# 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:** 7\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![badchad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b77776/32.png) [@badchad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badchad)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2003, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-to-explain-his-religious-inconsistencies/210178/341 "2003-11-25T05:36:49Z")
Polycarp: > [@](#): > > That’s a fair and well-phrased question, Barry, which calls for an honest and clear-cut answer. > > Unfortunately, I don’t have one. That figures. Poly ever wonder why I don’t like you? You couldn’t give a straight answer to a hard question if you life, make that your soul, depended on it. This is the thread that **you asked me to create** and now you go on avoiding me and giving BS answers to Barry. Let me quote you again: > [@](#): > > 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. Note that you asked me for specifics. I’ve been giving specifics a plenty and you pass it off as nit picking. You gave your “textual analysis” of why Jesus allows for divorce in spite of what he said in the bible, to which I responded and trumped you good (if I do say so myself) yet you just ignored the criticism and still maintain that your contextual analysis has merit, in spite of your already confessing that you rationalize to a far greater extent than you are willing to admit even to yourself. You still won’t state what your beliefs are on hell, which I think is because it can only lead you down one of three roads, which I outlined earlier, none of which you seem willing to face. Same with all the other issues I reposted above. So I’ll ask you again, to answer the questions that you say you can and admit (clearly) where you can’t. Here’s a hint on how. Don’t do a monologue. Rather cut and past my questions in front of you and answer them one at a time, or admit where you can’t. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2003, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-to-explain-his-religious-inconsistencies/210178/342 "2003-11-25T14:18:16Z")
> [@](#): > > - badchad\* > Polycarp: > > ## quote: > > That’s a fair and well-phrased question, Barry, which calls for an honest and clear-cut answer. > > ## Unfortunately, I don’t have one. > > That figures. > > Poly ever wonder why I don’t like you? You couldn’t give a straight answer to a hard question if you life, make that your soul, depended on it. You know, I find the above post dishonest and clearly misrepresentative of the nature of **Poly’s** response to **Barry**. It is somewhat unfortunate that **Polycarp** did say that he did not have an honest and clearcut answer but then he continued with an honest and clearcut answer which you simply ignored. Perhaps what **Polycarp** meant was that nothing he could say would be clear enough to you or perceived as honest. I can understand why you find **Polycarp** so frustrating, because he doesn’t fit the mold for an extremely devout Christian that can be easily criticised in light of the modern western morality often exemplified on the SDMB. That’s why you don’t like him. He’s one vocal Christian that you just can’t put down. ---
**Author:** ![badchad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b77776/32.png) [@badchad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badchad)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2003, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-to-explain-his-religious-inconsistencies/210178/343 "2003-11-28T02:40:45Z")
Grienspace: > [@](#): > > You know, I find the above post dishonest and clearly misrepresentative of the nature of Poly’s response to Barry. I don’t. > [@](#): > > It is somewhat unfortunate that Polycarp did say that he did not have an honest and clearcut answer but then he continued with an honest and clearcut answer which you simply ignored. Perhaps what Polycarp meant was that nothing he could say would be clear enough to you or perceived as honest. Oh, come on. Poly knew where Barry was going. If Poly responded that he was not surprised by any teachings of Jesus due to his “contextual analysis” it would have been further objective evidence that he was only finding what he wanted too, with said “analysis” and using that “analysis” as a justification to support his modern day liberalism. > [@](#): > > I can understand why you find Polycarp so frustrating, because he doesn’t fit the mold for an extremely devout Christian that can be easily criticised in light of the modern western morality often exemplified on the SDMB. That’s why you don’t like him. He’s one vocal Christian that you just can’t put down. I think that’s patently false as well. Poly is one vocal Christian who I put down more than any other. While I admit that Poly’s arguments are quite slippery I genuinely enjoy the challenge. Criticizing fundamentalists is like shooting an already dead horse while with Poly it’s more like shooting a snake in the bottom of a bucket, he can and does wiggle a lot but he’s not going anywhere. I think Poly is smarter than he makes out, I think he knows I and others have his number and if he were to honestly finish our discussion he would be in a world of cognitive dissonance hurt. Also in case you hadn’t noticed I don’t criticize him in the light of modern western morality. I criticize in the glorious light of the bible and the specific teachings of Jesus. The facts are he claims his morality is that of Jesus as noted in the gospels when it isn’t, its modern day liberalism. As I have said before, he’s a secular humanist in Christian drag. ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2003, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-to-explain-his-religious-inconsistencies/210178/344 "2003-11-28T06:11:06Z")
Two quick comments. **Poly** , you said: "That’s a fair and well-phrased question, Barry, which calls for an honest and clear-cut answer. Unfortunately, I don’t have one." Would it be fair to say that what you meant by this, as opposed to what one might read into it if one were deliberately looking to misrepresent you, is that your answer, while it is certainly honest, is not clear-cut in that you didn’t do one thing first and then the other, but rather had a bit of one with a bit of the other, or some other such combination? It looks to me, from reading this except and then continuing to read the rest of your post to figure out what you mean from what you’ve said (as opposed to going in looking for something and finding it wherever one wishes to find it), that it is the case that you neither wholly: 1. Completely held these beliefs before engaging in the scholarly analysis you decribed above, or; 2. your analysis led to your beliefs but rather that it was a combination of those factors and maybe others as well, many or some or all of which you might not have planned on happening to you( I’m sure you’ll share my amusement at the idea of planning necessarily having anything to do with spiritual growth:D) I would be rather surprised if there were a useful non-generalized answer to a religious question that was clear cut. There’s a reason we’re not much further along in this than we were several thousand years ago. Religion is by its very nature not clear-cut, and in some cases not altogether honest (most visible in the contentious and rather backstabbing mythologies of some cultures). The only thing that’s changed is the names. Secondly, **badchad** , that 1-900 number you have isn’t to **Polycarp** ’s hotline;) ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2003, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-to-explain-his-religious-inconsistencies/210178/345 "2003-11-28T14:51:10Z")
Exactly, **'punha** , and thanks for spelling it out more clearly than I did. Contrary to an unewarned reputation, I don’t always think things out clearly – and I was living with an unexamined inherent contradiction until “my nose was forced into it” and I was compelled by circumstances to think it through and take a stance. So while I would willingly have answered Barry’s question directly, the circumstances were such that neither proposed answer was quite valid – Barry was asking, in more polite terms, if I adopted an ethics that my researches demanded of me, or if I rationalized a theological underpinning for ethics that I felt comfortable with. And neither is quite the truth, for reasons I explained. As for the OP, he has made it quite clear, both here and in a GQ thread, that he is not seeking answers to how I feel I can legitimately hold the views I do, but rather attempting to find ways to attack me. As such, I personally consider him to be in violation of Rule #1, though it is of course the decision of the Admins. as to whether that is the case. But I feel that I have answered his questions, perhaps not in the point-by-point itemized list he asked, but with generalized statements on mymethodology and on Jesus’s rhetorical usages that make clear what my answers to any point-by-point list would be. And given his announced intent, further responses directly addressing him would be a wate of everyone’s time. Accordingly, unless the Mods. see a reason to keep this thread open, I request its closure. ---
**Author:** ![badchad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b77776/32.png) [@badchad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badchad)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2003, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-to-explain-his-religious-inconsistencies/210178/346 "2003-11-28T15:16:30Z")
Polycarp: > [@](#): > > Barry was asking, in more polite terms, if I adopted an ethics that my researches demanded of me, or if I rationalized a theological underpinning for ethics that I felt comfortable with. And neither is quite the truth, for reasons I explained. To quote Barry: > [@](#): > > Quoting from Barry: > In particular, did you find any surprises during your analysis that forced you to change something you previously believed, or did your analysis support everything you believed? And were there any passages that could legitimately (according to your analysis) have been interpreted more than one way, but which you chose to interpret in a way that matched your existing beliefs, or did your analysis only admit to one interpretation in all cases? He asked were there any surprises, or were you biased in all cases? You could have answered that yes or no and then told us it was a mixed bag and given an estimate of a percentage of how often you were surprised. Since you answered how you did, I think it ups the likelihood that you were surprised very little if ever and this would strengthen Barry’s point. > [@](#): > > As for the OP, he has made it quite clear, both here and in a GQ thread, that he is not seeking answers to how I feel I can legitimately hold the views I do, but rather attempting to find ways to attack me. Not true. I am merely asking questions. After your having ignored enough of them while giving the pretense of having the answers I’m just motivated to reiterate that you aren’t answering. > [@](#): > > But I feel that I have answered his questions, perhaps not in the point-by-point itemized list he asked, but with generalized statements on mymethodology and on Jesus’s rhetorical usages that make clear what my answers to any point-by-point list would be. Another hint. Just do it in a point by point manner. IT’S HOW YOU SAID YOU WOULD. > [@](#): > > 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. See above, see “specific points.” > [@](#): > > And given his announced intent, further responses directly addressing him would be a wate of everyone’s time. Hey, if you can’t do it just say so. > [@](#): > > Accordingly, unless the Mods. see a reason to keep this thread open, I request its closure. Yeah, I’ll bet. ---
**Author:** ![Coldfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2003, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-to-explain-his-religious-inconsistencies/210178/347 "2003-11-28T15:58:06Z")
I think 7 pages will do. Don’t have time to read it all, but I bet the matter has been discussed, ad infinitum. Closed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-to-explain-his-religious-inconsistencies/210178.md?page=17)