OK, I’ll just go and do that. Hold on a sec, will ya?
And I’m back. I see Poly demonstrating once again that he is a deeply moral and “good” (by my definition at least) person. I also see him seemingly acknowledge that his choice of which parts of the Bible to follow is, in fact, guided primarily by his own moral sense. All well and good so far.
Sadly, he then has to ruin it by setting up a false dichotomy between those who believe the entire Bible is inerrant and those who, (as “committed Christians” like him), “choose to interpret the rest of the Bible on the basis of the teachings of Jesus.”
Aside from the fact that this basically insults anybody who believes the entire Bible to be the divinely inspired word of God, it once again calls into question the very point that badchad raised in the first place. To wit, how does Poly justify which teachings of Jesus to follow? A devout Catholic, for example, might say that Jesus taught that divorce is a major no-no and that anybody who says otherwise is not following the teachings of Jesus. Now, Polycould just say what Jesus said about divorce doesn’t match with his own sense of “right” and “wrong” and therefore he chooses to ignore that bit. Instead, though, we get a deep structural analysis of what the word “divorce” really meant, the context in which it was said, the prevailing culture at the time it was said, and why Jesus therefore didn’t really say what the Bible clearly states he said.
The same could be said about any of the other apparent contradictions that badchad has mentioned between Poly’s depiction of Christ’s teachings and what the Bible actually records him as saying. If Poly really is just “making a judgment that makes my idea of God match up with a moral standard that I believe to be valid” as he states in one paragraph, why does he have then state that he is really just “choosing to interpret the rest of the Bible on the basis of the teachings of Jesus.” The two statements are, on their face, inconsistent, and it is this inconsistency that, I believe, badchad has called him on.
Dwalin said, “Also, how could anyone worship Jesus the man? It seems foolish and contradictory to worship a human being instead of the Almighty Being.”
But that’s all you have to go on, really. Just Jesus. Poly and the rest live by Jesus’s teachings (as told to him by god, but you don’t really know if that’s accurate, now…)
Dwalin also said, ““Magic”? That’s an interesting name for what God does in relation to Jesus in the Bible.”
For a non-thiest, it’s the only accurate term for it.
So what you (and presumably badchad) are saying is, your interpretation of what “the Bible clearly states” based on a nonbeliever’s semantic interest is different than Polycarp’s interpretation based on a passionate commitment to the word of his Lord and intensive research into the original context in which it was uttered.
Brilliant critique.
By the way, please research “false dichotomy”. It’s a term usually used to denote a fallacy invoking only two possible conditions when in fact other possibilities exist. Poly’s application of [his studied interpretation of] New Testament doctrine to Old Testament wisdom sets up no such false dilemma. (But it sure looked groovy and intelligent when you threw that charge at him. Go you.)
Xenophon said, “So what you (and presumably badchad) are saying is, your interpretation of what “the Bible clearly states” based on a nonbeliever’s semantic interest is different than Polycarp’s interpretation based on a passionate commitment to the word of his Lord and intensive research into the original context in which it was uttered.”
Poly has admitted that he does this: “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.”
That’s sorta my point, Kalhoun. Instead of demonstrating any internal inconsistency in Polycarp’s beliefs, badchad and godzillatemple, after five pages, have instead demonstrated only that those beliefs are based on interpretations of scripture which are inconsistent with others’ interpretations.
I will say, though, that godzillatemple at least has maintained admirable civility while proving the readily apparent.
Hmmmm… I suppose, this being the BBQ Pit and all, I should expect a little asshattery now and then. So be it. You’ll excuse me if I don’t sink to that level in response, I hope.
No, that’s not what I’m saying. And, although I don’t presume to speak for badchad, I don’t think that is what he is saying, either. What I am saying is that Polycarp’s “passionate commitment to the word of his Lord and intensive research into the original context in which it was uttered” is nothing more than an attempt to provide a rational basis for his decision to pick and choose which of Jesus’ teachings to accept as valid, as opposed to the actual reason for picking and choosing.
Why, thank you. Thank you very much. No, really, stop it – I’m blushing :o
No, I used the phrase exactly as I intended. Poly set out an either/or proposition for determining which parts of the Bible should be followed. Either one “interprets 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 else one can be a “committed Christian” and “interpret the rest of the Bible on the basis of the teachings of Jesus.” This is clearly a dichotomy, which Websters defines as “a division or the process of dividing into two esp. mutually exclusive or contradictory groups or entities.” Morover, it is a false dichotomy since, as you point out in your critique of my comment, other possibilities, in fact, exist. To wit, the possibility that one can interpret the Bible on the basis of one’s own sense of morality, choosing only those parts that accord with your sense of morality and disgarding anything that doesn’t.
And all this matters to you… why, exactly? Why the fuck do you care what Polycarp believes, especially considering that the overwhelming response in this thread has been that you are being a jerk and people like Polycarp? Why do you have such a hard-on for him?
If you were a chihuahua I’d kick you across the room, you goat fuck. Get over yourself.
xenophon41 said, “That’s sorta my point, Kalhoun. Instead of demonstrating any internal inconsistency in Polycarp’s beliefs, badchad and godzillatemple, after five pages, have instead demonstrated only that those beliefs are based on interpretations of scripture which are inconsistent with others’ interpretations.”
Well, that IS the point. If everyone can interpret scripture in a different way, it makes it a little difficult to argue WHAT Jesus meant in the first place. If this was supposed to be a cut-and-dried blueprint for life, how come there are so many interpretations. It just makes it less believable. I think they demonstrated quite well that if you pick and choose and interpret what THE Christian said, you’re pretty much creating your own religion. Granted, they’ve each done it with their own distinctive style, but I think they’re basically on the same page. And so am I. I’m just not as articulate (but then, you knew that ;)).
What, Poly posts here for years and years, showing his earnest dedication, love and patience, and has less flashes of anger than you can count on one hand, and you’d allow it to be used to drag his outstanding and well-deserved positive reputation through the muck?
An assertion which not only cannot be proved but for which you have yet provided no support. In fact, Poly just asserted the opposite:
You’ve provided no reason for me to doubt Poly’s word that his understanding of Christ is the prism through which he interprets the bible; you’ve merely given superfluous support to the truism that any such understanding is problematic. Poly sees through a glass, darkly, but I’ll take his prism over most.
So then are you saying that Poly only takes the Jesus parts of the bible to heart? That the other guys may or may not be interpreting things correctly?
Excellent post. But it doesn’t address the OP’s thesis. Poly might, as you say, have created his own version of Christianity, but if so (and I really don’t dispute the point), bad’et al have yet to show any undeclared inconsistencies in that version of Christianity.
However, you’ve asked a wonderful question, which others can probably deal with more competently than I, but I’d like to give an opinion, however ill informed, regardless.
First, Jesus wasn’t “THE Christian”; he was THE Christ, upon who’s existence the modern religion is based.
IMO, THE Christ didn’t create Christianity. Christ only reached out his hands. In grasping those hands, various followers created a religion and started a book about it which all subsequent followers have understood in their own ways, and sometimes gotten together and translated, edited and altered according to prevailing invented dogma, none of which has affected the availability or steadiness of those offered hands.
The book Christians have written, and the books preceding it, from which Christ quoted and taught, are subordinate to Christ’s invitation. I believe Poly seeks in all ways to illuminate that invitation, and that, where he applies interpretation to scripture, it’s in an honest (and logically consistent) effort to prevent imperfect words from obscuring the offer.
Pardon my humble intrusion, but I believe that the pundamental flaw in the ointment, which has been previously stated, is this:
Polycarp claims to be interpreting the bible through a knowledge of the intent of Christ.
A knowledge of the intent of Christ is only available via the reading of (and, presumably, interpretation of) the bible. Note: secondary sources of Christ’s intent may be subject ot the same analysis, and confusion, as the bible.
Ergo, Polycarp seems to be using an admittedly flawed source as the key to screen out the flaws in the very same source. This seems roughly like coming upon a vault with its combination locked inside. The key that Polycarp (and every other interpreting Christian) claim to be using is, in fact, unavailable to them.
A person could, and has in the past, decided that Christ was a domineering tyrant, and be able to ‘prove’ this via the bible using the methods ascribed here: interpret the bible through the lens of the perspective dicovered in the bible itself. This has been perjuratively described as ‘cherry-picking’, and personally, I don’t see this as an unfair description. The problem, as I see it, is that a person (in this case, Polycarp has been selected as the example) personally decides on the combination to use to unlock the bible, and then pretends that they have in fact derived this information from the bible itself. Logically, I do not see how this can be true; and regardless of how moral a code the person had decided to adopt, their description of its acquisition must be false and is therefore not admirable.
Things of course get somwhat worse, morally speaking, when the arbtrarily-defined religion is passed off as being the one religion supported by this big and famous collection of literature. Particularly when gullible children are subjected to this indoctrination. (All this, of course, being immoral by my own personal, deliberately adopted by my own analysis, moral code.)
Okay, slaughter me now for speaking against Polycarp. (Sigh. Believe it or not, I do expect it.)
Xeno said, “Poly might, as you say, have created his own version of Christianity, but if so (and I really don’t dispute the point), bad’ et al have yet to show any undeclared inconsistencies in that version of Christianity.”
I don’t think anyone said he was inconsistent within his own Christianity creation. I think they said he was practicing something inconsistent with his formal, recognized Christian religion. And I agree. I’ve never heard him acknowledge that fact until this thread (though I must admit I don’t read everything he posts).
One other observation: while Poly says he agrees with evolution versus creationism, per this statement: “That creation was most likely done through the means described by modern cosmology and evolutionary biology, not by some phenomenon of the sort posited by a given group of conservative evangelical Christians. I posit this because of the evidence of science and because the alternate view demands a literal reading of passages of Scripture that strike me as myth in the anthropological sense (which is not the common-parlance dismissive sense of “false.”)”
Why wouldn’t the evidence of science show you that immaculate conception between a woman on Earth and God is equally far-fetched? If immaculate conception cannot happen, then it would follow that Jesus was just a mere mortal (with a pretty good plan) and not the son of god.
In addition to lamenting my erroneious italicization, I wish to make one other correction to my previous post:
2) A correct knowledge of the intent of Christ is only available via the reading of (and, presumably, interpretation of) the bible. Note: secondary sources of Christ’s intent may be subject ot the same analysis, and confusion, as the bible. And, of course, incorrect ideas of Christ’s intent are easily learned or fabricated.
On preview, I’d also like to comment that all current religion, unless it includes having consulted with god directly and recently about his character (which some do) demonstrates this failing. So Polycarp is in no way lessened by comparison to fundamentalist christianity.
Why, thank you! I’d ask wether you though my argument was non-stupid, or wether I had impressed by managing to be polite about it, but then it would be obvious that I was digging for praise.
Though actually, I’d rather have brilliantly composed rejoinder, assenting or not. To bad I didn’t get here until most everybody left, ne?
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.
