Roger Pearse

Censorship today of course is accomplished with jail sentences. Just out of curiosity, AVI, do you object to censorship of paedophile material? Or perhaps of Nazi material? Or "racist" material? Or "anti-semitic" material? Or of material that might be considered "offensive" by various groups?

Because, unless the answer to all of those questions is "yes", then surely your argument is flawed? If everyone believes that some things should be censored -- and those who shrieked most loudly about censorship in the 60's have gone on to implement a far more vicious system today -- then isn't this really a debate about WHAT should be censored, rather than whether some things should be?

That's another subject, of course, but I thought that I would point out the logical problem with your rhetoric.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

avi

Thank you Roger, you are right, my shouting about the evils of (Christian) censorship is somewhat facile.

I have never really thought much about this question. One could add, what about censorship in other lands, or, incarceration of those who are outspoken critics of particular regimes, for example, in Burma (Myanmar), the Nobel laureate under continual house arrest....

I suppose, not having reflected on the question for any length of time, I would have to fault my own logic, because in general, I do disagree with government interference with free speech, and then, why should I support the repression of Nazi literature, or pedophilic propaganda? Why do I look the other way when the government censors those groups? I don't have a good answer. To me, those two groups are simply evil, and their documents represent evil. I suppose that this childish method of thinking, or reacting, is precisely how "Sir" Thomas More felt about Tyndale's publication of the Bible in English, (and the need to destroy by conflagration, both the books themselves, and the creator of them). Maybe I should apply for the position of Chancellor.....

Well, I have also read that opinion, but I do not share it. I have wondered, for example, why the Vatican allowed John Milton to visit Galileo, while he was under house arrest?

I don't believe that a guy losing his vision, as Galileo was, in his prime, i.e. late 50's, unable to leave his house to obtain treatment (futile, in view of his staring too long at the sun through his telescope), went out of his way to be arrested by the Inquisition. I do agree that he was offered several more benevolent choices, including the opportunity to continue teaching at the university, if he would only renounce his position that the earth circled the sun, rather than the opposite perspective, geocentrism, as taught by Aristotle and Plato, the pagan Greek hypothesis, studied in detail by Ptolemy, purportedly the agent responsible for the Biblical presentation. Ptolemy of Alexandria, first century .

Of course, I don't know the truth, and you may be correct, Doug, but no, in my opinion, not a fact, Galileo was not eager to face the death sentence (commuted to life under house arrest) on trial as a heretic, before the inquisition tribunal. Sorry, I do not accept the proposition, whether yours, or anyone else's, that Galileo deliberately sought to challenge the Inquisition. He simply refused to obey their demand that he cease instructing students about heliocentrism. That is quite different from going out of one's way to deliberately antagonize the authorities in the hope of being arrested....

Of importance to this thread is the notion that somehow, religion AIDED the progression of western science. I simply don't accept that hypothesis, at all. Galileo is only the tip of the iceberg, in my view. In USA, today, we still have powerful forces demanding that school children learn not about Darwin's finches, but rather, about "creationism". The school boards exert local autonomy, and, in essence, censor Darwin. Those who perform this censorship, denying school children an opportunity to learn about evolution, do so, with the same motivation I have expressed above, to repress evil. In their minds, all secular scientists, are evil, representing the devil, and in truth, they rely for their decision to repress scientific expresson, upon a notion of religious conviction, in particular, a Christian notion of the truth.

Roger Pearse

Absolutely. Or the internet censorship being implemented in Australia at the moment by a certain Senator Conroy, at least if some online accounts are to be believed. But of course I wanted to list examples in which we probably DO believe, rather than those which we don't.

Thank you for that considered response. I tend to share the reaction. I certainly do not want either material in circulation. I merely wanted to highlight that there is a problem -- as you identify -- and that most of what is said about this subject tends to duck the problem. I don't have any easy answers either.

My own view is probably shaped by current events, and my deep distrust of the government class in our day and age and countries. Myself I don't want any censorship of political or religious views (not even scientology), because I see a strong risk of both at the moment, and censorship of views that SHOULD be aired. But I do appreciate the problem of things like paedophilia, and pornography, where access to material tends to corrupt those who might not ever have come into contact with it; to circulate it is to injure people. Where do we draw the line? (And... who is "we", and who precisely has the power to decide?) I'm not sure I know the answers. I suppose I feel so little trust in those who would decide, and am so certain that they will censor me if they can, that I would go with more freedom, even for the revolting.

I think the old "obscenity" test seems reasonable, and rarely interfered with freedom of speech, and so would deal with the paedophile problem. As for those who want to parade up and down wearing jackboots... my view is let them. They're not a threat to anyone but themselves. Likewise let Moslem groups scream their hate of us all (particularly since no-one seems eager to censor *them*). But incitement to violence? -- I would ban that, as evidently injurious in a democracy where violence should not be the only means available to deal with supposed injustice. But I really don't know, as I say.

And I would certain nominate as total slapheads of the month those foolish, foolish Christian groups whose concern to get rid of obscenity makes them "useful idiots" -- stalking horses -- for those who intend censorship (including, if they knew it, of those same Christian groups) but would like to avoid the opprobrium for doing it. Such Christians must have the political intelligence of a cabbage. The morons have ye ever with you, eh?

But this is all probably OT. I only wanted to point out that there is a logical problem with the very common line of argument mentioned.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Jedi Mind Trick

If this is true then why were the Nag Hammadi texts hidden away?

Doug Shaver

I don't see that notion as having any relevance at all this thread -- unless, of course, you're trying to set up a false dichotomy.

Well, the people you're talking about do, for the most part, claim that their version of Christianity is the only true version and therefore the only one anybody should pay any attention to.

I take it, then, that you agree with those people on that point? That anybody who accepts evolution is not a True Christian^TM?

Doug Shaver

Nobody is claiming that orthodox Christians never destroyed any documents that they didn't like. All we're claiming is that most of those documents disappeared from the historical record for other reasons -- the same reasons that account for the disappearance of very nearly all other ancient documents.

Roger Pearse

As far as I know, no-one knows why these books were placed in a jar in the desert and forgotten. However it is quite possible that this was connected with some Byzantine purge.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

andrewcriddle

My suspicion is that the books were being used by a group of monks in the early 5th century, who then hid them away when the central monastic authorities tightened up the rules on what was appropriate reading material.

Andrew Criddle

mountainman

Firstly I do not refer to Ardashir who created the monotheistic Zorastrian state religion as a villain. I do not refer to Constantine who created the monotheistic Christian state religion as a villain. And I do not refer to Muhamad who created the monotheistic Islamic state religion as a villain.

I refer to these people as military supremacists who used the technology of the codex ("THE BOOK") to "bind the people together into a new social form and religion" -- an orthoxy of the book - the Avesta, the Bible and the Koran respectively.

Secondly the OP deals with "Books destroyed in antiquity". Obviously this is a subject about books which were destroyed - automatically we are dealing with a subject for which there can be by definition no primary evidence. Thus secondary evidence, such as reports of book burning, censorship, laws and references to the burnin or censorship of material are relevant.

Thirdly, this OP also thus impies that those books which by some abolute happenstance or by some formalised "time-capsule burial" have been discovered, are relevant to the OP in that they are books which have escaped the destruction.

Surely you understand the argument that the Nag Hammadi codices were buried by Pachomonian monks in the fourth century rather than their deliverance to the fire and to orthodoxy is not my argument? I have cited the recent book of Meyer.

mountainman

The C14 and the cartonage indicate that the Nag Hammadi codices were published in the mid fourth century.. Meyer cites an Athanasian decree c.367 CE as a possible cause for their being secreted in the earth away from "prying eyes".