Just seemed to sense some value judgements in your post DJ. Most of them I would probably agree with, but I wouldn’t be willing to put labels of “poor mental health” or “obstructed from truth” on those who disagree. A couple of things I seemed to note as a priori assumptions in your post that you may be able to use as springboards for further thought.
Assumption 1. Thoughtfulness is objectively better than obsessiveness. c.f. “it looks like Polycarp is crossing from thoughtful into obsessive, and it brings me no pleasure to see.”
Assumption 2. All religions are, to some degree, wrong. If a Religious view of the world was true then it could not, by definition, be a barrier to truth, no matter how fervently one believed in/practiced it. If the Bible were actually literally true and the earth was only 6000 years old and created in six days, then believing fervently, even to the point of disregarding out of hand other sources of data would not change their position in regards to knowing “truth” one iota. c.f. “Religion[unqualified, this means that it applies to all of them] … in excess can become a barrier to truth.”
Assumption 3. Open-minded consideration of alternative views of the world is objectively superior to close-minded dogmatic views. I kind of got this out of the overall post. The chiding of excessively religious viewpoints along with secular one-track visions of the world(such as illuminati conspiracy theorists) would seem to indicate this. Again, if the dogma is true, then no amount of fanatical adherance to it will make it untrue.
The underlying assumption seems to be that man has NOT discovered big-t “Truth”(therefore religions and other sects(waves at the illuminati fans) who claim to know big-t “Truth” are wrong) and that some methods of discovering big-t “Truth” are objectively better than others(therefore adherance to the metaphysical/epistemological methods of your faith are inherently inferior and perhaps contrary to use of this “best way to discover ‘Truth’”). In other words, devotion to ancient religions(in addition to the repercussions such devotion has on any ongoing searches for stolen data tapes and regardless of the powers such devotion may grant over the laws of fluid dynamics) is objectively inferior to some other way of discovering/learning “Truth”.
As to the whole mental health thing, I am completely unqualified to comment on it, so I guess I won’t
My head is starting to explode here. I’m still not quite sure what ya’ll are getting at. But I do know that we’re all sitting here deconstructing a bunch of gnomic utterances like Bible scholars sweating out some exegesis.
I think it’s time for Poly to tell us exactly what was said on the websites that made him make the assumptions he did.
Silly Goose, spontaneous human combustion has an improbability rating of 5(that’s 2+2 for sufficiently large values of 2). The laws of physics give greater probabilities to monkeys flying out of butts than heads exploding. Still, just because something has a zero probability doesn’t mean it can’t happen. So remember everyone, if the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit.
The lack of tolerance shown here in the name of “fighting ignorance” is truly amazing.
I value highly the rational and logical, but not to the exclusion of all else. Further, it is not rational to be as close-minded as some of you are. There will be no poetry or breathless joy or heart-splitting compassion from those who depend solely on absolutes.
You have no idea of the limits you have placed on yourselves so needlessly.
Was Christ moved from public view for his sake? I think not. If this teenage Christ you are talking about is Christ-like he shouldn’t mind being put in the public view. But since we have no name for this person and only an assumption on your part, and you have seen that many people have taken your idea of the Messiah’s return as looney, do you want this thread to be stopped because you have trained-wrecked your theological standing? Or if this thread is removed no one will know what you have said and therefore has no proof of your saying this? Sounds like a cover your ass move to me. Or is this some kind of mind game with you? Did you honestly think your theological standing was so superior that people would actually take you serious? Sure some might but most won’t. Maybe Dj is right…
A man claimed to have seen God. It was not a new thing; such claims are made quite often. But this man was well known, and much respected and beloved. Because he was known, and because he was perceived to be wise by many, his words were very disturbing.
What if the man were not wise, but just another fool? What if the man was seeking to make fools of all those who had believed him, and given heed to his words before? What if the man was actively trying to make people believe that he was God’s Chosen One? What if the man was being influenced by some evil power, and given delusions to make him believe that he had seen God?
Questions abounded. Controversy raged. Some began to believe that the man was mad, and refuted all that he had said, even before he said that he saw God. Others said that what he had said before was still good, but that he could no longer be trusted to tell the truth, whether he was mad, or evil. Some said that since the man had always seemed wise, and honest before, he must be now, as well. They said that he must have actually seen God.
Perhaps this is God’s test for that man. Or perhaps it is a test for us.
Instead of trying to find out how or where that man saw God, I think I will search for God myself.
I’m with Zoe. It starts to look like as long as Polycarp was popular and stayed within “normal” religious beliefs, he was untouchable. He shows signs of being truly heterodox and the jackals start growling.
If you were such cowards that you couldn’t attack him when he was considered a paragon of wisdom, then you shouldn’t have revealed how gutless you are by attacking him only when he appears to stumble.
Maybe it was just a false impression, but I never thought he stayed within so-called normal religious beliefs. I thought he was more progressive and flexible in his beliefs.
No, I’m not making light of it, I’m pointing out that, when you get down to it, it’s all subjective. Poly hasn’t changed any because he found someone that inspired him. At core, he’s still the good person he was. The rest of the thread is pretty much an exercise in, “If you find Buddha on the road, kill him.”
Um, Mtgman, just out of curiosity, would you post the equation for the probability of monkeys flying out of butts? I think that alone would make this whole thing worthwhile.
As far as the mental health thing goes, I believe that being a religious zealot (or any kind of zealot, for that matter) is limiting and dangerous. Now I don’t claim to know what the Truth is – only that I’m always looking for it and that I’m pretty damn sure I’ll never find it.
Poly, on the other hand, has it all figured out. He not only knows there’s a god, but he knows it’s the christian flavor of god that will lead us to salvation. He has a “strong hunch” (based on the most non-impressive juvenile scribbling I’ve ever “seen”) that a possibly battered, gay, rich kid is going to guide us to an eternity of christian love. But he hasn’t elaborated on what he saw in that website that made him declare that this kid has what is required to fill the job.
For someone who isn’t employed in the religion industry, Poly spends inordinate amounts of time examining religious documents and writings, interpreting them to fit into his brand of christianity, and witnessing on line. I believe the word “zealot” defines him accurately and I don’t think it’s healthy.
With this one sentence you demonstrate that you haven’t understood a single word Polycarp has ever written on these boards. You are arguing to hear yourself, pumped up in your own ego that you and badchad stand alone against a raving lunatic that deludes us all. Too bad you’re attacking a creature of your own making rather than the words the man actually wrote. It makes you look foolish.
You’ve completely misapprehended (and therefore misrepresented) the man’s expressed beliefs. Based on the length and depth to which Poly’s expressed his beliefs on this message board, I don’t think your poor understanding of them is any kind of failure on his part.
There are kinds of zealotry other than the religious kind.
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” ~ Aristotle
Yes, I can only make feeble attempts to imagine. Does it involve naked virgins? There’s a brand of wishfull thinking I would be willing to subscribe to.
I looked up the definition of zealot and I would have to agree that in some ways it fits. What I don’t agree with is that it’s unhealthy. See definition:
\Zeal"ot, n. [F. z['e]lote, L. zelotes, Gr. ?. See
{Zeal}.]
One who is zealous; one who engages warmly in any cause, and
pursues his object with earnestness and ardor; especially,
one who is overzealous, or carried away by his zeal; one
absorbed in devotion to anything; an enthusiast.
I don’t think it’s that far off and I don’t think it’s a negative. I still believe it’s unexcusable to form opinions on Polycarp’s mental status because you don’t like what he’s saying. I don’t have to agree with what he’s saying to give him respect. Attack his topic if you are inclined, but not him. That is not a good style of debate.
Just FTR, I don’t think Poly’s particularly zealous in spreading his particular religion around. You can take a hint from the way he’s received on these boards, Kalhoun–people who are over-zealous (read: pushy and obnoxious) about any issue here, whether it’s religion or politics or obesity or homosexuality (pro or con) or circumcision (pro or con) or computer operating systems, are eventually given short shrift by an increasingly large number of members as the consensus builds that “So-and-so is an annoying one-trick pony”.
I have yet to see that happen to Polycarp. And somehow I don’t think it’s likely. He just doesn’t “push” his value system on anyone, that I’ve seen, certainly not the way Certain Other Very Very Religious Folks have in the past pushed their value systems on others here. He’s never “in your face” about it the way they have been.
And he hasn’t been pushing this “Second Coming” thing anywhere else–indeed, if Badchad hadn’t started this thread, most people probably would never have known about it, buried as it was within its GD thread.
Are you saying that Poly doesn’t believe in Christ as the savior? That he doesn’t live his life to this belief every day? Exactly what did I miss through all the witnessing he does? That he’s NOT a guy who believes Christ is the son of god?
