Polycarp to explain his religious inconsistencies

[Triskadecamus]

It is very hard to explain the nature of loving and serving the Lord Jesus to someone who thinks he is dead.

Tris

[xenophon41]

Speaking subjectively…

zap!

Thanks for that, Triskadecamus.

[Kalhoun]

Tris, what makes you think he isn’t?

[Polycarp]

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

How would you categorize it? Does it in any way resemble doing as you would be done unto? Does it lend itself to social integration? Is it loving one’s neighbor as oneself? Does it match any definition of good that more than two people on this board will agree on?

Siege, myself, the gay contingent here to a man (or woman), at least a dozen long-time regulars, all have recounted instances opf juvenile social ostracism and the pain caused by it.

Somebody commented up above that I don’t give enough credence to evil. Maybe it’s time to start. And to start with condemning the attempt to excuse antisocial mob behavior by refusing to see the evil in it.

[Truth_Seeker]

Two questions.

First, by way of clarification, am I correct in concluding from your latest post that you cannot assert that practices founded on, say, Hinduism or Islam are “wrong?”

Second, this leaves open a lot of territory.

**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.

**
Based on the teaching of Jesus, isn’t it a correct position to “Hate the sin but love the sinner?” Take divorce and re-marriage (since it’s already been discussed at length). Isn’t it consistent – indeed, even more consistent than your position – to have love and concern for those who commit adultery while refusing to aid and abet them in doing so? In other words, shouldn’t a church refuse to sanction divorce and re-marriage based on the teachings of Jesus even though it continues to minister to those who do divorce and re-marry civily?

[Polycarp]

*Originally posted by Truth Seeker *
**Two questions.

First, by way of clarification, am I correct in concluding from your latest post that you cannot assert that practices founded on, say, Hinduism or Islam are “wrong?”

Of course I can assert that they’re “wrong” – the former practice, prevalent among several Hindu groups, of insisting that a recent widow immolate herself on her late husband’s funeral pyre, is flat out wrong.

If, however, you’re asking me if my belief system demands that I reject non-Christian beliefs (with Judaism getting a partial free pass), with the implication that it sounds like it doesn’t, then you’re entirely right. Truth is where you find it; every belief system has elements of truth mixed in with elements of myth, falsehood, erroneous conclusion, and general garbage. The fundamental principle of Islam, its two-clause creed, begins by rejecting the polytheism of pre-Islamic Mecca and substituting for it the belief that the one real God is the God of Abraham. And any Christian must admit that that far, Mohammed was right.

This is by no means heterodox – C.S. Lewis, in one of his books, quotes Church Fathers as affirming this position, and provides an appendix of “the Tao” – the Way to live a proper life as understood by religious leaders across a variety of faiths, all of them commensurate with Christian belief.

Based on the teaching of Jesus, isn’t it a correct position to “Hate the sin but love the sinner?” Take divorce and re-marriage (since it’s already been discussed at length). Isn’t it consistent – indeed, even more consistent than your position – to have love and concern for those who commit adultery while refusing to aid and abet them in doing so? In other words, shouldn’t a church refuse to sanction divorce and re-marriage based on the teachings of Jesus even though it continues to minister to those who do divorce and re-marry civilly?

Well, first point is that whether that position is correct or not, nobody does it – or at least does a good job of showing it, whatever their motives may be. Hence, I regard questions based on that principle as being about as valuable as “How can I discover if my unicorn is suffering from trace mineral deficiencies?”

Second, I am dead-set opposed to legalism – the enforcing of explicit rules in a one-size-fits-all manner – and my reason for this is that it is contrary to the principles Jesus taught for how to make moral judgments. (Just in case nobody has picked up on the latter yet, I’d summarize it as “Judge yourself according to these ideals – if you fall short, repent and trust God, and keep on trying; do not judge others.”)

Perhaps Barb’s and my closest friend in junior college was a woman who married an divorced Army veteran. It was her first marriage, of course – but his second. And the church she’d been raised in excommunicated her for marrying a divorced man. And I don’t even want to bring up the Gene Robinson affair – except to comment that nobody in the entire Episcopal Chrch (myself included) seems to be paying any attention to Jesus’s teachings.

I will leave the hating of sin to God – He’s better equipped than I to make the distinction between sin and sinner, and concentrate on what He affirmatively commanded me to do – love the sinner. Starting with myself.

[Kalhoun]

Poly said, “Of course I can assert that they’re “wrong” – the former practice, prevalent among several Hindu groups, of insisting that a recent widow immolate herself on her late husband’s funeral pyre, is flat out wrong.”

Yeah, but it isn’t wrong to them. Weird as it may seem to us. And don’t the women do this of their own volition?

[Truth_Seeker]

Putting aside whether suttee is widely practiced and whether it is a cultural or religious practice, let’s assume that for Hindus, it is a divinely ordained religious practice.

There are theories of justice which do not depend on received religious commandments, but that’s not really what we are talking about. Polycarp, you can argue such a practice is wrong, but you cannot argue it is wrong, based on religious principles.

You’ve alread admitted the subjectivism of your religious beliefs. As you say, it’s right for you based on your experiences but someone else will may – correctly based on his or her life experiences – come to different results.

What do you make of this?

**The best-known case of suttee in modern times involved the 1987 suicide (or murder) of 18-year-old Roop Kanwar. Educated, middle-class, devoutly religious, Kanwar had been married for just eight months when her husband died, apparently from a burst appendix. The following day, neighbors told Western reporters, she put on jewels and her wedding sari, climbed her husband’s funeral pyre, cradled his head on her lap, then commanded that the fire be lit. By the time the cops arrived she and her husband had been reduced to ashes. About three dozen bystanders were arrested and charged in the death, but no eyewitnesses would testify, and after a nine-year legal battle the accused were exonerated. Much of the world was outraged, but some traditionalists venerate Roop as, literally, a deity–the model Hindu woman.

Were the law against suttee repealed, more women would probably join their husbands on the pyre. In 1997 the police were all that prevented another Indian woman from incinerating herself. To hear some Hindu fundamentalists talk, the prohibition against suttee violates a basic civil right.

**

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/020405.html

**I will leave the hating of sin to God – He’s better equipped than I to make the distinction between sin and sinner, and concentrate on what He affirmatively commanded me to do – love the sinner.

**
But that’s not the issue. The issue is whether you or a church should aid and abet something that, on its face, Jesus fairly explicitly taught was a sin even though taking a stand is unpopular and inconvenient. You would not, presumably, lend a woman a match so she could commit suttee even if she really wanted one. Why wouldn’t the same argument apply, from a religious perspective, to divorce and re-marriage?

I hasten to add, once again, that I haven’t got an axe to grind here, nor do I intend to pick on you. But I’m fascinated by what some people call “Religion lite” (“All the love but only half the sin!”) As convenient as it would be, I’m dubious that the sum total of the new testament can be condensed to “It’s all good!”

[Truth_Seeker]

Putting aside whether suttee is widely practiced and whether it is a cultural or religious practice, let’s assume that for Hindus, it is a divinely ordained religious practice.

There are theories of justice which do not depend on received religious commandments, but that’s not really what we are talking about. Polycarp, you can argue such a practice is wrong, but you cannot argue it is wrong, based on religious principles.

You’ve alread admitted the subjectivism of your religious beliefs. As you say, it’s right for you based on your experiences but someone else will may – correctly based on his or her life experiences – come to different results.

What do you make of this?

**The best-known case of suttee in modern times involved the 1987 suicide (or murder) of 18-year-old Roop Kanwar. Educated, middle-class, devoutly religious, Kanwar had been married for just eight months when her husband died, apparently from a burst appendix. The following day, neighbors told Western reporters, she put on jewels and her wedding sari, climbed her husband’s funeral pyre, cradled his head on her lap, then commanded that the fire be lit. By the time the cops arrived she and her husband had been reduced to ashes. About three dozen bystanders were arrested and charged in the death, but no eyewitnesses would testify, and after a nine-year legal battle the accused were exonerated. Much of the world was outraged, but some traditionalists venerate Roop as, literally, a deity–the model Hindu woman.

Were the law against suttee repealed, more women would probably join their husbands on the pyre. In 1997 the police were all that prevented another Indian woman from incinerating herself. To hear some Hindu fundamentalists talk, the prohibition against suttee violates a basic civil right.

**

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/020405.html

**I will leave the hating of sin to God – He’s better equipped than I to make the distinction between sin and sinner, and concentrate on what He affirmatively commanded me to do – love the sinner.

**
But that’s not the issue. The issue is whether you or a church should aid and abet something that, on its face, Jesus fairly explicitly taught was a sin even though taking a stand is unpopular and inconvenient. You would not, presumably, lend a woman a match so she could commit suttee even if she really wanted one. Why wouldn’t the same argument apply, from a religious perspective, to divorce and re-marriage?

I hasten to add, once again, that I haven’t got an axe to grind here, nor do I intend to pick on you. But I’m fascinated by what some people call “Religion lite” (“All the love but only half the sin!”) As convenient as it would be, I’m dubious that the sum total of the new testament can be condensed to “It’s all good!”

[Triskadecamus]

Originally posted by Kalhoun:

Tris, what makes you think he isn’t?

Miracles. Three of them, in my particular case. They won’t convince you, but then, they were my miracles so they were not supposed to convince you. If I am going to convince you, I have to do it by living my entire life as an example of how a Christian ought to live. Words won’t do it. Polycarp seems to be doing it pretty well, thus far. Lots of others here are trying to do it too. They are not trying to convince you, they are just trying to do it. Because they wish to serve the Lord, out of love. It isn’t about rewards and punishments, proof, or logic. It just happens that we know the Lord of all, and we know that He loves us. That makes loving Him a no brainer.

Arguing with folks about it doesn’t accomplish much, that I have seen. I still do it now and then, but that’s because I am an asshole, not because I am a Christian.

Tris

[badchad]

Homebrew:

As I stated in the Pit thread I started in your honor, you are once again insisting that your interpretation is correct.

I don’t think so. I think I am just insisting that the words be taken as they are written. You may insist that Darwin’s Origin of Species is really about how Snow White hung out with 7 dwarfs, rather than biological evolution, which I guess is your prerogative but that does not make it a logical or reasonable “interpretation.”

You entire premise in harassing Polycarp is to show that his interpretation differs from what you consider the correct one.

That’s not true. My premise is that his personal religious philosophy is self contradictory and I provided evidence of this by juxtaposing his various quotes with each other.

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.

It may be traditional to assert that the bible says something other than what it really says but that does not make it right, regardless of how long the post hoc rationalization has been going on.

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.

I don’t think his Theophanies (sp?) are particularly inconsistent, rather they just demonstrate he isn’t very good at evaluating the probability of various events and psychologically likes to think of himself as important to an all loving being. So not inconsistent in themselves I think the “theophanies” are unreasonable if he were able to step back from his emotions and take an objective look at them. Being an atheist yourself I’ll bet you agree.

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.

That’s not true either. Definitions in my dictionary for myth include:

“a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some superhuman being or some alleged person or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or natural explanation”

“any invented story, idea or concept”

“an unproved collection of belief that is accepted uncritically and is used to justify a social institution”

I haven’t read Campbell but from what I gather from these boards his version of myth means that the depicted events may not really have happened but the hidden moral meanings and lessons are true. For example the promises of the afterlife and eternal bliss were made up but the bible contains some very useful lessons such as sending your wife out of the house for a week while she menstruates. Wonderful theory. Oh, I’m sorry that wasn’t the traditional interpretation.

Unless you have a better explanation of Campbell I don’t see how his definition of the word myth rescues Polycarp or any other liberal Christian from the irrationality of accepting outstanding claims on significantly less than outstanding evidence.

Points 3-5: Your replies continue to show that you’re not paying attention or you are simply obtuse.

No I’m not, you are.

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.

That is true. They admit they believe in outstanding and self serving claims from the bible in spite of already acknowledging it as a poor source of information. This is not reasonable. Less reasonable than a fundamentalist who believes in outstanding claims based on what he perceives as an outstanding inerrant source.

And Poly in particular has given you his reasoning for accepting which parts he does.

Yeah, those parts that agree with what he already believes in is inspired while the rest is allegory/error. Kind of makes the bible less than necessary to his belief system don’t you think.

The fact that you reject his reasoning does not equate with it being unreasonable nor inconsistent.

I beg to differ Sir.

[badchad]

Polycarp:

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.

Good good good. Now we are getting somewhere. How far are you willing to go with this?

[quote]
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.

[quote]

Aside from the identity of the beloved part you could say the same thing for atheists, yet Jesus himself made it pretty clear that atheists are left in the cold (ok heat) with regards to salvation.

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.

Salvation, faith, grace are all gifts right? Gifts, which we reportedly can’t earn? How are the gays any different from the majority of other folks that Jesus says he will be punishing forever.

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.

Also a moral standard that fits with your selfishness as you said you “can readily identify with the people in that minority.”

[quote]

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.

[quote]

Again as I have stated and Godzillatemple has emphasized you cherry pick not only the bible but also the teachings of Jesus.

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.

Just like a Christian gay basher.

[badchad]

Polycarp:

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.

You got an objective measure for determining which parts of the bible are more or less reliable?

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.)

See the same thread for IzzyR’s well done rebuttal.

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.

Isn’t the sermon on the mount where Jesus said not to marry divorced women?

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.

Except that isn’t what Jesus taught, rather it is just you liberal’s who want an easy out for divorce.

The principle – of the permanency of marriage – is absolute, but circumstances alter cases.

That is correct. If the woman was a fornicator it is ok to get a divorce, otherwise you better learn to live with her.

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.

If they deserve addressing then do so, as this is the thread in which you stated you would.

In other words back up to my earlier questions to you in this thread and answer them as best you can and/or admit where you can’t answer them. It’s not that hard a task and you did ask for it, as noted in my OP.

[badchad]

Priceguy:

Come on now. Someone pits Polycarp, and it goes on for five pages? How is this possible?

Uhhh, cause he’s full of crap?

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.

I disagree with you above with your use of the word never but that’s beside the point. Just because a person is a nice guy does not exempt him from being called on his irrational assertions, or do you think it should? To quote you on a recent thread regarding the belief in god:

The harm is that it impedes critical thinking and reduces the drive to find true answers to questions. Without the hindering influence of the church, science would have progressed a lot faster for several centuries.

It doesn’t imply gullibility or less intelligence, but it does imply flawed ability of reason.

I know, it’s annoying isn’t it?

[Siege]

Badchad, you do realize that you could be seen as proselytizing as obnoxiously as any Fundamentalist Christian out there, don’t you?

Why do you insist I choose one of two options, either of which are likely to leave me dead? If you want me dead that badly, please have the courtesy to kill me yourself.

Yes, that’s harsh. However, you are insisting Polycarp and I give up something which has meaning and value and you are offering to replace it with nothing. You’ve spoken of reality. Reality is cold, harsh, and brutal. Reality, as it was presented to me, deprived me of hope. This faith, which you apparently consider a delusiong of a deranged, corrupt, and illogical mind, has quite literally been the only thing which has enabled me to make it through another awful, hopeless, brutal, ugly day. Reality and logic have given me reasons to die. Faith gave me reasons to live.

If you want me dead, kill me.
CJ

[Desmostylus]

*Originally posted by Siege *
Badchad, you do realize that you could be seen as proselytizing as obnoxiously as any Fundamentalist Christian out there, don’t you?

Obviously not. It’s time for another:

“Fuck off, badchad.”

Regarding the rest of your post, CJ, hang in there. No-one wants you dead. Not badchad, not anyone.

[Homebrew]

*Originally posted by badchad *
**Yeah, those parts that agree with what he already believes in is inspired while the rest is allegory/error. Kind of makes the bible less than necessary to his belief system don’t you think. **

As he has said many times. You repeatedly call him on stuff you anticipated he would say, but not on what is actually said. The Bible is not Polycarp’s God. The Bible is a collection of stories about his God, written by men complete with errors, confabulations and misunderstandings. His God would still be his even if there were no Bible. You still seem to be replying using some script that you’ve used against less thoughtful people IRL. It doesn’t work here with people who have actually given considerable thought to their belief systems.

Although they’d use different words, I think Polycarp, Seige, Libertarian and Triskademus would all agree on one description of God: LOVE.

That is the basis of which they descern which parts of the Bible to accept and which to reject. If a particular passage doesn’t support LOVE, then they reject it. You keep saying this is inconsistent or illogical, but, to borrow a phrase, I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

[godzillatemple]

*Originally posted by Homebrew *
**Although they’d use different words, I think Polycarp, Seige, Libertarian and Triskademus would all agree on one description of God: LOVE.

That is the basis of which they descern which parts of the Bible to accept and which to reject. If a particular passage doesn’t support LOVE, then they reject it. You keep saying this is inconsistent or illogical, but, to borrow a phrase, I don’t think that word means what you think it means. **

Well, aside from the obvious question as to what it means to say that God is an emotion, I guess the real question is what leads Poly and the rest to believe that God is “love” in the first place? Sure, the Bible talks about a loving God, but it also talks about a vengeful and wrathful God as well. Which brings us back to the point that Poly and the rest have to make a decision about God’s nature first, and then choose which parts of the Bible to accept based on whether they accord with this decision (as opposed to determining the nature of God solely by reading the Bible and using “analysis” to figure out which parts were “really” said by Christ, etc.)

Barry

[Homebrew]

If you think Love is simply an emotion, then you are lacking something in your life.

[vanilla]

*Originally posted by badchad *
**
Uhhh, cause he’s full of crap?
**

Notice theres no CITE for this claim…