I've been teaching myself Linux, which requires reading and learning. Try it some time. Get a life.
How did I manage to miss this gem of a theist? This level of arrogance might have been fun to play with. This guy hasn't got the time to bother with us because he's learning Linux. How much of his time is it taking him to learn it? Most of us here manage to find time to argue, do our research, read up on science, religion and philosophy AND learn new hobbies, continue old ones, go to work, feed ourselves, study (for any students) and have a social life. My God, I feel so stupid for being a WWGHA member, well, excuse me ladies and gents, what am I doing logged into Windows 8 and posting this message!? Hot damn, Windows 8 is for morons! I best boot up on my Ubuntu partition and writing this message in C++ code using Codeblocks! Or I would, but it'd mean I have to boot up my other laptop, because it's the one with the partition and I cannae be arsed grabbing it.
Hang on, how is it a contradiction?
As you quoted (my emphasis added) "And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.". He nowhere says calling someone a fool will send you to the fires of hell, just that it puts you "in danger" of the fire of hell.
I think a similar comparison can be drawn:
I say that "playing with fire could get you burnt", and I precede to play with fire. I'm not contradicting myself, I'm basically ignoring my own advise, and could well get myself burnt in the process.
That as opposed to if I'd said:
"Playing with fire makes you a fool, and I am no fool", but I then play with fire. I am contradicting myself in this instance.
Drink driving is a dangerous affair. Would somebody who says, "if you drink and drive, you'd be putting yourself and others in danger" by a hypocrite if they then went out on a binge and sat behind the wheel...even if he manages to get off okay without running down a few school children. If it was your driving instructor, I am sure he'd lose his job.
I mean, if we were to take the argument that this isn't a contradiction, then arguably no sin can really be bad so long as you're willing to suffer the consequences. But isn't hell for sinners? Jesus warns of a great number of things that would send one to hell and so does the old testament - God is very keen on being wrathful to those who do things he doesn't like. Any action where you'd put yourself at risk of being sent to hell is clearly a wrong doing in the eyes of the Lord, unless of course he's doing it for kicks. Whilst my opinion of bible-God isn't very high, because I think there are many horrific traits I don't think he's getting off on people suffering for the sake of people suffering. I get that he's vengeful and very egotistical in the bible, but the bible doesn't suggest to me that he derives pleasure from it. So I doubt he's added the risk for kicks.
So, God's only son, who is but a man, would happily sin whilst teaching men not to sin. But it's not really a case of not following his own advice (generally, people who don't follow their own advice are hypocrites, I don't always follow mine and when I don't, that makes ME a hypocrite), because it is God, his father (or for those who believe in the holy trinity, himself) made these rules he was sent to bring. There's nothing to say Jesus, who is considered a man in the bible, is exempt from these rules, as already suggested.
And the bible does state that Jesus has not come to change the law, but to enforce it, yet at times he's seemingly above the law.
