Magdlyn

Are you relying on things written about fundies? I am well acquainted personally with many, unfortunately. I doubt they would have a clue as to what you just wrote above. They are factory workers and Walmart greeters and shoppers and John Deere tractor lovers. They may be functionally illiterate. They are not "fringe." They compose a good chunk of the US population, 30-40%. Again, this is why George Bush is the US president. I just wish they were "fringe."

They look upon college education with suspicion. They've never heard of the scientific method. They have no clue about current "biblical scholarship." They may not even have ever heard of "Evidence that Demands a Verdict," as their reading consists of "Christian," even Amish, romance novels, quilting and knitting instructions, and hunting magazines. They do not have cable TV, or else they get the basic minimum which does not include CNN. Their pastors have told them that TV is evil, and they believe the pastor on most subjects (verbatim: "I'd like to have cable tho, so I could get Fox News" :banghead: ). They are suspicious of outsiders and insulated in their families. They might get the local newspaper which is right wing and mostly focuses on regional high school sports. They are often racist and of course, homophobic. They think America is the only free country in the world. The TV show "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?" is a favorite on their TVs. Answer: no.

Jeffrey Gibson

I admit at the outset that second century satirists are not my field of study, but it strikes me on principle that Lucian (120 - after 180) actually disproves -- or at least casts great doubt on -- your claim. Why write what he does, in the manner he does, if what he considers (and goes to great lengths to excoriate as) "superstition" was not prevalent and vital in the age in which they wrote. Indeed, why write at all if superstitious beliefs were in effect a dead letter?

Do you think Ramsey McMullen and Eugene Lane would agree with you?

Jeffrey

Ben C Smith

(...she means no harm.... )

Ben.

Magdlyn

Thanks, Roger. You're so kind! Keep in mind, my name, which you used in your post, bears a distinct resemblance to Magdalene. Smart Biblical scholars, educated and knowledable, might infer I am a woman.

I was thinking of the rites of ancient Egypt, esp the judgment of the soul by the gods of the underworld.



I was also thinking of the Eleusinian mysteries, and the character of Dionysus as god of grain and wine.

Jeffrey Gibson

I "harm" the issue? Isn't it presumption?

I would argue that our correspondent is no "victim". And if there's been any abuse, it's been self inflicted. This "victim" has been made aware that there is a wealth of scholarly literature out there on the question at hand that contradicts what is claimed to be self evident to those with "clear heads", but has refused to consult it , using the genetic fallacy to do so.

And by the way, this "victim" is a "she", not a "he".

Jeffrey

Roger Pearse

Probably. But few are as humble as you are Jeffrey. My humility isn't nearly as good.

If you say so! But of course you're probably right and I'm being soft. I agree that only permanent and repeated injury will teach him/her/it to behave properly. I suggest that we hang draw and quarter, and then force to attend 'diversity' workshops for two weeks. At the end of that he/she/it will be begging for mercy. And serve him right.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Jeffrey Gibson

Ha!:notworthy:

Nevertheless, I think you will admit that, unlike Magdlyn, I do not make it a habit of making global and apodictic claims about things that examination shows I have no real knowldge of.:devil:

And where on earth did I ever claim to be humble -- as if, when the validity of claims or an unwarranted claim to possession of is the issue -- that's in any way relevant?:wave:

Jeffrey

Magdlyn

This be some weird shiznit.

Still waiting for your definition of "pop-paganism," as well, when you get time, thanks.

Magdlyn

That depends on what you mean by "Jewish" in that time period. Seems like the cult was fractured and traumatized from being invaded and conquered and oppressed so often. We can assume many were grasping at straws, in the midst of their superstitious wonderings about what their god was up to and what "he" expected of them now. Some of them seemed to have turned to apocalypticism and a new defintion of "divine" mosiach, who was more a humiliated scapegoat god than an earthly conquering and ruling king.

Let's beg that bloody question, shall we?

Can you elaborate on that parenthetical addition? Because I think you're suggesting an assumption that some of us may not agree with.


Part of "its" what now?

Why wouldn't it? "Judaism" (whatever that meant in that time, it was so fractured) itself is a mish-mash of Egyptian, Canaanite, Babylonian and Persian religion to begin with! It's all paganism! Just like Xtianity, it attempts to be monotheistic but ends up having all sorts of divinities such as angels, demons, female consorts (such as Wisdom) and saints.

GakuseiDon

These aren't the people I'm talking about. I suspect that they are more indifferent to science than "extremely anti-science". I'm talking about people who go out and question mainstream conclusions. I don't think that they do this because they are "anti-science", anymore than Tertullian was very critical of pagan philosophy because he was "anti-philosophy".