Isn’t posting to this messageboard (in either GD or BBQ, that is) a de facto invitation to debate?
Darn it, he is.
Does that balance out the Christ-c*** comment in GD?
Holy non sequiter, Batman. Respecting one aspect of a person’s character is not equal to adopting his philosophy.
Has Polycarp ever expressed such a wish?
You do know what it is called when a person hates every member of a group simply because they are included in that group, don’t you?
Well, I tend to think that Jesus, if he were still alive, would react to such a remark rather like Aslan. A tolerant, slightly bored yawn, followed by saying, “You must be very angry to say such things.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by badchad
DrDeth if that doesn’t sum up this entire thread better than anything else I don’t know what does. Contrapuntal is ok by your definition, only because he gives fundies a hard time, but wouldn’t dream of criticizing your personal irrationality. The same goes for Diogenes the Cynic. You don’t mind debating him because he picks on others and not you.
3rd time I ask. You seem to be dodging the questions. :dubious:
He’s not overly fond of tackling questions for which he has no read answer.
Blast! That should be “ready” answer.
It takes a very special sort of douchebag to not only make just about all Dopers agree on something, but to make me quote you in a non-adversarial way.
Maybe he’s the secret to world peace.
BTW, since calling Christ a cunt in a thread for the sake of saying it is OK, can I tell badchad he’s a cunt for the sake of spreading the truth? Just to let everyone know what a cunt he really is? And is it an insult to cunts to associate him with the word?
And can we get a Doperfest set up? Just to point and laugh? I won’t do anything.
Those were instructions given to one person. That doesn’t mean that that would be the appropriate thing for everyone to do. (Another time he said, “The poor we have always with us.”)
I regret that I have been too materialistic. I live more simply now. That may not be what is required of someone else.
I’m afraid it’s true. The kindest and most generous friend that I’ve made since retiring is an atheist. Her wit and enthusiasm kept me going through some really difficult times in my life. She turned me around and set me on my feet when I thought I was a goner. Christians would do well to be that noble. I’m surprised that pseudotriton ever expected more from Christians.
Christians are full of faults. Just when we think we have things under control, we make fools of ourselves in our imperfections. We argue with each other. Some of us treat certain groups as not deserving of full human rights. Some of us make war. Some of us torture our neighbors instead of loving them. And each of us, including myself, thinks that “we” are right and “they” are wrong.
Some of the atheists are wrong when they try to imply that all Christians are opposed to gay rights and women’s rights. When an atheist misrepresents the truth by stating such a generality, I question his integrity.
But…that’s because I’m self-righteous. Sorry. I work on it. Honestly.
How do you know that’s what he meant? That’s an awfully convenient interpretation for you isn’t it? I love the way so many Christians always find a way to weasel out of the really hard stuff?
Did you know that descriptions of early Christian communities in Acts claim that the earliest Christians lived with no private ownership of property and shared everything in common? Jesus was a bona fide communist. It permeates his teachings.
I just wanted to show the exchange again that has people’s panties in a twist:
Yeah, a little rude but really pretty appropriate to the exchange.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7774477&#post7774477
He actually answered a couple of them a ways back, before you asked.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7790779&postcount=337
Not sure why you think answers to those questions are useful to this thread.
That’s actually a pretty good point about the context. If he’d tempered it even a tiny bit by saying, “yeah but I think Jesus was a cunt,” or “you could argue that the Bible depicts Jesus as behaving like a cunt,” or something like that, there probably would have never been a pit thread. Even so, it’s probably still a bit of an overeaction. The remark did have a rhetorical purpose, even if it was a blunt one.
:: running back into the thread, pie in hand, despite my resolution to stay on the sidelines plotting evil ::
To be sure, the “cunt” remark didn’t directly prompt me to open the thread. It was just the running theme of, let’s say, incivility in badchad’s post. I posted a link to the remark in question after the OP.
:: runs out of the thread with the pie ::
That an interpretation is “convenient” does not make it wrong, Diogenes, as a man with your advantages ought to know very well. Don’t repeat pseudotriton ruber ruber’s error of assuming that texts that people study for doctorates are so transparent that your interpretation is the only possible one.
Did you know that Acts also relates a story of someone who was in prison, and then all the guards fell asleep and the locks opened? 
::raises hand::
I can 'splain that one. Hilda Burroughs & Gwen Novak took Gay Deceiver back to the early Common Era on a mission to rescue Lazarus (who had gotten his arse shot up again whilst trying to settle once and for all whether it was the Crucifixion or the Crucifiction), and found that the Senior had, for reasons too convoluted to relate here, had been obliged to impersonate St. Peter and in that guise had been arrested by the Sanhedrin. To rescue Woody, they seduced and drugged the guards.
Like that’s what I said. :rolleyes:
See, it all has plausible explanations within generally accepted physics!* 
::: flees :::
- Yes, “generally accepted physics.” Several quintillion people across thousands of universes agree with the Sharp Corners Theory; it’s your problem that the local experts don’t.
Heretic. It’s Sharpie Corners.
My interpretation is more likely when you know anything about the historical and culture context in which those statements were given and is further supported by the New Testament itself which says that early Christians were indeed expected to give up personal possessions. Your interpretation is based on absolutely nothing but its own person convenience. I found it humorous that you said it might not be “appropriate” for you to follow that example. How could it possibly be inappropriate? What you mean is that it isn’t convenient. Just admit it. You aren’t trying to to really understand that command, you’re just trying to find an excuse not to follow it.
So what? How does that help YOU?