Ted Hoffman

By libidinizing and oedipalizing the debate, you have made us all psychoneurotics whose greatest joy is to have our preferred portrait resurrect from the tomb of criticism. We triumph vicariously as the potrait emerges from the tomb, flinging off the sepulchral walls of criticism. The tomb represents the womb and the portrait is the phallus. But your position is conflicted because by presenting yourself as standing on a higher ground, you are stuck in the same psychoneurotic loop because that higher ground merely represents an enlarged phallus in Freudian terms. That hard, erectile ground stabbing the sky makes you feel secure. The sense of security is an artifact of an unresolved fixation with the phallus, which is ineradicably hard, pointed and penetrative.
Calling us liars and crooks shows how oedipalized your perspective is: you want to be like us, so you hate us for being what you are not. Just like the kid in the oedipal stage wants his mother but hates his father for having her. As such, you are busted as the individual stuck in an oedipal conflict.

Do you know what treatment Freud would recommend for people like you?

No Robots

I googled "libido dominandi". It comes from Augustine and means "desire for domination". It has nothing to do with Freud.

Ted Hoffman

Desire for domination is sexual. Freud said all such drives (desire for success, dominance etc) are libidinal - they are driven by the id - which is dominated by the pleasure principle. You haven't read Freud?

Solo

Don't know - what do you mean by pointy end of the fundamentalist stick ?

Jiri

Solo

Have no idea, Jacob. What do you think Freud would recommend for people like me ? And, who are people like me ?

Jiri

Solo

He might not have read Freud, but you have forgotten Freud. The "higher ground" (of which you accuse me) comes not from the projected id but from the internalized paternal figure which Freud called the superego.

Jiri

No Robots

I mean that mythicism and fundamentalism are allied in seeking to dismantle academe's smug satisfaction with its brand of liberal Christianity. It also seems to me that many mythicists come from a fundamentalist background, and they retain many attributes of that background: literalism, exclusionism, persecutionism, intransigeance, missionary zeal. They have learned that you can go a long way defending the indefensible. They also retain a special contempt for liberal thought.

For myself, I see mythicism, fundamentalism and academic liberal Christianity as allied together against the development of a naturalistic Christianity devoid of miracles and the supernatural.

RPS

I think an alternate option would be far better for the MJ contingent -- affirmative peer-reviewed publication.

Toto

At least one: Ehrman sees Jesus as a failed apocalyptic prophet. I don't think that Ehrman himself is apocalyptic or admires people like that.

Mel Gibson's Jesus and Jerry Falwell's Jesus might fit this libido dominandi paradigm.

Otherwise both HJers and MJers have too many complex motives or lack of motive for you to make such sweeping generalizations.

Toto

To All:

Please avoid this sort of group libel and attempt at mind reading. It does nothing for the discussion.