badchad you are a tiresome asshole and becoming a One-Trick Pony

The BBQ Pit
61

Look, I am what some people call a “liberal Christian” in that I don’t believe in Biblical inerrancy, I do accept evolution, I do not see homosexual orientation or sexual activity as inherently more sinful than heterosexual activity, and my apparent focus is more on God’s mercy than His judgement. As I have read what badchad has written during the past year, my positions are not consistent with Christianity as he defines it, and my insistence on clinging to my religious beliefs is an indication that I am not capable of logic and that I am not completely sane. Well, bluntly, I suffer from clinical depression. In a strict, literalist sense, I’m not completely sane. As for being capable of logic, I am a computer programmer. I’ve designed robust, versatile systems which have run for years. In my own opinion, I’m not completely incapable of logic.

I don’t claim to have my religious beliefs fully worked out, nor do I expect to in my lifetime. I do know that, because of the way my mind works, neither Fundamentalist Christianity nor Atheism are viable belief systems for me, although I do realize they work for others. Had I been an atheist this winter when I was laid off, applying strict logic to my life, colored by the way depression and despair affect my mind, I would have seen ending my life as the only logical thing to do. As it was, I came close. Under the Fundamentalist mindset, I suspect my tendency to magnify my own faults and failings would kick in even harder than it usually does, and I might well judge myself too sinful too live.

More to the point, I’m also incredibly contrary by nature. If you tell me “You must be [A]”, my gut reaction is to look into becoming the opposite. I can accept authority, but it had better be someone I know and respect. Someone telling me they’re speaking for God or logic doesn’t cut it. I am devout for all my “liberalism” and I have a personal relationship with what I believe to be God. I have had prayers answered in my life, and I’ve seen what I believe to be miracles. Why then, should I unquestionally accept someone else’s experience with God over my own, especially if that person’s experiences with God and what their beliefs about God wants directly contradict my own?

I’m not an Atheist; I’m not a Fundamentalist Christian. While, no doubt, if I had to, I could find a way to function without religion in my life, it would be a kludge and a work-around if ever there was one. As I tried to say early in my encounters with badchad, religion provides a simple, elegant solution to various problems if my life. If that means I’m using it as a crutch, I freely admit that. In some ways, I have a couple of broken legs, which means I need a crutch sometimes.

When I took badchad to be taking a “You must be [A] or you’re no true Christian”, after getting irritated and attempting to engage him a few times, I walked away. I believe that was the right thing to do. If anyone wishes to thing I’m illogical, insane, inconsistent, or anything else, that is their privilege. I am neither of the things badchad tells me I must be, nor do I care to be. It is most certainly possible for me to change what I am, but his arguments do not make me inclined to either of the options he presents.

CJ

62

Badchad

I’m delighted that your willpower is so weak. Finally, you and I get to have a discussion.

The Bible is not my favorite, actually. My favorite is Jesus the Son of Man. Mein Kampf is way down the list, loitering at the bottom of the well somewhere between your first and last post.

If you knew what life is, we wouldn’t be at odds here. Unfortunately, you make no distinction between flesh and spirit, between lust and love, or between a man’s blood pumping organ and his heart. It is because you apply an atheist interpretation to a spiritual phenomenon that you produce conclusions warped by confusion and error.

You see mankind no different from the way you see a mound of piss-ants. If you step on them, they are destroyed. Same same for men. You believe that when a man is crushed into the earth and loses all his blood that he is dead. Just like the piss-ant. It is no wonder than that you interpret all the smiting as something horrible. It is beyond your understanding that a man’s body may die and yet the man may live.

“Whoever believes in Me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.” — Jesus

When you opine on spiritual matters, it reminds me of a scene from My Cousin Vinny. Bill Gambini and Stan Rothenstein have just been discussing prison sex, with Stan warning his friend of the inevitable encounter with a man who would surely make them his bitches. In comes Vincent La Guardia Gambini while Bill is asleep and Stan is pacing. Vincent is there in his capacity as an attorney, but Stan doesn’t know this. He interprets everything that ensues in the context of a sexual attack.

Vincent is Bill’s cousin, but Stan doesn’t know this either. So when Vincent pats Bill’s butt and remarks how cute he is, Stan assumes that Vincent wants to fuck Bill. But when Vincent says, “I think I’ll just let him rest and deal with you first,” Stan recoils in horror, thinking that he soon will be sporting a new buttplug.

The conversation proceeds with each character completely ignorant of the other’s set of inferences. When Vincent says that Stan should be grateful he is there, Stan is incredulous, expressing his disbelief that he should be grateful for what is about to happen. Meanwhile, when Stan says that his only alternative is to commit suicide, Vincent is astounded that the services he offers are so roundly disrespected. Vincent believes that Stan is rejecting him as a lawyer. Stan believes that Vincent is wooing him as a sex partner.

You bring this sort of approach to matters that are spiritual in nature. You believe that when a man’s body is dead, so is the man. Therefore, like Stan misunderstanding the deeds and words of Vincent Gambini, you misunderstand the deeds and words of God. You think God has killed a baby, smitten someone, or cast someone into the lake of fire when in fact God as rescued a baby, saved a soul, or given someone the longing of his heart.

If you practice this same sort of equivocation in any other matter, you will look equally stupid. For example, suppose you were to inject yourself into a debate on politics. Under discussion is the implication of coercion, defined as the initiation of force.

What you will do is approach the discussion from a context of, say, physics rather than philosophy. And you will demand that the debator identify the mass and acceleration that determines the force he is talking about. He will tell you you are crazy, and you will point out passages from science textbooks that explain how force is equal to mass times acceleration.

But that isn’t the kind of force he is talking about. If you know that is the case but pretend not to know, then you are dishonest. If you don’t know, then you are ignorant. And if you know but do not understand how your knowledge applies, then you are simply stupid.

So which is it when you talk about the Bible? Are you dishonest, ignorant, or stupid?

63

Libertarian:

quote by me:

Alright [sic], this I can’t resist. The bible [sic] is a love letter? With all that baby killing, smiting and hellfire? What’s your second favorite, Mein Kampf?

Sorry Lib, as I said before I think you’re a nut and your discombobulated reply only affirms that. I’ll let my simple questions written above stand on their own against your full reply and if anyone else (barring Lekatt) thinks your point is worth making their own I will be glad to take it further.

64

Not one to get involved in religious discussions much as I don’t think there’s much to gain from doing so – quite the contrary, you’ll hardly ever change anyone’s mind and are likely to make quite a few enemies along the way.

That said, may as well dive in with a thud.

I had not read anything by this badchad character prior to opening this thread, but after reading the OP my curiosity was piqued and I went looking for his posting history. Must say his critics are correct in pointing out the confrontational, in your face nature of his approach – he/she certainly doesn’t seem to be pulling back his punches and comes off as quite cocky and brash. So yeah, I can see how his posts might – and do – sting members of The Faithful®. But that doesn’t mean he/she isn’t correct. Quite the opposite actually, for I think he/she is and his arguments are in fact solid to the point of being irrefutable no matter how hard the Bible-spinners might try.

The problem with religion as I see it, is that once it goes beyond the personal realm and into public scrutiny, it simply doesn’t hold up to logic and facts. Which inevitably leads believers to the use of their ubiquitous “get out of jail card,” FAITH. A dabate ender if ever there was one, for how do you argue against faith? Not rationally anyway.

Wash, rinse, repeat. It really does get boring from there as no forward progress can possibly be made against the Wall Of Faith.

The End.

65

Badchad

I am a nut, and yet you deem me worthy of an apology. I am not worthy or your response, and yet you respond to me to tell me so. You will not debate me directly like a man in the light of day, but you are willing to debate my shadow like a coward whispering from behind a bush.

At least you answered my question. I hadn’t even considered psychosis.

66

RedFury

The problem with matierialism as I see it is that it confuses logic with presumption and facts with observation despite that fallacies can creep into reason and reality can play tricks with the senses.

Simple. You demonstrate how their faith has no rational basis. When you fail to do so, as Badchad has done, you lose the debate.

See what I mean? What is either reasonable or factual about that?

67

Don’t forget the strawman and No True Scotsman fallacies also. You gotta drop those as well as change your tone. I also won’t go as far as say Liberal Christianity is not something reasonable folks can’t believe. It doesn’t work for me; but it does for others.

But I think it comes down to the difference between Materialists and Dualists - a debate that Libertarian has championed for quite some time on this board and others. The fact that you don’t understand Lib is not a sign that he’s crazy. In fact, his arguement is the only one I’ve read that even tempts me towards belief.

I don’t completely understand the vitriol you have towards Liberal Christianity. They’re mostly harmless. They aren’t the ones putting up the Ten Commandments in courthouses or passing out leaflets like that treasurer in Denver. Sure, debate them, but quit the frothing it only makes you look worse. Save the anger for those who seek to oppress.

68

BADCHAD –

Yes, I do, and yes, I am. Wanna make something of it?

You don’t have the first idea of what kind of Christian I am. What would Jesus do? Well, I don’t know, but I’m guessing he would have dismissed you as well.

RED FURY –

You can certainly rationally argue about faith. People do it here all the time. But the truth is, at the end of the day, you don’t get anywhere except where you’ve started: Believers believe, some of us through the employment of actual logic and reasoning, and nonbelievers don’t. The arrogance of your position is that you only credit your team with the use of logic or rationality, when neither you nor BADCHAD nor anyone has ever proven that faith is irrational or illogical.

But what it is – what most religions are – is a matter of belief. I belief it’s true, you believe it’s false. But you’re in no better position to prove you’re right than I am. So you’re right – that is “The End,” because there isn’t a winning argument to be made against beliefs that are logical, rational, reasonable, but at bottom based on faith. I fail to see this as a failing of my belief system however. You wish to attack the unprovable by demanding proof – something the very frame of the argument dictates you cannot do. How is that my problem? How is that the problem of my beliefs?

That doesn’t mean I haven’t arrived at my beliefs logically, rationally, and deliberately, and there is a fundamental arrogance – in ignorance – in a position that is based on the premise that I couldn’t possibly have done so.

BADCHAD –

Since you’ve dismissed LIB’s perfectly cogent post, allow me to take a shot.

Huh. Except that neither I nor anyone I know believes in the supernatural and eternal life because of the Bible. Even Biblical literalists believe the Bible is the absolute and exact Word of God – not that it creates God. Are you truly so totally ignorant that you think people believe in dieties because of holy texts, as if the latter precedes the former? Do you think the Koran is the reason Muslims believe in Allah? Do you think the Torah is the reason Jews believe in God?

That’s an opinion, but a crappy one. First, who are you to decide that if the Bible is exactly what HOMEBREW said it was, and nothing more, it is “no better than the Iliad for spiritual guidance”? Since when are you the arbiter of what “lowers” or “raises” a text? Second, why does the Bible have to better than the Iliad in your eyes in order to be of legitimate value to people of faith? If there was a faith based on the tenets of the Iliad and for which the Iliad was a sacred text, it would be perfectly reasonable for people of that faith to study it and consult it. I am not a Muslim. I do not read or study the Koran. It would be fair to say it is a book to me about on par with the Iliad, except that I’ve actually read the entirety of the Iliad. In short, what you are basically saying is that you don’t consider the Bible to be divinely inspired, either in whole or in part, and that you don’t consider it a legitimate spiritual guide unless it is infallible and 100% correct, and provably so, and that you consider it to be the basis not just for Christian history and church teaching (a fair assessment) but also for the basis of God Himself. To which I reply again: Who gives a shit what you think?

If you don’t think the Bible is divinely inspired, don’t read it, don’t use it, don’t believe in it. But if you can’t prove that it’s not – and you can’t, because as RED FURY correctly points out, matters of faith are not amenable to proof or disproof, you’re in a particularly poor position to assert so positively, and so offensively, that your are right and we are wrong.

And if you see any logical fallacies in my faith or the way in which I’ve reached it, I’d be happy to address them. But I warn you that I am not a Biblical literalist, so you’re going to find it tough to condemn my faith based on your problems with that book, because my faith is only fostered on Biblical teachings in part.

69

Jodi

Maybe he thinks that Christians worship the Bible. […shrug…] It would at least explain why he believes that our worldview would fall apart were the book to be flawed.

(P.S. It’s good to be on your decide in a debate for a change, a state of affairs for which I have always longed. :))

70

Um, on your side, I meant.

71

I think I’m frequently on your side in debate, LIB, until we sail of to Libertaria . . . . :wink:

72

I’m not sure why anybody is paying attention to this twerp. While I am certainly no friend to organized religion and belief in the supernatural, neither am I fond of rhetorical ambushes, arrant dishonesty, and insults to people who do not deserve them.

Jodi and I certainly disagree theologically., but she is a fine example of a woman doing her best to live as she beleives God intended her to. She definitely doesn’t put up with foolishness, but she can also be a warm, supportive friend. Calling her " the stone the stubborn child to death type of Christian" only serves to illustrate the abysmal depths of Badchad’s ignorance of the nature of the posters here.

Schmuck.

73

You summarize my position nicely, gobear. Intellectually I am inclined to agree with many of his basic assertions on religion, but when it comes to his delivery, all I see is egotism and cruelty.

As opposed to my kind and wise egotism, of course. :stuck_out_tongue:

74

badchad:

Good for you. Unfortunately for that perspective, you are incorrect. I haven’t thought the Bible was a valid scientific text since none of the science teachers I had in HS used it … given that I went to a school run by monks for HS, I took it as pretty indicative of its use as such that none of them, not even the monk I had for chemistry, relied upon it for science lesons.

Then when I got to college and thought about it more, their decision made even more sense as I got a better feel for what it was … a religious text.

My Art History book is a good source for general information about Art. When it comes down to facts about Art it’s usually fairly accurate (it’s a book for a survey class, so it’s necessarily brief).

In the section on Egyptian art, the book makes a very brief mention of homosexuality being heavily discouraged in ancient Egypt.

So why do I trust its knowledge of art history and not of the history of the acceptance of homosexuality in Egypt (which may well be as it states, but might also be untrue)?

Because it isn’t a book baout the history of acceptance of homosexuality in Egypt. It’s a book about a very, very general history of art (and it appears to be purely Western, or at least non-Eastern, art).

Regarding the second portion of your post, I am (despite what my fiancee’s father seems to think about me…) not Christian in any meaningful sense. I’m a theist and place as much importance inthe Bible as a means to salvation as the Quran or any number of other long-existing religious texts.

There are, however, many people who do believe “Jesus died and rose from the grave to save you from you sins to live forever in eternal bliss* is anyway based in reality.” Just because I don’t necessarily accept it as truth doesn’t mean I think those people are any less noble or intelligent or what-have-you. I think some of them are quite bonkers … but in a significantly large body of people, you’re going to find some who happen to be both in that group and bonkers.

I take the Bible as I take similar religious texts; as being possibly correct and possibly not. There are useful lessons in the Bible about how to be a person people won’t hate. Are there things in it that you and I have no use for? Sure. But if we’re going to knock something based on that, we’ll soon be discrediting the OED, Smithsonian and sliced bread. I dunno about you, but I have more useful things to do with my time than attack something that isn’t doing any harm.

The Bible gives one possibility for the origin of things, and in that fact it is similar to something many other peoples, at that time, before and since, have done; come up with an explanation of the start of life, the universe and everything (since answered most capably by Douglas Adams) that said, basically “there are things bigger than us who made the things you see and the things you don’t see”.

The Bible is as accurate in its claims about the origin of life as anything else I’ve seen from that approximate time period: it may be, it may not be. Or it may be partially right, or right in a metaphorical/figurative semse. Or something else.

Okay, and?

Since I do not necessarily agree with the Bible’s postulates and such on redemption and salvation, and since I am not all that comfortable with the idea that I have NFC what will happen when I die, and since I was more comfortable with death when I believed in the general Christian idea of what happens when one dies, I find it interesting that I would find an answer (maybe the Bible is right, maybe not) that gives me less comfort more comfortable than an answer (if I do certain things and believe certain others, I’ll go to Heaven) that gave me more comfort.

And let’s please not attribute to me words I did not say. I did not say the Bible makes a compelling case for its knowledge of redemption or salvation. I said its case was more compelling than its case was for being an authority of any sort on science matters. if I say that the Bible knows more about sandals than Anne Heche, and the Bible is shown to be utterly ignorant of all things Anne Heche, does that mean the Bible knows a considerable amount about sandals? No, it need mean only that the Bible knows one thing about sandals.

I think the Bible makes a fairly logical argument for redemption/salvation … most religious (and secular) tenets hold that if you lead a good life you will have a good end (secular beliefs hold more that if you lead a good life you won’t get into as much trouble as you would if you lead a bad life). It’s a concept, IMO, that is fairly easy to grok. Do I think that every person who believes in God and leads a good life as they see it outlined in the Bible is going to Heaven? I don’t know. The Bible seems to say that, to me … but maybe I’m wrong. Or maybe it is. I dunno.

You might wish to update your personal definition of “liar” such that it is consistent with a generally-accepted definition … that is, if you wish your use of the word to carry any weight. If you don’t, feel free to use any number of other words in manners that do not both with their actual definitions.

He has not yet done as he said he would. If that makes him a liar, then I am a liar for the fact that it has been almost a full year since I asked someone very dear to me to do something with me, and we have not done it yet.

That you are not impressed with Poly, coupled with your view of Lib (that he is extremely similar to Lekatt), does not make for a convincing argument, to me, that your POV is well-versed with reality. Given that I would much rather take a debatorial stance against myself than Lib (I am not nearly as difficult to defeat as he is, and much more prone to anger), I am rather amused by the fact that you would rather try me than him. Well, amused and also not terribly surprised.

Oh. Because I’m curious (and, to an extent, a masochist), answer this for me: what do you think it says about me that I did not find Lib’s posts here discombobulated?

75

Thank you, GOBEAR, that was very kind.

76

Libertarian,

I’m a simple man. So, I hope a few simple questions will not offend your obvious intellect. Things to me are pretty black and white. Gray areas give me headache. I’m an accountant, so most of my day deals with the fact that either things add up – or they don’t. The equation is either equal – or it isn’t.

Let’s assume, for the moment, that I have no idea what life is. What is the “meaning of life” according to Libertarian?

I do not understand what “spirit” is. I cannot see it, I cannot smell it, I cannot taste it, and (from what I understand) it can only be felt in the recesses of one’s own mind. So what is “spirit”?

Concerning the heart, I know that the heart is that organ which pumps blood throughout the body. You seem to think it is more. Can you give me a working definition?

What is “spiritual phenomenon”, what are the conclusions that I am supposed to reach, and what, then, would be error according to Libertarian?

When a man is dead, he is dead. Please show evidence otherwise. I see no evidence that, somehow, our soul lives on. Can you provide an empirical example?

Biblical “smiting” is horrible. Do you disagree? What is your justification for biblical atrocities?

It is beyond rational proof. Unless, of course, you have something you wish to present?

Ok. “Whoever believes in RoundGuy, though they are poor, will soon be rich”. What’s your point?

Uh, whatever.

How about, I haven’t been blessed with the wisdom of Libertarian, thus, I am simply uneducated.

77

RoundGuy, I am not Lib so take this just as a possibility, but there is that possibility that Lib is talking about a disconnect between “death” as in “this person has ceased to breathe, blood no longer flows through their veins, their bodily functions have ceased” and “this person has ceased to have influence upon the world/people”. By those two definitions, for example, George Washington is dead by the first and not dead by the second. Again by those two examples, according to Christian doctrine at least, Christ is both dead and not dead.

Best way I can think to summarize this is that there is a difference between the direct, physical, literal meaning of death and the … metaphysical? The all-encompassing? I feel confident that Lib will explain this to you … and possibly show me back to my ass:D

78

I’m sure LIB will define it for you, but allow me to point out, ROUNDGUY, that just because you cannot see, it smell it, or taste it, and it is only felt in the recesses of the mind, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Now, you might legitimately disagree with this, at least where the eternal soul and the divine are concerned. (I assume you admit the existence of, say, emotions, intellect, and other concepts that would obviously meet your criteria but are generally agreed to exist). Many do. But I would submit that unless you (general you throughout; not you personally) can prove that your view is correct (which you can’t), you shouldn’t be a total jerk in how you voice your disagreement.

79

iampunha

If this is your definition of eternal life, then it the strangest I have ever heard.

Uh, yeah, that would be a good thing…

80

Jodi

But I say it doesn’t. It is nothing more than a dream, a nightmare, a hallucination, or whatever.

Where is the empirical evidence I can study?

You think?

I have to prove a negative? I have to prove that God doesn’t exist? I have to prove that I didn’t eat bacon for breakfast this morning? WTF?

OK, I guess, under these rules, I have no chance.