Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Is there a cure for homophobia? Introducing Lovelace......

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • eider
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    "My version" looks like what you can read for yourself and doesn't require it all to be scrapped and replaced with something someone dreamed up in what sounds a lot like a hashish-induced haze.
    I don't think you know, rogue.
    I asked you 'OK...... Let's see what your version looks like... please tell me what you think Jesus did on the first day that he was in Jerusalem and Temple, on that last week.'

    I didn't dream up my answer to the above question. It's written down in my bible. I think that they went sightseeing (our modern term). An important account, I think.

    If you cannot answer my question then ask me and I will print out chapter and verse, and you can learn something from a member who is in (your idea of) a hash-induced haze.

    Leave a comment:


  • eider
    replied
    Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
    No I didn't.
    Yes you did....
    Let me show you.
    Your initial post wrote:-

    .......................... that there are many acts that are completely natural** that we (rightly) reject as immoral. ..........................

    Yes? You then listed some most unreasonable, criminal and nasty acts as natural but immoral.

    Now....... are you telling me that LGBT characteristics are 'natural but immoral'? Yes? No?
    Let's start there, and you can answer my question please........ where do you get your ideas about what is moral or immoral from?
    Where do you get the concept of LGBT is immoral from?

    Leave a comment:


  • eider
    replied
    Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

    There's no hiding, you keep misunderstanding the analogy. You then are assuming I'm making comparisons that aren't made in the analogy. You are creating a strawman that isn't being argued.

    Corvino gave a name to that strawman because idiots keep making the same ham-fisted misunderstanding (deliberately or not). But at the end of the day it's still a strawman.
    Forget all your analogies, CD.
    Just focus upon your agreement with me that LGBT characteristics are as natural as Lovelace ducks' ........ I think we've arrived there already.
    Now..... forget your strawman analogies and let's just discuss whether LGBT is reasonable.

    No analogies CD..... you made a mess of those, imo. Is LGBT a reasonable lifestyle for lgbt people?

    Leave a comment:


  • eider
    replied
    Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

    You didn't answer the question. It wasn't about whether you would like them. Do you consider Muslim Countries Civilized?
    Hey! I answered your question my way.
    I told you that I would not like to live in an Islamic or Bahai World.
    Look at that.... you got a more extensive answer than your question sought.

    My turn..... So...... do you support the rights of LGBT people, and believe in equality of opportunity for them in all 'things'?

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    The queen of hand waving off any scholar
    I am replying to you, not a scholar.

    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post

    I'm talking about pretty much about everything the British dramatist/playwright who also wrote books on Jesus and Paul, and who's notions you appear to have been the mouthpiece for, has pushed.
    He wrote various other works apart from his two volumes on Paul and the work I cited. You should have read further down the Wiki entry. It gives a list of his books, including those on anti-Semitism. And he wrote only one play. So do try [at least now and again] to get your facts correct.

    As to Maccoby’s opinions I merely offered his hypothesis on what you referred to as the “ruckus at the Temple”. I am not dogmatically asserting what Maccoby postulated in that work is definitely correct and precisely what happened [although that is his contention] However, as we have no attested historical evidence for this event outside of later Christian apologetic we do not actually know what [if anything] did take place.

    Therefore, and on that basis, Maccoby’s hypothesis premised on his own academic knowledge and studies and the known politico-religious social situation in Judaea at this period is certainly equally as plausible as the gospel accounts.


    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Since you'll ask... that's from near the bottom of page164 of his Rabbinic Literature and the New Testament: What We Cannot Show, We Do Not Know, from 2004 (would you also like publisher and ISBN?)
    No. I think it extremely likely that you initially found Neusner’s words here https://www.christian-thinktank.com/stil0108.html and then used Google to find the Google book here: https://books.google.com/books?id=QP...page&q&f=false In that edited version of his work pages 160-166 are all available to read.

    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Maccoby's ideas represent the very fringe of scholarship, and are effectively ignored by much of the academic community, being rarely cited and almost always negatively.
    You do not appear to have read all those pages available on the Google book version. Go back and read page 162 and point 5 where Neusner comments on Maccoby’s work on medieval Jewish/Christian disputations. Neusner considers that to be “informed, balanced, beautifully argued, and, in all a monument to intelligence joined to critical learning”.

    However, with regard to Maccoby’s book Revolution in Judaea I would certainly contend that this 1973 work [note the date] is highly polemical and there are some definite mistakes as well as a tendency to over-extend the evidence to suit his polemical standpoint. Hence, while I find some of his argument interesting I do not agree with all his contention and certainly not all his conclusions.

    All that notwithstanding, we should remember that he was attempting to reclaim Jesus for Judaism bearing in mind that for many Christians in the late 1960s the fact that that Jesus was actually Jewish and not a Christian was something many were still coming to terms with.

    I would also note that, given your own unquestioning acceptance of the writings of Christian theologians who engage in very similar things, [Loke and Licona come to mind] your dismissal [unread] of any of Maccoby’s works seems to be little more than uniformed antagonistic prejudice.

    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post

    One of the very few that ever acknowledged him was the irascible Jacob Neusner,
    Given Maccoby’s various academic papers and references to his works in other texts that is once again merely your uniformed nonsense. It very much looks as if you have read Neusner’s comments and then decided to add your own colour and texture without actually having any informed opinion either about Maccoby or what he wrote.

    However, why I should be surprised by your standard MO?

    Neusner was a reputable scholar but he was not infallible. I have noticed in our [not infrequent] exchanges that you have a tendency to express a form of juvenile admiration for those academics whose opinions appear to echo your own; and who thereby [for you] provide the unequivocal and indisputable pronouncement on the particular topic in question.

    This, along with your unfamiliarity with the cut and thrust of academia where scholars will [either in their own works or academic journals], disagree with one another [often in quite forthright language] again leads me to the conclusion that you have absolutely no experience of any academic forum.

    For example here is Saul Lieberman in 1984 reviewing Neusner’s work The Talmud of the Land of Israel: A Preliminary Translation and Explanation [in: Journal of the American Oriental Society, 1984. Vol. 104. No. 2. pp. 315-319].

    Lieberman rather cruelly entitles his review “A Tragedy or a Comedy?”

    "I have before my eyes A Preliminary Translation and Explanation of three tractates of the Palestinian Talmud (hereafter TP), vid. Horayot, Niddah and Abodah Zarah (hereafter AZ). In his Forward to Horayot and Niddah,' the translator claims that he used the editio princeps of TP, Codex Leiden, the Geniza fragments recently discovered, the parallels of TP, etc. Since all this material is now easily accessible these claims would seem credible.

    However, it would seem that the translator did not know that a different text of TP Horayot is appended to the Babylonian Talmud of that tractate, a fact with which any rabbinic student is familiar. Hence one begins to doubt the credibility of the translator. And indeed after a superficial perusal of the translation, the reader is stunned by the translator's ignorance of rabbinic Hebrew, of Aramaic grammar, and above all of the subject matter with which he deals, as we shall presently demonstrate.[...]

    As to the assertion of the translator that he checked the editio princeps with Cod. Leiden, we can state with certainty that he never did so." So, for instance, the text in chapter 1.7,40 makes no sense, and the translation (p. 41) is still more senseless... Finally, the translator paid no attention to a simple misprint in our editions. When scholars talk about the reading of Cod. Leiden they have in mind the original readings of this manuscript which were emended by the scribe or by the editor for the Bomberg press...The translator is not always consistent in his atrocious errors. He begins the above mentioned story, in which the name of Jesus occurs, as follows (p. 63): "[Joshua b. Levi] had a grandson, who swallowed [something dangerous]." That is his translation of the Hebrew in the text. This word is a substantive a technical term for food stuck in the throat. It is frequently mentioned in rabbinic literature. It simply means to have a choking fit, and certainly, all choking fits are dangerous. I would never have taken our translator to task for such a minor error, but the same word appears twice more in the same portion of TP (in our translation p. 62). The first time it is translated:"[If such leaven] should be absorbed...." This translation is sheer nonsense. It does not fit the preceding and the following passages. Five lines afterwards the same word is translated: "pus." From the context of the Talmud it is quite obvious that the question involves the same phenomenon, "something stuck in the throat." The Talmud maintains that it is permitted to extract it on the Sabbath. Our translator translated the identical word in three different ways, all of them false."[pp. 315, 316, 317]

    This is John C. Poirier in 1996 offering his highly critical assessment of Neusner’s methodological approach and speculative assertions [See Poirier’s paper “Jacob Neusner, The Mishnah, and Ventriloquism” in The Jewish Quarterly Review. 1996. Vol. 87. No. 1/2. pp. 61-78].

    "Neusner's work, though in a real sense methodologically tedious, suffers gross methodological lapses throughout. In a way this seems contradictory, but the fact is that Neusner has invested so much in the rhetoric of method that he often has successfully accomplished a reordering of the data before their proper consideration. This is the irreducible Neusner, and it is where, for the sake of rabbinic scholarship, his methods should be questioned. If the falsity of Neusner's methodological "purism" is not so readily apparent, it is only because rabbinics is a difficult field to begin with. Neusner has, in fact, exploited the relative inaccessibility of historical and redactional circumstance-by using a stratospheric rhetoric-to impose a pretzel logic upon the Mishnah. The greatest of Neusner's shortcomings lies in the unreasonableness of virtually all his burdens of proof. Scholarly restraint should not be used as an excuse for smuggling wildly speculative histories into texts. Methodologies should not be so heavy-handed that they obscure the data, and I will argue that this is exactly what Neusner has done." [p. 62]

    As you might write “Ouch”.





    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 01:20 PM
8 responses
31 views
0 likes
Last Post Mountain Man  
Started by rogue06, Today, 09:16 AM
9 responses
72 views
0 likes
Last Post Mountain Man  
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 09:15 AM
3 responses
32 views
1 like
Last Post Sparko
by Sparko
 
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 09:02 AM
31 responses
194 views
1 like
Last Post Cow Poke  
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 08:51 AM
3 responses
26 views
1 like
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Working...
X