Please define “their Lord’s central tenets” and how you came to that definition.
PS-No masturbation allowed. 
Truth Seeker cites, as the strongest argument presented in the Pit thread, the following:
For fairness, before I begin I should note that I have not yet offered either Truth Seeker or badchad an opportunity to select a different strongest argument with which to fight this battle. If either decides to do so, well, I can’t blame 'em for abandoning a lemon, so they are hereby invited to come up with something different.
So, to begin, let me list the ways in which this argument fails.[ul][li]I will give the standard request for at least one citation showing that Poly has based his interpretations (NOTE: not “rejections”) of Christ’s comments regarding divorce, and Christ’s references to a smoldering garbage dump outside of Jerusalem, purely on the “love thy neighbor” central theme and not on any other contextual factors. If we find that other factors have been cited, the argument begins to fail on the basis of card stacking. (See here for details: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ )[]Next, the argument right off the bat provides a false dichotomy by having the proposed Christian compare only two statements, and only in terms of the Christian’s perception of their truth value.[]The argument presents the Christian as arbitrarily assigning a truth value to the statement he likes. This smacks of suppressed evidence, particularly when justifications have been offered for the selection of “central teachings” employed by the Christian.The argument presents the statements as equal planks in some sort of Christian moral platform. This is the fallacy of “abstraction” in that of the three statements, one is an absolute directive (“love thy neighbor”), one is itself an interpretation of existing religious law (“divorce is bad”) and the other is a topical allusion used as allegory (“lake of fire”).[/ul][/li]
Should I pause to allow response? I’d like to return at some point to the question of objections # 3, 4 and 5, because that is the true crux of the argument; that a believer’s interpretations are not valid by dint of his belief, while an unbeliever is free to interpret as he or she likes (being free from the constraints which belief supposedly places on one’s rational abilities).
I have no idea what you mean by this. I am not challenging you to prove anything.
Hey, you know the interesting thing about all this is that your technique of ascribing arguments to people based on your assessment of what they really meant is something that Polycarp himself happens to have strong feelings about. At one point he got the idea (incorrectly) that badchad was doing this to him, and he was so worked up about it that he started a pit thread to curse him out over it. In light of his strongly held views on the subject, I fully expect Polycarp, when he gets around to this thread, to smite you down from on high for your transgressions in this area.
I want to emphasize that I know very little about Christian theology and the NT, and am not going to argue about whether this or that interpretation is correct (I have sympathies in one direction or another, but can’t debate them - I leave this to others). I am only here to characterize the nature of the argument. Essentially what you are saying here is that you think Polycarp has a strong case. That’s fine. Still, the argument being put forth by his opponents is that he does not have a strong case, not that his methodology is invalid. That’s all I’m saying.
Again, that’s not correct. The thesis is that the particular analysis being used to justify these particular “contradictions” is not valid. IOW, that if you looked at these verses with an unbiased eye, and included contextual analysis, you would draw some other conclusion. Maybe the authors did in fact contradict themselves and each other. Maybe the concepts are not contradictory - at least from the perspective of the authors - or maybe some other explanation. (I would imagine that an atheist might incline to the notion that the ideas are in fact contradictory, while a fundamentalist would hold that even the plain meanings are not conceptually contradictory). Either way. This idea - which you seem to be saying - that absent these particular contextual explanations there is no other way to understand the texts at all has no basis at all.
My conclusion was reached by paying attention to what Christians say are “their Lord’s central tenets”.
Poly explains it from his standpoint here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=4185275#post4185275
[quote]
6. This means that anyone claiming to follow Him, including msyelf and others who claim the title Christian, is obliged to espouse an ethics founded on what He taught. I summarize this as:[ul][li]The Two Great Commandments[]The Golden Rule[]The Great Commission[]Aspiration to a high standard of personal ethics[]Non-judgmentalism and acceptance of others as one’s equals, entitled to one’s love and respect[]Repentance and trust in God, accepting one’s inability to live up to the ideals above outlined[]A quest for decent treatment for all and social justice, particularly for those oppressed by society historically[/ul][/li][/quote]
But I’m sure you can find some more widely used Christian cites for the list provided by Poly. And if any practicing Christians want to provide some links, I’d be grateful. Me, I was a hard atheist, then a soft atheist for quite some time, and now all I know is I currently interact with a Person whose voice I recognize in a few ancient documents. So I’m kinda behind on all the study aids. I know what method makes the most sense to me for study though (thanks Poly) and what makes the most sense to me for living (thanks Tris).
Just so everyone’s clear on what we’re debating, it’s the study methodology and how/if it is validated by the belief system; we’re not debating the belief system itself.
If it were truly the thesis that only some specific interpretations of contradictory verses are invalid, how would one explain the quotes from badchad deriding the "childish system"and godzillatemple activating “BS monitors” over the method of analysis itself?
What badchad and the others’ major complaint seems to be is that Poly refuses to worship the texts, and attempts to find the wisdom recorded in them instead.
And btw, if Polycarp wishes to smite me for my interpretation of those quotes I’ll listen to him, but I’d sure like a refutation more involved than badchad’s “I don’t know where you’re coming from.”
Because the suggestion is that these incorrect interpretations were not random errors in judgment but were part of a larger approach of selectively interpreting scripture according to whatever method allows them to conform to one’s personal beliefs. It is this approach which is being derided here.
Not sure what you mean here in the context of this thread - it sounds like you are now moving away from your “contextual analysis” theme and onto a new approach of allowing for the scripture to be incorrect in some ways, but taking the good parts and leaving the rest. I understand this to be the approach favored by Libertarian and others, but in any event, it does not seem to be connected to the rest of your discussion.
Heh? Please read the link I provided to Poly’s analytical explanation. For that matter, please re-read posts 1 and 2 above. Contextual analysis involves attempting to understand textual conflicts in terms of how, when and why verses ended up in text, who authored the texts and what is actually being said in the text in as accurate a translation as possible. One then tries to understand the text from the perspective of those central tenets which so mystify you.
To characterize all that as “taking the good parts and leaving the rest” is just another way of denying to Christians the tool of contextual analysis.
I should point out, for the sake of not being missunderstood, and not being seen as a lier.
I do not hold with the view that Polycarp only interprets contextualy those parts of the scriptures that dissagree with his philosophy. I do know and have known people who do.
Xeno,
OK, I may have misunderstood you. Your “worshipping” vs. “find the wisdom” threw me off, and I thought you meant “find the wisdom” to mean take such wisdom as exists and blow off the rest.
I think you can find the wisdom using any approach - to the extent that you happen to believe there is wisdom to be found. And the fact that you don’t believe that many of the sayings are non-literal does not imply that you are worshipping the text. (I think most of what you’ve written in this thread is quite literal, and I don’t worship it at all ;)).
ISTM that your characterization of the “major complaint” is nothing but a cheap way to denigrate their argument.
Xeno said, "
quote:
Kalhoun:
Um…I don’t think I actually said that. I think I was quoting someone else. Godzilla maybe? Shit. I wish I was that good!
You’re absolutely right. You were quoting godzillatemple. My apologies.
The question of course is whether the criticism you quoted was “that good” as a snide bullshit comment, or “that good” as a logical objection. I believe I’ve already offered my opinion.
I was simply commenting on Godzilla’s ability to put a coherent paragraph together (I’m not a very skilled debater…can ya tell?). I agree with his argument and was not being snide.
IzzyR,
Forgive me for interrupting, but I have a question. I picked on you since you seem to the most active correspondant on the one side of the discussion.
What do you perceive the primary contention of BadChad, yourself, et al.?
[ol][li]Is it that all who apply contextual analysis do so to make some text conform to their beliefs?[]Is it that contextual analysis is prone to error, and is therfore by-and-large not productive?[]Is it #2, above, coupled with the conclusion that the best approach is a face-value interpretation of the words mean to us now?[]Is it that Poly, in particular, is prone to #1, above?[]Something else?[/ol][/li]
The following is not specifically directed at Izzy.
For my self, the best interpretation of any text involves using all the tools at one’s disposal. If I know nothing of a culture, other than how to translate the text, then I read the words and decide on some meaning. (The ability to translate implies more than mere knowledge of a one-for-one correspondance, of course – but let that go.) If I know that Mark Twain lifetime included the events of the Civil War, and I know from other authors that ladies wore hoop-skirts, then perhaps I understand more about what Twain meant by some passage or other.
If from various sources one can assert the general nature of a woman’s place in society then it is reasonable to assert some interpretation on the passages on divorce.
In the exchange between badchad(?) and Shodan, I feel both have reasonable interpretations. In any two reasonable people might hold two contradictory views? Does “this word” refer to marriage, in general, or divorce, in particular? It’s arguable. Both are reasonable. A reasonable counter-argument is not “Oh come on!”
Given ambiguities, humble honest people choose not to judge another’s differing view.
I suspect that where the complaint against contextual criticism both fails and succeeds is that no-one can interpret anything outside the context of one’s experience.
The complaint succeeds because we will indeed inject our biases (correct or not) into our interpretation regardless of the care we take.
It fails because we lack the ability to do anything else. Assuming some document has value (historically, spiritually, or for counter-espionage), we must interpret as best we can.
Tinker
Arggh.
should have been
Sorry.
Tinker,
First, I reiterate that I am merely summarizing the argument in this thread, so your question about the primary contention of “badchad, yourself, et al” is misattributed. I admit being in general sympathy for the position, but I can’t take too strong a stand on it as it relates to the NT and Christian theology, as I am not familiar with these matters.
But if you rephrase the question as “badchad, et al” I would say that the primary objection is #4. Although here too, it’s not so much a criticism of Poly in particular as it is a criticism of liberal Christians in general. Polycarp has attracted the brunt of the criticism because he is a very visible, outspoken, and widely venerated liberal Christian on these boards (possibly other personality issues factor in as well). But it’s not just about his personal and unique interpretations - it’s about the general approach taken by this group. So modify #4 to “Polycarp and other liberal Christians” and you’re there.
Bippy: Sorry for my previous inclusion of you in “you fellows”. I thought you were presenting the argument rather than attempting to explain it. My bad.
Izzy: So I think your statement of the argument made by badchad et al would be something like “Polycarp and other liberal Christians are prone to applying contextual analysis as a general approach toward conforming scriptural text to their beliefs.” Is this accurate?
(By the way, please tell me if you’re comfortable being badchad’s spokesman. I realize you didn’t appoint yourself to that role.)
IzzyR,
Thank you for the clarification.
To anyone,
So modifying #4 above with Izzy’s correction, we have
4a. Liberal Christians are prone to apply contextual criticism to make the Bible conform to their beliefs.
Correct?
Is it correct to assert that to prove that 4a is correct, we need to demonstrate that LCs do, in fact, do this?
If so, is proof even possible?
Thanks,
Tinker
Exactly, Tinker. Further though, if it is the contention that liberal Christian analysis is not valid for the reason stated, how then are the contextual interpretations of those antagonistic to Christianity valid? Should we not contend that contextual analyses from such a perspective are used as a general approach toward making Christian scripture conform to views which the antagonist can then condemn?
If so, then how is the argument not a general indictment of the contextual approach to understanding? And if not, how does one justify the different standards?
xenophon41,
Sorry for saying what you already said, just above. It would appear I was composing while you were posting.
I think we need another point of clarification. You’re specification for the argument is slightly different.
So I think we need to ask those making the contention, is it 4a or
4b. 4a --> LC’s interpretations are invalid.
If 4b, then your counter-argument, I think, is valid. In fact, that is what I was thinking when I made the list, above. But, I see here a distinction I should have made.
If merely 4a, then some proof may be made as follows:[list=A][li]An LC (Person 1) makes interpretation that conforms to this LC’s belief.[]Person 2 (even another LC) makes an interpretation that is different, even contradictory, to 1’s.[]Consensus is that 2’s interpretation is manifestly better (assume a satisfactory evidence is supplied to its “betterness”.)Person 1 aware of the Person 2’s interpretation and the consensus refuses to retract original interpretation, or at least refuses to reconsider, or rejects the passage as unimportant/errant.[/list][/li]Point B, above, is necessary to show some other interpretation exists or can exist. Point C is necessary to allow judgement. Point D is necessary to show that Person 1 is interpreting with the motive of making scripture conform.
This supposes, of course, that the conversants agree with my former statement – that it is not possible to do any interpretation in the absense of one’s experiences.
Tinker
Yes. (Another quibble: this does not necessarily constitute the sum of all criticism of these groups. But it would be an accurate version of the criticism as it applies to contextual analysis - the subject of this thread).
I call them as I see them - if that puts me in the role as someone’s spokesman, that’s fine. I’ve been such a “spokesman” for a lot of people, of varying ideologies and personalities.
Well you can certainly do just that, and it would be a valid argument, from a purely logical standpoint. (Though you would have to be willing to back up your case.)
But of course, the fact that an argument in the opposite direction is not inherently illogical does not invalidate the original argument. Either one or neither (or both) might be right, and if you want to argue the case, whip out some actual arguments, instead of trying to insist that the theoretical possibility of a contrary argument changes the nature of this one.
If you say “so-and-so tends to incorrectly apply logical principles”, one might debate whether this tendency does in fact exist. But you cannot say “hey, I could just as easily say that you incorrectly apply logical principles. Therefore your real argument is that logical principles should never be used”. This is obvious nonsense.
Tinker Grey
There are a lot of things that are difficult to “prove” but can nonetheless be profitably discussed, and people can make judgments and form opinions. This is frequently the case when the judgments are based on an analysis of larger patterns of thought and behavior, as is the case here.
In this case, the gauntlet was thrown down in the opposite direction - as a challenge for to liberal Christians to show how they can justify their beliefs in light of the totality of Biblical teachings. The subsequent step would be to debate those justifications and decide if they are reasonable or amounted to justifications of preferred beliefs. Seems reasonable to me.
I don’t think you can demand in such an instance that someone “prove” the other guy’s motivation, beyond showing various instances that seem to fit the pattern. It’s a judgment call - if your judgment differs, that’s certainly your prerogative.
General note: I am gong to be offline for the weekend beginning in about 1 hour. So I am going to have to take leave of my “spokesman” role for that interval. I am not ignoring the thread or anyone.