Your pennance is to say three “Roll Tides” and one “Hoddy Toddy”, while genuflecting towards Atlanta, site of the SEC Title game.
Now, repent and sin no more.
I can absolve sins, ya know. One of the perks with being a raid level druid of a fictional diety
So you’re going on record as saying that what I linked to is not jerkish behavior?
If you’re really, really, sure Jim, I’ll take “What the hell?” for $100, with the caveat of OTPs only under the guise of harassment. How’s that? Off to IMHO.
But please, y’all gotta promise that no one will hurt me because of my (on and on and on) verbosity. The 12-step program just isn’t helping. 
Here 'tis. Linked away!
Pretty much. [post=8345093]That bit[/post] in the “Can religion/Bible be taught objectively in public schools?” where he told braintree to start a thread so he could see tomndebb weasel was pushing the line but what was said to Polycarp in “Christian salvation theology; why so complicated?” I would describe as a little combative but not jerky.
But I’m talkin’ 'bout tommndeb!
Ha ha, you called Monty stupid and irrational. Aren’t you a sad sack with nothing better to do than anonymously namecall grownups on a messageboard, badchad?
I’d call it pretty blatant trolling. He’s posting not to make a point, but because he knows saying “Christ is a cunt” is going to rile people up and get them to pay attention to him, as we are now doing.
Weaselly? I don’t know about that, maybe I should read more religion threads.
Childish (or perhaps narcissistic is a better word), unable to accept being shown wrong, and eager to stalk those with the temerity to do so like a school bully challenging the smart kid to a fight, yes, oh dear Og yes, that he most certainly is.
But weaselly? Not really, not in reality-based topics, not that I’ve seen. He doesn’t look for some abstruse way to argue he’s right when he’s been shown wrong, not much anyway.
Tom,
Here’s the crux of the matter, really, IMHO: You stated in this thread that 'chad has admitted to trolling. In this thread, though, he’s said he has broken no rules. The poster is completely unable to recognize simple facts and, as another poster said upthread, all he’s good at his flinging poo. Why is the flinger still permitted to post here when he pretends flinging poo is perfectly acceptable?
Miller, you always crack me up.
Daniel
Naw.
He’s the werewolf that the other werewolves decide to eat at night.
I guess I just don’t understand how calling someone’s god a cunt is anything other than assholish trollery and jerkish behavior.
If you use that logic the same logic could be made about calling someone’s leader a nasty word. It is not trollish as much as just very offensive. Your God should have no more protection than let us say Abraham Lincoln. I would think you were a jerk for using that expression about President Lincoln, but because I was upset by it should not be enough to get you banned.
Besides BC did back up his unpleasant statement with the reasons he thought Jesus was acting such. It really is not much worse than when I call Cheney the most evil politician in my lifetime. Except a lot more people are going to agree with me, than with BC.
He should be banned for stalking **Poly ** & Tom, not for insulting your God. That is just childish of you to tell you the truth. Aren’t you and your God bigger than that to take insult from someone like BC? Yes it makes him look like an idiot, so do not sink to his level.
Jim
Here’s the thing, though: Lincoln, much though we admire him, is not and has never been God. You can’t really say that the same rhetorical rules we’re discussing apply equally to both of them.
That may be true, but if somebody disses Bear Bryant, it’s on.
Only if you don’t understand the difference between a human leader and a god.
I understand that not everyone around here believes in the Christian god or in any god. I understand that some people around here stand by their right to be offensive about ideas and concepts they don’t believe in or respect. But I do not believe that anyone around here does not grok that for believers there is a fundamental difference between their god and any human or human agency. IMO, you don’t have to respect the idea of “god” to be minimally respectful of the fact that other people revere the idea of “god” even if you do not. This doesn’t mean that you can’t be critical of the idea of god generally, critical of the actions of one god in particular, or open about your own skepticism or lack of belief; that is your right. But to be intentionally extremely offensive about someone else’s diety for no other reason that to be inflammatory and insulting is the epitome of jerkish behavior. And to analogize the insult to one made about a world leader is NOT an exercise in logic; it is an exercise in willfully denying that the concept of a diety exists.
If this is really a rule, then why isn’t it written, you know, in the rules?
I’m not siding with badchad by any means but I feel the need to point out that these kinds of attitudes are the dividing gap between him and most dopers, and it will never be closed by either side. Posts like these can be just as provocative as much of what badchad, et al post. Though I fundementally agree with badchad*, I put myself in a 3rd and neutral category because I’ve decided everything else I come to the dope for is so much more valuable to me than gaining and losing millimeters in a neverending religious debate that would probably eventually end in me wearing out my welcome here.
*about religion. I don’t know much about his alleged stalking but it sounds messed up if what everyone accuses him of is true.
Hence the rhetorical nature of: Is nothing sacred?
I can add nothing more to what you have said in this thread so far. I think you are exactly right.