Rapture September 2015

[NoFaith2Burn4]

LOL, how much should we really care about accuracy when dealing with Randy, for whom reality enters one of the holes, and gets blown out the A-hole? I was just trying to have a little fun with him, and maybe bring his arrogance down a peg. 

Well, maybe it has something to do with self respect. I for one don't feel the need to answer one verbal fart with an even louder one. It also has something to do with honesty.

Hey, you don't know me well enough to be calling me dishonest, and I was being perfectly honest by arguing according to Randy's own ideas, thereby I was attempting to make a point  which even he couldn't argue wtih.

While his asinine trolling plagues every single thread on this network, it remains impossible for most of us to carry on any meaningful discussion on account of his distractions, therefore I don't think it harms us all more than it helps to point out the nonsense which even he can't effectively deny.

That the story in question on which I was arguing probably didn't happen at all is a moot point. The historical veracity of the bible as a whole is overwhelmingly negative, but it is known to be based on at least a few true events, or partial truths, and not knowing otherwise regarding this particular story, I presumed for Randy's benefit that it is at least partially so. It's not dishonest at all that the story of Peter, Ananias, and his wife Saphira is in his bible, and he doesn't question that story. It's honest to take a good hard look at the likelihood that a bit of historical revisionism took place between the original telling of that story, the original writing, and the numerous written versions between then and the time that King James did his own transcription of it. In all honesty, a hard look at Randy's book of truths reveals that Peter wasn't really so nice a guy, although his violent loyalty to Jesus made him the favorite of the same. Looking that way at Randy's bible, it's a perfectly sensible conclusion that Peter killed that half-committed couple himself, in a fit of rage.

In my experience, the only way to get through to people like Randy is to give him the benefit of the doubt that the basis of his ideas is true, and then unpack the faults in his arguments based on that. I think it can work because when you accept the basis idea with little or no thought, you won't give much thought to the veracity of its derivative ideas either.