Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == What's with that personal attack? what do you know about me? since when have I ever claimed to be a Marxist? Who are you to make such a statement? Obviously you weren't following this thread at all. And what have YOU done that makes you better than I? Them's fighting words, dude. If you want you can contact me offline and we can settle this man to man so to speak. Thus a straw man argument as well as I couldn't give a fuck about marxism or the sectarian left which has never done shit to advance the struggle for social justice which was the whole point I was making. On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Carrol Cox cb...@ilstu.edu wrote: Tom Cod wrote: the point I was alluding to had to do with an affinity for obscurantism and dogma. But apparently you are more interested in Declarations of Faith (I am a Marxist) than in building an anti-capitalist movement in the u.s. What have you done lately to bring that about? Carrol Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Over 50 jury trials in the last eight years representing indigent criminal defendants plus doing my part as a private citizen to support the struggle for a better world, among other things. But apparently you are more interested in Declarations of Faith (I am a Marxist) than in building an anti-capitalist movement in the u.s. What have you done lately to bring that about? Carrol Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/tomcod3%40gmail.com Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Tom Cod wrote: the point I was alluding to had to do with an affinity for obscurantism and dogma. But apparently you are more interested in Declarations of Faith (I am a Marxist) than in building an anti-capitalist movement in the u.s. What have you done lately to bring that about? Carrol Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Thank you Carroll and a belated happy 80 to you. You are right on about religion. Though the trouble with having been an Irish Catholic one is, I sometimes think, doomed to a life time of angst. Having said that I agree with you that when things turn, and turn they will, the movement that emerges will be like my old mother's Xmas puddings - full of good things and all got together in a sort of strange way. I look forward to that time wh3en a whole new generation of problems and opportunities emerges and a lot of the things we worry about now will have been swept away. comradely regards Gary Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 8/13/10 11:55 PM, Tom Cod wrote: evidence that God exists or existed as creator or otherwise? clip or be clipped? Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Man created god, not the other way round George Anthony Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Aug 14, 2010, at 1:01 AM, Joseph Catron wrote: == Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == True, I didn't make it though all 583 comments, but I certainly wouldn't buy yours. For one thing, it entails the kind of dualistic logic (complex/simple) Christianity discarded in about 208... So Christianity (pace Aquinas) discards *logic*??? Or is it god that is an illogical concept? Mine was a strictly logical argument in the terms posed by the Christian philosopher. It dealt with the concept of creator of complexity being inferred from the observed complexity of the creation. Arguments that if God is one thing, he [not He???] necessarily cannot be another, generally miss the point of what God is, hypothetically or not, by definition... So what is your Christian definition of the word God? Does it amount to anything other than that which cannot be defined? And it seems to me to attack science as much as theology; certainly there could be few things less complex than the content of the universe immediately prior to the Big Bang. Science=Big Bang??? (the content of the universe immediately prior to the Big Bang was without form and void (Genesis 1) but then the Big Banger got to work... Shane Mage This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire, kindling in measures and going out in measures. Herakleitos of Ephesos The creator of a complex system, to create it, must initially have that complexity in its consciousness (otherwise there would be something in that complex system which was not the work of that creator, and therefore the system *as a whole* was not the work of that creator). So the complexity of creation must also be complexity within the creator. Therefore either: the creator having something existent about it that is over and above the complexity of the creation is to that extent more complex than the creation; or: there is nothing about the creator that is not present in the creation (pantheism) and therefore a separate creator is otiose. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Shane Mage shm...@pipeline.com wrote: So Christianity (pace Aquinas) discards *logic*??? Or is it god that is an illogical concept? Neither, but logic does not demand dualism (and usually suffers from it). Mine was a strictly logical argument in the terms posed by the Christian philosopher. No, yours was a dualistic argument. That's very different (and as faith-based as any other way of looking at the universe). If you think that when Gutting writes that God is neither material nor composed of immaterial parts (whatever that might mean). Rather, he is said to be simple, a unity of attributes that we may have to think of as separate but that in God are united in a single reality of pure perfection, he means that God is the opposite of complex, you simply need to reread him. So what is your Christian definition of the word God? Does it amount to anything other than that which cannot be defined? That's certainly a big part of it. I believe Carl, who, unlike me, actually knows his theology, would define God as the reason there is something rather than nothing, or words to that effect. Science=Big Bang??? Oh, right - you're some kind of a heretic here, no? -- Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Rowan Williams - an Anglican bishop, poet, and theologian (and the current Archbishop of Canterbury) does not regard the story of crucifixion as an edifying fable (and surely not that it must be recaptured from the mass of Pauline falsification). John Shelby Spong once accused Williams of being a neo-medievalist, preaching orthodoxy to the people in the pew but knowing in private that it is not true ... Williams responded: I am genuinely a lot more conservative than he would like me to be. Take the Resurrection. I think he has said that of course I know what all the reputable scholars think on the subject and therefore when I talk about the risen body I must mean something other than the empty tomb. But I don't. I don't know how to persuade him, but I really don't.[Wikipedia] On 8/13/10 10:40 AM, Shane Mage wrote: ...the story that Pullman and Williams treat as an edifying fable rather than a historical event ... must be recaptured from the mass of Pauline falsification. Read critically. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == But neither of the two essentially different concepts is an account of the Abrahamic (Judeo-Xn-Islamic) notion of deity. The Roman attitude to religion was classically, so to speak, summed up by Gibbon: The policy of the emperors and the senate, as far as it concerned religion, was happily seconded by the reflections of the enlightened, and by the habits of the superstitious, part of their subjects. The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people, as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful. But the Christian publicly (and the Jew, largely privately) said of these various modes of worship, I do not believe and I will not serve. You're precisely right that it was a political crime, as illustrated in Pliny. (And you're also right to note that it didn't all change under Constantine, as liberal mythology has it.) On 8/13/10 10:28 PM, Shane Mage wrote: On Aug 13, 2010, at 10:24 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote: That sort of god - a Zeus, or demiurge - is rather far from the Judeo-Christian notion (as elaborated in the West by Augustine and Aquinas). A Zeus and a Demiurge are two essentially different concepts. A Demiurge is an artisan, the shaper of an ordered world out of chaos, the lawgiver to a lawfully unfolding cosmos. That is the God of Genesis. Zeus, (especially as Jupiter) is impersonal energy, symbolized as the thunderbolt (the planetary connection is here particularly à propos) and participating in the life process in the do ut des fashion--invoked through ritual sacrifices. That is the God of popular religion--Allah, Jesus, Adonai. For the philosophers, though, the impersonality of the cosmic energy flow is what counts: It consents and does not consent to be called Zeus(Herakleitos). Christians were prosecuted (correctly) during the Roman principate for atheism - for not believing in any such god. Not so. Their *belief* was never at issue, and every sort of *belief* was current and tolerated in the Republic, Principate, and Dominate until the Christians, progressively from Constantine to Theodosius, outlawed and persecuted every form of belief (including dissident Christian) that deviated from their orthodoxy. What was prosecuted in Roman law was seditious conduct--that of a secret society systematically subverting the *do ut des* cosmic relationship of the Republic with the gods it invoked through public sacrificial ceremonies. (Pliny the Younger's letters express that distinction very well). Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Actually, Thomas wasn't much of an apologist for feudal society. Son of a noble family, he displeased them by joining an urban movement that renounced family and property, the pillars of the feudal system. His group was excluded from the universities but forced their way in, over the objections of the real apologists for feudalist society. Contemporary Thomists, speaking of the popular (and essentially pagan) image of deity, paraphrase Bakunin. On 8/13/10 10:39 PM, Tom Cod wrote: How about this one from Bakunin's God and the State: If God actually existed, it would be necessary to abolish him which amplifies God as an idol: of class society, an idea as I recall that Marx touched on. http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/godstate/index.htm My copy of this work has as its epigram, Herzen's evaluation of Bakunin: this man was not born under any ordinary star, but a comet and then Aquinas obviously was an apologist for feudalist society run by land Lords; I mean when was it ever said Jesus is Serf? Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Yes, in the form(s) presented by N. Chomsky, Government in the Future P. Anderson, Lineages of the Absolutist State G. A. Cohen, Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence G. E. M. de Ste. Croix, The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World On 8/13/10 10:48 PM, Tom Cod wrote: just curious, you claim to be a marxist? On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:52 PM, C. G. Estabrookgalli...@illinois.eduwrote: The trendy disproofs of God (e.g. from Ditchkins, as Terry Eagleton would have it) are in fact warnings - of which Thomas Aquinas would have approved - against idolatry in his technical sense, viz. treating God as a thing in the universe rather than creator. They so often hinge on fallacies arising from the inadequacy of language. (It's about things, and God is not a thing; God and the universe do not add up to two [two what?]). So, (as a correspondent recently put it) an argument God cannot exist becomes this kind of God-as-creature is not worthy, has no worth-ship, i.e., you shall not worship other Gods. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == don't you get a kick out of it when marxist theoreticians debate obscure points of medieval theology like some of their political opponents accuse them of doing when discussing marxist theory? Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == In visiting the Middle East in 1980 we went to an early Christian church in Syria from the 4th Century AD where there was an altar with a marble cross and base, the latter having a couple inch edge with openings in the corners. The Orthodox priest told us this was a function of early Christians practicing animal sacrifice which was abolished around that time. It gave a whole new meaning to lamb of God to me, which I know is a traditional Easter dish. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Aug 14, 2010, at 1:14 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote: Rowan Williams - an Anglican bishop, poet, and theologian (and the current Archbishop of Canterbury) does not regard the story of crucifixion as an edifying fable (and surely not that it must be recaptured from the mass of Pauline falsification). John Shelby Spong once accused Williams of being a neo- medievalist, preaching orthodoxy to the people in the pew but knowing in private that it is not true ... Williams responded: I am genuinely a lot more conservative than he would like me to be. Take the Resurrection. I think he has said that of course I know what all the reputable scholars think on the subject and therefore when I talk about the risen body I must mean something other than the empty tomb. But I don't. I don't know how to persuade him, but I really don't. Whatever Williams's innermost secret thoughts might be, Pullman certainly treats the Gospel narrative as an edifying fable and Williams fully accepts that as the basis for his criticism when he likewise treats questions of historical fact as irrelevant. If the narrative is not based on historical fact, what can it be if not edifying fable? That Williams is (by virtue of his job) compelled to assert belief in the Resurrection is no surprise (do bears shit in the woods?). But if he had any remotely rational grounds for belief that the Resurrection story is historically accurate he would have found it easy to persuade Spong that he, rightly or wrongly, actually believed it. On 8/13/10 10:40 AM, Shane Mage wrote: ...the story that Pullman and Williams treat as an edifying fable rather than a historical event ... must be recaptured from the mass of Pauline falsification. Shane Mage Porphyry in his Abstinance from Animal Flesh suggests that there are appropriate offerings to all the Gods, and to the highest the only offering acceptable is silence. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Aug 14, 2010, at 2:43 PM, Shane Mage wrote: On Aug 14, 2010, at 1:56 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote: But neither of the two essentially different concepts is an account of the Abrahamic (Judeo-Xn-Islamic) notion of deity. As I pointed out below, the Abrahamic (Judeo-Xn-Islamic) notion of deity, has two senses: the Demiurge of Genesis 1 who brings order out of chaos and the Zeus of popular religion to whom Sacrifices are due. If a concept different from these is to be found in the Bible, the Gospels, or the Koran please spell it out. On Aug 13, 2010, at 10:24 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote: That sort of god - a Zeus, or demiurge - is rather far from the Judeo-Christian notion (as elaborated in the West by Augustine and Aquinas). A Zeus and a Demiurge are two essentially different concepts. A Demiurge is an artisan, the shaper of an ordered world out of chaos, the lawgiver to a lawfully unfolding cosmos. That is the God of Genesis. Zeus, (especially as Jupiter) is impersonal energy, symbolized as the thunderbolt (the planetary connection is here particularly à propos) and participating in the life process in the do ut des fashion--invoked through ritual sacrifices. That is the God of popular religion--Allah, Jesus, Adonai. For the philosophers, though, the impersonality of the cosmic energy flow is what counts: It consents and does not consent to be called Zeus(Herakleitos). Shane Mage Porphyry in his Abstinance from Animal Flesh suggests that there are appropriate offerings to all the Gods, and to the highest the only offering acceptable is silence. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == I gave a lecture years ago on Religion and the Collapse of the Feudal Mode of Production and received the furious objection, I'm sick and tired of you Marxists with your romantic attraction to the Middle Ages! On 8/14/10 1:52 PM, Tom Cod wrote: don't you get a kick out of it when marxist theoreticians debate obscure points of medieval theology like some of their political opponents accuse them of doing when discussing marxist theory? Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == http://newsfromneptune.com/2010/08/14/god-and-creation/ On Aug 14, 2010, at 2:43 PM, Shane Mage wrote: On Aug 14, 2010, at 1:56 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote: But neither of the two essentially different concepts is an account of the Abrahamic (Judeo-Xn-Islamic) notion of deity. As I pointed out below, the Abrahamic (Judeo-Xn-Islamic) notion of deity, has two senses: the Demiurge of Genesis 1 who brings order out of chaos and the Zeus of popular religion to whom Sacrifices are due. If a concept different from these is to be found in the Bible, the Gospels, or the Koran please spell it out... Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Aug 14, 2010, at 3:37 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote: http://newsfromneptune.com/2010/08/14/god-and-creation/ His whole discourse strikes me as meaningless wordplay. But that's not the point. Whatever he's talking about it's certainly not any Abrahamic concept (the aborted sacrifice of Isaac was a manifest intervention of Jahweh into the universe). He makes no reference whatever to any concept of deity found in the Bible, the Koran, or the Gospels. On Aug 14, 2010, at 2:43 PM, Shane Mage wrote: On Aug 14, 2010, at 1:56 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote: But neither of the two essentially different concepts is an account of the Abrahamic (Judeo-Xn-Islamic) notion of deity. As I pointed out below, the Abrahamic (Judeo-Xn-Islamic) notion of deity, has two senses: the Demiurge of Genesis 1 who brings order out of chaos and the Zeus of popular religion to whom Sacrifices are due. If a concept different from these is to be found in the Bible, the Gospels, or the Koran please spell it out... Shane Mage This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire, kindling in measures and going out in measures. Herakleitos of Ephesos Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Like much of the Hebrew bible (and of the philosophic tradition of the West) it's a consideration of the implications of the Abrahamic doctrine of creation - a notion admittedly not found in the Greeks (or elsewhere) - with (Greek) philosophical tools. He quotes Wittgenstein, Not how the world is, but that it is, is the mystery. The former is the province of science. God is the label we put on the answer (which he insists we do not know) to the question about the latter: Why is there anything instead of nothing? It's a category mistakes to suggest that one can appeal to creation to explain why the world is one way or another. Being created makes no difference to the universe; you can't find, as it were, God's fingerprints on the world. Intelligent design is therefore incompatible with the traditional Judeo-Christian doctrine of creation. God is the unknown answer to the question that the universe by its existence poses. Of course, the Abrahamic religions say more - each claims that that God has in some sense spoken - at Sinai, in Jesus of Nazareth, and/or the Qur'an. On Aug 14, 2010, at 3:07 PM, Shane Mage wrote: On Aug 14, 2010, at 3:37 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote: http://newsfromneptune.com/2010/08/14/god-and-creation/ His whole discourse strikes me as meaningless wordplay. But that's not the point. Whatever he's talking about it's certainly not any Abrahamic concept (the aborted sacrifice of Isaac was a manifest intervention of Jahweh into the universe). He makes no reference whatever to any concept of deity found in the Bible, the Koran, or the Gospels. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Let's wrap this thread up. It is exceedingly obscure. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Aug 14, 2010, at 4:53 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote: He quotes Wittgenstein, Not how the world is, but that it is, is the mystery. The former is the province of science. God is the label we put on the answer (which he insists we do not know) to the question about the latter: Why is there anything instead of nothing? Wittgenstein maintains that the task of philosophy is to show the fly how to get out of the bottle. The bottle is the question Why is there anything instead of nothing? The way out is to answer the question posed by Mr. Clinton: It depends on what the meaning of is is. Shane Mage Porphyry in his Abstinance from Animal Flesh suggests that there are appropriate offerings to all the Gods, and to the highest the only offering acceptable is silence. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 15:53:01 -0500 C. G. Estabrook galli...@illinois.edu writes: == Like much of the Hebrew bible (and of the philosophic tradition of the West) it's a consideration of the implications of the Abrahamic doctrine of creation - a notion admittedly not found in the Greeks (or elsewhere) - with (Greek) philosophical tools. He quotes Wittgenstein, Not how the world is, but that it is, is the mystery. The former is the province of science. God is the label we put on the answer (which he insists we do not know) to the question about the latter: Why is there anything instead of nothing? It's a category mistakes to suggest that one can appeal to creation to explain why the world is one way or another. Being created makes no difference to the universe; you can't find, as it were, God's fingerprints on the world. Intelligent design is therefore incompatible with the traditional Judeo-Christian doctrine of creation. God is the unknown answer to the question that the universe by its existence poses. Of course, the Abrahamic religions say more - each claims that that God has in some sense spoken - at Sinai, in Jesus of Nazareth, and/or the Qur'an. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/55/4/561 www.raco.cat/index.php/Ontology/article/viewFile/172778/225133 Jim Farmelant http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant Get Free Email with Video Mail Video Chat! http://www.juno.com/freeemail?refcd=JUTAGOUT1FREM0210 Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == C. G. Estabrook galliher at illinois.edu writes: God is the unknown answer to the question that the universe by its existence poses. And what, pray tell, is the unknown answer to the question that God by his existence poses? Silly word games. The universe by its existence poses no question at all. Ian Angus Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == God is the label we put on the answer to the question: Why is there anything instead of nothing? Boojum Stew Pot is the label we put on the vessel in which the snark will be cooked--once we've caught it. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Gary-- O'Collins (who's even older than you are) has spent too much time in an obsequious academic culture (and the academy - especially in Europe - is far worse in that regard than the church). He's offended by Pullman's literary attack (which in fact is curiously and obviously double-minded), so instead of taking the occasion to preach the gospel, as the much more literary Abp. Rowan Williams did (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/apr/03/good-jesus-christ-philip-pullman), he simply fulminates (which, BTW, is the very opposite of being Jesuitical). O'Collins misses the fundamental point Williams starts with: This is not a speculation about the beginnings of Christianity ... It is a fable through which Philip Pullman reflects on Jesus, on the tensions and contradictions of organised religion -- and indeed on the nature of storytelling... A very bold and deliberately outrageous fable, then, rehearsing Pullman's familiar and passionate fury at corrupt religious systems of control -- but also introducing something quite different, a voice of genuine spiritual authority. The whole review deserves to be read, because Williams is doing exactly what a bishop (episcopus) is supposed to do - announce the good news to the world at large (or in this case, that part that reads the Guardian); from words like his, some have seen through the surface froth of religion and heard the voice Pullman himself obviously finds so compelling. O'Collins OTOH is just an academic. A belated happy birthday, CGE On 8/12/10 5:46 PM, Gary MacLennan wrote: It's my birthday today -68- and I can believe it! so I thought I would indulge myself a little on the list, if comrades will excuse that. This piece from the Guardian caught my attention. It was a report on a book by a Jesuit, Gerald O'Collins, criticising the author Philip Pullman's book on Jesus and him having a bad twin etc. I haven't read the book and do not intend to. Though my admiration for it was increased by seeing that it irritated the Catholic Church, so it can't be all bad... Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Don Draper is the central character in Mad Men (played by Jon Hamm) when I was of the age of the children depicted therein, having started first grade in 1959. On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:05 PM, midhurs...@aol.com wrote: == Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == The actor who played a Doctor Who -Tom ? had a similar experience to you and now hates Catholicism Any way religion is based on a lie-that there is a god George Anthony Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == The Times ran an interesting online essay along these lines Wednesday, which has caused me to partially rethink my own approach to Dawkins and his ilk: Religious believers often accuse argumentative atheists such as Dawkins of being excessively rationalistic, demanding standards of logical and evidential rigor that aren’t appropriate in matters of faith. My criticism is just the opposite. Dawkins does not meet the standards of rationality that a topic as important as religion requires. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/on-dawkinss-atheism-a-response On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 5:52 PM, C. G. Estabrook galli...@illinois.eduwrote: The trendy disproofs of God (e.g. from Ditchkins, as Terry Eagleton would have it) are in fact warnings - of which Thomas Aquinas would have approved - against idolatry in his technical sense, viz. treating God as a thing in the universe rather than creator. They so often hinge on fallacies arising from the inadequacy of language. (It's about things, and God is not a thing; God and the universe do not add up to two [two what?]). So, (as a correspondent recently put it) an argument God cannot exist becomes this kind of God-as-creature is not worthy, has no worth-ship, i.e., you shall not worship other Gods. -- Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Aug 13, 2010, at 7:37 PM, Joseph Catron wrote: == Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == The Times ran an interesting online essay along these lines Wednesday, which has caused me to partially rethink my own approach to Dawkins and his ilk: Religious believers often accuse argumentative atheists such as Dawkins of being excessively rationalistic, demanding standards of logical and evidential rigor that aren’t appropriate in matters of faith. My criticism is just the opposite. Dawkins does not meet the standards of rationality that a topic as important as religion requires. You evidently didn't read far enough, because my comment posted in that thread completely refutes the author's criticism of Dawkins: You are wrong to dispute Dawkins argument about complexity. The creator of a complex system, to create it, must initially have that complexity in its consciousness (otherwise there would be something in that complex system which was not the work of that creator, and therefore the system *as a whole* was not the work of that creator). So the complexity of creation must also be complexity within the creator. Therefore either: the creator having something existent about it that is over and above the complexity of the creation is to that extent more complex than the creation; or: there is nothing about the creator that is not present in the creation (pantheism) and therefore a separate creator is otiose. Shane Mage L'après-vie, c'est une auberge espagnole. L'on n'y trouve que ce qu'on a apporté. Bardo Thodol Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 21:08:51 -0400 Shane Mage shm...@pipeline.com writes: On Aug 13, 2010, at 7:37 PM, Joseph Catron wrote: == Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == The Times ran an interesting online essay along these lines Wednesday, which has caused me to partially rethink my own approach to Dawkins and his ilk: Religious believers often accuse argumentative atheists such as Dawkins of being excessively rationalistic, demanding standards of logical and evidential rigor that arent appropriate in matters of faith. My criticism is just the opposite. Dawkins does not meet the standards of rationality that a topic as important as religion requires. You evidently didn't read far enough, because my comment posted in that thread completely refutes the author's criticism of Dawkins: You are wrong to dispute Dawkins argument about complexity. The creator of a complex system, to create it, must initially have that complexity in its consciousness (otherwise there would be something in that complex system which was not the work of that creator, and therefore the system *as a whole* was not the work of that creator). So the complexity of creation must also be complexity within the creator. Therefore either: the creator having something existent about it that is over and above the complexity of the creation is to that extent more complex than the creation; or: there is nothing about the creator that is not present in the creation (pantheism) and therefore a separate creator is otiose. Also note that the traditional theistic God is ususally conceived of as a being who interacts with His creation. He passes judgments on the actions of his creatures, hears their prayers, and is said to even respond to these pleas. He is also posited as a being who intervenes in the workings of nature and history. Such a being would have to be enormously complex, capable of processing vast amounts of information. The existence of such a being seems to be highly improbable. Jim Farmelant http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant Shane Mage L'après-vie, c'est une auberge espagnole. L'on n'y trouve que ce qu'on a apporté. Bardo Thodol Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/farmelantj%40juno.com Penny Stock Jumping 2000% Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4c65fa187357810f76em03vuc Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == That sort of god - a Zeus, or demiurge - is rather far from the Judeo-Christian notion (as elaborated in the West by Augustine and Aquinas). Christians were prosecuted (correctly) during the Roman principate for atheism - for not believing in any such god. On 8/13/10 9:05 PM, Jim Farmelant wrote: Also note that the traditional theistic God is ususally conceived of as a being who interacts with His creation. He passes judgments on the actions of his creatures, hears their prayers, and is said to even respond to these pleas. He is also posited as a being who intervenes in the workings of nature and history. Such a being would have to be enormously complex, capable of processing vast amounts of information. The existence of such a being seems to be highly improbable. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Aug 13, 2010, at 10:24 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote: That sort of god - a Zeus, or demiurge - is rather far from the Judeo-Christian notion (as elaborated in the West by Augustine and Aquinas). A Zeus and a Demiurge are two essentially different concepts. A Demiurge is an artisan, the shaper of an ordered world out of chaos, the lawgiver to a lawfully unfolding cosmos. That is the God of Genesis. Zeus, (especially as Jupiter) is impersonal energy, symbolized as the thunderbolt (the planetary connection is here particularly à propos) and participating in the life process in the do ut des fashion--invoked through ritual sacrifices. That is the God of popular religion--Allah, Jesus, Adonai. For the philosophers, though, the impersonality of the cosmic energy flow is what counts: It consents and does not consent to be called Zeus(Herakleitos). Christians were prosecuted (correctly) during the Roman principate for atheism - for not believing in any such god. Not so. Their *belief* was never at issue, and every sort of *belief* was current and tolerated in the Republic, Principate, and Dominate until the Christians, progressively from Constantine to Theodosius, outlawed and persecuted every form of belief (including dissident Christian) that deviated from their orthodoxy. What was prosecuted in Roman law was seditious conduct--that of a secret society systematically subverting the *do ut des* cosmic relationship of the Republic with the gods it invoked through public sacrificial ceremonies. (Pliny the Younger's letters express that distinction very well). Shane Mage Thunderbolt steers all things. Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 64 Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == How about this one from Bakunin's God and the State: If God actually existed, it would be necessary to abolish him which amplifies God as an idol: of class society, an idea as I recall that Marx touched on. http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/godstate/index.htm My copy of this work has as its epigram, Herzen's evaluation of Bakunin: this man was not born under any ordinary star, but a comet and then Aquinas obviously was an apologist for feudalist society run by land Lords; I mean when was it ever said Jesus is Serf? On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Joseph Catron jncat...@gmail.com wrote: == Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == The Times ran an interesting online essay along these lines Wednesday, which has caused me to partially rethink my own approach to Dawkins and his ilk: Religious believers often accuse argumentative atheists such as Dawkins of being excessively rationalistic, demanding standards of logical and evidential rigor that aren’t appropriate in matters of faith. My criticism is just the opposite. Dawkins does not meet the standards of rationality that a topic as important as religion requires. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/on-dawkinss-atheism-a-response On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 5:52 PM, C. G. Estabrook galli...@illinois.edu wrote: The trendy disproofs of God (e.g. from Ditchkins, as Terry Eagleton would have it) are in fact warnings - of which Thomas Aquinas would have approved - against idolatry in his technical sense, viz. treating God as a thing in the universe rather than creator. They so often hinge on fallacies arising from the inadequacy of language. (It's about things, and God is not a thing; God and the universe do not add up to two [two what?]). So, (as a correspondent recently put it) an argument God cannot exist becomes this kind of God-as-creature is not worthy, has no worth-ship, i.e., you shall not worship other Gods. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == just curious, you claim to be a marxist? On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:52 PM, C. G. Estabrook galli...@illinois.eduwrote: == Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == The trendy disproofs of God (e.g. from Ditchkins, as Terry Eagleton would have it) are in fact warnings - of which Thomas Aquinas would have approved - against idolatry in his technical sense, viz. treating God as a thing in the universe rather than creator. They so often hinge on fallacies arising from the inadequacy of language. (It's about things, and God is not a thing; God and the universe do not add up to two [two what?]). So, (as a correspondent recently put it) an argument God cannot exist becomes this kind of God-as-creature is not worthy, has no worth-ship, i.e., you shall not worship other Gods. On 8/13/10 2:05 PM, midhurs...@aol.com wrote: The actor who played a Doctor Who -Tom ? had a similar experience to you and now hates Catholicism Any way religion is based on a lie-that there is a god George Anthony Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/tomcod3%40gmail.com Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == evidence that God exists or existed as creator or otherwise? On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:52 PM, C. G. Estabrook galli...@illinois.eduwrote: == Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == The trendy disproofs of God (e.g. from Ditchkins, as Terry Eagleton would have it) are in fact warnings - of which Thomas Aquinas would have approved - against idolatry in his technical sense, viz. treating God as a thing in the universe rather than creator. They so often hinge on fallacies arising from the inadequacy of language. (It's about things, and God is not a thing; God and the universe do not add up to two [two what?]). So, (as a correspondent recently put it) an argument God cannot exist becomes this kind of God-as-creature is not worthy, has no worth-ship, i.e., you shall not worship other Gods. On 8/13/10 2:05 PM, midhurs...@aol.com wrote: The actor who played a Doctor Who -Tom ? had a similar experience to you and now hates Catholicism Any way religion is based on a lie-that there is a god George Anthony Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/tomcod3%40gmail.com Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == True, I didn't make it though all 583 comments, but I certainly wouldn't buy yours. For one thing, it entails the kind of dualistic logic (complex/simple) Christianity discarded in about 208. Arguments that if God is one thing, he necessarily cannot be another, generally miss the point of what God is, hypothetically or not, by definition. And it seems to me to attack science as much as theology; certainly there could be few things less complex than the contents of the universe immediately prior to the Big Bang. On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Shane Mage shm...@pipeline.com wrote: You evidently didn't read far enough, because my comment posted in that thread completely refutes the author's criticism of Dawkins: You are wrong to dispute Dawkins argument about complexity. The creator of a complex system, to create it, must initially have that complexity in its consciousness (otherwise there would be something in that complex system which was not the work of that creator, and therefore the system *as a whole* was not the work of that creator). So the complexity of creation must also be complexity within the creator. Therefore either: the creator having something existent about it that is over and above the complexity of the creation is to that extent more complex than the creation; or: there is nothing about the creator that is not present in the creation (pantheism) and therefore a separate creator is otiose. -- Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Gary MacLennan gary.maclenn...@gmail.com writes: It's my birthday today -68- and I can believe it! so I thought I would indulge myself a little on the list, if comrades will excuse that. This piece from the Guardian caught my attention. It was a report on a book by a Jesuit, Gerald O'Collins, criticising the author Philip Pullman's book on Jesus and him having a bad twin etc. I haven't read the book and do not intend to. Though my admiration for it was increased by seeing that it irritated the Catholic Church, so it can't be all bad. Bad twin, hell, have you seen his *friends*?! Many happy returns. :) -- In Solidarity, Billy O'Connor Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == It's my birthday today -68- and I can believe it! so I thought I would indulge myself a little on the list, if comrades will excuse that. This piece from the Guardian caught my attention. It was a report on a book by a Jesuit, Gerald O'Collins, criticising the author Philip Pullman's book on Jesus and him having a bad twin etc. I haven't read the book and do not intend to. Though my admiration for it was increased by seeing that it irritated the Catholic Church, so it can't be all bad. ANWAY this is what the Jesuit apologist said: Jesus is not in a position to correct misrepresentations, especially serious ones that the public, often pretty gullible in these matters, is inclined to accept at face value, O'Collins told the Guardian. He believes that Pullman's aim in the novel was to cast doubt on belief in the divine identity of Jesus. What part of the word divine does our good Jesuit father not understand? If Jesus were divine then he would be always and everywhere able to correct misrepresentations or has he run out of lightning bolts and fiery hell holes? Ah that feels better... comradely Gary Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Happy birthday, Gary! Now I don't at all consider your post an indulgence. I think Pullman is an important figure for we on the left. The review of O'Collins' book attacking Pullman is at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/aug/12/priest-accuses-philip-pullman-christianity By the way, Gary, when you say you're not going to read the book I certainly hope you mean O'Collins, not Pullman. In any case I'll read O'Collins because the ways in which people respond to Pullman I think are important. Because it's true, Pullman is against BOTH churches as institutions AND against the concept of god(s). I may have mentioned previously that Pullman has purposely done yeoman's work in countering the influence of C.S. Lewis -- and in fact after reading the Scoundrel Christ I was inspired to finally tackle Lewis's science fiction trilogy -- and it's every bit as dangerous and reactionary as his apologist writings and the Narnia Chronicles (although not nearly as well-written as the latter). Finally, as for Pullman's emphasis on true stories -- as opposed to the myths which are true believed in by Lewis and Tolkien -- contra O'Collins, Pullman is much closer to historical reality, and when that's indeterminable, perfectly within his rights to create his own fictional version of an already fictional life. (See Engels and Kautsy. See also Carl Sandburg or Kurt Vonnegut) PS: Love your quip at the end! Andy On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Gary MacLennan gary.maclenn...@gmail.com wrote: What part of the word divine does our good Jesuit father not understand? If Jesus were divine then he would be always and everywhere able to correct misrepresentations or has he run out of lightning bolts and fiery hell holes? Ah that feels better... Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Yes, happy birthday and many returns. ...and just remember that they didn't just pull the expression Jesuitical out of thin air. ML Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Aug 12, 2010, at 9:36 PM, Joseph Catron wrote: Anyway, as far as clerical review of Pullman go, I highly recommend Rowan Williams' to anyone who hasn't yet read it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/apr/03/good-jesus-christ-philip-pullman From this review I infer that Pullman is as oblivious as Williams to the central fact about Gethsemane: that the disciples were *armed* Shane Mage L'après-vie, c'est une auberge espagnole. L'on n'y trouve que ce qu'on a apporté. Bardo Thodol Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 9:50 PM, Shane Mage shm...@pipeline.com wrote: From this review I infer that Pullman is as oblivious as Williams to the central fact about Gethsemane: that the disciples were *armed* I would say the central fact about Gethsemane, which too many parties today are wont to forget, is that Jesus genuinely didn't want to go through with it. That said, wouldn't *anyone* lurking around the countryside at midnight in first-century Palestine, who wasn't an unmitigated halfwit, have been armed? What's your point about it? Presumably not that this guaranteed their successful ambush of a Roman legion! -- Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Aug 12, 2010, at 10:00 PM, Joseph Catron wrote: From this review I infer that Pullman is as oblivious as Williams to the central fact about Gethsemane: that the disciples were *armed* I would say the central fact about Gethsemane, which too many parties today are wont to forget, is that Jesus genuinely didn't want to go through with it. What's the it that he didn't he want to go through with? That said, wouldn't *anyone* lurking around the countryside at midnight in first-century Palestine, who wasn't an unmitigated halfwit, have been armed? The Mount of Olives is not the countryside. Its the middle of Jerusalem. What's your point about it? Presumably not that this guaranteed their successful ambush of a Roman legion! It wasn't a legion, it was a cohort. But the point is--they didn't expect the Romans at all. Judas had been sent to fetch the Temple Police, plenty of whom were presumably secret followers of the Messianic movement who would change sides as soon as the swords were drawn. But not with Romans lurking behind,. as Judas had whispered in Jesus's ear. So Peter was told to put down his sword and all but Jesus fled. Ask yourself--they were all safe in a secret location in Jerusalem. Nothing prevented them from praying all night if they wanted to. Why did they all go to the Mount of Olives and make sure the Temple Police were informed? Shane Mage Thunderbolt steers all things. Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 64 Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 10:23 PM, Shane Mage shm...@pipeline.com wrote: The Mount of Olives is not the countryside. Its the middle of Jerusalem. Which Jerusalem? It was, in any case, outside the walls of the Old City as it existed in the first century. It wasn't a legion, it was a cohort. Point taken, but ... I may respond to this further in the morning. For the time being, my opinion is that treating mythology (in the best sense) as if it were merely history, peering through loopholes in the hopes of uncovering some subterfuge, is unlikely to be a productive approach. Of course you may be able to piece together factual points in a pattern more rational than the dominant narrative, but so what? It's on a par with bickering over the incompatible creation narratives of Genesis 1 and 2, or Jesus' competing genealogies in Matthew and Luke - that is to say, rather beside the point. -- Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Aug 12, 2010, at 10:37 PM, Joseph Catron wrote: Jesus' competing genealogies in Matthew and Luke - that is to say, rather beside the point. The point is that each and any Messiah had to be descended from David. The two genealogies establish descent one through the foster father, the other through the mother. They complement, not compete with, each other. Shane Mage Thunderbolt steers all things. Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 64 Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == What about the most intriguing detail of all - the naked young man who ran away? Mark 14:51-52 (New International Version - UK) 51 A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, 52 he fled naked, leaving his garment behind. How did that detail survive in the text? comradely Gary Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self-indulgence
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Brings to mind a comment Barry Sheppard made at a SWP convention circa 1971 regarding too much Bible quoting of Marxist texts not being too taken too strictly as, according to him, it's stated in Scripture that Moses tied his ass to a tree and walked 20 miles. On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Gary MacLennan gary.maclenn...@gmail.comwrote: How did that detail survive in the text? comradely Gary Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
