>the most reasonable man you'll ever talk toHortator wrote:So this guy is basically Audacity version 1.1? Re-released with very few changes?
edit: more like 0.9v. This alex troll can't get to 4 pages without his topic hitting a brick wall. Good ol' Audacity had his first thread get to 5 pages of acrimony before Jac, the most reasonable man you'll ever talk to, actually had to put his foot down. It was wild to watch, and I'll never forget this little gem from him:
Best exposure of an atheist I ever saw.What you need, my misguided friend, is not an argument. It's a counselor. And no, I'm not being snarky or mean. I'm telling you an honest truth. Your reactions here speak to a much deeper, visceral response that are rooted in some negative experiences you've had. And I'm sorry for that.
>YEC
Choose one.
The amount of prejudice towards him is shocking. Atheist, had negative experiences, troll, Audacity v1.1...
No wonder I had to take a break from this forum for a while.
So, yeah, perhaps address and answer his questions instead of calling names or pull up the "talk-to-the-hand-scenario-since-you-can't-exegesis-noob"?
Some of his thoughts, especially at the beginning are really similar to mine and you people really act like kids. You get offended as if he killed your pet or set your house on fire or worse.
I don't know how many of us are Biblical scholars, but I suppose it is an overwhelming minority. So, perhaps stop being so cocky and actually answer the man.
For the record, I haven't had any negative experiences with the Christian faith unless we count the refusal of Christ as something negative.
But yeah, the notion that M. Ghandi goes to hell (for eternity or not is still in question since alex did bring up better argumentation as opposed to the annihilationism type of hell) is, to me, absurd.
He gets to a point of God being both mercy and justice at the same time, which is, of course, a must when we talk about God, but also illogical. Nobody answered to that either.
The illogical things concerning the Noah's ark are also well written, of course with the flaw which hughfarey pointed out which is that the event is not to be taken literally. However, the issue of free will and righteousness, which is the message of that story (I suppose?), is also illogical as he has pointed out. Or?
He does not get that the certain parts of the Bible are not to be understood literally, but he does have some good points, at least imo.
Might want to stop being so butthurt? I don't like it when people, especially those fedora tipping atheists, take a verse and interpret it in the weirdest way possible to fit their beliefs (as PaulS said) but I reckon he has spent a bit more time into that and it would be nice to get an answer, no?
Or perhaps I am a result of fallen angel's half-breed bloodline? I simply can not grasp how some being who calls itself rational can state something like that, but eh, I am not the one who is supposed to judge...