Why the fuck do you think yours is the only interpretation that is valid? I think it’s simply because it’s the easiest to attack. You keep pounding on Polycarp and other liberal Christians with your mantra that their interpretation is baseless and wrong simply because it’s not the same as your easily attacked strawman and “true Christians”, I mean “no true Scotsman”.
Knock it off you pompous asshole. You are not the arbiter of who is and is not a “True Christian”. “True Christians” are not forced into believing anything they don’t believe. If they believe that the Bible was written by men who had faults and were not entirely precise with their language, that’s a valid belief; despite your claims that it makes them not a true Christian. If they believe that the Creation story is a metaphor, then for them it is. There is no compulsion that it be literal; and your protests doesn’t make it so.
Why the hard-on for Liberal Christians? Are you familar with the fact that some Christians don’t even believe in a physical resurrection? Guess what, that doesn’t mean you get to declare them not “True Christians”.
Debate the merits of their beliefs all you want. But drop the annoying badgering, idiotic strawman building and no true Scotsman arguement.
badchad seems to be the Jack Chick of anti-Christian thought … there’s probably some truth hidden in there beneath the half-truths (when there’s any truth at all), the mostly-lies, the misleading statements and self-serving aphorisms … but you wouldn’t get a realistic picture of Christianity or Christians from his “description”. What you get instead are the mangled musings of someone with a serious hard-on for anti-Christian “rhetoric” and attacks, and they’re as transparent as he is.
But anyone who would espouse the beliefs he’s posted, let alone actually believe them, needs more than one refresher course in, among other things, how not to be a jerk. And, y’know, actual Christianity.
I don’t see what’s especially wrong with the rant, other than references to “true Christianity” (should be adjusted to “fundamentalist Christianity”) and the bit where he makes a personal attack in the last paragraph. I think it’s pretty solid, and has an interesting message.
I don’t see the mostly-lies, the misleading statements, or the especially self-serving aphorisms. Okay, he strayed into jerkishness with the last attack, but isn’t a pitting overdoing it a bit?
badchad’s actual worthwhile points are so surrounded by his own obnoxious agenda, that I now automatically consider whatever he posts to be worthless, mean-spirited drivel. And whenever I do read some new post by him (which occurs less and less frequently) I find only evidence to bolster my conclusions about him. And personally, I’m a skeptic about all matters religous.
While I too have been a occasionally turned off by badchad’s… uh … excuberance … in his mission, I cannot find fault in his goal. He seems to be fighting, wherever he sees it, the ignorance of religious zealotry – whether it be fundamentalist, or liberal, Christianity.
While his tactics may seem a bit arrogant, I find little fault with his arguments. If someone would care to argue his points, I will listen. If you simply wish to Pit his tactics, well, carry on…
Perhaps some simply didn’t recognize, or were offended by, badchad’s obvious attempt at humor in his last post – I recognized it, and was not at all offended. I must admit, I chuckled a bit.
Am I missing something, or is this just a really lame pitting…
—RoundGuy Ok, dumbass, I’ve defended you in the Pit – you owe me one
Thanks for the adhom Homebrew, it looks like that¡¦s all you and those in the dog pile here are able to muster. Still if you or your friends feel man enough to bolster an argument to any of the specific points I have raised in great debates feel free. If not, well, that¡¦s what I thought.
Regarding the one-trick pony bit. Andros already called me on it and I didn¡¦t argue the point. As I have obviously stated before my beef is with liberal Christians who hypocritically dog pile on some nice people who for the most part just happen to be brought up fundamentalist. If the criticisms were coming from atheists that would be one thing but those ¡§liberal¡¨ fairy tail believers have little room to talk.
A) I’ve been pitted before, by Polycarp himself no less. I seem to recall him using language along the lines of ¡§fuck off asshole¡¨ though I would have to look it up to be sure. I hope he asked forgiveness afterwards.
B) Polycarp is obviously ducking me. While you may not, he knows my arguments are sound and if he had a good comeback he would be presenting it. Especially when you consider we had a deal and he promised he would. I fulfilled my half of the bargain, he admittedly did not fulfill his thus making him a liar in fact, and a pretentious one at that IMO.
Seige walked into it with her talk of how she could not understand the fundamentalist viewpoint did not make any sense. I just thought it good to explain to her that it was no less reasonable than her viewpoint. Also I don¡¦t think she has much room to argue as in a previous discussion with me I got her to admit that she had no good reason to believe in god and that she was using it as a crutch.
Actually I think this viewpoint is the hardest to attack as it is so slippery and it¡¦s followers can use their ¡§metaphor¡¨ talk slip out of anything uncomfortable. The fundamentalist perspective is much easier to attack, which is why there are so many of you love to dogpile them whenever they try to back up their views, misguided as they may be. Now that it¡¦s turned around it¡¦s not so funny is it? As for why I try to argue with Polycarp in particular is because his views were hitherto well received (dumb as they may be) and as liberal Christians are so different I have to customize my argument to a particular view. With Polycarp being so verbose, it was relatively easy for me to get his number.
I see my use of satire escaped you. I guess you need one of these to recognize a joke, or in this case half joke.
If you bothered to carefully read my post (which you quoted) you would see that I didn¡¦t say believing in errancy of the bible or use of metaphor was unreasonable, rather that believing in outstanding claims based on a source already admitted to be in error or unintelligible is. My personal opinion is that the bible is quite errant but this board doesn’t need one more guy saying that.
As I said I think they are hypocritical in their attacks on fundamentalists and in my opinion often quite pompous about it too, also because nobody else has decided to put much effort into fight the ignorance of liberal Christianity.
If you find fault in my argument I invite you to take up where Seige or Polycarp left off in any of the linked great debates above. If not carry on with your tirade, I actually think it is pretty funny.
:: Snort :: “I love me, I think I’m grand, when I’m with me, I hold my hand.”
I’d be flabbergasted if POLY gives a rat’s ass about you. Why would he? You’ve repeatedly shown yourself to be a total jerk who is unworthy of the time or attention of a person who engages in rational and civil debate.
I think it more likely he’s simply dismissed you, rather than that he’s “ducking” you.