flits about, heralding Death
badchad
Well at first I thought you were going to get to be the next Anti-Christ, but then DtC pointed out:
He got it out of the “Noah’s Ark” book, so there might still be a chance.
Love
Just in observation, the pitter has become the pitted. In all fairness, I agree with badchad. Polycarp knows that anything he says on StraightDope is subject to argument and cries of “bullshit”. If it’s worth saying, it’s worth arguing about.
I think that however slim the chances of harm coming from this thread are, the chances of it doing anyone any good are infinitesimal.
Personally, if someone had asked me, “Hey, do you want to have a group of total strangers discussing intimate details about your life in a very public forum, in order to determine your status as Christ or AntiChrist? With the teensy weensy possibility that some wackjob might get it into his head that you need killing as a result?”, I would have replied “Fuck, no.”
Whatever your assessment of the magnitude of the danger, you’re not in a position to judge whether the kid would want that danger. And the kid’s not here to make the choice himself. And neither is his lover.
It’s been twelve pages, nothing’s been resolved, and there’s the chance that this might get someone entirely off the boards in trouble. Shut it down.
I’ve no idea if I qualify as one of the folks Pitting you or not. I’ll call you an asshole if it helps?
But I’m in firm agreement with MrVisible here. Regardless of this young man’s relationship with any formulation of the divine, regardless of whether or not he is the embodiment of, or slated to fulfill the office of, any particular formulation of the Christ–you’re displaying the opposite of right action here.
It’s political offices that need PR and campaign shilling. Political campaign shilling is all well and good; it’s Caesar’s, and Caesar will do what he does, after all. Doing the same, regardless of well intent behind it, for bodhisattva (belief-investment in purported uniqueness aside) offices is a disrespect to the sanctity of that office.
He will fulfill, or will not, in due course. If he does, the world will know, in due course. You babbling about it years or decades before the course does nothing good. It smacks of vanity, and smacks of pride–which, given the high esteem you have amongst the board’s readership, is a leaning I think you’d be a bit more mindful of.
File accordingly.
I wonder, though - what if he really is reading this now? What if someone’s tipped him off to this discussion, and he’s lurking right now?
Another record in the making, here.
605 replies so far, just 22 short of the 625 reply pit record set only a week ago in The giant Scylla Thanksgiving crow eating thread.
I think you better check your math.
If the thread goes on, who gets the 666th post?:eek:
I do… BWAHAHAHAHA!
Didn’t Poly get all this information from Messiah-Boy’s website? I mean, it’s not like it wasn’t out here before. Except for the messiah part. I hardly think there’s anyone ELSE who actually believes this kid is The One.
I’d prefer that the intimate and identifying details were expunged. As you are a “big boy” and considering how some people take this discussion as calling attention to what they see as flaws in you as a person, theologian, or sane person AND that you have defended yourself against all charges the rest should stay. You are a member here and, like all of us, are “fair game” and have to take your lumps. The kid, OTOH, is an innocent bystander and should be protected the same way we would any other bystander here.**
Granted, I am a newbie at this Protestant thing but I have been observing it for many years and as an outsider have long thought that disagreements surrounding what constituted “Orthodox Protestantism” were why we have so damned many Protestant sects (Protestant being used here as a catchall for any non-Catholic sect based in the Western Christian tradition and formed after 1500). For example, there seem to be as many Baptist sects as there are Baptist congregations and if somebody disagrees on a fine point of theology he quits and starts a new church. So, even if that is what Polycarp were to do, it’s hardly new or unusual.
You’re 100% kee-rect. He didn’t say he wasn’t a follower of “orthodox Protestant Christianity”–he said he wasn’t a follower of Protestant Christianity, period.
I inserted the word “orthodox” into my post, not in its narrowly defined theological meaning, but in its ordinary conversational meaning, like “regular”, or “mainstream”, in an attempt to clarify my own position of where I was coming from throughout this whole discussion, what my assumptions were. I see that I have failed. I will try again.
–What I realized, when he said that, was that he wasn’t suddenly going “apostate” on us, but was only “different” (and had been “different” all along), the same way Jews and Muslims and Buddhists and Mormons and Catholics are “different”. They all have “different” value systems of their own that are perfectly valid for them, and I wouldn’t dream of attempting to impose my particular version of [air quotes] “Mainstream [orthodox] Protestant Christianity” on them.
I had been assuming that Anglicans and Episcopalians were just another flavor of “mainstream” [“orthodox”] Protestantism. All those history classes about Henry VIII “breaking away” from Rome and Mary Tudor burning heretics at the stake led me to assume that it was an either/or situation, and that either you were a Roman Catholic, or you were a not-Roman-Catholic, i.e. a “Protestant”. I didn’t realize there was a third option, “Anglican”. I thought “Anglican” was just another flavor of “Protestant”, like “Lutheran” or “Presbyterian”.
Apparently it isn’t (and when I ran this past the Better Half, who did two years of seminary [“Anglicans aren’t Protestants?”], he laughed and said, “Naw, the Anglicans are like Catholics”).
So I guess I’ll add “Anglican” and “Episcopalian” to the list of “different”. I don’t have any problem with that. And I don’t have any problem with someone who steps up to the podium and announces, “I’m not a Mainstream Protestant Christian”, also announcing, “…and I know how the Second Coming is going to shake out.” More power to 'im, I say. I know lots of other people who also know how the world is going to end. There’s room in the world for different versions.
My bad, I guess, for not paying closer attention to those nitpicky little details about church history and theology.
Dropzone said,
I never said it was new or unusual; I’m merely saying that he cherry-picks his religion, and in so doing, dilutes his affiliation with a particular faith.
Kalhoun, I think that if we were to interrogate any group of people who claimed to share a common belief system we would find places where they differ. Everybody brings their own knowledge and experiences to their belief system and takes from it that which affects them the most and leaves behind that which affects them less. Call it cherry picking if you wish, though I find its usage here as offensive as you intend it to be. However, my choice of the Baptists as an example of a group in a constant state of splintering over theology was purposeful; they have a reputation for Christian conservatism and consider themselves, as Fundamentalists, the paragons of Christian orthodoxy yet even they can, and often do, disagree on what that orthodoxy is.
Dropzone, I think you’re right…which is what makes organized religion useful only as a social club. The God part of it is interpreted so many ways as to weaken ALL of their stances regarding the existence of one supreme creator.
Oh, if only there were a Buddhist parable with an alternate explanation!
Daniel
No wonder they have everyday low prices.
Nosireebob! I’ve finally figured out where and how to respond to the problems people have with liberal Christianity and “cherry picking.” No excuse for my Messianic speculation – I think something most people feel is nutty there, and there’s no getting around that.
But let’s backtrack. The majority of conservative Protestants, of whatever persuasion, hold to a belief system that is founded explicitly on the validity and applicability of Scripture as the inspired Word of God. Therefore, it’s their obligation to stand by whatever they find in it. It is, within the framework of that belief system, entirely logical for one of them to reject the theory of evolution (and I’m using the term accurately here, not in the “just-a-theory” misuse, but to define the process hypothecated and tested by Darwin and Wallace, refined by DeVries and others through the application of genetics, and fine-tuned by Eldridge and Gould and “punctuated equilibria”) as being contrary to the process of creation stated in Genesis. It’s a logical if-then proposition: if God states that He did something in manner X in His Book, and men of science conclude from observation and induction that that something occurred in manner Y, then the inductive reasoning of the men of science must be faulty, because God will tell you the truth.
Catholicism, on the other hand, employs a theological epistemology of Scripture, Tradition, and reason, but with its centralized hierarchical polity, places everything subject to the Magisterium of the Church. When the Catholic scholars reach a conclusion and the church leadership (including the Pope but extending to the Sacred Congregations acting subject to his review) teraches it as part of Catholic doctrine, good Catholics are expected to accept and belief it. There’s an element more wiggle room here, but still the reference to an external source of correct doctrine.
Orthodoxy turns the Catholic idea on its head. The norm here is Sacred Tradition, which includes but is by no means limited to Scripture – and Scripture (the Septuagint) as interpreted by authoritative teachers. In short, what Orthodox claim to believe is what is subscribed to at all times and places by the consensus of orthodox Christians (small o intentional, distinguishing non-heretics whether or not they are big-O Orthodox). While metropolitans, theologians, and patriarchs may teach with some degree of authority, the only binding dogmata are those formally pronounced by an Ecumenical Council, which has been impossible to hold since 1453 and for all practical purposes since 1054.
Anglicanism holds to the Catholic approach, but without the centralized Magisterium. It therefore accepts Scripture and Tradition, but with a focus on individual reason as the guide to a sound faith. This is accomplished within a framework of scholarly studies on Scripture and adherence to Tradition. The only things binding are defined in the Lambeth Quadrilateral: Scripture as “‘containing all things necessary to salvation’ and being the rule and ultimate standard of faith;” the two traditional creeds; Baptism and Eucharist; and the Historic Episcopate.
In brief summary, with a focus on Christ, one sets as one’s norm not Scripture but the teachings of Christ (which happen to be contained in the Gospels), recognizing that He often spoke in parable and with hyperbole. Because He set as a test of one man’s convictions that that man was to go, sell all that he had, and give half to the poor, does not mandate that everyone must do this (though some, like Francis, will find it speaking to them); no one is obliged to take literally his comment about plucking out one’s eye if it offends one; and what He meant by being cast down into the Pit where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth is not far removed from what Lynn Bodoni mioght mean by it. 
On the other hand, Jesus was clear and explicit in setting a standard of personal conduct and founding it on certain OT teachings, and equally explicit that they were to be the paradigm for the following or exchewing of other behavior. So one does not “cherry-pick” Scripture according to whether or not its teachings are comfortable to one’s taste – rather, one follows explicitly the standards He set forth in deciding whether or not “Spare the rod and spoil the child” or “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live,” or, on the other hand, “Proclaim liberty throughout all the land” or “Do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God,” meets His standards for what one ought to do or not do.
Now, applying that to my bizarre idea: I believe firmly in Jesus Christ as the teacher of how to live and as the author of my salvation, not in some post-death sense, but quite explicitly in the way in which knowing and following Him has changed my life here and now. That’s a matter of faith, not subject to reasoned analysis. I’ve given my reasons why my belief in Him is reasonable to me – if those reasons are not sufficient for you, tough noogies!
Jesus did not meet the Jewish expectations of what the Messiah should be – but He fulfilled a different set of qualifications set forth beforehand, and seen in hindsight. He was unexpected. God seems to make a habit of calling people to roles of this sort (distinguishing Jesus as special, but taking him as the paradigm to which religious leaders in all times and places conform more or less). A fugitive from the royal court taking refuge as a hired shepherd, the youngest kid of a family of eight, a wealthy sheltered prince, an Arab merchant, a playboy from North Africa, another playboy son of an Umbrian cloth merchant, a peasant girl from Lorraine, a slave-ship captain – He looks inside people and calls those who have what it takes to do what He wants at that time and place. It’s my view that the things that have gone to shape the kid I spoke of above makes him a likely candidate for the next guy to fill that job – and I put it in a highly controversial way to pique interest in what I had to say. I won’t be shocked if he doesn’t do the job – but I have a hunch he will – and it’ll be a way in which we aren’t expecting, like always. If he meets the expectations I have, great; if not, I’ll be one more of those who have jumped to crazy conclusions.
I think that alot of people are unable to accept the limits of their own knowledge. This is particularly true of extremely religious people (in my experience). As reflected over the ages, there is an inherent human desire to be important (Earth as the center of the universe, then the sun, etc.). People tend to want to be a part of something bigger than themselves. These tendencies in and of themselves aren’t a bad thing.
The problem, as I see it, is that when folks get reflective and thoughtful about reality, they quickly find they must face the possibility that reality offers us no such comfort. It may well be possible that there is no inherent importance or meaning other than that which we give it. When humanity is gone we may be forgotten forever. Our existence just may be a random occurrence with no significance to anyone but us. When faced with this possibility many people, unfortunately, project what they want to find onto a reality that doesn’t really match up. In small doses this tendency can be relatively harmless, but the more one gives in the more it starts to resemble clinical mania from where I am standing. I see the inability of people to acknowledge their own limits coupled with a self-image that fancies the individual as a reservoir of “special knowledge” and “Capital-T-Truth” to be highly destructive. I don’t look at these people with scorn or disgust, but rather with pity. I see it as a kind of sickness; a widespread mania (as defined above) that exists rather commonly in the general population to varying degrees. A minor case of self-importance is pretty harmless, but when taken to the extreme it can be quite harmful to the individual. It can alienate others, result in a persecution complex, consume the individuals day-to-day life, negatively effect personal relationships, and in extreme cases result in people doing some pretty terrible things in the name of the “Higher Power” to whom only THEY have a direct line. Whether that power is seen as the Illuminati, a god, aliens, trans-dimensional channelers, or some otherwise unreachable force doesn’t matter. The result is the same. One sees evidence in support every where one looks (even where there is no supportive evidence by a long shot). The entire world becomes a Rorschach test onto which one’s sickness is projected. It really starts to suck when the higher power starts commanding the individual to kill. . . .
I like Polycarp. Wherever else we may disagree we are definitely in agreement concerning the importance of love and kindness. That is a good message. Through his example, as well as some other folks, my time here has taught me to be much less combative and disparaging in general discourse and debate. For that I thank him. I fear, however, that his religious tendencies are overwhelming him to the point of having developed an acute mania. Perhaps the constant ego boost he gets here (and on other boards) has helped foster this in him. I really think he is getting to a point where his own sense of connection to that “Truth” is becoming unhealthy, and begins to fit all too well into the clinical definition of mania.
Religion may be an excellent cathartic tool to quench that inherent desire in all of us to be important, but in excess it can become a crutch, an obstacle to truth, and a way to facilitate a poor state of mental health. From where I’m sitting it looks like Polycarp is crossing from thoughtful into obsessive, and it brings me no pleasure to see. I hope none of this is really as bad as I may be making it out to be, but the signs are not good.
I’m not trying to be condescending or mocking with this post. Forgive the armchair psychology and know that it is done in a spirit of concern rather than superiority. Here’s hoping that this isn’t an indication of an up-and-coming crash-and-burn type of downward spiral, but merely a bump on that rocky road to enlightenment. Myself, I don’t find the fact that there may be no greater meaning/power scary or threatening. It simply means that our job is to invent, instead of discover, the meaning of life. That is a challenge that I find inspirational and beautiful - to bring importance from within rather than looking for justification from without. Ultimately, should we live up to our potential, I think we need no gods to find kindness and purpose for all of humanity. I have a dream myself.
Good luck, Polycarp. I am a bit worried about you. Here’s wishing you and yours the best . . .
DaLovin’ Dj
Poly said,
Exactly what did this kid say that is so new, so different, so unexpected that you would see the world enlightened and the tide turned? The things that happened to him have happened to millions. Some have grown up happy and well-adjusted. Others have gone on to snap and commit atrocities on other humans. Some simply get by.
Many people today and throughout history have “the right stuff”, yet they weren’t called to perform the task of saving us from ourselves. The information you gave us is little more than a junior high kid’s campaign speech for class president. There was absolutely nothing there that would set him apart from the herd.
DaLovin’…that was a fabulous post. Thanks.
Poly said,
Recognizing? I think you mean “hoping”. Many people believe apples are apples and he meant what he said. Many others believe that it was all made up by the authors of the bible. There is no “recognizing” here. There is much room for interpretation, which, as I said before, chips away at the integrity of the whole christian thing, diluting it to nothing more than philosophy. Not that there isn’t some good stuff there, but God’s teachings? Feh.
I think DaLovin’ hit on something in his post. He said,
I think there’s a lot to what he says. I don’t feel the need to know all the answers. It’s OK to wonder and listen.