Left Hand of Dorkness:
Speak for yourself. I have no compunction about assuming Poly is wrong. In light of the zero evidence presented it seems like the reasonable null hypothesis to me.
But you’re not skeptical now? How open minded you are. Be sure to stay vertical, I don’t want that brain to fall out.
Brentwood Presbyterian Church This sums it up for me.
Yeah, but the question is whether you’ll show up three posts later…
But Jesus V1.0 started out with no followers, then a dozen or so and that grew. Perhaps there are some non-Dopers who also make up the 12 with Poly and his wife.
Hmmmmm, http://www.wilwheaton.net/ is still going. Wil’s got a book deal, too! The kid rocks–too bad about that Wesley thing. And I guess he’s not God, either, though it would’ve been surprising.
I, as one of the more half-assed Christians on this board (note to dropzone: Finish your Lenten devotional. They need it at the printer’s.) am happy that my friend and mentor Polycarp has a belief that is as odd as some of mine. One can be too conventional, you know.
Regardless of the ways in which people can mince someone’s posts and even an entire thread or two in a few days time to a fine paste, some people have a history on this message Board of being generally sane, generally knowledgeable, and generally rational.
I’m willing to give Polycarp the benefit of the doubt. He has history. People don’t “turn loony” overnight. People do, however, on occasion make mistakes, say things they didn’t think through fully, say things that weren’t clarifed enough or which are difficult to accurately express in words, or speak from a general sense and general tense that is interpreted as an exact and precise claim. And sometimes, in an attempt to explain themselves or clarify further, they end up unintentionally “digging a deeper hole”. It happens all the time.
Like I said, Polycarp has a long, strong, positive history here. If further and repeated clarification shows that he is indeed making extraordinary claims without proof or basis, then that would be a different matter. But until then, he has my benefit of the doubt.
Hey, fuck you too, you sanctimonious ass. You’re every bit as bad as Libertarian.
Daniel
Well it’s quite possible that those early guys were completely off the wall - I’m talking about contemporary Christians. Someone who maintains that those guys were rational would presumably tell you that they didn’t come to that belief until confronted with some very strong evidence, e.g. prolonged exposure to his personality, miracles etc.
A different matter indeed: so far, the only claim he’s made is that he has a hunch, and that claim is imminently ordinary.
Nobody, I think, doubts that he has a hunch. Some people are deliberately or sloppily misinterpreting “hunch” to mean something other than what it means.
If and when he starts claiming that he does in fact know who the messiah is, then subjecting his belief to rigorous standards might make sense. At this point, it’s foolishness.
Daniel
Yes.
Yes. Rational and irrational are binary choices. There are no degrees of irrationality. You can’t be a little bit pregnant, either you are or you aren’t.
Ok, I’m going to qualify this one. A belief in the possiblity of extraterrestrial life, or even a reasoned conclusion that life would have to evolve on more than one planet in such an immense universe is not not supernatural or irrational. A belief that aliens have already been here and will return in some indefinite future is no more rational than suspecting George Bush (or more likely Michael Jackson ;)) is an alien.
I don’t think your analogy works because neither example is prima facia impossible. Supernatural events are impossible until you can prove otherwise. Since there is no empirical evidence whatever that any supernatural event has ever occurred, all speculation about such events is equally unsupportable by rational standards. One impossible thing cannot be more impossible than another impossible thing.
Maybe Polycarp has fallen for Benjamin Creme/Maitreya nonsense?
UnuMondo
I disagree.
Disagree here as well. I also think your position is absurd, and am skeptical as to whether you yourself actually believe it (unless we are miscommunicating).
There is no such thing as “impossible until …” Either something is possible or impossible (your pregnancy analogy has its proper place here). By saying that something is impossible you are foreclosing the possibility that you can prove otherwise - by acknowledging that you might prove otherwise you are implicitly acknowledging that it is not impossible but merely unlikely. Which brings in the question of degrees of likelihood.
I agree with Izzy that there are degrees of irrationality. As suggested before, I’ve met Christians (well, one Christian) who told me that they could see demons hovering behind people’s shoulders coaching them on toward sin. I’ve also met Christians who believe that the universe is filled with an impersonal force called variously Love, Buddha Nature, or God.
Neither belief seems to me to be founded in reason, and I see no reason to subscribe to either belief. However, the demons-over-the-shoulder folks strike me as a lot nuttier than the Impersonal God folks.
Poly’s belief that Yeshua was the messiah, however, seems to me to be no more or less rational than his hunch that the guy on the Internet is the messiah. Other than the fact that the first one is a belief and the second is a hunch, they’re both based on little more than faith – to my eyes, there’s equally weak rational basis for either.
Not that that’s necessarily a bad thing: faith certainly has its place, and reason doesn’t always trump faith. But I don’t see this as a case where reason holds much sway.
Daniel
Excuse me? The human mind and certainly human beliefs are NOT binary. We are not a light switch that’s toggled on and off. Heck analog would be a simplification of gigantic proportions. By this method a person that goes to church once a week is equal to the guy that runs godhatesfags. I hope you clarify as it stands ridiculous would be the kindest word I could use for it.
Maybe, but I sincerely don’t think his beliefs are any more loony than any other religious beliefs and at least his beliefs are grounded in a genuine desire to make them compatible with basic ideals of compassion and tolerance, even if he has to rationalize or stretch a bit to do that.
My point was that the death of a presumptive Messiah may not necessarily be accepted as falsification by everybody, no matter what you and i may think.
Because I see no malice or judgement or hostility or arrogance in any of Poly’s posts. He doesn’t want to force me to be a Christian, he doesn’t want to teach my daughter creationism or force her to pray in school. He doesn’t hate gay people or atheists or Jews. He shows more scholarship on his religion than a lot of people do (even though it is admittedly a faith based schoalrship), and he’s basically just a decent, thoughtful and tolerant guy. He’s not an asshole. There are plenty on the Christian right who are assholes. Colossal assholes, some of them. I’d rather expend my energy going after toxic beliefs than compassionate ones.
Una Persson, you don’t think it could be Jerry C. and Miss Brunner?
So Poly has a hunch he knows someone who may become the new messiah.
Well granted, most people with such hunches are somewhat barmey. But I don’t think it’s time to call out the men in white coats quite yet.
The reason Polycarp and others have rehabilitated Christianity for me is because they follow a message of love and act that way, despite their beliefs, which I feel uncomfortable with.
Adding another belief I feel uncomfortable with makes fairly little difference to me.
Maybe we’re not talking about the same thing. My post did not address whether it was a “hunch” or “claim” I said that “If further and repeated clarification shows that he is indeed making extraordinary claims without proof or basis, then that would be a different matter.”
Thus, regardless of whether it is a “hunch” or a “claim”, I only said it would be a different matter if, in fact, he was “making extraordinary claims without proof or basis”. If he’s not even making a “claim” in the first place, then the whole thing is derailed from the start.
But even if he was making a “claim”, my point is that I give him the benefit of the doubt pending much further explaination, given his long positive posting history and all those things I said re: mistakes etc. Do you see what I’m getting at?
So… not to point out the 900 lb. gorilla in the porta-potty… but what if Polycarp is right?
Diogenes:
Me, I’d rather not go after toxic beliefs – I’d rather go after assholes. (shuttup, you know what I mean)
LaurAnge phrased it beautifully. As long as someone’s a decent person, I don’t care what they believe. If they’re an asswipe, on the other hand, I still don’t care what they believe. Their religious beliefs are their business andnot mine, just as mine are my business and not theirs.
Daniel