So far, so good.
Tris
I agreed several months ago to respond to some of badchad’s assertions of inconsistency, and renewed that commitment recently in this:
So badchad, however obnoxious his style may be, is justified in asking the questions he does.
However, this comment is out of order:
In short, I have no answer to whether I’ve stopped beating my wife, seeing as how I have never done so. In the breadth of nitpickery which you have raised, badchad, about my assertions and comments regarding my beliefs, no single statement seemed adequate to respond fully. And I do have other things on my plate than debating with you on what you decide is inconsistent or disingenuous. My response was simply to state that I had essayed answers and decided they were not sufficient to respond to your questions, by way of excusal for not having answered as yet, not to say that I found my own remarks inconsistent or inadequate, but that they did not respond in full to the shopping list of things you’ve pointed out over the past few months.
That said:
It would have been helpful if you had cited your referent here, but I’ll try to respond anyway. Jesus spoke in the language of his time, including using the terms and concepts familiar to those to whom he spoke. I do not offhand recall him ever consigning unbelievers to burn in a lake of fire; this condemnation is usually reserved for those who fail to treat their fellow man with compassion (as in the conclusion of the Parable of the Sheep and Goats, or the condemnation of the Pharisees). If you have a particular referent in mind, do please cite it, and I’ll respond with my understanding of what he was saying, and why I think that.
I don’t offhand recall ever having admitted any such thing. I will observe that Jesus often apparently spoke in hyperbole, and one is to read hyperbole as what it is. And he set ideals as goals for one to attempt to live up to – in part to define one’s dependence on God, since no one has ever been able to live up to those ideals fully and completely at all times and in all circumstances.
First, what I think about Hell is not applicable. I asserted that a Materialist viewpoint – the idea that bodily death terminates all sense of self – would mean that there would be no reward or punishment. Then I suggested that (some of) the “good churchgoers” would find themselves classed as “goats” rather than “sheep” (again referring to that parable) on the basis of their (and my) belief system.
In an ongoing discussion, His4Ever, Jersey Diamond, and her husband and I have been examining the “Judge not” passage and related passages. (Jersey, please feel free to post any correction needed to the following from your perspective.) We seemed to come to an agreement, insofar as I am clear on the discussion, that what is condemned is sitting in judgment over the person of another. Acting in a brotherly/sisterly fashion to correct the perceived errors of a co-religionist, or attempting to offer advice and counsel to a fellow man, is not what is intended.
So suggesting that delimiting who is one’s “neighbor,” or to whom mercy and compassion should be extended, is incongruous with good Christian values, is not judging them, but making a judgment about their efforts to apply a value system on which we agree in principle, and pointing out Jesus’s teachings (to which the “good churchmen” subscribe) is intended as a corrective which is proper on our mutually held standard of behavior. The same applies to the “Neopharisees” – which, by the way, does not include such Fundamentalists and conservative Christians as DDG or Svt4Him, but rather is directed at those who read Scriptural commands by way of a legalistic code (which I believe Jesus’s teachings direct us not to do).
The word I used was “predominant” – I concur that just, wrathful, and other terms are applicable to some instances, but I formed a generalized value judgment on the basis of my understanding of how to read Scripture. That this is not a literalist, take-everything-at-face-value methodology should not surprise you.
No, to all three counts. First, I admitted that I was not aware of what mechanism underlay the Resurrection. Any number of possible scenarios might have resulted in the witness we have. I hold my own opinion – based on I Corinthians 15, if you’re interested – as to what actually happened. But I won’t rule out other possibilities. I am not claiming any particular psychological phenomenon as having actually happened. My statement is intended to leave the door open for everything from a literal miracle of resuscitation to a Spongian sense of “Jesus’s body is a-moldering in the ground, but his spirit goes marching on.”
As for my “heart attack survival miracle,” I reported, as objectively as possible, the literal truth of what happened – that a young man of our acquaintance felt compelled to come visit me and discovered me dying, got in touch with my wife, and she got me to the hospital in time for a full recovery, and that I was told that the severity of the attack would have probably killed me before the time she would have gotten home without his intervention. Whether it was God compelling Jay to look me up at that particular time is something I do not hope to convince others of – he and I and Barb are convinced it was, but I merely assert “he felt a compulsion to do so” as a fact I expect others to accept on my word. Anything beyond this is PAX-TV religiosity that need not be bought into by those of a skeptical frame of mind.
I do reject the idea that the Resurrection accounts are manufactured stories, for the very good reason that the reported behavior of those who witnessed it before and after its occurrence are at such great odds with each other. Dense and cowardly disciples become bold and insightful leaders. Something caused that change. I grant that one need not accept the Gospel/Acts accounts of their behavior at all – but that makes the question moot, rather than contradictory. Working on the basis of the accounts, there was a substantial character change, which does not jibe with men who are promoting a self-serving lie.
I have not come up with an answer to the Problem of Evil. In view of the fact that people have been discussing it for several thousand years without arriving at an answer commanding consensus, that’s not surprising. As for your “logic” (using the term loosely) in the second quote, I have not warned Triskadecamus or gobear to look both ways before crossing the street. I assume that they are quite adult enough to do so without my intervention. Personal spiritual growth through the world we live in, with its problems and consequences, does not imply a cessation of it in another plane, merely that how it occurs will change. If you know things about Heaven that would lead you to a different conclusion, do share them. My impressions of it are that it will be eminently satisfactory to everyone who ends up there – Eve’s tongue-in-cheek remarks about the Fundamentalist-Christian Heaven notwithstanding.
The rest of your problems are easily dealt with. Paul was a Pharisee who had a conversion experience. He could and I think did make mistakes on understanding what it was Jesus taught. That does not mean he was never right; he was, quite often.
As for the final item, the Bible is a collection of literature written by members of the Hebrew/Jewish people and by a group of them (with one Gentile) who were followers of Jesus. It needs to be read as just that – a collection of literature that contains a great deal of truth and a fair amount of cultural baggage. A given story may be literal truth, may be a piece of didactic fiction, or several other things depending on genre. (I assume you are capable of distinguishing between A History of the Napoleonic Wars, War and Peace, and Les Miserables, and deciding what one can learn from each?) One applies the same general technique, coupled with study of Jewish and Hellenistic customs, to arrive at what one can learn from the Bible.
I trust this will resolve your questions.
Go Poly. 
Answer: Les Miserables was the only one made into a musical.
so, what do I win?
[applauds, takes notes]
I dunno… Poly seems pretty willing to admit that his own personal interpretation of various important events is just that – personal, and not necessarily that his position is the most rational or even reasonable in an objective sense.
I’ll second Cervaise- Fuck off Badchad.
I’ll second DDG- Go Poly.
Are we certain Badchad isn’t a sockpuppet of Ben? They sure sound alike. They use words in a similar fashion, they call dudes liars, and they attack others without explaining their own position. I am serious here.
Beg to differ, DrDeth. Not only is it a fairly tacky thing to say (and should be addressed to the moderators of the board rather than offered as a cheap shot to the world at large), Ben at least has a basic understanding of the things he gets riled about, and a thorough understanding of the things that really get him riled. Chad seems to have neither.
Yeah let’s make Atheists look bad by pitting/insulting a calm rational patient well spoken Christian.
Idiot.
Look at it this way, Darkhold: the kind of person who would cite badchad as a typical example of an atheist won’t have their mind be changed by anything as simple as reality.
If you have any such suspicions, you should ask a moderator in email, not post it in public.
Lynn
For the Straight Dope
My next prophecy will probably be a discourse on fire being hot. I may then tackle a prophecy centering around ice being the frozen state of water.
My compound full of followers and subsequent problems with the BATF are close enough to taste!
Good job for replying Polycarp. Granted I may not agree with it all, but I’m glad you did reply.
Drastic
Be sure to tell people not to turn with their bulls-ey… er, backs, …facing the BATF, and not to hold any babies in the doorway. Also, when the flammable gas comes in, don’t breathe.
Sorry. I had checked the PIT rules, and I did not see anything about not calling dudes “sockpuppets”, and I have seen dudes called “trolls” here on a regular basis. Rest assured I would not have done so anywhere but in this Forum, and I won’t do it any more. Since we can call someone a “goat-felcher” I thought that “sock” was a pretty inoffensive insult, but hey, you’re the boss.
Perhaps this can be added to list of PIT rules?
Andros- I agree that Ben seems better educated & informed.
Good luck. Several months ago Coldfire freaked out on me for making a similar suggestion about another poster, and I responded by asking that the “don’t-call-people-a-sock-puppet” rule be clarified. My requests were either ignored or referred to the rule against calling people a troll (which is, I think, a completely different phenomenon).
Best way to find out about this rule, it seems, is to run afoul of it, or witness someone else running afoul of it.
And great post, Poly; I was hoping you’d respond, and I very much appreciated your response.
Daniel
I agree that it ought to be in the FAQ. It comes up a lot in threads, the way it did here, but it’s never really been codified.
I e-mailed Lynn a couple of days ago, and am awaiting clarification on another recent rule — the one about “some debating” being allowed in the Pit. It may just be that she’s swamped.
Is there such a rule? Ben called me a troll in GD a couple of months ago, I even mentioned it on my reply, and hit “report this post to a moderator” and there wasn’t even a reply or warning.
At the risk of being ridiculed for my ignorance - what’s a “troll”? It must be pretty bad for their to be a rule against using it as an insult.
That is, “It must be pretty bad for there to be a rule against using it as an insult.” :smack: