Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doctor X · 10-25-2003, 07:25 PM

Seed directs him to the window to address the person screaming below. . . .

I attended the place that created the social sciences. It was the psychology department that converted to behavioral sciences then back to psychology.

Sniff arrogantly and instructs Seed to "release the hounds."

Of course, some might consider sociology just a lot of psychology.

Part of the renaming may be been a result of the "Sputnik Phenomenon" where suddenly SCIENCE [!--Ed.] received funds and the humanities lost out. If you were a "science" you had a better chance to make $.

Again, it is trying to confer reality with a title--I can call myself "king;" it does not make me so. Returning to the topic, declaring something is not a contradiction does not make it not a contradiction.

I recall a board where someone "challenged" me to debate "anywhere any time" on NT errancy. I chose the birth narratives. Man did it go on for pages! Credit where credit is due, Richard Carrier provided most, if not all, of the historical rebuttal. Anyways, finally the challenger just wrote, "the birth narratives are resolved."

If only things were so easy!

--J.D.

Secular Pinoy · 10-26-2003, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Again, it is trying to confer reality with a title--I can call myself "king;" it does not make me so.

Ah, but you're a king of sorts as well. Let's not bog ourselves into details as to which you are monarch of...

Quote:

If only things were so easy!

But they are that simple. The bible is divinely inspired because 2Tim 3:16 says it is.

Vinnie · 10-26-2003, 01:10 AM

Quote:

It is definitely a raw list. I do not, however, believe that it is independent of the Gospels (sans the extra "proto-gnostic" additions).

Why not? Since its a raw list without overarching structure, surely no one sat down and weaved through the canonicals when composing it? I take it that it is your position that the gospel of Thomas is indirectly dependent upn the canonical Gospels?

Quote:

You might have meant "strains", but "certain stains of theology" would be right.

Stains? Well, there are enough of those in the New Testament already

I meant strains

Quote:

Personally, the examples sound more like eisegesis than exegesis.

Can you give me something with a little more substance than that? At any rate, I used that verse to antagonize three Christian feminists on my board a little bit and rewrote my comments in a clread only forum where all my new stuff is going:

http://www.after-hourz.net/forum/ind...?showtopic=296

Feel free to read that and critique it hereat II if you are up for it. No eisegesis please. Only exegesis

Quote:

Dating is a subject I'd rather not broach because there will never be agreement. Suffice it to say that I think GThom relies on what we know as the canonical gospels and probably followed them by decades.

Terminus a quo and terminus ad quem?

Surely you agree with 140 C.E. as the upper limit for Thomas?

Quote:

It was surely compiled from preferred sayings found in the gospels and expanded with early gnostic-like teachings for a "proto-Gnostic" community of some sort.

Surely? Wow, even John Meier is less certain on this issue than you. You must have done some major studying on it?

Indirectly compiled correct? Are you sure your time frames are consistent? When do you date the canonicals to?

Quote:

I suppose if you want to get technical, people can find a purpose for just about anything. However, GThom doesn't seem to have a real coherent organization or even much of an over-arching theme.

Yes but it made sense to its community and has certain theological strains of thought in it. That is pretty much beyond dispute. All religious texts have at least that much going on in them don't they?

Plus THomas was a s popular as the canonicals in the late second century wasn't it? The evidence--though sparse--would indicate as much

Vinnie

[minor clarification edit]

Vinnie · 10-26-2003, 01:15 AM

I've never read Rare Earth but I've heard it highly reccomended myself. At any rate, given all the scientific facts, believing in Ufos is equivalent to believing in miracles. I won't call you intellectually dishonest if you are a scientist who thinks there might be advanced life out there (I'd be suspicious though!) but I will if you put any credence whatsoever in UFO nonsense.

Vinnie

Doctor X · 10-26-2003, 01:53 AM

Well, some "advanced scientists" believe in UFOs and abductions--John Mack of Harvard and "some ER doc"--the later particularly suffers from the ignorance of ego--he cannot possibly believe he could be wrong.

The book Apocalypse Pretty Soon: Travels in End-Time America chronics his "successes"--he finds UFOs every time he checks. I highly recommend the book. What is fascinating is something James "The Amazing" Randi has noticed--the smarter the person, the easier they are to fool--they cannot understand how they can be fooled. A scientist will come up with all sorts of arcane explanations for spoon bending--a kid notices the clown bends it when he thinks you are not looking!

So . . . to bring it to criticism . . . NT scholars in particular cannot help but "wonder what this says about Junior." Some OT guys still thing Moses and the Patriarchs were historical as well. Anyways, it is easy to look at evidence selectively to support a theory. I had a mentor who had a "gospel"--Junior claimed he could destroy the Temple--he went there . . . nothing happened but there was a riot--Romans rounded people up. "Judas" turned state's evidence, whilst the historical Peter denied he knew him. Junior got squished.

Evidence? As he notes it only accounts for some of the traditions in the Synoptics. Other than that it is pure speculation. Some can move--like Freud--from "speculation" to "fact" after a few pages and built a theoretical house of cards.

Heck, the UFO guys come out with books every year. Indeed, I think it was Klass who noticed something interesting: "abductees" started agreeing on descriptions AFTER the "Communion" books became popular--people learned what an abduction is suppose to be!!

Thus, did some of the stories of the Synoptics arise because people expected them and expanded on them. Enough posters have cited comparisons to other "miracle men"--did followers start a "miracle arms race?"

--J.D.

unregistered_user_1 · 10-27-2003, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Haran
Did you read what I wrote about this? Re-read the Bible verse. It will do you some good.

Either way, how do you know for sure that the author didn't consider it allegorical, kind of like the person who would refer to unfortunate lovers as Romeo and Juliet or to betrayers as Rosencranz and Gildenstern (possibly even referring to a little bit of the story in reference)?

Apparently it's a little higher than you thought. Unless you were thinking of a limbo bar, in which case it probably is pretty low.

Speaking of "knowing which is allegorical":

(from Holding's site

Quote:

Literature -- One prominent critic advises people to "read the Bible like a newspaper." That is absolutely the worst advice that can be given for reading any text that isn't a newspaper. The genres of the Bible include narrative, poetry, proverbial literature, wisdom discourse, a treaty (that's what Deuteronomy is, believe it or not!), legal codes, genealogies, biography (that is what the Gospels are!), personal letters and general letters, rhetoric (an art form in the ancient world), riposte, and apocalyptic. Treating each one as a newspaper -- written yesterday and with our own ideas in mind -- is a mistake constantly made by critics who impose their own absurd genre-demands on the text.

Couldn't this be equally applied to that Genesis stuff?

Vinnie · 10-27-2003, 10:26 AM

Both Paul and Jesus are found in the NT supporting the creation story aren't they? Paul believe Adam was literal just as much as Abraham! Jesus supported a literal flood and so did another author (1 or 2 Peter???) didn't they?

So sure, they could disagree with both Jesus, Paul and some other NT authors and view this part of the OT as allegory. But since they are disagreeing with these individiauls already, why not cut out the middle man and just disagree with a literal Genesis as well?

Vinine

Vinnie · 10-27-2003, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Either way, how do you know for sure that the author didn't consider it allegorical, kind of like the person who would refer to unfortunate lovers as Romeo and Juliet or to betrayers as Rosencranz and Gildenstern (possibly even referring to a little bit of the story in reference)?

Does anyone see how ironic this is??? Are you defending Holding's article and saying that we can't be sure any problematic accounts weren't allegories? Having your cake and eating it too?

Where did everyone go? Come on, I'm just getting started in here

Vinnie

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-25-2003, 07:25 PM	#101
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Seed directs him to the window to address the person screaming below. . . . I attended the place that created the social sciences. It was the psychology department that converted to behavioral sciences then back to psychology. Sniff arrogantly and instructs Seed to "release the hounds." Of course, some might consider sociology just a lot of psychology. Part of the renaming may be been a result of the "Sputnik Phenomenon" where suddenly SCIENCE [!--Ed.] received funds and the humanities lost out. If you were a "science" you had a better chance to make $. Again, it is trying to confer reality with a title--I can call myself "king;" it does not make me so. Returning to the topic, declaring something is not a contradiction does not make it not a contradiction. I recall a board where someone "challenged" me to debate "anywhere any time" on NT errancy. I chose the birth narratives. Man did it go on for pages! Credit where credit is due, Richard Carrier provided most, if not all, of the historical rebuttal. Anyways, finally the challenger just wrote, "the birth narratives are resolved." If only things were so easy! --J.D.

10-26-2003, 01:15 AM	#104
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	I've never read Rare Earth but I've heard it highly reccomended myself. At any rate, given all the scientific facts, believing in Ufos is equivalent to believing in miracles. I won't call you intellectually dishonest if you are a scientist who thinks there might be advanced life out there (I'd be suspicious though!) but I will if you put any credence whatsoever in UFO nonsense. Vinnie

10-26-2003, 01:53 AM	#105
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Well, some "advanced scientists" believe in UFOs and abductions--John Mack of Harvard and "some ER doc"--the later particularly suffers from the ignorance of ego--he cannot possibly believe he could be wrong. The book Apocalypse Pretty Soon: Travels in End-Time America chronics his "successes"--he finds UFOs every time he checks. I highly recommend the book. What is fascinating is something James "The Amazing" Randi has noticed--the smarter the person, the easier they are to fool--they cannot understand how they can be fooled. A scientist will come up with all sorts of arcane explanations for spoon bending--a kid notices the clown bends it when he thinks you are not looking! So . . . to bring it to criticism . . . NT scholars in particular cannot help but "wonder what this says about Junior." Some OT guys still thing Moses and the Patriarchs were historical as well. Anyways, it is easy to look at evidence selectively to support a theory. I had a mentor who had a "gospel"--Junior claimed he could destroy the Temple--he went there . . . nothing happened but there was a riot--Romans rounded people up. "Judas" turned state's evidence, whilst the historical Peter denied he knew him. Junior got squished. Evidence? As he notes it only accounts for some of the traditions in the Synoptics. Other than that it is pure speculation. Some can move--like Freud--from "speculation" to "fact" after a few pages and built a theoretical house of cards. Heck, the UFO guys come out with books every year. Indeed, I think it was Klass who noticed something interesting: "abductees" started agreeing on descriptions AFTER the "Communion" books became popular--people learned what an abduction is suppose to be!! Thus, did some of the stories of the Synoptics arise because people expected them and expanded on them. Enough posters have cited comparisons to other "miracle men"--did followers start a "miracle arms race?" --J.D.

10-27-2003, 10:26 AM	#107
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	Both Paul and Jesus are found in the NT supporting the creation story aren't they? Paul believe Adam was literal just as much as Abraham! Jesus supported a literal flood and so did another author (1 or 2 Peter???) didn't they? So sure, they could disagree with both Jesus, Paul and some other NT authors and view this part of the OT as allegory. But since they are disagreeing with these individiauls already, why not cut out the middle man and just disagree with a literal Genesis as well? Vinine

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.