Most important thing first. The one post that disturbed me the most in this entire thread was Mr Visible’s comment of 12/8/03 1:05 AM (page 12 if you want to look back). And that is because, reacting to the comments about “teasing hints,” I was far more explicit about the kid’s identity than I had intended – and therefore, sooner or later, this thread will likely cause him problems. (Odds on whether there’s a Doper at his college?)
So I’m asking something of all the people that have taken me to task for having a loony idea – would you post a response to the question, “Should this thread be moved out of public view for his sake?” badchad, Early Out, and anyone else who thinks I’ve lost it, please respond.
As hajario said, I’m a big boy; I can take being Pitted. That there are people convinced that I’m off the deep end for having this hunch, and prepared to make the case for just how bizarre my views are. That’s their privilege; that’s what the Pit is for. And this thread is probably something that that whole idea deserved, taken from a rationalist perspective.
But I see clearly Mr Visible’s point, and I don’t think that whatever bizarre ideas I have should be allowed to harm someone else. If, and only if, the folks Pitting me, and particularly badchad agree that he has a point, then I’d ask the Mods. to move it.
=========
Second agenda item:
DDG was convinced by an “if-then” statement that I was an agnostic – a strange conclusion in view of the basic topic of the thread. And Kalhoun accuses me of “following Protestant Christianity so loosely that [I have], for all intents and purposes, created [my] own religion.” (Direct quote with pronouns and verb changed from third to first person.)
Let’s deal with this together.
I believe in the God whom Jesus called Father. I believe firmly that He is active in the world, in ways not limited to Christianity. I believe that most of what He does, He does through having planned the course of events so that “natural” means accomplish His ends. Being omniscient and Creator, He is quite capable of that. I do not reject supernatural interventions as possible, but I suspect that many of the reported cases of them are the stuff of legend and exaggeration.
However, I believe that Jesus was sent on a divine mission, which included at the last His death and the consequent Atonement. My views on this are more in keeping with the Orthodox than with classic Protestantism and Catholicism. I believe that He was so fully the agent of God in His life that the language we Christians use of Him is accurate, though we are trying to pigeonhole divine matters in human categories.
I think this thread has suffered from a failure to distinguish between fact, belief, hypothesis, and hunch or WAG. My opinion about this kid’s future falls firmly in the latter category – but it stems from a conviction about his character and values, from having read his website when he was in his early teens. I think that they will lead him to undertake a reforming role that will, in consequence, place him diametrically opposed to the legalists and God’s-law-as-I-read-the-Bible-ists. And that that will, in time, reinvigorate the sort of Christianity that I think is key to what Jesus taught.
Ms. Goose, on a website with a fair-to-middlin’ size agnostic and atheist population, it’s only fair to draw a religious conclusion by prefacing it with a premise clause. “If there is an active God” was intended as that, not as representing doubts or skepticism on my part. Jesus’s own “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments” was not assuming that the disciples didn’t love Him, but bringing home forcefully the consequences of that love to them.
My Messianic speculation to one side, my other beliefs are quite firmly based in an established religion – the liberal branch of Episcopalianism, and “orthodox” by their (admittedly loose) standards. I don’t “follow Protestant Christianity so loosely…” – I don’t follow it at all. You might as well criticize me for not keeping Torah properly, or failing to make the Hajj and fast during Ramadan. Nearly everything I have said about my personal beliefs, I have heard from the pulpit of my church either before or after having said it. Including emphatically the focus on the Two Great Commandments and the need to treat gay and lesbian people as human beings rather than as outcast sinners who need to repent of their innate sexual orientation. Fr. Jim was so disgusted by the Gene Robinson-bashing on another message board that we both belong to that he quit posting there (as did I, shortly after).
========
Addressing the discussion on “tone,” I try to employ three different sorts of tone in my posts. You all can judge how well I do at them.
When I report fact, including what the beliefs of a given group are, I try to be matter-of-fact and authoritative. “The Catholic Church believes in the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, which means that she was, by divine intervention, conceived without original sin” is a fact. You need not be a Catholic, believe in the Immaculate Conception, original sin, God, or the existence of Mary, for it to be a true statement – it’s a reporting of a Catholic dogma. “Jack Dean Tyler believes that circumcision is evil” is equally true.
When I speak of my own beliefs, I try to be firm but, in general, not polemic. The problem I have with conservative Christians is not that they act contrary to my beliefs but that they act contrary to their own stated beliefs. If you believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and you take Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior, then you might just take a good hard look at what He said was the most important things to do, and what He said to avoid doing – and not try to rationalize your way into doing what you feel like and claiming that it’s really what He said. (I might point out that there are myriad exceptions to that indictment – DDG, Scotticher, Navigator and a few others come to mind as people who self-identify as conservative Christians and try to do what He said. But they’re not the ones I’m bitching about, and they know it.)
And, of course, when I express an opinion, I try to nuance it as just that, unless the thread is sufficiently light-hearted that it will be taken as that. I don’t like 95% of hip-hop music. But I don’t think that I’ve become the Arbiter of Taste for America, and anyone who thinks that 50 Cent is a great musician is entitled to their opinion. I find much of television banal, and haven’t been partisan for any particular TV show or movie since the original Star Trek ended. But if they spark your interest, that’s fine; it’s no skin off my nose.
I’ve been in error about a number of things over the last four years, and have always tried to acknowledge the correction with appreciation. I value learning the truth. But when I speak authoritatively on something, I try to ensure I have the accurate facts, or to add an IIRC if, e.g., I think I remember that Mark Twain died in 1910, but I don’t remember precisely and don’t have a quick reference book handy to check it.
Lots of other things have been said here, and I’ll try to respond to them. But that covers the things I feel most moved to answer at the present.
