Dear Sancho,

I think you have defamed Polycarp. He may think he is following in the footsteps of Jesus.

Jesus statement, “No one cometh to the father save through me.” is a most intolerant statement. No matter how good a life you live you are excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven. That is not a statement of acceptance. I don’t think it good to follow that Jesus. That Jesus expresses hate and exclusion. However, I am sure many Christians believe that statement.

I would disagree with your statement: “David f, you may have noticed that, broadly, there are two types of Christian.”

The implication I get from your statement is that some Christians are good guys and some are bad guys – the old we/they bit.

I really don’t think Polycarp is a bad guy although I don’t agree with many of his ideas.

I think you, Polycarp, Jesus if he ever existed and I are all a mixture of good and bad. In that respect I think all human beings are alike. I think it better not to divide the world into friends and enemies. Polycarp is not my enemy. He is merely a man on the list who I disagree with in some areas.

David f

Spot on: Polycarp's arguments amount to little more than as you put it:

"1. WE are good regardless of what WE do.

"2. THEY are bad because THEY are not US."

His methods though are another matter. Perhaps they can be summarised as follows:

1. Pretend you are a serious scholar with a real question to pose.

2. Manufacture a phoney scenario usually in the form of representing THEM as a threat to US.

3. Selectively quote the Bible and the Koran to 'validate' the correctness of US and denigrate THEM.

4. Put in a link to an old article from a fundamentalist Christian website, preferably from the USA, claiming it as contemporary 'news'.

5. Deny having any racist intent by saying it's a question of VALUES.

6. Refuse to engage with posters who know their stuff and challenge facts and interpretations.

7. Move on quickly to another topic.

8. Come back in a month or so to the first topic and repeat the formula.

No David F.....you posted comments from an outright HERETIC (Spong).

You not only post his heretical, dangerous comments, but also you appear to accept his incorrect understanding of John 14:6 among other verses, and his understanding/position on these is WHY he is a heretic. I've already dealt with the meaning of John 14:6 "No man comes to the Father but by me". SHOW ME A SYLLABLE OF anything in that which suggests OTHER than "belief of the heart". There is not a skeric or shred of anything..ANYthing..suggesting that this verse (in it's fuller context) can mean anything other than belief of the heart.

You also note "By their fruits you shall know them".

EXACTLY.. "what fruit? what do you know? about who?"

1/ Fruit "evil, unChristlike behavior".. cruelty, violence,killing, murder.

2/ Who are they? "They" are those who do the above,but they are surely not those following Christ.

John 14 (same chapter)

5"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him,

errrr...what was that DAvid?

IF YOU LOVE ME......
YOU WILL OBEY WHAT I COMMAND....

Now..at this point we can ask "WHAT" did Jesus command?

Here are FIFTY of them and not a single one involves violence or forcing people to become Christians. (Just as John 14:6 does NOT teach that as the heretic Spong alledges)

http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Fifty-Commands-Of-Jesus&id=468177

I'm sorry.. heretical so called Bishops with their equally heretical Jewish followers of convenience have no validity whatsoever in the eternal scheme of things.

I sense a new thread coming up :)

SPIKEY.. (and David)

1/ No.. we are NOT "Good regardless of what we do"

If we do that which honours Christ and brings Glory to God.. that's one thing. If we act contrary to his revealed Word..then were are evil, under judgment and outside of the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

2/ No..they are not 'BAD' because they are not us. "They" (and this may well include you) are LOST because they do not yet know Christ as Lord and Savior. As such... (Lost) they are the objects of Gods abiding patient Love until they die when they will face Judgement.

"For God so LOVED the world...etc" "I came not for the righteous but for sinners"

3/ Selectively quote both Bible and Quran APPROPRIATELY based on common sense,natural language meaning, and (non heretical)scholarly opinion, in both cases and let the facts lead where they will.

6/ Ur kidding...right? :) Happy to engage with posters who DO know 'their stuff' but bigotry was never my flavor of choice.

(Bigotry= Facts mean nothing, just my opinion. I'll discuss facts but the number of ad hominems here is amazing)

Spikey.. the other points were wasted cyberspace better spend on more noble persuits :)

The main problem here is the lack of knowledge of how Islam and Christianity work. We have uninformed leftists, a bitter (but lovable) Jew, and a delicate and hearwarming Foxy, a Fractelle for whom I hold hope, and 'the rest'.

Polycarp,

Right on cue! So predictable. You cherry pick - as ever - responding (in a manner of speaking) to just two of my six propositions. The other four are too hard evidently.

And in so acting, you demonstrate in practice my points about your methods.

Take 7 and 8 for example: "7. Move on quickly to another topic. 8. Come back in a month or so to the first topic and repeat the formula."

Your knee-jerk reaction? "I sense a new thread coming up :)"

Perhaps I overlooked another of your methods.

9. Offer opponents gratuitous advice about the state of their soul. ""They" (and this may well include you) are LOST because they do not yet know Christ as Lord and Savior." I still have my spiritual Melways, Polycarp, and don't need your direction, thanks.

And another? (Well it rounds it out to PolyCarp's Ten Commandments):

10. When it suits, feel free to contradict your previous statements. In this case you're happy to contradict yourself in the one post:

(a) "If we act contrary to his revealed Word..then were are evil, under judgment and outside of the guidance of the Holy Spirit."

compared with:

(b) "...they are the objects of Gods abiding patient Love until they die when they will face Judgement."

In (a) YOU have decided we are 'evil'. In (b) we are to be judged (by God) when we die.

PS: You've pulled that tear-jerker about ad hominem before. And it sits a little awkwardly with your closing hypocritical gambit: "We have uninformed leftists, a bitter (but lovable) Jew, and a delicate and hearwarming Foxy, a Fractelle for whom I hold hope, and 'the rest'.

Apparently it's ad hominem only when you are the object of criticism.

polycarp, ad hominem statements are one thing, but it's condescending remarks that I truly loathe.
In place of rebutting arguments, you have a habit of giving the verbal equivalent of a pat on the head and a smug smile, then wonder why people are furious and insulted.

"The main problem here is the lack of knowledge of how Islam and Christianity work."

This is precisely the kind of comment to which I refer. In effect Polycarp, you have just stated that you alone here hold the requisite information, and the others "don't know how Islam and Christianity work."

Problem is, that the practitioners of any given religion evidently have a rose-coloured view of how their religion works.

This is fine - why else would any person choose a religion if they didn't believe it to be the best.

It's the notion that you know how Islam works that really pisses people off, because as has been demonstrated time and again, you don't.

Your previous response was that you are objecting to people making protests. Were I to use such a dodgy argument, say, pointing out that there have been cases where Christians have made unreasonable demands (say, demanding facilities for worship), which have been rightly refused, would you think it acceptable that I then use this as fodder for an attack on Christianity? Would this be an acceptable tactic to use as painting Christianity as a threat?

Which is what this is really about. You make tenuous statements and attempt to portray them as indicative of your pet cause.