Freethought Nation

presented by Acharya S and TruthBeKnown.com, online since 1995

It is currently Thu May 23, 2013 1:09 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 11:03 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:24 pm
Posts: 4336
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Tat, Thanks for pointing out those time frames on Campbell's video, The Heros Journey DVD about Campbell's life's work and accomplishments.

Were it left up to people like Richard Carrier, there would never be any Joseph Campbells, Acharyas, Barbara Walkers and many others. It just doesn't appear that Carrier has the capacity to understand mythology. Carrier simply never has been and never will be the goto guy for me.

"They must find it hard to take truth for authority, those who have so long mistaken authority for truth."

- Gerald Massey

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 11:54 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 9:32 pm
Posts: 1988
Location: U.S.A.
I've always liked Joseph Campbell. He did great work and gave great lectures. :)

_________________
Mriana

Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man. ~ Gandhi

Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages. ~ Thomas A. Edison


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 2:59 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:09 pm
Posts: 1955
Here is another hint about Campbell knowing fully well that Bible stories were mythical. In my article "What about the Anunnaki?" I write:

Quote:
It is believed that by "dismissing" the myths of the ancients as myths, we are somehow robbing them of their "history." This claim is ludicrous, as it is those who insist that there are no myths who are actually defaming the ancients. It seems as if everyone has already forgotten the work of the learned and esteemed mythologist Joseph Campbell. Campbell knew that major biblical tales, such as that of Moses and the Exodus, were mythical. In his book Occidental Mythology, following a discussion of the Bible, Campbell turns to the "Gods and Heroes of the European West," and says, with apparent resentment:

"Fortunately, it will not be necessary to argue that Greek, Celtic or Germanic myths were mythological. The peoples themselves knew they were myths, and the European scholars discussing them have not been overborne by the idea of something uniquely holy about their topic."

The chapter immediately preceding Campbell's comments is called, "Gods and Heroes of the Levant," in which he discusses biblical stories, which are surely what he's referring to when he says the European scholars are "overborne by the idea of something uniquely holy about their topic." It seems clear to me that he's saying, "Geesh, I can't believe I have to pretend that these stories are 'history,' but at least I don't have to pretend the same thing about these other obvious myths."

It's too bad Campbell had to be constrained because of foolish religious bigotry that forces people to believe in patently mythical tales as "history." I do believe that he had lived to encounter my work, he would really have enjoyed it, especially since it would have liberated him to discuss these biblical myths as myths.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 05, 2010 10:06 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 4:41 pm
Posts: 738
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
"D.M. Murdock could well be the most brilliant, insightful and rigorous theologian writing today." —Robert Tulip

Hi FTL, thanks for including my comment from my review of Christ in Egypt. It may read as somewhat over the top, but after 30 years of reading about the Great Year and mythology, I have not encountered other authors with similar energy and depth of vision in the study of religion compared to Acharya S. Acharya S is a prophet of the Age of Aquarius.

The public invisibility of the debate around mythicism demands analysis. To my reading, a main factor in this general amnesia is that the paradigm of the Great Year provides a framework to interpret religion and mythology that renders conventional theology obsolete. In years to come, a new cosmic paradigm will spread and people will compare today's Bible apologists with the flat-earthers of Galileo's day.

I recently wrote a paper on Blavatsky and the Great Year. Reading her book The Secret Doctrine, which draws heavily on the work of Gerald Massey, it occurred to me that the mythicist movement today has much in common with the theosophy of the nineteenth century. Both look towards a new scientific paradigm that will explain the real nature of mythology, and both are despised and rejected by mainstream opinion, in line with the Bible comment at Isaiah 53:3 that applies to all transformative thought.

The paradigm shift for the New Age is as big as the Copernican revolution, but it operates at an even deeper level of culture. Mythicism opens areas of study that are regarded as taboo because of the fundamental critique posed to the dominant assumption that Abrahamic faiths have an absolute status. The exclusion of mythicist thought from public discussion via university censorship is a scandal, and reflects the narrowing of PhDs into mere training into conformity rather than true education into wisdom.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:09 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:24 pm
Posts: 4336
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
The following is from fellow mythicist Ken Humphreys's site, JesusNeverExisted.com - Ken's got some great stuff over there. Acharya's going include some gems in her Christ Con revision.

Quote:
7. The "NO Credible Historians" Argument

"Ok," says the Apologist as a last resort, "if all what you say is true why aren't ranks of established academics lining up to endorse the Jesus myth idea?"

Unlike men of religion, broad-brush generalists expatiating on life, death and eternity, academia is populated by scholars who are increasingly specialized, knowing more and more about less and less. Personal advancement and professional kudos come from small advances within their own narrow field of research. Understandably many are loath to proffer commentary beyond their own area of expertise.

Within the confines of their own disciplines, academics certainly do challenge and reject biblical nonsense. Many of them are quoted in this collection of articles, indeed have made the demolition of the Jesus myth possible. Few choose to take on "Big Church" with its $billions and millions of gullible supporters. It requires others, not constrained by the politics of academia, to bring the thousand and one pieces together.

Having said that, the idea that Jesus of Nazareth never existed is not new but has been endorsed by a minority of scholars for more than 200 years.

Doubts about the literal truth of the godman were first raised – not by secularists – but by liberal theologians whose reason prevailed over their faith. Sadly, fundamentalism turns that approach on its head, allowing faith to prevail over reason.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 9:38 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:09 pm
Posts: 1955
Credentialism as a Logical Fallacy

In a discussion of Jesus mythicism on Facebook, one poster decided to use credentialism to discredit me while raising up Bart Ehrman as an ultimate authority. Naturally, he had not read my work at all and therefore is no expert on it or the subject in general. He also decided to go on a rampage smearing Barbara Walker as well, as if attacking her personally would discredit both her and my work - neither of which he knows anything about.

First he points to my "author" page with my credentials. Then he links to Ehrman's, commenting:

"Now, Bart Erhman, Ph.D. Princeton Theological Seminary (magna cum laude). You be the judge."

My response is as follows:

That's called "credentialism," which is a logical fallacy. It is also an ad hom, designed to deflect off the subject at hand.

If you haven't studied my work, you don't know what are my creds. Moreover, you have simply dismissed with a wave of your hand my earlier posts regarding working in a variety of languages over the past 25 years on this particular subject of Christianity and comparative religion/mythology. I too was raised a Christian, and I know Christianity very well. I read the New Testament in Greek on a regular basis, as I do with the Old Testament Septuagint, as well as the Hebrew.

Having a PhD in a topic that doesn't cover the bulk of a subject does NOT necessarily make this individual more qualified than someone with an undergraduate degree or postgraduate work in fields that are more relevant.

Moreover, what you have done here is PROVE that Ehrman is biased in precisely the manner I've already discussed: To wit, he is a graduate of a CHRISTIAN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, trained to believe in a "historical Jesus" or one sort or another. He is therefore not unbiased. In fact, this blatant academic bias is one reason I did NOT pursue a master's or doctorate - it frankly would have prevented me from doing the research I've done.

viewtopic.php?p=18805
viewtopic.php?p=24035#p24035

Nor, again, has Ehrman studied the case for mythicism in any depth - I know this fact from his writings. He does not express much if any knowledge about mythology. Therefore, he doesn't know what he's looking at.

In order for one to know what I do or don' t know and how well I present the information, one would need to actually read my work. Otherwise, one is not an expert on it, and wave-of-the-hand dismissals and logical fallacies will not change that fact. Such deflection fallacies are, in fact, a sign of intellectual laziness. Why study the subject yourself, when you can defer to an approved expert to do it for you? What makes you any different than a religious fundamentalist, who relies on authority for his or her viewpoint?

The same goes for your ad hom personal attacks on Barbara Walker. You have obviously not read anything by her. Indeed, from your remarks, sir, you are not fit to be discussing this wonderful woman's work. What are YOUR credentials that make you a fit judge of either her or my work? Why should we listen to your opinion on a subject - her and my work - that you know nothing about?

Perhaps you are just more of the same misogynistic old guard, attacking people because of their gender, without even knowing their work?

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/helen ... buse-women

Or are you an equal opportunity smearer who does the same with all people whose work you don't know in the least? That's intellectual dishonesty, and it should be called out as such by everyone who does have integrity and character.

Nothing you've said here will change the facts of the vast body of research I and others have put together vis-a-vis the patently MYTHICAL Jesus Christ. Do you honestly believe that making personal attacks impugning Walker and my integrity will make your baby Jesus a "real person?"

When you've actually studied the subject, rather than tossing out puerile ad hom fallacies, your opinion may be of note.

Cheers.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 10:47 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:24 pm
Posts: 4336
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
I wanted to re-post Acharya's post here as well.

Quote:
The "No Serious Mythicist Scholar" Fallacy

The "No Serious Mythicist Scholar" fallacy contends that "no serious scholar thinks Jesus Christ is a myth" or "no serious scholar doubts that Jesus Christ ever existed." This fallacy is tossed about all over the place by both believers and evemerists alike. (Evemerists being those who believe, without real evidence, that underneath the fabulous fairytales in the New Testament there's some "real guy" there.)

To begin with, this debacle is like the Islamic Republic president saying there are no gays in Iran - well, gee, that's because you HANG them!

There are no "serious mythicist scholars" because they can't get jobs! And those who engage in mythicist studies, to whatever extent, will be fired. Doh! That's been going on since the days of Dr. David Strauss, at least, and with Rev. Dr. Robert Taylor, a highly erudite and popular English clergyman who was IMPRISONED TWICE for some years in a harsh English prison in the late 1820s to 1830s, charged with "blasphemy" for giving mythicist sermons from his pulpit. And before then? Off with your head, so to speak.

How many people who could see the patent mythology of the gospel tale were not just fired or excluded but KILLED over the centuries?

There's quite obviously been an intellectual purge over the centuries in favor of non-mythicist scholars. And that blatant bias represents a major reason the halls of academia are filled with believers and non-mythicists. It's just more of the same ol' boys club that has gotten us into a huge mess on planet Earth.

So, there's little-to-no merit to the "might makes right" argument here in trying to pound us with the fact that the majority of professional scholars are evemerists or believers. That's quite a deliberate contrivance obviously, since it seems to be the duty of academia to exclude such scholars and their scholarship. Indeed, I've had more than a few scholars and clergymen come to me over the years, telling me they were big fans and had studied this subject both within my works and also in university or seminary, but that they couldn't open their mouths for fear of censure or worse. One scholar at a major North American university even expressed fear for his life! Some of these individuals are on my Facebook page, but they don't want their employers to know, so they never say anything - from my experience of having these individuals pop up on a regular basis, it seems we are seeing just the very tiny tip of a huge iceberg, frankly.

Rubbing this biased development/purge in our faces represents more of the same intimidation and bullying that has kept academic fairly "mythicist-free" all these centuries. The "no serious mythicist scholar" falsehood constitutes not a declaration of facts but a childish "nyah, nyah, nyah" from puerile individuals with their fingers stuck in their ears.

This foolish "no serious scholar" pronouncement also represents cultural myopia and conceit, since there have been and ARE many serious scholars in EUROPE and elsewhere who HAVE engaged in logical, rational mythicist studies over the centuries. Despite such disingenuous declarations and feeble efforts of certain scholars to "do away with" mythicism, there will remain a vast body of literature from EUROPE of which these conceited and arrogant American-supremacist scholars seem to be completely ignorant.

Since these various evemerist and believing critics are so patently clueless about the vast mythicist research out of Europe, they are NOT experts on the subject of mythicism, and their commentary thereupon remains one born of ignorance, not authority. This point of non-expertise cannot be emphasized enough: All those who pretend to be knowledgeable about this subject, when they have not studied this enormous body of mythicist scholarship, in a variety of languages dating back centuries to the present time, are NOT experts, and they should not be treated as such.

On the contrary, it should be pointed out that they are indeed NOT experts - and that means all New Testament/biblical scholars/theologians who have little to no understanding of ancient mythology or the milieu of the day but whose narrowly confined areas of expertise leave them myopic and singularly unqualified to be making pronouncements in this field. There is no requirement whatsoever for these New Testament/biblical scholars to study anything remotely related to mythicism, including ancient mythology, and without this knowledge, they simply do not know what they are looking at.

Moreover, in the long run, I'd rather be in the company of the American Founding Fathers - a number of whom most certainly have dabbled in mythicist thought - than in that of these classless and infantile non-mythicist "scholars" and general ignoramuses who keep raising this falsehood.

Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Count Volney, Ben Franklin - we're in good company, folks.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 10:28 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:09 pm
Posts: 1955
Here's an interesting article about the value of a PhD.

Quote:
Is Graduate School a Ponzi Scheme?

A couple of years ago, this article ran in the Economist. In the article, the author takes the point of view that the pursuit of a PhD degree is a waste of time. Whether or not you agree with this perspective, it is important to consider the points being made. If you are, or have been, a graduate student, you probably learned much of this during your time in graduate school.

1. Imbalance of supply and demand

The article gives some very compelling statistics indicating that there are simply not enough jobs to employ all the PhD students trained annually in professions (as academic professors) for which they were trained. The article suggests that more than 100,000 new PhDs were conferred between 2005 and 2009. There simply aren't that many academic jobs.

2. Limited earning potential

Good news: your PhD degree will earn you about 26% more than your bachelor's degree. Now the bad news: a Master's degree, which takes considerably less time will earn you about 23% more than a bachelor's will. The numbers here are simple: if the outcomes you are primarily concerned with are financial, the PhD doesn't seem to make sense (or cents) for people.

3. A source of cheap labor

The article points out one of the more depressing aspects of the PhD degree: Graduate school is a source of extremely cheap labor for the university. Graduate students perform much of the labor in the experiments and also tend to teach many of the courses offered by the university. This is a problem because there are incentives, very unfortunately, to admit more graduate students and confer more PhDs despite the limited earning potential and imbalance of supply and demand.

Again, I highly recommend reading this article, especially since most of the people who we seek advice from about graduate school tend to err on the positive side of things. In terms of the article, that graduate students are a source of cheap labor becomes apparent in the first semesters of graduate school. I must have taught smallish sections of undergraduates for 10 semesters during my graduate years (e.g., grading exams, serving as a liason between students and professors). Graduate students do this work to cover tuition costs and for a small stipend. I could have used a little extra money during graduate school.

And unfortunately, your earning potential doesn't improve a whole lot after that. When I start my new professor job at the University of Illinois in June, it's not going to make me a part of the 1%. If money is your primary concern, there are plenty of jobs you could do where you don't have to work for peanuts for the first 6 years.

Let's not forget, I'm one of the lucky ones, fortunate to land an academic job despite the imbalance of supply and demand caused by the huge number of PhDs conferred yearly. Others will have very different career paths, and will land jobs in other fields, for which they don't have explicit training.

So, much of what is written in the economist article is true about graduate school. And I think it is important to consider these problems with the PhD conferral system. For one, academic institutions might want to consider shrinking the number of graduate students they admit annually. I also think this article sheds light on the importance of labor unions for graduate students. These unions can protect the work rights of graduate students whose work can be taken advantage of by the university. The article also highlights the importance of finding a great graduate mentor--a professor who will look out for your career and your best interests. Unfortunately there are a lot of individual differences in mentoring ability (Cronan-Hillix et al., 1986).

On the other hand, I think that the rewards of an academic life are not likely to be financial. Rather, the rewards lie in the intellectual pursuits of academic work and the challenges that occur during the time that one is a graduate student. These intellectual pursuits are a privilege that graduate students enjoy, and perhaps no other occupation has them. Sure they are combined with long hours and little pay, but I think many students sacrifice these things for the possibility that they will discover something new, and forever add to scientific knowledge.

I also believe that earning a PhD and working in an unrelated profession doesn't have to be seen as a failure. There are many jobs out there in the Bay Area alone that require statistical training, or web design experience, or survey/interview experience. These jobs are perfect for someone with the rigorous experience a PhD requires. Sure they probably don't earn the type of salary earned by a corporate CEO, but they represent an employable path for PhD students who are finished with academic life and ready for the professional world. Graduate students should entertain the idea that they are entrepreneurs as well as researchers. It's not always a sad story for graduate students, and I think the Economist article missed that a bit.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 12:29 pm 
Offline
Newbie

Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 11:50 am
Posts: 5
I think credentials are important. When I'm reading about say, Early Modern England, I want to know that the person I'm getting my information from is an expert in the field. I don't have time to research the subject on my own, so I expect them to distill their wide learning in the field into something accurate that I can learn from.

But of course, religion and mythology are close companions, and "credentials" in these fields is quite a different thing than credentials in other areas. Studying religion means studying beliefs, legends, astrology, supernaturalism, and so forth. What is ironic is that it's the myths that make the religions interesting and worth studying, not the "historicity." And yet Ph.D.-level courses in Christianity throw cold water on this, because the whole point of their courses is to somehow demonstrate that their pet religion is not mythical. And the main result of this process is to de-mytholgize the Jesus figure, take him out of the mystical realm that early Christians imagined for him, and make him into a boring "apocalyptic prophet" a la William Miller or Harold Camping. Such a figure is historically tenable but of little value to Christianity. It was the magical myth that brought the people into the faith -- and still does. The resurrected Kurios Christos has intense mythological value -- the "apocalyptic prophet that failed" is a boring historical footnote.

So if "credentialed" people like Bart Ehrman take a mythology class at all (which isn't required), it is not to learn about the rich world of mythology, but instead merely to contrast "old myths of dead gods" against the supposed reality of their pet religion. I feel sorry for such people. This wall that supposedly divides Christianity from mythology -- Greek, Jewish, Egyptian, or otherwise -- is not only entirely illusory, it actually prevents them from reaching a full understanding of Christianity. The snake-handlers of Kentucky are closer to the ancient mystical experience of Christianity than the modern scholar will ever be. The latter teaches a completely de-mystified and academically "safe" topic for our modern but sterile secular world; the former must feel emotions akin to those ancients when they entered the "bridal chamber" to become unified with the Celestial Bridegroom, the mystical Christos giving them the magic power to defeat death and achieve immortality.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 3:49 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:24 pm
Posts: 4336
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Shocking news: Biblical scholars are mostly Christians

Atheists in Biblical Scholarship (on Prof. Bauerlein’s ‘Haidt Speech’ Post)

Why Young People Are Becoming Secular

More Young Americans Doubt God Exists Than Ever Before:

Young Americans Losing Faith? New Poll Shows 31 Percent Of Adults Under 30 Doubt God Exists

Study: Atheists Most Discriminated Minority

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 3:53 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:09 pm
Posts: 1955
Persecuted for Mythicism

Here is yet another horror story about someone who questioned the literalness of various Bible stories. His name is Rev. Dr. Alexander Geddes, a Roman Catholic priest who was commissioned to translate the Bible into English. He did not finish that task, and his "liberalism" in the part he did complete got him into hot water with the authorities. I suspect that his discussion of Origen and others' allegorical understanding of scripture was a major part of this offensive liberalism.

In his translation of the Bible, Geddes (viii) refers to the allegorical - i.e., mythical - biblical interpretation by Jewish philosopher Philo Judaeus of Alexander (20 BCE-50 AD/CE):

Quote:
This allegorical mode of explaining the fall (and indeed the whole cosmogony) by the most ancient professed interpreter whose works have come down to us, appeared so ingenious and satisfactory to the more early Christian fathers, that, with some little variations, they generally adopted it. It was adopted, if we may credit Anastasius Sanita, by Papias, Pantaenus, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria; and we are certain it was adopted and improved upon by Origen. From Origen, it was borrowed by the Gregories of Nyssa and Nazianzum; and among the Latins, by St. Ambrose. There were not, however, wanting writers who contended for a literal meaning, and who charged the Origenists with impiety and heresy: particularly, the credulous Epiphanius, and the acrimonious Jerom....

Geddes compounded this "error" by composing another text, Critical Remarks on the Hebrew Scriptures, for which he lost his vocation.

Quote:
He died without recanting, but received absolution at the hands of a French priest, though public mass for his soul was forbidden by the ecclesiastical powers.

Yet, Geddes was undefeated, as he left behind some very juicy quotes. It should be noted that he remained a devoted Christian, a sort of Catholic Unitarian, who wanted to strip away the unseemly Jewish and Pagan layers to find a pristine Jesus, whom we understand today to be a phantom. In any event, following are more of his great quotes, from both his Bible translation and his Critical Remarks.

Quote:
We have now got to the end of the mythos of Moses; or whoever else was the author of the wonderful production. I trust that I have done something like justice to its beauties; and that it will appear, on the whole, to be a well devised, well delineated, well executed piece: nay, that it has not equal in all the mythology of antiquity: I mean, if it be considered, not as a real history, nor as a mere mystical allegory; but, such as I have throughout exhibited it, a most charming political fiction, dressed up for excellent purposes in the garb of history, and adapted to the gross concepts and limited capacity of a rude, sensual and unlearned credulous people.

Guess where I'm using these quotes? Yep, Did Moses Exist?

Quote:
On the whole then I think it may be laid down as an axiom that the bulk of Christians, whether Papists or Protestants, cannot be said to have a rational faith, because their motives of credibility are not rational motives but the positive assertions of an assumed authority, which they have never discussed, or durst not question: their religion is the fruit of unenlightened credulity. A very small number of curious and learned men only, have thoroughly examined the motives of their religious belief, in any communion: and it will be found, I presume, that the more curious and learned they were, the less they generally believed. Hence, perhaps, the old adage: Ignorance is the mother of devotion…

In the Hebrew scriptures are many beauties, many excellent precepts, much found morality: and they deserve the attentive perusal of every scholar, every person of curiosity and taste. All those good things I admit, and admire, and would equally admire them in the writings of Plato, Tully, or Marcus Antoninus: but there are other things in great abundance, which I can neither admire nor admit; without renouncing common sense, and superseding reason: a sacrifice which I am not disposed to make, for any writing in the world.

Critical Remarks, 1.v-vi

And another great one that I can really relate to!

Quote:
Most of my censurers are anonymous scribblers, who insidiously aim their shafts at me from behind a bush; and on whom, were I even to detect them in their lurking-holes, I should hardly waste a penful of ink. Let them continue to throw their impotent darts, and scatter their innocent firebrands, as long as they please. I shall imitate an emperor, who, when he was told that the rabble had thrown dirt at his statue, rubbed his face, and said, "I feel it not." The teethless cur may bark, and bark; but cannot inflict a deadly bite...

Critical Remarks, 1.vii

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:56 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:24 pm
Posts: 4336
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
A re-post from here.

Quote:
Is There a Christian Agenda Behind Religious Studies Departments?

Here is another great article by Rafael Lataster, discussed above as a Jesus mythicist working towards his Master's thesis at the University of Sydney - now completed!

Quote:
Raphael wrote his Master’s thesis on Jesus mythicism, concluding that historical and Bayesian reasoning justifies a sceptical attitude towards the ‘historical Jesus’.

I am informed that Rafael has an "article soon to be published by Think (Cambridge) on Jesus' resurrection" in which he is arguing "that Jesus' ahistoricity is the more likely hypothesis."

I also found that Rafael published an article in January entitled, "Is There a Christian Agenda Behind Religious Studies Departments?" Great to see people within academia dealing with such issues. Reminds one of the "Religion and the PhD" thread on this forum.

Quote:
Is There a Christian Agenda Behind Religious Studies Departments? By Raphael Lataster

Published by the Religious Studies Project, on 23 January 2013 in response to the Religious Studies Project Interview with Dale Martin on Religious Studies and Biblical Studies (21 January 2013).

Around the half-way mark of Jack Tsonis’ interview with Professor Dale Martin, a contention was raised, that if true, is damaging to Religious Studies (and related disciplines), and betrays the value and one of the key initial purposes of the field. It is obvious to many of us that Religious Studies is useful, due in part to the critical, secular, etic approach to religion that it encourages. (Although this does not necessitate that Religious Studies scholars be irreligious, or be forbidden to or encouraged to avoid teaching or researching their own personal faith). Tsonis questions Martin on criticism that many Religious Studies scholars are effectively arguing for the usefulness of religion, demonstrating a pro-religious agenda. Tsonis mentions one academic claiming that Religious Studies scholars “claim the prestige of the university while following the rules of the seminary.” Tsonis wonders if this is a real phenomenon, and what effects this may have on our colleagues’ methodologies, funding, and employment prospects. Martin’s answer is thoughtful, but also damning.

In attempting to deny the claim, Martin acknowledges that many scholars working in Biblical Studies are Christians, and many of them are of the conservative type. He then says that the claim does not align with his experience, citing examples of scholars teaching on Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam, without personally practicing or arguing for those faiths. It seems that not only has Martin acknowledged the issue in a roundabout way, but also alludes to a greater problem: the imbalance of power, the greater influence of Christianity in Western academia, compared with other religions, both major and minor. This discussion prompted me to reminisce about my own experiences in my first year of working in the scholarly world, particularly in initiating my Master’s research dissertation.

I faced opposition from within the department to the extent that I had considered abandoning the project. These challenges presented themselves despite the fact that I had not yet decided the angle, or of course, the conclusions. What was the topic that proved so challenging to research? Jesus mythicism, the contention that there may not have been a ‘historical Jesus’. I would eventually pass, with the examiners – themselves scholars of Religious Studies – agreeing that a review of the methods of many Biblical scholars is necessary (for example, the increasingly-maligned Criteria of Authenticity) and that it is entirely rational to be sceptical over the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. Such conclusions should not necessarily be so controversial in a field dedicated to the critical and non-confessional study of religion. More worryingly, there were instances where I felt pressure to alter the direction of the project, in order to allow for more ‘Christian-friendly conclusions’.

But why would such respected scholars wish to interfere with the most fundamental of academic freedoms? It may have had something to do with their personal religious beliefs about Jesus. Interestingly however, such belief is not actually required for such a reaction. One example is provided by noted Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman, one of many secular New Testament experts. Professor Ehrman is an outspoken atheist, yet dogmatically defends the historicity of Jesus and the usefulness of his teachings, while harshly and fallaciously (Lataster 2013) criticising those scholars that are audacious enough to be more sceptical than he (Ehrman 2012). Hector Avalos argues that even many non-Christian scholars are influenced by the political power, and finances, of pro-Christian organisations (Avalos 2007). Avalos claims that positive attitudes towards the Bible, Christianity, and religion in general, is often seen as necessary in order to keep these academic disciplines relevant, and funded.

Hoping that Avalos’ gloomy conclusions were wrong, and that experiences such as my own are rare, I would then discover a powerful Christian undercurrent in a related – and perhaps more esteemed – field; ancient history. While studying the historical Jesus under one of Tsonis’ colleagues from the Ancient History department of Macquarie University, I ‘learnt’ that there is a “resurrection-shaped dent in the historical record.” I would then participate in a public debate against one of my own Religious Studies postgraduate colleagues, and another Ancient Historian from Macquarie University, where my (Christian) opponents used their authority as subject-matter experts in attempting to convince the audience that it is perfectly rational to believe that a miracle-man was brought back from the dead by an unproven deity. It didn’t matter to this ancient historian that his resurrection claim is burdened by a crippling prior probability, is supported by extremely poor sources, or that there are far more probabilistic – and naturalistic – explanations, despite his agreeing with my reasonable claim that history is probabilistic. Christian influences can even be found in Philosophy departments, once great bastions of rationalism and scepticism, via Philosophy of Religion (Quadrio 2009).

Back to the interview, Martin further addresses the contention that Religious Studies scholars border on being crypto-theologians, and defends his ‘insider’ status. He argues that his Biblical criticisms ought to be given more weight (compared with a non-believer’s criticisms) as he is a Christian, and might be expected to aggressively defend his faith and agree more with his fellow adherents. As with the speculative criterion of embarrassment, Martin’s criticisms are partly interesting due to their counter-intuitive nature. These relatively small criticisms however, must be weighed against the fact that Martin still believes the unsubstantiated and question-begging claim that Jesus was resurrected from the dead, by God. Fortunately, in a recent debate, he correctly acknowledges that Jesus’ resurrection cannot be established historically, though this belief does form a part of his worldview (Licona et al. 2012), his values, and ultimately, would be expected to directly or indirectly affect his researching and teaching on Christianity. Martin might indeed offer the occasional criticism here or there, resulting in minor conflict with his fellow believers, but he stops short of, and would not be expected to, criticising and renouncing Christianity and Christian beliefs as a whole.

Further commenting on what became the dominant theme of the interview, Martin offered a surprising and seemingly unreasonable counter to the claim that Religious Studies scholars are apologising for religion. Instead of denying this claim, he accuses English, History, and Political Science scholars as being apologists for modern liberalism. Rather than outright denying or acknowledging what may be a vitally important issue in education, Martin offers a tu quoque justification. i.e. “Everyone else does it.” With the discussion drawing to a close, Martin demonstrates an example of my claim that what he offers is only relatively benign pseudo-criticism of his faith. He criticises researchers who attempt to show the similarities of Christianity to other religions and myths (an important and historical foundation of Religious Studies), while asking scholars to be more open-minded to the potential truth of supernatural events and experiences. I am not arguing that the perspectives of ‘insiders’ are not valuable, that religious believers are unwelcome in Religious Studies departments, and related fields, or that religion is not a force for good in the world. I merely wish to share my own experiences on the matter, and to encourage scholars to leave their personal beliefs at the door, as they enter the sacred grounds of the University.

(This material is disseminated under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. and can be distributed and utilised freely, provided full citation is given.)

About the Author

With a background in pharmacy, medicine, and finance, Raphael Lataster is a hopeful PhD candidate, having recently passed his Master of Arts (Research), undertaken in the Department of Studies in Religion at the University of Sydney, with Distinction. His main research interests include Christian origins, logic, epistemology, justifications and social impacts of secularism, Taoism, overpopulation and sustainability concerns, pantheism, and pandeism. Raphael wrote his Master’s thesis on Jesus mythicism, concluding that historical and Bayesian reasoning justifies a sceptical attitude towards the ‘historical Jesus’. For his doctoral work, Raphael will analyse the major philosophical arguments for God’s existence (as argued by William Lane Craig, Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga and Thomas Aquinas), attempt to demonstrate the logical impossibility of the monotheistic concept, explore the theological tendencies of Philosophy of Religion, and formulate a conditional logical argument for a pantheistic weltanschauung. Raphael is currently writing and attempting to publish numerous articles summarising his Master’s dissertation, and exploring the themes of his proposed doctoral project. Raphael is always open to – and encourages – feedback and advice, especially regarding the politics and processes of academia and publishing, and alternative worldviews.

Of course, James McGrath just had to attempt to refute Rafael:

Religious Studies and Christian Agendas

It continues to surprise that individuals like McGrath find it so irritating that people question the gospel story, as if blindly believing in a superhuman Jewish man who purportedly lived 2,000 years ago as the incarnation of the God of the cosmos is so very intelligent and morally superior to questioning such a tale. It is not. Believing in this culturally biased fairytale without any solid proof and without knowing that numerous of the "Christians" motifs and doctrines could be found within pre-Christian religion and mythology represents a scientifically inferior and disingenuous perspective.

In any event, I wish Rafael well in his pursuits, and I follow his career with interest.

Amusingly, while searching the Cambridge Journal Think website, I came across this article:

Quote:
AGAINST MYTHICISM: A CASE FOR THE PLAUSIBILITY OF A HISTORICAL JESUS

A position that appears to be growing in popularity in atheist and rationalist circles is known as ‘mythicism’. According to this position we have no adequate reason to believe that the gospels refer to a historical figure called Jesus at all. This position of strong scepticism holds that the gospels are entirely mythological texts and that we are mistaken in reading them as embellished accounts of a man who lived and preached in the Middle East around 2000 years ago. I disagree with this position for a number of reasons. In particular, I contend that the apocalyptic material found on Jesus' lips and the hopes for a very real earthly historical transformation strongly suggest that there is an underlying historical basis to the claims that a man named Jesus made ‘prophetic’ statements about events that were expected to happen within his lifetime, and that this historical figure was considered by his band of followers to be the long awaited Messiah. The fact that hopes for eschatological transformation and claims of the coming of a Messiah are nothing more than religious mythological notions does not preclude there having been a historical figure to which these hopes were attached.

Edmund Standing holds a BA in Theology & Religious Studies and an MA in Critical & Cultural Theory and writes regularly for the websites Harry's Place and Butterflies & Wheels, amongst others. This article was first published at ButterfliesAndWheels.com and the online version includes references for all works cited: http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/art ... hp?num=378

It is great to see that mythicism is becoming so popular that papers like this one are needed to be published in peer-reviewed academic journals. Needless to say, the argument does not suffice to demonstrate that the "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is anything but a fictional compilation of characters, real and mythical.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2013 10:23 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:09 pm
Posts: 1955
Academia and Sociopathy

I'm in my umpteenth discussion with a professional scholar displaying typical academic personality oddities, such as pedantry, "anal retentiveness," rudeness, arrogance and contempt, all the while pretending not to "show off." No offense to professional scholars in general, as I am NOT generalizing ALL of them, and I count many among my friends.

However, far too often there appears to be a certain antisocial quality about those who end up in the hallowed halls of academia. I noticed this "sociopathy," as it were, when I was in college and grad school - it's the main reason I did not pursue my higher education. The fact that such antisocial personalities now are in positions of power to determine reality for the rest of us is a syndrome I call "Revenge of the Nerds."

In many instances, our esteemed scholars suffered from bullying such as "pantsing," etc., and it shows in their personalities and mentalities as adults. Although I was the first and often the only one to defend people against bullies, I wasn't impressed with this contrived antisocial snobbery in college, and I'm not impressed now. This contemptuous snootiness is just a different form of bullying.

I'm serious when I say that it is because of the oppressive personalty quirks of "authorities" that I did not pursue my higher educational studies within academia.

Here's an example of the LACK OF WISDOM on the part of pedantic intellectuals.

A professional scholar complained about my inclusion of scholars' "doctor" titles in my writings, trying to claim that it is just too pretentious and ostentatious to put in one's academic achievements. Hence, we have a practiced contrivance to put on airs of being among the "common people."

When I responded that my LAY readers are reluctant simply to accept the word of just anyone and that non-credentialed sources are pilloried relentlessly, this academic replied:

"If your readers are authority-centered you might have a problem. Anyway, in that case, in order to satisfy their perverse need for submission..."

I think we can see why the ideas of many scholars never "trickle down" to the masses. I can assure this person that HIS readers also are "authority-centered," as they will barely look down their noses at anyone who does NOT have a PhD or DD, etc., after his/her name.

viewtopic.php?p=18804

So, we are supposed to be contemptuous of the common man on the one hand, and pretentious that we are no more knowledgeable than the common man on the other hand.

It's really frustrating! Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

But the public at large benefits from my bailing out of this bilious boat decades ago.

Here's another example:

"Writing 'Did Jesus Exist" was an interesting task. For one thing, before writing the book, like most New Testament scholars, I knew almost nothing about the mythicist movement. I think mythicists themselves find this very frustrating, that their work is not taken seriously – in fact is not really even known – by precisely the scholars they would most like to convince. But that’s just the way it is."

- Dr. Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist as Part One

So, here Ehrman is being contemptuous of Jesus mythicism by asserting that "no real scholars," so to speak, know anything about it, demonstrating how insignificant the perception is.

However, what Ehrman is really admitting here is that, until very recently, he knew NOTHING about mythicism. This fact is demonstrated on every page of his book, which reveals he knows very little about the subject matter - yet, he is pretending to be an expert in it!

Since he still knows next to nothing about Jesus mythicism, he should not have been writing a definitive book on the subject in the first place.

Elsewhere, Ehrman emphasizes again his own and other scholars' ignorance. I should add that in the rebuttal book, Frank Zindler's emails - PROVIDED WITH EHRMAN'S PERMISSION - demonstrate handily that Ehrman was ignorant of the mythicist case. Again, as such, he should not have been writing a definitive book on the subject.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2013 11:47 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 7:45 am
Posts: 525
This got me curious to do a little experiment, and the results lead me to conclude that this person might be relating his/her own experience rather than some universal etiquette.

At Google Books I typed in "Dr." along with the names of few of the scholars who come up when researching this topic (comparative mythology), and, while not universal, there are some academic publications that show up in the results putting the person's credentials in front of his/her name.

"Dr. Erik Hornung"

"Dr. Jan Assmann"

"Dr. James P. Allen"

"Dr. M.J. Vermaseren"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2013 6:22 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:24 pm
Posts: 4336
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Get a load of these quotes all in one blog:

Quote:
Bultmann (1958): “Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the oldest Palestinian community.”

Bornkamm (I960): “To doubt the historical existence of Jesus at all . . . was reserved for an unrestrained, tendentious criticism of modern times into which it is not worth while to enter here.”

Marxsen (1970): “I am of the opinion (and it is an opinion shared by every serious historian) that the theory ['that Jesus never lived, that he was a purely mythical figure'] is historically untenable.”

Grant (1977): “To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has ‘again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars.’ In recent years ‘no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus’—or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.”

M. Martin (1991): “Well’s thesis [that Jesus never existed] is controversial and not widely accepted.”

Van Voorst (2000): “Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their [i.e., Jesus mythers] arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely.”

Burridge and Could (2004): “There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more.”

Allison (“Explaining,” 2005): “No responsible scholar can find any truth in it.”

Maier (2005): “the total evidence is so overpowering, so absolute that only the shallowest of intellects would dare to deny Jesus’ existence.”

R. J. Miller in Scott, ed. (Finding, 2008): “We can be certain that Jesus really existed (despite a few hyper-historical skeptics who refuse to be convinced).”

Vermes (2008): “Let me state plainly that I accept that Jesus was a real historical person. In my opinion, the difficulties arising from the denial of his existence, still vociferously maintained in small circles of rationalist ‘dogmatists,’ far exceed those deriving from its acceptance.”

C. A. Evans in Evans and Wright (2009): “No serious historian of any religious or nonreligious stripe doubts that Jesus of Nazareth really lived in the first century and was executed under the authority of Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea and Samaria.”

- Do Historical Scholars Think Jesus Existed?

Same as on the first page of this thread, they make these types of comment but, they're never able to provide 'burden of proof' to substantiate the claims. That has never stopped them from making these comments though and it's all a typical Christian needs to hear so they often never check or read any further. These scholars really should be embarrassed by these claims of certainty but, they're not, they're as proud as ever because they have many Christians cheering them on. It's truly bizarre in the 21st century to see people demand that faith and euphoria trump credible evidence that actually exists proving these contentions false.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group