A typical example of overpedantic – and erroneous – nitpickery.
The woman named Hilda Sharp at birth was using the surname of one of her three ex-husbands, Corners, as her surname prior to her marriage to Dr. Jacob Burroughs. Her brand new stepson-in-law and longtime friend, Dr. Z.J. Carter, used a diminutive of that maiden name, “Sharpie,” as an affectionate nickname for her.
(Hey, do you suppose if we keep this up, we can get this thread moved from the Pit to Café Society? ;))
Oh, I doubt it but I could see why you’d want it turned into a joke thread. You’ve left a few uncomfortable points unanswered.
Nobody gets to find out the best way to interpret the bible because some people were mean to you. Hmmm, WWJD?
Indeed.
Communist.
Precisely. She was SHARPIE Corners when she invented multipersonal panuniversal solipsism. “Sharp” was a name she hadn’t used in years. You’d understand that if you weren’t such a commie.
CarnalK, does it occur to you that your flagrant out-of-context quoting diminishes your overal credibility?
Nothing diminishes CarnalK’s credibility.
You sound really reasonable and nice but that doesn’t change the fact that what other people believe has a profound impact on you. If someone believes that the environment isn’t important because armageddon is tomorrow directly affects our environment which directly affects us. I know that is a rather extreme example but if you advocate respect above all else in this message board then you would have to respect these beliefs. Even if when you said the above you were only referring to liberal christians’ beliefs and not fundies those beliefs you are defending lend strength to those crazy fundie beliefs. Now I’m not saying you have to go out attacking people who have belief systems that harm you, Im just saying you shouldn’t be attacking badchad for what ultimately amounts to self defense. Even if you say his methods are ineffective you have nothing more than personal experience to say so (which might be suspect, I mean, did someone CONVINCE you that christianity wasn’t your cup of tea or did you deduce that yourself?). I have personal experience that says depending on the target, respecting someones beliefs makes them think you condone them, and as such they will never change.
ffs, out of context? Only a complete retard would think I was actually saying Polycarp actually admitted fleeing, rather than making a snarky joke. I’ll spell it out for you in advance next time.
So I’m curious, is my lack of credibility a great excuse to not answer straightforward points or questions? I quoted Dio and jsgoddess, are they credible enough?
That’s right, the incredible CarnalK.
He didn’t quote me out of context, so please be specific in your accusations.
Hmm, now that you mention it jsgoddess, I just assumed he only meant the Polycarp fleeing quote. Do you think any of the other quotes are out of context, Skald?
All those other quotes are from page 17, btw, if someone wants to see how badly I’ve abused them.
Indeed.
I was referring to the Polycarp quotes. And I’m less a retard thana smart-alec, thanks.
Wow, there are adults out there who still use “retard” as an insult?
A moment of impatience, my dear, as my precious credibility had been called into question. As tomndebb and El Cid Viscoso noted, I vigorously defend against anything that might diminish it.
Well, as far as the word “inappropriate” is concerned, you appear to have accused me of being Zoe’s sock puppet, or vice versa. So far as I can tell, the rest of the above paragraph seems to be recycling the old “if you aren’t a literalist fundamental Christian, you aren’t a Christian at all” chestnut. I think “my” interpretation is arguable, and AFAIK it has indeed frequently been argued, so it’s not much use saying it’s “based on absolutely nothing but its own person{al} convenience”. Saying “Just admit it” doesn’t make your argument more meritorious.
Expected to, or just that this is what they did in fact do - as adherents of a new and persecuted religion who might have to leave town in a hurry? Do you find any of the Apostles enjoining would-be converts to give up material wealth? And don’t you find that when the early Christians gave up personal possessions, they put them at the general disposal of their fellow Christians? Is this exactly the same as what Christ told the rich young man to do, or are there a few slight differences?
I’m so sorry, from what you were saying earlier about Christians not following Christ’s instruction to this young man I naturally assumed that you were 100% confident in your own interpretation and considered any alternative interpretation to be “weaseling”.
Not at all, just that there are certain plain interpretations that, to avoid acknowleging their existence, it would take some pretty creative (or uncreative, actually) weaseling to accomplish. That Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount didn’t require expensive admission tickets, or that Huckleberry Finn has an antipathy for slavery that is deeper than he knows. If you’re going to deny essential building blocks like this, I’m going to regard you “obstructionist” rather than genuinely interested in interpretation, that’s all.
Fair enough. But do you take the cited passage in Matthew to indicate that all Christians should live in poverty? Do you consider that opinion to the contrary is wrong? Do you, presumably an amateur like myself where these texts are concerned, have reasons for valuing your interpretation above that of learned Bible scholars?
Good questions, both. Christian poverty has always seemed to me tricky, but certainly Christ’s position was that poverty is, contrary to widespread opinion, no cause for shame and in some real sense has virtues. That, to me, is clear. The problem comes in how far to take a definition of poverty, and he seems to take it pretty far himself in that passage by not telling the young man to sell some of his stuff, or most of his stuff but simply to sell his stuff (tranlating loosely from a language I don’t speak). Is that a literal suggestion from Christ? I’d argue that the literal, when not impossible, is to be considered very seriously, and needs to take a privileged place over the metaphorical until shown otherwise.
I am skeptical of the motives of Biblical scholars, some of whom are like anyone else reluctant to interpret texts encouraging them (nay, exhorting them) to give up their creature comforts. You’ll have to pretty persuasive to get me to see how “give up your stuff” translates into “but you can keep the Caddy, keep the two vacation homes, keep the jewelry, etc. of course and still call yourself a devout Christian.” But if you want to try, be my guest.
It just seems odd to me that the most plainly stated parts of the bible are considered metaphor, and the most preposterous claim of all (god) is taken literally.
Well, what’s “plainly stated” is that Christ told this particular person that what he needed to do was give his possessions to the poor and himself follow Christ - by which I’d read it as a literal following, joining the disciples that were wandering around with Him. There’s nothing metaphorical about that, but you may want to beware of too-hasty generalisation. (And if you’re still approaching the subject in the spirit of honest enquiry, perhaps a less loaded word than “preposterous” might be in order.) I think that, minus the parenthesised sentence, might be some kind of answer to pseudotriton too.
But as to this invitation:
I’ll politely decline. There are too many experts working in this field already. 
If you fancy a debate on Christian poverty, I don’t mind chiming in. One angle might be that some people aren’t spoiled by wealth - and indeed it enables them to do a great deal of good - and that others are, and that Christ, whom most people would call discerning at least, knew which this particular young man was.
Sorry DrDeth, this is a pretty long thread and I’ve had to ignore a lot of responses I would have otherwise replied to.
As for your “personal irrationality” with all your ramblings about how I’m no good, I was under the impression that you were a liberal Christian. Going back I read that you were an agnostic or agnostic Christian or something like that. Anyway I would say that as much as your agnosticism sympathizes with any Christian acts of a divine nature I would call that irrational. I would call your belief in an afterlife, so much as it is based on hope irrational.
As for never citing things in debate; you are factually incorrect.
As for me being a poor debater; you are entitled to your opinion but I think doth protest too much.
As for the rest; no I don’t believe in an afterlife, I’m against what most people refer to as gun control, I’m pro abortion, and I have mixed feelings on the death penalty.
That’s pretty good Zoe. I notice you leave out the part where Jesus then generalizes and says that “a rich man [not “this rich man”] shall hardly enter the kingdom of heaven” and then goes on to say “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man [not “this rich man”] to enter into the kingdom of God.”
More importantly you ignore commands of Jesus that appear to be directed at the masses, like these from the Sermon on the Mount or from the book of Luke:
“Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” Matthew 6:19-21
“Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” Luke 12: 33-34
There is more where those came from.
Now I am sure one can continue to play the game of “Jesus only meant to direct his words at those standing in front of him,” but the problem with that game is that it should be consistently applied and we should remember that Jesus technically only told those standing in front of him about the kingdom of heaven.
That is good. I only hope you live as simply as Jesus would suggest, with no thought directed towards tomorrow. As for Malacandra, I expect her to post a link to the auctioning of her possessions on ebay.
This is a good point that Diogenes raises, which I wish only to strengthen but pointing out that not only were the apostles expected to live in common but Ananias and his wife Sapphira were both struck dead by god after holding back some of what they received form the sale of their land.
Yes Polycarp, how about those points compiled by CarnalK in post #862.
Taking the words of Jesus, from the gospels as a whole, yes.
Yes.
So much as these “learned Bible scholars disagree with me, yes.
Considering the cost of your error Malacandra, why take a chance? Also, is not your reluctance to give your stuff away indicative that you and the rich man, to whom Jesus was speaking, have a lot in common.