# Polycarp to explain his religious inconsistencies **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 29, 2003, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-to-explain-his-religious-inconsistencies/210178 "2003-10-29T04:50:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2003, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-to-explain-his-religious-inconsistencies/210178/241 "2003-11-03T22:47:12Z")
**Xeno** , let me thank you for a very great compliment nd for a perceptive analysis of what I’ve been trying to say. **Begbert** , to the contrary, it’s a valid objection. However, IMO your point depends on the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle. Your suggestion is that I’m using material from a flawed source to attempt to discover the flaws in that source. This presumes an equal state of unreliability for all parts of the Bible, and hence the invalidity of using any part of it as a test for other parts. However, it’s my contention that the Bible can be critically examined in much the same was as any other work of ancient literature. (See the link to the threat where I pitted **badchad** for a reasoned analysis by **Libertarian** of the distinction between regarding the Bible as a self-closed, internally consistent system and the _transitive_ approach of bringing the capabilities of scholarship to bear on its study.) Further, _any_ person who would put credence in the Bible at all would concur that some parts are of more value than others for the guidance of human life, etc. The Sermon on the Mount, the Great Commission, etc., speak to people much more than the book of Obadiah or the first nine chapters of I Chronicles with their interminable geneaologies. There being a view that Jesus is Lord to a Christian, it follows that what one can form a reasonable assurance are His words and teachings are supreme _in the context in which they were given_. That this is important is self-evident in the variant understandings expressed in this very thread about the teaching on divorce. It’s the view of liberals and moderates alike that Jesus was not laying down an absolute commandment against divorce so much as he was condemning the idea of divorce for convenience. The principle – of the permanency of marriage – is absolute, but circumstances alter cases. In any case, what I feel is proper is to apply the tests of textual criticism to the Gospels to establish insofar as possible what exactly Jesus did say, discounting the particular themes of the four Evangelists, and then, having arrived at an answer, apply it as a guide to interpreting how to apply (or not apply) the remainder of Scripture to one’s life. There does remain the question of Jesus’s variations in speech patterns, his tendency to speak in ellipticalparable form and to invest familiar words with additional meanings (as in the I AM passages in John), and the items noted by **badchad** earlier in the thread. These do deserve addressing, but not in a legalistic context. (Added on preview: **Kalhoun** , a good point lessened by a misuse of terminology. The Immaculate Conception, a view exclusive to Roman Catholics, is the dogma that Mary the mother of Jesus was conceived – in the normal manner – without original sin. The Virgin Birth, held by most Christians, is the idea that Luke and Matthew are accurate in reporting Mary to have conceived Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit without having had intercourse with Joseph. The issue has been raised before a number of times – do a search on _parthenogenesis_ for some discussions of it – including an explanation of what the H. in Jesus H. Christ stands for! 😉 I personally am inclined to accept it despite the high improbability of a male parthenogenetic child, on the basis of a high opinion of Luke’s research abilities and the fact that Mary would have known quite well what happened when they discussed it. But I am quite aware that it is the stuff of hero legends, and it would in no way affect the character of Jesus as Son of God for God to have caused His conception by the normal sexual process. In fact, I’m fairly convinced that the significance of the story lies in the “Son of God” metaphor and in Jesus’s insistence on characterizing the First Person of the Trinity as _Father_ – as opposed to Tyrannical Monarch, Judge, Thunderer, and all the other archetypes that might characterize Him.) ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2003, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-to-explain-his-religious-inconsistencies/210178/242 "2003-11-03T23:52:35Z")
Greetings **Polycarp**! I figured you’d headed for greener pastures. As far as I can tell, the middle can never be entirely excluded in this situation. Regardless of your ability to cast the text of the bible in the context of the time of its writing, you shall still be forced to at some point start picking and choosing what to believe. This thread is already loaded with several examples of things in the bible that require, at the least, generous interpretation to reconcile with each other. Besides which, the fact that 2000 years and perhaps even a translation or two stand between you and the original meaning text would seem to be a problem. Further, most of the time Christ’s own _disciples_ didn’t seem to have a clue what he was talking about, even though they lived at-or-near the time he was alive. 😉 Adding to this that only a fraction of Jesus’s worldview can possibly have made it into the text, and it seems likely that at some point the facts in your analysis will run short, and you will have made the remaining decisions by subjective personal choices. (The approach to homosexuals would seem to be one such case: in the text there is either a negative opinion or no opinion, but a positive opinon has to be stretched for.) no Not to forget that a few of your comments in this thread mention interpreting a passage based on your understanding of Christ’s intent (such understanding presumably depending on an objective analysis of the passage in question for total accuracy, as in my vault analogy). Its admirable that you at least make an effort to get the correct historical perspective as opposed to merely sitting in some pew and soaking up the sermons, but the fact remains that you’re working with a very old and cryptic work, and we have enough trouble getting the straight dope on Elizabethan plays. You may operate less on blind faith than most people, but the idea that there is a middle case of clear, _objective_ (and non-contradictory) understanding to be found in the bible seems to exclude _itself_. ---
**Author:** ![Truth\_Seeker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5fc32e/32.png) [@Truth\_Seeker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truth_Seeker)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2003, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-to-explain-his-religious-inconsistencies/210178/243 "2003-11-04T02:39:34Z")
> [@](#): > > _originally posted by Polycarp_ > **3. Said God is someone of whom many people of many faith traditions have attempted to speak, but what works best for me and seems to me to be the most complete revelation is that understood by the Doctors of the Church of traditional Christianity (as opposed to specifics evolved by varius denominations over the last century or two). I offer no justification for this – _it’s personal preference and my own sense of what works best for me_ – I had as soon engage in a Great Debate about why spaghetti with garlic-meat sauce is “better” than Tex-Mex caliente sauce over tacos.** [Emphasis supplied.] **Polycarp** , I have some bad news, you may be a Unitarian – see your doctor. 😉 I think this paragraph sums up the basic problem. Your religion is your _subjective preference_ rather then being objective “truth.” You can no more assert that a Muslim or a Hindu or a Fundamentalist Christian is wrong on relgious grounds than you can assert that someone is “wrong” for having blue as a favorite colour. This view may, in fact, be both correct and laudatory. However, it consigns religious debate to MPSIMS rather than GD. (“I am totally into salvation by faith.” “No way! Works rocks!”) While I have no particular dog in this fight, I am also deeply suspicious that, after 2000 years, someone has finally worked out a “correct” version of Christianity and it just happens to correspond with Western liberalism. Someone said it earlier in this thread, but the idea bears repeating – Religion can be a reason for a belief or an excuse for a belief. Cognitive dissonance afflicts the best of us. If someone always finds their religious beliefs lining up nicely with what they already believe, they are probably fooling themselves, somewhere. Finally, as in all religious debates, we would all do well to remember the words of the sage, _Malt does more than Milton can To justify God’s ways to man._ ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2003, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-to-explain-his-religious-inconsistencies/210178/244 "2003-11-04T05:45:23Z")
I wonder, how do all these people who don’t interpret the meaning of texts get enough information to decide whether to believe or disbelieve? Absolutely astounding! It must be a miracle! You can’t read the back of a cereal box without examining the meaning of its message in the context of your own life experience. You can lie about it, and claim that the cereal box is perfectly unambiguous, and applies with equal perfection to every single person on the face of the earth, throughout all history. Of course you would be an idiot to think anyone is going to believe you. Now if that is true of a document that attempts to explain a breakfast food, how much more complex is a document that seeks to direct us to apprehend the nature of God? Logic and cut and dried rationalism are not going to do it alone. It is going to take poetry, and passion, and paradox, and prayer. Time and tradition have both had their effects on the message of the Bible, and the Koran. (not to mention the Vedas, and half a thousand other religious documents.) Anyone who claims there is no interpretation in the process is simply lying or stupid. And if a billion people make a thousand interpretations, that means . . . wait for it . . . inconsistencies! Choose to deny that you interpret the words of the Bible if you wish. But if you either accept, or reject it, you have made one, for sure. Probably a lot. And if you do, those come from your own mind. How the assumption that religious beliefs must not include the mind of the believer ever got accepted leaves me a bit puzzled about the basis for the argument in the first place. How can I have an intellectual apprehension of my own faith without including my own mind? What sort of pseudo intelligent criticism is that? I am so glad that I don’t do the whole intellectual defense of faith in the Lord thing. It’s a quagmire of half sciences and politics that chooses any sort of perceived error on the part of any believer, and then brays loudly about the illogic of religion. What crap. If you worship at the altar of logic, so be it. It is a cold and sterile thing, and I pity your soul. But it is your soul, so I will not criticize you for abandoning all that is not logical. Just don’t ask me to pray there. And don’t try to sacrifice my faith on your altar. It won’t fit there. I ain’t logical about God. The only things I know for sure about Him aren’t logical at all. They are miraculous. The Bible reaches across time, and uses patched together stories from unverifiable sources to send a message into the hearts of people who don’t understand much at all about history, philosophy, science, or logic. And sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn’t. I don’t think anyone can be sure about anything except their own relationship with the Lord. For that, they need to get it from Him. Tris ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2003, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-to-explain-his-religious-inconsistencies/210178/245 "2003-11-04T12:47:19Z")
Come on now. Someone pits **Polycarp** , and it goes on for five pages? How is this possible? I’m one of the most aggressive atheists on these boards, but I’ll say this: if people have to be Christians, I wish they could all be **Polycarp**. He never preaches, admits the flaws of his worldview, is never smug or overbearing, and above all he is an incredibly eloquent, interesting and constructive member of this community. **badchad** , lay off it. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2003, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-to-explain-his-religious-inconsistencies/210178/246 "2003-11-04T13:46:37Z")
Godzilla said, “Kalhou: Just a nitpick in the name of accuracy… “Immaculate Conception” is actually the Catholic doctrine that Mary was born without the taint of Original Sin.” Shit. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![godzillatemple](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/49beb7/32.png) [@godzillatemple](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/godzillatemple)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2003, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-to-explain-his-religious-inconsistencies/210178/247 "2003-11-04T13:50:12Z")
You’re welcome. And sorry about dropping the final “n” off your name… 😉 Barry ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2003, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-to-explain-his-religious-inconsistencies/210178/248 "2003-11-04T14:23:12Z")
Tris said, “If you worship at the altar of logic, so be it. It is a cold and sterile thing, and I pity your soul. But it is your soul, so I will not criticize you for abandoning all that is not logical. Just don’t ask me to pray there.” But who said anything about worshiping? And who said anything about abandoning all that is not logical? (and who said anything about SOULS??!!) Religion (christianity, in particular) is based on the teachings of a human being. The bible is mostly a work of fiction. These things can be appreciated without the inclusion of the supernatural. A person can live a good life without believing in the promise of an afterlife. A person can falter in their lifetime without fear they will burn in a lake of fire. A person can forgive and be forgiven at will, with no repercussions from “above.” The world that exists without religion is no less beautiful than yours, Tris. We operate the same way you do. We love our kids, we work hard, we treat our neighbors with respect. We fall in love (and sometimes out of love). We hate war (and have far fewer reasons to wage it than the “believers”). For me, it’s not the destination…it’s the journey. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2003, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-to-explain-his-religious-inconsistencies/210178/249 "2003-11-04T15:56:10Z")
If the shoe doesn’t fit, **Kalhoun** , there’s no need to put it on. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2003, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-to-explain-his-religious-inconsistencies/210178/250 "2003-11-04T16:30:31Z")
That’s right. It’s never necessary to put it on…barefoot is perfectly acceptable. But have fun shopping!!! Just don’t ask me to come to the mall with you! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2003, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-to-explain-his-religious-inconsistencies/210178/251 "2003-11-04T18:10:59Z")
Can’t we all just get along? Esprix ---
**Author:** ![El\_Cid\_Viscoso](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/41988e/32.png) [@El\_Cid\_Viscoso](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Cid_Viscoso)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2003, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-to-explain-his-religious-inconsistencies/210178/252 "2003-11-04T18:24:09Z")
[David Alan Grier] That guy stole my bit! [/David Alan Grier] 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2003, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-to-explain-his-religious-inconsistencies/210178/253 "2003-11-05T04:41:00Z")
Blisters on **Kalhoun** ’s feet. When I speak of those who “worship at the altar of Logic” it is not intended to be a literal description of an actual gathering of logicians engaging in worship. It is a metaphor. It was intended to address the tendency of some to examine every expression of religious faith for what they consider logical failings, and an absence of philosophic adherence to rules of scientific examination. I often use logic, and find that descriptions of the world I live in are most credible when they meet the criteria of skeptical examination by falsifiable predictions, and repeatable, controlled experimentation. But I don’t feel that every aspect of human experience must remain within those bounds. I certainly don’t believe that every aspect of divine experience will do so. The universe is a very diverse and extensive thing. Not every part of it can be examined with the same tools. Some parts may not be subject to examination by any means available to humans. That does not mean that the universe must be limited to the two valued limits of logical thinking, or the limits of human thought and perception. I don’t expect you to accept that. I don’t think it is reasonable to characterize those that do accept it as “wrong, stupid, or deluded.” Perhaps those weren’t your shoes after all. Tris ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2003, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-to-explain-his-religious-inconsistencies/210178/254 "2003-11-05T14:14:33Z")
Tris said, “Blisters on **Kalhoun** ’s feet” Now that’s just mean. “When I speak of those who “worship at the altar of Logic” it is not intended to be a literal description of an actual gathering of logicians engaging in worship. It is a metaphor.” Uh. I get it. I was giving you a hard time. The point I’m making is that fantasy and imagination are an important part of the human experience. As a skeptical agnostic, I can’t know what the origins of the universe are, but the human mind can (and should) ponder the meaning of it all. But to believe one answer over the other with no proof doesn’t make it so. It’s OK not to know the answer. It’s OK to want to know the answer. That’s all I’m saying. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2003, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-to-explain-his-religious-inconsistencies/210178/255 "2003-11-05T15:04:38Z")
**Kalhoun** , I think the blisters were sort of an ironic “shoe not fitting” remark… As far as “answers”… The disjunction between **answers** and **meaning** seems to be one of those paradigmatic digressions one sees in many of the theism vs. atheism discussions. For the honest hard atheist (or realist or agnostic or etc.), exploration of the universe is mainly (sometimes almost exclusively) about _explanations_ and _plausibility_, and there’s certainly nothing wrong with that approach. We certainly need solid evidence and robust theories to make sense of reality, and it’s basic survival sense to greet the nonfalsifiable with skepticism. But to many honest theists (or deists or mystics, or holders of any system of faith), the answers are interesting and important but their exploration of the universe requires a component of “ultimate” reality. IOW, although everyone seems to favor a particular metaphysic _and_ a particular epistemology, it’s the former to which the person of faith gives precedence, and the latter to which those who dispute faith-based systems give credence. And now that I’ve bored you, I’ll go tie my own shoes. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2003, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-to-explain-his-religious-inconsistencies/210178/256 "2003-11-05T15:18:53Z")
Oops! Sorry…didn’t mean to be a bitch. I didn’t catch that (bangs thick skull on desk). ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2003, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-to-explain-his-religious-inconsistencies/210178/257 "2003-11-05T16:13:56Z")
Bruises on **Kalhoun** ’s forehead. 🙂 Sorry for beating up on you, but you were just standing in line of fire. I certainly don’t use the bible as a cosmology text, or any such misapplication, nor do I defend those who do. I just think one needs to apply the proper intellectual tool to the matter under consideration. Tris ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2003, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-to-explain-his-religious-inconsistencies/210178/258 "2003-11-05T19:22:17Z")
🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2003, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-to-explain-his-religious-inconsistencies/210178/259 "2003-11-06T18:42:42Z")
As I mentioned on the Unaboard, I’ve just finished reading a series of juvenile SF by David Gerrold. ( **Fenris** , you can stop reading now; you know what’s coming! ;)) And it became evident to me that, because I couch my comments in the language of Christianity, its theology and ethics, it’s “obvious” to people who are upset with my approach ( **badchad, kalhoun, TVAA** , etc.,) that I’m “playing the ‘God card’” – self-rightously asserting that I’m right and they’re wrong because it’s what my invisible friend with supernatural powers says you have to do. There is something to that POV, but it is by no means what I’ve intended. Let’s back off a few notches and review the discussion to date: _Ethics_: There is a standard of generalized principles to which almost all Americans, and members of western Civilication in general, adhere. It involves social principles deemed “good” by an undefined standard of “goodness” – things like fair play, justice tempered by mercy, kindness, generosity, agreement that there are “rights” to whch all people (should) have equal access… These assertions are termed “humanistic”; some people say, with debatable validity, that they derive in large part from the Judaeo-Christian tradition. My assertion is that _most_ of what Jesus taught as ethical behavior falls precisely into this category. It is **founded in** a relationship with God on which we can and do disagree, but the actual playing out of the behavioral choices called for by it _need not be_. Which, I think, may be where **badchad** and I have our problem. He is seeing Jesus as formally legislating; I’m seeing him as laying down ethical principles to be followed as the circumstances demand, using one’s moral judgment to do that which is “right” and “good” as conflicts between principles arise and are resolved. A rather silly-but-with-a-point Great Debate of a couple of years ago, involving a masochist with power over you and whether you would _want_ him to be guided by the Golden Rule, illustrates the distinction here. _Metaphysics and Epistemology_: It is the farthest thing from my mind to assert that I am right in my faith structure, and that therefore all you are wrong and should follow mine instead. Rather, I assert the following: [list=a][li]It is only reasonable to accept the metaphysics which observation and induction, reason, authority, and reliable testimony make available to you.[/li][li]The problem with A is that each of us has a different standard of evidence, authority, and how to draw reasonable conclusions from them. A thoroughgoing Biblical literalist who deems the Bible the literal Word of God and therefore rejects the conclusions of cosmological physics and evolutionary biology and geology is practicing this as fully and accurately as is the “scientific atheist” who draws precisely the reverse conclusons.[/li][li]Back before she became an Administrator, \*\*Gaudere[p/b] was a prolific poster in Great Debates, with particular interest in the religious debates. She outlined clearly and logically her position, and even agreed to try some of the experiments proposed by religious folks. In her shoes, _with her experiences and not mine_, I would have to hold to the “soft atheism” she espouses.[/li][li]The fact of the matter is, however, that I have **my own** experiences and not hers. And they have left me with a strong Christian faith – a certitude in the God of whom Jesus taught and whom I have experienced. I fully admit that one can come up with psychological, non-supernatural explanations for my experiences – but my contention is that Occam’s Razor militates for God as the _simpler_ explanation of the results of my experiences. I did not want the vulnerability of loving and being loved; I had built walls, a fortress deep and mighty, that none might penetrate. My beliefs were rational, and did not include personal supernatural interventions. I did not want the job of evangelical advocate for liberal Christianity, nor Christian spokesman for gay people. He had other ideas – and I cherish the changes that were made in me to turn me into who I am and like being. But to suggest that my own psychology moved me to make them, and disguise it as an imagined experience of God, is to stretch logic beyond the breaking point in order to defend one’s insistence on His nonexistence. I do know who I was, and what my hopes and fears were – and they did not in the slightest involve becoming whom I have become.[/li][li]As **Triskadecamus** suggests, however, there are times in which rational judgment is not enough. It is entirely possible that this person, who has up to now evinced nothing but kindness and generosity towards me, is out to trick me. But sooner or later I will have to trust someone, and this person _seems_ to be someone who can be trusted. But taking that risk and trusting them is not trational – it has rational elements but leaves oneself vulnerable, not a rational decision. But I will trust him (or her) anyway.[/li]Not “playing the God card” however, does not apply to one game in which I play – if someone claims to be following Jesus Christ as his or her Savior or Lord, IMO it is incumbent on them to be doing what it was He taught as the proper thing to do – and not trationalize it on the basis of some other Scripture passage quoted out of context. Period. No debate; no discussion. “If you love Me, keep My commandments.” Not a logical inference from what Nehemiah may have said or what you think are the reasons for the negative judgment later made by the two angels who left Mamre for the Dead Sea Plain. Do unto others as He taught you to do. You claim Him; now act like it.[/list] ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2003, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-to-explain-his-religious-inconsistencies/210178/260 "2003-11-07T02:17:39Z")
You are so inconsistent! 😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-to-explain-his-religious-inconsistencies/210178.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-to-explain-his-religious-inconsistencies/210178.md?page=14)