No, scratch that, he said it was a household word. :smack:
Again, is this belief any more irrational than a belief that Jesus rose from the dead 2,000 years ago? Maybe I’m missing something, but I just don’t see a difference in degree here.
I don’t consider Christians in general to be mad, any more than I consider Pagans or Hindus or Tibetan Buddhists or Satanists or Feng Shui practitioners to be mad. Someone who believes they’re looking at a devil hovering over my shoulder – that’s a little weird. But someone who believes they know who the messiah is, is no crazier than someone who believes they know who the messiah was, in my book.
Poly is by all indications a great person; I’m far more impressed with him as a person than I am with badchad, who comes across as the product of an unholy union between a pit bull and a lamprey. So what if badchad be more devoted to reason than Poly? Better to be a good person with peculiar beliefs than a jerk with no peculiar beliefs, I say.
Daniel
Well, throw me in the preceding camp. He’s a stand-up guy. And if there is a Messiah who returns, it might as well be as a hot gay twink.
The Jews waiting for the Messiah 2000 years ago thought it would be a dramatic event also. If you believe they were wrong then, what’s to stop you from being wrong now?
Polycarp may not, but I will, assuming he was a real person of course.
Another “yes” to that.
Perhaps he has learned of The Plan in the nearly 2000 years since that was written.
How is this any wackier than the typical Evangelical Christian belief that there is an End Times when God comes and destroys Evil? This rock is all there is, folks. Dust to dust and all that. The only End Times for humanity will be some event that, in the words of the esteemed Wildest Bill, “extincts” us.
His claims are no more extraordinary than yours that Jesus is coming in some dramatic event that all the world will see.
To badchad: As I mentioned before, I think all this religious stuff is bunk. However once again, your only gripe against Polycarp is that he doesn’t believe what you think he should in order to be a “True Christian”.
And elf, I think you’re dead wrong on Poly’s motives: he’s nowhere near begging for attention on this. I see no reason to ascribe motives to him beyond the ones he suggested himself: he’s sharing as much about his beliefs as he feels comfortable doing. This is a very common practice amongst religious people, and there’s no reason to disrespect it, whether it’s him not saying who he thinks Christ is, or another poster (whose name I forget) refusing to tell the circumstances surrounder her sister and her conversion to Christianity.
Poly, I hope you don’t take my calling your beliefs peculiar as an insult; I certainly don’t mean it that way. I mean only that they’re peculiar to me, as doubtless my beliefs are peculiar to you. Though I may not viscerally understand how you can believe what you believe, such a visceral understanding is not necessary for me to respect you and, by extension, to respect what you believe.
Daniel
TruthSeeker said, “I have to say that this really puts a serious hole below the waterline of your take on Christianity. It really makes it hard to take your other assertions based on your religious scholarship at all seriously.”
His brand of christianity has always been full of holes. He cherry picks all of it…why would you think he’d follow the letter of his “religion” on this point? It boggles the mind that he aligns himself with a church or christianity.
Keep in mind, of course, that regardless of a poster’s personality (or likeability), his statements of religious beliefs deserve no less critical thought or intense scrutiny by other posters than any other religion or pseudo-science (referring to your examples in the quote above).
Which isn’t to say, mind you, that everyone’s contributions to this thread are borne out of intellectual detective work, but Polycarp did post his (possible) messiah thoughts in a thread (and that being a GD thread, even), which means it’s fair game. There aren’t many free passes on this board (and probably none intentional), especially when the subject touched upon is one that, for varying reasons, is dear to a lot of us.
I dunno about that, Diogenes. Let’s look again. From Polycarp’s last post he only says this: I did not claim that this person is the Second Coming – only that my hunch, my speculation was that he’d be the person to fill that role.
So it’s now downgraded to just a hunch and speculation in this post. But Poly’s earlier post wasn’t just a hunch, it was a strong hunch, so strong of a hunch that he says it is fact that he knows his identity. From earlier: I have a very strong hunch that I do in fact know his identity – and his surname is already a household word.
You don’t’ see that as weaseling? You are far more kind and give way more lattitude that I ever could.
I agree with DDG where he comments on this:
JZ
Please tell me that I don’t need to parse this for you, that I don’t need to explain how dependent clauses and intensifiers work. He is clearly NOT saying it’s a fact, and anyone whose native language is English should instantaneously recognize this. You’re putting words into his keyboard.
Skipmagic, I DO give religious beliefs a pass. I do not consider religious beliefs properly part of a rational discussion at all, just as I don’t consider logic-based debate properly part of a religious discussion. They’re two different fields, as far as I’m concerned, based on fundamentally different axia.
Daniel
You very well could be right. However, all we have to base our theories on are his posts and specific language used in each of them. Based on that, I or badchad may be correct too.
Also, a careful reading ofDuck Duck Goose and John Zahn posts leave me pretty comfortable with my post. I could be wrong- but so could you.
This thread is an interesting social experiment. What happens when a well respect member of a community and the SDMB banner for what a christian ought to be like turns out to be a loonie? Stay tuned for the upcoming episodes.
Even more ridiculous than Polycarps beliefs is the way he chose to express them. IMHO. Methinks he’s been reading the bible too much (hehe couldn’t resist).
In case I am allowed a question (which in all fairness I’m not) I would like to ask Polycarp what exactly convinced him? The animated GIFs? Some soul-inspiring background music?
And really, saying the son of God should be allowed his annonimity is a riot. You got into the secret through a webpage apparently. Maybe you’ll win a medal when the show is ready to be unleashed upon us poor heathens.
Great Debates: “…witnessing…”
I’m always ready for some new religion from which I can cherry pick a pearl of wisdom.
The UFO asteriod cult, I learned:
Never let anyone talk you into castration, and try not to go out in matching running shoes.
I think the difference between “hunch” and “strong hunch” is negilgible at best. Calling it “weaseling” is going a bit far. He never claimed to know a damn thing. He just said he was speculating and even a “strong hunch” does not imply certainty or inside knowledge. I think people are trying to back Poly into a corner that doesn’t exist. How the hell is one supposed to prove that they have a strong hunch?
Exactly, DtC. Is a strong woman a woman? A strong odor an odor? A strong hunch a hunch?
Of course. Folks trying to discredit him are resorting to absurd semantic trickery, suggesting that he contradicts himself by putting the adjective “strong” in front of the word “hunch” one time and not the other, or suggesting he’s asserting something is fact by saying “I have a hunch that in fact…”
If I judged his beliefs solely by his detractors, I’d be signing up as a Christian right now. Some of you folks are really grasping at straws.
Daniel
Yes. sane Christians know that Jesus will appear in the sky surrounded by singing angels and that people will start rising bodily up to Heaven. Only a loony would speculate something more naturalistic. :rolleyes:
I think Christians should engage each other in a debate like this. I wouldn’t expect folks to give me a pass if I’m calling myself a Christian and I think Jesus is an immortal drifter who never ascended to heaven. I would expect someone to say, “Hey, you know the Bible says Jesus left Earth 2000 years ago.”
If Polycarp believes the Messiah is living among us right now, this contradicts the orthodoxy of Christianity. Doesn’t mean he’s wrong or crazy, but it doesn’t mean he should be left unchallenged by those who accept certain principals that have been gleamed from thousands of years of theological rumination. Does he believe that Jesus was not the one who described His return? If he does, then isn’t taking anything but a literal interpretation of His words pretty brazen?
DDG challenged him very respectfully, without the harshness of others. I hope Polycarp responds to her points.
To some extent I agree with you: when it comes to logic and religion, there’s almost always a time (or place) where the twain ain’t gonna hang out much anymore. Usually around the time “faith” shows up in the mix.
But for as many problems religion has caused for some of us; for as many times that religion has affected us through laws, customs and traditions (whether good or bad); for as many times during the day we’re faced with the repercussions of whatever the majority’s religion is in whichever country, I say that no religion should ever be given a free pass from critical thinking.
It’s your prerogative to believe otherwise, of course, but I don’t blame others in this thread for trying to discern the meaning of what Polycarp has written.
That said, I don’t necessarily agree with the semantic, “Here, take this brush and paint yourself into a corner, please…” methods some are employing. I think we would be better off waiting for Polycarp to finish posting and then take a look at what he has to say in its entirety.
I do believe this. And I am one of hundreds of thousands.
We’re not all looney!
Not a fact to whom? Polycarp? And what fact? The person’s identity? Polycarp’s earlier post reads like this:
I have a very strong hunch that I do in fact know his identity – and his surname is already a household word.
He is clearly indicating that he has a strong enough hunch to him that he in fact knows his identity. So feel free to parse the English language anyway you see fit to show that Poly is indicating that this hunch is so strong that it is anything other than a fact to him on this person‘s identity.
JZ
Here’s the quote (with the original formatting) that some are characterizing as “weaselling”:
Now, I note the underlined “claim” and the bolded “is” and parse it as a denial on Poly’s part that he’s made any proclamation of Christ, which is consistent with what he’s repeated pretty explicitly. He says his hunch is based on speculation.
Now, here’s a guy (Poly) who believes there’s a strong possibility that a person who has not yet revealed himself to the world is Christ returned. I think, rather than ask why Poly would choose to maintain the anonymity he has to believe this possible Saviour wishes (else he’d have revealed himself already), a better question would be why give hints at all? Why share even an inkling, much less a strong hunch, if you believe these things?
I think I see how and why sharing the hunch would be proper, but it aint mine to defend, so I’ll just ask the question. However, I can’t personally see any weaselling in Poly’s coyness, and certainly no backtracking in the repetition of his uncertainty.