"But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment"

You can whine, bitch, moan and complain about the Church all you want and you do it well, bitch and complain,) but God told us in his Holy Word...

Matthew 16:18 NIV

"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell will not overcome it."

When you are dead Hertzy you too will be held accountable for what you've done. You may be too ignorant to see that fact but it is true.

Hertzy,

Read all my posts at least 3x, and memorize the Bible verses so you can learn more and become more intelligent.

God loves my posts because he said to preach the Gospel to every nation which I have done in many posts specifically. He is very pleased with me teaching you about him.

Jesus will say,

"JJ, well done good and faithful servant" and I will be sent to heaven. Where you end up Hertzy is your decision; make the right one.

JJ

Speaking of institutions are you in one currently, such as a mental institution?

That's the old jerrypong!!

Clergy do claim to be better - at least the ones I know. They claim to know all kinds of things about god. When asked how, they state that they 'know god'. It's part of their training, their devotion, their study. Blah, blah, blah.

I didn't suggest that we hold clergy to higher standards - not in the legal sense at least. It's patently unfair and illegal in Britland.

There are cat lickers that have left the crutch because of the paedophillic cover-ups. However, there are people who have also joined the cat licker crutch including tony blair, one of our ex-prime ministers. This, I find staggering and unacceptable behaviour.

I agree with you. There are people who haven't been abused but think that they can ride the gravy train by claiming they have. That's not on. That's a crime and should be punished as such. However, it isn't aided and abetted institutionally.

No one answers to god - there is no god. That's why we need to punish whilst they are still alive.

In the very unlikely event that there is a god and it's the one you think exists, then I'm all for the criminals getting double bubble. If there is a god, I'm sure that double jeopardy isn't one of his considerations, given the nature of these crimes.

My comments regarding institutions and paedophillia relates to the UK, not the USA. There are institutions here in the UK which have been guilty of 'looking the other way' when claims have been made. There are individuals who are guilty of 'looking the other way' too when claims have been made. Paedophiles take advantage of such institutions. Those institutions don't exist, in the same way that churches do, to support paedophiles and their behaviour though. For years, cat licker crutches protected their paedophillic priest from prosecution by moving them out of one parish into another.

You need to pull your head outa your ass.

Religion was created to benefit those able to climb the church hierarchy. It is a business trading on Man's insecurities.

The hierarchy feed the populace shit that the populace has been programmed to want to hear by the hierarchy over the centuries. That's why the populace think they benefit from the church but, actually, they don't.

It is clever though, I grant you.

It was, and to some extent still is, successful, but thankfully in decline. People have either woken up and realised that it's shit or are growing bored and simply moving on to the next big thing or haven't been programmed like the previous generation to believe the nonsense dispensed by the church.

Just like forums. They were big once. Now, they are in decline and now we have fuckface and twatter. However, there are signs that even they will get replaced by something else.

There is no choice. When we die, that's all there is folks. Just up in smoke or into a hole in the ground to become worm food. That's reality. Get used to it.

My advice, jerrypong, stop wasting your time dreaming of heaven and god daa daa dee daa daa daa. This is all there is. Nothing else makes sense.

We both know I'm not in an institution. Neither of us are idiots. We can insult and claim all sorts of things but, deep down, we both have some semblance of what is and what isn't.

Question?

Why android? He really is stupid twat. We both know that.

Puzzled of Britland.

Glad you stepped up to the plate.

[The Judge]

JerryJohn wrote

Matthew 18: 6 NIV:

New International Version

• "If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

What about those little ones who don't believe in "him" huh? Is it those ones that church deem it ok to abuse? Seriously how eerily specific and sinister a quote to single out only children who believe to be guarded against...and fuck the rest? *shudder*

JerryJohn wrote

This is where atheism falls short. If there is no God what final justice is there for these very sick individual who molest children? They just die period.
No way Judge.

It is encouraging that you feel so strongly about this and endearing bordering on pity that this is part of what seems to makes you believe. You just need justice so badly you simply HAVE to believe in a hereafter to mete it out.

I submit that it is this very same rage and intolerance of evil and suffering that compels me to act differently in the here and now during the one and only chance I get to do anything about it rather than wait for any hereafter for which there is zero proof.

Life is just too short and too precious to assume it is some sort of dress rehearsal.

JerryJohn wrote

I understand your loss of faith seems to be based on all the suffering you've seen, but where sin abound grace abounds all the more.

This is demonstrably untrue. Yes, goodwill is often seen during these times of suffering (of which there is a never-ending supply,) but it never dwarfs it. Furthermore, the fact that there IS so much of this suffering is evidence of the lack of any loving god in the first place.

JerryJohn wrote

"Only a fool believes there is no God" compliments of the Bible which you disparage sadly.

Hmmm I wonder why (apart from all the other reasons I disparage religion and the buybull), this line would possibly make things better or change my mind in any way?

Much of the science and medicine your everyday life subsists on was made possible by such "fools." Is it right for you therefore to using such tainted gifts?

[The Judge]

Andrew66 wrote

From your reply I still don't see how an Atheist Humanist has a one up ethically on a Religious Humanist?

You missed the whole bit about being more motivated by a carrot and stick thing did you?

Andrew66 wrote

Religious folk can also be "innate consequentialists."

Of course, if you'd actually read my reply: "...any human (Humanist or otherwise) who does not suffer from some form of profound mental or social impairment is also an innate consequentialist." You might not have felt you have a pseudo-point to try and make here... but ho hum...anyway the point is the innate consequentialism, empathy and social conscience are all required to have a functioning morality; no gods are required for this to happen.

Andrew66 wrote

Do you have any proof or evidence that religious folk are less likely to apologize and make amends to those he / she has wronged on earth, vs. an Atheist humanist?. I know you didn't explicitly make this claim, but that is nonetheless clearly what you are implying.

No and it would be nearly impossible to accrue such evidence and besides this is not what I was getting at.

For the third time now (I think...I'm beginning to lose count...) what I AM getting at is that innate consequentialism, empathy, and social conscience are all required to have a functioning morality; no gods required at all. This is axiomatic.

Where I think you may have fallen down is where I had hinted that is was conceivable that say two similar wrongs of some kind have been perpetrated; one by a christer and one by a normal atheist. Both the christer and the normal atheist will suffer real-world consequences but the christer could still potentially just ask for forgiveness later at any time (so long as they meant it of course ) and thereby simply think or feel that they have done something that makes everything alright for them personally without ever having made amends in the real world. I am not suggesting that they would; merely that they could...and that's fucked up.

Andrew66 wrote

Or are you just talking out of your ass?

Just because you may have trouble understanding something doesn't mean you have to act out now Andrew.

Beter to try actually reading, digesting and comprehending another's point or position before attempting to formulate an argument or counterpoint.

[hertz vanrental]

The Judge wrote

You missed the whole bit about being more motivated by a carrot and stick thing did you?

Of course, if you'd actually read my reply: "...any human (Humanist or otherwise) who does not suffer from some form of profound mental or social impairment is also an innate consequentialist." You might not have felt you have a pseudo-point to try and make here... but ho hum...anyway the point is the innate consequentialism, empathy and social conscience are all required to have a functioning morality; no gods are required for this to happen.

No and it would be nearly impossible to accrue such evidence and besides this is not what I was getting at.

For the third time now (I think...I'm beginning to lose count...) what I AM getting at is that innate consequentialism, empathy, and social conscience are all required to have a functioning morality; no gods required at all. This is axiomatic.

Where I think you may have fallen down is where I had hinted that is was conceivable that say two similar wrongs of some kind have been perpetrated; one by a christer and one by a normal atheist. Both the christer and the normal atheist will suffer real-world consequences but the christer could still potentially just ask for forgiveness later at any time (so long as they meant it of course ) and thereby simply think or feel that they have done something that makes everything alright for them personally without ever having made amends in the real world. I am not suggesting that they would; merely that they could...and that's fucked up.

Just because you may have trouble understanding something doesn't mean you have to act out now Andrew.

Beter to try actually reading, digesting and comprehending another's point or position before attempting to formulate an argument or counterpoint.

And android gets battered yet again.

This is embarrassing.

[Andrew66]

The Judge wrote

You missed the whole bit about being more motivated by a carrot and stick thing did you?

No I did not miss it. You are misapplying it.
Its not that a Theist is more motivated by a carrot and a stick (that's a red herring), but rather is "additionally' motivated by a carrot and a stick.
Big difference.

The Judge wrote

No and it would be nearly impossible to accrue such evidence and besides this is not what I was getting at.

It sort of seemed like you were hinting or suggesting this. By saying that a Theist may simply ask God for forgiveness (and therefore not bother apologizing or rectify the earthly situation). This is "talking out of your ass" by the way.. It is an American expression (meaning you are making a statement not supported by a third party, peer reviewed study - or any evidence other than personal hunch). Maybe UK doesn't have the "talking out of your ass" phrase, I give it to you to add to your vocabulary.

The Judge wrote

For the third time now (I think...I'm beginning to lose count...) what I AM getting at is that innate consequentialism, empathy, and social conscience are all required to have a functioning morality; no gods required at all. This is axiomatic.

Sure its all that's required.. big deal - the question still remains whether it is better to innate consequentialism, empathy and social conscience, PLUS (not instead of) a carrot and a stick.

The Judge wrote

Just because you may have trouble understanding something doesn't mean you have to act out now Andrew.

Such arrogance, typical of a UK physician. Like I said before, just like Winchestor on MASH

[hertz vanrental]

Andrew66 wrote

No I did not miss it. You are misapplying it.
Its not that a Theist is more motivated by a carrot and a stick (that's a red herring), but rather is "additionally' motivated by a carrot and a stick.
Big difference.




It sort of seemed like you were hinting or suggesting this. By saying that a Theist may simply ask God for forgiveness (and therefore not bother apologizing or rectify the earthly situation). This is "talking out of your ass" by the way.. It is an American expression (meaning you are making a statement not supported by a third party, peer reviewed study - or any evidence other than personal hunch). Maybe UK doesn't have the "talking out of your ass" phrase, I give it to you to add to your vocabulary.



Sure its all that's required.. big deal - the question still remains whether it is better to innate consequentialism, empathy and social conscience, PLUS (not instead of) a carrot and a stick.

Such arrogance, typical of a UK physician. Like I said before, just like Winchestor on MASH

Ahh, now the other fuckin' village idiot turns up.

Fuck off you weirdo shit.

[The Judge]

Andrew66 wrote

No I did not miss it. You are misapplying it.
Its not that a Theist is more motivated by a carrot and a stick (that's a red herring), but rather is "additionally' motivated by a carrot and a stick.
Big difference.

If we agree that innate consequentialism, empathy and social conscience are required then any additional motivation is simply redundant. This is what I meant when it just looks pathetic when you try and say "we operate the same way only I go one further and therefore better."

Andrew66 wrote

This is "talking out of your ass" by the way.. It is an American expression (meaning you are making a statement not supported by a third party, peer reviewed study - or any evidence other than personal hunch). Maybe UK doesn't have the "talking out of your ass" phrase, I give it to you to add to your vocabulary.

LOL at this. I know perfectly well what this means but I defy you to find 1 or more complete stranger / average Joe off the street in any American town who will recognise this super-specific and scientific-sounding definition.
Do us both a favour and stop trying to stir up shit unnecessarily, will you. You have enough of that mess in your thoughts and arguments without trying to obfuscate the issue more by ancillary bullshit points.

Andrew66 wrote

Sure its all that's required.. big deal - the question still remains whether it is better to innate consequentialism, empathy and social conscience, PLUS (not instead of) a carrot and a stick.

You agree it's all that's required. Why do you therefore remain unable to concede that no extra ancillary bullshit need be bolted on?

Andrew66 wrote

Such arrogance, typical of a UK physician. Like I said before, just like Winchestor on MASH

LOL at this too. Know may UK physicians do you? Been wronged by them all have you? Or are you just jealous of the free-at-point-of-care treatment that we provide?:LOL:

[Andrew66]

The Judge wrote

If we agree that innate consequentialism, empathy and social conscience are required then any additional motivation is simply redundant.

This statement is unsupported, and wrong.

How can "innate consequentialism, empathy and social conscience" be redundant with the addition of "carrot and stick" motivations to support and re-inforce ethical behaviour. They are different, hence not redundant.

If you wish to attack religious "ethics', the way to do it is to advance the concept that some religious teachings may be at odds with secular, reasoned morality.

But if you look at areas were the two agree (e.g. Thou shalt not murder) - then a religious humanist has extra motivation to be "good" vs. an atheist humanist.

[The Judge]

Andrew66 wrote

This statement is unsupported, and wrong.

How can "innate consequentialism, empathy and social conscience" be redundant with the addition of "carrot and stick"

Oh my goodness I haven't seen a fundamental miscomprehension like this in a while.

We agree on the basics...your proposed additions of carrot and stick are what are redundant.

[Smellyoldgit]

I'd wager English may not be Android's first language.
If it is, then his regular miscomprehension reeks of trolling bullshit.

[Andrew66]

The Judge wrote

Oh my goodness I haven't seen a fundamental miscomprehension like this in a while.

We agree on the basics...your proposed additions of carrot and stick are what are redundant.

wy?

[Kinich Ahau]

wht?

[Andrew66]

The Judge wrote

You agree it's all that's required. Why do you therefore remain unable to concede that no extra ancillary bullshit need be bolted on?

:

This is silly

Lets say an Atheist Humanist faces 10 moral dilemma's, he is motivated to do the "right" thing in all 10 because of his moral compass - but he is also tempted not to, so lets say hypothetically he does 7 out of 10 things morally.

The same individual - only difference being a Theist Humanist, faces same 10 moral dilemma's and is tempted in the same way. He will also do the "right" thing in 7 of 10 things, but may do more things morally (i.e. 8/1, 9/10 or 10/10) because of his /her additional motivation based on his religious faith.

Doo youuuu underrrrstannnnnd?

You must get this Judge, you're not stupid - perhaps your just playing me?

[The Judge]

Andrew66 wrote

This is silly

Lets say an Atheist Humanist faces 10 moral dilemma's, he is motivated to do the "right" thing in all 10 because of his moral compass - but he is also tempted not to, so lets say hypothetically he does 7 out of 10 things morally.

The same individual - only difference being a Theist Humanist, faces same 10 moral dilemma's and is tempted in the same way. He will also do the "right" thing in 7 of 10 things, but may do more things morally (i.e. 8/1, 9/10 or 10/10) because of his /her additional motivation based on his religious faith.

Doo youuuu underrrrstannnnnd?

You must get this Judge, you're not stupid - perhaps your just playing me?

Wow, you really think there's something in this, don't you?

Your hypothetical is ridiculous. It does not reflect the way the world works, how morality works or indeed how humans work psychologically.

Ethical decisions are rarely binary: "Good/Bad" because the complexity of the world generates a spectrum of Better/Worse in between. Sam Harris has referred to this as the Moral Landscape for this reason because of this and the book by the same name is a good read if you are truly interested in this area.

However, you appear to think that a person's morality is like some kind of simple switch: "On/Off...Good/Bad...God/Devil etc."

The reality is more nuanced and complex (I feel like I've said this before too...hmmm...anyway).

Still, it's interesting that you have now reduced your redundant "carrot and stick" bolt-on to a mere safeguard against temptation rather than as a prime ethical motivator. Are you changing the goal posts slightly perhaps?

[hertz vanrental]

Andrew66 wrote

This is silly

No android, you're silly.

Now, run along and go play with the other boys and girls.