ILWN, Webster’s defines “zealot” as:
1 a. One who is zealous, especially excessively so.
b. A fanatically committed person.
Zeno, I never said it was restricted to religion. It doesn’t change the fact that it applies to Poly.
Make that “Xeno”…duh. Sorry.
Kalhoun, you said “the christian [sic] flavor of god”, not “Christ the savior”. Poly’s made it very clear that he believes in the latter but he has not to my knowledge ever tried to limit God to a particular religion.
As far as the alleged zealotry is concerned, I agree with what DDG had to say about it.
Hmm…a 14 page thread arguing about faith-based beliefs. And no conclusion in sight.
Who wouldda thunk it 
PS-Must admit that the abused, Ritchie Rich-cum-Jesus pitch is quite innovative.
Xeno said,
I never said he thought god was limited to a particular religion. The christian version reads something like this: Believe in christ or burn in hell for eternity. The christian god has the power to punish those that aren’t christian.
Obviously, if you claim to be a christian, you believe that god chose Christ…not Allah or anyone else…as his representative. I’ve never heard Poly say he believes there is a god that sits back and doesn’t have the capability of interfering with activities on Earth. He is a christian (albeit a watered-down version of it) and as such, subscribes to the christian flavor of god. I don’t believe I’ve misunderstood his take on it.
666
Fascinating. You rely on your contrived definition of what “all” Christians must believe, rather than listen to the words of the man himself when he tells you in plain words exactly what he believes.
As convenient as it would be for purposes of discussion, Christianity is not the monolithic bloc that you portray. I suspect you know that, but you willfully ignore the fact lest it interfere with your attack on Polycarp.
If you’re going to attack, fine; just do it on the basis of what the man says, not what you choose to hear.
rimshotgdansk words should be headed by badchad also.
Kalhoun, we’re not all trying to jump your butt about this.
We’re not objecting to your perception/interpretation of how Poly perceives God. We’re objecting to your characterizing him as a “zealot”, one who “spends inordinate amounts of time examining religious documents and writings, interpreting them to fit into his brand of christianity, and witnessing on line.”
None of the rest of us have noticed this.
Is our point.
Just because the subject of “God” comes up with a certain amount of frequency during Poly’s posts doesn’t mean he’s a “zealot”. It just means that the subject of “God” happens to be what motivates him to post, and thus “God” tends to be mentioned more often in Polycarp’s posts than in, say, JDT’s posts.
So your statistical base, your sampling, is skewed.
“Witnessing” is generally defined as “in-your-face proselytizing, at every possible opportunity, spreading the Gospel (whatever kind of Gospel) at all costs, even if it alienates everybody in Great Debates, from Buckner and Bricker and Reeder right on down to the Phi Guy and the Hawaiian remote viewing club”.
We’ve never seen Polycarp do that.
Is our point.
Actually, I am. He is either obtuse or has intentionally misrepresented what Polycarp has stated as his views of God. He then attacks the misapprehension rather than what Polycarp actually believes. It’s a textbook example of building a strawman and a dishonest debate technique.
Well, here’s a thought–why not let Polycarp explain to Kalhoun what his belief system is? I mean, it seems a little pointless for folks to gather 'round and go, “Poly believes this, Poly believes that, yadda yadda yadda…” Why not let Poly tell Kalhoun what he believes?
I like the guy, too, but I figure he’s a big boy, he can stand up for himself and do his own belief-system 'splaining…
Again, from Websters:
One who can give a firsthand account of something seen, heard, or experienced: a witness to the accident.
One who furnishes evidence.
Something that serves as evidence; a sign.
Law.
One who is called on to testify before a court.
One who is called on to be present at a transaction in order to attest to what takes place.
One who signs one’s name to a document for the purpose of attesting to its authenticity.
An attestation to a fact, statement, or event; testimony.
One who publicly affirms religious faith.
Witness: A member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
I think I understand the definition.
And I believe that someone who claims to have direct contact with god and who believes he found the messiah on line, or someone who can quote scripture and describe biblical events in such detail, can accurately be described as a zealot. I know I’m not the only one thinks this latest revelation can be construed as over and above the standard musings of a christian.
I zealotry implies an exclusive fixation on one subject or cause and an intolerance of dissenting views on that subject. Poly has never shown such inclinations, IMO.
It implies no such thing. It implies fanatacism, which I don’t think is out of line, per Poly’s posts.
Knowing in advance that I’m probably going to be treated to a dictionary definition of “fanaticism” by way of reply, without any supporting argument, I’ll ask anyway:
Kalhoun, by what rationale do you come to your conclusion that Polycarp is a religious fanatic? On the one hand, you enthusiastically join with badchad in denouncing Poly’s rejection of the literal inerrancy of scripture, based on your outside opinion of what Christians must believe. Yet on the other hand you accuse him of fanaticism, which would imply that he uncritically devotes himself to religious doctrine. Which is it?
What makes you think it has to be “either/or”? He can be a fanatic with regard to his own brand of religion. And by the way, you don’t need to be smartass just because I enlightened you on the definition of a couple words you were unsure of. The definition supports my argument.
Gosh, and I didn’t even feel the enlightenment when it happened. Have you also achieved my conversion to your unstated argument? Let me know.
Xeno, you’re no longer even making sense. Look the words up yourself…if you don’t agree with the definitions in the dictionary, you can make up your own brand of English. I really don’t care. If you can’t determine my argument from the posts I’ve made, that’s your problem.
I realize you’re fond of Poly, but isn’t supposed to be a popularity contest. It’s obvious to a lot of people around here that Poly’s interest in christianity and the messiah has taken a turn toward the bizarre. He can interpret the bible any way he pleases. I hope he continues to be happy and live a good life.
Mtgman:
I’ll post your questions in bold and my answers below. Excessive use of the quote feature makes for unattractive posts. . .
**So what is “truth” and what is the path to it? **
Start with the easy one, huh? All of my truth is of the lowercase variety. If there is anything that my philosophical pondering over the years has made me realize, it’s that ultimately nothing can be proved. “I think therefore I am” seems to be a good start, but then I quickly found out that doesn’t even work. It’s closer to “I think I think, therefore I think I am.” All of reality would seem to be perceived through the filter of our senses and is therefore biased. For all I know I could be a brain in a vat plugged up to a matrix sitting on a turtle’s back. My day to day perception could be one great big illusion. Or perhaps I am insane and banging my head against a white wall somewhere imagining all of this. There is ultimately no way for me to know the difference, so I cannot rule out anything with 100% surety.
As a result of this line of thinking you will find that my posts tend to avoid declarations of the absolute variety. I do not use the phrase ‘I believe’ for example. The skilled debater will use such phrases with extreme caution. When I first started posting to this board I was frustrated by what I perceived to be pointless and constant nit-picking which always seemed to bypass common sense. I would question someone about their inability to prove that there is a god and they would respond by pointing out that I can’t prove that the chair I am sitting on is really there either (not hyperbole - this actually happened). As it turns out, I have since grown to appreciate that tendency. I have found that it can force one’s writing skills improve. Every word is a potential trap, and therefore posts must be filled with disclaimers and subjective qualifications to be able to preemptively resist the onslaught. Wittgenstein maintained that all philosophical problems arise from the illusions created by the ambiguities of language. If one wishes to partake fully in the fascinating journey that is philosophy they owe it to themselves to take great care with the language used, because it turns out to fairly often be the heart of most of these discussions. I think that, as Edlyn will find if she re-reads my initial post, one would be hard pressed to find me declaring anything as the absolute 100% truth. The nitpicking has made me forever aware of my own limitations and resulted in me choosing alternate phrasings on many occasions. One should know when reading my posts that I try to always allow for the possibility that I am wrong.
This whole thing could be a real show stopper if I allowed such thinking to guide my general day-to-day actions. If nothing can be proved, and I accept all forms of knowledge as ultimately equal then I could not rely on gravity, on my work building being in the same location tomorrow, or that food is for eating etc. Allowing for any and all possibilities when discussing gods and philosophy is interesting, but in reality I have to find food and pay my rent.
So how does one find the balance between accepting the limits of knowledge and surviving on the basis of the knowledge that is available? The answer is probabilities. I put nothing at 100% probability ever, simply because I must always allow for the brain-in-a-vat scenario. I can, however, look at things as having such a high probability of being true that they are, for all intents and purposes, as good as being true. For example, I take it as good as ‘True’ that my work building will be in the same location tomorrow (relatively - I am aware that the entire planet is moving). Now, a philosopher could back me into a corner and make me acknowledge that I can’t even prove that the building was ever here before, but then I have to push him out of the way and go to work. The tricky part of this becomes where to draw the lines. When should I treat something as effectively ‘True’ and when should I treat something as effectively ‘False’? When it comes to the interesting subjects, that line is more like an area that gradually goes from white to gray to dark gray to black. It is in that gray area that things get difficult.
**If you don’t know the path to it, how can you tell if something is an obstacle in that path? **
As I discussed above, I can never be 100% sure as to what the path to truth actually may be, but I can - and do - have opinions on what it is likely to be based on my experience. In the end my opinions must, by definition, be subjective. I am calling the path as I see it, and to be fair, I may very well have the whole thing wrong.
**Moreover, what is the definition of a good “state of mental health”? **
The terms I used in my post rely on the language and findings of Psychology and Psychiatry (P&P). Now, if one assumes that these fields are legitimate, then they can go ahead and discuss symptoms being consistent with documented mental illnesses and act accordingly. However, accepting whether (P&P) are legitimate fields is a debate that takes place smack dab in the middle of the gray area. In my experience, a strong case can be made for dismissing these fields as useless (and perhaps even destructive) pseudo-science. My searching has led me to the conclusion that empirical justification for P&P is iffy at best. That does not, however, make them useless IMO. To answer your question directly let’s go to the definition of Mental Health:
[n] the psychological state of someone who is functioning at a satisfactory level of emotional and behavioral adjustment
That dictionary lists mental-illness as the antonym of mental health. It seems that ‘mental health’ is inherently a positive description. I probably shouldn’t have said ‘a way to facilitate a poor state of mental health’, but rather something like ‘a way to facilitate a degradation of mental health’.
**What evaluation criteria do you use to determine it? **
Typically, Ps & Ps use specially designed interview and assessment tools to evaluate a person for a mental illness. The doctor bases his or her diagnosis on the person’s report of symptoms – including any social or functional problems caused by the symptoms – and his or her observation of the person’s attitudes and behavior. The doctor then determines if the person’s symptoms and degree of disability point to a diagnosis of a specific disorder. We are not in a doctors office, and I am not a doctor, but in my defense I never claimed to be. I have no degree in either field & I have never practiced medicine. I have, however, read quite a bit about these fields over the years. In my earlier post I was pointing out the similarity of Polycarp’s recent behavior to the clinical descriptions of some forms of mental illness (as presented on the internet). While my words don’t have the weight of a trained professional, and the entire fields may be pseudo-scientific and useless, that does not change the fact that Poly is exhibiting some symptoms of certain disorders. My goal was not to amaze with my analytical skills, but rather to point out what I see as potential warning signs. One is, of course, free to dismiss my suspicions as they please.
**Where does “being religious” weigh in that criteria? **
Being religious, in and of itself, is not indicative of any mental disorders/illnesses that I am aware of.
**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 would say that this description is accurate. I am not, however, without a “spiritual” side as it were. I have some suspicions and intuition based theories that lack anything resembling empirical evidence. I could go into detail if you like, but not here. That would fall under witnessing, so a GD thread to itself seems like the way to go. I typically try to avoid witnessing, however, as it seems to be discouraged by management (i.e. ‘if you feel you must’ in the forum description). In the interest of fairness I’d bite the bullet though. It’s hardly fair for me to challenge the intuition of others without opening up my own to the same. I do not see that it would add anything to this thread though.
**Exactly what is the “truth” that being excessively religious would prevent one from perceiving? **
If by ‘truth’ we mean the lowercase variety then we are referring to that which is so likely to be true that it is reasonable to accept it as true. Those things which have a high probability of being true. A lack of clear thought and mental health would seem to compromise one’s ability to reasonably judge what they perceive and therefore what is reasonable to take as a given.
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?
Obsession related disorders can be crippling no matter what the subject of the obsession. One need only look to online support chat rooms and message boards to see the destructive power an unhealthy obsession can have on one’s life and day-to-day ability to function. Ultimately, nothing is any better than anything else until we give it a subjective frame, so like always, my observations are from where I am sitting. And from where I am sitting, obsessive disorders look destructive and real. Of course I may be a brain in a vat, so . . .
Now to get to the perceived assumptions:
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."
I was referring to obsessive in the clinical sense, and from such a view obsessive behavior tends to be unhealthy. All claims that anything is any better than anything else are, by nature, subjective. I make no claim to any absolute objective capital-T-truth.
**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.” **
I do suspect that all religions I have come across are to some degree wrong - but I may well be wrong. Again, I was making no claim to an ultimate truth. Based on my experience it seems that any excessive obsession can (not must - there is your qualifier!) be a barrier to reasonable decisions - including what to accept as probable enough to be as good as true.
**Assumption 3. Open-mind consideration of alternative views of the world is objectively superior to close-minded dogmatic views. **
Get rid of the word objective and I agree. It would be a subjective judgement call though. I do feel that we should be able to ‘entertain a thought without accepting it’ and a lack of such an ability can get in the way of learning and understanding. I may just be a brain in a vat so, as always, I may be wrong.
DaLovin’ Dj