Polycarp to explain his religious inconsistencies

[Captain_Amazing]

*Originally posted by Polycarp *
**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] **

But here’s where your argument falls down, I think. Because really what it seems to me you’re saying is, “Do unto others as I think He taught you to do”. Throughout history, and even today, people have used the bible, and even the words of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels, to support all sorts of “bad” things, from slavery, to genocide, to forced conversion, to religious persecution, to gay bashing. Now, it’s possible some of these people are just using Jesus and the bible as a rationalization, but it strains credibility to assume they all were. Undoubtedly, at least some of the people who did and do these things believe that they are living according to the way God and Jesus want them to live.

And just like you’ve had your own experiences to convince you that God is loving and that Jesus’s message was one of fair-play, justice tempered by mercy, etc., and that Gaudere has had her own experiences that led her to soft atheism, these people have had experiences to convince them that Jesus is ok with or even wants them to persecute people of a different faith, or deny rights to gay people, or do all sorts of terrible things. Their experiences lead them to those beliefs just as your experiences lead you to yours.

Like Lincoln said in his second inaugural, about both the Union and Confederacy:

Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes his aid against the other.

If the validity of your beliefs are due to the experiences leading you to them, then don’t those people who believe that Jesus’s message condones intolerance because their experiences have led them to that, have beliefs of equal validity?

The difference, of course, is that your beliefs are much kinder, much more humane, and much more tolerable from a sense of basic decency than theirs, and that is an important difference, and that, I think, is why you are so well liked and respected, both on this board and elsewhere. I don’t want to equivocate too far, and I admit, I would much rather live in a world ruled by your sense of ethics than one ruled by Jerry Fallwell’s.

However, what I think is a weakness of yours, and the weakness of liberal Christianity in general, is what Bruce Bawer terms, “the inability to recognize evil”. There is a need, I think, for Christians, especially those Christians who deliver a message of God’s univeral love, to recognize that Christianity is two sided…and that, just as there is an authentic Christian message of love and brotherhood, there exists another, equally authentic, Christian message of hatred and intolerance. It exists in Christianity, and is derived from Christian teachings, and the message of intolerance has as good a pedigree as the message of tolerance.

[Captain_Amazing]

*Originally posted by Polycarp *
**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] **

But here’s where your argument falls down, I think. Because really what it seems to me you’re saying is, “Do unto others as I think He taught you to do”. Throughout history, and even today, people have used the bible, and even the words of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels, to support all sorts of “bad” things, from slavery, to genocide, to forced conversion, to religious persecution, to gay bashing. Now, it’s possible some of these people are just using Jesus and the bible as a rationalization, but it strains credibility to assume they all were. Undoubtedly, at least some of the people who did and do these things believe that they are living according to the way God and Jesus want them to live.

And just like you’ve had your own experiences to convince you that God is loving and that Jesus’s message was one of fair-play, justice tempered by mercy, etc., and that Gaudere has had her own experiences that led her to soft atheism, these people have had experiences to convince them that Jesus is ok with or even wants them to persecute people of a different faith, or deny rights to gay people, or do all sorts of terrible things. Their experiences lead them to those beliefs just as your experiences lead you to yours.

Like Lincoln said in his second inaugural, about both the Union and Confederacy:

Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes his aid against the other.

If the validity of your beliefs are due to the experiences leading you to them, then don’t those people who believe that Jesus’s message condones intolerance because their experiences have led them to that, have beliefs of equal validity?

The difference, of course, is that your beliefs are much kinder, much more humane, and much more tolerable from a sense of basic decency than theirs, and that is an important difference, and that, I think, is why you are so well liked and respected, both on this board and elsewhere. I don’t want to equivocate too far, and I admit, I would much rather live in a world ruled by your sense of ethics than one ruled by Jerry Fallwell’s.

However, what I think is a weakness of yours, and the weakness of liberal Christianity in general, is what Bruce Bawer terms, “the inability to recognize evil”. There is a need, I think, for Christians, especially those Christians who deliver a message of God’s univeral love, to recognize that Christianity is two sided…and that, just as there is an authentic Christian message of love and brotherhood, there exists another, equally authentic, Christian message of hatred and intolerance. It exists in Christianity, and is derived from Christian teachings, and the message of intolerance has as good a pedigree as the message of tolerance.

[Siege]

Originally posted by Captain Amazing
There is a need, I think, for Christians, especially those Christians who deliver a message of God’s univeral love, to recognize that Christianity is two sided…and that, just as there is an authentic Christian message of love and brotherhood, there exists another, equally authentic, Christian message of hatred and intolerance. It exists in Christianity, and is derived from Christian teachings, and the message of intolerance has as good a pedigree as the message of tolerance.
[/quote]

Speaking only for myself, I am acutely aware of that evil and I do fight it. Come on, I’m the person who was furious because other kids made my best friend cry in church! I have publicly chastised Christians for what I perceive as cruelty, just as I’ve publicly chastised non-Christians, and I will continue to do so. I am afraid that my initial reaction to someone who openly declares himself to be a Christian is to expect him to judge me and do so negatively.

I am aware that those who appear to espouse a “Christian message of hatred and intolerance” believe their beliefs have a better pedigree than mine and that their path is the correct path, often the only correct path. I’m also aware that the Pharisees believed the same thing in the time of Christ, at least according to the Gospel both sides acknowledge. I’m also aware that 75 years ago, traditional Christianity embraced hardcore anti-Semitism and 150 years ago, some Christians used the Bible to support slavery.

I freely admit my faith looks like a house of cards to an Atheist, so fragilely and senselessly built that a strong wind could reduce it to dust and blow it away. It doesn’t make sense and it either transcends logic or is illogical, depending on who you’re talking to. It works well for me, and I do not expect it to do so for anyone else, not with the various quirks I have. It’s also provided the odd, tangible result, including money which kept me afloat in the form of a gift from my church because I was struggling.

I went to church last night, to sing in the choir of the new church I’ve joined and, hopefully, make a new friends. I could have gone to a bar or a talk on an interesting subject last night with the same intent. I’m not suited to bars – it always seem like the women there are always at least 10 years younger, 20 IQ points dumber, and 40 pounds younger, and I’m not what the guys in bars are looking for! A talk might work, but, if nothing else comes of taking up with the choir, at least in about 5 weeks time I’ll be singing Handel’s Messiah with about 50 other people and an orchestra surrounded by glorious music. I could do worse and have done so.

Faith fills a gap in my life logic does not, especially since I’m now an administrative assistant, not a programmer, and I swear sometimes logic can be a hindrance in dealing with my current boss! Logic tells me I’ve got a great many years of lonely struggle ahead of me; there’s no reason to believe I will beat the odds. Faith, well, that tells me something different. It will never be enough for some people around here, and I can see why because their experience differs from mine. I will not refute my faith, though, and I will continue to fight evil any way I can. That, too, is part of my faith and my obligation.

Respectfully,
CJ

[Siege]

Logic does, however, tell me Preview Reply is my friend! :rolleyes:

[Desmostylus]

Good post, CJ.

You should come over to my place for a drink, but I fear the distance may be a bit of a barrier.

Personally, I have no probs interpreting the 10 commandments as simply the underlying basis of our current legal framework (it’s the Mosaic law, it’s why murder and theft are crimes, etc.), whilst recognising that that framework changes over time - e.g. adultery isn’t a crime any more.

For me, the 2 commandments are more useful as guiding principles. (And I could probably get by just as well with only one of those two commandments).

The point of my post:

I don’t think that “there exists another, equally authentic, Christian message of hatred and intolerance.”

It’s fundamentally inconsistent with the 2 commandments.

[godzillatemple]

Well, I for one am just glad that after 2000 years somebody has finally figured out what Jesus actually said and what he really meant. I’ll admit I’m a bit surprised at God for letting the entire world misinterpret things for so long, but better late than never, eh?

The fact that, as Truth Seeker pointed out earlier, this “correct intepretation” just happens to correspond with Western liberalism is, of course, just a meaningless coincidence. Why should we begrudge Poly his extreme good fortune of discovering, through much research and analysis, that the Bible actually teaches exactly what he already believed in the first place? Yay, Poly! I’m equally sure that had Poly discovered that Jesus really did comdemn divorce (or the marrying of a divorced woman), or that Jesus really did talk about sinners being cast into a lake of fire, or that God really did condemn homosexuality, etc., that he would have changed his beliefs accordingly. Of course, that would have made Poly a much less moral person, so it’s a darn good thing no such discoveries were forthcoming.

Barry

[Fenris]

Y’know, young padwan, sarcasm is a powerful weapon in the hands of an intelligent person.

Luckily coming from you, we have nothing to fear.

Yay, Godzillatemple.

[godzillatemple]

Damn, I keep forgetting this is the pit.

Errr… same to you, jerkwad?

[TVAA]

So… Poly should have gone instead with some earlier interpretation of Christ’s teachings that just happened to coincide with general morality at the time?

C’mon, we all know that Polycarp’s belief is irrational and wrong. That’s not what this Pitting is supposed to be about, yes?

[xenophon41]

:: peeks in ::

Wow, this thing’s still going?!

How much more clearly could Poly have put things, I wonder? Never mind — rhetorical question.

But being an incurable blowhard, and having absolutely no shame, I’ll add a few far less eloquent words in response to the (I thought dwindling) donnybrook.

First, Captain Amazing, for Polycarp’s argument to “fall down” it must first have actually been an argument; amazingly ( heh, pun) it was not. Rather, it appears to have been a frank attempt at self-explanation for the benefit of badchad and friends. A presentation of Poly’s modus vivendi rather than any kind of recommended modus operandi for others, and certainly not in any way the comprehensive apologia demanded by the OP.

godzillatemple: Here’s a nice unambiguous pronouncement from one of the 20th Century’s most revered moral leaders:

Better far than cowardice is killing and being killed in battle.

That was said about 80 years ago by Mohandas K. Gandhi. Clearly, if one knows absolutely nothing about the Mahatma, this is an endorsement of violence as an act of conscience. Even when one examines the works of Gandhi more broadly, one finds a similar sentiment expressed and elaborated repeatedly. Clearly Gandhi believed that the abandonment by a person of his moral precepts in order to avoid physical or other types of disadvantage is more reprehensible than violence against others.

If one were to separate this sentiment from the body of the Mahatma’s teachings, one could make the strong case that Gandhi was uncondemning of the exertion of force over others in the service of one’s conscience; say, for example the bombing of an abortion clinic by a strong believer in fetal rights, or the physical attack of a white supremacist by a person of color.

However, one could in turn argue that in the context of Gandhi’s life works, and even in the limited context of the books in which these statements appear, it is a more valid conclusion that Gandhi’s statements regarding cowardice and killing are to be applied only to one’s understanding of ahimsa and only to the extent that one considers the respective degrees of importance between violence done to others and violence done to truth and conscience. In context, this argument would conclude, Gandhi’s disdain for physical cowardice only endorses as ethical the unavoidable use of violence as a limited last resort, and not as a remedial action.

Would you accuse me of cherrypicking Gandhi’s writings to support my preconceived ethical sensibilities were I to make that contextual argument?
TVAA: Irrational =/= Wrong Unfalsifiability does not make a true thing any less true.

[godzillatemple]

xenophon41: One critical flaw in your analogy is that Ghandi never claimed to be more than a man, capable of error and changing his mind over time. Jesus, however, is supposed to have been divine, infallible, and unchangeable in his words and beliefs.

Truth be told, however, I simply don’t know enough (read “none at all”) about what Ghandi did or did not say to give an informed response to your question. You know what they say about a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent, and in this case I will freely admit to not being up to the challenge.

Barry

[xenophon41]

godzillatemple, I’m afraid I don’t see that difference as a flaw. You are criticizing the contextual approach to understanding the instructions and teachings of Christ, not his divinity. While I do think I understand your point that Poly’s interpretation is colored by his subjective experience (and Tris illustrated why this is not only unsurprising but inevitable), I totally disagree that an appreciation of Christ’s divinity in any way invalidates the comparison of my analytical approach to understanding Gandhi and Poly’s analytical approach to understanding Christ.*

Your charge against Poly, as I understand it, is that his modern liberal ethos drives his interpretive exercises, rather than the reverse. As I said before, you’ve failed to substantiate this charge. Further, there’s an unstated assumption in your charge that I don’t think is necessarily valid: what makes you believe “Western liberalism” is unconnected etiologically with Christian beliefs, rather than one of many divergent but consequential schools of thought succeeding from centuries of theological, cultural and philosophical religious influence?

[xenophon41]

Forgot the footnote:
*In the interest of full disclosure, I must not shy away from the realization that an interpretation of Christ’s words, may also be guided by recognition. One simply looks for the voice one recognizes, having “heard” it in one’s "heart "already. This is necessarily a non-logical approach which, while not incompatible with contextual analysis, is itself nonanalytical and indefensible in terms of reason. However, where a contextual analysis stands on its own, the prejudicial conclusion of the heart does not invalidate the reasoned conclusion of the mind.

[godzillatemple]

xenophon: My point is that with regard to the writings of Ghandi, the person “cherry picking” is free to discard parts they don’t agree with on the theory that Ghandi may have misspoke or changed his mind over time. In other words, it’s perfectly valid to state that Ghandi was, in fact, inconsistent and there is therefore no need to try to warp his words in order to find consistency.

One who claims to believe in the divinity and infallibility of Christ, however, does not have that luxury and must therefore either agree that Jesus taught things that conflict with one’s own moral sense or try to interpret the Bible so as to have it fit one’s sense of morality.

You are correct, however, that I have failed to substantiate my charge. That doesn’t make it false, however. It’s a good thing this is the Pit and not a court of law, eh? Should I ask Poly whether he held his views regarding divorce, homosexuality, etc. before or after he analyzed the Bible so thoroughly? Would I have any way of knowing whether his answers were honest or not? Maybe if he swears on a Bible…

Barry

[Homebrew]

One who claims to believe in the divinity and infallibility of Christ, however, does not have that luxury and must therefore either agree that Jesus taught things that conflict with one’s own moral sense or try to interpret the Bible so as to have it fit one’s sense of morality.

Belief in the infallibility of Christ doesnt require a belief in the infallibility of the Bible. Christ, to the believer, exists outside and independent of the Bible. To the liberal Christian, the Bible is often believed to be an account of Christ written by fallible men. It points to Christ, but isn’t Christ himself.

[TVAA]

*Originally posted by xenophon41 *
**TVAA: Irrational =/= Wrong Unfalsifiability does not make a true thing any less true. **

It does make it an invalid conclusion. Irrational == Invalid Reasoning == Invalid Position

[xenophon41]

godzillatemple:

My point is that with regard to the writings of Ghandi, the person “cherry picking” is free to discard parts they don’t agree with on the theory that Ghandi may have misspoke or changed his mind over time. In other words, it’s perfectly valid to state that Ghandi was, in fact, inconsistent and there is therefore no need to try to warp his words in order to find consistency.

One who claims to believe in the divinity and infallibility of Christ, however, does not have that luxury and must therefore either agree that Jesus taught things that conflict with one’s own moral sense or try to interpret the Bible so as to have it fit one’s sense of morality.

Homebrew already answered this, but let me just add a couple of things.

One, I think you’ll find few liberal Christians who wont’ recognize the inconsistencies between books of the New Testament, but you’ll certainly find Biblical literalists and hard-nosed atheists alike who will deny inconsistencies between the literal modern meaning of a biblical verse and either its idiomatic or contextual meaning(s).

Two, the literal vs. metaphorical argument must logically favor the metaphorical stance when interpreting lessons from Christ when one takes into account his rabbinical prediliection to deliver wisdom through parable and allegory. Believing Christ is infallible doesn’t require one to believe him to be humorless and unsubtle!

[xenophon41]

Upon reading what I just posted, I see it makes little sense in terms of this argument. Sorry! I’ll try and focus in…

If one accepts this statement: The literal, isolated meanings of many of Gandhi’s sayings are often *inconsistent with the intended meaning, which must be understood in terms of context and semantics. then one must also accept the same statement as applied to the sayings of Christ.

[Kalhoun]

Captain Amazing’s post was excellent. And it bolsters Godzilla’s take that religious folks (except for those that follow the literal word) really do create their own version of their religion to suit their own preference.

[TVAA]

*Originally posted by Siege *
**Speaking only for myself, I am acutely aware of that evil and I do fight it. Come on, I’m the person who was furious because other kids made my best friend cry in church!

** You’ve done nothing but prove his point – what makes you think that you can justifiably identity the teasing of your friend with evil?