Poly may be talking about my posts in the Newlywed thread. Although there were some others which were nasty.
I just sent Poly an email explanation/apology, hoping that he didn’t think I was talking mainly about him. I emailed it to try to keep the stupid thread from getting even more play.
If my post was the one, then come out and say it. I can get rather carried away about that urban legend.
Thanks Poly; there’s another (albeit trivial) example of this here: Literalism in the King James Bible: Samson; poor Milum! - I expect he had a really good incisive putdown lined up, but nobody fancied the bait.
And the Newlywed link is http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25894
Most of that thread is very old. Start at the posts that begin a day or two ago.
Could you explain what connection this has to anything posted by Captain Amazing, or badchad for that matter? Now that you explain yourself in plain English, it appears to be something entirely unconnected.
You KNOW something’s wrong when Polycarp starts dropping the F-bomb!
And someone’s being an asshat.
(Not anyone in this thread, of course!)
[quote]
From The American Heritage Dictionary
un·mit·i·gat·ed ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-mt-gtd)
adj.
[quote]
Ergo unmitigated asshole = absolute asshole.
I was involved in the Biblical literacy thread, and i also thought that badchad was sort of throwing out a lot of gratuitous potshots at Poly and Meatros and I called him on it. I don’t think it’s so much the content of his arguments that’s really the problem so much as his context and presentation. I mean there’s a way to ask questions without being a dick about it. It seemed like Poly and Meatros were giving reasonable responses to his questions but he just wanted to pick a fight. He comes across like a college freshman who just discovered atheism and thinks he’s going to shock the Christians with all the standard “gotcha!” points about Biblical literalsism. I think badchad may some valuble things to contribute, he strikes me as reasonably intelligent, but he needs to just calm down a little bit and learn how to have a debate. It’s like he’s been saving up all his newfound anti-Christian ammunition and was just waiting for someone to use it on. I can relate to that mentality. I was the same way when I was 18, 19 years old (some of you may find this hard to believe, but I used to be a smug, obnoxious, argumentative little punk) I had to experience life a little bit, and grow up and realize that I wasn’t the first person in history to ever notice contradictions in the Bible.
I haven’t seen him on the boards today, so maybe he’s gone back to lurking. Sometimes it just takes people awhile to learn the tone of the debates here. He may have come in loaded for bear and discovered they were hibernating. If you’re reading this, chad, try again, but just go a little slower. You’re not going to change the world with one post. Sometimes it helps to really read through what other people say, as well, even if they disagree with you.
.
fixed bold tag
He’s back, and calling me on my alleged hypocrisy. After reading the comments here, and particularly what you had to say, Diogenes, I took another shot at explaining to him what my position was and why I was so irked at him. Let’s see if it does any good.
You don’t really mean that.
I’ll be in hiding if anyone needs me.
Well, I think the National Asshole Policy Act of 1972 should require an asshole-impact study to be done by any executive agency prior to undertaking such a project 
(BTW, when did “dredging a swamp” become “impacting a wetland”, I want the guy who came up with that bit of PR spin to work on my resume a little.)
I think the colossally stupid thing about all this is that a debate over whether Lib actually saw a TV show he claimed to see made to GREAT DEBATES??!! Jeez, what were the standards like back in 2000, this would be GQ or CS fare these days surely. The great questions in life: “is there a god”, “how should people live”, “what is the role of governments”, and “did Lib really see a woman on the Dating Game say ‘in the butt, Bob’ or is he misremembering that.”
And the fact that so many people participated in this “debate” is absolutely mindblowingly incomprehensible.
I wonder how they deal with the fact that the Bible even says it’s not complete:
And that’s in John, the most theology-laden of the gospels and beloved by sola scriptura Protestants everywhere.
Well, the context, going back to threads prior to the one currently resurrected in GD, was a challenge by Lib to the general acceptance of Snopes as a reliable source around here. Barbara M. had “debunked” a story which Lib claimed to have witnessed and this cast a reasonable doubt in his mind as to the quality of Snopes. Of course, this led to a challenges as to whether Lib had really seen what he recalled and then to the discussions of the quality of memory, etc. (frequently returning to the central point of Lib’s specific memory, of course).
Captain Amazing had said what he believed Badchad to have been saying:
Emphasis mine.
I then explained that a literal reading of the Bible is a reflexive frame and a figurative reading is a transitive frame. (See Stanford University’s map of the relations among frames.) I said that Badchad was himself intellectually dishonest for requiring reflexive frame rules from people who take a transitive frame. Only people who assume a reflexive frame toward the Bible are required to believe things that may be factually false. People who assume a transitive frame are not subject to that rule.
Do you see now how my comments were connected to Captain Amazing’s?
RexDart wrote:
I asked one of them that once, and the response basically was that anything left out was either redundant or irrelevant.
You know, the thing that pissed me off about the Newlywed Game thing was that everyone was so damned sure that Lib imagined the whole thing. He saw something there; he knew other people who saw it too. I for one was not about to get into a big knock-down drag-out argument about how WRONG he was and how he and his friends couldn’t have possibly seen something they’d all confirmed to each other that they’d seen. Especially over something as trivial as that. And also, because I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Something about that whole exchange seemed so petty and small.
I’m pretty sure a variant of this thinking has caused the loss of some really significant historical documents (including, I believe, a large chunk of Da Vinci’s work):
If it disagrees with the Bible, it’s heresy and we should burn it
If it agrees with the Bible, it’s redundant; we’ll keep it if the illustrations are pretty, otherwise, scrape off the writing and re-use the parchment.
If it covers some aspect of the universe not mentioned in the Bible, it’s irrelevant; use it as toilet paper.
You know Diogenes the Cynic I got the same feeling about badchad.
The thing that disturbs me though is his assertion that it’s wrong to have faith. It also seems as though he’s intentionally trying to misrepresent Polycarp and that he’s not listening to him.
I admit, I’m not the best debater and that my views could probably have gaping holes punched through them, but I’m still in the process of defining and refining my beliefs. It’s annoying that instead of questioning me, he’s taking potshots and assuming I believe certain things.
I do understand his mentality though, I was also a know-it-all-and-my-views-are-superior-to-yours-because-I-say-so teenager.
I’ve also been reading and participating in that thread, and my impression of badchad is similar to that of Diogenes and Meatros. I’m aware of the arguments against Christianity, and I could probably make them as well as anyone if I tried. I’ve also freely admitted my beliefs could be based on a complete and utter lie.
So what? It keeps me sane, it keeps me rational, and some days it keeps me alive. If religion is a crutch, so what? I’m not afraid to admit I need one some days.
I get the impression badchad doesn’t like Christianity much. That’s all right; I don’t necessarily like Christians much, and I am one. Even so, that does not give me the right to denigrate someone’s faith, even those I disagree with, even the most hard-core, bigotted Christians on the planet. I can argue with them, tell them why I think they’re wrong, but not denigrate them.
I’m afraid to me, the lad (or lass?) is not coming across as intelligent or clever, just obnoxious and arrogant.
CJ
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic *
**
Perhaps the thing to do is to “adopt” the Fray on Slate as the minor league equivalent board for the SDMB, a place you go to learn debate with others who are not so skilled at it. Just advise unruly posters to head over to the Fray for awhile.
As for respecting the beliefs of others – piffle. Suppose some obscure cultist believes the Earth is hollow and filled with spaceships waiting for the advent of a divine alien who will lead us all to a paradise much like the TV show “Happy Days” when enough people say the sacred words “Moo-blinkity” three times in succession.
Do I have to respect these beliefs? No. All I have to do as an American is respect people’s right to whatever religious beliefs they might have (and I do). But I’m free to recognize the beliefs themselves as lard-brained flapdoodle. And I do.
Not at all. I don’t see badchad requiring “reflexive frame rules” for anyone taking another position, or requiring anyone to “believe things that may be factually false”. The gist of the particular argument summarized by Captain Amazing is that the non-literalist view, while being logically internally consistent, essentially amounts to each person creating his own religion, by selectively defining those teachings that you agree with as the real core message of the Bible and rejecting those that you happen to disagree with. To the extent that there is intellectual dishonesty going on, it is in attributing the resulting religion to the Bible when it is you who have concocted it yourself.
This does not involve any rules of logic that you are discussing.
[sub]Disclaimer: I don’t know enough about Christian theology or the NT to know whether the badchad claim is valid. IOW, it might be that one could make a logical case for accepting some parts and rejecting others beyond one’s own personal beliefs. But until one confronts this issue it is a valid point.[/sub]