Polycarp to explain his religious inconsistencies

[badchad]

Polycarp:

quote:

Originally posted by badchad:
Also are you ever going to answer those questions you promised me regarding the inconsistencies of your belief system or are out comfortable with the label I have given you for not keeping your word? That label BTW starts with the letter L.

Certainly. I have twice put together a statement on why I do not see my beliefs as inconsistent, and decided they were inadequate to answer your comments, and therefore declined to post them.

I think this should be sufficient enough reason for you to question your assertions. Don’t you think your hitherto failure to explain the above dramatically increases the probability that your apparent inconsistencies are actual inconsistencies, and thus based on false premises?

Start a thread and I will answer specific questions and points. Feel free to quote your previous questions – but I will not re-address linked multipage threads; I want specific points on which you see inconsistency and error.

Fine, I’m taking the time to post again. Next time try to be more considerate with regards to others spare time, which may not come as cheaply as yours. Also if possible please give straight answers rather than analogies.

Here goes:

Regarding Jesus you wrote:

He believed himself to be in communion with God, whom he characterized as a loving Father, not a tyrannical, stern judge…

If burning the fallible beings you created in an eternal lake of fire for matters of disbelief isn’t considered stern judgment, what is? If that’s loving, what do you consider abusive?

I’ll tell you what, I take Jesus as my ideal, my Savior, and my Lord, and I claim His promises as the means to sustain and guide my life, and try to follow His commands, including that little one about “eschewing judgment and rendering mercy as you yourself, being a sinner, would seek mercy rather than harsh judgment, for with the measure you judge will you too be judged.”

Why do you claim to try and follow Jesus’ commands when I already got you to admit that several of Jesus’ commands you not only don’t follow but don’t agree with? How do you decide which of Jesus’ commands are worth following and which aren’t?

And we’ll see who gets it right. If Czarcasm has the right of it, it won’t matter, because when we die, the neuroelectrical network that comes up with all this stuff will shut down, and we’ll be nothing whatsoever except a memory. If the way that I understand Jesus’s teachings is right, there are a lot of “good churchgoers” who are going to find themselves classified as Ovis capra rather than Ovis ammon on the basis of what they didn’t do for “one of the least of these” and because they decided they were righteous enough to sit in judgment over others.

I don’t speak Latin but from the context it seem you believe in a literal hell or at least extermination. Did I get that right? Also aren’t you judging these “good churchgoers” in the same manner that you claim they are judging others? Why is it ok for you to judge others according to the teachings of the bible while they can’t do the same.

But, badchad, I did not make you the keeper of my conscience, and I will try to live the life I believe I have been called to, to the best of my ability. And that includes preaching God’s mercy to all, and in particular to my gay friends, who have been told by the Neopharisees…

Isn’t calling fundamentalists “Neopharasiees” a bit of a slur? Does it not imply again that you are judging them?

But, my friend, Scripture repeatedly characterizes God as predominantly loving

How much scripture do you have to ignore (or define as non-scripture) to come up with such a statement?

“Supernatural events” in the Bible are the writer’s naive perceptions of what went on. I do not know whether any given one of them is a literal account or not, but it does not matter – whether Jesus got up from the tomb on Easter Morning in a sort of Night of the Undead Messiah or not, some event occurred that convinced men who had known Jesus intimately for three years that although they’d seen Him dead, He was alive again.

Should I take this as your admission that witnesses to the resurrection were just reporting their naïve perceptions as to what went on? Same as with your heart attack survival miracle? Also don’t you think it also possible that some who had know Jesus closely just made up stories about him rising again and that their reported perceptions were neither naïve nor honest?

Now, why God created a world in which you can harm yourself, end up choosing Hell through short-sighted decisions, etc., is beyond me…

So you think it’s stupid too?

A world without evil, harm, or pain sounds good, to be sure. But it makes us into robots, unable to make any choices. It keeps us from growing – by making choices with consequences, and then living with them.

So by that reasoning you admit that once you reach heaven you will become a robot, unable to make choices and grow?

Well, yeah. There is no proof. I put my trust in what Jesus had to say, and try to do what He commands.

Why do you continually say this when you admittedly only put your trust in some of what Jesus commands, and admittedly follow even less?
Below is one of my favorite Polycarp contradictions, I’ll let my previous ignored questioning ride:

However, the Fourth Commandment is a part of the Mosaic Law, and Christians are free of the Law – contrary to what some folks who ignore Paul’s teaching on this in favor of the extensive Torah material on what one should and should not do would have you believe.

Just curious Polycarp, why do you take Paul at his word here? Isn’t he just a “well-meaning idjit”? You did recently call him that didn’t you:

Paul was a well-meaning idjit.

More on this, why would you follow the teaching of said “well-meaning idjit” over that of the explicit instructions of Jesus himself, who told you were supposed to follow the law?

While other Christians might interpret things differently it is you who says that where the bible and the teachings of Jesus contradict that you should go with Jesus, making comments like:

”So if you ask me to choose between following Jesus and following the Bible, I’d have to choose Him.”

”Don’t put your trust in the Bible. Put it in the God of whom the Bible speaks. And most importantly, put it in Jesus Christ, who was God walking the earth as man, and whose words, whatever else one finds in that volume, can be trusted.”

Can you spin that another way?

Do you ever get tired of coming up with lame rationalizations for incoherently cherry picking the word of god?

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

Eh, this reads more like a Pitting than an invitation to debate.

[badchad]

Most of my questions were cut and pasted at Polycarp’s suggestion. It’s religious in nature and pretty much all of it came from the great debates forum.

[Palo_Verde]

I agree with DDG. Pretty hostile.

There are ways to ask questions that invite open discourse. And ways of asking thesame question that provoke hostility and defensiveness.

Which kind do you think you asked? Was that your intention?

[Triskadecamus]

Odd that you have read **Polycarp’s] posts on this board, and come away with the impression of his character and faith you are ranting about here. I have read the same posts, and I think many more, and have an entirely different view of him.

But then your opinion of Christ is another example of a very different one than I have gotten, too.

When someone reads something, what they think after they read is not entirely a result of what the person wrote. I think the lies you think you heard were already in your mind before Poly started writing. I hope he chooses to ignore this thread.

Tris

[GIGObuster]

Hi, DDG!

I also read the same thing, Duck Duck Goose.

Not going to reply for Polycarp, I am a former Catholic, strong agnostic; but this comment I can not let pass:

Originally posted by badchad:

Policarp quote:

However, the Fourth Commandment is a part of the Mosaic Law, and Christians are free of the Law – contrary to what some folks who ignore Paul’s teaching on this in favor of the extensive Torah material on what one should and should not do would have you believe.

Just curious Polycarp, why do you take Paul at his word here? Isn’t he just a “well-meaning idjit”? You did recently call him that didn’t you:

Polycarp quote:

Paul was a well-meaning idjit.

More on this, why would you follow the teaching of said “well-meaning idjit” over that of the explicit instructions of Jesus himself, who told you were supposed to follow the law?

Because, my dear soon to be phased off voting hanging artifact: if they had not followed Paul, there would not have been any Christians today.

[badchad]

Triskadecamus

I think the lies you think you heard were already in your mind before **Poly started writing. I hope he chooses to ignore this thread.

He better not, since he promised to answer.

Cite:

Start a thread and I will answer specific questions and points. Feel free to quote your previous questions – but I will not re-address linked multipage threads; I want specific points on which you see inconsistency and error.

[Czarcasm]

This is more of a personal attack than a Great Debate, so I’m moving this to the BBQ Pit.

[El_Cid_Viscoso]

In one fell swoop, from pregnant to hanging.

[jackelope]

*Originally posted by badchad *
He better not, since he promised to answer.

He “better not”? What are you going to say next, “or else”?

Listen: If you really wanted to hear his answers for an intellectual debate, you wouldn’t use such hard-assed language. You would ask questions instead of leveling accusations. Do you see the difference?

I don’t have a dog in this fight; I’m atheist, but sympathetic toward Christianity in general. I’m just letting you know that people who can’t debate rationally don’t usually get much of a warm reception around here.

“But wait,” you’re thinking, “I’m all about reason and facts! It’s Christianity that’s irrational! I can debate using only facts and browbeat everyone into thinking my way by the irresistible power of my logic!”

Yeah. That’s what I thought when I was younger and so, so full of myself. Back when I would do wildly self-aggrandizing things like put a Nietzsche quote about how pathetic weak people are in my sig line.

Your posts in this thread, and your tone in general, really rub me the wrong way. Consider that it’s possible for someone to disagree with you and not be a fuzz-brained idiot, OK?

[SnoopyFan]

Speaking as a Christian who takes issue with him quite a bit, I hope Polycarp doesn’t waste his time on this, either. Your mind’s made up, badchad, and that’s fine – but why should Poly spend one second defending his viewpoint when you so obviously have it all figured out already?

And what are you gonna do if Poly doesn’t answer? Send him to his room?

(Apologies if you’re a woman, Polycarp.)

[ruadh]

Someone’s pitting Polycarp? Now I’ve seen everything!

[Typo_Negative]

Is Polycarp being asked, nay, commanded, to justify his beliefs??? Am I reading this right?

We don’t need to justify our beliefs. Mine are quite different than Poly’s, and if you ask me to justify them, I’ll tell you to fuck off. Since when do we need to justify anything to you.

[Largo62]

Another agnostic weighing in: I probably would find little to agree on with Polycarp as far as religion is concerned, but I have him and Zev Steinhardt to thank for their accepting and warm attitude when I originally fulminated loudly against religion. Now that I think of it, Poly and Zev probably wouldn’t find much common ground either, at least on doctrinal points. But few people have been as willing to listen to a little vented spleen without coming back with vitriol.

Let’s see now, you seem to think taking a side or having an opinion different from or even opposite to others is the same as judging them. Poly certainly expresses differences with other posters, but I’ve never known him to take a judgmental tone.

I don’t see how calling certain people “neo-Pharisees” is a slur, even if you think his assessment of their beliefs is mistaken. He is only comparing them to an ancient Jewish fellowship that observed the written law, but also accepted oral tradition. If the tradition fits…it’s not a slur. If it doesn’t. it’s still not a slur, just a mistake.

His assessment of God as predominantly loving is not inconsistent with the belief he has expressed in these fora many times. It may not agree with your assessment, or mine for that matter, but in it he is completely consistent. As to error, well, that’s a matter of opinion isn’t it.

I see this pitting (and that is what it is) as essentially mean spirited. If you really wanted to engage Poly or anyone else in debate you would have asked about one topic at a time and given your reasoned response to his answer. If you are pressed for time, string the challenges out over a few weeks. None of us is going anywhere.

[moriah]

I don’t read GD, so I don’t know any of the background to this pitting. So, just from reading the OP, I’m having trouble determining whether:

1. badchad is a fundamentalist with a problem with polycarp’s non-literalism;

2. badchad is an atheist who’s bent on disproving Chrisianity by attacking polycarp’s beleifs; or,

3. badchad is an idjit.

Mind you, the choices need not be exclusionary.

[Cervaise]

Fuck off, badchad. I may be an atheist, but I have far more in common with Polycarp than I do with you.

There’s no debate here. You’re just trying to stir up shit. I find you contemptible.

[jackelope]

If I’d had the cojones, I’d have said what Cervaise said.

[Mangetout]

*Originally posted by moriah *
**I don’t read GD, so I don’t know any of the background to this pitting. So, just from reading the OP, I’m having trouble determining whether:

1. badchad is a fundamentalist with a problem with polycarp’s non-literalism;

2. badchad is an atheist who’s bent on disproving Chrisianity by attacking polycarp’s beleifs; or,

3. badchad is an idjit.

Mind you, the choices need not be exclusionary. **

I share your confusion; it is my impression (and I fully admit that I may be mistaken) that badchad believes one must either be a hard atheist or a raving fundie and that anyone attempting to occupy any kind of other/middle ground is being deliberately obtuse.

[Liberal]

With respect to this from Poly:

Certainly. I have twice put together a statement on why I do not see my beliefs as inconsistent, and decided they were inadequate to answer your comments, and therefore declined to post them.

And this response from Badchad:

I think this should be sufficient enough reason for you to question your assertions. Don’t you think your hitherto failure to explain the above dramatically increases the probability that your apparent inconsistencies are actual inconsistencies, and thus based on false premises?

Actually, Badchad himself has jumped to a false premise, namely that Poly decided his posts were inadequate on account of their content.

The fact is that Poly had explained to a fare-thee-well and forty ways from Sunday why his beliefs were not inconsistent. We’ve all run into incalcitrant and deliberately obtuse posters to whom we’ve tried to explain things.

Once. Twice. Three times is not enough. These trolls are not really interested in our arguments; rather, they are interested in provoking us to a reaction that may assuage their fetish for trolling.

If you’ve already explained yourself several times only to be dodged, ridiculed, and farted at, it is entirely likely that you reach a point where you feel that the best thing to do is simply — in the words of Mr. Scott — “punch up clear”.

Poly declining to post was not an indication of his inability to respond. Instead, it was an indication of the kind of man he is — one who likely thought better of flying off the handle and swatting a particularly annoying insect.

[Coldfire]

badchad, it’s a belief. Sure, it’s possible to find contradictions in Christian scripture. And it certainly is possible to find Christians who sin, thereby breaking the rules they profess to adhere to. The Christians I know realise this, and consider themselves sinners by default.

Only a vindictive asshole or someone who’s a complete novice at religious debate would try and rub those inconsistencies in like you did, to someone as respected as Polycarp. Couldn’t you find a better target for this rather poor analysis of yours?