iampunha:
And just for the record. I’m an atheist, I don’t believe in heaven.
That I do.
Monty, even more intriguing a question than yours is this:
If it is a Heaven of one, and we assume God/the Trinity to be at least one being, then is God in it, or is badchad?
For what little it will be worth, badchad, you will perhaps recall a brief discussion we had here in this very pit some months ago. Upon realizing that you cared more about willfully misrepresenting anything you disagreed with (and, in doing so, deliberately failing to respect those who are not only full of friends on this board but, I am honored to say, call themselves my friends, and I them), and cheerfully so, I took my leave of you. Having noticed that the quoted portion of your post in the OP does not differ in any clear or marked way from those dealings I have already had with you, I will make what may seem to some an astounding and difficult leap of logic and assume that you are ever-fond of representing Christianity not as it is but as it needs to be for your … attitude toward it to be tenable.
I am equally confident that you will treat me either as an unworthy, rusty old soldier trying to hurt a tank with a ball of cotton or Don Quixote without the trusty steed. You certainly have a knack for putting yourself, if not on a more level playing field (so as not to have to climb so far to get to them), a field such that you are scarcely able to see your foe, s/he is so far beneath you.
You might wish to examine to what extent that is borne out in reality, should you choose to visit it at any time. My only fear is that sufficient funds will never be available for you to fly from wherever it is you currently reside to where the rational world is, the distance between the two is so great.
Jodi:
Then ask him why he wrote the below quote in response to me over a month and a half ago and still has not fulfilled his promise.
I’ll understand if it is considered acceptable by liberal Christian standards to not stand by your word.
iampunha:
I understand. It’s your way of saying “I can’t defeat your argument so I’ll pretend I’m above it.”
It’s ok, I’ve seen it before and I’ll see it again.
In the interests of fairness, I honestly can’t say that I’m familiar with badchad in any capacity. I don’t think we’ve crossed paths before now.
Anyways, as we say here in Queensland, “Up here son, we assume you’re a decent bloke until you prove yourself otherwise…”.
My point? Well, in the narrow context of the quote which was provided in the Opening Post, I have to say that in my objective and unbiased opinion, I honestly don’t believe that badchad deserved a pitting - at least not based on the quote provided.
However, I’m also enough of a realist to concede that (to paraphrase Churchill I believe) “Gentlemen never discuss politics or religion”… the thinking being that no more efficient means of causing an arguement and heated feelings is known to mankind.
So, perhaps badchad has rubbed noses the wrong way in the past. Perhaps he’s built up some bad karma. All of it might be true - but for mine, based on the quote in the OP, he wasn’t at all “in yer face” or bizarre or offensive - not at all.
If that is your honest interpretation of my words, then you do not understand. Either that, or I fail to convey my proper meaning, which, while not likely is possible. Unable as I am to see the actuality of this chance, in this case, barring your proof of it to me I stand by what I said both here and in my previous post.
As such, the possibility exists, IMO, that what you have believed (to whatever degree) to be “I cannot defeat your argument so I will pretend I am above it” was in actuality something (or somethings) else; I would investigate that/those possibility/ies with as much objective insight as reasonably possible were I you. I can only tell you that if you see “You didn’t respect my friends and I believe your arguments are constructed in a deliberately misleading and misrepresentational manner” as equivalent to “I can’t refute your points”, then we have very strikingly different beliefs on the meanings of the words involved:)
I am sure he will appreciate your cavalier tone in the same manner it was truly intended:)
In a post directed at me a few months ago, Poly indicated that he had gotten an email from me but was in a mental state such that he did not think an objective response would be wholly possible. He also said he would reply to it at a later point. I am still waiting for that reply and I am still confident that I will get it.
The notion that it is acceptable (except under rarest of circumstances, and it being 4 AM I am not exactly going to sit here for half an hour and dream some up;)) by any Christian standards not to stand by one’s word is, if not absurd, certainly intriguing. It is a good thing, then, that nothing of the sort is honestly inferrable from Poly’s post. Perhaps you take a lack of response to-date as indication that no such response will be issued.
There is also the small matter of him having a life off the SDMB, which needs tending every once in a while or else the bills do not get paid (and as so many of us saw a time ago, when the bills do not get paid Bad Things can happen).
You might, by the way, have more success in GD if you took a less confrontational approach … coming at people as though you have The Answers or The Right Point of View is probably not going to engender you to many people, whereas saying “What do you think of this viewpoint which does not assume I know all there is to know?” will probably be met with more civil, rational discussion.
That from the person whose arguments I have repeatedly decimated and who has summarily refused to respond!
Precious. And this to boot…
Looking in a mirror, eh?
Well, Lib, while his comment is hypocritical, you’ve got to give him one thing - instead of replying to his argument itself, a lot of people have attacked his (slightly offensive) tone. If experienced posters expect people not to ignore arguments, shouldn’t they provide a positive example? I think this quote below is a pretty good example of this.
If you have trouble dealing with his post, let’s remove all the wheezing that’s really pissing you people off, and leave in just this part, where he clearly states his point.
Now, if Siege could give answers to this, and maybe even Polycarp, too, I think badchad would be more inclined to behave well in the future. If SDMBers simply continue the pileon, it’ll probably make his temperament worse in the future, wouldn’t you say?
Your response to me shows the same level of obtuseness as your response to Polycarp. I never said there was no arguement against Christianity. I am not a believer myself. However it is your tone that I am Pitting. It’s your repeated accusations of lying against an honorable man who has earned the respect he is given. It’s the fact that you most assuredly do not argue against their point of view. Your only arguement against Liberal Christianity is that it’s not your strawman version and is, therefore, not True Christianity. Your whole arguement is that if they don’t accept the whole of the Bible as literal, then they are inconsistent. This is a bullshit arguement. But you insist on making that the arguement because you have none against the Liberal interpretation.
I have carefully read the portion I quoted. In fact I quoted that much so that the reader could have context. Furthermore, I completely agree with the whole of the second paragraph. Where you veer from reason into being an asshole is the opening sentence of the third paragraph where you create your fallacy by saying “Thus since the bible clearly writes that the creation story is exclusive of evolution, true Christians are kind of forced into believing in creation over evolution, otherwise they undermine the source of their faith.”
Here’s a Liberal Perspective, as I understand it.
The Bible is a text. It’s the work of men writing about what they understood of Spirituality and God. There is no compulsion that modern men, with knowledge of science, must believe that these ancient works are scientifically accurate. They are a record of what those men believed about what they perceived to be God. Everything in it can be a myth, but it doesn’t take away from the meaning of the stories. They are a sign that point the way to the Divine - not the Divine itself. It’s not their Rule Book it’s their Guide. Taken as a whole it’s a record of the idea of a Tribal God evolving to culminate with Jesus’ Royal Commandments to Love God, Love Everyone Else and that fulfills what God wants of people. Whether or not there is an afterlife or paradise waiting, these are the precepts of Christianity and that is the point of the Bible.
In case you don’t know, there are many many Christians who don’t necessarily believe in an afterlife or the concept of Heaven. Some will say they don’t know what happens after you die. Some believe that the Kingdom of God is in this life as you try to live following those Royal Commandments. Others believe whatever they do. But for those people, the point of Christianity is not to get a Get Out of Hell Card but as a philosophy of how to live this life, regardless of what comes after.
If you want to continue the debate, that’s fine. I’d even like to see some of the answers of how they take some things, like the resurrection, as literal but not others. But knock off the strawman building and the accusations of lying. If you don’t understand their leaps of logic, question that; but not their integrity.
Otherwise you show yourself to be simply an ass; not a seeker of truth.
Gadfly
They have here, yes.
But you might not be aware of the long history of people (like me) responding directly to his arguments only to be ignored. I’m not going to bother hunting it down on this slow-as-molasses board, but I recall one GD thread in which BadChad was stalking Poly with that trademark foppish tone. I inserted myself into the debate, addressing every point that BadChad made. As it turned out, he never acknowledged me but rather, when Poly refered him to one of my responses, BadChad indicated that he thought I was crazy and that he had no intention of engaging me in debate.
As you know, I am not crazy. Therefore, I was forced to conclude that BadChad was merely a rude wimp. I’ll address the line you asked CJ and Poly to address, and let’s see what happens.
(By the way, note that his “Still with me?” has nothing to do with his point, but is simply childish and jejune condescension.)
For the same reason that we should trust Principia when it talks of motion — you can use Newton’s laws to calculate the trajectory of a missile despite anything that Einstein said. For the same reason that we should trust Principia Mathematica when it talks of mathematical induction — you can use Whitehead and Russell’s rules to balance your checkbook despite anything that Godel said. And for the same reason that we should trust The C Programming Language when it talks about the techniques of sort algorithms — you can use Kernighan and Ritchie’s timeless principles when you write code despite all the changes Microsoft has made to the C language.
Attempting to contextualize the Bible as a book on geology or biology is Neanderthal in its conception. It’s not a textbook. It’s a love letter.
Don’t agree with you guys here. The standards that you are asking from badchad are not those that are required from other people and on other topics. Badchad is not unsure of himself and asking for clarification. He has a strongly held opinion and is expressing it. People who have opinions - including negative opinions about other beliefs - are entitled to express these opinions, and commonly do so. Posters to this thread are expecting badchad to instead prostrate himself humbly before Polycarp, asking for enlightenment as to the basis of his (Polycarp’s) views. No reason for this.
I think this is purely a result of people having this inflated view of the Greatness of Polycarp, and expecting him to be treated with an undue amount of deference. IOW, just the good old fashioned Pit Popularity Contest. Nothing new here.
IzzyR
That’s not correct.
Cite?
<ducks & runs>
Very briefly, and much on-line with what Lib has so eloquently said:
The Bible is not a scientific text. It is a religious text. For the same reason I don’t care what a bio book tells me about the history of Pharaonic incest, nor what the bank teller suggests about the price of mangoes in Sumatra, I do not adhere to what advanced scientific precepts and concepts exist in the Bible. But when it comes to cell theory or my current balance, damn straight I’m going to listen.
For what little it will be worth, I don’t take the Bible’s word for what it says, either. But it makes one hell of a more compelling case for its knowledge of redemption/salvation than for any of the science is has.
I am not, for the record, requiring or requesting or expecting that badchad prostrate himself before Polycarp. What I think would be SOP for anyone wishing to engage in civil, rational debate is at most marked odds with what I have seen badchad write. Rather, I see badchad’s writing style as an attempt, however deliberate or not, as one rife with goadiness, haughtiness and a sense of utter righteousness.
YM, as always, MV:)
Thanks for the prompt responses, Lib and Puhna. Although I don’t hold the same views, I can understand where you’re coming from.
There, badchad, you got some eloquent answers. Now, I suggest you quit while you’re ahead (in relative terms).
BADCHAD –
If you have a question for someone, ask him or her yourself. What does this have to do with you being a total jerk? That’s the subject of the thread, in case that escaped you.
I’ll understand if by your standards it is considered acceptable to be an ass.
It’s an old tactic on this Boards (and off): Become such an obnoxious prick that people refuse to deal with you any further, and then claim you’ve “won” the argument because people are refusing to deal with you any further. Fortunately, the level of intellectual rigor on this Board tends to be fairly high, and most people see this for exactly what it is. Which is why to see you state “I understand. It’s your way of saying ‘I can’t defeat your argument so I’ll pretend I’m above it’” amuses me exceedingly, because that’s what the obnoxious pricks always say when they’ve successfully pissed off their opponents to the point they disengage.
But it’s okay; I’ve seen it before and I’ll see it again.
Jodi, do you have a substantive argument to refute the opinions of what badchad posts, or are you simply disagreeing with his tactics?
You don’t have to like his method, but I’d like to see you refute his arguments. Or are you just here to pile-on, and have fun at badchad’s expense?
—RoundGuy
Ok, that’s twice, dumbass…
RoundGuy, others have refuted his arguments, and anyway, the arguments aren’t the point here. The point is that he acts like a jackass and that’s the issue that others have taken with him. It’s hard to hold an argument with a man who won’t listen and simply repeats everything you say back to you in a sarcastic manner. Now I’m not saying that badchad does this, but his argument style is not exactly one that makes others want to respond. Not that they don’t care what he has to say, but the way he says it really doesn’t make people want to read it.