WishboneDawn

You mean change it into something that's not intolerant, bigotted nonsense?

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.

You're wrong. Christianity is growing fastest in places where conservative christianity has a firm hold, especially outside the western world.

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.

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.

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".

You can't see it but there is a beam in your eye, brother !

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

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?

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.

Mythra

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

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.

Solo

Ok, I'll bite.

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.

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

...Me too though I would ask people not to do that while they are driving.

JS

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? ...

Clivedurdle

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?

Solo

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