Opinion of RFayette's signatures?

[Alcon]

I don't think the issue is with his beliefs. It's that he's basically throwing a whole list of people under a bus by trashing them. Gays became homosexuals then sodomites. He doesn't like trans people. Women too are refashioned as 'wanting too much', He idolises a weird 50's that didn't exist, piles in against atheists, liberals, 'intellectuals' and wants a theocratic government. And he's just mean spirited about the whole lot (hence Alcon's intervention)

I'm hard pressed to think of anyone he actually likes. And if that's your takeaway from finding religious faith then you've allowed yourself to become hollowed out as a human being.

RFayette isn't mean-spirited at all. He shows real love for people by telling them the truth instead of coddling them in their sins. It is far more loving to tell someone the truth than it is to tell someone a sweet-sounding lie. Leviticus 19:17 defines loving your neighbor as warning your neighbor to stop sinning.

RFayette is simply trying to get people on the right track. He's trying to get people to stop engaging in soul-damning sins before it's too late. He's giving people the advice they need, as opposed to lying to them by telling them that sin poses no danger to them. He's showing real love for people by doing what he's doing. Preaching the Gospel is the most loving thing you can do for someone.

Except anyone with basic familiarity with the information on persuasion should know that what he's doing is not an effective way of changing people's minds.  (Honestly, anyone who's regularly interacted with people should.)  The arguments he's giving are also mostly logically hollow.  So it's not psychologically persuasive (shouting "YOU'RE WRONG AND WILL SUFFER!" rarely is) and it's not substantively persuasive.  So what is it?

I buy the idea of having a moral responsibility to tell people unpleasant truths that are in their long-term interest.  But why unpleasant tell truths in an unpersuasive way?  That's not doing best by their long-term interest, because it doesn't change minds.  It's not doing best by short-term interest, because it's unpleasant.  It seems to serve no purpose besides affirming one's own righteousness.

I got after RFayette for his previous signature for exactly the same reason.  It was not only unpersuasive, but it was constructed in a way that almost seemed anti-persuasive -- it basically called people who disagreed with him weird, and said they were morally worse than demons.  It also made no damn sense whatsoever logically.  He outwardly admitted he didn't really think it through and just liked how it sounded.  The only purpose the quote seemed to serve was: 1) it said something mean about people RFayette disagrees with; and, 2) it framed what RFayette believes as righteous.

This isn't ethical behavior; it's not concerned with helping people.  It's not outward-thinking or outward-reaching.  It's not thinking at all.  As for what it is reaching for, I'll just say that it's basically masturbatory: it gives the feeling of moral superiority without any of the substance of the effort or the consideration of other people.  It's moral self-love.  It's to moral life what some awful Facebook meme about how "the haterz gonna hate hate hate" is to social life.  It's hollow self-affirmation dressed up as confidence and meaning.

Is that mean-spirited?  Not directly.  Is it self-centered?  Yes.  Am I disappointed that he stopped responding to the topic where we were discussing it, even after he said he had "thinking to do" about opposing positions, and regressed back to this kind of stuff?  Definitely.

[Miles]

I don't have a problem with them; even if I did, I've seen a number of more objectionable ones here over the years that haven't caused this type of controversy.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I want to re-iterate that I do not hate anyone here, even those whom I have had very strong disagreements with, such as Al, afleitch, and trianinthedistance.  My desire is that all repent and believe in Jesus Christ and the whole counsel of God, the Holy Bible.

This continues to be rather amusing if also a little bit sad. I am not an atheist, as is well known here. Of course even if it wasn't it should have been quite obvious from the tone and content of my argument. The assumption that because I questioned the mishmash of slogans and half digested dogma that constitute your beliefs I must be an atheist (who therefore needs to repent!) is telling.

[TJ in Oregon]

I don't have a problem with them; even if I did, I've seen a number of more objectionable ones here over the years that haven't caused this type of controversy.

Yeah I don't see why his sigs are so bad either. Sure they aren't good arguments and some say objectionable things but so are most signatures. I mean, does yours provide me for a rationale for why I should support Walter Jones? I wouldn't think I ought to expect one. Mine sure doesn't provide any such argument for the statement it contains.

Lastly, it is hard to argue coherently with multiple people at the same time. That is the challenge of being in a room full of people who disagree with you: you still only get the same amount of time to respond as each individual opponent has to argue. He's treaded thus far into hostile waters; I suppose the straw has finally broken the camel's back today on AAD. The environment of a school cafeteria akin to that place is not an easy environment to argue an unpopular opinion. I know I find myself typing up things on both forums and then deleting them simply because I know I won't have time to spend the next two days defending their content.

[RFayette]

I want to re-iterate that I do not hate anyone here, even those whom I have had very strong disagreements with, such as Al, afleitch, and trianinthedistance.  My desire is that all repent and believe in Jesus Christ and the whole counsel of God, the Holy Bible.

This continues to be rather amusing if also a little bit sad. I am not an atheist, as is well known here. Of course even if it wasn't it should have been quite obvious from the tone and content of my argument. The assumption that because I questioned the mishmash of slogans and half digested dogma that constitute your beliefs I must be an atheist (who therefore needs to repent!) is telling.

And neither did I say you were an atheist...

I'd also like to say that I do believe what the Bible says that, "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:7), and as such, even though quoting the Bible in a signature and declaring it as truth may be seen as "circular," because the spirit of God is reflected by the Bible, I think that Lord willing, those passages can convict someone of their sin and bring them to repentance and faith in Christ.  That being said, I am investigating more into other forms of apologetics which appeal to sources outside the Bible.  The reason I haven't responded yet is that I am not yet done in that research and am still looking.

[Alcon]

I don't have a problem with them; even if I did, I've seen a number of more objectionable ones here over the years that haven't caused this type of controversy.

Yeah I don't see why his sigs are so bad either. Sure they aren't good arguments and some say objectionable things but so are most signatures. I mean, does yours provide me for a rationale for why I should support Walter Jones? I wouldn't think I ought to expect one. Mine sure doesn't provide any such argument for the statement it contains.

Lastly, it is hard to argue coherently with multiple people at the same time. That is the challenge of being in a room full of people who disagree with you: you still only get the same amount of time to respond as each individual opponent has to argue. He's treaded thus far into hostile waters; I suppose the straw has finally broken the camel's back today on AAD. The environment of a school cafeteria akin to that place is not an easy environment to argue an unpopular opinion. I know I find myself typing up things on both forums and then deleting them simply because I know I won't have time to spend the next two days defending their content.

I realize he's getting more vitriol than probably warranted, but what part of my argument do you disagree with?  I'm not arguing his signature is bad because I disagree with it.

(I'm only being aggressive because it's frustrating to engage in a thoughtful conversation and then have someone go about like it never happened   Not because of his opinion...)

[TJ in Oregon]

I don't have a problem with them; even if I did, I've seen a number of more objectionable ones here over the years that haven't caused this type of controversy.

Yeah I don't see why his sigs are so bad either. Sure they aren't good arguments and some say objectionable things but so are most signatures. I mean, does yours provide me for a rationale for why I should support Walter Jones? I wouldn't think I ought to expect one. Mine sure doesn't provide any such argument for the statement it contains.

Lastly, it is hard to argue coherently with multiple people at the same time. That is the challenge of being in a room full of people who disagree with you: you still only get the same amount of time to respond as each individual opponent has to argue. He's treaded thus far into hostile waters; I suppose the straw has finally broken the camel's back today on AAD. The environment of a school cafeteria akin to that place is not an easy environment to argue an unpopular opinion. I know I find myself typing up things on both forums and then deleting them simply because I know I won't have time to spend the next two days defending their content.

I realize he's getting more vitriol than probably warranted, but what part of my argument do you disagree with?  I'm not arguing his signature is bad because I disagree with it.

(I'm only being aggressive because it's frustrating to engage in a thoughtful conversation and then have someone go about like it never happened   Not because of his opinion...)

Oh I agree its not a persuasive argument being made in his current signature. However, I think the current one is substantially different than the one you and he had a long discussion of. The old one considered atheism a conscious and worse-than-demonic disposition to rebel against God. The current one is something like Pascal's wager (which is not the best argument to begin with) in meme form. Not the particularly persuasive, but not particularly vicious either. Whether he still considers atheism as a conscious rebellion against God, I have no idea.

He's gotten quite a bit more backlash on AAD over the last couple days (not sure if you are a member over there so you might not know) and ragequit the place. So there has been more "heated discussion" than is apparent here.

[RFayette]

I don't have a problem with them; even if I did, I've seen a number of more objectionable ones here over the years that haven't caused this type of controversy.

Yeah I don't see why his sigs are so bad either. Sure they aren't good arguments and some say objectionable things but so are most signatures. I mean, does yours provide me for a rationale for why I should support Walter Jones? I wouldn't think I ought to expect one. Mine sure doesn't provide any such argument for the statement it contains.

Lastly, it is hard to argue coherently with multiple people at the same time. That is the challenge of being in a room full of people who disagree with you: you still only get the same amount of time to respond as each individual opponent has to argue. He's treaded thus far into hostile waters; I suppose the straw has finally broken the camel's back today on AAD. The environment of a school cafeteria akin to that place is not an easy environment to argue an unpopular opinion. I know I find myself typing up things on both forums and then deleting them simply because I know I won't have time to spend the next two days defending their content.

I realize he's getting more vitriol than probably warranted, but what part of my argument do you disagree with?  I'm not arguing his signature is bad because I disagree with it.

(I'm only being aggressive because it's frustrating to engage in a thoughtful conversation and then have someone go about like it never happened   Not because of his opinion...)

Oh I agree its not a persuasive argument being made in his current signature. However, I think the current one is substantially different than the one you and he had a long discussion of. The old one considered atheism a conscious and worse-than-demonic disposition to rebel against God. The current one is something like Pascal's wager (which is not the best argument to begin with) in meme form. Not the particularly persuasive, but not particularly vicious either. Whether he still considers atheism as a conscious rebellion against God, I have no idea.

I'd also like to note that he's gotten quite a bit more backlash on AAD over the last couple days (not sure if you are a member over there so you might not know) and ragequit the place. So there has been more "heated discussion" than is apparent here.

This is true.  I also feel like the secularism on AAD had caused me to go too far in the opposite direction, and everything just became too antagonistic.  Many of the folks there have opinions that are very well-formed, and it's unlikely to change their minds, at least at this time. 

I never intended my signatures to be fully-formed arguments, but rather a reflection of what I believe.  Just as someone may have a dank meme in favor of their economic/ideological positions, the goal isn't to have a fully-grounded argument therein, per se.  The vast majority of the memes I have are basically just Bible verses with a background.

[Alcon]

I guess, without the background, I might be underestimating the emotional need for self-affirmation.  However, I think it's worth considering that what's self-affirmation to you is kind of a "screw you" to those of us who aren't being jerks and are trying to make reasoned points, and then see something like what's in your signature.  It basically does say "well, whatever, you're going to hell."  Without context, and even with it somewhat tbh, that does seem passive-aggressive (and kinda spiteful) to those of us who aren't being mean-spirited to you

[they don't love you like i love you]

Man remember when afleitch and others said I was going to turn into some sort of crazy fundamentalist? LOL.

I know you get really hard when you do your 'remember when' stuff about me (mostly on AAD). You may actually have saved yourself because you are the effectively the liberal Mike Naso; you've basically been in stasis for the past decade

Oh yeah, as evidenced by my continuing extreme hatred of Hillary Clinton since 2008 and my support for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary to oppose her.

[Leinad]

No real problem. Some of them are interesting. It's just evangelical Christian theology. Nothing I'm not familiar with.

God is spelt with a capital G.

As a proper noun (e.g. the Christian deity in specific) your right, but as a common noun (i.e. a deity of some religion in general) "god" with a lower-case "g" is alright. And since SWE doesn't believe in any specific deity, "god" works fine.

That said, his signature does sound like a threat.

I think that's just evangelical Christianity--or I suppose, Christianity as a whole.

It's a terrifying concept if you think about it.

The concept is that there's this "straight and narrow" path, yet most people don't take that path and end up suffering for eternity. Sure, if you get your ticket you're okay, but many of your friends and family are stuck with maximum possible torment, despair, et al. That's why so many Christians who really think about it are annihilationists (which isn't too much better) or universalists. Or, like me, left it altogether.

It's silly to suggest RFayette's trolling, or is doing it out of self-righteousness. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. I mean, if you believe in hell, and that it's a really bad place, I don't understand how you could avoid going crazy evangelizing everywhere, and lose sleep wondering if your friends and family--or just random people--are safe. It would be brutal.

[Mr. Reactionary]

God forbid somebody talk about God.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

And neither did I say you were an atheist...

Not directly, but it is fairly clear from this...

I want to re-iterate that I do not hate anyone here, even those whom I have had very strong disagreements with, such as Al, afleitch, and trianinthedistance.  My desire is that all repent and believe in Jesus Christ and the whole counsel of God, the Holy Bible.

This...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And this...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...that you have made certain assumptions and that you have made these assumptions entirely because your beliefs have been subject to a critique (I note that it has obviously not occurred to you to consider the direction of said critique). The thought process at work here is sadly all too obvious.

[RFayette]

The point is that the Bible is not to be questioned.  God gave us his word, and we need to take it at face value.  I remember, as my pastor put it, "You can't just keep questioning and questioning God.  You need to just accept the truth of God's word for what it is."  Questioning can be the work of the devil - it can make people fall astray from the faith and the sufficiency and inerrancy of scripture. 

[Alcon]

Oy

[Ebowed]

Oy

Oy vey!

[afleitch]

The point is that the Bible is not to be questioned.  God gave us his word, and we need to take it at face value.  I remember, as my pastor put it, "You can't just keep questioning and questioning God.  You need to just accept the truth of God's word for what it is."  Questioning can be the work of the devil - it can make people fall astray from the faith and the sufficiency and inerrancy of scripture. 

Why did it take several hundred years to collate? It took seven ecumenical councils from the 300's to 800's under patronage of the Roman State to determine what Christianity actually was. Do you accept that State influence was divine? Do you believe that the oppression/killing of 'heretics' and the willful destruction of texts was forged through the spirit?

If questioning is the work of the devil, then why are you a Protestant, which the the end result of a prolonged period of theological questioning? (which really is true for all Christian sects but that's another matter) The devil would want you to be so abrasive to people as you have been these past few months.

[Alcon]

I.e., questioning is OK unless it makes you question beliefs that you've decided aren't subject to logical analysis?

You do realize that's exactly how a delusion is defined?  If someone had that kind of belief that, say, the CIA was watching them, wouldn't you consider it overt mental illness...?

[RFayette]

I.e., questioning is OK unless it makes you question beliefs that you've decided aren't subject to logical analysis?

You do realize that's exactly how a delusion is defined?  If someone had that kind of belief that, say, the CIA was watching them, wouldn't you consider it overt mental illness...?

The point is, certain things just require faith.  And that includes faith in the Bible as God's word. 

[Alcon]

I.e., questioning is OK unless it makes you question beliefs that you've decided aren't subject to logical analysis?

You do realize that's exactly how a delusion is defined?  If someone had that kind of belief that, say, the CIA was watching them, wouldn't you consider it overt mental illness...?

The point is, certain things just require faith.  And that includes faith in the Bible as God's word. 

How do you consider that different than delusion, though?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The point is that the Bible is not to be questioned.  God gave us his word, and we need to take it at face value.  I remember, as my pastor put it, "You can't just keep questioning and questioning God.  You need to just accept the truth of God's word for what it is."  Questioning can be the work of the devil - it can make people fall astray from the faith and the sufficiency and inerrancy of scripture.

Jesus. Where even to start? Well with the obvious point that I did not 'question the Bible' (whatever that means) I questioned you. Again you do not appear to have noted the direction of the questioning, but perhaps that is a minor matter. The thought process again appears to be rather depressing: to question RFayette is to question The Pastor which is to question the Bible which is to do the work of the devil.

[This account no longer in use.]

This is the problem I have with Christianity, RFayette. You keep giving this "I trust the Bible because it is God's word, and I know the Bible is God's word because I trust the Bible" argument. It's not very convincing.