Polycarp to explain his religious inconsistencies

[badchad]

Polycarp:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by badchad:
Also are you ever going to answer those questions you promised me regarding the inconsistencies of your belief system or are out comfortable with the label I have given you for not keeping your word? That label BTW starts with the letter L.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Certainly. I have twice put together a statement on why I do not see my beliefs as inconsistent, and decided they were inadequate to answer your comments, and therefore declined to post them.
I think this should be sufficient enough reason for you to question your assertions. Don’t you think your hitherto failure to explain the above dramatically increases the probability that your apparent inconsistencies are actual inconsistencies, and thus based on false premises?

Start a thread and I will answer specific questions and points. Feel free to quote your previous questions -- but I will not re-address linked multipage threads; I want specific points on which you see inconsistency and error.
Fine, I’m taking the time to post again. Next time try to be more considerate with regards to others spare time, which may not come as cheaply as yours. Also if possible please give straight answers rather than analogies.

Here goes:

Regarding Jesus you wrote:

He believed himself to be in communion with God, whom he characterized as a loving Father, not a tyrannical, stern judge...
If burning the fallible beings you created in an eternal lake of fire for matters of disbelief isn't considered stern judgment, what is? If that's loving, what do you consider abusive?

I'll tell you what, I take Jesus as my ideal, my Savior, and my Lord, and I claim His promises as the means to sustain and guide my life, and try to follow His commands, including that little one about "eschewing judgment and rendering mercy as you yourself, being a sinner, would seek mercy rather than harsh judgment, for with the measure you judge will you too be judged."
Why do you claim to try and follow Jesus’ commands when I already got you to admit that several of Jesus’ commands you not only don’t follow but don’t agree with? How do you decide which of Jesus’ commands are worth following and which aren’t?

And we'll see who gets it right. If Czarcasm has the right of it, it won't matter, because when we die, the neuroelectrical network that comes up with all this stuff will shut down, and we'll be nothing whatsoever except a memory. If the way that I understand Jesus's teachings is right, there are a lot of "good churchgoers" who are going to find themselves classified as Ovis capra rather than Ovis ammon on the basis of what they didn't do for "one of the least of these" and because they decided they were righteous enough to sit in judgment over others.
I don’t speak Latin but from the context it seem you believe in a literal hell or at least extermination. Did I get that right? Also aren’t you judging these “good churchgoers” in the same manner that you claim they are judging others? Why is it ok for you to judge others according to the teachings of the bible while they can’t do the same.

But, badchad, I did not make you the keeper of my conscience, and I will try to live the life I believe I have been called to, to the best of my ability. And that includes preaching God's mercy to all, and in particular to my gay friends, who have been told by the Neopharisees…
Isn’t calling fundamentalists “Neopharasiees” a bit of a slur? Does it not imply again that you are judging them?

But, my friend, Scripture repeatedly characterizes God as predominantly loving
How much scripture do you have to ignore (or define as non-scripture) to come up with such a statement?

"Supernatural events" in the Bible are the writer's naive perceptions of what went on. I do not know whether any given one of them is a literal account or not, but it does not matter -- whether Jesus got up from the tomb on Easter Morning in a sort of Night of the Undead Messiah or not, some event occurred that convinced men who had known Jesus intimately for three years that although they'd seen Him dead, He was alive again.
Should I take this as your admission that witnesses to the resurrection were just reporting their naïve perceptions as to what went on? Same as with your heart attack survival miracle? Also don’t you think it also possible that some who had know Jesus closely just made up stories about him rising again and that their reported perceptions were neither naïve nor honest?

Now, why God created a world in which you can harm yourself, end up choosing Hell through short-sighted decisions, etc., is beyond me…
So you think it’s stupid too?

A world without evil, harm, or pain sounds good, to be sure. But it makes us into robots, unable to make any choices. It keeps us from growing – by making choices with consequences, and then living with them.
So by that reasoning you admit that once you reach heaven you will become a robot, unable to make choices and grow?

Well, yeah. There is no proof. I put my trust in what Jesus had to say, and try to do what He commands.
Why do you continually say this when you admittedly only put your trust in some of what Jesus commands, and admittedly follow even less?


Below is one of my favorite Polycarp contradictions, I’ll let my previous ignored questioning ride:


However, the Fourth Commandment is a part of the Mosaic Law, and Christians are free of the Law -- contrary to what some folks who ignore Paul's teaching on this in favor of the extensive Torah material on what one should and should not do would have you believe.
Just curious Polycarp, why do you take Paul at his word here? Isn’t he just a “well-meaning idjit”? You did recently call him that didn’t you:

Paul was a well-meaning idjit.
More on this, why would you follow the teaching of said “well-meaning idjit” over that of the explicit instructions of Jesus himself, who told you were supposed to follow the law?

While other Christians might interpret things differently it is you who says that where the bible and the teachings of Jesus contradict that you should go with Jesus, making comments like:

”So if you ask me to choose between following Jesus and following the Bible, I'd have to choose Him.”

”Don't put your trust in the Bible. Put it in the God of whom the Bible speaks. And most importantly, put it in Jesus Christ, who was God walking the earth as man, and whose words, whatever else one finds in that volume, can be trusted.”
Can you spin that another way?

Do you ever get tired of coming up with lame rationalizations for incoherently cherry picking the word of god?

[Duck Duck Goose]

Eh, this reads more like a Pitting than an invitation to debate.

[badchad]

Most of my questions were cut and pasted at Polycarp's suggestion. It's religious in nature and pretty much all of it came from the great debates forum.

[Palo Verde]

I agree with DDG. Pretty hostile.

There are ways to ask questions that invite open discourse. And ways of asking thesame question that provoke hostility and defensiveness.

Which kind do you think you asked? Was that your intention?

[Triskadecamus]

Odd that you have read Polycarp's] posts on this board, and come away with the impression of his character and faith you are ranting about here. I have read the same posts, and I think many more, and have an entirely different view of him.

But then your opinion of Christ is another example of a very different one than I have gotten, too.

When someone reads something, what they think after they read is not entirely a result of what the person wrote. I think the lies you think you heard were already in your mind before [b]Poly started writing. I hope he chooses to ignore this thread.

Tris

[GIGObuster]

Hi, DDG!

I also read the same thing, Duck Duck Goose.

Not going to reply for Polycarp, I am a former Catholic, strong agnostic; but this comment I can not let pass:

Originally posted by badchad:

Policarp quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the Fourth Commandment is a part of the Mosaic Law, and Christians are free of the Law -- contrary to what some folks who ignore Paul's teaching on this in favor of the extensive Torah material on what one should and should not do would have you believe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just curious Polycarp, why do you take Paul at his word here? Isn’t he just a “well-meaning idjit”? You did recently call him that didn’t you:

Polycarp quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul was a well-meaning idjit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More on this, why would you follow the teaching of said “well-meaning idjit” over that of the explicit instructions of Jesus himself, who told you were supposed to follow the law?

Because, my dear soon to be phased off voting hanging artifact: if they had not followed Paul, there would not have been any Christians today.

[badchad]

Triskadecamus

I think the lies you think you heard were already in your mind before [b]Poly started writing. I hope he chooses to ignore this thread.

He better not, since he promised to answer.

Cite:
Start a thread and I will answer specific questions and points. Feel free to quote your previous questions -- but I will not re-address linked multipage threads; I want specific points on which you see inconsistency and error.

[Czarcasm]

This is more of a personal attack than a Great Debate, so I'm moving this to the BBQ Pit.

[El Cid Viscoso]

In one fell swoop, from pregnant to hanging.

[jackelope]

Originally posted by badchad
He better not, since he promised to answer.He "better not"? What are you going to say next, "or else"?

Listen: If you really wanted to hear his answers for an intellectual debate, you wouldn't use such hard-assed language. You would ask questions instead of leveling accusations. Do you see the difference?

I don't have a dog in this fight; I'm atheist, but sympathetic toward Christianity in general. I'm just letting you know that people who can't debate rationally don't usually get much of a warm reception around here.

"But wait," you're thinking, "I'm all about reason and facts! It's Christianity that's irrational! I can debate using only facts and browbeat everyone into thinking my way by the irresistible power of my logic!"

Yeah. That's what I thought when I was younger and so, so full of myself. Back when I would do wildly self-aggrandizing things like put a Nietzsche quote about how pathetic weak people are in my sig line.

Your posts in this thread, and your tone in general, really rub me the wrong way. Consider that it's possible for someone to disagree with you and not be a fuzz-brained idiot, OK?

[SnoopyFan]

Speaking as a Christian who takes issue with him quite a bit, I hope Polycarp doesn't waste his time on this, either. Your mind's made up, badchad, and that's fine -- but why should Poly spend one second defending his viewpoint when you so obviously have it all figured out already?

And what are you gonna do if Poly doesn't answer? Send him to his room?

(Apologies if you're a woman, Polycarp.)

[ruadh]

Someone's pitting Polycarp? Now I've seen everything!

[Typo Negative]

Is Polycarp being asked, nay, commanded, to justify his beliefs???? Am I reading this right?

We don't need to justify our beliefs. Mine are quite different than Poly's, and if you ask me to justify them, I'll tell you to fuck off. Since when do we need to justify anything to you.

[Largo62]

Another agnostic weighing in: I probably would find little to agree on with Polycarp as far as religion is concerned, but I have him and Zev Steinhardt to thank for their accepting and warm attitude when I originally fulminated loudly against religion. Now that I think of it, Poly and Zev probably wouldn't find much common ground either, at least on doctrinal points. But few people have been as willing to listen to a little vented spleen without coming back with vitriol.

Let's see now, you seem to think taking a side or having an opinion different from or even opposite to others is the same as judging them. Poly certainly expresses differences with other posters, but I've never known him to take a judgmental tone.

I don't see how calling certain people "neo-Pharisees" is a slur, even if you think his assessment of their beliefs is mistaken. He is only comparing them to an ancient Jewish fellowship that observed the written law, but also accepted oral tradition. If the tradition fits...it's not a slur. If it doesn't. it's still not a slur, just a mistake.

His assessment of God as predominantly loving is not inconsistent with the belief he has expressed in these fora many times. It may not agree with your assessment, or mine for that matter, but in it he is completely consistent. As to error, well, that's a matter of opinion isn't it.

I see this pitting (and that is what it is) as essentially mean spirited. If you really wanted to engage Poly or anyone else in debate you would have asked about one topic at a time and given your reasoned response to his answer. If you are pressed for time, string the challenges out over a few weeks. None of us is going anywhere.

[moriah]

I don't read GD, so I don't know any of the background to this pitting. So, just from reading the OP, I'm having trouble determining whether:

1. badchad is a fundamentalist with a problem with polycarp's non-literalism;

2. badchad is an atheist who's bent on disproving Chrisianity by attacking polycarp's beleifs; or,

3. badchad is an idjit.

Mind you, the choices need not be exclusionary.

[Cervaise]

Fuck off, badchad. I may be an atheist, but I have far more in common with Polycarp than I do with you.

There's no debate here. You're just trying to stir up shit. I find you contemptible.

[jackelope]

If I'd had the cojones, I'd have said what Cervaise said.

[Mangetout]

Originally posted by moriah
I don't read GD, so I don't know any of the background to this pitting. So, just from reading the OP, I'm having trouble determining whether:

1. badchad is a fundamentalist with a problem with polycarp's non-literalism;

2. badchad is an atheist who's bent on disproving Chrisianity by attacking polycarp's beleifs; or,

3. badchad is an idjit.

Mind you, the choices need not be exclusionary. I share your confusion; it is my impression (and I fully admit that I may be mistaken) that badchad believes one must either be a hard atheist or a raving fundie and that anyone attempting to occupy any kind of other/middle ground is being deliberately obtuse.

[Liberal]

With respect to this from Poly:

Certainly. I have twice put together a statement on why I do not see my beliefs as inconsistent, and decided they were inadequate to answer your comments, and therefore declined to post them.And this response from Badchad:

I think this should be sufficient enough reason for you to question your assertions. Don’t you think your hitherto failure to explain the above dramatically increases the probability that your apparent inconsistencies are actual inconsistencies, and thus based on false premises?Actually, Badchad himself has jumped to a false premise, namely that Poly decided his posts were inadequate on account of their content.

The fact is that Poly had explained to a fare-thee-well and forty ways from Sunday why his beliefs were not inconsistent. We've all run into incalcitrant and deliberately obtuse posters to whom we've tried to explain things.

Once. Twice. Three times is not enough. These trolls are not really interested in our arguments; rather, they are interested in provoking us to a reaction that may assuage their fetish for trolling.

If you've already explained yourself several times only to be dodged, ridiculed, and farted at, it is entirely likely that you reach a point where you feel that the best thing to do is simply — in the words of Mr. Scott — "punch up clear".

Poly declining to post was not an indication of his inability to respond. Instead, it was an indication of the kind of man he is — one who likely thought better of flying off the handle and swatting a particularly annoying insect.

[Coldfire]

badchad, it's a belief. Sure, it's possible to find contradictions in Christian scripture. And it certainly is possible to find Christians who sin, thereby breaking the rules they profess to adhere to. The Christians I know realise this, and consider themselves sinners by default.

Only a vindictive asshole or someone who's a complete novice at religious debate would try and rub those inconsistencies in like you did, to someone as respected as Polycarp. Couldn't you find a better target for this rather poor analysis of yours?

[SentientMeat]

badchad, atheist here, so "hard" that if God literally appeared before my very eyes I would prefer to believe I was being non-supernaturally deceived.

Poly does not believe that the Bible is literally true, and interprets the teachings of Jesus as being non-exclusivist.

As a test for yourself, I would like you to explain basic cosmology to me, without inconsistencies, on pain of being called a lying hypocrite if any detail is wrong.

[Drastic]

quoth moriah
I don't read GD, so I don't know any of the background to this pitting...

It's always looked like a combination of hypotheses two and three, from where I sit. It's a sort of rough parallel to how TVAA follows Libertarian around yapping and snapgumming at his heels, except that badchad is usually blessedly a little bit more quiet about his own version of the crusade.

I'm glad to see Polycarp posting more again; his witness has been a big help for me in dismantling a pretty anchored shoulder-chip regarding Christianity which dismantling of has been, in retrospect, fairly important to me--for, admittedly, non-Christian reasons of my own.

I do still maintain a previous analogy that a crowd rallying to defend him is akin to a crowd of well-meaning folks rallying to protect a mountain from being carved away by an armless fellow with a spoon clenched in his teeth. So I'm against any attempt to try to take the spoon away.

[Liberal]

As a test for yourself, I would like you to explain basic cosmology to me, without inconsistencies, on pain of being called a lying hypocrite if any detail is wrong.I'd like to see that, too! :D

[TVAA]

Eh, Polycarp is one of the more refreshingly-consistent Believers on these boards. At least he's willing to admit that his beliefs make no rational sense.

[MrO]

Another atheist/agnostic here weighing in to say that I've never found Polycarp to be inconsistent or hypocritical. Never seen anything in his posts deserving of an attack of any kind. I've certainly never found in his posts any of the hostility I find in the OP. Not to say that I agree with all of Poly's beliefs, but in terms of intelligence and goodness, he has certainly earned my respect.

[Liberal]

Originally posted by TVAA
Eh, Polycarp is one of the more refreshingly-consistent Believers on these boards. At least he's willing to admit that his beliefs make no rational sense. You've confused Poly with Tris. Triskadecamus is the one who says that his beliefs make no rational sense. But at least you've made Drastic look like a prophet.

It's a sort of rough parallel to how TVAA follows Libertarian around yapping and snapgumming at his heels, except that badchad is usually blessedly a little bit more quiet about his own version of the crusade.

[hawthorne]

I like Polycarp as much as the next Doper, but this seems a reasonable enough thread to me.

[The Flying Dutchman]

I haven't found Polycarp's views on God and and his understanding of Him contradictory at all. Certainly one can find inconsistencies in the bible if one takes every word literally without regard to context and assumes the bible was intended to be an historical document.

I suspect that you are irked by Poly, because his views recognize the many legitimate arguments dispelling the bible as an accurate historical document thus disarming you of your weapons in your zeal to pound on "feeble minded " religious people. His faith in Jesus Christ and his love for Him is evident in his zeal and prolific posting towards that end as well as in his tireless display of patience as he tries to love all of us including you. That zeal can more than rival many extreme fundamentalists.To top it off, Poly is clearly writes in a manner conveying education and intelligence, and that must piss you off since it is inconsistant with your view of religious people.

Perhaps Poly should reply to you in parables. I seem to remember that was the way Jesus responded to the pharisees when they tried to trap Him in inconsistencies.

In a little fit of retribution, I entertained the idea of announcing that I was going to pray for you, but that wouldn't be Christian would it :D . Gee badchad, lighten up will ya.

[Mangetout]

Originally posted by grienspace
[b]Poly is clearly writes in a manner conveying education and intelligenceTell me you did this on purpose, please!

[TVAA]

No, Lib, Poly has admitted it as well.

Not that you're capable of understanding what a "rational thought" is...

[The Flying Dutchman]

Not sure what your point is Mangetout but I do wish we had the edit function available. I proof read too damn quickly sometimes.

[Mangetout]

Sorry; I thought it might have been an intentional eroor.

[dropzone]

What I don't understand is why someone—anyone—would go after Polycarp, a font of reason and good will, a man whose rhetorical skills are legendary while aknowledging he doesn't have all the answers, and a man who is one of the rocks upon which this board is built, for supposed inconsistancies in his beliefs while ignoring my totally half-assed belief system that combines atheism and Lutheranism with a touch of animism. Am I too easy a target while Poly presents a challenge? Or do I make so little sense, even to me, that it isn't worth the trouble?

Yeah, I'm jealous. :(

[Lord Ashtar]

badchad-

If anyone were to ever come to you and tell you they had all the answers, they are either crazy or lying (possibly both). To the best of my recollection, Polycarp has never claimed to have all the answers. In fact, he will come right out and say when he doesn't know.

There's a search function on this message board. I recommend you do a little research into Polycarp's GD posts.

[Liberal]

Originally posted by TVAA
No, Lib, Poly has admitted it as well.

Not that you're capable of understanding what a "rational thought" is...
A rational thought is an idea that is born of reason.

Your statement that "his beliefs make no rational sense" is a gross misrepresentation of what he has said. He has explained himself many times on this matter, distinguishing irrational from non-rational, and what those terms mean to him. Here, for example (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=3118441#post3118441):

A "rational" human being will do many things in the course of his life for non-rational reasons; marriage is for most people a non-rational decision -- not irrational but not demonstrable by rational principles as a desirable action to take, without reference to irrelevant issues like emotions (which would have to be classified as non-rational motivators). And any decision taken on the preponderance of admittedly insufficient reasons, where an immediate choice is incumbent and there is not enough data for a truly rational decision, is non-rational. "Irrational" I hear as drawing a line that need not be there. It means "contrary to reason" while non-rational simply means "not entirely based on reasoning."It is Tris who has always proudly proclaimed the irrationality of his beliefs. But you don't care about either Trish or Poly, as is evidenced by that fact that you can't keep the two of them straight. The fact of the matter is that you didn't give a rat's ass about Poly's views, whether rational or irrational — you merely seized this opportunity, as you do every opportunity, to attempt a swipe at me.

As always, you failed.

[Homebrew]

So my Pitting of badchad (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=214494) was reasonable, then?

[Svt4Him]

So again, what's the problem? I have nothing against [Polycarp[/b], but he did say to start another thread where he'd answer the questions, and one was started. So now it turns into a popularity contest? He doesn't have to answer since he's such a nice guy? Could just be me, but that's what it seems like.

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Svt4Him
So again, what's the problem? I have nothing against Polycarp, but he did say to start another thread where he'd answer the questions, and one was started. So now it turns into a popularity contest? He doesn't have to answer since he's such a nice guy? Could just be me, but that's what it seems like.

I would cheerfully sit down and discuss my beliefs -- such as they are -- with someone who was genuinely interested. Heck, I'd even discuss them with someone who obviously held different beliefs, as long as the spirit of the conversation was amicable.

But if someone opened by attacking my belief system and mocked and ridiculed me in the process ... why on earth would I want to waste time conversing with them?

[Svt4Him]

Have you seen some of the threads in GD lately? As far as I can see, in the fight against ignorance, common courtesy is thrust aside. That said, if Polycarp (sorry about the bolding earlier) told the OP that he would answer any of his questions, knowing the spirit they are asked in, it seems to me that it wouldn't be contingent on the OP changing his spots. Otherwise it was wrong to say 'start another thread and I'll answer the questions'. But even some of the replies here show that he doesn't have to because he's so popular.

[hawkeyejo]

I agree with Svt4Him in that after making an explicit statement about starting a new thread for answering questions,polycarp is beholden to answer these questions. Having said that, the tone of the questions is more like accusations and badchad would be better served if he calms down and tries to open a discussion rather than post a rant.

[Triskadecamus]

So far, so good.

Tris

[Polycarp]

I agreed several months ago to respond to some of badchad’s assertions of inconsistency, and renewed that commitment recently in this:

Certainly. I have twice put together a statement on why I do not see my beliefs as inconsistent, and decided they were inadequate to answer your comments, and therefore declined to post them.

So badchad, however obnoxious his style may be, is justified in asking the questions he does.

However, this comment is out of order:

I think this should be sufficient enough reason for you to question your assertions. Don’t you think your hitherto failure to explain the above dramatically increases the probability that your apparent inconsistencies are actual inconsistencies, and thus based on false premises?

In short, I have no answer to whether I’ve stopped beating my wife, seeing as how I have never done so. In the breadth of nitpickery which you have raised, badchad, about my assertions and comments regarding my beliefs, no single statement seemed adequate to respond fully. And I do have other things on my plate than debating with you on what you decide is inconsistent or disingenuous. My response was simply to state that I had essayed answers and decided they were not sufficient to respond to your questions, by way of excusal for not having answered as yet, not to say that I found my own remarks inconsistent or inadequate, but that they did not respond in full to the shopping list of things you’ve pointed out over the past few months.

That said:

If burning the fallible beings you created in an eternal lake of fire for matters of disbelief isn't considered stern judgment, what is? If that's loving, what do you consider abusive?

It would have been helpful if you had cited your referent here, but I’ll try to respond anyway. Jesus spoke in the language of his time, including using the terms and concepts familiar to those to whom he spoke. I do not offhand recall him ever consigning unbelievers to burn in a lake of fire; this condemnation is usually reserved for those who fail to treat their fellow man with compassion (as in the conclusion of the Parable of the Sheep and Goats, or the condemnation of the Pharisees). If you have a particular referent in mind, do please cite it, and I’ll respond with my understanding of what he was saying, and why I think that.

Why do you claim to try and follow Jesus’ commands when I already got you to admit that several of Jesus’ commands you not only don’t follow but don’t agree with? How do you decide which of Jesus’ commands are worth following and which aren’t?

I don’t offhand recall ever having admitted any such thing. I will observe that Jesus often apparently spoke in hyperbole, and one is to read hyperbole as what it is. And he set ideals as goals for one to attempt to live up to – in part to define one’s dependence on God, since no one has ever been able to live up to those ideals fully and completely at all times and in all circumstances.

I don’t speak Latin but from the context it seem you believe in a literal hell or at least extermination. Did I get that right? Also aren’t you judging these “good churchgoers” in the same manner that you claim they are judging others? Why is it ok for you to judge others according to the teachings of the bible while they can’t do the same.

First, what I think about Hell is not applicable. I asserted that a Materialist viewpoint – the idea that bodily death terminates all sense of self – would mean that there would be no reward or punishment. Then I suggested that (some of) the “good churchgoers” would find themselves classed as “goats” rather than “sheep” (again referring to that parable) on the basis of their (and my) belief system.

In an ongoing discussion, His4Ever, Jersey Diamond, and her husband and I have been examining the “Judge not” passage and related passages. (Jersey, please feel free to post any correction needed to the following from your perspective.) We seemed to come to an agreement, insofar as I am clear on the discussion, that what is condemned is sitting in judgment over the person of another. Acting in a brotherly/sisterly fashion to correct the perceived errors of a co-religionist, or attempting to offer advice and counsel to a fellow man, is not what is intended.

So suggesting that delimiting who is one’s “neighbor,” or to whom mercy and compassion should be extended, is incongruous with good Christian values, is not judging them, but making a judgment about their efforts to apply a value system on which we agree in principle, and pointing out Jesus’s teachings (to which the “good churchmen” subscribe) is intended as a corrective which is proper on our mutually held standard of behavior. The same applies to the “Neopharisees” – which, by the way, does not include such Fundamentalists and conservative Christians as DDG or Svt4Him, but rather is directed at those who read Scriptural commands by way of a legalistic code (which I believe Jesus’s teachings direct us not to do).

How much scripture do you have to ignore (or define as non-scripture) to come up with such a statement?

The word I used was “predominant” – I concur that just, wrathful, and other terms are applicable to some instances, but I formed a generalized value judgment on the basis of my understanding of how to read Scripture. That this is not a literalist, take-everything-at-face-value methodology should not surprise you.


Polycarp: "Supernatural events" in the Bible are the writer's naive perceptions of what went on. I do not know whether any given one of them is a literal account or not, but it does not matter -- whether Jesus got up from the tomb on Easter Morning in a sort of Night of the Undead Messiah or not, some event occurred that convinced men who had known Jesus intimately for three years that although they'd seen Him dead, He was alive again.

badchad: Should I take this as your admission that witnesses to the Resurrection were just reporting their naïve perceptions as to what went on? Same as with your heart attack survival miracle? Also don’t you think it also possible that some who had know Jesus closely just made up stories about him rising again and that their reported perceptions were neither naïve nor honest?

No, to all three counts. First, I admitted that I was not aware of what mechanism underlay the Resurrection. Any number of possible scenarios might have resulted in the witness we have. I hold my own opinion – based on I Corinthians 15, if you’re interested – as to what actually happened. But I won’t rule out other possibilities. I am not claiming any particular psychological phenomenon as having actually happened. My statement is intended to leave the door open for everything from a literal miracle of resuscitation to a Spongian sense of “Jesus’s body is a-moldering in the ground, but his spirit goes marching on.”

As for my “heart attack survival miracle,” I reported, as objectively as possible, the literal truth of what happened – that a young man of our acquaintance felt compelled to come visit me and discovered me dying, got in touch with my wife, and she got me to the hospital in time for a full recovery, and that I was told that the severity of the attack would have probably killed me before the time she would have gotten home without his intervention. Whether it was God compelling Jay to look me up at that particular time is something I do not hope to convince others of – he and I and Barb are convinced it was, but I merely assert “he felt a compulsion to do so” as a fact I expect others to accept on my word. Anything beyond this is PAX-TV religiosity that need not be bought into by those of a skeptical frame of mind.

I do reject the idea that the Resurrection accounts are manufactured stories, for the very good reason that the reported behavior of those who witnessed it before and after its occurrence are at such great odds with each other. Dense and cowardly disciples become bold and insightful leaders. Something caused that change. I grant that one need not accept the Gospel/Acts accounts of their behavior at all – but that makes the question moot, rather than contradictory. Working on the basis of the accounts, there was a substantial character change, which does not jibe with men who are promoting a self-serving lie.

Me: Now, why God created a world in which you can harm yourself, end up choosing Hell through short-sighted decisions, etc., is beyond me…

badchad: So you think it’s stupid too?

Me: A world without evil, harm, or pain sounds good, to be sure. But it makes us into robots, unable to make any choices. It keeps us from growing – by making choices with consequences, and then living with them.

badchad: So by that reasoning you admit that once you reach heaven you will become a robot, unable to make choices and grow?

I have not come up with an answer to the Problem of Evil. In view of the fact that people have been discussing it for several thousand years without arriving at an answer commanding consensus, that’s not surprising. As for your “logic” (using the term loosely) in the second quote, I have not warned Triskadecamus or gobear to look both ways before crossing the street. I assume that they are quite adult enough to do so without my intervention. Personal spiritual growth through the world we live in, with its problems and consequences, does not imply a cessation of it in another plane, merely that how it occurs will change. If you know things about Heaven that would lead you to a different conclusion, do share them. My impressions of it are that it will be eminently satisfactory to everyone who ends up there – Eve’s tongue-in-cheek remarks about the Fundamentalist-Christian Heaven notwithstanding.

The rest of your problems are easily dealt with. Paul was a Pharisee who had a conversion experience. He could and I think did make mistakes on understanding what it was Jesus taught. That does not mean he was never right; he was, quite often.

As for the final item, the Bible is a collection of literature written by members of the Hebrew/Jewish people and by a group of them (with one Gentile) who were followers of Jesus. It needs to be read as just that – a collection of literature that contains a great deal of truth and a fair amount of cultural baggage. A given story may be literal truth, may be a piece of didactic fiction, or several other things depending on genre. (I assume you are capable of distinguishing between A History of the Napoleonic Wars, War and Peace, and Les Miserables, and deciding what one can learn from each?) One applies the same general technique, coupled with study of Jewish and Hellenistic customs, to arrive at what one can learn from the Bible.

I trust this will resolve your questions.

[Duck Duck Goose]

Go Poly. :D





Answer: Les Miserables was the only one made into a musical.

so, what do I win?

[robertliguori]

[applauds, takes notes]

[TVAA]

I dunno... Poly seems pretty willing to admit that his own personal interpretation of various important events is just that -- personal, and not necessarily that his position is the most rational or even reasonable in an objective sense.

[DrDeth]

I'll second Cervaise- Fuck off Badchad.

I'll second DDG- Go Poly. :D

Are we certain Badchad isn't a sockpuppet of Ben? They sure sound alike. They use words in a similar fashion, they call dudes liars, and they attack others without explaining their own position. I am serious here.

[andros]

Beg to differ, DrDeth. Not only is it a fairly tacky thing to say (and should be addressed to the moderators of the board rather than offered as a cheap shot to the world at large), Ben at least has a basic understanding of the things he gets riled about, and a thorough understanding of the things that really get him riled. Chad seems to have neither.

[Darkhold]

Yeah let's make Atheists look bad by pitting/insulting a calm rational patient well spoken Christian.

Idiot.

[robertliguori]

Look at it this way, Darkhold: the kind of person who would cite badchad as a typical example of an atheist won't have their mind be changed by anything as simple as reality.

[Lynn Bodoni]

Originally posted by DrDeth
Are we certain Badchad isn't a sockpuppet of Ben? They sure sound alike. They use words in a similar fashion, they call dudes liars, and they attack others without explaining their own position. I am serious here. If you have any such suspicions, you should ask a moderator in email, not post it in public.

Lynn
For the Straight Dope

[Drastic]

But at least you've made Drastic look like a prophet.

My next prophecy will probably be a discourse on fire being hot. I may then tackle a prophecy centering around ice being the frozen state of water.

My compound full of followers and subsequent problems with the BATF are close enough to taste!

[Svt4Him]

Good job for replying Polycarp. Granted I may not agree with it all, but I'm glad you did reply.

[Liberal]

Drastic

My compound full of followers and subsequent problems with the BATF are close enough to taste!Be sure to tell people not to turn with their bulls-ey... er, backs, ...facing the BATF, and not to hold any babies in the doorway. Also, when the flammable gas comes in, don't breathe.

[DrDeth]

Originally posted by Lynn Bodoni
If you have any such suspicions, you should ask a moderator in email, not post it in public.

Lynn
For the Straight Dope

Sorry. I had checked the PIT rules, and I did not see anything about not calling dudes "sockpuppets", and I have seen dudes called "trolls" here on a regular basis. Rest assured I would not have done so anywhere but in this Forum, and I won't do it any more. Since we can call someone a "goat-felcher" I thought that "sock" was a pretty inoffensive insult, but hey, you're the boss.

Perhaps this can be added to list of PIT rules?

Andros- I agree that Ben seems better educated & informed.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally posted by DrDeth
Perhaps this can be added to list of PIT rules?


Good luck. Several months ago Coldfire freaked out on me for making a similar suggestion about another poster, and I responded by asking that the "don't-call-people-a-sock-puppet" rule be clarified. My requests were either ignored or referred to the rule against calling people a troll (which is, I think, a completely different phenomenon).

Best way to find out about this rule, it seems, is to run afoul of it, or witness someone else running afoul of it.

And great post, Poly; I was hoping you'd respond, and I very much appreciated your response.

Daniel

[Duck Duck Goose]

I agree that it ought to be in the FAQ. It comes up a lot in threads, the way it did here, but it's never really been codified.

[Liberal]

I e-mailed Lynn a couple of days ago, and am awaiting clarification on another recent rule — the one about "some debating" being allowed in the Pit. It may just be that she's swamped.

[DrDeth]

Originally posted by DanielWithrow
the rule against calling people a troll
Daniel

Is there such a rule? Ben called me a troll in GD a couple of months ago, I even mentioned it on my reply, and hit "report this post to a moderator" and there wasn't even a reply or warning.

[Genghis Bob]

At the risk of being ridiculed for my ignorance - what's a "troll"? It must be pretty bad for their to be a rule against using it as an insult.

[Genghis Bob]

That is, "It must be pretty bad for there to be a rule against using it as an insult." :smack:

[Liberal]

A troll is a disingenuous provocateur.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

DrDeth, from the FAQ (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=106617):

Q: What should I do when I see a user "trolling" at the SDMB?
A: Do not publicly accuse someone of trolling at the SDMB. Use the "Report this post to a moderator" facility below the "trolling" post. Do not reply to the troll in any way in the thread, that will only encourage the troublemaker.

Q: What if I'm not sure if the person is a troll?
A: Treat the person as a user in good standing. Respond to the post if you have something useful to add, otherwise say nothing.

(Note that the same entry in the FAQ indirectly makes it clear that a troll is not the same thing as a sock puppet).

Daniel

[DrDeth]

Ah, so the rule is "Don't publicly accuse someone of trolling at the SDMB...unless your name is Ben". I get it. :rolleyes:

[Esprix]

badchad, you're a fucking moron. All faith is, at times, inconsistent, but that doesn't invalidate it. And if someone's going to err on one side of the other, I'd take Poly's compassion over some radical fundamentalist's hate any day of the week - I wish we had more Christians in the world that "cherry-picked" from the Bible like Poly does.

And Poly, you remain a class act, Mr. President. ;)

Esprix

[Largo62]

Lambchop is a sock-puppet! Lambchop is a sock-puppet! :D















Um, Lynn, if there really is a Doper named Lambchop, I don't know about her/him. Just kiddin', ya know?

[badchad]

Polycarp:

My response was simply to state that I had essayed answers and decided they were not sufficient to respond to your questions, by way of excusal for not having answered as yet, not to say that I found my own remarks inconsistent or inadequate, but that they did not respond in full to the shopping list of things you’ve pointed out over the past few months.
Sorry, I thought you realized that your responses were inadequate given the magnitude of the claims that you make and their contradictory nature. It seems this realization still eludes both you and your groupies.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If burning the fallible beings you created in an eternal lake of fire for matters of disbelief isn't considered stern judgment, what is? If that's loving, what do you consider abusive?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jesus spoke in the language of his time, including using the terms and concepts familiar to those to whom he spoke. I do not offhand recall him ever consigning unbelievers to burn in a lake of fire; this condemnation is usually reserved for those who fail to treat their fellow man with compassion (as in the conclusion of the Parable of the Sheep and Goats, or the condemnation of the Pharisees).
So you will admit at least that Jesus did condemn some people to a lake of fire. Were on to something.

If you have a particular referent in mind, do please cite it, and I’ll respond with my understanding of what he was saying, and why I think that.
Well that’s just it. Your understanding of the scripture is suspect. The scripture says certain things and you bend over backwards to try and argue that it does not mean what it says, except for where you like what is says. Effectively turning the morality of Jesus into the morality of Polycarp. Still with that in mind here are a few quotes in which Jesus is prejudiced against unbelievers:

Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

John 3:18
He that believeth on him is not condemned but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John followed up Jesus with this jewel: John 3:36
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 8:24
I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

While not explicitly mentioning fire in the above verses Jesus did talk of everlasting fire here:
Matthew 18:8, 9 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.
If you feel that you have justification to describe two types of punishment, extermination for atheists and eternal hellfire for those who don’t give to panhandlers feel free to do so. However that will be a new one on me.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do you claim to try and follow Jesus’ commands when I already got you to admit that several of Jesus’ commands you not only don’t follow but don’t agree with? How do you decide which of Jesus’ commands are worth following and which aren’t?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don’t offhand recall ever having admitted any such thing.
Offhand I recall you stating that you thought it ok for people to get divorced for reasons other than infidelity. I also recall you stating that it was okay for a man to marry a divorced woman. I think you also said it was not a sin for people to save for retirement, you know, store up treasures on earth. IIRC you regularly violate the fourth commandment in spite of what Jesus said about “the law” remaining in force until “heaven and earth pass away.” There was more but that should suffice.

I think this is the part where you explain that while Jesus did command against the above things he really didn’t mean it.

I will observe that Jesus often apparently spoke in hyperbole
Like that stuff about eternal life? How do you determine what is hyperbole and what is not?

And he set ideals as goals for one to attempt to live up to – in part to define one’s dependence on God, since no one has ever been able to live up to those ideals fully and completely at all times and in all circumstances.
As I noted above you don’t even try to live up to some of the above mentioned ideals. In fact you think they are incorrect. This is fine, I don’t think his ideals are that special either but at least I am honest enough to admit it.

First, what I think about Hell is not applicable.
Yes it is. It determines, at least in part, how evil a god you are willing to worship. God only lets some people get to heaven according to most Christains, (you included IIRC) with grace being a gift from god, which cannot be earned. As such we need to decide whether your god lets everyone go to heaven (thus making your witnessing superfluous) whether god kills those he doesn’t like Auschwitz style (pretty bad by itself) or whether he punishes them for an eternity for failing to have a gift which god himself withheld, (thus making him a monster the worst of which this universe has ever seen).

You got another alternative?

In an ongoing discussion, His4Ever, Jersey Diamond, and her husband and I have been examining the “Judge not” passage and related passages. (Jersey, please feel free to post any correction needed to the following from your perspective.) We seemed to come to an agreement, insofar as I am clear on the discussion, that what is condemned is sitting in judgment over the person of another. Acting in a brotherly/sisterly fashion to correct the perceived errors of a co-religionist, or attempting to offer advice and counsel to a fellow man, is not what is intended.
It seems you’re saying now that it is okay for a fundamentalist to try to correct the perceived errors of another person, for example living a homosexual lifestyle, and try to bring them in line with what they believe to be the will of god so as to save their souls from hellfire/extermination. Since that is what just about every fundamentalist says they are doing you now have little room to criticize.

The word I used was “predominant” – I concur that just, wrathful, and other terms are applicable to some instances, but I formed a generalized value judgment on the basis of my understanding of how to read Scripture. That this is not a literalist, take-everything-at-face-value methodology should not surprise you.
Saying that scripture defines god as predominantly loving and forgiving requires you to ignore a whole lot of scripture. Starting from Genesis, while I haven’t actually quantified it I would say that the love vs. smite ratio isn’t very high. Considerably less that 0.5 I would wager. As such I must ask, what is your working definition of predominant?

As for my “heart attack survival miracle,” I reported, as objectively as possible, the literal truth of what happened – that a young man of our acquaintance felt compelled to come visit me and discovered me dying, got in touch with my wife, and she got me to the hospital in time for a full recovery, and that I was told that the severity of the attack would have probably killed me before the time she would have gotten home without his intervention.
You do realize that this country is ~90% theist. That heart attacks are a leading cause of death, and that IIRC roughly 50% of people survive their first heart attack, having what I would imagine is a bit more luck than the other 50%. As such it seems that stories like yours are not even remotely miraculous but rather certain and frequent events in the due course of nature.

I do reject the idea that the Resurrection accounts are manufactured stories, for the very good reason that the reported behavior of those who witnessed it before and after its occurrence are at such great odds with each other.
Reported behavior is often at odds with actual behavior.

I grant that one need not accept the Gospel/Acts accounts of their behavior at all – but that makes the question moot, rather than contradictory.
I don’t understand what you mean by that. It seems like you are agreeing with me that nothing may have happened and their behaviors did not in fact change but you want to wave off the implications that this possibility (dare I say probability) undermines your belief in the resurrection.

Working on the basis of the accounts, there was a substantial character change, which does not jibe with men who are promoting a self-serving lie.
But men who were promoting a self serving lie might report character changes which did not take place and this would jibe with being self serving.

I have not come up with an answer to the Problem of Evil.
Well that’s kind of a biggie.

In view of the fact that people have been discussing it for several thousand years without arriving at an answer commanding consensus, that’s not surprising.
Atheists don’t have a problem of evil. Their views are fairly consistent. Either god wants there to be all goodness and can not make it so or can but won’t. This is only a problem if you subscribe to the idea that god is both omnibenevolent and omnipotent. As such atheists have consensus and don’t believe in said god. Its just that Christians don’t like the conclusion and as such have been making harebrained excuses for, as you put it, for thousands of years.

Personal spiritual growth through the world we live in, with its problems and consequences, does not imply a cessation of it in another plane, merely that how it occurs will change. If you know things about Heaven that would lead you to a different conclusion, do share them.
You made the argument that a “world without evil, harm, or pain” would make us “into robots, unable to make any choices.” As such if we assume that heaven is without evil harm or pain (and just about everyone does) then it is fair to assume that we would be robots in heaven. If we do not need to have the bad stuff to make choices and grow, then there goes your excuse for bad stuff being necessary on earth.

The rest of your problems are easily dealt with. Paul was a Pharisee who had a conversion experience. He could and I think did make mistakes on understanding what it was Jesus taught. That does not mean he was never right; he was, quite often.
Nice try. Let me paraphrase what I quoted in my OP. Jesus said that people should continue to follow the law. Paul said people were free of the law. You said that when in doubt to put your trust in Jesus who was God and whose words, whatever else one finds in that volume, can be trusted. Then in practice as soon as you are up against a socially inconvenient commandment like going to church on Saturday instead of Sunday you go and follow Paul over Jesus. Paul, who you admit is not god and who you called an idjit.

As such to be reasonable you should either admit that other parts of the bible can trump the words of Jesus or you should get to church on Saturday and stop eating shellfish.

And no I'm not Ben.

[badchad]

Esprix:

badchad, you're a fucking moron.
Sticks and stones...;)

[jackelope]

badchad, you are a prick. I have neither time nor interest to go into details, and this is the Pit so I don't have to, but trust me: you are a prick.

[Mangetout]

A friend of mine had a Westie terrier once that tried to shag my leg every time I went to his house.

[Gary Kumquat]

Having just read through this thread and it's predecessors, could someone tell me if badchad has any point whatsoever, or if he really is being as mindlessly pedantic as it would appear?

Thanks.

[Bryan Ekers]

Inconsistancies found in religious belief?

In other news, water is wet.




Grow up, chad.

[Liberal]

No debates in the Pit! :eek:

Except for this one. And the one about the Constitution. But that's it. Except for a few other ones.

[Desmostylus]

I think you misinterpreted Lynn's post, Lib. It wasn't a general prohibition, it was specifically directed at you, directing you not to use the Pit as your own personal debating and witnessing forum.

Feel free to start yet another thread about how the moderators are just so unfair, and persecute you.

On the other hand, you should also feel free to just shut the fuck up about it.

[Liberal]

Actually, Mr. Junior Mod Desmo, who assigned you to interpret Lynn's posts? It so happens that I'm in e-mail correspondence with her now about the matter, so fuck off.

[TVAA]

Originally posted by Esprix
All faith is, at times, inconsistent, but that doesn't invalidate it. Well, actually, that does invalidate it. Just as it invalidates any other system.

[TVAA]

Obviously, Desmostylus received the correct interpretation of Lynn's post directly from God. Why don't you go brush up on the epistemology of revelation for a while, Libertarian?

[Liberal]

Oh, why can't you just be nice?

[Liberal]

Originally posted by TVAA
Well, actually, that does invalidate it. Just as it invalidates any other system. What a stupid thing to say. Do you understand anything at all about deductive systems?

[TVAA]

This is the Pit, you weasel-sniffing hall monitor. The people here aren't exactly models of restraint -- including you.

[Desmostylus]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Actually, Mr. Junior Mod Desmo, who assigned you to interpret Lynn's posts? Precisely the same person who appointed you. That is, no-one. You have implied that debates are forbidden in the Pit. I disagree.Originally posted by Libertarian
It so happens that I'm in e-mail correspondence with her now about the matter, so fuck off. If you are, in fact, in e-mail correspondence with Lynn at the moment, then:

a) if it's about the same matter it would be extremely rude of you to simultaneously be complaining about it here in public, and

b) if it's about another matter then it's completely irrelevent, so why raise it?

Fucking idiot.

[Liberal]

I'm not complaining, dipshit. You are.

[Ben Hicks]

badchad, you are a prick. I have neither time nor interest to go into details, and this is the Pit so I don't have to, but trust me: you are a prick.


He may be a prick but from where I'm sitting he's a prick with a bloody good argument. May I suggest that instead of random ad hom potshots you naysayers actually step up to the plate and justify your attacks with reasoned answers to his points?

[Desmostylus]

Originally posted by Libertarian
I'm not complaining, dipshit. You are. What on earth, then, prompted you to post this:Originally posted by Libertarian
No debates in the Pit! :eek:

Except for this one. And the one about the Constitution. But that's it. Except for a few other ones.If you aren't complaining, what are you doing? Babbling? Raving incoherently? Howling at the moon?

[TVAA]

Lib, you just complained about Demo interpreting.

[Liberal]

Originally posted by Desmostylus
What on earth, then, prompted you to post this:If you aren't complaining, what are you doing? Babbling? Raving incoherently? Howling at the moon? It's a joke. (See the smiley?) Don't liberals have a sense of humor? Or do you deny that you're a liberal? And why did you and your left tit, Vorlon, feel compelled to hijack Poly's thread?

[Desmostylus]

Your argument is full of straw, and you are full of shit.

[Liberal]

You must really love shit and straw.

[Desmostylus]

Shit, straw, and raving loonies. Bring 'em on.

[Liberal]

We should get together and masturbate.

[Gary Kumquat]

Originally posted by TVAA
Well, actually, that does invalidate it. Just as it invalidates any other system.
Nah.

By it's very nature, a belief system is usually inextricably linked to a persons moral values.

Moral codes are usually extremely complex, with many factors for consideration - thus the phrase "the moral maze".

Badchad is effectively asking Polycarp to justify what will be a complicated set of factors, all the while phrasing his questions in the most loaded way possible. In short, the old example of "have you stopped beating your wife" isn't a patch on this line of attack.

Or do you really think that you could answer any set of moral scenarios I could set you without ever appearing to contradict yourself?

[Saint Zero]

Not to butt in... aw heck, that's what I'm doing.

NotquitesoBadChad? People don't get "Condemmed" to hell. They earn it by the way they live their lives. God is merely the judge, the one who rules on how you lived your life.

[RedFury]

Originally posted by Libertarian
It's a joke. (See the smiley?) Don't liberals have a sense of humor? Or do you deny that you're a liberal? And why did you and your left tit, Vorlon, feel compelled to hijack Poly's thread?

Actually, it is badchad's thread, addressed at Poly. And it has been nothing but a hijack from the start.

Not sure why either, because, for the most part, I find badchad's arguments quite compelling and direct. Sure, he is not the most agreeable of debaters, but then again, it shouldn't come as news to anyone that religious and/or political debates can, and often do, get quite heated. So, why not respond to the content of his posts as opposed to resuming the pile-on?

Unless of course, you'd rather continue to take the easy way out.

[Munch]

RedFury, they're not direct at all. In fact, they're massively vague. Read his last response, and notice that he offers zero particulars or specifics. Only upon request did he offer his scriptural cites for Christ's mention of hell, and he'll need to be asked for his cites regarding this statement:

Offhand I recall you stating that you thought it ok for people to get divorced for reasons other than infidelity. I also recall you stating that it was okay for a man to marry a divorced woman. I think you also said it was not a sin for people to save for retirement, you know, store up treasures on earth. IIRC you regularly violate the fourth commandment in spite of what Jesus said about “the law” remaining in force until “heaven and earth pass away.” There was more but that should suffice.

"Offhand I recall"? "I think"? "IIRC"? Could he be less specific? And none of his statements on what he claims Jesus to have said are either specific or of substance.

[kung fu lola]

Originally posted by badchad
I think you also said it was not a sin for people to save for retirement, you know, store up treasures on earth.

Were you born this stupid or did your mother drop you on your head? You are so desperate that you are reaching with this one. This passage is commonly interpreted as a prohibiton against storing up treasures exclusively on earth. You know, the things that you "can't take with you". How comforting would the thought of Heaven be if you hadn't stored up any treasures there when you had the chance?


It seems you’re saying now that it is okay for a fundamentalist to try to correct the perceived errors of another person, for example living a homosexual lifestyle, and try to bring them in line with what they believe to be the will of god so as to save their souls from hellfire/extermination. Since that is what just about every fundamentalist says they are doing you now have little room to criticize.

Sure it is okay. As long as they don't violate anyone's basic human rights. Since when was it a sin to state your opinion? As long as you're not a jerk about it, I don't see the problem here.


You do realize that this country is ~90% theist. That heart attacks are a leading cause of death, and that IIRC roughly 50% of people survive their first heart attack, having what I would imagine is a bit more luck than the other 50%. As such it seems that stories like yours are not even remotely miraculous but rather certain and frequent events in the due course of nature.

More evidence of you being hit with the Stupid Stick. Poly was told by medical professionals that he WOULDN'T have survived his first heart attack.

Reported behavior is often at odds with actual behavior.

Well, duh. Now let's just hop in our time machine and see who was right!

You are just silly badchad. And I bet someone smarter than me could do a better ream-job on your strawmen than I did.

[RedFury]

Originally posted by Munch
RedFury, they're not direct at all. In fact, they're massively vague. Read his last response, and notice that he offers zero particulars or specifics. Only upon request did he offer his scriptural cites for Christ's mention of hell, and he'll need to be asked for his cites regarding this statement:



"Offhand I recall"? "I think"? "IIRC"? Could he be less specific? And none of his statements on what he claims Jesus to have said are either specific or of substance.

Fair enough -- I too would like to read the pertinent quotes where Jesus forbids the above actions. And once offered, I'd like to read the rebuttal.

But that's precisely my point, why not let the debate go forth?

[Liberal]

Originally posted by Saint Zero
Not to butt in... aw heck, that's what I'm doing.

NotquitesoBadChad? People don't get "Condemmed" to hell. They earn it by the way they live their lives. God is merely the judge, the one who rules on how you lived your life. Actually, Jesus said that God specifically does NOT judge, and has given all power over judgment to Him:

"Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son" [John 5:22]

And as it happens, Jesus has decided not to exercise His power of judgment:

"As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it." [John 12:47]

So who judges us? We do. We judge ourselves by His word:

"There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day." [John 12:48]

Judgment is nothing more than a decision about whether or not we love His word. And it's a decision we make of our own free will.

[RedFury]

Out of curiosity, did a quick search on the divorce/remarry issue, and this is what I came up with:

Mark 10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Mark+10:2-12)

"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

The above quote, pre-spun, appears to validate what badchad said.

[Genghis Bob]

RedFury, my understanding of that passage is that Jesus was not addressing divorce so much as he was illuminating the hypocrisy of his questioner's legalistic world-view, and indicting humans for thinking they could draw close to God by relying on the letter of the law.

Didn't he also say, in the same exchange, that to hold hatred toward your brother is tantamount to murder (sorry, I don't have a Bible handy right now, so can't cite)? He certainly was not advocating prosecution of the hateful; he was pointing out the impossibility of anyone's satisfying the law.

His point was that reliance on our own ability to follow the "rules" was not only futile, but distracting us from focusing on the meaning behind the law.

[Liberal]

Originally posted by RedFury
Out of curiosity, did a quick search on the divorce/remarry issue, and this is what I came up with:



The above quote, pre-spun, appears to validate what badchad said. In addition to what Rimshot said, what's the big deal? So someone commits adultery. It barely merits scribbles in the dirt, remember. That was a central theme of Jesus' ministry — that the heart of the law is mercy, not judgment.

[Kalhoun]

"He may be a prick but from where I'm sitting he's a prick with a bloody good argument. May I suggest that instead of random ad hom potshots you naysayers actually step up to the plate and justify your attacks with reasoned answers to his points?"

Well fuckin' told. I thought he put a great argument together. He's not really a prick...just sort of a fight-picker. BFD.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Poly was told by medical professionals that he WOULDN'T have survived his first heart attack. "

Yeah, but he DID survive it. You make it sound like no one ever beats the odds, either by chance or with the help of medicine. What was god's reason for picking Poly, out of all the sick and dying people on the planet at that moment, to save? What does he have going on that the rest of the dying don't? Get real. I suppose god picks who will win the Superbowl, too.

[godzillatemple]

Hey -- religion is, when you get right down to it, whatever somebody chooses to believe. Most people try to justify their beliefs by pointing to certain religious texts, but in the end everybody has to decide which parts of those religious texts they feel comfortable with. Some people, like Polycarp, try to justify their decision to choose certain parts as "valid" while rejecting others, but these justifications invariably end up sorely lacking.

Why does Polycarp believe that Jesus really meant it when he gave the "two great commandments" but was either misquoted or misunderstand when he said things about divorce? Well, I'm sure he has some rationale that lets him sleep comfortable at night with the sure knowledge that his faith is true and he's not a hypocrite. In fact, though, it's simply because he feels comfortable with certain parts of the Bible and uncomfortable with others, and therefore chooses to accept as valid only those parts that agree with the idea of "Christianity" he has already decided to accept.

I think the Bible is full of wonderful guidelines to help us live better lives. It is also full of hateful crap that can lead people to all sorts of immorality. I have no problem with somebody who decides only to follow the good stuff and eschew the crap. I do, however, find it disingenuous when somebody does so while claiming to do so based, not on his or her own abilities to determine good from bad, but on some meta-analysis of what parts of the Bible were "really" spoken by Jesus and which ones weren't.

Personally, I think that Polycarp should just admit that he practices a form of Christianity that is comprised of only those parts of the Bible with which he personally feels comfortable. And badchad should acknowledge that Polycarp is a good and moral person and that as long as he has invented a religion that (a) gives him comfort and (b) leads him to treat other people with compassion and respect, it doesn't matter if that religion contradicts traditional Christianity.

But hey, that's just me. YMMV.

Barry

[godzillatemple]

Hey -- religion is, when you get right down to it, whatever somebody chooses to believe. Most people try to justify their beliefs by pointing to certain religious texts, but in the end everybody has to decide which parts of those religious texts they feel comfortable with. Some people, like Polycarp, try to justify their decision to choose certain parts as "valid" while rejecting others, but these justifications invariably end up sorely lacking.

Why does Polycarp believe that Jesus really meant it when he gave the "two great commandments" but was either misquoted or misunderstand when he said things about divorce? Well, I'm sure he has some rationale that lets him sleep comfortable at night with the sure knowledge that his faith is true and he's not a hypocrite. In fact, though, it's simply because he feels comfortable with certain parts of the Bible and uncomfortable with others, and therefore chooses to accept as valid only those parts that agree with the idea of "Christianity" he has already decided to accept.

I think the Bible is full of wonderful guidelines to help us live better lives. It is also full of hateful crap that can lead people to all sorts of immorality. I have no problem with somebody who decides only to follow the good stuff and eschew the crap. I do, however, find it disingenuous when somebody does so while claiming to do so based, not on his or her own abilities to determine good from bad, but on some meta-analysis of what parts of the Bible were "really" spoken by Jesus and which ones weren't.

Personally, I think that Polycarp should just admit that he practices a form of Christianity that is comprised of only those parts of the Bible with which he personally feels comfortable, and drop the charade of somehow knowing what Jesus "really" said as a justification for ignoring those parts of the Bible he doesn't like. And badchad should acknowledge that Polycarp is a good and moral person and that as long as Poly has invented a religion that (a) gives him comfort and (b) leads him to treat other people with compassion and respect, it doesn't matter if that religion contradicts "traditional" Christianity.

But hey, that's just me. YMMV.

Barry

I apologize in advance if this is a double post, but I keep getting an error message when I try to post...

[Liberal]

Why does Polycarp believe that Jesus really meant it when he gave the "two great commandments" but was either misquoted or misunderstand when he said things about divorce? Well, I'm sure he has some rationale that lets him sleep comfortable at night with the sure knowledge that his faith is true and he's not a hypocrite.Well, think about it. If you think judgment is a big deal, then you think that the divorce thing is a big deal. If not, you don't. Sure, Jesus said that divorce and remarriage is adultery, but so what? An adultress was one whom He freed from judgment.


"Trust the CGI." — Gaudere

[Kalhoun]

Again, Godzilla took the words right out of my brain. Well done!

[Gary Kumquat]

Originally posted by godzillatemple
Personally, I think that Polycarp should just admit that he practices a form of Christianity that is comprised of only those parts of the Bible with which he personally feels comfortable, and drop the charade of somehow knowing what Jesus "really" said

I take it you don't see any contradiction in telling him to "drop the charade of somehow knowing what Jesus "really" said", whilst in the same sentence implying you know Poly's beliefs better than he does?

[Esprix]

What do you hope to accomplish here, badchad, other than proving yourself to be a world-class jerk?

Esprix

[Polycarp]

Well, everyone seems to be hung up on the divorce/adultery passages, so let me address that.

The literal text is "anyone who puts away his wife [and remarries] commits adultery/makes her an adulterer." Contextually, we have to examine the situation in the culture of the time. A woman was not a free citizen (wealthy widow being the sole exception) but participated in the social fabric through her role as daughter (if unmarried), wife (if married), or mother of one or more sons (if a widow). The man with potestas (authority or power) was her means of support. A man was able to issue a bill of divorcement against an unsatisfactory wife -- a shrew, barren, etc. Men being men, however, it was easy for some men to put away their aging wives and take a new, prettier and younger wife that had had piqued their desires, by declaring his wife suddenly "unsatisfactory" and divorcing her. This left her resourceless and at a disadvantage in competing for the few single men of her age. It was this practice which Jesus's teaching evidently condemned.

An inactive member here has made it public that she is on her third marriage, and is a committed Christian who believes in God's law. Why do I feel she has not sinned in doing so?

Because her first marriage was engaged in at a very young age, and her husband turned out to be a physical and emotional abuser who teated her hatefully -- to the point that she actually feared for her life and safety. This relationship may have had the legal form of a marriage, but it was not a relationship characterized by the mutual love and support of a healthy marriage. In divorcing him, she acted for her own protection, not out of any desire to commit a sin.

IIRC, she married again quickly "on the rebound," to a man whom she did not love and with whom she was not compatible, and when they recognized this, they quickly dissolved the legal form that was never a healthy marriage.

She is now in a happy and fulfilling marrige to a man who loves her and whom she loved -- and AFAIAC, this constitutes her first "real" marriage -- a mutual relationship of love and support. To consider the other two relationships as anything other than legal technicalities to be resolved, elevates form over substance. And God, who sees our hearts, does not play such games.

To apply the letter but not the substance of Jesus's condemnation of men who put away their wives to her situation is in my opinion very much on a parallel to applying condemnations of idolatrous fertility rites and pederastic boy prostitution to the love between two gay men or women.

But a look at any of the law threads on this board will demonstrate that it is only human nature to elevate form over substance, letter over spirit, rule over circumstance, and judgment over justice.

The non-Christian idea of karma and the very Christian statement that we will be judged as we ourselves judge both make it clear what we can expect if we indulge in this sort of song and dance.

[godzillatemple]

Originally posted by Gary Kumquat
I take it you don't see any contradiction in telling him to "drop the charade of somehow knowing what Jesus "really" said", whilst in the same sentence implying you know Poly's beliefs better than he does?
Not really, no. I can read what Poly actually writes here on this message board (well, unless you want to speculate that somebody else is periodically hijacking his password and posting on his behalf, but I think that he would mention this if it were the case). And then I can use my powers of deduction to determine (a) what he means and (b) whether his words are believable.

When Poly attempts to determine what Jesus "really" said, however, he is not only relying on heavily edited and transcribed manuscripts from 1000 years ago that may, in fact, be complete works of fiction to begin with, he is also attempting to judge which parts of those manuscripts accurately reflect the words of somebody who hw has never actually conversed with.

I'm not trying to determine which of the many posts by Polycarp were actually made by him. I'm saying that, in my opinion, Poly is not being entirely forthright with what he has said. There's a difference.

Barry

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Hey now, nothing wrong with a good idolatrous fertility rite.

Daniel

[godzillatemple]

Originally posted by Polycarp
Well, everyone seems to be hung up on the divorce/adultery passages, so let me address that.
Actually, I'm not hung up on that. I just mentioned it as an example from the post immediately preceding mine. The point remains that you are, in my opinion, selecting those parts of the bible that agree with what you think Christianity should be, and then going to great lengths to justify this by claiming to somehow be able to know which of the many things attributed to Jesus were actually said by him.

As I mentioned above, I don't have any problem with you, or anybody else, discarding the crap and choosing to follow only the good parts of the Bible. I think it's great that you choose to love your neighbor and ignore the parts about stoning homosexuals. But I do think you owe it to your fellow dopers (in the name of truth) to admit that you are doing this based on your own obviously well-developed sense of goodness and morality, and not because some deep analysis of scriptural texts. The analysis, I maintain, validates your beliefs, but does not underpine them.

Regards,

Barry

[godzillatemple]

And if "underpine" wasn't a word before, well, it is one now! ;)

[Kalhoun]

Polycarp said, "Because her first marriage was engaged in at a very young age, and her husband turned out to be a physical and emotional abuser who teated her hatefully -- to the point that she actually feared for her life and safety. This relationship may have had the legal form of a marriage, but it was not a relationship characterized by the mutual love and support of a healthy marriage. In divorcing him, she acted for her own protection, not out of any desire to commit a sin.

IIRC, she married again quickly "on the rebound," to a man whom she did not love and with whom she was not compatible, and when they recognized this, they quickly dissolved the legal form that was never a healthy marriage.

She is now in a happy and fulfilling marrige to a man who loves her and whom she loved -- and AFAIAC, this constitutes her first "real" marriage -- a mutual relationship of love and support. To consider the other two relationships as anything other than legal technicalities to be resolved, elevates form over substance. And God, who sees our hearts, does not play such games.

What makes this woman different from ANYONE who divorces? Obviously, if the first marriage was good, it would still be intact. I guess I just don't understand why you even brought this up. I've heard a lot of stories about priests and other clergy telling women to stay in shitty marriages because there is NO OUT that the church will accept. As far as I'm concerned it's her third marriage. It's just her first "good" marriage.

[kung fu lola]

Originally posted by Kalhoun
"Poly was told by medical professionals that he WOULDN'T have survived his first heart attack. "

Yeah, but he DID survive it. You make it sound like no one ever beats the odds, either by chance or with the help of medicine. What was god's reason for picking Poly, out of all the sick and dying people on the planet at that moment, to save? What does he have going on that the rest of the dying don't? Get real. I suppose god picks who will win the Superbowl, too.

His surviving wasn't dependent on the medical intervention, it was dependent on someone finding him on time. By chance, someone did find him in time. I'm not saying it was a miracle, I'm saying that the statistics badchad spouted didn't apply. He's trying to apply the "license plate miracle" argument, but it doesn't apply to this situation, is all I was saying.

[Siege]

I promised myself I'd stay out of this fight, but I've got to get in one correction. In the four canonical gospels (I haven't read all of the non-canonical ones), Jesus didn't say anything about "stoning homosexuals." In fact, if memory serves, he didn't say anything about homosexuals period. There is an incident which is usually put in the book of John, although its position varies, sometimes so far as to wind up in Luke, in which He comes across a woman who is about to be stoned for committing adultery. He stops people from stoning her.

End of nitpick.

[godzillatemple]

Originally posted by Siege
I promised myself I'd stay out of this fight, but I've got to get in one correction. In the four canonical gospels (I haven't read all of the non-canonical ones), Jesus didn't say anything about "stoning homosexuals." In fact, if memory serves, he didn't say anything about homosexuals period. There is an incident which is usually put in the book of John, although its position varies, sometimes so far as to wind up in Luke, in which He comes across a woman who is about to be stoned for committing adultery. He stops people from stoning her.

End of nitpick.
Perfectly valid nitpick. However, I didn't mean to imply that Jesus ever said that homosexuals should be stoned. I was using that simply as an example of something contained in the Bible (the Old Testament, in this case) that should rightly be discarded as crap.

I apologize for not being clearer.

Barry

[Rysler]

I've read a lot about Polycarp, and seen his name invoked quite a bit, but this is the first thread I've read where he's actually participated.

I can understand chad's drive to bring a saint down to his knees, and the disbelief and jealousy that comes with the idea of a Polycarp existing here on the boards. Any cynic is going to start where chad is starting. I did.

But wow... Just wow. Polycarp's intelligence and compassion is fricking amazing.

[andros]

You ain't seen nothing yet, Rysler.

[Kalhoun]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Kalhoun
"Poly was told by medical professionals that he WOULDN'T have survived his first heart attack. "

Yeah, but he DID survive it. You make it sound like no one ever beats the odds, either by chance or with the help of medicine. What was god's reason for picking Poly, out of all the sick and dying people on the planet at that moment, to save? What does he have going on that the rest of the dying don't? Get real. I suppose god picks who will win the Superbowl, too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then KungFuLola said,

"His surviving wasn't dependent on the medical intervention, it was dependent on someone finding him on time. By chance, someone did find him in time. I'm not saying it was a miracle, I'm saying that the statistics badchad spouted didn't apply. He's trying to apply the "license plate miracle" argument, but it doesn't apply to this situation, is all I was saying."

That was the "chance" part I was talking about. I don't know what you mean by "license plate miracle". Did I miss something? The threads are starting to run together....

[Gary Kumquat]

Originally posted by godzillatemple
When Poly attempts to determine what Jesus "really" said, however, he is not only relying on heavily edited and transcribed manuscripts from 1000 years ago that may, in fact, be complete works of fiction to begin with, he is also attempting to judge which parts of those manuscripts accurately reflect the words of somebody who hw has never actually conversed with. And you somehow think that the above action is not true for any person who claims to be a christian? That they do not study the bible, a book which is famous for its often seemingly contradictory statements, and attempt to derive a truth from these differing passages?

Or you think that other christians have actually conversed with christ?

Or that they do not rely on heavily edited and transcribed manuscripts?

Or in fact that the above (with the obvious substitution of different figures for christ) cannot also be aimed at many other religions?

Because if not, it would appear that your criticism should not be aimed at Polycarp, but at any person who claims to be of a religious faith. And while I'm personally comfortable with my agnostic beliefs, I would feel very arrogant indeed to actually attack all those who do hold to a religion.

No. This thread was clearly started as a thinly veiled attack on an individual, an exercise in semantical games in an attempt to get them to make an apparent contradiction. I find it makes a far stronger statement about the OP than it's intended target.

[godzillatemple]

Gary: Actually, I think that this is, indeed, what many Christians do. As I've discussed in another thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=220290), some people choose what parts of the Bible to accept based solely on what they are taught, some people choose based on personal revelation, and some people choose based on what accords with their own sense of morality.

I agree that it is senseless to attack Polycarp for choosing to only follow those parts of the bible that he feels are good. In fact, I laud him for doing so. I'm merely pointing out that his continued insistence that his decision is based on an analysis of what Jesus "really" said versus what is merely interpretation by other people in the Bible can lead some people, such as badchad to question his motives and integrity.

Barry

[kung fu lola]

Originally posted by Kalhoun
I don't know what you mean by "license plate miracle". Did I miss something? The threads are starting to run together....

The "license plate miracle" concept is a way of debunking miracles as chance by likening them to being on a freeway and seeing a particular license plate. What are the chances that out of all of the license plates and possible combinations, that you would see that one license plate? It must be a miracle!

...And then the Rational Philosopher gets to tear down the "miracle", thereby making someone who believes in miracles look like an idiot. *

I refute this (in Poly's case, anyway) because likening seeing a license plate, to a harmonious convergence of events that profoundly influences the course of life (or death), is fallacious. No one cares what your license plate says, unless you just knocked over a liquor store. Human lives have more meaning than that.

* Taken from the Philosophy Primer There Are Two Errors In The The Title Of This Book (http://www.broadviewpress.com/bvbooks.asp?BookID=31), by Robert M. Martin.

[JRDelirious]

Actually, I think that this is, indeed, what many Christians do.

Seeing as how, throughout history and to this day, the majority of people-referred-to-as-Christian have followed one or anoter doctrine that is NOT absolute-to-the-letter Bible-only literalism but indeed relies on interpretation, extra-biblical scholarship, traditon, etc.(*), all of them under the impression that upon applying that combination of tools they can arrive at "what Jesus really meant", I fail to see what the Big Deal is. "Pick and choose" is a nearly universal practice in Christianity (heck, we can start by how the books that would go into BIBLE it self were picked and chosen!)

So, Polycarp is convinced his interpretation of Jesus, arrived at through a process involving subjective experience of "revelation" as well as cross-checking with his own moral compass and conscious or unconscious filtering through other theological/philosophical/cultural sources, is the right one. Same probably happens to the Pope, to Billy Graham, to Svt4Him (just to pick a name, nothing personal, Svt4). We are never going to be able to categorically call any of them on it unless JC himself actually does show up back on Earth some day.

(*And even the hardest-core fundamentalist-literalist has at the very least heard preaching from someone else learned in theology, that has helped shape his/her worldview.)

[Kalhoun]

Thanks, KungFuLola.

[godzillatemple]

Originally posted by JRDelirious
So, Polycarp is convinced his interpretation of Jesus, arrived at through a process involving subjective experience of "revelation" as well as cross-checking with his own moral compass and conscious or unconscious filtering through other theological/philosophical/cultural sources, is the right one.
My point exactly, and I again emphasize that there is nothing wrong with this at all and it is in fact a laudable way of living one's life.

It's just that when one instead claims to know what parts of the Bible are "really" true based on intensive analysis, and further claims that this is how one decides which parts of the Bible to follow, well, I think that's when people's BS monitor is activated and comments such as those made by badchad spring up.

I dunno, maybe it's the hubris inherent in making such a claim ("I'm able to figure out what parts of the Bible are really true purely by dint of my super-powered brain" -- and yes, that's just an exaggerated paraphrase, not a direct quote) that bugs some people. The implication is that anybody who reaches a different conclusion must not be as smart, when in fact, it's simply Polycarp's own personal moral compass that is likely guiding his choice of how to live his life.

Just a thought. Again, I commend Poly for choosing to follow only those parts of the Bible that he feels are moral and good and ignoring the rest.

Barry

[andros]

It's just that when one instead claims to know what parts of the Bible are "really" true based on intensive analysis, and further claims that this is how one decides which parts of the Bible to follow, well, I think that's when people's BS monitor is activated

I'm confused. When did Poly do this?

[Kalhoun]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's just that when one instead claims to know what parts of the Bible are "really" true based on intensive analysis, and further claims that this is how one decides which parts of the Bible to follow, well, I think that's when people's BS monitor is activated
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and Andros said,

"I'm confused. When did Poly do this?"

He does it all the time. He's always saying which parts of the bible are hyperbole and which are literal. He analyzes it as if he KNOWS it is the word of god rather than he "believes" or "hopes" it is the word of god. I agree with Godzilla that Poly's a good guy and he's chosen some good stuff from the bible to pattern his life after. It's just when he gets analytical and says that he knows what the original writers of the bible were intending that I get torqued.

[andros]

He does it all the time.

Then you won't have any problems providing citations.

He's always saying which parts of the bible are hyperbole and which are literal.

Uh, ok. It is not obvious that it's opinion? Always has been to me.

He analyzes it as if he KNOWS it is the word of god rather than he "believes" or "hopes" it is the word of god.

Cite, please.

[Kalhoun]

I don't have time (it's quitting time here), but I'll pick up on this Monday. A quick search of his posts would turn up numerous examples if you don't want to wait.

I KNOW it's opinion, but he comes across as knowing these things as fact. I'm not the only one who reads him this way. It's his tone. I'm sure he's a great guy...but he takes an authoritative tone and rarely uses the words "opinion" or "I think".

[DrDeth]

Originally posted by Ben Hicks
He may be a prick but from where I'm sitting he's a prick with a bloody good argument. May I suggest that instead of random ad hom potshots you naysayers actually step up to the plate and justify your attacks with reasoned answers to his points?

Because- this IS the place for "random ad hom potshots". Want a Great Debate? Then, oddly, you go to................. Great Debates.

What a dipshit.

[Gary Kumquat]

Originally posted by Kalhoun
I don't have time (it's quitting time here), but I'll pick up on this Monday. A quick search of his posts would turn up numerous examples if you don't want to wait.
Now that's just wrong.

You've made some strong accusations, based on a topic that are obviously a very central topic to this person - and you don't have the time to provice cites?

Would you not expect better treatment yourself?

[Ben Hicks]

Dr Deth


Because- this IS the place for "random ad hom potshots". Want a Great Debate? Then, oddly, you go to................. Great Debates.

What a dipshit.


You grew up around a lot of lead paint, didn't you?

Irrespective of the fact that posts in this forum are mainly ad hom potshots what we have here is definately a debate. Like it or not, that's what it is. Although I disagree with much of what he's posted I do think badchad has made some good points and every time people just call him a prick without addressing what he's saying it inadvertently lends credibility to his words.

There's ignorance to be fought in this thread and it doesn't matter whether it's in the Pit or GD or ATMB or wherever. If you want to fight ignorance it's best not to just randomly insult those you perceive to be ignorant because it just gives the impression that you're not addressing them because you can't.

[Qadgop the Mercotan]

Ben, I frankly agree with a lot of badchad's concrete points. However, I've long thought that Poly has addressed those points as well as (if not better than) any person of faith could be expected to, given the nature of this debate itself . What was once a dialogue of (potential) mutual enlightenment and discovery seems now to me to be merely ill-mannered, mean-spirited, and boorish badgering about semantics.

[Duck Duck Goose]

Quoth the immortal Bad...It seems this realization still eludes both you and your groupies. Okay, all you Polycarp groupies, line up here...Me first.

[badchad]

RedFury:

Fair enough -- I too would like to read the pertinent quotes where Jesus forbids the above actions. And once offered, I'd like to read the rebuttal.
Here goes:

It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery. -- Matthew 5:31-32

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery. -- Matthew 19:9

When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." -- Mark 10:10-12

Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. -- Luke 16:18

[badchad]

Godzillatemple:

Personally, I think that Polycarp should just admit that he practices a form of Christianity that is comprised of only those parts of the Bible with which he personally feels comfortable.
So do I.;)

And badchad should acknowledge that Polycarp is a good and moral person and that as long as he has invented a religion that (a) gives him comfort and (b) leads him to treat other people with compassion and respect, it doesn't matter if that religion contradicts traditional Christianity.
To a degree I agree with the above and if you search back my earliest responses with Polycarp you will probably find where I commend his moral system saying it was pretty much the same as secular humanism, which I think is pretty good. However, I see some decent sized holes in his moral system. First being that truth does matter. It is one thing to develop a fairy tail belief system to make you feel better but it is another to actively recruit others into believing in your fairy tale, especially one which cheapens life by putting an emphasis on an afterlife, which in all probability will never come. Also Poly worships a god who is unfair at best, when it comes to doling out his grace. Worshiping such an unfair god just because you think that you are one of the chosen is nothing more than pure selfishness if you ask me. IMO there is more but I think you get the idea.

[badchad]

Polycarp:

Well, everyone seems to be hung up on the divorce/adultery passages, so let me address that.
What and ignore all that stuff about:


Jesus burning people in a lake of fire.

People being damned for unbelief.

Saving for retirement.

Following the law.

How you determine which parts of Jesus’ speech is hyperbole.

What you think hell is like.

Why you criticize fundamentalists for judging people with the exact same motives you do.

How you define “predominantly” as in; scripture predominantly describes god as loving and forgiving.

The probability of your personal miracle.

How reliable the gospel writers were.

Christian’s problem with evil.

How we can grow in heaven without pain yet why pain is necessary on earth for growth.

Why you let Paul who you described as an idjit trump the teachings of Jesus while previously stating that you think Jesus should trump the rest of the bible…


The literal text is "anyone who puts away his wife [and remarries] commits adultery/makes her an adulterer." Contextually, we have to examine the situation in the culture of the time. A woman was not a free citizen (wealthy widow being the sole exception) but participated in the social fabric through her role as daughter (if unmarried), wife (if married), or mother of one or more sons (if a widow). The man with potestas (authority or power) was her means of support. A man was able to issue a bill of divorcement against an unsatisfactory wife -- a shrew, barren, etc. Men being men, however, it was easy for some men to put away their aging wives and take a new, prettier and younger wife that had had piqued their desires, by declaring his wife suddenly "unsatisfactory" and divorcing her. This left her resourceless and at a disadvantage in competing for the few single men of her age. It was this practice which Jesus's teaching evidently condemned.
So did I call it or what:

“I think this is the part where you explain that while Jesus did command against the above things he really didn’t mean it.”

Anyway I’ll play along. First if the above is what Jesus’ teaching really meant he should have and probably would have said so, omnisciently knowing it would save future people a lot of guilt, grief and suffering. Otherwise unless you have something *from Jesus* backing up that what he said regarding divorce is not what he meant please cite it, otherwise I think it would be slightly more honest to admit a lot less certainty in your ability to read between the lines of the gospel writers, considerably more honest if you just admit you made the whole thing up or copied someone who did.

The above should stand on it’s own but doesn’t need to. See you forgot (or on purposely neglected) to mention the part where Jesus talks about marrying a divorced woman being adultery also.


Luke 16:18
Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.


Now if Jesus’ sole concern was with the welfare of the “put away” woman he would have encouraged other men to marry her after she was dumped, would he not?

Yes he would.

If his concern was for her to be supported he would not have admonished the act of marrying her by calling it adultery right?

No he wouldn’t.

I trust your responses to my other points will be stronger. You do have responses to them right?

[Shodan]

Originally posted by badchad
RedFury:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough -- I too would like to read the pertinent quotes where Jesus forbids the above actions. And once offered, I'd like to read the rebuttal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here goes:

It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery. -- Matthew 5:31-32

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery. -- Matthew 19:9

When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." -- Mark 10:10-12

Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman
commits adultery. -- Luke 16:18

The rebuttal (OK, one rebuttal) is to finish the quote from the passage in Matthew. The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
(http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+19&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on) Apparently the teaching on divorce does not apply to everyone, and the ability to form and maintain a stable marriage is not universal.

Thus the teaching is not universally applicable.

Regards,
Shodan

[Duck Duck Goose]

You do have responses to them right?Um, is it pertinent to ask how come you got such a bug up your butt about Polycarp? He come over to your house and kick your dog, or what?

:confused:

[Saint Zero]

Originally posted by badchad
What and ignore all that stuff about:

Jesus burning people in a lake of fire.

I haven't seen where he does this. Example?

[Baker]

Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose
Um, is it pertinent to ask how come you got such a bug up your butt about Polycarp? He come over to your house and kick your dog, or what?

:confused:


DDG, after lurking through this thread for some time, it is my supposition thatbadchad is jealous of Polycarp's reputation. Some people can feel bigger only by tearing other people down. I don't like the hateful and confrontational attitude that badchad has adopted against Polycarp, and it's kind of sad. badchad seems to have the energy, general coherence, and intelligence that could make him an asset on these forums. But those qualities are being foolishly squandered in an argument in which neither "side" could "win". He is alienating himself in general, and that's too bad.

Me? Although I try to be a good Christian, if I had been attacked the way Poly has, I would probably be trying to rip badchad a new one by now. But Poly's responses, whether one agrees with him or not, have been calm and polite, and that appears to be driving badchad nuts. I would advise him to step back, take a while to cool off, and then simply agree to disagree.

[Polycarp]

Thanks, Baker. To paraphrase a comment made by, IIRC, either Coldie or Lynn B. some months ago, just because it's the Pit doesn't mean that you have to let loose with a stream of language that would make Chief Scottgo :o. I do have answers to badchad, most recent series of allegations; that doesn't mean I'm obliged to answer every one of them. I seem to be getting no cooperation from him in terms of attempting to understand how I can reasonably hold my position. If someone else sees any of them as grievously inconsistent, I'll attempt to clarify.

As for Kalhoun's comment, I can forestall him a bunch of research. I have no doubt that I have said any number of opinions in language that sounds authoritative. Contextually, however, they were religious assertions, said in direct or indirect response to an OP seeking views on issues of faith. (Similarly, I know I've asserted my POV on questions of constitutional law in opposition to Dewey, probably regularly without an IMO or similar term inserted.)

What such discussions have in common is that they are on issues of interest on which no consensus exists; a statement is thus by implication normally one of opinion, hopefully grounded in facts and logic but nonetheless opinion. Only a very limited selection of facts exists; generally in such debates it is customary to set them apart as such, and to express one's firmly held views and beliefs without an "I think that..." or "Good Catholics believe that..." which is in fact understood. I doubt strongly that Messrs. Justices Kennedy, Douglas, and Brennan have [ever used the phrase "substantive due process" in the course of a formal opinion; that does not mean that Dewey is wrong in ascribing that POV to them, withut being required to insert an appropriate collection of weasel-words to make clear that it is his (or his authorities') perception of their methodology. Likewise, I feel comfortable, in the context of a discussion on religion, in stating my firmly held beliefs in the expectation that they will not be seen as my claiming factuality for them -- to the contrary, if I should find it necessary to discuss Biblical inerrancy, I will make factual statements regarding the creedal positions of others and assert them distinctly as such. (E.g., Shodan or I can state "The Catholic Church obliges acceptance of the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception on its faithful" as accurately as can tomndebb -- it's a statement of fact on the dogmatic pronouncement of a church we do not belong to of a doctrine we do not hold.)

[Shodan]

Poly, you rock.

Regards,
Shodan

[badchad]

Shodan:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apparently the teaching on divorce does not apply to everyone, and the ability to form and maintain a stable marriage is not universal.

Thus the teaching is not universally applicable.
Sorry Shodan. Your verse in no way allows for divorce unless you close your eyes and use a lot of imagination. His disciples were asking him if “it is better not to marry” they did not ask him “is it ok to divorce.” You should know this since you quoted it.



Saint Zero:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by badchad
What and ignore all that stuff about :

Jesus burning people in a lake of fire.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I haven't seen where he does this. Example?
Matthew 13:41-42
The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

I hope furnace of fire is close enough to you. The lake of fire descriptions come from Revelation.

Revelation 20:12, 15
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life...And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.


Baker:

Me? Although I try to be a good Christian, if I had been attacked the way Poly has, I would probably be trying to rip badchad a new one by now. But Poly's responses, whether one agrees with him or not, have been calm and polite, and that appears to be driving badchad nuts.
Don’t give Polycarp props for which he falls short. He has displayed anger with me several times and I think the words “fuck you asshole" (IIRC) came from Poly’s keyboard. Of course when he gets angry I remind him that it is a sin, which I think drives him nuts. This negative feedback seems to have helped him keep his profanity off line.

I would advise him to step back, take a while to cool off, and then simply agree to disagree.
I’m sure you would, considering my taking apart his belief system is also taking apart yours, you being a good Christian and all.



Polycarp:

I do have answers to badchad, most recent series of allegations; that doesn't mean I'm obliged to answer every one of them.

I’d encourage you to answer only what you think you can and to be honest about those which you can’t.

I seem to be getting no cooperation from him in terms of attempting to understand how I can reasonably hold my position.
Look you numbskull, my entire argument with you is that you can’t reasonably hold your position. To be kind I have been calling your position “contradictory” and “inconsistent”, however those words are euphemisms for a system which is just plain childish.


If someone else sees any of them as grievously inconsistent, I'll attempt to clarify.
Godzillatemple already said he did. However I see you had no problem ignoring his questions, many of which are identical to mine. He even asked politely which further demonstrates that it is the content of the questions that have you shaken, not the tone.

[g8rguy]

Look you numbskull, my entire argument with you is that you can’t reasonably hold your position Indeed. And when you then refuse to admit the possibility that you are incorrect, you prove that you're not debating in good faith. Which is hardly a surprise. Numbskull indeed.

[badchad]

g8rguy

Indeed. And when you then refuse to admit the possibility that you are incorrect, you prove that you're not debating in good faith.
There is always the possibility that I am incorrect about the reasonableness of Polycarp’s inconsistent belief system, much like there is the possibility that the sun won’t rise tomorrow. However your talking about that with a gross statement rather than specifically showing that Polycarp’s beliefs aren’t self contradictory is only further evidence that I am correct.

[andros]

Is it just me, or is anyone else getting some mondo Phaedrus vibes?

[GIGObuster]

badchad:

You butterfly ballot glitter refuse!

Get this into your skull:

As a long-winded discussion showed to me a long time ago, I found that being a hard agnostic is the same as a soft atheist, therefore remember this:

It took 8000 years for men to forget about the Egyptian gods, it will take just as much for current faiths to fade away, our purpose in life is therefore to make sure religions remain or become benevolent, not to stamp them out, In all my years of reading Polycarp’s posts he has proven to be, what a Christian is supposed to be. One of the big criticism infidels have of believers is to see many people of faith actually forcing their views on us, or behaving in a non Christian manner, Poly is not one of them.

And even tough I agree with many of your points, that last exchange with Baker shows to me it is you who is failing to make a point, that “fuck you asshole” was never said in this tread, if you have a beef for a an insult he launched at you, (frankly I doubt he said that even in the pit) you should have pitted him, seeing the context of you clearly calling Polycarp a numbscull, I think I will go with g8rguy conclusion about you, even if I am a non believer.

--

On preview: of course you are correct, you are also a correct jerk.

Choose your fights wisely, when even those who agree with you are apalled of your methods, you should take notice.

[Baker]

badchad wrote "I think the words “fuck you asshole" (IIRC) came from Poly’s keyboard. "

Do you have a hard cite for that? Or are you trying to smear Polycarp , and weasel out with that weak IIRC? Put up or shut up. Don't put words in his mouth or keyboard.

badchad, another thing. You are demanding Poly explain his beliefs. Do you have any religious beliefs that you can explain with the same "consistency" you are demanding of Poly?
Or are you afraid to state your beliefs, if any? Or do the rest of us Dopers not have the right to question you?

[g8rguy]

Originally posted by badchad
There is always the possibility that I am incorrect about the reasonableness of Polycarp’s inconsistent belief system, much like there is the possibility that the sun won’t rise tomorrow. However your talking about that with a gross statement rather than specifically showing that Polycarp’s beliefs aren’t self contradictory is only further evidence that I am correct. When you obviously already have your mind made up and refuse to accept that a reasonable explanation is, in fact, a reasonable explanation, a charge of debating in bad faith is dead accurate. A brief lessen on this complicated concept known as "burden of proof" is evidently in order. In a nutshell: if you think he is self-contradictory, it is your job to prove it. It is not my job to prove you wrong.

Which is good, since because I am not a sock for Poly, I can't claim to know what the man believes, and I can hence not prove much anything about his beliefs. That you think me suggesting that you are debating in bad faith somehow supports your contentions about Polycarp just goes to show that a second charge, that you are an utter moron, is equally accurate.

[badchad]

GIGObuster:

It took 8000 years for men to forget about the Egyptian gods, it will take just as much for current faiths to fade away, our purpose in life is therefore to make sure religions remain or become benevolent, not to stamp them out
As a fellow infidel I think our purpose in life is what we make of it rather than what is dictated to us. From my reading of the straight dope, the written purpose of this website is to fight ignorance, not mold believers into being more benevolent. While I agree the latter may be good for society, it is not the same as fighting ignorance. And it seems that you and I agree that Polycarp’s views as stated are ignorant.

In all my years of reading Polycarp’s posts he has proven to be, what a Christian is supposed to be. One of the big criticism infidels have of believers is to see many people of faith actually forcing their views on us, or behaving in a non Christian manner, Poly is not one of them.
That has never been one of my primary criticisms, rather that their views are dumb. From what I read of the bible, it is behaving in the Christian manner to force your views on others, else said others suffer eternal punishment. It’s also Christian (according to the Christ) to think they deserve to be punished eternally.

And even tough I agree with many of your points, that last exchange with Baker shows to me it is you who is failing to make a point, that “fuck you asshole” was never said in this tread, if you have a beef for a an insult he launched at you, (frankly I doubt he said that even in the pit
Will it make a difference if I provide a link?

On preview: of course you are correct, you are also a correct jerk.
I’m comfortable with that.

Choose your fights wisely, when even those who agree with you are apalled of your methods, you should take notice.
Well that’s just it. I have a style of argument if it were, which coincidentally differs very little from how the liberal Christians on this board lovingly post disparaging remarks to their fundamentalist brothers. Unfortunately I seem to be one of the few who is willing to take the liberal version of Christianity to task for its unreasonableness and hypocrisy in this regard. If you and the other brights on this board want to take over my argument, and can do so with better methods, I will consider my comments unnecessary much as I don’t think it necessary for me to get involved in the evolution vs. creationism debates.

If however you think it best to replace one stupid belief system for another then I will likely continue to post in the manner in which I am most accustomed. Let me know if you still think this is unreasonable and why.

[badchad]

g8rguy

A brief lessen on this complicated concept known as "burden of proof" is evidently in order. In a nutshell: if you think he is self-contradictory, it is your job to prove it.

Been there done that. That's what this thread is about. I cited many examples of his contradictions, it is not a matter of opinion and it takes willful ignorance not to see this. Start at the OP, you'll see.

[Baker]

badchad said "will it make a difference if I provide a link?" when responding to [B]GIGObuster's expressed doubt that [B]Polycarp uttered the words "fuck you asshole".

Then, of course, he failed to provide the alleged link. Again, all I can say is "Do you have a cite for that false quote you attributed to Polycarp?"

[badchad]

Baker:

badchad wrote "I think the words “fuck you asshole" (IIRC) came from Poly’s keyboard. "

Do you have a hard cite for that? Or are you trying to smear Polycarp , and weasel out with that weak IIRC? Put up or shut up. Don't put words in his mouth or keyboard.
I’m pretty sure I can dig up a cite that’s pretty close to my recollection for you. But first I want you to state that if I do so you will either apologize to me for your disparaging comments, or take back what you said about Polycarp being so calm and polite. Is it a deal?

badchad, another thing. You are demanding Poly explain his beliefs. Do you have any religious beliefs that you can explain with the same "consistency" you are demanding of Poly?
I’m an atheist.

Or are you afraid to state your beliefs, if any? Or do the rest of us Dopers not have the right to question you?
I have stated before that I am an atheist, and I have been answering relevant questions to the OP throughout this thread. If you have a problem with atheism and my version of it (not that there are many versions) then start your own thread, don’t hijack mine, which I will remind you all again, Polycarp told me to start.

[GIGObuster]

Originally posted by badchad
Well that’s just it. I have a style of argument if it were, which coincidentally differs very little from how the liberal Christians on this board lovingly post disparaging remarks to their fundamentalist brothers. Unfortunately I seem to be one of the few who is willing to take the liberal version of Christianity to task for its unreasonableness and hypocrisy in this regard. If you and the other brights on this board want to take over my argument, and can do so with better methods, I will consider my comments unnecessary much as I don’t think it necessary for me to get involved in the evolution vs. creationism debates.
You are dense; I do take them to task, but with kinder words, not with the bazooka to kill the fly attitude.

If however you think it best to replace one stupid belief system for another then I will likely continue to post in the manner in which I am most accustomed. Let me know if you still think this is unreasonable and why.
Right here is why it is unreasonable:

I said you were also a correct jerk and you said:
I’m comfortable with that.
Not in this board, you just admitted to a bannable offence.

Oh, and calling Polycarp a numbscull too is also unreasonable, when he did nothing here to deserve that.

[Desmostylus]

You Know What I Think Better Than I Do?!?! (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=162117)Originally posted by Polycarp
Fuck you. And the high horse you rode in on.Can't say I disagree with Polycarp's statement. Sometimes harshness is called for, and badchad deserves whatever he gets.

[Baker]

Baker:



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
badchad wrote "I think the words “fuck you asshole" (IIRC) came from Poly’s keyboard. "

Do you have a hard cite for that? Or are you trying to smear Polycarp , and weasel out with that weak IIRC? Put up or shut up. Don't put words in his mouth or keyboard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I’m pretty sure I can dig up a cite that’s pretty close to my recollection for you. But first I want you to state that if I do so you will either apologize to me for your disparaging comments, or take back what you said about Polycarp being so calm and polite. Is it a deal?

No, badchad, it's not a deal. Because you can't provide a cite anywhere near to what you said you could. And because I made no "disparaging comments".

[badchad]

GIGObuster

You are dense; I do take them to task, but with kinder words, not with the bazooka to kill the fly attitude.
Apparently I didn’t notice. You must be doing it with a flyswatter kill a grizzly attitude.

Not in this board, you just admitted to a bannable offence.
Hehe, I admitted to being right but impolite. Yeah, I’m way off base, hey wait a minute aren’t we in the pit?

Oh, and calling Polycarp a numbscull too is also unreasonable, when he did nothing here to deserve that
Except promote what I call unreasonable beliefs (in which you said I was correct). Would you call that brainy? Also by grand benevolent grounds do you deem to call me names?

[TVeblen]

Originally posted by badchad
g8rguy
However your talking about that with a gross statement rather than specifically showing that Polycarp’s beliefs aren’t self contradictory is only further evidence that I am correct.

You want specifics about the ineffable? Get in line, chump. Who wouldn't?
Other people aren't whetstones for your soul, convenient grist to prove you "correct."

[GIGObuster]

Ahh, I see he was pitting badchad and the quote came from the OP, sorry badchad, with the context of were it came from, I see that Poly had the right to use the F bomb, no wonder you were not “willing” to link to it.

It is worse than you said: you are in reality a Jerkus Maximuss, a very special kind of jerk; and Yes, even in the pit, admmiting to, and being one, is not kosher. ;j

[badchad]

Baker:

No, badchad, it's not a deal. Because you can't provide a cite anywhere near to what you said you could.
Desmo already stole my thunder and provided the cite. Look it up. Not only does Poly say “fuck you” to me he also calls me an “asshole”.

Seems you owe me an apology for questioning my integrity. I wager your not man enough to do so.

[GIGObuster]

Context is everything, and maybe you have integrity but it seems that you never bothered to read the rules, Policarp was justified to pit you that way, and even tough I an a non-believer I am here to say that I would have done the same.

On second thought, here is why now you have no integrity: you were excluding the context where that phrase came from, your effort clearly was to mislead readers into assuming he said that in a different setting.

[badchad]

GIGObuster:

Ahh, I see he was pitting badchad and the quote came from the OP, sorry badchad, with the context of were it came from, I see that Poly had the right to use the F bomb, no wonder you were not “willing” to link to it.

I was plenty willing to link it, I remembered it clearly, I just wanted to build up effect. However it demonstrates factually that your doubts…

frankly I doubt he said that even in the pit
were incorrect.

It is worse than you said: you are in reality a Jerkus Maximuss, a very special kind of jerk; and Yes, even in the pit, admmiting to, and being one, is not kosher.
Whatever.

BTW, my thread is really getting side tracked. Do you have anything more to say regarding my OP other than that you think I am correct (and I bet you just hate that)?

[El Cid Viscoso]

Other people aren't whetstones for your soul, convenient grist to prove you "correct."TVeblen: So which are they? Whetstones or grist? :confused:

I do agree with you, though. When I saw this thread enter the Pit, I knew badchad was in for a stiff ride. In fact, I said in one fell swoop, chad went from pregnant to hanging. Ineffable opponent, indeed.


That "fuck you, badchad" cite is an interesting development, I might add. Look at them all scramble to cover Polycarp's outburst. :rolleyes:

[Baker]

Originally posted by badchad
Baker:


Desmo already stole my thunder and provided the cite. Look it up. Not only does Poly say “fuck you” to me he also calls me an “asshole”.

Seems you owe me an apology for questioning my integrity. I wager your not man enough to do so.

Try again sweetcheeks. I said YOU couldn't provide such a cite. Seems you can't understand English either. And since I never agreed to your so-called deal, I owe you nothing. And I am not "man" enough to do so, even if I could, since I'm not a man. Snort, giggle.

[badchad]

GIGObuster

On second thought, here is why now you have no integrity: you were excluding the context where that phrase came from, your effort clearly was to mislead readers into assuming he said that in a different setting.
BULLSHIT GIGO. I said he said those words to me, implying only that they were done in anger. And he did say those words to me. Now I am doubting your integrity for being unable to admit when you were wrong, even when given factual evidence.

And again I ask do you have anything more to say regarding my OP other than you think my of Poly are correct.

[El Cid Viscoso]

Originally posted by Baker

Try again sweetcheeks. I said YOU couldn't provide such a cite. Seems you can't understand English either. And since I never agreed to your so-called deal, I owe you nothing. And I am not "man" enough to do so, even if I could, since I'm not a man. Snort, giggle. Wow. That's actually pretty weak. I'm surprised.

Cite's good, no matter how you slice it.

[GIGObuster]

I have only to admit that Poly was correct in pitting you, now you are just pittiful.

I will say it again: you were excluding the context where that phrase came from, your effort clearly was to mislead readers into assuming he said that in a different setting.

[badchad]

Baker:

Try again sweetcheeks. I said YOU couldn't provide such a cite. Seems you can't understand English either. And since I never agreed to your so-called deal, I owe you nothing. And I am not "man" enough to do so, even if I could, since I'm not a man. Snort, giggle.

Ok, but you are woman enough to admit you are wrong arn't you? Or do you prefer to display the behavior I have come to expect from liberal Christianity.

[badchad]

GIGObuster:

I will say it again: you were excluding the context where that phrase came from, your effort clearly was to mislead readers into assuming he said that in a different setting.
Well now you have been wrong twice, though the latter is more difficult to prove than the earlier part where you were factually shown to be wrong yet are too obsinate to admit it.

I think I'll go to bed now, but before I do I'll ask one more time if you have anything more to say regarding my OP other than you think my criticisms of Poly are correct.

[Baker]

Nope, not woman enough either, as I have done or said nothing wrong here. And who said I was liberal? Tee-hee, chuckle, you are so funny!

[GIGObuster]

And badchad: Regarding your OP: even the moderators saw it as a personal attack, not a Great Debate; so, if not dense, you are now being obtuse.

[El Cid Viscoso]

Originally posted by GIGObuster

And badchad: Regarding your OP: even the moderators saw it as a personal attack, not a Great Debate... I call bullshit. What's that got to do with anything?

Also, please note his post count -- it's 244 now -- 220 when he started the thread, IIRC. Not exactly an offense to stumble around a bit at this point.

Since there's no real problem, perhaps it's the subject matter that's got you so upset? Maybe I should start looking from badchad's perspective?

[GIGObuster]

And you are really dumb into thinking now that I am denying that Polycarp said that, I said before that I doubt it, no need to reply when evidence is presented to the contrary, I was way past that, you Florida punched anachronism, Your behavior shows me that you are noticing now that you can not answer the fact that you were trying to mislead readers with implying that Poly said that to you unprovoked, and/or with no context.

Mr B: :rolleyes:

I said that because badchad said this:
BTW, my thread is really getting side tracked. Do you have anything more to say regarding my OP other than that you think I am correct (and I bet you just hate that)?

No need to deal with the OP, I am just dealing with a horrid debater.

[El Cid Viscoso]

Originally posted by GIGObuster [likely posting to badchad, due to the anthropomorphic ballot quip]

And you are really dumb into thinking now that I am denying that Polycarp said that, I said before that I doubt it, no need to reply when evidence is presented to the contrary, I was way past that, you Florida punched anachronism, Your behavior shows me that you are noticing now that you can not answer the fact that you were trying to mislead readers with implying that Poly said that to you unprovoked, and/or with no context.Judges? Can I get a ruling on the word count here?No need to deal with the OP, I am just dealing with a horrid debater. What is going on here? First you're upset his thread's moved out of Debates to the Pit, then you won't engage because he's a bad debater? Very, very odd. You know, you're actually throwing mud onto Polycarp now.

[Baker]

Shhh, GIGO, he's out there, listening, lurking, staying up way past his bedtime, hiding under the covers(figureatively speaking) with the flashlight on so his parents don't know he's up so late.

[GIGObuster]

Originally posted by Mr. B
First you're upset his thread's moved out of Debates to the Pit, then you won't engage because he's a bad debater? Very, very odd. You know, you're actually throwing mud onto Polycarp now.

When did I say that I was upset for the move? :confused:

And I am being consistent: I still think it was a personal attack to Polycarp.

[El Cid Viscoso]

Originally posted by GIGObuster

When did I say that I was upset for the move? :confused: Colloquy. Why did you mention it, then? What did your "revelation" of the thread's move add to the debate?

by Baker

Shhh, GIGO, he's out there, listening, lurking, staying up way past his bedtime, hiding under the covers(figureatively speaking) with the flashlight on so his parents don't know he's up so late.Baker: that's a pretty rotten attack. The "kid" is making you folks look like total fools; if I were Polycarp, I'd most ricky-tick jump in here to clear up this mess. You're making him look bad.

[GIGObuster]

After further review, Mr B you are right: the word count, it was an abomination.

After reviewing more, what is going on here Mr. B, is that nowhere in the thread Polycarp said anything bad to badchad, and then he just called Poly a numbskull; so, out the window it went any debating consideration for the hostile OP. and I got back in.

Trying to mislead readers, by implying that Poly said the F thing to him unprovoked, and/or with no context, does not help also. Care to defend badchad for that, Mr B? Or was the word count off again?

[Baker]

Mr. B, why do you think I was talking about badchad?
Narf!

[GIGObuster]

Originally posted by Mr. B
Colloquy. Why did you mention it, then? What did your "revelation" of the thread's move add to the debate?

It only added to my consistent point that this is no longer a debate; especially after he presented his "F" and "N" exhibits.

And I already pointed at the words that he wrote, that made me mention that, are you now missing items on purpose?

[El Cid Viscoso]

Originally posted by Baker

Narf! An Animaniacs reference in a personal assault! Scintillating. Why, I submit!

Still, you are acting unfairly.

What next: schlepping over into Cafe Society and stomping on Ilsa_Lund for his latest Casablanca thread?


GIGObuster: the nuts have come off the buggy. I've got a pretty good grip on your opinion -- I know where you're coming from. In fact, now that I possess a few more facts, and considering what you add to the debate, please, do continue. Opine away.

[Fenris]

Originally posted by badchad
But first I want you to state that if I do so you will either apologize to me for your disparaging comments, or take back what you said about Polycarp being so calm and polite. Is it a deal?

She shouldn't, 'cause your bet is bullshit.

I'm pretty certain that Poly did say something like that once or twice. Out of how many posts? Once can still be "so calm and polite" after uttering one or two foul words out of millions.

Your bet is a false dilemma ("heads I win, tails you lose")

As for your ongoing hardon for Poly, my only assumption is that you're emotionally damaged by the fact that peope like him and...well...no-one* likes you.

Fenris

*This being the SDMB, there's no opinion/action/statement that someone won't debate or defend, one or more of the following statements are sure to follow. Let's save time and I'll pre-respond:


Who the hell are you to say that no-one likes him?

I am the Lorax, I speak for the trees. :rolleyes: That, and I've interviewed every Doper except you (including the lurkers) and it's true: no-one likes him. Happy now?


Well, I like him!

You don't count. Anyway, go here (http://www.psychology.com/). They may be able to help.


Why are you being so mean to him? He's only asking questions.

Because he's doing it in the Pit. If he cared about reasoned discussion, he'd have discussed it nicely in GD or IMHO. By putting it in the Pit, he's "calling Poly out"


If he were a tree, what kind of tree would badchad be?

Probably a Blackwood tree. There's none denser.


Mr Fenris, you and Renée Zellweger were seen checking into a swank hotel with 34 boxes of lime Jell-o. What can you tell us about that?

Renée and I are just good friends. And everyone enjoys a bowl of Jell-o now and again! All perfectly innocent.


What about the $734.32 in damages from trying to get jello-stains out of the bathtub?

This interview is OVER!

:: leaves post, slamming the "submit reply" button behind him. ::

[Siege]

Fenris, if I may nitpick your rant, technically this thread did not start in the Pit; it was, actually started in GD. It may have been destined to wind up here, but it didn't start here.

As for me, if I can be judged by the content of my enemies, then once again, I'd say the judgement is favorable.

CJ

[Fenris]

Huh. Thanks, CJ!

Everyone else? Cut and past the following response over the original response in bullet point #3:

Because he's being needlessly hostile. If he'd really wanted a discussion, he should have chosen a tone that was not destined to end in the Pit.

:D

[Baker]

Thanks for the boost Fenris!:D

[vanilla]

Ms. Zellweger's representative denies this ever happened.

[Shodan]

Originally posted by badchad
Shodan:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry Shodan. Your verse in no way allows for divorce unless you close your eyes and use a lot of imagination. His disciples were asking him if “it is better not to marry” they did not ask him “is it ok to divorce.” You should know this since you quoted it. No, his disciples were not asking Him anything, least of all "if it is better not to marry".

Jesus just got done teaching on divorce, and they were drawing inferences. If it is true that there is no escape clause from a marriage, then it would be best not to marry at all, rather than run the risk of divorce and grave sin.

Jesus says No, that His teachings on divorce ("this word) do not apply to everyone. Some people are born unable to form the kind of committed love that is the ideal for Christian marriage. Others have their chances at it ruined by other people - thru things like abuse, or lack of good role models, or whatever. And others give up the idea of marriage in order to devote themselves to service for the Kingdom of God.

In short, Jesus is teaching [list=a]
This is the ideal - lifelong, mutually faithful marriage.
Not everybody can do this.
Not everybody can, or should, refrain from marriage.
But if you are capable of reaching the ideal, this is what God has in mind for marriage.
[/list=a]

Perhaps you could explain the logic by which you reached your conclusions a little more clearly.

Regards,
Shodan

[El Cid Viscoso]

I'm pretty certain that Poly did say something like that once or twice. Out of how many posts? Once can still be "so calm and polite" after uttering one or two foul words out of millions.Fenris: now that's what we needed.

Baker and GIGObuster, please take this at face value: just because you're the street scooper for the circus parade, you needn't necessarily step in shit. ;)

Polycarp has been restored; the guff is again filled.

[GIGObuster]

Originally posted by Mr. B
Baker and GIGObuster, please take this at face value: just because you're the street scooper for the circus parade, you needn't necessarily step in shit. ;)

Well, I don't know if you noticed, but you were rolling (;)) in the assumption that I was dealing with the OP; in any case you coming trough in the end: understanding were I was coming from, was cool.

OTOH, I just noticed that badchad actually misquoted me, another board no-no; yet another reason why I don't consider him worthy of debating.

He does not deserve long worded replies from now on. ;)

[Polycarp]

Look, badchad is somebody with both the ability and the inclination to get under my skin. He and Uncle Toby are I believe the only two Dopers I've ever Pitted -- what they have in common is that they seem to have no respect for me as a person with any degree of integrity.

However, he is by no means the worst of annoyances this board has ever seen. I can see where his perspective -- that any degree of faith in an unknown and unknowable deity is supersittious folly, and that my personal style of applying anthropology and critical exegesis to the Bible does not in his view even have the internal consistency of Fundamentalism -- can be a valid worldview.

What I'd ask of him is that he hold off on the nitpickery, and analyze my stance for its internal consistency, or lack thereof, accepting that it can be a reasonable viewpoint for someone to hold, given certain presuppositions that hold true for me.

In very quick summary, probably requiring a great deal of amplification and clarification, my view is this:

1. There is a God who does take an interest in His creation, and in particular with the human beings with which He has seen fit to populate this plane. I hold this view because I have myself had experiences which I understand as theophanies, though I fully admit that that is a subjective interpretation, and that there are grounds, which I do not consider reasonble, for rejecting my testimony as a superstitious interpretation of a psychological event internal to myself; and because my experiences are commensurate with those recorded by others in Scripture and throughout history.

2. That creation was most likely done through the means described by modern cosmology and evolutionary biology, not by some phenomenon of the sort posited by a given group of conservative evangelical Christians. I posit this because of the evidence of science and because the alternate view demands a literal reading of passages of Scripture that strike me as myth in the anthropological sense (which is not the common-parlance dismissive sense of "false.")

3. Said God is someone of whom many people of many faith traditions have attempted to speak, but what works best for me and seems to me to be the most complete revelation is that understood by the Doctors of the Church of traditional Christianity (as opposed to specifics evolved by varius denominations over the last century or two). I offer no justification for this -- it's personal preference and my own sense of what works best for me -- I had as soon engage in a Great Debate about why spaghetti with garlic-meat sauce is "better" than Tex-Mex caliente sauce over tacos.

4. In reading Scripture, one must bring cultural context and a reasoned judgment about the origins of the various texts that comprise the Bible into play. In particular, one must see the personal prejudices and presuppositions of the writers, not take the product as "the word of God" uncritically.

5. Given #4, though, one can be spiritually nourished and educated by Scripture; it merely requires that you see it as "the word of God filtered through human psyches" rather than "the word of God dictated verbatim." And in particular, the teachings recorded in four books (by human authors) as the words of Jesus of Nazareth have a particular importance, because He had a "hotline to the divine" unequalled in human experience. (This of course is IMO.)

6. This means that anyone claiming to follow Him, including msyelf and others who claim the title Christian, is obliged to espouse an ethics founded on what He taught. I summarize this as:
The Two Great Commandments
The Golden Rule
The Great Commission
Aspiration to a high standard of personal ethics
[*Non-judgmentalism and acceptance of others as one's equals, entitled to one's love and respect
Repentance and trust in God, accepting one's inability to live up to the ideals above outlined
A quest for decent treatment for all and social justice, particularly for those oppressed by society historically

7. It is appropriate to give advice and counsel where it is welcomed, and to question and challenge others' misunderstandings and misinterpretations. In particular, it is not only one's right but one's Christian duty to challenge attitudes held by other Christians that define "standing by the Bible" to conflict with the behavior outlined in #6.

I am by no means perfect, a plaster saint. I have a temper, a tendency to hyperbole on things important to me, loads of other faults. But I have striven to live up to the system of belief outlined above.

[badchad]

Giggo:

Not in this board, you just admitted to a bannable offence.

It is worse than you said: you are in reality a Jerkus Maximuss, a very special kind of jerk; and Yes, even in the pit, admmiting to, and being one, is not kosher.
Giggo, were you lying about the pit rules or just mistaken:

Pit rules:

1. I don't want anyone posting that they're simply in the thread to watch the fireworks. This means no posts like "pulls up a lawn chair"

2. No post parodies without links in the original post. Otherwise, I'm likely to close and/or delete the thread, and get royally pissed off at the thread starter.

3. Don't say or imply that someone is on your ignore list.

4. Absolutely no hate speech.

More rules to come as I find that they're needed.


I fail to see my saying that I am comfortable being labeled a correct jerk on this list, nor anything that resembles it.

OTOH, I just noticed that badchad actually misquoted me, another board no-no; yet another reason why I don't consider him worthy of debating.
How so?

Now I will quote you:

On preview: of course you are correct, you are also a correct jerk.

Choose your fights wisely, when even those who agree with you are apalled of your methods, you should take notice.
Seems you disagree with me so little that you have to make stuff up to argue about.

He does not deserve long worded replies from now on.
Of course not, apparently you think my content is strong and as such all you can do is make ad homs, like most everyone else on this thread.

[badchad]

Shodan

No, his disciples were not asking Him anything, least of all "if it is better not to marry".

Mind if I expand the passages in question? I’ll use the KJV if it is all the same to you and bold the parts I think are important.

Matthew 19
3: The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4: And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5: And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6: Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7: They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8: He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9: And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.10: His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. 11: But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 12: For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. 13: Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. 14: But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. 15: And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence. 16: And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17: And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18: He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19: Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Jesus just got done teaching on divorce, and they were drawing inferences. If it is true that there is no escape clause from a marriage, then it would be best not to marry at all, rather than run the risk of divorce and grave sin.

Above Jesus was just finished saying this:

“Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?”

Implying that man should get married as it is what god intends (sure this contradicts Paul but who cares).

Jesus says No, that His teachings on divorce ("this word) do not apply to everyone.

How do you know that “this word” means divorce. It seems ambiguous at best and the way I read the passage he is saying that, marrage can be a lot of trouble and is not for everyone, namely castrated males. So I’ll grant you the outside chance that perhaps if you castrate yourself Jesus will allow for divorce, but I think that is reaching, anything more than that and your putting your wants ahead of Jesus’ commands. Aside from Jesus being was quite clear when he said:

“Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”

Some people are born unable to form the kind of committed love that is the ideal for Christian marriage. Others have their chances at it ruined by other people - thru things like abuse, or lack of good role models, or whatever. And others give up the idea of marriage in order to devote themselves to service for the Kingdom of God.

And these eunuchs should not get married he says. It does not say for them to divorce.

This is the ideal - lifelong, mutually faithful marriage.
Yes.

Not everybody can do this.
True, because they don’t have testicles.

Not everybody can, or should, refrain from marriage.
Sounds fair enough.

But if you are capable of reaching the ideal, this is what God has in mind for marriage.
A little vague but I don’t have a problem with it.

What you left out, is that he also taught that getting a divorce for any other reason than fornicating is adultery, and marrying a divorced person is adultery, and “THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY.”

I do give you props Shodan for being one of the few with the courage to argue an on topic and specific point.

[GIGObuster]

badchad: So, how it is that you misquoted me? Suffice to say is I reported that, and it had to do with the creative elimination of some parenthesis. You avoided dealing with the real quote, showing once again a total lack of integrity.

Now, excuse me, I have to go back to debate with more serious posters.

[Lobsang]

I may be too tired to know or car what's going on, but isn't this badchad dude obviously a troll?

The (admittedly tiny percentage) of threads belonging to him/her that I have seem look very trollish. Why therefore are so many people responding?

[badchad]

GIGObuster:

badchad: So, how it is that you misquoted me? Suffice to say is I reported that, and it had to do with the creative elimination of some parenthesis.
HA! Mr. Integrity, please be more specific.

[Triskadecamus]

Why therefore are so many people responding?Because he attacks Polycarp's integrity.

Now this is a very subtle, and nasty attack. It would not work on me, or a number of other vociferous Christians on this board. But it works on Poly, because of two very obvious facts. Poly is a very faithful servant of Christ. He also happens to be a scholarly and educated man, specifically well read on all manner of history and literature of the period and place of the birth of Christ. That makes him one of a very few people who always try to be both honest, and reasonable in discussions on matters of faith. And then there is the additional fact that he tries very hard to be tolerant of the differences in human interpretation of divine nature.

Badchad on the other hand is a nit picker. He doesn't really care at all about the subject matter; he just enjoys finding "errors" in other people's writing. He offers nothing of his own actual philosophy of life, or ethics. He has no standards of conduct to which he publicly subscribes. And he finds it unreasonable that we, who have listened to hundreds of thousands of words of quiet wisdom, and compassion from Poly disagree with the importance of his discovered nits.

Sadly, Polycarp feels the weight these feather light counter arguments because he places great importance on his theology, and his faith, especially when they are different. Badchad doesn't care, as long as he gets to point out the "inconsistency." Poly has spent years studying, and thinking about his own deepest held beliefs, and tries to report them openly and honestly. And, by the way, he does it with a noteworthy facility in terms of language, and communication skill. Against this, Badchad need spend only hours or at most a day searching a concordance and throw the tired old anti faith logical darts at him, and then imply that this is a personal character flaw in Polycarp.

Of course it's all drivel of a particularly odious flavor.

I was right, this thread was beneath reply.

It still is.

But almost nothing is beneath me.

Poly, please ignore this flea. This tiny sin of pride is not worth agonizing over. Give it to the Lord, and go on. We too will forgive you for occasionally making a logical error or two. We know you by your fruits. Tasty little suckers, too!

Tris

[badchad]

Polycarp

What I'd ask of him is that he hold off on the nitpickery, and analyze my stance for its internal consistency, or lack thereof, accepting that it can be a reasonable viewpoint for someone to hold, given certain presuppositions that hold true for me.
That’s a bit of a dodge. If I make a general statement regarding your view, you will ask me for specifics. Now that I have cited specifics o’plenty, rather than addressing them you ask that I hold off on the nitpickery. Also I cannot accept your claim to consistency “given your presuppositions” as it is to a large degree how you accept those presuppositions in which you are inconsistent.

1. There is a God who does take an interest in His creation, and in particular with the human beings with which He has seen fit to populate this plane. I hold this view because I have myself had experiences which I understand as theophanies, though I fully admit that that is a subjective interpretation, and that there are grounds, which I do not consider reasonble, for rejecting my testimony as a superstitious interpretation of a psychological event internal to myself…
I went into detail a couple of months back regarding your subjective interpretation of your theophanies, and at the time while you did not change your mind, I thought you were in agreement that my criticisms were reasonable. If you disagree please explain, but please do so after addressing my earlier questions in this thread.

2. That creation was most likely done through the means described by modern cosmology and evolutionary biology, not by some phenomenon of the sort posited by a given group of conservative evangelical Christians. I posit this because of the evidence of science and because the alternate view demands a literal reading of passages of Scripture that strike me as myth in the anthropological sense (which is not the common-parlance dismissive sense of "false.")
I don’t think using your anthropological type of myth is really any different than the dismissive false type. As I have stated before, the Iliad is full of the same kind of myth as you describe here and yet if I asked you true of false, does Zeus rule the world from Mt. Olympus, in a literal sense, I think you would say false.

3. Said God is someone of whom many people of many faith traditions have attempted to speak, but what works best for me and seems to me to be the most complete revelation is that understood by the Doctors of the Church of traditional Christianity (as opposed to specifics evolved by varius denominations over the last century or two). I offer no justification for this -- it's personal preference and my own sense of what works best for me -- I had as soon engage in a Great Debate about why spaghetti with garlic-meat sauce is "better" than Tex-Mex caliente sauce over tacos.
Which translates into, your not having any good reason to accept the god that you do, and what works for you is to accept the nearest god handy, and modify his instructions to match your personal morality.

4. In reading Scripture, one must bring cultural context and a reasoned judgment about the origins of the various texts that comprise the Bible into play. In particular, one must see the personal prejudices and presuppositions of the writers, not take the product as "the word of God" uncritically.
This again is another way of saying you accept the parts of the bible that you already think is right and reject that which you don’t, thus making the bible no more a guide to your morality than a coin toss.

5. Given #4, though, one can be spiritually nourished and educated by Scripture; it merely requires that you see it as "the word of God filtered through human psyches" rather than "the word of God dictated verbatim." And in particular, the teachings recorded in four books (by human authors) as the words of Jesus of Nazareth have a particular importance, because He had a "hotline to the divine" unequalled in human experience. (This of course is IMO.)
And in these gospels of which you hold special importance Jesus identifies very strongly with the god of the old testament, and Christains claim that they are the same guy, meaning that all the bad stuff god did in the old testament, was really done by Jesus too. And the eternal punishment that most of us will receive (according to those gospels) was definitely endorsed by Jesus, at least according to the books you describe as having particular importance. This is not my opinion this is fact.

6. This means that anyone claiming to follow Him, including msyelf and others who claim the title Christian, is obliged to espouse an ethics founded on what He taught. I summarize this as…
Your summary is cherry picked and not a complete list of what Jesus asked.

7. It is appropriate to give advice and counsel where it is welcomed, and to question and challenge others' misunderstandings and misinterpretations. In particular, it is not only one's right but one's Christian duty to challenge attitudes held by other Christians that define "standing by the Bible" to conflict with the behavior outlined in #6.
Others teach to a different cherry picked group of moral teachings of the bible. Yours may be superior in practice from a secular humanist perspective but they are not more reasonable from a Christian perspective, IMO.

Will you now provide answers/comments to the specific questions/comments I gave in my 2 previous replies to you on this thread, or admit to where you don’t think your answers are adequate? It would go along way towards establishing credibility with me, assuming you care.

[Duck Duck Goose]

assuming you careSomehow I wouldn't blame Polycarp for--by this point--not caring any more.

[badchad]

Triskadecamus:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why therefore are so many people responding?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because he attacks Polycarp's integrity.
Wrong Tris, it's because I'm cool.:cool:

[Monty]

badchad: What you seem to be failing to grasp is that Faith is not and cannot be Science.

Polycarps is one of the most sincere people on this planet & he credits his faith with driving that sincerity. Too bad you're so hung up on casting aspersions on him you've missed the sincerity & decency of Polycarp.

[badchad]

Monty

badchad: What you seem to be failing to grasp is that Faith is not and cannot be Science.
No no, I agree with you. Faith will will never be as great as science.

[badchad]

Monty:

badchad: What you seem to be failing to grasp is that Faith is not and cannot be Science.
No no, I agree with you. Faith will will never be as great as science.

[Desmostylus]

Originally posted by badchad
Wrong Tris, it's because I'm cool.:cool: Yep, coolest wanker the board has seen since, um, well since at least a coupla hours ago.

[El Cid Viscoso]

Originally posted by badchad

Monty:

No no, I agree with you. Faith will will never be as great as science. Chicken and the egg. Without Faith, there is no science. Without Science, there is no faith.

[badchad]

Mr. B

Chicken and the egg. Without Faith, there is no science. Without Science, there is no faith.
How do you define faith?

[El Cid Viscoso]

by badchad

How do you define faith?Indeed.

[Monty]

badchad: Cease and desist with saying I said that which I did not say.

[Gary Kumquat]

The wisdom of badchad
Faith will will never be as great as science.

As compared to Albert Einstein
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

"Scientists were rated as great heretics by the church, but they were truly religious men because of their faith in the orderliness of the universe."
For some reason I find myself more influenced by the opinions of Einstein on faith and religion, than yours.

[Typo Negative]

Originally posted by badchad
Faith will will never be as great as science. Obviously, you have faith in science.

[godzillatemple]

Originally posted by Polycarp
3. Said God is someone of whom many people of many faith traditions have attempted to speak, but what works best for me and seems to me to be the most complete revelation is that understood by the Doctors of the Church of traditional Christianity (as opposed to specifics evolved by varius denominations over the last century or two). I offer no justification for this -- it's personal preference and my own sense of what works best for me -- I had as soon engage in a Great Debate about why spaghetti with garlic-meat sauce is "better" than Tex-Mex caliente sauce over tacos.
With respect, I think this is a false (or at least incomplete analogy). A closer analogy would be to say that you prefer garlic-meat sauce on your tacos because your interpretation of original texts and analysis of archeological evidence lead you to firmly believe that the ancient Olmecs (who, as everybody knows, invented the precurser of the taco), used a form of garlic in their meat-based toppings, and the fact that garlic-meat sauce simply tastes better to you is beside the point.

The point I believe that badchad is making is that your claim that you follow only certain parts of the Bible based on a detailed analysis of the text and a knowlege of what things were really said by Jesus is, in the end, mere sophistry meant to provide a rational justification for an emotional choice. Nobody questions your choice to pick and choose from the Bible those parts that accord with your own inner sense of morality; in fact, many people (including myself) laud you for this. But when you refuse to acknowledge that you are disregarding any part of the Bible that you don't feel comfortable with and claim instead that your beliefs are based on some sort of scientific analysis of the text, well, that's when some people's BS-meter is activated.

You are free to believe whatever you want to believe, and if it makes you a better person, I say go for it. But analyzing the text in order to justify your beliefs is not the same as analyzing the text to form your beliefs.

Regards,

Barry

[hawthorne]

Is the bottom line badchad that you're accusing Polycarp of being a good man masquerading as a Christian? That's how it looks to me.

Haven't you got something better to do?

[Homebrew]

Originally posted by badchad
Others teach to a different cherry picked group of moral teachings of the bible. Yours may be superior in practice from a secular humanist perspective but they are not more reasonable from a Christian perspective, IMO. As I stated in the Pit thread I started in your honor, you are once again insisting that your interpretation is correct. You entire premise in harassing Polycarp is to show that his interpretation differs from what you consider the correct one. He and everyone else has already acknowledged that. But your interpretation, like that of the Fundies, is not even the traditional and historical interpretation so it's rather irrelevant that Polycarp doesn't subscribe to it.

Further your parsing of Poly's latest post demonstrates you to be incabable of or unwilling to honestly read what he posts.

Point 1 Theophanies: He acknowledges in that very post that his subjective interpretation of his theophanies are valid for him only. Yet you harp on those and dishonestly imply that he's inconsistent on that point.

Point 2 Mythology: From your latest imbecilic ramblings you show yourself to be woefully uneducated. Hell, just reading a freakin' dictionary tells you more accurately what a myth is than your facile understanding. Perhaps you should check out a book on the topic, like The Power of Myth by Joseph Campbell.

Points 3-5: Your replies continue to show that you're not paying attention or you are simply obtuse. Polycarp and other liberal Christians have repeated acknowledged that they don't believe the Bible is a transcription of God's actual words. They've acknowledge apparent inconsistencies. And Poly in particular has given you his reasoning for accepting which parts he does. The fact that you reject his reasoning does not equate with it being unreasonable nor inconsistent.

Point 6 Summary: Of course it's not a complete list of what Jesus said, you freakin' moron. It wouldn't be a SUMMARY if it were complete, shit for brains. If you had an attention span or memory greater than that of a goldfish you'd understand why Polycarp lists the summary in the order he does.

[Kalhoun]

Polycarp, thanks for saving me the research hassle. As I said earlier, I know it's your opinion (after all, no one has any way of KNOWING these things). I'm just saying some people may not read it as such.

GodzillaTemple said, "You are free to believe whatever you want to believe, and if it makes you a better person, I say go for it. But analyzing the text in order to justify your beliefs is not the same as analyzing the text to form your beliefs."

Right frickin' on. I'm sure people don't want to admit that this is the case, but I think all but the staunchest fundies do this.

[vanilla]

Originally posted by badchad



Wrong Tris, it's because I'm cool.:cool:

Apparently, you are the only one who thinks so.

[Shodan]

Originally posted by badchad
How do you know that “this word” means divorce.
Because that is what the disciples and Jesus are talking about. What did you think it referred to?

Jesus is teaching, and his disciples follow up to see what He really means. And He then makes it clear that His teaching on divorce and marriage do not apply to everyone. He says so very explicitly:
But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. Originally posted by badchad
It seems ambiguous at best... No, it's quite clear.
Originally posted by badchad
Aside from Jesus being was quite clear when he said:

“Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”
Yes. He was being equally clear when He explained that this teaching did not apply to everyone. See above.

Originally posted by badchad
What you left out, is that he also taught that getting a divorce for any other reason than fornicating is adultery, and marrying a divorced person is adultery, and “THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY.”
I did not leave it out. Jesus is expanding on exactly that teaching ("this word"), and making it clear that the teaching does not apply to all people, but "only to those to whom it is given" to be able to do so.

There are certainly obscure passages in Scripture, but this is not one of them. The plain sense of the passage is quite clear.

Jesus teaches the ideal - no divorce except in cases of adultery. The disciples then say, "If that the way things are, nobody should get married." Jesus responds, "No, this does not apply to everyone. Some people can't get married, others shouldn't, but for most, strive for the ideal."

Regards,
Shodan

[Polycarp]

But when you refuse to acknowledge that you are disregarding any part of the Bible that you don't feel comfortable with and claim instead that your beliefs are based on some sort of scientific analysis of the text, well, that's when some people's BS-meter is activated.

I actually see your point. I'm certain that I, and other liberal Christians including theologians), rationalize to a far greater extent than we're prepared to admit to anyone, including ourselves. The homosex passages are a good example in point -- nobody with the capacity to parse a simple English sentence, including the gay men themselves, can read them as they've been translated without forming the opinion that YHWH, or at least Moses, Paul, et al., have a bug up his/their ass about people who are interested in having other things there. The fact that each text is capable of an interpretation that condemns something quite different than consensual gay sex can lead one to believe that the commands are being misused to unjustly demonize a minority -- and as someone whose experiences have brought him to a place where he can readily identify with the people in that minority, that pushes my trigger.

Any rational observer will admit that gay people exist, that their desires and aspirations differ only in the identity of the beloved from those of the rest of us, and that, on their unanimous witness, they are incapable of changing that orientation under their own steam. A God who self-characterizes as just and merciful is not going to condemn them for that which they are incapable of changing, nor will He require of them a gift (celibacy) that He has not seen fit to endow them with. This is not to suggest that they are excused from resisting temptation, same as the rest of us; it's saying that only those endowed with a particular charism are capable of accepting with equanimity the idea that they can never morally engage in sex, and it's pretty clear to me that most gay men have not been so endowed.

My conclusions are twofold: first, that it's incumbent on the rest of us, loving them as ourselves, to treat them with respect and affection, not judgment; and two, that the interpretations of the Bible passages are to be read in a fashion that does not condemn consensual romantic gay relationships, and they are obliged to follow the same general policy as the rest of us -- to use one's sexuality in search of a life-mate and then live in monogamous fidelity with said lifemate when he/she is found.

I do fully see that I am making a judgment that makes my idea of God match up with a moral standard that I believe to be valid.

The point underlying this is that that moral standard was, we are told by the very Bible at question, taught by the Man Who is supposed to have the supreme authority to teach and command, a much better understanding of God's Will (being Himself God the Son) than Paul, Moses, and the rest of the supporting cast, and whom we Christians have taken as Savior and Lord.

What it comes down to, when the neoprene hits the asphalt, is this: one can choose to interpret the teachings of Jesus by a standard that (extraBiblically) presumes the Bible to be the unalloyed Word of God, to be accepted and followed unquestioningly; or one can choose to interpret the rest of the Bible on the basis of the teachings of Jesus. IMHO, for a committed Christian there is only one proper choice.

I am, I suppose, reading the text to justify my beliefs, rather than to shape them -- but I'm doing it on the basis of a commitment to follow the source of those beliefs. At least as I see it.

[godzillatemple]

Originally posted by Polycarp
or one can choose to interpret the rest of the Bible on the basis of the teachings of Jesus. IMHO, for a committed Christian there is only one proper choice.
Or one can admit to choosing to intepret the rest of the Bible on the basis of those parts one ascribes to Jesus, based primarily on the fact that those parts agree with what one already believes:

Jesus is reported to have said A, B, C and D. D makes me feel really uncomfortable and seems to contradict with the rest of what he said. Therefore, I will choose to disregard it, while maintaining the pretense of interpreting the entire Bible on the basis of the teachings of Jesus.

Just a thought. Sorry to flog an apparently non-animate equine... ;)

Barry

[hawthorne]

I think you should read those last four paras again godzillatemple.

[Kalhoun]

Poly said, 'I do fully see that I am making a judgment that makes my idea of God match up with a moral standard that I believe to be valid.'

Then why belong to a particular church? Why can't you just believe in "a" god and bypass the seemingly endless cherry-picking one would have to do if one wants to be both a Christian and a good person? I realize there are social aspects to church, but social activities can be fulfilled through other outlets. Do you see what I'm getting at? You can't meet every standard the bible sets forth, so why the charade?

Also, if you eliminate the "magic" from the bible, then there's no way god is actually talking to Jesus anyway, right? So why not just worship Jesus, the man, and leave the god part out of it? This is a sincere question, not meant to ruffle anyone's feathers.

[Captain Carrot]

Kalhoun:Also, if you eliminate the "magic" from the bible, then there's no way god is actually talking to Jesus anyway, right? So why not just worship Jesus, the man, and leave the god part out of it?"

"Magic"? That's an interesting name for what God does in relation to Jesus in the Bible.

Also, how could anyone worship Jesus the man? It seems foolish and contradictory to worship a human being instead of the Almighty Being.

[godzillatemple]

Originally posted by hawthorne
I think you should read those last four paras again godzillatemple.
OK, I'll just go and do that. Hold on a sec, will ya?






And I'm back. I see Poly demonstrating once again that he is a deeply moral and "good" (by my definition at least) person. I also see him seemingly acknowledge that his choice of which parts of the Bible to follow is, in fact, guided primarily by his own moral sense. All well and good so far.

Sadly, he then has to ruin it by setting up a false dichotomy between those who believe the entire Bible is inerrant and those who, (as "committed Christians" like him), "choose to interpret the rest of the Bible on the basis of the teachings of Jesus."

Aside from the fact that this basically insults anybody who believes the entire Bible to be the divinely inspired word of God, it once again calls into question the very point that badchad raised in the first place. To wit, how does Poly justify which teachings of Jesus to follow? A devout Catholic, for example, might say that Jesus taught that divorce is a major no-no and that anybody who says otherwise is not following the teachings of Jesus. Now, Poly could just say what Jesus said about divorce doesn't match with his own sense of "right" and "wrong" and therefore he chooses to ignore that bit. Instead, though, we get a deep structural analysis of what the word "divorce" really meant, the context in which it was said, the prevailing culture at the time it was said, and why Jesus therefore didn't really say what the Bible clearly states he said.

The same could be said about any of the other apparent contradictions that badchad has mentioned between Poly's depiction of Christ's teachings and what the Bible actually records him as saying. If Poly really is just "making a judgment that makes my idea of God match up with a moral standard that I believe to be valid" as he states in one paragraph, why does he have then state that he is really just "choosing to interpret the rest of the Bible on the basis of the teachings of Jesus." The two statements are, on their face, inconsistent, and it is this inconsistency that, I believe, badchad has called him on.

Barry

[Kalhoun]

Dwalin said, "Also, how could anyone worship Jesus the man? It seems foolish and contradictory to worship a human being instead of the Almighty Being."

But that's all you have to go on, really. Just Jesus. Poly and the rest live by Jesus's teachings (as told to him by god, but you don't really know if that's accurate, now...)

Dwalin also said, ""Magic"? That's an interesting name for what God does in relation to Jesus in the Bible."

For a non-thiest, it's the only accurate term for it.

[xenophon41]

godzillatemple sez:

Now, Poly could just say what Jesus said about divorce doesn't match with his own sense of "right" and "wrong" and therefore he chooses to ignore that bit. Instead, though, we get a deep structural analysis of what the word "divorce" really meant, the context in which it was said, the prevailing culture at the time it was said, and why Jesus therefore didn't really say what the Bible clearly states he said.
So what you (and presumably badchad) are saying is, your interpretation of what "the Bible clearly states" based on a nonbeliever's semantic interest is different than Polycarp's interpretation based on a passionate commitment to the word of his Lord and intensive research into the original context in which it was uttered.

Brilliant critique.

By the way, please research "false dichotomy". It's a term usually used to denote a fallacy invoking only two possible conditions when in fact other possibilities exist. Poly's application of [his studied interpretation of] New Testament doctrine to Old Testament wisdom sets up no such false dilemma. (But it sure looked groovy and intelligent when you threw that charge at him. Go you.)

[Kalhoun]

Xenophon said, "So what you (and presumably badchad) are saying is, your interpretation of what "the Bible clearly states" based on a nonbeliever's semantic interest is different than Polycarp's interpretation based on a passionate commitment to the word of his Lord and intensive research into the original context in which it was uttered."

How else would you state it?

[Kalhoun]

Oops. Transmitted too soon.

Poly has admitted that he does this: "I do fully see that I am making a judgment that makes my idea of God match up with a moral standard that I believe to be valid."

Where's the argument?

[xenophon41]

That's sorta my point, Kalhoun. Instead of demonstrating any internal inconsistency in Polycarp's beliefs, badchad and godzillatemple, after five pages, have instead demonstrated only that those beliefs are based on interpretations of scripture which are inconsistent with others' interpretations.

I will say, though, that godzillatemple at least has maintained admirable civility while proving the readily apparent.

[godzillatemple]

Hmmmm.... I suppose, this being the BBQ Pit and all, I should expect a little asshattery now and then. So be it. You'll excuse me if I don't sink to that level in response, I hope.
Originally posted by xenophon41
So what you (and presumably badchad) are saying is, your interpretation of what "the Bible clearly states" based on a nonbeliever's semantic interest is different than Polycarp's interpretation based on a passionate commitment to the word of his Lord and intensive research into the original context in which it was uttered.
No, that's not what I'm saying. And, although I don't presume to speak for badchad, I don't think that is what he is saying, either. What I am saying is that Polycarp's "passionate commitment to the word of his Lord and intensive research into the original context in which it was uttered" is nothing more than an attempt to provide a rational basis for his decision to pick and choose which of Jesus' teachings to accept as valid, as opposed to the actual reason for picking and choosing.
Brilliant critique.
Why, thank you. Thank you very much. No, really, stop it -- I'm blushing :o
By the way, please research "false dichotomy". It's a term usually used to denote a fallacy invoking only two possible conditions when in fact other possibilities exist. Poly's application of [his studied interpretation of] New Testament doctrine to Old Testament wisdom sets up no such false dilemma. (But it sure looked groovy and intelligent when you threw that charge at him. Go you.)
No, I used the phrase exactly as I intended. Poly set out an either/or proposition for determining which parts of the Bible should be followed. Either one "interprets the teachings of Jesus by a standard that (extraBiblically) presumes the Bible to be the unalloyed Word of God, to be accepted and followed unquestioningly" or else one can be a "committed Christian" and "interpret the rest of the Bible on the basis of the teachings of Jesus." This is clearly a dichotomy, which Websters defines as "a division or the process of dividing into two esp. mutually exclusive or contradictory groups or entities." Morover, it is a false dichotomy since, as you point out in your critique of my comment, other possibilities, in fact, exist. To wit, the possibility that one can interpret the Bible on the basis of one's own sense of morality, choosing only those parts that accord with your sense of morality and disgarding anything that doesn't.

Thank you for your time.

Barry

[Esprix]

Originally posted by badchad

... I see some decent sized holes in his moral system. First being that truth does matter. It is one thing to develop a fairy tail belief system to make you feel better but it is another to actively recruit others into believing in your fairy tale, especially one which cheapens life by putting an emphasis on an afterlife, which in all probability will never come. Also Poly worships a god who is unfair at best, when it comes to doling out his grace. Worshiping such an unfair god just because you think that you are one of the chosen is nothing more than pure selfishness if you ask me.

And all this matters to you... why, exactly? Why the fuck do you care what Polycarp believes, especially considering that the overwhelming response in this thread has been that you are being a jerk and people like Polycarp? Why do you have such a hard-on for him?

If you were a chihuahua I'd kick you across the room, you goat fuck. Get over yourself.

Esprix

[Kalhoun]

xenophon41 said, "That's sorta my point, Kalhoun. Instead of demonstrating any internal inconsistency in Polycarp's beliefs, badchad and godzillatemple, after five pages, have instead demonstrated only that those beliefs are based on interpretations of scripture which are inconsistent with others' interpretations."

Well, that IS the point. If everyone can interpret scripture in a different way, it makes it a little difficult to argue WHAT Jesus meant in the first place. If this was supposed to be a cut-and-dried blueprint for life, how come there are so many interpretations. It just makes it less believable. I think they demonstrated quite well that if you pick and choose and interpret what THE Christian said, you're pretty much creating your own religion. Granted, they've each done it with their own distinctive style, but I think they're basically on the same page. And so am I. I'm just not as articulate (but then, you knew that ;)).

[Esprix]

Originally posted by Mr. B

That "fuck you, badchad" cite is an interesting development, I might add. Look at them all scramble to cover Polycarp's outburst. :rolleyes:

What, Poly posts here for years and years, showing his earnest dedication, love and patience, and has less flashes of anger than you can count on one hand, and you'd allow it to be used to drag his outstanding and well-deserved positive reputation through the muck?

Fuck you.

Esprix

[El Cid Viscoso]

Hold on, Esprix. I humbly submit that you would be well-served to read my "intercession posts" in context. Also note the rolled eyes.

[xenophon41]

claimed by godzillatemple:

[Polycarp's contextual understanding of gospel] is nothing more than an attempt to provide a rational basis for his decision to pick and choose which of Jesus' teachings to accept as valid, as opposed to the actual reason for picking and choosing.
An assertion which not only cannot be proved but for which you have yet provided no support. In fact, Poly just asserted the opposite:

(from Polycarp)

I do fully see that I am making a judgment that makes my idea of God match up with a moral standard that I believe to be valid.

The point underlying this is that that moral standard was, we are told by the very Bible at question, taught by the Man Who is supposed to have the supreme authority to teach and command, a much better understanding of God's Will (being Himself God the Son) than Paul, Moses, and the rest of the supporting cast, and whom we Christians have taken as Savior and Lord.
You've provided no reason for me to doubt Poly's word that his understanding of Christ is the prism through which he interprets the bible; you've merely given superfluous support to the truism that any such understanding is problematic. Poly sees through a glass, darkly, but I'll take his prism over most.

[Kalhoun]

So then are you saying that Poly only takes the Jesus parts of the bible to heart? That the other guys may or may not be interpreting things correctly?

[xenophon41]

Originally posted by Kalhoun:

Well, that IS the point. If everyone can interpret scripture in a different way, it makes it a little difficult to argue WHAT Jesus meant in the first place. If this was supposed to be a cut-and-dried blueprint for life, how come there are so many interpretations. It just makes it less believable. I think they demonstrated quite well that if you pick and choose and interpret what THE Christian said, you're pretty much creating your own religion. Granted, they've each done it with their own distinctive style, but I think they're basically on the same page. And so am I. I'm just not as articulate (but then, you knew that ;)).
Excellent post. But it doesn't address the OP's thesis. Poly might, as you say, have created his own version of Christianity, but if so (and I really don't dispute the point), bad' et al have yet to show any undeclared inconsistencies in that version of Christianity.

However, you've asked a wonderful question, which others can probably deal with more competently than I, but I'd like to give an opinion, however ill informed, regardless.

First, Jesus wasn't "THE Christian"; he was THE Christ, upon who's existence the modern religion is based.

IMO, THE Christ didn't create Christianity. Christ only reached out his hands. In grasping those hands, various followers created a religion and started a book about it which all subsequent followers have understood in their own ways, and sometimes gotten together and translated, edited and altered according to prevailing invented dogma, none of which has affected the availability or steadiness of those offered hands.

The book Christians have written, and the books preceding it, from which Christ quoted and taught, are subordinate to Christ's invitation. I believe Poly seeks in all ways to illuminate that invitation, and that, where he applies interpretation to scripture, it's in an honest (and logically consistent) effort to prevent imperfect words from obscuring the offer.

[begbert2]

Pardon my humble intrusion, but I believe that the pundamental flaw in the ointment, which has been previously stated, is this:

1) Polycarp claims to be interpreting the bible through a knowledge of the intent of Christ.[i]Polycarp[/b]
The point underlying this is that that moral standard was, we are told by the very Bible at question, taught by the Man Who is supposed to have the supreme authority to teach and command, a much better understanding of God's Will (being Himself God the Son) than Paul, Moses, and the rest of the supporting cast, and whom we Christians have taken as Savior and Lord.
2) A knowledge of the intent of Christ is only available via the reading of (and, presumably, interpretation of) the bible. Note: secondary sources of Christ's intent may be subject ot the same analysis, and confusion, as the bible.

3) Ergo, Polycarp seems to be using an admittedly flawed source as the key to screen out the flaws in the very same source. This seems roughly like coming upon a vault with its combination locked inside. The key that Polycarp (and every other interpreting Christian) claim to be using is, in fact, unavailable to them.

A person could, and has in the past, decided that Christ was a domineering tyrant, and be able to 'prove' this via the bible using the methods ascribed here: interpret the bible through the lens of the perspective dicovered in the bible itself. This has been perjuratively described as 'cherry-picking', and personally, I don't see this as an unfair description. The problem, as I see it, is that a person (in this case, Polycarp has been selected as the example) personally decides on the combination to use to unlock the bible, and then pretends that they have in fact derived this information from the bible itself. Logically, I do not see how this can be true; and regardless of how moral a code the person had decided to adopt, their description of its acquisition must be false and is therefore not admirable.

Things of course get somwhat worse, morally speaking, when the arbtrarily-defined religion is passed off as being the one religion supported by this big and famous collection of literature. Particularly when gullible children are subjected to this indoctrination. (All this, of course, being immoral by my own personal, deliberately adopted by my own analysis, moral code.)

Okay, slaughter me now for speaking against Polycarp. (Sigh. Believe it or not, I do expect it.)

[Kalhoun]

Xeno said, "Poly might, as you say, have created his own version of Christianity, but if so (and I really don't dispute the point), bad' et al have yet to show any undeclared inconsistencies in that version of Christianity."

I don't think anyone said he was inconsistent within his own Christianity creation. I think they said he was practicing something inconsistent with his formal, recognized Christian religion. And I agree. I've never heard him acknowledge that fact until this thread (though I must admit I don't read everything he posts).

One other observation: while Poly says he agrees with evolution versus creationism, per this statement: "That creation was most likely done through the means described by modern cosmology and evolutionary biology, not by some phenomenon of the sort posited by a given group of conservative evangelical Christians. I posit this because of the evidence of science and because the alternate view demands a literal reading of passages of Scripture that strike me as myth in the anthropological sense (which is not the common-parlance dismissive sense of "false.")"

Why wouldn't the evidence of science show you that immaculate conception between a woman on Earth and God is equally far-fetched? If immaculate conception cannot happen, then it would follow that Jesus was just a mere mortal (with a pretty good plan) and not the son of god.

[begbert2]

In addition to lamenting my erroneious italicization, I wish to make one other correction to my previous post:


2) A correct knowledge of the intent of Christ is only available via the reading of (and, presumably, interpretation of) the bible. Note: secondary sources of Christ's intent may be subject ot the same analysis, and confusion, as the bible. And, of course, incorrect ideas of Christ's intent are easily learned or fabricated.

On preview, I'd also like to comment that all current religion, unless it includes having consulted with god directly and recently about his character (which some do) demonstrates this failing. So Polycarp is in no way lessened by comparison to fundamentalist christianity.

[Kalhoun]

Hey, Begbert2! Nice post!

[begbert2]

Why, thank you! I'd ask wether you though my argument was non-stupid, or wether I had impressed by managing to be polite about it, but then it would be obvious that I was digging for praise. :p

Though actually, I'd rather have brilliantly composed rejoinder, assenting or not. To bad I didn't get here until most everybody left, ne?

[godzillatemple]

Kalhou: Just a nitpick in the name of accuracy... "Immaculate Conception" is actually the Catholic doctrine that Mary was born without the taint of Original Sin.

Barry

[Polycarp]

Xeno, let me thank you for a very great compliment nd for a perceptive analysis of what I've been trying to say.

Begbert, to the contrary, it's a valid objection. However, IMO your point depends on the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle.

Your suggestion is that I'm using material from a flawed source to attempt to discover the flaws in that source. This presumes an equal state of unreliability for all parts of the Bible, and hence the invalidity of using any part of it as a test for other parts.

However, it's my contention that the Bible can be critically examined in much the same was as any other work of ancient literature. (See the link to the threat where I pitted badchad for a reasoned analysis by Libertarian of the distinction between regarding the Bible as a self-closed, internally consistent system and the transitive approach of bringing the capabilities of scholarship to bear on its study.)

Further, any person who would put credence in the Bible at all would concur that some parts are of more value than others for the guidance of human life, etc. The Sermon on the Mount, the Great Commission, etc., speak to people much more than the book of Obadiah or the first nine chapters of I Chronicles with their interminable geneaologies.

There being a view that Jesus is Lord to a Christian, it follows that what one can form a reasonable assurance are His words and teachings are supreme in the context in which they were given. That this is important is self-evident in the variant understandings expressed in this very thread about the teaching on divorce. It's the view of liberals and moderates alike that Jesus was not laying down an absolute commandment against divorce so much as he was condemning the idea of divorce for convenience. The principle -- of the permanency of marriage -- is absolute, but circumstances alter cases.

In any case, what I feel is proper is to apply the tests of textual criticism to the Gospels to establish insofar as possible what exactly Jesus did say, discounting the particular themes of the four Evangelists, and then, having arrived at an answer, apply it as a guide to interpreting how to apply (or not apply) the remainder of Scripture to one's life.

There does remain the question of Jesus's variations in speech patterns, his tendency to speak in ellipticalparable form and to invest familiar words with additional meanings (as in the I AM passages in John), and the items noted by badchad earlier in the thread. These do deserve addressing, but not in a legalistic context.

(Added on preview: Kalhoun, a good point lessened by a misuse of terminology. The Immaculate Conception, a view exclusive to Roman Catholics, is the dogma that Mary the mother of Jesus was conceived -- in the normal manner -- without original sin. The Virgin Birth, held by most Christians, is the idea that Luke and Matthew are accurate in reporting Mary to have conceived Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit without having had intercourse with Joseph. The issue has been raised before a number of times -- do a search on parthenogenesis for some discussions of it -- including an explanation of what the H. in Jesus H. Christ stands for! ;) I personally am inclined to accept it despite the high improbability of a male parthenogenetic child, on the basis of a high opinion of Luke's research abilities and the fact that Mary would have known quite well what happened when they discussed it. But I am quite aware that it is the stuff of hero legends, and it would in no way affect the character of Jesus as Son of God for God to have caused His conception by the normal sexual process. In fact, I'm fairly convinced that the significance of the story lies in the "Son of God" metaphor and in Jesus's insistence on characterizing the First Person of the Trinity as Father -- as opposed to Tyrannical Monarch, Judge, Thunderer, and all the other archetypes that might characterize Him.)

[begbert2]

Greetings Polycarp! I figured you'd headed for greener pastures.

As far as I can tell, the middle can never be entirely excluded in this situation. Regardless of your ability to cast the text of the bible in the context of the time of its writing, you shall still be forced to at some point start picking and choosing what to believe. This thread is already loaded with several examples of things in the bible that require, at the least, generous interpretation to reconcile with each other.

Besides which, the fact that 2000 years and perhaps even a translation or two stand between you and the original meaning text would seem to be a problem. Further, most of the time Christ's own disciples didn't seem to have a clue what he was talking about, even though they lived at-or-near the time he was alive. ;) Adding to this that only a fraction of Jesus's worldview can possibly have made it into the text, and it seems likely that at some point the facts in your analysis will run short, and you will have made the remaining decisions by subjective personal choices. (The approach to homosexuals would seem to be one such case: in the text there is either a negative opinion or no opinion, but a positive opinon has to be stretched for.) no Not to forget that a few of your comments in this thread mention interpreting a passage based on your understanding of Christ's intent (such understanding presumably depending on an objective analysis of the passage in question for total accuracy, as in my vault analogy).

Its admirable that you at least make an effort to get the correct historical perspective as opposed to merely sitting in some pew and soaking up the sermons, but the fact remains that you're working with a very old and cryptic work, and we have enough trouble getting the straight dope on Elizabethan plays. You may operate less on blind faith than most people, but the idea that there is a middle case of clear, objective (and non-contradictory) understanding to be found in the bible seems to exclude itself.

[Truth Seeker]

originally posted by Polycarp
3. Said God is someone of whom many people of many faith traditions have attempted to speak, but what works best for me and seems to me to be the most complete revelation is that understood by the Doctors of the Church of traditional Christianity (as opposed to specifics evolved by varius denominations over the last century or two). I offer no justification for this -- it's personal preference and my own sense of what works best for me -- I had as soon engage in a Great Debate about why spaghetti with garlic-meat sauce is "better" than Tex-Mex caliente sauce over tacos.[Emphasis supplied.]

Polycarp, I have some bad news, you may be a Unitarian -- see your doctor. ;)

I think this paragraph sums up the basic problem. Your religion is your subjective preference rather then being objective "truth." You can no more assert that a Muslim or a Hindu or a Fundamentalist Christian is wrong on relgious grounds than you can assert that someone is "wrong" for having blue as a favorite colour.

This view may, in fact, be both correct and laudatory. However, it consigns religious debate to MPSIMS rather than GD. ("I am totally into salvation by faith." "No way! Works rocks!")

While I have no particular dog in this fight, I am also deeply suspicious that, after 2000 years, someone has finally worked out a "correct" version of Christianity and it just happens to correspond with Western liberalism. Someone said it earlier in this thread, but the idea bears repeating -- Religion can be a reason for a belief or an excuse for a belief. Cognitive dissonance afflicts the best of us. If someone always finds their religious beliefs lining up nicely with what they already believe, they are probably fooling themselves, somewhere.

Finally, as in all religious debates, we would all do well to remember the words of the sage,

Malt does more than Milton can
To justify God's ways to man.

[Triskadecamus]

I wonder, how do all these people who don't interpret the meaning of texts get enough information to decide whether to believe or disbelieve?

Absolutely astounding! It must be a miracle!

You can't read the back of a cereal box without examining the meaning of its message in the context of your own life experience. You can lie about it, and claim that the cereal box is perfectly unambiguous, and applies with equal perfection to every single person on the face of the earth, throughout all history. Of course you would be an idiot to think anyone is going to believe you.

Now if that is true of a document that attempts to explain a breakfast food, how much more complex is a document that seeks to direct us to apprehend the nature of God? Logic and cut and dried rationalism are not going to do it alone. It is going to take poetry, and passion, and paradox, and prayer. Time and tradition have both had their effects on the message of the Bible, and the Koran. (not to mention the Vedas, and half a thousand other religious documents.)

Anyone who claims there is no interpretation in the process is simply lying or stupid. And if a billion people make a thousand interpretations, that means . . . wait for it . . . inconsistencies!

Choose to deny that you interpret the words of the Bible if you wish. But if you either accept, or reject it, you have made one, for sure. Probably a lot. And if you do, those come from your own mind.

How the assumption that religious beliefs must not include the mind of the believer ever got accepted leaves me a bit puzzled about the basis for the argument in the first place. How can I have an intellectual apprehension of my own faith without including my own mind? What sort of pseudo intelligent criticism is that?

I am so glad that I don't do the whole intellectual defense of faith in the Lord thing. It's a quagmire of half sciences and politics that chooses any sort of perceived error on the part of any believer, and then brays loudly about the illogic of religion. What crap. If you worship at the altar of logic, so be it. It is a cold and sterile thing, and I pity your soul. But it is your soul, so I will not criticize you for abandoning all that is not logical. Just don't ask me to pray there.

And don't try to sacrifice my faith on your altar. It won't fit there. I ain't logical about God. The only things I know for sure about Him aren't logical at all. They are miraculous. The Bible reaches across time, and uses patched together stories from unverifiable sources to send a message into the hearts of people who don't understand much at all about history, philosophy, science, or logic. And sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't.

I don't think anyone can be sure about anything except their own relationship with the Lord. For that, they need to get it from Him.

Tris

[Dunderman]

Come on now. Someone pits Polycarp, and it goes on for five pages? How is this possible?

I'm one of the most aggressive atheists on these boards, but I'll say this: if people have to be Christians, I wish they could all be Polycarp. He never preaches, admits the flaws of his worldview, is never smug or overbearing, and above all he is an incredibly eloquent, interesting and constructive member of this community.

badchad, lay off it.

[Kalhoun]

Godzilla said, "Kalhou: Just a nitpick in the name of accuracy... "Immaculate Conception" is actually the Catholic doctrine that Mary was born without the taint of Original Sin."

Shit. Thanks.

[godzillatemple]

You're welcome. And sorry about dropping the final "n" off your name.... ;)

Barry

[Kalhoun]

Tris said, "If you worship at the altar of logic, so be it. It is a cold and sterile thing, and I pity your soul. But it is your soul, so I will not criticize you for abandoning all that is not logical. Just don't ask me to pray there."

But who said anything about worshiping? And who said anything about abandoning all that is not logical? (and who said anything about SOULS??!!) Religion (christianity, in particular) is based on the teachings of a human being. The bible is mostly a work of fiction. These things can be appreciated without the inclusion of the supernatural. A person can live a good life without believing in the promise of an afterlife. A person can falter in their lifetime without fear they will burn in a lake of fire. A person can forgive and be forgiven at will, with no repercussions from "above."

The world that exists without religion is no less beautiful than yours, Tris. We operate the same way you do. We love our kids, we work hard, we treat our neighbors with respect. We fall in love (and sometimes out of love). We hate war (and have far fewer reasons to wage it than the "believers"). For me, it's not the destination...it's the journey.

[andros]

If the shoe doesn't fit, Kalhoun, there's no need to put it on.

[Kalhoun]

That's right. It's never necessary to put it on...barefoot is perfectly acceptable. But have fun shopping!!! Just don't ask me to come to the mall with you! ;)