JoeWeber

Bill, I respect the warning, will conform, and am thankful for what must be a long list of forbearances to date. But good googaloo, there are times when someone drops a turd in the punchbowl that the required response goes beyond "Oh, my!".

There's a meme running around and it said something about taking her serious with a communist flag on her sleeve. The flag was Puerto Rico. No, it was a Cuban flag. Her father was born there. Snopes Did you hear, about 5.8 million millennials could not attend the marches last Saturday? Planned Parenthood killed them. Your ignorance is breathtaking. No shit, Ron, you need to take a basic biology class (and this time pay attention) or STFU. Have you heard of a Chimera, for example? That's when fraternal twins join to become one embryo. I'll leave it to you eminent theologians to distribute the extra soul when that happens. Science, Ron, science, not some fools interpretation of an obscure biblical text is what is real. When you scratch your ass you destroy more cells than die when a blastocyst is miscarried. Same as when you wank.

Logically, what’s the difference? In questioning theological answers, you are in fact asking theological questions. But you don’t, correct? You don’t want to believe. And you ridicule what you don’t really even want to understand. Deep down, you, on the surface, hate the idea of the church, a supreme authority, rules in that regard, control over your life, etc. But even deeper down, even though you say you don’t believe in God, you hate even the thought of him with every fiber of your being. Hell bent on autonomy, if you will. I know. I used to be exactly that way. Codification of beliefs have always come about as a result of aberrant or heretical teachings creeping into the church. That’s the case whether you’re Catholic or Protestant. It’s the reason for all the assemblies and confessions throughout the years. The Westminster Confession is but one of many very fine documents which accurately detail theological orthodoxy. Many learned theologians came together for its composition. Any confession is only as good as it is biblically accurate and helpful. It is authoritative for the church in that way only. It in no way supersedes the authority of scripture. It is a helpful tool, if you will. “Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil.” (1 Peter 3:13-17) Perhaps I could have been more clear. I question the validity of answers wholly supported by theological interpretations. Also, it is not that I don't want to believe. It is simply that what you apparently believe is, by any rational consideration, unbelievable. Regarding the Westminster Confession, I think of organized religion in much the same way I think about cigarette smoking: it's the year 2018 can we all please just get our collective shit together and quit arguing that it's just a choice that hurts no one? I'm referring to organized groups of people who have their hands in my pockets in the form of tax subsidies and who then use those advantages to elect morons who appoint ideologues to lifetime court appointments who then go merrily about denying basic human rights to our fellow Americans. And that's just the start of the offenses of organized religion. I am not including spiritualism in the definition, however a person might define their spiritual experience. I think that's a good thing. I have to say, I find myself coming and going at the same time occasionally although, and it might be just coincidence, the episodes seem strongly associated with cocktail hour. I also have no problem with benign forms of Christianity as practiced by many. Most of those folks are blissfully unaware of things like the Westminster Confession. They enjoy live and let live lives and somehow or another gain comfort from their religion. Not incidentally, that includes my Muslim friends in Indonesia. Yes, I am dismissive of things like the Westminster Confession. So a bunch of guys, whose jobs are to convince people that the bible isn't drivel get together to hash things out one more time with the hope that finally everyone can get their what constitutes organized religion stories straight. And just to make the job go easier, for authority, they reference the bible and certain previously published confessions which were also based on the bible. #John, #Paul, #Leviticus. What I want deep down is what you want to take. Of course, I want autonomy from the ludicrous proposition that I should bend a knee and turn my one life over to some interpretation of certain plagiarized and re-written ad nauseam Bronze age ideas. If you want to live your life as a slave, go for it. Just leave the rest of us, and our money, alone.

Ok. Whatever. You ask theological questions but you don't want theological answers. You don't really want to understand. You only ask to criticize and ridicule. The Westminster Confession of Faith, by the way, is a little more authoritative (in as much as it accurately explains Christian doctrine) than the guy in the next pew up. I'm glad you edited your post. When it was just "Ok. Whatever" it sounded very millennial. I don't ask theological questions; I question theological answers. You say I don't really want to understand. That's secret society code for I don't really want to "believe". The Westminster Confession is something you folks who need to believe consider intellectually supportive of your positions. For others it is just more organ music, man. I put it to Ron differently but I believe the same of you: if you really believe as you claim why do you protest as you do?

The Westminster Confession as an authority? Come on man, why not just quote your pastor or the guy in the next pew up? Believe that woo-woo if it makes you happy but to my ear it was indistinguishable from dementia.

So how come some of them do? I believe they were Christian in name only, similar to what we call RINOs. They never experienced true salvation. Judas Iscariot is the Biblical example of a make believe Christian. It seems evident that you have at least some doubt about your faith. Why else would you persistently engage the non-believers on this forum? I've seen no evidence that you've caused any atheists to reconsider their positions. That leaves only the testing of your own. Nice try but no, I have no doubt regarding my faith. What would make you think you would see evidence in cyberspace? It is said, one plants and one waters but Jesus reaps the harvest. You're all in and the flop is coming. Given that, I don't doubt you'll finish out the day's of the only life you'll ever live claiming you believe without any reservation. It's more of a between the lines sort of thing; a gut feeling if that's allowed. To any example, you'd always be able to claim it ain't so or we're all imperfect or that's not how you would say it again as you now think about it, and so on. After all, it's whats in your heart not in your words, yes? So I'll just take a page from the book of Ron and say that it's just what I believe about you. And I think I'm right.

So how come some of them do? I believe they were Christian in name only, similar to what we call RINOs. They never experienced true salvation. Judas Iscariot is the Biblical example of a make believe Christian. It seems evident that you have at least some doubt about your faith. Why else would you persistently engage the non-believers on this forum? I've seen no evidence that you've caused any atheists to reconsider their positions. That leaves only the testing of your own.

You are joking, right? Neither you nor jaybird have offered any argument in favor of your God that can be called intellectual. Quoting a book isn't intellectual. Quoting an expert on book quoting isn't intellectual. I'll concede that someone who is a believer and is fully versed in all of the currently popular holy books and can discuss them expertly is likely an intellectual. But then so also, I suppose, would be someone who had memorized all of the Dr. Seuss books and could recite them backwards. Both would take some smarts, no doubt. Of course, both are equally useless in the real world. So please, no more pretense that the ability quote the Christian Bible or to quote some self anointed interpreter of the bible is a form of intellectualism.

I'll ilk to that!

Do you have any serious questions? How are these not serious questions? You state you are willing to accept an idiot and a tool as your President as long as he is pushing the agenda you want. I think it is demonstrable that President Idiot Tool's agenda, which evidently is also your agenda, has a number of serious and negative consequences both for certain groups of Americans and the reputation of our country on the world stage. If you are willing to make such a statement in a public forum you should also be willing to explain it on a public forum. Apparently, you are not so willing. "jaybird18c wrote: Just for the record, I don't defend Trump's idiocy. He's a tool. As long as he's pushing the agenda I want, I'm for him. But that's as far as I go. I have little respect for him as a person." I asked: "Do you believe the agenda you want is good for America? Clearly, Trumps agenda harms many of your fellow citizens, in particular those in the LGBT community. I would include the increasing numbers of americans unable to afford health care. There are more, of course. Is that simply acceptable collateral damage or are those folks simply expendable types according to the natural order? To the point, what is it in your agenda that makes harm to other americans acceptable? Given that you think Trump is an idiot and a tool for whom you have little respect, is it the case that our standing on the world stage is not part of your agenda?" Stay focused. You asked the stupid question of whether or not we'll need guns in heaven. Then you revert back to politics. I asked if you ever had any serious questions. I thought staying on topic was implied. My bad. So this isn't a joke thread? Too funny. Why not ask if people who don't believe in alien visitors would be passed over for abduction?

I don't know anymore. Our society is drugged, either with Rx or street varieties. We fight for the right to kill our unborn babies instead fighting to be good parents. We have thousands of individuals that can't tell if they are male or female. We want to open our borders to murderers, terrorists and freeloaders. We are insanely driven to earn so much money that money doesn't matter anymore. Our heroes are Hollywood phonies that became celebrities playing characters other than themselves. Our education system is teaching our children that America is evil and has always been evil. We believe that lying, cheating and stealing is OK if you don't get caught. We have desensitized human life through porn, video games and entertainment. That is why we live where we are. We believe America is about to crash like a 30 day meth run. The insanity cannot continue at this pace with all these negative factors. The only concerns seem to be that President Trump screwed a porn star, talks to Putin and we must take guns away from law abiding citizens because criminals and insane people have guns. Liberalism is a mental disorder and we will destroy our country with its acceptance. Last Days? SHTF? Invasion by China, Russia, N. Korea, Iran they all seem possible? Another civil war? America has lost its moral compass. The great experiment is coming to an end. We are raising our children here to be Christians and trust in the Lord and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to maintain a relationship with our creator and heavenly Father. Why? Because faith in God is consistent and everything else FUBAR. Ron, You need help. Seriously. It's hard to accept that the demons aren't really there. But if you truly do have training in the field then you know that's the most difficult thing to convey. Give it a try, you've nothing to lose and will have a lot of support if you do. Joe

Do you have any serious questions? How are these not serious questions? You state you are willing to accept an idiot and a tool as your President as long as he is pushing the agenda you want. I think it is demonstrable that President Idiot Tool's agenda, which evidently is also your agenda, has a number of serious and negative consequences both for certain groups of Americans and the reputation of our country on the world stage. If you are willing to make such a statement in a public forum you should also be willing to explain it on a public forum. Apparently, you are not so willing. "jaybird18c wrote: Just for the record, I don't defend Trump's idiocy. He's a tool. As long as he's pushing the agenda I want, I'm for him. But that's as far as I go. I have little respect for him as a person." I asked: "Do you believe the agenda you want is good for America? Clearly, Trumps agenda harms many of your fellow citizens, in particular those in the LGBT community. I would include the increasing numbers of americans unable to afford health care. There are more, of course. Is that simply acceptable collateral damage or are those folks simply expendable types according to the natural order? To the point, what is it in your agenda that makes harm to other americans acceptable? Given that you think Trump is an idiot and a tool for whom you have little respect, is it the case that our standing on the world stage is not part of your agenda?"

The current Supreme Court interpretation gave you the right but it is certainly not guaranteed. Congress or the Supreme Court can take that ostensible right away. That's not the point at all. I accept that you feel better with a pistol in your pocket just as I accept that putting fluffy dogs in strollers makes some people feel better. But please, just for the sake of intellectual honesty, admit that you have argued that you need a hidden gun to be safe in this crazy world. I simply submit that you have made no persuasive case for such a need. Please explain your passion for this line of off topic interrogation. Apparently, we agree this is a crazy world. Note the word passion or intense emotion. I am not referring to intellectual imagination. My apologies. By all means, let's get back on track. So, if atheists get into Heaven will they have guns, too? I'm assuming that when things are perfect there will be a more perfect second amendment. Is that your understanding? After all, as you've so eloquently observed on these pages, Satan is hard at work to undo Gods plan, yes? And if God can't stop him here in the corporeal world, where it should be easy, how will he get it done when a few more dimensions are added and everyone is wearing a white sheet? I suppose, as always, he'll need help. And there ain't no help like armed help I always say.

You do not know me at all. I'm no snowflake, dude, and I do not depend on others to save me. I defend my home with firearms. My current primary favorite is a Beretta 1301 Tactical. I simply believe you are deluded if you believe packing a pistol or an AR-15 will save your ass someday. You have a much better chance of winning the Powerball. In the meantime nonsense views on firearms proliferation and second amendment rights are causing chaos and harm in our society. People like you, with your Christian better than thou attitudes and your assumptions that anyone who thinks differently than you must be a pansey and a snowflake, drain me.

Of course you don't but I'm glad you're back on topic! Indeed, and you are welcome. Now will you answer my questions? I could. But I'd really like to stay on topic. I entered the thread to discuss theological issues, not conservative vs. liberal politics. Gotta add, though. I am permitted to conceal carry and do so often. I've not been required to take action to protect myself with a firearm in this country but I have elsewhere. My right to do so is guaranteed in the Constitution . However, I would do so even if it weren't. Then do. You made the statement and claim. I asked for definition. Playing the "on topic" card is a diversionary move. Pack your gun. Have fun and feel good. Just know it is a slippery slope to make it available to so many.

The current Supreme Court interpretation gave you the right but it is certainly not guaranteed. Congress or the Supreme Court can take that ostensible right away. That's not the point at all. I accept that you feel better with a pistol in your pocket just as I accept that putting fluffy dogs in strollers makes some people feel better. But please, just for the sake of intellectual honesty, admit that you have argued that you need a hidden gun to be safe in this crazy world. I simply submit that you have made no persuasive case for such a need.

Of course you don't but I'm glad you're back on topic! Indeed, and you are welcome. Now will you answer my questions?

I definitely don't believe the Lord was with you, but we've covered that. Was it in Guatemala? Yes How would concealed carry have solved a situation where one of two guy's had the drop on you? I'm assuming you know better than to try to quick draw your way out of a dead drop looking down a .45 bore. Beyond that, you couldn't know if the other guy had a gun or had just bought Crocodile Dundee's knife on eBay, right? Unless shooting muggers as they run away is your plan then the event that convinced you to carry a concealed weapon would not have been prevented or made better by carrying a concealed weapon. So even if you can tell me of some situation where someone you know in civilian life saved their asses with a concealed weapon, and thus far you have not, your own life experience also does not argue for the need.

I definitely don't believe the Lord was with you, but we've covered that. Was it in Guatemala?

By all definitions, yes. Do you need a safe place, counseling, etc.? Don't go off the edge just yet. I realize you Oregon snowflakes have to pump your own gas and stuff like that now. But smoke some more weed. The great philosopher Bob Marley said "every tin gonna be alright." You can quote literature, how clever. I jabbed Ron because he needs it; lots of it, actually. In another conversation or 10, he implied that he puts his gun on in the morning just as he does his underwear. He talks incessantly about the need to have a weapon for self protection. When pressed whether he or anyone he knows who packs a pistol ever needed to use it in civilian life to save themselves he starts mumbling LEO, Combat Vet, Danger Will Robinson and so on. Anything but an actual answer. Now we learn he was mugged. Well, inquiring minds want to know: did he use his gun or would a second pair of undies have been more useful? You also deftly avoided answering my earlier question. Certainly that's your right. But you are in a conversation and you opened the inquiry. "jaybird18c wrote: Just for the record, I don't defend Trump's idiocy. He's a tool. As long as he's pushing the agenda I want, I'm for him. But that's as far as I go. I have little respect for him as a person." I asked: "Do you believe the agenda you want is good for America? Clearly, Trumps agenda harms many of your fellow citizens, in particular those in the LGBT community. I would include the increasing numbers of americans unable to afford health care. There are more, of course. Is that simply acceptable collateral damage or are those folks simply expendable types according to the natural order? To the point, what is it in your agenda that makes harm to other americans acceptable? Given that you think Trump is an idiot and a tool for whom you have little respect, is it the case that our standing on the world stage is not part of your agenda?"

By all definitions, yes.

Ron, your prejudices are showing again. Nah! Y'all are just making silly arguments. I've been a victim of a mugging and I've worked with gang bangers. Now I avoid dangerous situations when possible. Experience is a better teacher than social media. You were mugged? Was it a dark alley or a New York subway in the 80's? Did you get to pull out your rod and waste the bastards? Neato! Did you give it to them in the arse as they were running away? Were they kids? Anyway, I'm glad you're now safe, sound and tucked away in the land of mountain laurels, beech trees and tulip poplars. Won't be no gangs banging you there, by golly.

I'm not talking about friends. Ah. So when you say "Mexican" you mean "criminal, welfare seeking, drain on society", not "a person from Mexico"? Once again, like the death thing, if you're going to speak in code you shouldn't expect people to understand you. Now you've done it. Mr. Jaybird isn't cool with answering questions that reveal his true nature. Previously he wrote this: jaybird18c wrote: Just for the record, I don't defend Trump's idiocy. He's a tool. As long as he's pushing the agenda I want, I'm for him. But that's as far as I go. I have little respect for him as a person. He went away when I asked this: Do you believe the agenda you want is good for America? Clearly, Trumps agenda harms many of your fellow citizens, in particular those in the LGBT community. I would include the increasing numbers of americans unable to afford health care. There are more, of course. Is that simply acceptable collateral damage or are those folks simply expendable types according to the natural order? To the point, what is it in your agenda that makes harm to other americans acceptable? Given that you think Trump is an idiot and a tool for whom you have little respect, is it the case that our standing on the world stage is not part of your agenda? Going dark when the questions get close to the bone happens often here.

How is, "Do you really believe that Trump is a better president than she would have been?" , an "are you with us or are you against us" kind of question"? What I read was a reasonable inquiry into someones current viewpoint. Retrospection has to be fair game regardless of the topic. Oregon is also a Blue State. Nonetheless, I try to vote like it matters. In the last election I voted for a candidate I despised. I only get one vote and that's how I roll; others very legitimately vote according to other motivations. Were they so inclined they could fairly ask if, because of my vote, I now felt like a complete stooge.

Do you believe the agenda you want is good for America? Clearly, Trumps agenda harms many of your fellow citizens, in particular those in the LGBT community. I would include the increasing numbers of americans unable to afford health care. There are more, of course. Is that simply acceptable collateral damage or are those folks simply expendable types according to the natural order? To the point, what is it in your agenda that makes harm to other americans acceptable? Given that you think Trump is an idiot and a tool for whom you have little respect, is it the case that our standing on the world stage is not part of your agenda?