snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Soapbox Derby

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #261  
Old 07 November 2018, 07:15 PM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 12,842
Default

The problem is that the bible is large and self-contradictory enough that just about any stance on any subject can be justified based on something in scripture.
Reply With Quote
  #262  
Old 07 November 2018, 08:31 PM
musicgeek's Avatar
musicgeek musicgeek is offline
 
Join Date: 01 August 2005
Location: Fairfield, CT
Posts: 5,699
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter View Post
The problem is that the bible is large and self-contradictory enough that just about any stance on any subject can be justified based on something in scripture.
Absolutely. Which is why I tried (perhaps not very successfully) to distill the "PCM" concept down to the following scenario: Someone who cites Christianity (i.e., following Christ) as a reason/motivation for their actions while openly disregarding or controverting actual teachings of Christ.

It's tricky, and as ASL points out, it's easy to fall into the "no true Scotsman" fallacy with this kind of thinking. Still, I don't think that religion as a whole is so wishy-washy that there aren't some hard-and-fast lines to be drawn as to whether one is adhering to a scriptural precept or not.
Reply With Quote
  #263  
Old 07 November 2018, 09:11 PM
ASL's Avatar
ASL ASL is offline
 
Join Date: 04 July 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 5,776
Read This!

I know those are the circumstances where people pull the PCM card, I just don’t buy it. As you suggest, I think it’s a no true Scotsman fallacy. A couple other issues:

1) It’s nigh impossible to tell what Jesus actually said vs what his followers have attributed to him and set down decades after his death in the gospels (probably not even written by eye witnesses).
2) Some of the things Jesus is "said to have said" aren't all that peace and lovey.
3) Jesus did not found Christianity. His followers did, including some who claim to have only hallucinated him (eg: Paul).

Throw in the differing takes on the Old Testament and Jewish law (depending on which of the canonical gospels you read, you can find support either way as to whether the old laws still apply, plus, again, there’s that Paul fellow).

Taken together, I see no value in the PCM label, other than to legitimize a wrong-headed belief that the Bible is a good source of moral truths and that it is even possible to use it wrong*. We shouldn’t be using it at all.

*ETA: Or right.

Last edited by ASL; 07 November 2018 at 09:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #264  
Old 08 November 2018, 03:18 AM
musicgeek's Avatar
musicgeek musicgeek is offline
 
Join Date: 01 August 2005
Location: Fairfield, CT
Posts: 5,699
Default

Obviously, we're going to have some fundamental disagreements here, and that's OK. I'm not overly enamored of the PCM label, but I will maintain that it's possible to draw the distinction.

Just as an exercise - I am a registered Democrat. I think that the Republican party platform in general is contrary to many of my values, and I don't foresee myself coming around to the Republican way of thinking as it pertains to my life.

That being said, I think that the current crop of national leaders are NFBSKing terrible at being Republican. They manage to play up the absolute worst aspects of Republican social politics, while not displaying one iota of the fiscal restraint, respect for traditional decorum, or respect for the institutions of government that the Republican party has traditionally espoused.

(For what it's worth, this same scenario can easily be flipped to criticize members of the Democratic party as well).

Is it valid to make this distinction? It's certainly one we've seen being made frequently in the era of Trump, the Tea Party, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #265  
Old 08 November 2018, 04:41 AM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 12,842
Default

To be honest, fiscal restraint is something that Republicans only espouse when Democrats are in office.
Reply With Quote
  #266  
Old 08 November 2018, 03:05 PM
Seaboe Muffinchucker's Avatar
Seaboe Muffinchucker Seaboe Muffinchucker is offline
 
Join Date: 30 June 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 18,841
Glasses

I beg to differ, crocoduck. I know plenty of Republicans who espouse fiscal restraint all the time.

Seaboe
Reply With Quote
  #267  
Old 08 November 2018, 03:08 PM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 12,842
Default

Are any of them in DC?
Reply With Quote
  #268  
Old 08 November 2018, 03:14 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,378
Default

Many, even most Republicans will espouse fiscal restraint both when they are in office and when Democrats are in office. The Republican party is great about espousing things.
Reply With Quote
  #269  
Old 08 November 2018, 03:28 PM
musicgeek's Avatar
musicgeek musicgeek is offline
 
Join Date: 01 August 2005
Location: Fairfield, CT
Posts: 5,699
Default

As are most politicians, and most of us in our daily lives, I'm afraid. (Still a great line, though, GenYus - had me looking for the "like" button!)
Reply With Quote
  #270  
Old 08 November 2018, 03:29 PM
Seaboe Muffinchucker's Avatar
Seaboe Muffinchucker Seaboe Muffinchucker is offline
 
Join Date: 30 June 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 18,841
Glasses

Quote:
Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter View Post
Are any of them in DC?
What does that have to do with it? You didn't say elected Republicans, you said Republicans.

If elected Republicans is what you meant, you should have said so.

Seaboe
Reply With Quote
  #271  
Old 08 November 2018, 03:39 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaboe Muffinchucker View Post
If elected Republicans is what you meant, you should have said so.
He did say "national leaders" which could mean the RNC, but I assumed to mean members of Congress and the executive branck.
Reply With Quote
  #272  
Old 08 November 2018, 03:44 PM
ASL's Avatar
ASL ASL is offline
 
Join Date: 04 July 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 5,776
Ponder

The real question is, would any of us refer to these people as Pseudo Republican Morons, or would we simply call them Republican Morons? And, no, I don't mean to suggest (nor do I believe) that all republicans are morons, I only mean to highlight the lack of efficacy in the "Pseudo" label when someone does a bad job of adhering to a platform as a result of our unique human capacity for self-deception and duplicity. Although I would be more willing to entertain an argument that certain self-proclaimed republicans aren't really given the presence of a hierarchical organization that can speak authoritatively on the matter.

ETA: For comparison, I'd endorse a claim that someone who has been excommunicated by the Pope isn't really a Catholic, in spite of their protestations to the contrary, because that's kind of the whole thing with Catholicism.

Short of a direct revelation from God or Jesus (same thing according to most Christians) I wouldn't feel comfortable endorsing an equivalent claim that someone who self-identifies as Christian and recognizes Jesus as the risen son of god (or some variation thereof--it hasn't always been the view among all Christians that he is/was the son of god) is a "Pesudo Christian."

Last edited by ASL; 08 November 2018 at 03:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #273  
Old 08 November 2018, 05:42 PM
UEL's Avatar
UEL UEL is offline
 
Join Date: 01 August 2004
Location: Fredericton, Canada
Posts: 9,317
Baseball

My thoughts a few years ago when we were using the pCm short form frequently was based more on the actions of the individuals, rather than the beliefs.

If the individual acted against the tenets of Christianity whilst stating that they were acting in the name of Christianity, then they were pCm. eg. Westboro Baptist Church protesting military funerals

If the individual was justifying an action by using Christianity as a reason, and Christianity had nothing to do with said action, then they were pCm. eg. claiming God wanted the pastor to buy a second airplane

If the individual was justifying an action by using Christianity and it was consistent with the teachings and tenets, then they were not a pCm. eg. protestors at an execution

However, we had a discussion on the board a few years ago (around the last time pCm was used) because people were starting to use that short form for anything to do with religion. Someone even called the Pope pCm (while, it may have been in jest or an exaggeration, I can't remember that clearly).

But I have a clear delineation in my mind. Kim Davis definitely fell into the second point, thus making her, in my mind, a pCm.
Reply With Quote
  #274  
Old 08 November 2018, 06:10 PM
ASL's Avatar
ASL ASL is offline
 
Join Date: 04 July 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 5,776
Ponder

Quote:
Originally Posted by UEL View Post
If the individual acted against the tenets of Christianity whilst stating that they were acting in the name of Christianity, then they were pCm. eg. Westboro Baptist Church protesting military funerals
To me, the WBC is a great example of people who actually seem to be trying very hard to respect all parts of the Bible, including the Old Testament. They are terrible people for doing it, but perhaps, IMHO, the truest, most faithful Christians around. I don't think it should be at all shocking that Iron Age tribal religion is not well-suited to our modern sensibilities. That some people manage to brush aside the less savory aspects of it might make them better people, but it hardly makes them better Christians, IMHO.

At the end of the day, if you say you're a Christian, I'll believe you. It's a label with no final arbiter short of a perhaps non-existent god. I might express doubt about using the label if you don't have some special respect for either a historical or biblical Jesus (like if you insist he never existed in any sense and neither he nor his attributed teachings are revered by your church) but that's about it.

Words have meanings, true, but to the extent there is any sort of dictionary definition for Christian, it's pretty loose. I guess what I'm objecting to is this notion that anyone can claim to be the arbiter of who is or isn't a true Christian. Wars have been started that way, but more importantly I think it gives too much importance to the label. I don't think it's all that much to be a Christian. Some of the worst people I know are Christians and recognized as such by others. So what good is it? Why should only the best members of a religion get to claim to be true members of that faith, as if there is some inherent good in Christianity that somehow didn't stop the crusades and all kinds of persecutions until humanists (secular and otherwise) started gaining influence round about the enlightenment?
Reply With Quote
  #275  
Old 08 November 2018, 07:24 PM
Seaboe Muffinchucker's Avatar
Seaboe Muffinchucker Seaboe Muffinchucker is offline
 
Join Date: 30 June 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 18,841
Glasses

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
He did say "national leaders" ...
Not in the post I was replying to. I was replying to this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter View Post
To be honest, fiscal restraint is something that Republicans only espouse when Democrats are in office.
Nowhere in that post did he restrict his statement to "national leaders" or even mere elected officials.


Seaboe
Reply With Quote
  #276  
Old 08 November 2018, 07:43 PM
Errata's Avatar
Errata Errata is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 13,165
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ASL View Post
To me, the WBC is a great example of people who actually seem to be trying very hard to respect all parts of the Bible, including the Old Testament.
I'm no defender of religion, but I have to disagree on that. They are not making a good faith attempt to interpret the entire bible. They're cherry picking it at least as much as everyone else is, they're just cherry picking different parts of it, and are drawn to some of the worst parts, while ignoring other parts. It's a self contradictory document that says a lot of stuff that taken in isolation could be used to support nearly anything. They take all of that raw material and this is what they choose to distill out of it. Their evil tactics are what they chose to do and wanted a fig leaf of justification for. It's not a product of some kind of abstract religious scholarship.
Reply With Quote
  #277  
Old 08 November 2018, 08:43 PM
musicgeek's Avatar
musicgeek musicgeek is offline
 
Join Date: 01 August 2005
Location: Fairfield, CT
Posts: 5,699
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Errata View Post
I'm no defender of religion, but I have to disagree on that. They are not making a good faith attempt to interpret the entire bible. They're cherry picking it at least as much as everyone else is, they're just cherry picking different parts of it, and are drawn to some of the worst parts, while ignoring other parts. It's a self contradictory document that says a lot of stuff that taken in isolation could be used to support nearly anything. They take all of that raw material and this is what they choose to distill out of it. Their evil tactics are what they chose to do and wanted a fig leaf of justification for. It's not a product of some kind of abstract religious scholarship.
Exactly. If they wanted to call themselves "Levitican Fundamentalists," that would be one thing. (In which case, I'd want to know their stances on the eating of shellfish, crop planting layouts, clothing fabric content, etc.) However, one doesn't have to dig deep into the New Testament to find this (from the book of James - so no, not Christ's words, but arguably more closely related to the concept of Christianity than Levitican law):
Quote:
Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.
Since the WBC was literally doing the opposite of this statement in their hateful funeral demonstrations, there is inherent hypocrisy in their cloaking their rhetoric and actions in the shroud of "Christian" teaching. They are probably the closest analogue we have of radical Islamists (with the possible exception of abortion clinic bombers/abortion doctor murderers).
Reply With Quote
  #278  
Old 08 November 2018, 08:50 PM
ASL's Avatar
ASL ASL is offline
 
Join Date: 04 July 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 5,776
Default

At the risk of being accused of close-mindedness, I just don’t care. Not because I don’t think the truth matters, but because everything I know about the Bible and the many denominations of Christianity assures me that there is another part of the Bible, perhaps spoken by Jesus himself, that will support a contradictory view. It’s just not a very well-assembled/edited assortment of books.
Reply With Quote
  #279  
Old 09 November 2018, 02:57 PM
Seaboe Muffinchucker's Avatar
Seaboe Muffinchucker Seaboe Muffinchucker is offline
 
Join Date: 30 June 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 18,841
Glasses

The King James version is (for the most part), a beautifully written book. It's not instructions on how to run one's life. IMO, the bible is a compilation of texts written by misogynistic, primarily old, men many years after the events it purports to describe (some of which never happened).

Seaboe
Reply With Quote
  #280  
Old 09 November 2018, 03:35 PM
Gutter Monkey's Avatar
Gutter Monkey Gutter Monkey is offline
 
Join Date: 13 December 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,102
Default

This discussion reminds me of this video I saw last week:

Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
City clerk quits with a colorful email snopes Social Studies 0 22 May 2014 08:20 PM
Housing Complex Clerk Mistakes Suicide Jumper’s Body For April Fools’ Prank A Turtle Named Mack Crash and Burn 0 04 April 2014 02:54 PM
NY Suspends Driver's Licenses for Tax Delinquents snopes Police Blotter 1 06 August 2013 06:08 PM
Clerk beaten over lack of XXXL shirts snopes Police Blotter 4 22 July 2013 04:42 AM
Obamas' law licenses snopes Politics 0 07 April 2010 10:07 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.