Well, having reflected on this thread last night, I see that my frustration with religion in America has turned me into a bit of a butthead. I’m sorry if I hurt anyone’s feelings. I truly believe that everyone has the right to their religious beliefs. Obviously, I also think all the good on this planet has been and will be achieved by man without the help of a supernatural being. I think I just saw one too many Baby Jesus scenes this holiday season and I sort of lost perspective. While my opinions remain essentially the same regarding matters of faith, I came off a bit harsher than I would have liked.
Poly and anyone else I may have offended, have a happy holiday season. Rest assured I will not be calling the authorities to whisk you away to a rubber room on a sleigh ;).
So, therefore, in your experience, most mainstream conservative Protestant Christians are delusional. And crazy.
That’s what you’re saying, DJ. Think about it.
I know lots of clinically sane, non-obsessive people, who, as they go about their daily tasks with every evidence of complete mental normality, nevertheless firmly believe we’re living in the End Times and expect Jesus’ imminent return any day now. This doesn’t make them “crazy”, just “religious”.
“and what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bentonville to be born…”
On the other discussion about Poly’s stability-
while I think his speculations about gay teen JC II are a bit over the line by any historical C’tian standards, I certainly don’t see any fanaticism or zealotry on his part. It’s not like he tracked down the IP, checked the star alignments of when the page was posted, and lit out on a camel bearing gold, frankincense & myrrh…
but I do wonder if his camel hair coat is comfy. G
You know, it sounds a lot more like Poly is considering this kid a potential “saint for our times” than a “Savior Act II”. In which case, can those who don’t subscribe to his theory please stop claiming that Poly considers “Adam” the next Jesus? Thanks.
Well, to show how a political liberal can still be an evil capitalist, I looked at this kid’s (presumed) family, realize that four or five of Sam’s heirs are in the Forbes Top 10 (and if Sam were still alive with his money in one place Bill Gates would place MANY lengths behind the winner) and that NONE of them are my customers, and wonder if some well-placed “worship” might give me an in with his parents, aunts, and uncles. Come on, it’s not like they or I have any chance of being called in The Rapture so I have to plan for making a living during the End Times.
However, I’m still having problems with Mary Magdalene II being a bedwetter. (BIG )
As did my wife. “Don’t worry too much about the credit cards because it won’t be long before that’s irrelevant.” Easy for HER to say–she was working part-time then and I was the guy scraping together the minimum payments every month. But then that white buffalo was born…but has since turned brown. (I once had a chance to buy the mounted head of an adult white buffalo. I’m not a believer in Lakota legends of White Buffalo Calf Woman but I hedge my bets and thought such a thing could be REALLY bad mojo to have hanging in my living room. And would attact bugs. And it cost around $1500 that I didn’t have. And would be staring at me with big glass eyes whenever I watched TV because I have only one wall big enough for it (bison are HUGE!). So it went the way of the authenticated-by-Nimoy-himself prop phaser as things I never bought when I had the chance to.)
Well, to be fair, jayjay, I get the impression that Poly’s not quite sure whether, if this kid fulfills the world-changing potential he thinks he sees, it’ll be as God’s instrument, or as God made flesh (again). (And, since flesh is imperfect anyway, I’m not sure how big a distinction that is.) -Not that either notion is inconsistent with Poly’s expressed religious beliefs.
What I do object to in this thread (and previous ones) is the claim that Poly’s approach to religious understanding is inconsistent with “what Christians are supposed to believe”. It wasn’t until this thread that I actually took a close look at Epicopalian doctrine. (http://www.episcopalian.org/) I’m hard put to find a radical departure on Poly’s part from the catechism, and certainly a questioning and critical approach to one’s use of scripture seems to be encouraged in his church.
What the charges of so-called “cherry picking” seem to miss is that belief is a process. That’s why we speak of “belief systems” and why we accept that those systems produce revisions and changes in doctrine. To criticize a faithful practitioner, one must criticize the whole denomination, and if one’s entire basis for criticism is reduced to “inconsistency” between denominations, it becomes nothing more than an observation of the obvious.
Agreed. How about calling him “Biblical Adam Redux, Revenge of The Gays”? He, in turn, is the son of the Virgin Lesbian Goddess Diana and The Original MFIC, Huitzilopochtli – who was, of course, a black Mexican with Asian features and a Caucasian soul. Why? Because that how I ‘see’ Him of course.
Should all of the above happen as is my unfailing beleif, it will also increase the potential of baboons flying outta my ass to 100%.
Hey, it could happen, right? Isn’t that what faith is all about? Question is, at what point does one become offically nuts? If they believe all of the above? Some of it? If so, which parts and why?
As insanity is culturally defined AND as Western culture accepts Christian beliefs as within the norm I’m thinking that it’s the non-Christians who risk being considered insane. :rolleyes:
To make it totally clear, I see the kid as. in the near future, having some very strong impact on how our culture sees, views, and reacts to things generally, probably starting with but likely not limited to gay rights, gay-bashing, and child abuse. I phrased that claim with great controversiality in the GD thread.
In point of fact, I’d rather not attach a proper noun (“saint,” “savior,” “reformer,” “agitator”) to him. The point behind this whole discussion is that (IMO) he will produce unexpected results. By the nature of that claim, I cannot be specific on what they are; I don’t know. The predictive validity of my claim will be established if, in 2020 or 2050, one can look back on what to us is the near future, and see that he had an impact on human affairs equivalent to Gautama, Mohammed, Christ, Jeanne d’Arc, Gandhi, King, FDR, Carolus Magnus, Peter the Great, etc. It’s on his acts, not on the category in which one pigeonholes him, that I’d prefer to have my hypothesis judged. (I realize that that can be seen as sidestepping the savior/saint question – but what I’m saying is that I foresee him as a leader for our times that will do the unexpected. The Buddha was not the expected Mahatma of Hinduism; Christ was not the expected Messiah of Judaism; the French praying for deliverance from the English weren’t expecting a peasant girl from Lorraine. God is always surprising us.
We’re here to learn and experience. Human response to such tragedies are mixed. Many of us hear about other people’s pain, step up, send money or find out how we can help. We learn how to care. This make’s better people. Other people simply spend time counting the baboons flying out their ass and only learn to count. They make good scientists.
That was really, really stupid. Truly moronic. Astonishingly dumb even. There, I feel better now.
Either RedFury’s point just flew right over your head or you are saying thousands of people died so that a few could become better persons and elicit some kindness and compassion. How warming. Or, exactly what are you saying besides making idiotic slams against scientists? (Scientists?! What the fuck?)
Congratulations on learning how to care. Must be quite an accomplishment for you.
Thanks for the clarification, Polycarp. But it raises a couple of questons. Let’s look at your initial controversial statement:
You state that it is your opinion that the person you are speaking of is ‘Him’. Now, from my past experience I’m led to believe you must be referring to your god (God) when you use a capital letter at the begining of the word ‘him’. So it is natural to assume that God is the subject when you say that you ‘have a strong hunch you know his identity’. One could conclude that you suspect Adam to be God in a human form. But when you get to the ‘I have a hunch that I do in fact know his identity’ you use the lowercase ‘him’. This capitalization stuff can get confusing.
You have now said:
This looks like it has a different meaning than your original statements. Tell me if I am getting it wrong:
You expressed that you suspect a certain person is “Him”.
When you say ‘Him’ you mean God.
You, therefore, suspect a certain person is God.
All of this seems clear to me from your post. However, now you do not want to attach a proper noun to (lowercase) him. From this I can only come to a certain number of reasonable conclusions:
You have changed your mind. In the initial posting you think you know someone who may be God. Now, you just think you have found someone who will become religiously important. If this is the case, what changed your mind? What did you see before that you don’t see now?
When you said ‘Him’ initially, you weren’t talking about God. This would seem to conflict with your standard usage. I would be surprised if this is what you meant.
You think of this person as being God in the sense that we are all God. An “If God is everything than we are all God!” type of sentiment. In this case the fact that the kid is God isn’t really significant. We’re all God. I’m God, you’re God. All 7 or 8 Billion of us and the stars and the Earth too. I also doubt that this is what you meant, and I don’t recall you subscribing to the idea of the Universe as God.
You never thought the kid was God (Him) incarnate and just phrased it the way you did to generate attention. I really hope this isn’t the case.
You haven’t changed your mind at all, rather you are just trying to rephrase it in a way that is less shocking and gives you some wiggle room.
Could you help out a bit here? Does there not seem to be a contradiction? Is it because you changed your mind (fine if you did)? Have I missed something? Am I misreading your use of the word ‘Him’? Thanks.
)
