FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-11-2006, 04:36 AM   #21
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 4,287
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malachi151
I'm serious, I can't stand Pagels and her kind. She is like the lesbians who think its an great accomplishment to become the priest of their congregation.

Why? To try and expand the scope of Christianity to new markets? To try and make it more appealing to more people? To try and change it from the intolerant, bigotted nonsense that it is into something more acceptable to modern society?
You mean change it into something that's not intolerant, bigotted nonsense?

Quote:
These are the worst possible people. These people are worse than Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell.
That's ridiculous. Pagels researches and writes books. She promotes an attitude that christian history is open for examination and dissection. She starts discussions.

Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell directly harm people by inciting their followers to hate people.

Actively doing harm is a bad thing. Writing a history book is not.

Quote:
If all Christians were like Robertson and Fallwell the religion would quickly die, but unfortunately, Christianity today is a multi-headed hydra that is growing more new heads each day, and people like Pagels are the ones causing more heads to grow.
You're wrong. Christianity is growing fastest in places where conservative christianity has a firm hold, especially outside the western world.

Quote:
Instead of using these facts to undermine Christianity, she uses them to expand it.
She has some obligation to undermine christianity? I think probably there's a middle ground you're not aware of. She's got neither agenda in mind but may be simply saying that christian history isn't sacred and is due the same discussion, debate and examination that any other religion and institution is due.

And is that helping christianity? Maybe but I know if I presented a conservative christian with your posts on christianity being bad and needing to be wiped out and then with Pagels' book...Your post would get a comment and then ignored as they launched into a hateful tirade against Pagels and liberal christians.
WishboneDawn is offline  
Old 07-11-2006, 06:17 AM   #22
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malachi151
I'm serious, I can't stand Pagels and her kind. She is like the lesbians who think its an great accomplishment to become the priest of their congregation.
The horror of horrors :devil3: I think the issue is does she have anything to say on the subject. And the consensus is that she does.

Quote:
Why? To try and expand the scope of Christianity to new markets? To try and make it more appealing to more people? To try and change it from the intolerant, bigotted nonsense that it is into something more acceptable to modern society?
It is really difficult to explain "faith" to people who don't have it. Pagels speaks of hers in a moving way in the opening chapter of "Beyond Belief".

Quote:
These are the worst possible people. These people are worse than Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell.
You can't see it but there is a beam in your eye, brother !

Quote:
If all Christians were like Robertson and Fallwell the religion would quickly die, but unfortunately, Christianity today is a multi-headed hydra that is growing more new heads each day, and people like Pagels are the ones causing more heads to grow.
Instead of using these facts to undermine Christianity, she uses them to expand it.
Reminds of a famous quip by G.K. Chesterton who said the reason Catholic Church is superior to all the other congregations, is that it admits every kind of Christian, even the respectable one.

JS
Solo is offline  
Old 07-11-2006, 07:11 AM   #23
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: mid Wales, UK
Posts: 43
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo
The horror of horrors :devil3: I think the issue is does she have anything to say on the subject. And the consensus is that she does.
Well actually, the issue isn't really "does she have anything to say", the issue here is Elaine Pagel's objectivity, isn't it?

I agree with Malachi. At times, Elaine Pagels seems to allow her faith to cloud her objectivity.

Unfortunately, I don't have "Adam, Eve & the Serpent" in front of me, but I can remember getting very annoyed with the first chapter of it, where Pagels seems to imply that Josephus says alot more about 'Jesus' than he actually does (we're not talking about the disputed TF passage here either).

From memory, Pagels clearly tried to imply that, for instance, 'Jesus' was behind the Passover riot(s) (i.e. the catalyst for them) referred to by Josephus, even though Josephus himself makes absolutely no mention of JC in this context, or indeed any other.

Like I say, I don't have the text in front of me, but anyone who does, read back through the first few pages of Chapter one & you'll see what I mean. (Or possibly, that I'm completely paranoid.. )

Pagels actually seemed to do this 2 or 3 times in this chapter I felt (i.e. make misleading statements about what Josephus says and what he doesn't, to lend weight to her apparently taken-as-read faith in an historical Jesus). It's obviously convenient to her Christian perspective to do this, but it's also very misleading I feel, and, from a secular p.o.v., also rather annoying.
triffidfood is offline  
Old 07-11-2006, 07:26 AM   #24
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: BFE
Posts: 416
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malachi151
I'm serious, I can't stand Pagels and her kind.
This smacks of an argument from ignorance. I would be very surprised if you really knew anything about Elaine Pagels or have read her work.

I'm an atheist - as you appear to be.

And Elaine Pagels is one of my favorite authors.

I'm all for anyone who is courageous enough to stick a bumblebee in the baseball cap of the fundamentalists.
Mythra is offline  
Old 07-11-2006, 07:35 AM   #25
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: BFE
Posts: 416
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clivedurdle
What needs doing is biblicists like Pagels need the mythical case presented clearly and succinctly. They are in a similar position to people pre Darwin. The dam has not yet broken on this issue, but there is actually nothing holding it up! The emperor has no clothes!
Precisely. Elaine Pagels causes people to think. Causes people to question their long-held assumptions about the origins of their faith.

Once people begin to think for themselves, who knows where it may lead?

Perhaps Pagels, like Robert Price, will evolve in her beliefs also.
Mythra is offline  
Old 07-11-2006, 07:43 AM   #26
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by triffidfood
Well actually, the issue isn't really "does she have anything to say", the issue here is Elaine Pagel's objectivity, isn't it?
Ok, I'll bite.

Quote:
I agree with Malachi. At times, Elaine Pagels seems to allow her faith to cloud her objectivity.

Unfortunately, I don't have "Adam, Eve & the Serpent" in front of me, but I can remember getting very annoyed with the first chapter of it, where Pagels seems to imply that Josephus says alot more about 'Jesus' than he actually does (we're not talking about the disputed TF passage here either).
Unfortunately, we can't discuss intelligently "her objectivity", by your vague references to something she said about Josephus that annoyed you. You have to pardon me.

If you want to tell us what she says and why that "seems to imply" what you think, we might have a worth-while discussion.

Quote:
From memory, Pagels clearly tried to imply that, for instance, 'Jesus' was behind the Passover riot(s) (i.e. the catalyst for them) referred to by Josephus, even though Josephus himself makes absolutely no mention of JC in this context, or indeed any other.

Like I say, I don't have the text in front of me, but anyone who does, read back through the first few pages of Chapter one & you'll see what I mean. (Or possibly, that I'm completely paranoid.. )
Like you say, it's "possibly" that. But if it isn't and you want to sacrifice your comfort by re-reading those annoynig passages to us here, we might be able to sort your problem with Elaine out.

JS
Solo is offline  
Old 07-11-2006, 07:55 AM   #27
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mythra
I'm all for anyone who is courageous enough to stick a bumblebee in the baseball cap of the fundamentalists.
...Me too though I would ask people not to do that while they are driving.

JS
Solo is offline  
Old 07-11-2006, 09:15 AM   #28
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: mid Wales, UK
Posts: 43
Default

Okay, the following is lifted from “Adam, Eve & the Serpent” using Amazon Search Inside (so apologies for any typos).

Quote:
{p6} Jesus passionate and powerful presence aroused enormous response, especially when he preached among the crowds of pilgrims gathered in Jerusalem to celebrate Passover. As the Jewish and Roman authorities well knew, tensions were high during the religious holidays when Jewish worshippers found themselves face to face with the Roman soldiers. Jesus’ near contemporary the Jewish historian Josephus, himself a governor of Galilee, tells of a Roman soldier on guard near the Temple who contemptuously exposed himself before just such a crowd, an outrage that incited a riot in which twenty thousand died! {…}
Umm .. well okay, on reflection there doesn't seem to be very much there (and the above is the passage I seem to remember).

I think it annoyed me because it suggested a connection between Christian accounts (not sure precisely which accounts though?) of Jesus' supposedly preaching to Passover crowds, and Josephus descriptions of the riot. (I think it was the expression "before just such a crowd", which could be interpreted as meaning before a crowd such as that described at the start of the passage, i.e. one responding to Jesus' "passionate and powerful presence", which to me implied a connection ).

I admit that does seem just the teeensiest bit flimsy now though. I guess I was allowing my non-faith to cloud my objectivity? ...
triffidfood is offline  
Old 07-11-2006, 09:36 AM   #29
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London UK
Posts: 16,024
Default

Wasn't there an injunction judge not lest ye be judged? Pagels has had huge personal issues that she discusses in beyond belief.

I've just got Campbell Heroes and he emphasises the role of myth in making us human. If we could call on Zeus, Thor, Jesus and Luke Skywalker equally to help us through the day would that not be a good thing?
Clivedurdle is offline  
Old 07-11-2006, 09:51 AM   #30
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by triffidfood
Okay, the following is lifted from “Adam, Eve & the Serpent” using Amazon Search Inside (so apologies for any typos).


Umm .. well okay, on reflection there doesn't seem to be very much there (and the above is the passage I seem to remember).

I think it annoyed me because it suggested a connection between Christian accounts (not sure precisely which accounts though?) of Jesus' supposedly preaching to Passover crowds, and Josephus descriptions of the riot. (I think it was the expression "before just such a crowd", which could be interpreted as meaning before a crowd such as that described at the start of the passage, i.e. one responding to Jesus' "passionate and powerful presence", which to me implied a connection ).

I admit that does seem just the teeensiest bit flimsy now though. I guess I was allowing my non-faith to cloud my objectivity? ...
I appreciate your frankness... and you actually do have a good point: to use a historically founded, and objectively described event, as a base from which build authenticity for one that most likely originates as relic of faith, is not sound method. And since it is not certain that Jesus attracted large crowds - and Hugh Schonfield had a great point when he argued that a Galilean preacher, with his thick northern Aramaic, was (or would have been) scoffed at in and around Jerusalem - her view of Jesus "passionate and powerful presence" before crowds which are likely imaginary, does not have any kind of historical value. It's a purely subjective appraisal. I'll grant you that.

But can we deduce from that she is not "objective" as a researcher ? Well, I can tell you, I am sixty and have read a lot of history, but still have not read a book that would not have in it at least some subjective view of events, or speculation to fill the holes.

She apparently believes the accounts of the Jerusalem events are historical. I do not. Does that mean I should not trust her on matters where she shows independent mind ?

JS
Solo is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:04 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.