Polycarp to explain his religious inconsistencies

The BBQ Pit
101

Hey – religion is, when you get right down to it, whatever somebody chooses to believe. Most people try to justify their beliefs by pointing to certain religious texts, but in the end everybody has to decide which parts of those religious texts they feel comfortable with. Some people, like Polycarp, try to justify their decision to choose certain parts as “valid” while rejecting others, but these justifications invariably end up sorely lacking.

Why does Polycarp believe that Jesus really meant it when he gave the “two great commandments” but was either misquoted or misunderstand when he said things about divorce? Well, I’m sure he has some rationale that lets him sleep comfortable at night with the sure knowledge that his faith is true and he’s not a hypocrite. In fact, though, it’s simply because he feels comfortable with certain parts of the Bible and uncomfortable with others, and therefore chooses to accept as valid only those parts that agree with the idea of “Christianity” he has already decided to accept.

I think the Bible is full of wonderful guidelines to help us live better lives. It is also full of hateful crap that can lead people to all sorts of immorality. I have no problem with somebody who decides only to follow the good stuff and eschew the crap. I do, however, find it disingenuous when somebody does so while claiming to do so based, not on his or her own abilities to determine good from bad, but on some meta-analysis of what parts of the Bible were “really” spoken by Jesus and which ones weren’t.

Personally, I think that Polycarp should just admit that he practices a form of Christianity that is comprised of only those parts of the Bible with which he personally feels comfortable. And badchad should acknowledge that Polycarp is a good and moral person and that as long as he has invented a religion that (a) gives him comfort and (b) leads him to treat other people with compassion and respect, it doesn’t matter if that religion contradicts traditional Christianity.

But hey, that’s just me. YMMV.

Barry

102

Hey – religion is, when you get right down to it, whatever somebody chooses to believe. Most people try to justify their beliefs by pointing to certain religious texts, but in the end everybody has to decide which parts of those religious texts they feel comfortable with. Some people, like Polycarp, try to justify their decision to choose certain parts as “valid” while rejecting others, but these justifications invariably end up sorely lacking.

Why does Polycarp believe that Jesus really meant it when he gave the “two great commandments” but was either misquoted or misunderstand when he said things about divorce? Well, I’m sure he has some rationale that lets him sleep comfortable at night with the sure knowledge that his faith is true and he’s not a hypocrite. In fact, though, it’s simply because he feels comfortable with certain parts of the Bible and uncomfortable with others, and therefore chooses to accept as valid only those parts that agree with the idea of “Christianity” he has already decided to accept.

I think the Bible is full of wonderful guidelines to help us live better lives. It is also full of hateful crap that can lead people to all sorts of immorality. I have no problem with somebody who decides only to follow the good stuff and eschew the crap. I do, however, find it disingenuous when somebody does so while claiming to do so based, not on his or her own abilities to determine good from bad, but on some meta-analysis of what parts of the Bible were “really” spoken by Jesus and which ones weren’t.

Personally, I think that Polycarp should just admit that he practices a form of Christianity that is comprised of only those parts of the Bible with which he personally feels comfortable, and drop the charade of somehow knowing what Jesus “really” said as a justification for ignoring those parts of the Bible he doesn’t like. And badchad should acknowledge that Polycarp is a good and moral person and that as long as Poly has invented a religion that (a) gives him comfort and (b) leads him to treat other people with compassion and respect, it doesn’t matter if that religion contradicts “traditional” Christianity.

But hey, that’s just me. YMMV.

Barry

I apologize in advance if this is a double post, but I keep getting an error message when I try to post…

103

Well, think about it. If you think judgment is a big deal, then you think that the divorce thing is a big deal. If not, you don’t. Sure, Jesus said that divorce and remarriage is adultery, but so what? An adultress was one whom He freed from judgment.
[sub]“Trust the CGI.” — Gaudere[/sub]

104

Again, Godzilla took the words right out of my brain. Well done!

105

I take it you don’t see any contradiction in telling him to “drop the charade of somehow knowing what Jesus “really” said”, whilst in the same sentence implying you know Poly’s beliefs better than he does?

106

What do you hope to accomplish here, badchad, other than proving yourself to be a world-class jerk?

Esprix

107

Well, everyone seems to be hung up on the divorce/adultery passages, so let me address that.

The literal text is “anyone who puts away his wife [and remarries] commits adultery/makes her an adulterer.” Contextually, we have to examine the situation in the culture of the time. A woman was not a free citizen (wealthy widow being the sole exception) but participated in the social fabric through her role as daughter (if unmarried), wife (if married), or mother of one or more sons (if a widow). The man with potestas (authority or power) was her means of support. A man was able to issue a bill of divorcement against an unsatisfactory wife – a shrew, barren, etc. Men being men, however, it was easy for some men to put away their aging wives and take a new, prettier and younger wife that had had piqued their desires, by declaring his wife suddenly “unsatisfactory” and divorcing her. This left her resourceless and at a disadvantage in competing for the few single men of her age. It was this practice which Jesus’s teaching evidently condemned.

An inactive member here has made it public that she is on her third marriage, and is a committed Christian who believes in God’s law. Why do I feel she has not sinned in doing so?

Because her first marriage was engaged in at a very young age, and her husband turned out to be a physical and emotional abuser who teated her hatefully – to the point that she actually feared for her life and safety. This relationship may have had the legal form of a marriage, but it was not a relationship characterized by the mutual love and support of a healthy marriage. In divorcing him, she acted for her own protection, not out of any desire to commit a sin.

IIRC, she married again quickly “on the rebound,” to a man whom she did not love and with whom she was not compatible, and when they recognized this, they quickly dissolved the legal form that was never a healthy marriage.

She is now in a happy and fulfilling marrige to a man who loves her and whom she loved – and AFAIAC, this constitutes her first “real” marriage – a mutual relationship of love and support. To consider the other two relationships as anything other than legal technicalities to be resolved, elevates form over substance. And God, who sees our hearts, does not play such games.

To apply the letter but not the substance of Jesus’s condemnation of men who put away their wives to her situation is in my opinion very much on a parallel to applying condemnations of idolatrous fertility rites and pederastic boy prostitution to the love between two gay men or women.

But a look at any of the law threads on this board will demonstrate that it is only human nature to elevate form over substance, letter over spirit, rule over circumstance, and judgment over justice.

The non-Christian idea of karma and the very Christian statement that we will be judged as we ourselves judge both make it clear what we can expect if we indulge in this sort of song and dance.

108

Not really, no. I can read what Poly actually writes here on this message board (well, unless you want to speculate that somebody else is periodically hijacking his password and posting on his behalf, but I think that he would mention this if it were the case). And then I can use my powers of deduction to determine (a) what he means and (b) whether his words are believable.

When Poly attempts to determine what Jesus “really” said, however, he is not only relying on heavily edited and transcribed manuscripts from 1000 years ago that may, in fact, be complete works of fiction to begin with, he is also attempting to judge which parts of those manuscripts accurately reflect the words of somebody who hw has never actually conversed with.

I’m not trying to determine which of the many posts by Polycarp were actually made by him. I’m saying that, in my opinion, Poly is not being entirely forthright with what he has said. There’s a difference.

Barry

109

Hey now, nothing wrong with a good idolatrous fertility rite.

Daniel

110

Actually, I’m not hung up on that. I just mentioned it as an example from the post immediately preceding mine. The point remains that you are, in my opinion, selecting those parts of the bible that agree with what you think Christianity should be, and then going to great lengths to justify this by claiming to somehow be able to know which of the many things attributed to Jesus were actually said by him.

As I mentioned above, I don’t have any problem with you, or anybody else, discarding the crap and choosing to follow only the good parts of the Bible. I think it’s great that you choose to love your neighbor and ignore the parts about stoning homosexuals. But I do think you owe it to your fellow dopers (in the name of truth) to admit that you are doing this based on your own obviously well-developed sense of goodness and morality, and not because some deep analysis of scriptural texts. The analysis, I maintain, validates your beliefs, but does not underpine them.

Regards,

Barry

111

And if “underpine” wasn’t a word before, well, it is one now! :wink:

112

Polycarp said, "Because her first marriage was engaged in at a very young age, and her husband turned out to be a physical and emotional abuser who teated her hatefully – to the point that she actually feared for her life and safety. This relationship may have had the legal form of a marriage, but it was not a relationship characterized by the mutual love and support of a healthy marriage. In divorcing him, she acted for her own protection, not out of any desire to commit a sin.

IIRC, she married again quickly “on the rebound,” to a man whom she did not love and with whom she was not compatible, and when they recognized this, they quickly dissolved the legal form that was never a healthy marriage.

She is now in a happy and fulfilling marrige to a man who loves her and whom she loved – and AFAIAC, this constitutes her first “real” marriage – a mutual relationship of love and support. To consider the other two relationships as anything other than legal technicalities to be resolved, elevates form over substance. And God, who sees our hearts, does not play such games.

What makes this woman different from ANYONE who divorces? Obviously, if the first marriage was good, it would still be intact. I guess I just don’t understand why you even brought this up. I’ve heard a lot of stories about priests and other clergy telling women to stay in shitty marriages because there is NO OUT that the church will accept. As far as I’m concerned it’s her third marriage. It’s just her first “good” marriage.

113

His surviving wasn’t dependent on the medical intervention, it was dependent on someone finding him on time. By chance, someone did find him in time. I’m not saying it was a miracle, I’m saying that the statistics badchad spouted didn’t apply. He’s trying to apply the “license plate miracle” argument, but it doesn’t apply to this situation, is all I was saying.

114

I promised myself I’d stay out of this fight, but I’ve got to get in one correction. In the four canonical gospels (I haven’t read all of the non-canonical ones), Jesus didn’t say anything about “stoning homosexuals.” In fact, if memory serves, he didn’t say anything about homosexuals period. There is an incident which is usually put in the book of John, although its position varies, sometimes so far as to wind up in Luke, in which He comes across a woman who is about to be stoned for committing adultery. He stops people from stoning her.

End of nitpick.

115

Perfectly valid nitpick. However, I didn’t mean to imply that Jesus ever said that homosexuals should be stoned. I was using that simply as an example of something contained in the Bible (the Old Testament, in this case) that should rightly be discarded as crap.

I apologize for not being clearer.

Barry

116

I’ve read a lot about Polycarp, and seen his name invoked quite a bit, but this is the first thread I’ve read where he’s actually participated.

I can understand chad’s drive to bring a saint down to his knees, and the disbelief and jealousy that comes with the idea of a Polycarp existing here on the boards. Any cynic is going to start where chad is starting. I did.

But wow… Just wow. Polycarp’s intelligence and compassion is fricking amazing.

117

You ain’t seen nothing yet, Rysler.

118

Originally posted by Kalhoun
"Poly was told by medical professionals that he WOULDN’T have survived his first heart attack. "

Yeah, but he DID survive it. You make it sound like no one ever beats the odds, either by chance or with the help of medicine. What was god’s reason for picking Poly, out of all the sick and dying people on the planet at that moment, to save? What does he have going on that the rest of the dying don’t? Get real. I suppose god picks who will win the Superbowl, too.

Then KungFuLola said,

“His surviving wasn’t dependent on the medical intervention, it was dependent on someone finding him on time. By chance, someone did find him in time. I’m not saying it was a miracle, I’m saying that the statistics badchad spouted didn’t apply. He’s trying to apply the “license plate miracle” argument, but it doesn’t apply to this situation, is all I was saying.”

That was the “chance” part I was talking about. I don’t know what you mean by “license plate miracle”. Did I miss something? The threads are starting to run together…

119

And you somehow think that the above action is not true for any person who claims to be a christian? That they do not study the bible, a book which is famous for its often seemingly contradictory statements, and attempt to derive a truth from these differing passages?

Or you think that other christians have actually conversed with christ?

Or that they do not rely on heavily edited and transcribed manuscripts?

Or in fact that the above (with the obvious substitution of different figures for christ) cannot also be aimed at many other religions?

Because if not, it would appear that your criticism should not be aimed at Polycarp, but at any person who claims to be of a religious faith. And while I’m personally comfortable with my agnostic beliefs, I would feel very arrogant indeed to actually attack all those who do hold to a religion.

No. This thread was clearly started as a thinly veiled attack on an individual, an exercise in semantical games in an attempt to get them to make an apparent contradiction. I find it makes a far stronger statement about the OP than it’s intended target.

120

Gary: Actually, I think that this is, indeed, what many Christians do. As I’ve discussed in another thread, some people choose what parts of the Bible to accept based solely on what they are taught, some people choose based on personal revelation, and some people choose based on what accords with their own sense of morality.

I agree that it is senseless to attack Polycarp for choosing to only follow those parts of the bible that he feels are good. In fact, I laud him for doing so. I’m merely pointing out that his continued insistence that his decision is based on an analysis of what Jesus “really” said versus what is merely interpretation by other people in the Bible can lead some people, such as badchad to question his motives and integrity.

Barry