From a quick perusal…Orginally linked or posted by BadChad:
or
or
You may not like what he says, but he has an informed opinion on the subject. To say he doesn’t back it up with knowledge of the bible is inaccurate.
Many of us cherry-pick from facts rather than fantasy.
I have no reason not to believe him. A couple of them are recognizable to a heathen like me, but none of the scripture enthusiasts refute them. I have to believe they’re on the up-and-up for those reasons. If they are errant, I will gladly recant. Some people may refute the meaning of the words, i.e., door means apricot and love means eternal damnation in a fiery lake, but I believe the words themselves to be taken from the sources he says they’re from.
Well DrDeth, it is hard to go through a tonne of posts looking for a cite. These threads are better for showing his clear debating style, even if tinged with antogonism:
Polycarp on biblical literalism
Literal Interpretation of the Bible
If you can spot a place where he gives false info or where he refuses to back up a point with a cite I think you would prove your point a lot better. We all know he can be jerkish, no point cut and pasting a million examples.
Just because he comes off as less “flower child” and more “radical demonstrator” doesn’t lessen the validity of his posts. So he’s not genuflecting to the believers. Too bad. That’s his style. Brazen at times? Certainly. Sometimes you have to make a little noise to be heard above the believers.
If badchad and Polycarp are both cherry-picking from the same text, how can one be picking from facts, and the other from fantasy? The main difference I can see is that Polycarp throws in a little actual theology, and doesn’t just use random quotes.
Umm, no links to those cites. 
*He * doesn’t have an informed opinion at all. Like I said- all he has ever done is regurgitate what that site and Infidels has said. In other words, he just reads a couple of the well known atheist sites and regurgitates their work (often without bothering to give them credit) and thoughts. And that is only when he comes up with anything at all resembling an argument- most of his posts are just ad hominem or personal attacks. Mainly on poor Polycarp. Badchad seems to make harrassing Polycarp his lifes work here. Nice. :rolleyes: Dudes, as a “doubting Christian/agnostic” I have to say this: if you atheists are picking the rude asshole troll Badchad as your spokesmodel, and the Xtain crowd is going with the well spoken, gentle, always reasoned Polycarp- the Xtians have won. Hands down. Jeezus, you dudes have picked the atheist equivilant of Jack Chick fergawdsake.
(Don’t worry, every time I read a Chick Tract, my stomach roils and I get a headache also. He’s an asshole too, and a reason why I can’t strat to call myself a Christian)
You are confused. The first one had a link and the next two had biblical references book and chapter. Look, I know he was mean to poor, poor Polycarp but that doesn’t take away the fact that he seems to know his bible, at least as well as any of the Christians on board have demonstrated.
Dude? Let’s look at that second cite here. I see some good thoughts by Polycarp, tomndebb, and Diogenes the Cynic- this last poster who I think is the best non-beleiver biblical expert we have. All Badchad does there is launch into a hijack attack on Polycarp. :rolleyes: eh. I agree that does show his standard debating style, but ferfuckssake dude- couldn’t you find a cite that supported your side of the debate, not mine?
Again- just because his opinions agree with yours does not mean he does a good job of presenting them. In fact, he’s terrible. Look, if you want a good debater for the non-believer side, read DtC’s posts, not this morons. (Yes, DtC and I have had some good go arounds. But I respect him, and think he is a major asset to this board.)
Wait, I might be understanding this, knowing the words, chapter and verse is not enough. Foolish us, to know the Bible you have to believe in it and have faith.
So of course an atheist like **badchad ** could not know it as well as a devout Christian. Now it all makes sense.
Jim
I meant- *no links to those posts * of Badchads.
And, he has no fucking idea of what he is talking about. All he can do is regurgitate thoughts by other skeptical sites.
Are you saying you believe every word in the bible? BadChad (and others) are attempting to highlight parts of the bible that contradict other parts of the bible or the parts of the bible that show christ and christianity as something less than loving…less than perfect. While there may be parts of it that DO say that god is loving, there are many, many parts that don’t. He also calls a spade a spade. Casting souls into an eternity in a fiery lake does not mean love, no matter how hard you squint your eyes when you read it.
Of course I’m not saying that…I am saying the opposite. It is easy, as you point out, to find places the bible contradicts itself, etc. If you take it from a very simplistic POV, then it pretty much ceases to make any sense. badchad takes it from that perspective. His arguments are no more knowledgable about the Bible than your average Bible-believing literalist…he is just using the same technique to argue the other POV. Someone with a more sophisticated idea of theology and how a text like the Bible is supposed to be read will typically not be impressed with someone who takes one or two quotations and throws them back at you as some kind of “evidence” as badchad is prone to do.
One of the threads CarnalK linked to has an excellent, excellent post by Diogenes where he calls badchad out on this.
Hey, I said he seems to know it as well as the Christians here. Pretty sure they mostly regurgitate thoughts as well. Except for Poly, I guess. That “second coming of Christ won’t be so bad” thing seems pretty original.
I seem to remember badchad saying that he almost has more respect for the fundies over liberals, them not cherry picking and all.
They’re cites nonetheless. Why does everyone have to fucking LINK something? It’s a courtesy; not a requirement. They’re in the bible. 'k?
He’s easily as informed as Poly. You just don’t like his style, and that’s fine. I happen to find it refreshing when someone cuts through the bullshit and gets down to the essence of it all. All the flowery verse in the world isn’t going to make the existence of the christian god any more real.
That actually explains a lot.
He actually reminds me of Fundamentalists who have lists of Bible verses they use for arguing with Catholics. They don’t believe that Catholic theology comes from scripture, because they have too simplistic a view of how scripture should be interpreted.
I’ve said that as well. At least they take it at face value instead of all the eye-squinting that goes on with every other kind of christian.
And, that’s why DtC gets my respect (and why I bestir myself to debate with him, which debates I lose as often as win, I have to admit), and why Badchad doesn’t get any respect from me- and why I don’t bother to respond to Badchad’s ravings & general trollery.
Umm, Kalhoun? I later said “no links to those posts of Badchads”. And, linking to something shows you’re just not *making things up. * We don’t like that much on the SDMB. True, I wouldn’t ask for a link to a KJV quote, I should be able to find that myself once Chapter and Verse is given.
And many of us believe in things that don’t exist, like clutch hitting. The thing is, people don’t know they are cherry-picking from fantasy. You are assuming that your facts are the truth, just as any religious person does.
We cherry-pick. That’s the important thing, and that’s what gets badchad’s drawers in a bunch. We all do it, all the time, in our attempt to get the world and our ethics to come into agreement.
And yet he’s not quoting the entire Bible. Cherry-picking? From fantasy? You bet your ass.
If it doesn’t mean what it says, then which of you non-literalists is the correct interpretor? Why SHOULDN’T I take it at face value? Because it makes god and jesus look like Mr. Meany Pants and his own version of “Mini-me?” Bullshit. It is what it is.