A Christian Response

[Doctor X]

Someone PM'd me ELSEWHERE the following quote. I do not post PMs unless the poster lies about the contents or otherwise breaks the rules. By sending me this, he violated the site's TOS, obviously. However, I will allow him to remain otherwise anonymous.

I merely find it a hilarious exemplar of the level of debate offered by fundamentalist christians who troll internet pages. This genius posted the typical "ur ar all morons LOLS" screed and was called on it. Posters paid particular attention to his inability to construct a coherent sentence whilst denouncing everyone who tore him apart as "morons."

Apparently I merited particular attention for raising some minor objections regarding his characterization of the biblical texts that suggest that--to him--they were something that "happened to other people."

So he wrote to me:

i will find out were you have been online, i will track your IP. i will recover passwords from all your social networking and i will send trojans to your computer.

However, after taking another sip of this wonderful red zinfindel, I remember:



--J.D.

[Iacchus]

Whatever happened to the Golden Rule or, turning the other cheek? ... unless of course he's just blowing raspberries at you.

[Stormlight]

I will send Trojans to all of you!

[Doctor X]

Is there a "shake condom" smiley?

He REALLY started to back track when I started mentioning who HE was, that what he did was not only in violation of the board's TOS, it was of his ISP, and his country's law.

So he said my writing to him was against the law! He is . . . "under 18!":

i think your threat is empty since repeatadly contacting an under 18 against their will is an offence slightly more serious than the internet crimes which i threatned yet did not actually commit.

Explains a great deal. I noted that replying to threatening messages is not against the law.

So . . . now he is begging me to stop replying.

I advised him to stop sending me messages.

Is it that difficult?

--J.D.

[Smilin]

......he's just blowing raspberries at you.

[Stormlight]

[LadyShea]

You are harassing him via reply!

[ZEZOZE]

first!

[ZEZOZE]

nm.

[Awareness]

First, I thought somebody did that to me, I at least crashed two times.

For MYSELF it is a wise guy's response, because I just do not see a christian, I do not want to see a chistian, and so of course any other religion.
I just see all kinds of PEOPLE, and not "artifacts".

Wise guy's for example . are as real as they come, chistians are not.

[Doctor X]

A Cunt tries to justify the slaughter of infants ordered by his god:

jsn9333 There is plenty of undeniable historical evidence that the cultures (like Amalek) that God wiped out were entire cultures of people who tortured and sacrificed children for no good reason. That is a historical fact. It is not, but like Blutto and the Germans bombing Pearl Harbor, this Cunt is "on a roll."

Given that reality, and the fact that children will almost always follow their parents culture and defend their actions, God remains love because those children likely went to a better place. All commanders, good and bad, have had to see children killed, for good reasons and bad.

So apparently YHWH cannot even save infants. But, you know, if you pray to him, you will get that home run and parking space. And people you do not like may get ass cancer.

--J.D.

[Garnet]

I've seen that argument before. When I was a believer, it's one that caused me to look in horror at the person smugly relaying it to me. Of course, I've never been overly PC and my response to that individual was somewhere along the lines of, "What a crock of shit. You really believe that?" It also caused me to delve much deeper into the OT which eventually was the biggest contributor to me becoming an atheist.

[Doctor X]

He further claimed that "you do not understand Christianity" if you do not understand that his god occasionally "has to kill children."

I wish I could state that I am being hyperbolic.

--J.D.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Garnet

I've seen that argument before. When I was a believer, it's one that caused me to look in horror at the person smugly relaying it to me. Of course, I've never been overly PC and my response to that individual was somewhere along the lines of, "What a crock of shit. You really believe that?" It also caused me to delve much deeper into the OT which eventually was the biggest contributor to me becoming an atheist.

Yeah...I've nonplussed a couple of bystanders by responding to taunts to read the bible with, "Sure...Read the Bible. Read the WHOLE Bible. Cover to cover. Then read it again, like I did."

Considering I'm a known atheist, some of them do double-takes.

I tell 'em the 'begats' alone will bore them into agnosticism.

[Garnet]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

He further claimed that "you do not understand Christianity" if you do not understand that his god occasionally "has to kill children."

I wish I could state that I am being hyperbolic.

--J.D.

So much for omni-benevolent.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by Garnet

So much for omni-benevolent.

You refuse to accept his Love [Tm.--Ed.]?

You realize you will be tortured for all eternity for failing to accept his Love [Tm.--Ed.]?





I will pray for you. . . .

--J.D.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

He further claimed that "you do not understand Christianity" if you do not understand that his god occasionally "has to kill children."

That does it! I'm hauling all my infants around in iron chariots from now on!

[Iacchus]

I understand "God" abhors duplicity. In which case maybe we should be asking which (or whose) "God" we are talking about here?

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

That does it! I'm hauling all my infants around in iron chariots from now on!

Win.

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

Though here is a gem:

Originally Posted by voiceoftruth2006

I always saw Jesus as more of the Twitter type. You know, pointless incomprehensible messages in short, made-for-idiots chunks?

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

Oh, someone sent me the original:

If you can't think of a logical and loving reason a logical, merciful, and loving God would have a child killed, then you may perhaps never be able to understand Christianity.

--J.D.

[Garnet]

Got that shit right.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Oh, someone sent me the original:

--J.D.

This is all special pleading of course, in a Universe that otherwise doesn't give a damn. So, if you are looking to attribute the blame to someone or something, it won't work, not if we are simply here by chance. Of course one might say reality as a whole is duplicitous by nature (I'm sure some people probably feel that way) but, it does nothing to explain how it got that way. Or, if it did, there would be something wrong, for chance doesn't afford us any such luxury as a "proper" explanation.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

...for chance doesn't afford us any such luxury as a "proper" explanation.

Chance may not be the "proper" explanation. My guess is that the only explanation that could be "proper" in your estimation would be the vanity explanation.

[Iacchus]

We are either all here by chance or we're not. So no, it's a simple matter of first things first ... notwithstanding there are many who are unwilling to assess at least this much.