IzzyR beat me to it.
If and when Polycarp wants to present the case for his hunch, I am willing to listen, with as much of an open mind as his consistent grace and favor on this message board has earned.
Maybe he is deluded. Maybe he is right. Maybe he has OD’ed on locusts and wild honey, and has a belt of camel hair around his loins.
Who knows? I suspect that neither the angels in heaven, nor even the Son knows, but only the Father in heaven. And He ain’t saying so far.
Regards,
Shodan
If we’re gonna stick with the space aliens thing, what we have is Poly saying, “I believe in space aliens, and I suspect my neighbor is a space alien, and I know that Isaac Newton was a space alien.” Then we have a bunch of other people saying, “Yeah, Isaac Newton was a space alien, but your neighbor is one, too? What kind of lunatic are you?”
Christians ALL identify Yeshua ben Josef (sp?) as the messiah. Poly is saying he suspects this other person he knows is also the messiah. I fail to see how identifying the unnamed person is any crazier than identifying Yeshua is.
Daniel
DtC, I understand what you’re saying. And if Poly had just said that he thinks Jesus will return in the form of human flesh, not necessarily on a lightning bolt, I don’t think he’d be called “crazy”.
It’s the idea that Poly believes he knows who the Messiah is that has everyone worked up.
I mean, I believe that there was a guy named Moses who actually communicated with God a long time ago. But…I’m going to be afraid of someone who tells me that God speaks to them on a daily basis.
I once asked my mother–a deeply religious Christian woman (actually an ordained minister)–what she would do if I told her I was pregnant through immaculation conception. She told me she’d put in me the loony bin. She would do this even though she is a devout Christian and believes Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus.
Just cuz I accept one weird thing doesn’t mean I have to accept all weird things.
minty, what “extraordinary claim” is Poly making in statement 3? Is it extraordinary to speculate on the identity of someone you expect to appear “in our time”? That’s the only claim I see; that he thinks it could be a particular guy, based on speculation. -That’s not like saying he thinks UFO’s are probably space invaders; it’s like saying he thinks the UFO’s most people agree are natural phenomena are a particular natural phenomenon, based on he and his wife’s speculation. I see nothing extraordinary in that.
Well I’d say it would be a reasonable posit that there is intelligent life exists out there and that it may have a passing interest on a planet with other life forms that it would like to check out. That’s just my opinion of course.
Saying it picked you in particular out so it could hang out in your garage and drink your beer is a much more specific claim and boosts you up from the masses instantly. I’d require much more proof that you weren’t insane.
To those who are defending Poly by saying his loony beliefs here are not any more loony that belief in Christianity in general. I agree with that but think it offers no excuse.
Also 2 points I would like to make.
First for someone to believe in a particular lunacy, while not reasonable, is at least understandable if it has been drummed into you since birth, which I would offer is the case with the majority of Christians who post here. Poly no longer has that excuse and when he starts breaking away from the crowd, it opens the possibility that his beliefs are no longer conformity but genuine psychosis.
Second, and I think this is my stronger point, is that unlike Jesus of 2000 years ago, the so called present Jesus (should Poly ever have the balls to name him) is easily falsifiable, if not immediately, but when he eventually dies in a mundane way.
Monstro:
My point is that once you do accept one weird thing it kind of disqualifies you from calling other beliefs weird.
To go back to Darkhold’s analogy, I would say it’s more the diffrence between believing aliens have already been here and will return again and speculating that maybe they’ve already returned and are in hiding.
Diogenes the Cynic
I’d go along with that. As long as you add that he’s speculating he’s identified them through an unexpected means (something comparable to finding a MAJOR religious figure through the net whatever that would be) and drops hints about who they are while refusing to make a statement of the exact identities.
Why does it require an “excuse?”
Interestingly enough, the death of a presumptive Messiah without fulfillment of the prophesies was a definitive disqualifier the first time around (and still is in Judaism).
Jesus the First did not arrive in the manner of OT descriptions nor did he fulfill the Messianic expectations therein, so why would have to arrive like or fulfill expectations described in the NT?
If he doesn’t have to abide by the Old Testament, then why would have to abide by the New?
I’ll go along with that Darkhold, but to be fair, he did state that he would post more information later.
OK, but what do you think? Do you really believe that all supernatural events are equally (im)plausible? That all irrational beliefs are equally irrational? That a guy who believes in the existence of space aliens is as nutty as a guy who thinks Al Gore is a space alien? (What about George Bush? ;))
As for how you can determine, it is essentially the same method that you use to determine plausible/implausible to begin with. Generally the answer is not a yes/no but rather a degree of likelihood, which might vary.
I think it is very unlikely that Lee Harvey Oswald was part of a conspiracy to kill JFK. It is also very unlikely that Bill Clinton systematically murdered his political opponents over the years. The former scenario is a lot more likely.
In addition, in some cases, such as this one (and the space alien example) the second belief requires full acceptance of the first one, but also adds some additional speculation, making it more unlikely.
LHoD, I would think the difference is that Christians who believe that their guy was the Messiah believe that they have stronger evidence than some guy’s postings on a website. Personally I don’t think there is anything to that claim either. But in judging how rational the belief is I would take into account that he seems to have made some sort of strong impression on a lot of contemporaneous (or semi-contemporaneous) people, that a whole lot of other intelligent people have also believed it etc. etc. By contrast, the belief that you alone have figured out that someone is another incarnation of same based on his postings on a website seems a whole lot shakier. YMMV.
True, I suppose. But does that mean only atheists can identify those who are insane or “out in left field”?
I’m not saying that Poly is insane. I wish those on this thread who are doing that would stop. I simply think this belief in a Messiah that he personally knows is unorthodox and potentially unhealthy, simply because–without having been exposed to the evidence–it sounds like something a crazy person would believe.
I believe God has talked to people, but I would doubt someone who said they had heard the Word of God, and I would worry for that person’s sanity. I wouldn’t call them crazy to their face, but I would worry for that person’s mental health (especially if other things were “off”). Is this so wrong?
**
This isn’t a good analogy. Rather, suppose you diligently study the Bible and reach a bunch of conclusions regarding what it really means. Suppose that, based on that same study and analysis, you also conclude Jesus had blue skin and the head of an elephant.
Seems to me that this calls into question your entire method. If you’ve reached one highly dubious conclusion, it casts doubt on your other, less obviously suspect conclusions as well. At the very least, it requires a detailed analysis of the rationale underlying your other conclusions to determine if those are equally infected with error.
In other words, your credibility as a biblical commentator would be severely damaged.
**
I don’t deny any of this, except, perhaps, the erudition part. But whether Polycarp is a good guy is a separate issue from his contention that his particular brand of goodness exactly comports with what the new testament teaches.
As for the comments along the line of “Why is everyone so worked up? It’s all silly anyway!” you’re missing the point.
First, I’ve always questioned the utility of “witnessing” threads because personal religious belief is seldom subject to strict logical analysis. People more often talk past each other than to each other.
Having said that, the only way a religious debate makes any sense at all is if there is an agreement on the basic propositions you are arguing from. For Christians, those basic propositions are found in the Bible.
So, assuming those basic propositions are true, you attempt to construct a valid argument from them. Whether or not the basic propositions are actually true is irrelevant from the standpoint of the intellectual exercise. If you don’t happen to buy into the bible, you can think of it like a geometry problem or a LOTR discussion.
I second Minty’s analysis as to why this is all so disturbing. Believing in the Bible is well within the human norm. Believing that Jesus has revealed his secret identity to you through a web page is not.
Nor is “irrational” the same as “crazy.” It is irrational to believe that UFOs are space aliens visiting earth. It is crazy to believe that your next-door neighbor is a space alien. By the same token, Diogenes believes that belief in any religion is irrational. Assuming, arguendo, he is correct, belief in religion is not crazy. Believing that Justin Timberlake is the second coming of Jesus, however, is presumptively crazy.
Once again, these extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I’m sceptical, but I’m willing to let Polycarp rebut the presumption. However, if he is unwilling to do so, I’ll be forced to conclude that our best and most thoughtful example of liberal Christianity has a mind of clay.
yeah but I hope it’s a name not the guy’s birthday, favorite ice cream, and if he wears boxers. 
If and when this guy dies (“If” – remember, we’re not assuming we’re right here), I expect Poly to take the occasion to evaluate his hunch.
If the guy dies from ODing on airplane glue, and Poly maintains he was Jesus, I’ll be skeptical.
If the guy dies from being shot to death by an angry mob of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and later appears one last time on television describing his death and absolving his murderers, why, I’ll think no worse of Poly for maintaining that the guy is the Messiah.
Either way, it’s no skin off my back, and i"m not sure why it’s any off yours.
Daniel
Diogenes the Cynic:
Cause it seems to me you are apologizing for Poly, as it seems you like to do for liberal Christians in general. Just my opinion, but I think to be consistent with what you have stated, you should not have much problem, just saying “Poly you’re a loon." However, you just like him too much for that don’t you.
Duh, I think I have stated as much. You should not be directing this at me but rather at Poly.
Duh, again for the first part. For the latter part for one to be able to trust Jesus (or his biographers) in what he/they say about redemption and salvation (extraordinary claims) as well as morality he/they should have an extraordinarily reliable track record.
What are you telling me this for? It’s not my point, which you quoted above. My point is that this time, this Jesus is falsifiable, unless Poly wants to define him as a fairly regular guy leading a fairly regular life, no different then all the other loonies who thought they were god.
I’m curios Diogenes why are you such a sympathizer?
To a non-believer, Polycarp’s apparent claim that he thinks he can identify the incarnation of the second coming is no crazier than his already-documented belief in all the rest of Christian assertions as explicated in the Bible. Fair enough; given his propensity to believe a whole bunch of unlikely things, what’s one more unlikely thing?
But to believers, his statement is jarring. We’re willing to believe unlikely things, but we’re pretty uniform in insisting that our unlikely beliefs have some degree of internal consistency. We appeal to the Bible as the arbiter of consistency. If it’s in there, explicitly, okay; if it’s recognizably in there with a bit of interpretation, that’s fair too, and we’re free to determine if we think the interpretation is correct.
What’s jarring is that Polycarp’s apparent claim ain’t in there, even with some very, very liberal interpretive gymnastics. This is out of character for him, and thus cause for consternation.
Despite Badchad’s protests to the contrary, Polycarp’s stated beliefs have fallen well within the teachings of mainstream Christianity (at least, the liberal Protestant interpretation of mainstream Christianity). Polycarp has based his statements about his faith on his interpretation of existing scripture; even those Christians who disagree with his interpretations can still understand the origin of those interpretations.
Lots of folks have signed-on to visions of the “Rapture” and literal interpretations of apocalyptic writings, and other Christians have just shrugged their shoulders - okay, another interpretation I don’t buy into. But this new thing goes well beyond differing interpretations of scripture. It’s such a radical departure from Polycarp’s “style” that it stands out.
I’m dying to see how this plays out. I’m curious to learn the source of Polycarp’s “hunch”, especially to learn how it derives from scripture, or supercedes scripture, or just tips its hat to scripture and sidles past it. I’m real curious to know how somebody can “play the role” of the second coming without actually being the second coming, although I suspect it may just be a matter of semantics.
It’s this very quality that I admire about Polycarp. Call me crazy, but I think of faith as a very personal thing, and I applaud that he has formed a very specific belief system because of (presumably) years of thought.*
That said, I’m as confused as anybody with regard to why Poly has come this far with his revelation, but hasn’t yet gone “all the way”.
If this is something he’s believed for a long time, it’s still something that to me hasn’t interfered with his exceptional standing on this board. So I guess count me in with the crowd on Poly’s side.
*which is not to say that I think following a more traditional, “organized” faith is necessarily a bad thing at all.
I don’t often use this, but :rolleyes: . That’s NOT what he said.
A hunch is different from a belief. I BELIEVE that I’m drinking coffee right now. I have a HUNCH that the half-and-half in it isn’t organic.
I’d be shocked if my belief turned out incorrect. If the half-and-half is organic, I won’t be surprised at all.
He completely hedged his bets here. In no way did he suggest (as Izzy implies above) that his belief in this anonymous messiah is as strong as his belief in the holiness of Jesus.
And if the self-identified Christians in question don’t agree on the inerrancy of the Bible, then a religious debate doesn’t make any sense at all. Rather than trying to force the Christians to change their beliefs about the Bible, why not just accept that relgikious debate is unproductive in this case?
Daniel
And may I just add that “relgikious” is really fun to say? I mean, I’m an atheist and all, but
That’s just relgikious!
Daniel