Wealth and salvation in Mark 10.17-22

[rogue06]

I see absolutely no connection between palaeontology and biblical criticism.

You can lead a left-wing atheist to knowledge, but you can't make them think.

The connection is that in both there was an idea proposed over a hundred years ago that was mostly rejected then only to come back to be seen as correct.

I can see where something that overly complex could confuse a puddin' head.

He is building on the preceding work of others.

As does everyone else.

As Newton once quipped: "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." And ironically that saying (or ones similar) dates back at least as far as the 12th cent.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Thank you for that totally unrelated comment of no interest whatsoever.

It is an important fact you appear to have overlooked.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The connection is that in both there was an idea proposed over a hundred years ago that was mostly rejected then only to come back to be seen as correct.

Palaeontology is a science. Biblical criticism is not. The theories concerning the gospels having elements of Graeco-Roman biography are the opinions of various academics, they are not established fact.

As does everyone else.

In any idea/research/theory someone has to start the metaphorical ball rolling

[Cow Poke]

It is an important fact you appear to have overlooked.

So is "no matter how hard you try, you can't throw a potato chip very far".

[tabibito]

Luke 1
1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,
2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word

Of course, in any work other than one appearing in the Bible, there would be no compelling need to make the text seem to say other than what it does.

[Sparko]

So is "no matter how hard you try, you can't throw a potato chip very far".

But you can break up a fight by eating them!

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

But you can break up a fight by eating them!

As you and Cow Poke appear have nothing of import to add to this thread, I suggest you both cease posting and recommend that you take your playground comments to a new thread [ or you could just PM them to one another]

[Cow Poke]

As you and Cow Poke appear have nothing of import to add to this thread, I suggest you both cease posting and recommend that you take your playground comments to a new thread [ or you could just PM them to one another]

I have been materially contributing to this thread, and some lighthearted comments are no basis for tossing me out.

Are you actually making that demand, that I leave the thread? SERIOUSLY?

What has gotten into you that you have become, apparently overnight, so incredibly intolerant?

I'll report this post, because we generally don't let people kicking somebody out "just because".

Is this about your feigned anger over Rogue's posting of a picture which you posted again and again? You're not being very logical AT ALL.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I have been materially contributing to this thread, and some lighthearted comments are no basis for tossing me out.

Are you actually making that demand, that I leave the thread? SERIOUSLY?

What has gotten into you that you have become, apparently overnight, so incredibly intolerant?

I'll report this post, because we generally don't let people kicking somebody out "just because".

Is this about your feigned anger over Rogue's posting of a picture which you posted again and again? You're not being very logical AT ALL.

Up until your inane comment about potato chips. If you can remain on topic stay. If not leave.

[Cow Poke]

Up until your inane comment about potato chips. If you can remain on topic stay. If not leave.

WOW, are you touchy!!!

Seriously, something wrong?

[rogue06]

Palaeontology is a science. Biblical criticism is not. The theories concerning the gospels having elements of Graeco-Roman biography are the opinions of various academics, they are not established fact.

Wrong again. Textual criticism is regarded as both a science and as somewhat of an art as well. Really no different than such "sciences" as sociology, economics, political science, psychiatry and psychology.

Years ago I knew someone with PhDs in the last two who explained this quite simply. As he put it, and paraphrasing, you could give a problem to five experts in one of these fields and expect to get back half a dozen often mutually contradictory responses.

Hence this “criticism” indicates, as Daniel Harrington (Professor of New Testament and Chair of the Biblical Studies Department at Weston Jesuit School of Theology) explained, the use of scientific criteria (historical and literary) along with human reason to understand and explain, as objectively as possible, the meaning intended by the various writers. Basically, the scientific principles on which Biblical criticism is based depend largely upon viewing the Bible as a suitable object for literary study, rather than as an exclusively sacred text -- something that Spinoza advocated in his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus.

In any idea/research/theory someone has to start the metaphorical ball rolling

In almost every case the ball was rolled based on the work of a number of different people.

[rogue06]

So is "no matter how hard you try, you can't throw a potato chip very far".

You forgot to consider people like me who taught you the secret to how to nail Jell-O to a tree

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Wrong again. Textual criticism is regarded as both a science and as somewhat of an art as well.

Not in the sense of a "hard" science. That scientific techniques and developments are employed does not make the discipline itself a "science". Historians likewise utilise a variety of scientific methods but the discipline of history and historical research are not generally considered to be "science".

Really no different than such "sciences" as sociology, economics, political science, psychiatry and psychology.

Psychiatry requires a medical background. Medicine is usually considered to be a science - and possibly one of those "hard" sciences.

Years ago I knew someone with PhDs in the last two

Is that intended to impress? If not why mention it?

who explained this quite simply. As he put it, and paraphrasing, you could give a problem to five experts in one of these fields and expect to get back half a dozen often mutually contradictory responses.

And? What point are you trying to make?

Hence this “criticism” indicates, as Daniel Harrington (Professor of New Testament and Chair of the Biblical Studies Department at Weston Jesuit School of Theology) explained, the use of scientific criteria (historical and literary) along with human reason to understand and explain, as objectively as possible, the meaning intended by the various writers. Basically, the scientific principles on which Biblical criticism is based depend largely upon viewing the Bible as a suitable object for literary study, rather than as an exclusively sacred text -- something that Spinoza advocated in his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus.

Again what point are you trying to make?

In almost every case the ball was rolled based on the work of a number of different people.

It had to start somewhere.

[rogue06]

Not in the sense of a "hard" science. That scientific techniques and developments are employed does not make the discipline itself a "science".

goalpost move.gif

Forced to move those goalposts already? smiley snicker.gif

Historians likewise utilise a variety of scientific methods but the discipline of history and historical research are not generally considered to be "science".

The author of Guns, Germs, and Steel, Jared Diamond, quite regularly eviscerates some historians for that sort of thinking.

Psychiatry requires a medical background. Medicine is usually considered to be a science - and possibly one of those "hard" sciences.

Is that intended to impress? If not why mention it?

And? What point are you trying to make?

The reason I mention it should be obvious. This is what someone with PhDs in two of those five fields said. Basically when you tend to get radically different answers from acknowledged leading experts to the exact same question, then you are forced to reevaluate just how "scientific" it is.

As for psychiatry (one of the two areas he had a PhD) he provided this cynical take (again paraphrasing):

You learn absolutely everything you'll ever need to know in the first quarter. In the next quarter you learn what you were just taught is totally wrong and again learn everything you'll ever need to know in that quarter. Come the third quarter, the same thing happens. All you had previously learned is wrong and here's all you need to know. Rinse and repeat until graduation. Then you pick up all the disorganized pieces of what you learned, find out works for you and proceed.

As an aside, I'll note that I was not a patient or seeing him professionally.

I don't even recall how exactly we met. But he was the first of a few multiple PhD holders that I was acquainted with back then. The real "interesting" one was the guy with two separate PhDs in philosophy. He first specialized in the ancient Greek philosophies of folks like Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates and had just earned his second focusing on Hegle.

Again what point are you trying to make?

That you are in error about Biblical Criticism is not a science. Given your rapid backpedaling while dragging the goalposts, it appears that you know realize that but given your history would rather be flayed alive than admit it.

It had to start somewhere.

And almost always by someone putting together the various pieces crafted by others.

Again, as Newton observed: "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Forced to move those goalposts already? smiley snicker.gif

Offering clarification.

The author of Guns, Germs, and Steel, Jared Diamond, quite regularly eviscerates some historians for that sort of thinking.

And? In what regard? Nor am I entirely convinced he is qualified to comment on history as a discipline. He is certainly well qualified but would you consider the views of a historian on physiology to have some merit? Or would you consider that individual to be outside of their discipline?

Your use of "quite regularly" also suggests he has written other works making the same points.

The reason I mention it should be obvious. This is what someone with PhDs in two of those five fields said.

Why? Unless you wish to attempt to impress.

Nor is the opinion of one individual established fact. Although as demonstrated above you like to cite one person's opinion and then attempt to argue it offers unquestionable proof.

Basically when you tend to get radically different answers from acknowledged leading experts to the exact same question, then you are forced to reevaluate just how "scientific" it is.

Hard science attempts to disprove its hypotheses If the hypothesis holds, then science may assume that it is correct. Should new evidence arise, then the whole thing gets reassessed.

With regard to new evidence that is the same approach we use in historical research. We have our hypotheses but are always open to new evidence challenging established opinion.

As for psychiatry (one of the two areas he had a PhD) he provided this cynical take (again paraphrasing):

You learn absolutely everything you'll ever need to know in the first quarter. In the next quarter you learn what you were just taught is totally wrong and again learn everything you'll ever need to know in that quarter. Come the third quarter, the same thing happens. All you had previously learned is wrong and here's all you need to know. Rinse and repeat until graduation. Then you pick up all the disorganized pieces of what you learned, find out works for you and proceed.

Another observation on Ph.D research areas is that one ends up knowing a great deal about not very much.

As an aside, I'll note that I was not a patient or seeing him professionally.

If you were a patient it is nothing to be ashamed of rogue. We know from the last two years that mental health issues are on the rise.

I don't even recall how exactly we met.

Perhaps you never did.

But he was the first of a few multiple PhD holders that I was acquainted with back then. The real "interesting" one was the guy with two separate PhDs in philosophy. He first specialized in the ancient Greek philosophies of folks like Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates and had just earned his second focusing on Hegle.

Hegel.

Odd that you cannot remember how you became acquainted with these individuals. Perhaps it is your short term memory problem reappearing.

That you are in error about Biblical Criticism is not a science.

It is not a science. It uses scientific techniques and applications, as do so many disciplines today

That is not the same thing.

However, you have yet to produce from your Mary Poppins bag of Ph.Ds a biblical textual critic of your acquaintance. Perhaps one will come along in the future.