“Speculate” = “he might walk among our virtual community”? Not to me it doesn’t. All religious speculation ends at the actual appearance of the “chosen one.” At that point, it’s put up or shut up. Brian, show yourself!
You ever have one of those days where you’re forced to side with someone you normally disagree with? It’s certainly not very fun.
What exactly is naturalistic about the return of Christ being discovered through a webpage?
Just to clarify my own views a bit I’d look twice at anyone that proclaimed the second coming of Christ was happening or was going to happen soon. He’s 2000 years late to the party why do people keep thinking he’s going to show up during YOUR lifetime. Claiming that you discovered him through a website going to a webboard and dropping little hints will make me start to cross the street to stay away from you. I’m not saying break out the tinfoil hats yet but it’s a big step in that direction.
Though I have to agree all the crap about strong hunch vs just a hunch to be silly and should be dropped.
Appeal to Popularity (argumentum ad populum)
A proposition is held to be true because it is widely held to be true or is held to be true by some (usually upper crust) sector of the population.
The fact that there are lots of loonies doesn’t make them less looney.
:rolleyes: right back at you! Yes. A lot saner for a believer. For me a hoax with 2000 years is still a hoax.
Barring the fact that it wasn’t speculation and there is nothing naturalistic about it.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by xenophon41 *
Poly claimed three things that I find rather unsuprising.[ol][li]that the prophecies of the Messiah were fulfilled in an unexpected way by Christ and that his promised return will, in Poly’s opinion, also be in an unexpected way[]that the return of Christ was a direct promise of his physical return to earth, and that it’s likely to be “in our time”*and that he believes he may know the probable identity Christ has chosen this time . . . *[/ol]. . . It’s the third item that’s causing the hullabaloo, and I’m wondering why anyone would grant the sanity (and arguability) of the first two premises, yet consider the third to be evidence of mental instability. [/li][/QUOTE]
Because while statements 1 and 2 are extraordinary claims, those beliefs are shared by hundreds of millions of otherwise perfectly sane people. They are, in that sense, perfectly normal.
Statement 3 is not perfectly normal. Statement 3 is an extraordinary claim, and the belief in it is apparently shared only by Mr. and Mrs. Polycarp. It is therefore not only an extraordinary claim, but a claim to specal knowledge shared by nobody else on the planet.
Such claims are not normal. In fact, I’d say they’re presumptively crazy.
Not that there’s anything terribly wrong with a little nuttiness here and there. Poly’s a heck of a good guy who has earned every bit of forebearance he might have received in this matter, and I don’t see anything about his recent posts that changes that fact. But it does make me worry about him.
It might be that at some point in his life Polycarp reached an epiphany. One that cannot be entirely justified by logic, but also requires faith which defies logic. Maybe he stumbled across Justin Sorta Timberlake’s web site and saw that it mirrored what he thought was his own unique interpretations on JC’s return.
On the other hand, Poly does live in a section of the country that’s known for the hidden industry of makin’ moonshine.
I’m not saying you are. I’m saying that it’s disingenuous to call another viewpoint “loony” if one already believes in supernatural events.
To us non-believers, the whole debate sounds like a bunch of UFO enthusiasts arguing about what color space suits the aliens wear. I can’t see how one belief is any more or less rational than the other belief.
Purple. obviously!
Again with the Appeal to Popularity.
Turquoise when the purple ones are in the laundry.
Diogenes the Cynic,
well I’m an unbeliever. And to me this is the difference between someone saying aliens are going to land on earth someday vs aliens have landed and are hanging out in their garage drinking beer.
Make that the “Appeal to Normality” and I think you’ve just about got it.
Nah. I think vanilla’s last post was an Appeal to Purplelarity. 
As it ever occured to you that he believes a live, real person somewhere out there, just like you and me is the messiah of the second coming in hiding? Somehow I doubt it.
I have a hunch that you really understand what he meant but are in fact being deliberately dense on this matter, John.
Did I just say that it was a fact that you were being deliberately dense? Of course not. I said that was my hunch; by saying it was a hunch, I was admitting I could be wrong.
A fact isn’t a fact “to whom”; it’s either true or it ain’t. “In fact” is an intensifier, a little bit of verbal detritus that creeps into language. It’s an adverbial phrase modifying the word “is” to mean, essentially, “really” or “very much”.
And that phrase was in an adjectival (I think; perhaps adverbial) clause modifying the word “hunch”: everything there was subordinate to the word “hunch.” Because it’s subordinate to that word, it absolutely can’t be describing anything stronger than a hunch.
But I’m just putting in grammatical terms what a native English speaker ought to pick up on intuitively. Are you not a native English speaker? Are you deliberately ignoring what your instincts tell you the language means in order to pick on Poly? What’s the deal?
Daniel
I would say it’s the difference between believing in the existence of space aliens and believing that Al Gore is a space alien.
The belief in supernatural events does not imply that every supernatural event is equally plausible, or that every such belief is equally rational.
Maybe I phrased myself badly. Things cannot be “more or less” naturalistic. I guess what I meant that I don’t find it “loony” to speculate about a less fantastic scenario than the popular image of Jesus in the sky.
The recurring messiah concept is not that unusual – it’s similar to avatars in Hinduism. Richard Bach wrote a book Illusions dealing with the idea.
As, well, “interesting,” as Polycarp’s latest posts have been, they are no more nutty than believing that a treasure hunter and ne’er-do-well found brass plates that describe how naughty Jews became American Indians, or that a dead carpenter who got nailed to a stick 2,000 years ago is lurking about in the heavens, ready to snatch up his flock before he unleases the Tribulation. One is as nonsensical as the other, and it is silly for people who subscribe to one non-rational belief to sneer at someone who subscribes to a different non-rational belief.
What’s the difference? What makes the former more rational than the latter?
Again, what’s the difference. By what method does one determine which supernatural events are “plausible?”