Polycarp to explain his religious inconsistencies

[Liberal]

A troll is a disingenuous provocateur.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

DrDeth, from the FAQ:

Q: What should I do when I see a user “trolling” at the SDMB?
A: Do not publicly accuse someone of trolling at the SDMB. Use the “Report this post to a moderator” facility below the “trolling” post. Do not reply to the troll in any way in the thread, that will only encourage the troublemaker.

Q: What if I’m not sure if the person is a troll?
A: Treat the person as a user in good standing. Respond to the post if you have something useful to add, otherwise say nothing.

(Note that the same entry in the FAQ indirectly makes it clear that a troll is not the same thing as a sock puppet).

Daniel

[DrDeth]

Ah, so the rule is “Don’t publicly accuse someone of trolling at the SDMB…unless your name is Ben”. I get it. :rolleyes:

[Esprix]

badchad, you’re a fucking moron. All faith is, at times, inconsistent, but that doesn’t invalidate it. And if someone’s going to err on one side of the other, I’d take Poly’s compassion over some radical fundamentalist’s hate any day of the week - I wish we had more Christians in the world that “cherry-picked” from the Bible like Poly does.

And Poly, you remain a class act, Mr. President.

Esprix

[Largo62]

**Lambchop is a sock-puppet! Lambchop is a sock-puppet! **

Um, Lynn, if there really is a Doper named Lambchop, I don’t know about her/him. Just kiddin’, ya know?

[badchad]

Polycarp:

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.

Sorry, I thought you realized that your responses were inadequate given the magnitude of the claims that you make and their contradictory nature. It seems this realization still eludes both you and your groupies.

quote:

If burning the fallible beings you created in an eternal lake of fire for matters of disbelief isn’t considered stern judgment, what is? If that’s loving, what do you consider abusive?

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).

So you will admit at least that Jesus did condemn some people to a lake of fire. Were on to something.

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.

Well that’s just it. Your understanding of the scripture is suspect. The scripture says certain things and you bend over backwards to try and argue that it does not mean what it says, except for where you like what is says. Effectively turning the morality of Jesus into the morality of Polycarp. Still with that in mind here are a few quotes in which Jesus is prejudiced against unbelievers:

Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

John 3:18
He that believeth on him is not condemned but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John followed up Jesus with this jewel: John 3:36
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 8:24
I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

While not explicitly mentioning fire in the above verses Jesus did talk of everlasting fire here:
Matthew 18:8, 9 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.
If you feel that you have justification to describe two types of punishment, extermination for atheists and eternal hellfire for those who don’t give to panhandlers feel free to do so. However that will be a new one on me.
quote:

Why do you claim to try and follow Jesus’ commands when I already got you to admit that several of Jesus’ commands you not only don’t follow but don’t agree with? How do you decide which of Jesus’ commands are worth following and which aren’t?

I don’t offhand recall ever having admitted any such thing.

Offhand I recall you stating that you thought it ok for people to get divorced for reasons other than infidelity. I also recall you stating that it was okay for a man to marry a divorced woman. I think you also said it was not a sin for people to save for retirement, you know, store up treasures on earth. IIRC you regularly violate the fourth commandment in spite of what Jesus said about “the law” remaining in force until “heaven and earth pass away.” There was more but that should suffice.

I think this is the part where you explain that while Jesus did command against the above things he really didn’t mean it.

I will observe that Jesus often apparently spoke in hyperbole

Like that stuff about eternal life? How do you determine what is hyperbole and what is not?

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.

As I noted above you don’t even try to live up to some of the above mentioned ideals. In fact you think they are incorrect. This is fine, I don’t think his ideals are that special either but at least I am honest enough to admit it.

First, what I think about Hell is not applicable.

Yes it is. It determines, at least in part, how evil a god you are willing to worship. God only lets some people get to heaven according to most Christains, (you included IIRC) with grace being a gift from god, which cannot be earned. As such we need to decide whether your god lets everyone go to heaven (thus making your witnessing superfluous) whether god kills those he doesn’t like Auschwitz style (pretty bad by itself) or whether he punishes them for an eternity for failing to have a gift which god himself withheld, (thus making him a monster the worst of which this universe has ever seen).

You got another alternative?

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.

It seems you’re saying now that it is okay for a fundamentalist to try to correct the perceived errors of another person, for example living a homosexual lifestyle, and try to bring them in line with what they believe to be the will of god so as to save their souls from hellfire/extermination. Since that is what just about every fundamentalist says they are doing you now have little room to criticize.

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.

Saying that scripture defines god as predominantly loving and forgiving requires you to ignore a whole lot of scripture. Starting from Genesis, while I haven’t actually quantified it I would say that the love vs. smite ratio isn’t very high. Considerably less that 0.5 I would wager. As such I must ask, what is your working definition of predominant?

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.

You do realize that this country is ~90% theist. That heart attacks are a leading cause of death, and that IIRC roughly 50% of people survive their first heart attack, having what I would imagine is a bit more luck than the other 50%. As such it seems that stories like yours are not even remotely miraculous but rather certain and frequent events in the due course of nature.

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.

Reported behavior is often at odds with actual behavior.

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.

I don’t understand what you mean by that. It seems like you are agreeing with me that nothing may have happened and their behaviors did not in fact change but you want to wave off the implications that this possibility (dare I say probability) undermines your belief in the resurrection.

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.

But men who were promoting a self serving lie might report character changes which did not take place and this would jibe with being self serving.

I have not come up with an answer to the Problem of Evil.

Well that’s kind of a biggie.

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.

Atheists don’t have a problem of evil. Their views are fairly consistent. Either god wants there to be all goodness and can not make it so or can but won’t. This is only a problem if you subscribe to the idea that god is both omnibenevolent and omnipotent. As such atheists have consensus and don’t believe in said god. Its just that Christians don’t like the conclusion and as such have been making harebrained excuses for, as you put it, for thousands of years.

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.

You made the argument that a “world without evil, harm, or pain” would make us “into robots, unable to make any choices.” As such if we assume that heaven is without evil harm or pain (and just about everyone does) then it is fair to assume that we would be robots in heaven. If we do not need to have the bad stuff to make choices and grow, then there goes your excuse for bad stuff being necessary on earth.

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.

Nice try. Let me paraphrase what I quoted in my OP. Jesus said that people should continue to follow the law. Paul said people were free of the law. You said that when in doubt to put your trust in Jesus who was God and whose words, whatever else one finds in that volume, can be trusted. Then in practice as soon as you are up against a socially inconvenient commandment like going to church on Saturday instead of Sunday you go and follow Paul over Jesus. Paul, who you admit is not god and who you called an idjit.

As such to be reasonable you should either admit that other parts of the bible can trump the words of Jesus or you should get to church on Saturday and stop eating shellfish.

And no I’m not Ben.

[badchad]

Esprix:

badchad, you’re a fucking moron.

Sticks and stones…

[jackelope]

badchad, you are a prick. I have neither time nor interest to go into details, and this is the Pit so I don’t have to, but trust me: you are a prick.

[Mangetout]

A friend of mine had a Westie terrier once that tried to shag my leg every time I went to his house.

[Gary_Kumquat]

Having just read through this thread and it’s predecessors, could someone tell me if badchad has any point whatsoever, or if he really is being as mindlessly pedantic as it would appear?

Thanks.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Inconsistancies found in religious belief?

In other news, water is wet.

Grow up, chad.

[Liberal]

No debates in the Pit! :eek:

[sub]Except for this one. And the one about the Constitution. But that’s it. Except for a few other ones.[/sub]

[Desmostylus]

I think you misinterpreted Lynn’s post, Lib. It wasn’t a general prohibition, it was specifically directed at you, directing you not to use the Pit as your own personal debating and witnessing forum.

Feel free to start yet another thread about how the moderators are just so unfair, and persecute you.

On the other hand, you should also feel free to just shut the fuck up about it.

[Liberal]

Actually, Mr. Junior Mod Desmo, who assigned you to interpret Lynn’s posts? It so happens that I’m in e-mail correspondence with her now about the matter, so fuck off.

[TVAA]

*Originally posted by Esprix *
All faith is, at times, inconsistent, but that doesn’t invalidate it.

Well, actually, that does invalidate it. Just as it invalidates any other system.

[TVAA]

Obviously, Desmostylus received the correct interpretation of Lynn’s post directly from God. Why don’t you go brush up on the epistemology of revelation for a while, Libertarian?

[Liberal]

Oh, why can’t you just be nice?

[Liberal]

*Originally posted by TVAA *
**Well, actually, that does invalidate it. Just as it invalidates any other system. **

What a stupid thing to say. Do you understand anything at all about deductive systems?

[TVAA]

This is the Pit, you weasel-sniffing hall monitor. The people here aren’t exactly models of restraint – including you.

[Desmostylus]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
**Actually, Mr. Junior Mod Desmo, who assigned you to interpret Lynn’s posts? **

Precisely the same person who appointed you. That is, no-one. You have implied that debates are forbidden in the Pit. I disagree.

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
**It so happens that I’m in e-mail correspondence with her now about the matter, so fuck off. **

If you are, in fact, in e-mail correspondence with Lynn at the moment, then:

a) if it’s about the same matter it would be extremely rude of you to simultaneously be complaining about it here in public, and

b) if it’s about another matter then it’s completely irrelevent, so why raise it?

Fucking idiot.