Monty
[quite]badchad: What you seem to be failing to grasp is that Faith is not and cannot be Science.[/quite]
No no, I agree with you. Faith will will never be as great as science.
Monty:
No no, I agree with you. Faith will will never be as great as science.
Yep, coolest wanker the board has seen since, um, well since at least a coupla hours ago.
Chicken and the egg. Without Faith, there is no science. Without Science, there is no faith.
Mr. B
How do you define faith?
Indeed.
badchad: Cease and desist with saying I said that which I did not say.
For some reason I find myself more influenced by the opinions of Einstein on faith and religion, than yours.
Obviously, you have faith in science.
With respect, I think this is a false (or at least incomplete analogy). A closer analogy would be to say that you prefer garlic-meat sauce on your tacos because your interpretation of original texts and analysis of archeological evidence lead you to firmly believe that the ancient Olmecs (who, as everybody knows, invented the precurser of the taco), used a form of garlic in their meat-based toppings, and the fact that garlic-meat sauce simply tastes better to you is beside the point.
The point I believe that badchad is making is that your claim that you follow only certain parts of the Bible based on a detailed analysis of the text and a knowlege of what things were really said by Jesus is, in the end, mere sophistry meant to provide a rational justification for an emotional choice. Nobody questions your choice to pick and choose from the Bible those parts that accord with your own inner sense of morality; in fact, many people (including myself) laud you for this. But when you refuse to acknowledge that you are disregarding any part of the Bible that you don’t feel comfortable with and claim instead that your beliefs are based on some sort of scientific analysis of the text, well, that’s when some people’s BS-meter is activated.
You are free to believe whatever you want to believe, and if it makes you a better person, I say go for it. But analyzing the text in order to justify your beliefs is not the same as analyzing the text to form your beliefs.
Regards,
Barry
Is the bottom line badchad that you’re accusing Polycarp of being a good man masquerading as a Christian? That’s how it looks to me.
Haven’t you got something better to do?
As I stated in the Pit thread I started in your honor, you are once again insisting that your interpretation is correct. You entire premise in harassing Polycarp is to show that his interpretation differs from what you consider the correct one. He and everyone else has already acknowledged that. But your interpretation, like that of the Fundies, is not even the traditional and historical interpretation so it’s rather irrelevant that Polycarp doesn’t subscribe to it.
Further your parsing of Poly’s latest post demonstrates you to be incabable of or unwilling to honestly read what he posts.
Point 1 Theophanies: He acknowledges in that very post that his subjective interpretation of his theophanies are valid for him only. Yet you harp on those and dishonestly imply that he’s inconsistent on that point.
Point 2 Mythology: From your latest imbecilic ramblings you show yourself to be woefully uneducated. Hell, just reading a freakin’ dictionary tells you more accurately what a myth is than your facile understanding. Perhaps you should check out a book on the topic, like The Power of Myth by Joseph Campbell.
Points 3-5: Your replies continue to show that you’re not paying attention or you are simply obtuse. Polycarp and other liberal Christians have repeated acknowledged that they don’t believe the Bible is a transcription of God’s actual words. They’ve acknowledge apparent inconsistencies. And Poly in particular has given you his reasoning for accepting which parts he does. The fact that you reject his reasoning does not equate with it being unreasonable nor inconsistent.
Point 6 Summary: Of course it’s not a complete list of what Jesus said, you freakin’ moron. It wouldn’t be a SUMMARY if it were complete, shit for brains. If you had an attention span or memory greater than that of a goldfish you’d understand why Polycarp lists the summary in the order he does.
Polycarp, thanks for saving me the research hassle. As I said earlier, I know it’s your opinion (after all, no one has any way of KNOWING these things). I’m just saying some people may not read it as such.
GodzillaTemple said, “You are free to believe whatever you want to believe, and if it makes you a better person, I say go for it. But analyzing the text in order to justify your beliefs is not the same as analyzing the text to form your beliefs.”
Right frickin’ on. I’m sure people don’t want to admit that this is the case, but I think all but the staunchest fundies do this.
Apparently, you are the only one who thinks so.
Because that is what the disciples and Jesus are talking about. What did you think it referred to?
Jesus is teaching, and his disciples follow up to see what He really means. And He then makes it clear that His teaching on divorce and marriage do not apply to everyone. He says so very explicitly:
No, it’s quite clear.
Yes. He was being equally clear when He explained that this teaching did not apply to everyone. See above.
I did not leave it out. Jesus is expanding on exactly that teaching (“this word”), and making it clear that the teaching does not apply to all people, but “only to those to whom it is given” to be able to do so.
There are certainly obscure passages in Scripture, but this is not one of them. The plain sense of the passage is quite clear.
Jesus teaches the ideal - no divorce except in cases of adultery. The disciples then say, “If that the way things are, nobody should get married.” Jesus responds, “No, this does not apply to everyone. Some people can’t get married, others shouldn’t, but for most, strive for the ideal.”
Regards,
Shodan
I actually see your point. I’m certain that I, and other liberal Christians including theologians), rationalize to a far greater extent than we’re prepared to admit to anyone, including ourselves. The homosex passages are a good example in point – nobody with the capacity to parse a simple English sentence, including the gay men themselves, can read them as they’ve been translated without forming the opinion that YHWH, or at least Moses, Paul, et al., have a bug up his/their ass about people who are interested in having other things there. The fact that each text is capable of an interpretation that condemns something quite different than consensual gay sex can lead one to believe that the commands are being misused to unjustly demonize a minority – and as someone whose experiences have brought him to a place where he can readily identify with the people in that minority, that pushes my trigger.
Any rational observer will admit that gay people exist, that their desires and aspirations differ only in the identity of the beloved from those of the rest of us, and that, on their unanimous witness, they are incapable of changing that orientation under their own steam. A God who self-characterizes as just and merciful is not going to condemn them for that which they are incapable of changing, nor will He require of them a gift (celibacy) that He has not seen fit to endow them with. This is not to suggest that they are excused from resisting temptation, same as the rest of us; it’s saying that only those endowed with a particular charism are capable of accepting with equanimity the idea that they can never morally engage in sex, and it’s pretty clear to me that most gay men have not been so endowed.
My conclusions are twofold: first, that it’s incumbent on the rest of us, loving them as ourselves, to treat them with respect and affection, not judgment; and two, that the interpretations of the Bible passages are to be read in a fashion that does not condemn consensual romantic gay relationships, and they are obliged to follow the same general policy as the rest of us – to use one’s sexuality in search of a life-mate and then live in monogamous fidelity with said lifemate when he/she is found.
I do fully see that I am making a judgment that makes my idea of God match up with a moral standard that I believe to be valid.
The point underlying this is that that moral standard was, we are told by the very Bible at question, taught by the Man Who is supposed to have the supreme authority to teach and command, a much better understanding of God’s Will (being Himself God the Son) than Paul, Moses, and the rest of the supporting cast, and whom we Christians have taken as Savior and Lord.
What it comes down to, when the neoprene hits the asphalt, is this: one can choose to interpret the teachings of Jesus by a standard that (extraBiblically) presumes the Bible to be the unalloyed Word of God, to be accepted and followed unquestioningly; or one can choose to interpret the rest of the Bible on the basis of the teachings of Jesus. IMHO, for a committed Christian there is only one proper choice.
I am, I suppose, reading the text to justify my beliefs, rather than to shape them – but I’m doing it on the basis of a commitment to follow the source of those beliefs. At least as I see it.
Or one can admit to choosing to intepret the rest of the Bible on the basis of those parts one ascribes to Jesus, based primarily on the fact that those parts agree with what one already believes:
Jesus is reported to have said A, B, C and D. D makes me feel really uncomfortable and seems to contradict with the rest of what he said. Therefore, I will choose to disregard it, while maintaining the pretense of interpreting the entire Bible on the basis of the teachings of Jesus.
Just a thought. Sorry to flog an apparently non-animate equine… 
Barry
I think you should read those last four paras again godzillatemple.
Poly said, ‘I do fully see that I am making a judgment that makes my idea of God match up with a moral standard that I believe to be valid.’
Then why belong to a particular church? Why can’t you just believe in “a” god and bypass the seemingly endless cherry-picking one would have to do if one wants to be both a Christian and a good person? I realize there are social aspects to church, but social activities can be fulfilled through other outlets. Do you see what I’m getting at? You can’t meet every standard the bible sets forth, so why the charade?
Also, if you eliminate the “magic” from the bible, then there’s no way god is actually talking to Jesus anyway, right? So why not just worship Jesus, the man, and leave the god part out of it? This is a sincere question, not meant to ruffle anyone’s feathers.
“Magic”? That’s an interesting name for what God does in relation to Jesus in the Bible.
Also, how could anyone worship Jesus the man? It seems foolish and contradictory to worship a human being instead of the Almighty Being.