posted
Dragonee, you merely use ridicule and name-calling. What I said is nonetheless true.
Funny you refer to "fundamentalist historical revisionism," when in fact the views I set forth are the ones that were the original ones, going back hundreds of years, and evident in virtually all history texts more than 50 years ago. The revisionism is what is evident now, in the new order of books being produced by spin-doctors masquerading as historians.
[ October 21, 2003, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
can't wait for fugu's response am wondering if dkw is going to further grace this thread with her presence if I were her I don't know if I would but I wonder what she would say
posted
Ron, I don’t deny that there is a sharp division over which methods of criticism are proper, although I disagree that there are only two sides to the argument. My concern is that you are misrepresenting your opponents. I asked you for a specific example of any scholar making claims such as you put in the mouths of the “higher” critics. I’m still waiting for one.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron...you've quoted or cited only two Bible translations (KJV and NKJV), the First Amendment, and two encyclopedias ( Britannica and Americana), none of which, as far as I can see, which actually speak to your accusations of "...rewiting history to try to spin-doctor the real role the hierarchy of the medieval church played" in the darkness of the Dark Ages and of "...books being produced by spin-doctors masquerading as historians...".
I wish you would explain why we are supposed to take your statements as anything more than personal opinion without some sort of documentation. Why, without that documentation backing up your assertions, should we just take your word, accept that you are right and all those scholars with all that professional experience are wrong?
I am not saying that you are not entitled to your opinion. You are. But without some sort of sense that it is an informed opinion, which would be demonstrated by particular citations to particular books, I for one am not inclined to take your opinion as anything more than personal biases. I am sorry if this seems harsh, but I was trained to back up my assertions, particularly controversial ones, with some sort of evidence that others can go look up and verify independently.
I don't claim that any of the things I have said in my posts in this thread are anything more than personal opinion, formed by personal experience. You are claiming much more than that - moral and historical certainty - and you are making some pretty heavy charges of historical revisionism. These charges, at least, require backup with more specific information from specific sources.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert Dagonee, you merely use ridicule and name-calling. What I said is nonetheless true.
Funny you refer to "fundamentalist historical revisionism," when in fact the views I set forth are the ones that were the original ones, going back hundreds of years, and evident in virtually all history texts more than 50 years ago. The revisionism is what is evident now, in the new order of books being produced by spin-doctors masquerading as historians.
I used a little name-calling after your statement that “anyone who says any different is misled” while still not citing ANY sources. So, you called me misled, I called you ignorant. I apologize for name calling, but not for the stridency of my arguments.
I cited one source which represents a pretty commonly accepted view of history. I also suggested a book which speaks to this issue in a novel way. You gave me one quotation with no attribution and a vague charge that a new revisionist movement is trying to hide this truth that seemingly only you know and won’t provide sources to.
So, either point me to a source describing this great historical revision and how the Church was the “sole” cause of the dark ages or give some other basis for your claims. This is a discussion board, not an assertion board. If you won’t provide ANY backup for your position, no discussion is possible.
posted
Ron, please recognize that some of your statements here -- that fundamentalist historians are the only ones to document the "true" history of the Church, that Catholicism was responsible for the Dark Ages, and the like -- are not being presented to us as logical conclusions, but rather as premises on which you're building other arguments. You are then asking us to take these premises on faith.
Unfortunately, since the rejection of these premises is absolutely central to some of the arguments against your conclusions, people cannot do so.
In situations where this is not true, people are generally happy to take your statements at face value; however, when you're asking them to scuttle their entire set of dialectical premises just because you think yours are BETTER, you need to give them compelling reasons.
It's always been my belief that the key to being a powerful and persuasive debater is not necessarily in being charismatic or even having encyclopedic knowledge of the subject; it's being able to recognize which premises you and your audience do not share, and working to reconcile those.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm still waiting for a REASON that the Bible must be the whole and complete Truth of God.
In that every reference within the Bible that could be interpreted as saying that the Bible is god-breathed or perfect or whole or complete was written long before our modern 66-book compilation was ever collected in one place, much less understood to be "scripture", I need a reason OUTSIDE of the Bible to explain why it holds such a lofty position in modern Christianity. At what point did the Creator make clear that this collection of documents--noting also the exclusion of many other related texts--is His complete and inerrant Scripture?
On what do you base this belief, Ron?
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Caleb, if you haven't come across it yet, you would love Elaine Pagels' work. She's a thorough, careful academic who has looked into some of the non-canonized Christian literature of the early Church, and she discusses the decision-making process in depth.
posted
I'll second CT's vote for Pagels. Her work is fantastic. She's a fairly interesting speaker too (I was fortunate enough to get to see her when she spoke at the University of Kansas a few years ago).
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the recommendation, CT. Which work of hers would be the best to start with? The Gnostic Gospels?
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Gnostic Gospels is a good start. It introduces the reader to the huge controversy over the Dead Sea scrolls.
Noemon, I saw her speak as well, and I had the joy of sharing a dinner with her (along with many other people). Like OSC, she was one of the bright lights that was brought to my alma mater, thanks in good part to the work of my mentor. We had an awesome discussion series.
------------------------------------------------
Edit: I haven't read her latest, Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas, but I heard her speak about it on public radio. On reading the editorial reviews at amazon.com, I think this may be where you might want to start. (See excerpt below.) She has an avid and sincere interest in Christianity, and she writes out that passion with an amazing depth of critical analysis.
quote:Elaine Pagels, one of the world’s most important writers and thinkers on religion and history, and winner of the National Book Award for her groundbreaking work The Gnostic Gospels, now reflects on what matters most about spiritual and religious exploration in the twenty-first century. This bold new book explores how Christianity began by tracing its earliest texts, including the secret Gospel of Thomas, rediscovered in Egypt in 1945.
When her infant son was diagnosed with fatal pulmonary hypertension, Elaine Pagels’s spiritual and intellectual quest took on a new urgency, leading her to explore historical and archeological sources and to investigate what Jesus and his teachings meant to his followers before the invention of doctrine–and before the invention of Christianity as we know it.
posted
"Elaine Pagels’s spiritual and intellectual quest took on a new urgency, leading her to explore historical and archeological sources and to investigate what Jesus and his teachings meant to his followers before the invention of doctrine–and before the invention of Christianity as we know it."
Well I just might look into this one, because it's long been my contention that "what Jesus and his teachings meant to his followers" was something wholly different from the version we get with "the invention of doctrine...and Christianity as we know it".
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Answering every demand people have made of me here would require that I devote my entire career to documenting the things I have said and revealing all the changes that have taken place in history texts. Even then some people would just continue arguing out of habit or a dedication to debate.
I do wish to jar the paradigm of history many people assume to be true, and let them know there is another view of history than the one they have been given. The reason why this is so important is that if we do not know true history, we cannot learn the lessons that need to be learned from it, and to borrow from Santanya, we would be condemned to repeat the errors of history.
If people do not realize that the real lesson of the Dark Ages is that church must never be allowed to mingle with state, because the result is mental tyranny where force is used to compel individual conscience and no one can be free, then nothing will prevent it from happening again. The Dark Ages will return, and dissenters will be martyred once more.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was adopted because the founders of our country did know the true lesson of the Dark Ages, and sought to guard against any church or all churches ever again being able in this country to use the secular power to enforce church edicts and impose institutions or any other "establishment" of the church on those who dissent. Because this true view of history has been lost sight of by present generations, the lesson has been forgotten, and the chorus of voices is growing that denounces the First Amendment's implied principle of "separation of church and state." It is a shattering irony that the loudest voices calling for a weakening of the First Amendment are fundamentalist Protestants.
Let this continue, and the First Amendment will come to be set aside, and church-inspired edicts will be enforced, requiring everyone to attend church and observe various traditions of the churches, for the "moral good" of society. Anyone who then dissents will be branded a betrayer of the public good, and the fires of persecution will be rekindled. Not only could it happen in America, it is in the process of happening. The last bulwarks of resistance against this are crumbling, and all but gone.
Take my warning seriously, or not, as you will. We will all live with the consequences.
[ October 22, 2003, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert Answering every demand people have made of me here would require that I devote my entire career to documenting the things I have said and revealing all the changes that have taken place in history texts. Even then some people would just continue arguing out of habit or a dedication to debate.
We’re not asking you to produce this documentation – just tell us where you got these ideas from. Either you created them yourself, which would suggest that you have some primary source documentation somewhere you could point us to, or you read about them somewhere, which would suggest it would be easy to give us the author’s name, title of the book, anything that would support these theories. Which is it?
quote:The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was adopted because the founders of our country did know the true lesson of the Dark Ages, and sought to guard against any church or all churches ever again being able in this country to use the secular power to enforce church edicts and impose institutions or any other "establishment" of the church on those who dissent.
Actually, the First Amendment was much more directly inspired by England’s consolidation of secular and religious power. The King of England was considered the head of the Anglican church (still may be, I’m not sure), called Defender of the Faith, etc. Catholics could not hold office (I’m not sure about other religious restrictions) and were the subject of great official and unofficial persecution, up to and including death.
Three colonies were founded primarily to allow their founders to escape religious persecution (Pennsylvania by Quakers, Maryland by Catholics, and Massachusetts by Puritans). Even then, the early Puritans mimicked the integration of secular and theocratic power found in England, merely substituting their own orthodoxy for that of the Church of England. In fact, several New England colonies were founded by people trying to escape religious persecution in Massachusetts.
Remember, all this happened after the Reformation, well outside the confines of the most expansive definition of the Dark Ages. It’s not that there aren’t lessons to be learned from the Dark Ages about secular and religious intermingling of power, but that your oversimplification obscures other lessons that are available in our history.
As far as I can tell, no one here has spoken out against the First Amendment or the principles of the separation of church and state. But tying your reasons for such separation to such an easily disputed statement makes it possible for those who oppose separation to argue against it.
A true argument is never helped by inaccuracy. Please, just give us a source, a book, something that will allow us to evaluate your statement on any grounds other than your authority.
posted
Dragonee, off the top of my head, some of the most important books that contributed to the formation of my understanding of medieval history are Merle D'Aubigne's History of the Reformation, Wylie's History of the Reformation, and a religious/historical text by Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy. I would also have to add the prophecies of Daniel interpreted historically in a manner consistent with the way the text tells you to interpret it. There have been a great many more books and sources besides these. Once you know the right direction to go, it is not hard to find instructive sources.
I am old enough to have read for myself articles in the 1953 Americana and Britannica, and noticed the great changes in what is represented as history compared to modern texts. Look and find out for yourself. That is the best way to be convinced, when you find it out for yourself.
And if anyone wants to know what the founders of our country really thought when they adopted the First Amendment, read what they said, not the spin modern revisionists give it.
[ October 22, 2003, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Elaine Pagels's book on the Gospel of Thomas was still in hard back, selling for 25 bucks. Plus, I looked it over and it seems as if the book comes from a very personal perspective, and while that may make for better reading I think The Templar Revelation, by Lynn Picknett & Clive Prince will better serve my interests at this time... so I bought it instead. I would have gotten The Gnostic Gospels, but they didn't have any copies of it.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, the First Amendment was much more directly inspired by England’s consolidation of secular and religious power. The King of England was considered the head of the Anglican church (still may be, I’m not sure), called Defender of the Faith, etc. Catholics could not hold office (I’m not sure about other religious restrictions) and were the subject of great official and unofficial persecution, up to and including death.
The Queen of England still is the head of the Anglican church and is the Defender of the Faith. This is why there is religous controversy around her son Charles, whether his divorce from Diana and relationship with Camilla, should or could bar him from being the next King of England. Catholics may not marry into the royal family or hold office such as Govener-General of Australia or N.Z. However, persecuting them to death no longer applies It is only in the last twenty years or so that Catholics have been able to celebrate ANZAC day in N.Z with their peers...
Posts: 141 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
Interestingly, Henry VIII was granted the title “Defender of the Faith” by the Pope for publishing an anti-Protestant treatise written by Thomas Moore before Henry broke off from the Church (and later had Moore put to death).
I bet that still grates at the Vatican even today.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
