Opinion of RFayette's signatures?

[RFayette]

I don't have sigs on, but I agree with the message of his current one, if perhaps the phrasing and design is a bit offputting.  Didn't know he'd become a  universalist.

in any case sorry to see him go from AAD.

1. I needed a break from AAD.  I tend to care too much and get myself carried away with it.  I'll probably come back at some point, but I'm not sure.
2. I didn't mean that in a universalist context.  Every knee will bow, but unfortunately for many, it will be too late.

[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.

[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.

[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. 

[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.