While I’m a sucker for a long shot and happy to hedge my bets with a couple bucks that Poly is right the majority of my money is riding on his being really, really wrong. I agree that he should take a long look at his own motivations for looking for a second/third/fourth coming. “Seek and ye shall find” is a two-edged sword and the human predilection for finding patterns where none exist can lead a person astray from their true path, to be the best person they can be. Love God, if you believe in any, and love your neighbor AND yourself in equal measure. Don’t look for any reward–your reward is personal knowledge of a life lived well. Don’t build your life around an eternity in Heaven because there very well might not be one and bribery is a sad reason to be good. (Would you like to hang out with a bunch of people you had to pay to stick around? Do you think God does? He’s not Mike Tyson, you know.)
Perhaps now would be a good time to step away from having religion as central to your life as it is, Poly. Perhaps you are losing perspective. Eschatological hunches are a warning sign.
[quote]
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.
[quote]
Yes.
Yes.
Yes–“entirely logical for ONE of them”. Not “the majority of conservative Protestants”.
Yes, “entirely logical for ONE of them”.
“The majority of conservative Protestants” are NOT Young Earth Creationists, they do NOT reject the theory of evolution, they do NOT think scientists are evil, and they do NOT accept the doctrine of verbal plenary inerrancy, and if you’ve got a cite that says otherwise, I’d sure like to see it.
Your point is clearly taken, but unnecessary to me (though its reinforcement never hurts), DDG. I’ve used what I’ve learned from you to draw exactly that distinction. As you may have gathered, I was addressing the extreme in that example.
And of course, this whole thing is based on one whopping assumption: That the two boys who set up their twin websites were telling the truth when they made their apparently veiled references to said discount chain stores. I mean, they could have been–lying, couldn’t they? Bit of a giggle, say.
It wouldn’t have been the first time a couple of teens had made up stuff for their websites…
DDG, where exactly did Poly say the boys mentioned anything about the stores in their website? He appears to me to have said that was his own conclusion based on comments about “lifestyle”, and on the boys’ location. While you’re finding the reference, could you also explain to me how the particular family the boy comes from was the one vital datum upon which “this whole thing” of Poly’s hunch is based?
Sorry to be a nag, but with the trite psychoanalysis from some quarters and the continued misrepresentations of Poly’s “tone” and the substance of his posts from others, I find inaccurate nitpicking less than helpful.
FWIW, I totally agree with MrVisible’s concern. I wish a Mod would delete this entire thread. This was not the time or place as I had mentioned earlier.
While I agree with your statement, one would gather from the rest of your post that that only applies to those who hold religious beliefs. Further down in your post you go on to state, “that his religious tendencies are overwhelming him to the point of having developed an acute mania” in reference to Poly.
I am absolutely stunned by your pronouncement. I suggest you apply your quoted statement to yourself first, before you apply it to others.
Right. He didn’t say the boys said “stores” on their websites. Maybe I should have phrased it, “when they made their apparently veiled references to the said discount chain”.
But I don’t really see the point of your quibble. What difference does it make whether the boys mentioned actual “stores” or not? Maybe all they mentioned were veiled references to Bentonville, Arkansas.
???
Err… I have no idea. You’ll have to ask Poly that. But it’s an interesting point–I’ve been wondering whether Poly would have paid that much attention if he hadn’t thought he was listening in on the thoughts of the son of the Richest Man In The World. I mean, let’s face it, we’re all more interested in the doings of the Rich And Famous, as opposed to the Poor And Obscure.
I notice he’s been back into the thread since someone actually posted the W-word, and I notice he hasn’t said, “Nope, sorry, that wasn’t it.” So I’m assuming that it is.
The Chairman is variously reported to have either three or five children (one of whom must be a daughter, as he has a son-in-law on the board), and to be both divorced and remarried. I found a picture of him in a stock vote document. He’s very distinguished-looking. There’s not a lot of personal info about him or the rest of his clan on the Web. They’re no media hogs, that’s fer sure.
And as someone earlier already pointed out, folks like this who are the Richest People In The World already have serious kidnap issues, and the security machinery in place to deal with it, and I doubt whether one Internet message board would have much more impact on their lives.
So what is “truth” and what is the path to it? If you don’t know the path to it, how can you tell if something is an obstacle in that path? Moreover, what is the definition of a good “state of mental health”? What evaluation criteria do you use to determine it? Where does “being religious” weigh in that criteria? Why?
From previous posts of yours I seem to recall a secular humanistic viewpoint with a strong emphasis on the scientific method as an epistemology. Is that somewhat accurate? I’m wondering because there seem to be a couple of hidden assumptions in your post and I’m questioning their validity.
The assumption that there is some objective, universal “truth” or that there is a universal, objective standard of good “mental health” and knowledge of what these things actually ARE would seem to be pre-requisite to being able to determine if certain behaviors/beliefs were “obstacles” to understanding/achieving these things. Can you help out a bit here? Exactly what is the “truth” that being excessively religious would prevent one from perceiving? Also, what is this mental state that one who is excessively religious would not be able to maintain and why is it any better or worse than any other?
He never said they made any fucking veiled references at all, DDG. He said he just guessed it from the name and from the region and that he could be wrong.
He also never said that the family per se had anything to fucking do with why he came to his conclusion other than the boy’s position of wealth was analogous (in his mind) to some other historical figures who made ethical contributions to society. It was the wealth that was significant to Poly, not the fucking Walmart stores. Stop putting words in his posts that aren’t there.
Cite? You are misrepresenting what I said entirely. The following sentence in that post was: “This is particularly true of extremely religious people (in my experience).” I in no way said that it only applies to religious people, and even qualified the statement as subjective (“in my experience”). As a matter of fact I later gave several non-religious examples of objects of such types of obsession, i.e, the illuminati, aliens & transdimensional beings; none of which would I consider to be of a religious nature. I think you need to re-read my post - it didn’t take the first time. Unless you can cite where I indicated, or even suggested, that clinical mania is exclusive to religious people, a retraction of that particular strawman would be greatly appreciated.
Mtgman, good questions. I have to go to rehearsal right now, but I’ll address your post in the morning. I gotta run right now, but I think I see what you’re getting at and there is an interesting discussion to be had there. . .
Consider that about 20,000 have visited this and the other thread and actually thought about the Bible and Jesus’ possible existence. How hard in “real” life would it be to round up this many people to discuss God with. I like Polycarp’s style of delivery. Very compelling writing too. Speculation on his mental health is way out of line. I would suspect our mental status more, because we are so drawn by the possibility of something we don’t even think is true and determined to somehow find an explanation for it. I may not always agree with Polycarp, but man am I impressed.
I apologize for my irritation but I feel liek you’re being somewhat supercillious in this whole discussion and rather obtuse about this whole stupid tangent about the family. maybe it’s best if I just walk through some of it.
It starts with this post by you:
There is a presumption in this post that the boys made some deliberate attempt to suggest or imply that the one boy was a scion of the W family.
Xenophon replied as follows:
In his last question he is asking you why you assume that the W family had some specific significance to Poly’s theory (although, I admit it is phrased in such a way that it seems to be asking you why Poly thinks the W name is significant).
You then answered thusly:
This is the point at which I thought you were becoming obtuse. Your first answer still seems to based a presumption that Poly ever said the boys had made any reference at all to the source of the scion’s wealth on the wensite. Poly said he surmised it from the name and the region not from anything explicit on the site. He also acknowledged that he could be wrong. What he thought was important was the wealth, not the name.
In your second answer you are agin presuming that Poly, himself, attached any significance to the name when you were really only being asked why you had made an assumption that he did.
Maybe you just misread Xeno’s question.
Sorry agin for my previous vitriol.
There, I didn’t say fuck one time in this whole post.
