Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Malachi151 · 01-24-2008, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

You need to be a giant before you can damage a field IMO. Unless the field can easily be invaded by charlatans and crackpots. As it is, I think its the reputation of her work that is in tatters and herself as a credible, reliable author. Nobody holding a serious conference on Mythicism can invite her as a speaker, I think. Inclusion of her name in a list of speakers would suck out any respectability from such a panel. So, I think its her reputation that she has damaged. And probably, by extension, mythicism.

I'd be interested in hearing more specifically -- and with examples -- why you think her work is (as you put it previously) "manure" and what it is about her "scholarship" that you find so questionable that her presence at a conference would desolate its respectability.

Can you supply us with your specific criticisms of her work and her "scholarship"? What claims of hers do you find bogus? And where/why, in your eyes, is her scholarship poor/lacking?

Jeffrey

Oh come on, you have been addressing the flaws in her scholarship in the recent threads as much as anyone... We all know what the issues are...

Ben C Smith · 01-24-2008, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Of course.

....

The HJers have an very huge amount of 'scholars' (like James Tabor and E. P. Sanders), who routinely publish fatuous manure but the more critical scholars do not attack their work or expose them as full of historical inaccuracies, mystical nonsense and fallacious reasoning.

....

Based on the foregoing, its obvious that the best approach of mythicism is to have the more critical proponents develop along parralel lines with the popularizers (like Archaya) bringing in converts with their uncritical but controversial and popular potboilers, and Price and Doherty weaning the converts with critical stuff when they come of age.

So, in your judgment, the MJ camp ought to adopt the same techniques that you see as weaknesses in the HJ camp.

So noted.

Ben.

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-24-2008, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

I'd be interested in hearing more specifically -- and with examples -- why you think her work is (as you put it previously) "manure" and what it is about her "scholarship" that you find so questionable that her presence at a conference would desolate its respectability.

Can you supply us with your specific criticisms of her work and her "scholarship"? What claims of hers do you find bogus? And where/why, in your eyes, is her scholarship poor/lacking?

Jeffrey

Oh come on, you have been addressing the flaws in her scholarship in the recent threads as much as anyone... We all know what the issues are...

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not challenging you on this point. I think you are right to call her work what you call it. I just want to see what it is you think that "we all know".

Jeffrey

ApostateAbe · 01-24-2008, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Quote:

Is this a circling of the wagons?

Of course. My guess is that it was informed by a realization that:

1) The mythicists are a minority with enough 'enemies' on the other side so it would not help their case to have a go at each other: The HJers would only be delighted at this and proceed with alacrity to pit them against each other and capitalize on their disagreements. This, of course, would not help their 'cause.' Its better to piss outside your tent than to piss in it.

2) The HJers have an very huge amount of 'scholars' (like James Tabor and E. P. Sanders), who routinely publish fatuous manure but the more critical scholars do not attack their work or expose them as full of historical inaccuracies, mystical nonsense and fallacious reasoning. Instead, they are welcome with dignity into their guild and their works are reviewed scholastically in SBL and other forums, as if they are worthy of respect.

3) Based on the foregoing, its obvious that the best approach of mythicism is to have the more critical proponents develop along parralel lines with the popularizers (like Archaya) bringing in converts with their uncritical but controversial and popular potboilers, and Price and Doherty weaning the converts with critical stuff when they come of age. In other words, everyone has a role to play. As Vork says, we need everyone: the loud ones, the quiet thoughtful ones, the rash uncritical ones and so on. Consider Richard Dawkins for example, he routinely blunders in matters scientific and a number of scientists think he gives science a bad name, but he is a strong popularizer of science and an aggressive debater and he is not afraid to bring matters to the fore. Even Christopher Hitchens, very media savvy and eloquent but not a very good debater.
Bottom line, we need everyone. If we shut them down on account of facts and inaccuracies, we are cutting down on the number of troops that resonate with us on a foundational level and not helping our cause because the other side does not give a rats ass about facts: all they care about is the spread of a belief - that a HJ existed.

Ted Hoffman, I am a little put off by the mentality that it is all about the progression of a social movement rather than reason. I am certainly unsettled by letting Acharya S suck in more converts just so the movement has more people who believe in a mythical Jesus. Acharya S goes beyond that. I am worried that she is starting a full-blown cult, right in our midst, on the Internet. I am seeing the red flags. Earl Doherty and Robert Price have decided to be nice to her, and that is most worrisome. We can't be just attackers of religion. We have got to be defenders of reason. I am not a Jesus-myther, but I am on your side. I feel like atheists are rallying around exactly the wrong thing. Jesus never existed--it is a thing that effectively hits Christianity over the head, but it does not seem to hold up to fair critical scrutiny, and the majority of critical Bible scholars are not on our side. More importantly, who cares? Do you have to exclude me?

Amaleq13 · 01-24-2008, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

...bringing in converts with their uncritical but controversial and popular potboilers, and Price and Doherty weaning the converts with critical stuff when they come of age.

I wonder if they learned that strategy from Paul?

"And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able." (1 Corinthians 3:1-3, KJV)

Actually, that is how I tend to imagine the Gospels were used as recruiting tools.

schilling.klaus · 01-24-2008, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Acharya S goes beyond that. I am worried that she is starting a full-blown cult, right in our midst, on the Internet.

that's plain paranoia.

Quote:

I am seeing the red flags. Earl Doherty and Robert Price have decided to be nice to her, and that is most worrisome.

Robert Price just turned objective, as he is in most of his many many reviews,
afternoting that he had been a bit subjective for a moment.
He never supports any modern cult whatsoever.

Quote:

Jesus never existed--it is a thing that effectively hits Christianity over the head,

no, it does not, as proper Christianity does not rely on history,
but on inner mystic revelation.

Klaus Schilling

ApostateAbe · 01-24-2008, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schilling.klaus

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Acharya S goes beyond that. I am worried that she is starting a full-blown cult, right in our midst, on the Internet.

that's plain paranoia.

Robert Price just turned objective, as he is in most of his many many reviews,
afternoting that he had been a bit subjective for a moment.
He never supports any modern cult whatsoever.

Quote:

Jesus never existed--it is a thing that effectively hits Christianity over the head,

no, it does not, as proper Christianity does not rely on history,
but on inner mystic revelation.

Klaus Schilling

Christianity is actually very dependent on history. Christians in my part of the world regard the historical accuracy of the scripture as a foundation for their faith. If Jesus existed as only a myth, then Christianity is a complete lie. To most Christians, it is simply unthinkable that Jesus never existed. I knew a Christian over the Internet who was a moderator at a Christian forum. Her participation in debates led her to doubt. When she read the book, The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You to Read (or via: amazon.co.uk), which is largely dependent on the arguments of Acharya S, that was the thing that finally made her lose her faith.

gstafleu · 01-24-2008, 09:49 AM

I suspect that Price is just being "Christian," or at least nice, about it. He may be an MJer, but he still calls himself a "Christian," perhaps in some moral or social sense. I think he explains this in The Reason Driven Life, which I haven't read. He mentions in a couple of places in his other books that something like "helping the little ones" (sorry, "quoting" from memory here) is a worthwhile endeavour. IOW, don't demolish somebody who got some things right, or at least tries to find the right way, even when they get other things wrong. Suffer fools gladly is a similar, though in this case to negative, sentiment. One may not agree with Acharya--and I share many of the criticisms seen on this forum--but she does try to find her own way rather than slavishly follow some authorities. That is to be commended, even if it leads to mistakes. Pointing out the positive in something is not always a sign of weakness!

Gerard Stafleu

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-24-2008, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

One may not agree with Acharya--and I share many of the criticisms seen on this forum--but she does try to find her own way rather than slavishly follow some authorities.

Leaving aside the matter that these are not the only two alternatives available to any one, just what is the particular "way" that AS has "found", and is it really something that's unique to her?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-24-2008, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schilling.klaus

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Acharya S goes beyond that. I am worried that she is starting a full-blown cult, right in our midst, on the Internet.

that's plain paranoia.

Robert Price just turned objective, as he is in most of his many many reviews,
afternoting that he had been a bit subjective for a moment.
He never supports any modern cult whatsoever.

Quote:

Jesus never existed--it is a thing that effectively hits Christianity over the head,

no, it does not, as proper Christianity does not rely on history,
but on inner mystic revelation.

Klaus Schilling

Why should any one accept your claim about what "proper" Christianity relies on?

Jeffrey

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

01-24-2008, 09:49 AM	#18
gstafleu Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: London, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,719	I suspect that Price is just being "Christian," or at least nice, about it. He may be an MJer, but he still calls himself a "Christian," perhaps in some moral or social sense. I think he explains this in The Reason Driven Life, which I haven't read. He mentions in a couple of places in his other books that something like "helping the little ones" (sorry, "quoting" from memory here) is a worthwhile endeavour. IOW, don't demolish somebody who got some things right, or at least tries to find the right way, even when they get other things wrong. Suffer fools gladly is a similar, though in this case to negative, sentiment. One may not agree with Acharya--and I share many of the criticisms seen on this forum--but she does try to find her own way rather than slavishly follow some authorities. That is to be commended, even if it leads to mistakes. Pointing out the positive in something is not always a sign of weakness! Gerard Stafleu

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.