Stan, over at the conservative Winging It blog, referred to this article (below) from Psychology Today. He, of course, took it to be a destructive, bad bit of information (apparently entirely missing the point - or actually, proving the point), but I found it to be very insightful, especially for followers of Jesus. Jesus, after all, spent his adult life teaching warnings about what might be called the religious fundamentalism in the Pharisees.
Words of wisdom:
In moderation, religious and spiritual practices can be great for a person’s life and mental well-being. But religious fundamentalism—which refers to the belief in the absolute authority of a religious text or leaders*—is almost never good for an individual. This is primarily because fundamentalism discourages any logical reasoning or scientific evidence that challenges its scripture, making it inherently maladaptive.
It is not accurate to call religious fundamentalism a disease,
because that term refers to a pathology that physically attacks the
biology of a system. But fundamentalist ideologies can be thought of as
mental parasites. A parasite does not usually kill the host it inhabits,
as it is critically dependent on it for survival. Instead, it feeds off
it and changes its behavior in ways that benefit its own existence.
By
understanding how fundamentalist ideologies function and are represented
in the brain using this analogy, we can begin to understand how to
inoculate against them, and potentially, how to rehabilitate someone who
has undergone ideological brainwashing—in other words, a reduction in
one’s ability to think critically or independently...
One particularly intriguing example of parasitic manipulation occurs when a hairworm infects a grasshopper and seizes its brain in order to survive and self-replicate. This parasite influences its behavior by inserting specific proteins into its brain. Essentially, infected grasshoppers become slaves for parasitic, self-copying machinery.
In much the same way, Christian fundamentalism is a parasitic ideology that inserts itself into brains, commanding individuals to act and think in a certain way—a rigid way that is intolerant to competing ideas. We know that religious fundamentalism is strongly correlated with what psychologists and neuroscientists call "magical thinking," which refers to making connections between actions and events when no such connections exist in reality. Without magical thinking, the religion can’t survive, nor can it replicate itself. Another cognitive impairment we see in those with extreme religious views is a greater reliance on intuitive rather than reflective or analytical thought, which frequently leads to incorrect assumptions since intuition is often deceiving or overly simplistic."[Welp! -Dan]
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201810/how-religious-fundamentalism-hijacks-the-brain
There's a lot there. Thanks, Stan!
* Note on fundamentalism: The word itself means "getting to the root of, the foundations of... getting to the bottom." That's not necessarily problematic, depending on what roots one is speaking of. But the word itself is a relatively new word coined to speak specifically of religious fundamentalism as we know it today, "to denote a strict and unquestioning set of beliefs linked to literal readings of sacred texts." or...
"Fundamentalist is said (by
George McCready Price) to have been first used in print by Curtis Lee
Laws (1868-1946), editor of "The Watchman Examiner," a Baptist
newspaper. The movement may have roots in the Presbyterian General
Assembly of 1910, which drew up a list of five defining qualities of
"true believers" which other evangelicals published in a
mass-circulation series of books called "The Fundamentals."
https://www.etymonline.com/word/fundamentalism
So, getting to the roots of Jesus' teachings, THAT is something I support and celebrate. But "a strict and unquestioning set of beliefs linked to literal/inerrant sacred texts..." that is problematic, from a rational point of view and, given the problems found in the Bible that Jesus had with the fundamentalist Pharisees, a biblical problem.
Seems to me.
I think psychologists - especially cognitive psychologists - get wrongways altogether when they try to view fundamentalism as a kind of faith with cognitive problems.
ReplyDeleteFundamentalism isn't about faith. It's not really about fighting 17th century religious wars over sola scriptura (Scripture alone), solus Christus (Christ alone), sola fide (faith alone), sola gratia (grace alone), and soli Deo gloria. It's not about parsing out ecclesiology and the ancient church councils as trending toward runaway bureaucratic organization and centralized authority.
Despite all the claims for adherence to scripture as the primary revelation of God [I guess Jesus didn't rise from the dead and the Spirit? What's that?], fundamentalists are not treading a path of some kind of chosen approach to reading their Bible. They don’t need the right kind of interpretation framework by which to read their idol. It's not about style of faith. Modern American right wing covens like our thugs are not relying on a christian framework.
Our thugs need to feel safe in their identity in the middle of a changing world that they are not equipped to feel good in. And they are not equipped to feel good in it because the modern world assaults their identity. Not their faith.
They don't look for, examine, work their way toward an interpretation of scripture that makes sense of god's spirit in the world today. Isn't that evangelicalism? They aren't that. They need an interpretation that gives them what they want for the sake of their unconscious identity. And their ego only lets them consciously think that their identity is tied into beliefs about the right order of society: which is, white men lead best, usually.
Despite the bare fact that when god deigned to come in human flesh he came as a celibate brown man and member of a foreign army occupied land; despite the bare fact that political liberation wasn't on Jesus' agenda; despite the fact that Christian never won the hearts and minds of the majority of the Roman Empire while Jesus was alive and not for centuries until it was forced on people as "official" but not owned; and despite the fact that Jesus, as he faced death on the morrow. taught them that the commandment they can keep that would keep them in god's good graces is to love each other, just love, and that the Spirit was the one coming who would take over the teaching about love after Christ's ascension - not a book of scripture yet to be produced - they blithely ignore all that.
Stan clamors for obedience to commandments while covering up the first and greatest one in alternate silence or open denial, and they all want a theocracy in which they can rule over all others on this land which was gained by dispossession. We are the Romans, is what they believe. And they want rule.
This has nothing to do with faith. This has to do with political means to remember and try to recapture White Supremacist power.
And cognitive psychologists, sociologists, political scientists, legislators, pastors, lawyers, doctors, clowns and mimes are having a difficult time finding the language and the analysis and the critique of this mass regressive movement because we all swim in the same water of White Supremacy and we are covered in it.
Takes a while to dry out.
And the inference of my take is that the word, "moderation," is a cowardly though common allowance of struggle and confusion and change to discredit faith.
ReplyDeleteNothing is as critically important as rituals of spiritually religious practice for the simple reasons that
a) the communality of corporate religious practice wars against sectarian, protestant individualism and proclaims that we all belong to each other
b) the engagement of body and mind and emotional expression in religious practice wars against the sensual deadening of solipsistic and hermetic operations from the head alone; spiritual togetherness overrides the sole rule of rhetoric and pays attendant to the intuitive messages that our layered psychological operations of self send us from the unconscious and subconscious, from the awareness of our embodied existence, our tactility and our leaps of imagination, not just our cognitive box.
and c) corporate religious practice in ritual drives us into the heart of love because we are fostering and learning the practice of devotion with calls for sacrifice within and constitutive of self fulfillment.
Look at your own work. You are clearly and completely committed, not moderated. Which is not a statement about stamina. It is a statement of devotion and intent. Your own work pays, more than others, attention to our whole selves because the blindly default normative assumptions of fully abled people cannot be unchallenged.
Your labor is unmoderated, spiritual, ritualistic work of devotion.
Thanks for posting the excerpt. If you think doing so somehow debunks Stan's position, it doesn't. Indeed, it makes his post all the more spot on.
ReplyDeleteIf the Pharisees were actually the fundamentalists of their day, Jesus wouldn't have been in conflict with them. They put the so-called "Oral Law" above the written law of the Torah, and it was this which brought about Christ's admonishments to their positions and behaviors. THAT was what they were heaping upon the people more than anything. Consider the episode regarding the Sabbath. They pushed an idea which suggested pretty any effort was labor which should be performed on that day. But that's not the point of the Commandment at all, as Jesus corrected them. They added to the Law, which was prohibited and that is what led to the conflict between them and Jesus.
In any case, your constant conflation of Pharisees with fundamentalist Christians who abide Scripture is without basis altogether. To consider one's actions, decisions and reactions in light of Scripture is what Christians are supposed to be doing. Indeed, if anyone is akin to the Pharisees, it's you. Worse, is that you add what is clearly in conflict with Scripture and suggest such evil is good. Not a good plan.
ReplyDeleteThe Saducees believed in the sole authority of the written Torah. Jesus tore them a new one as well. But then, Jesus confronted the Pharisees on rigid rules of morality. Not on sola Torah vs Torah + which includes the psalms, the prophets, Kings/Chronicles, etc, everything not in the first five books.
Marshal is inferring that anything past Deuteronomy must have been ignored by Jesus, bring a fundamentalist after all.
Go back to your aero engineers, Marshal. You need a new evasion for your evasion.
If you think doing so somehow debunks Stan's position, it doesn't.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't really addressing Stan's post (other than noting he missed the point of science), but there were some basic reasoning weaknesses. He suggested:
Interestingly, the willingness of some to question the veracity of "all conclusions" is regarded by most as "radical," because Science today is sacrosanct
Not amongst scientists. That is, science is predicated upon the notion that any theories and "facts" can be disputed IF there is data to back up the dispute. No theory or notion is sacrosanct in science. By definition.
Now, it may be the case that non-scientists and perhaps some scientists grasp on to some theories and facts so tightly that they aren't willing to consider additional evidence, but that would be a scientific aberration. It's a problem with the people, not the scientific method or "science."
But that's not the point of this post. This post is talking about the interesting article that Stan shared and the case for "fundamentalism" (as typically defined) has a negative impact upon thinking seems sound. In the experience of many, religious fundamentalism results pretty consistently in a closing down of the mind, of being less open to new or competing ideas or hard data if it conflicts with the fundamentalists' views. I've certainly seen that repeatedly and experienced it myself, in my own more fundamentalist days.
As to your theory (that Jesus would have no conflict with the pharisees if they were fundamentalists), you'd have to present some data or solid reasoning to support it. You might begin by how you define fundamentalism.
Aside from that, Feodor has it right, I believe, that the Pharisees were quite rigid on THEIR rules of morality. They had a closed down mind to other interpretations and possibilities.
From the ultra-conservative Bob Jones University, the origin of Fundamentalism and its "five essential beliefs..."
ReplyDeleteFundamentalism is a religious movement that began in the early twentieth century,
as conservative Christians opposed
modernist Christianity with its
higher criticism,
acceptance of evolution, and
disbelief in the inspiration of the Bible.
Fundamentalists from several denominations joined together to
affirm the "fundamentals," such as
the inspiration of Scripture,
the deity and atonement of Christ, and
the premillennial Second Coming of Christ.
https://libguides.bju.edu/fundamentalism
So, first of all, for all the modern conservative religionists who object to "fundamentalism" being a term to harshly define ("attack") Christianity, it should be remembered that Fundamentalism, as a philosophy BEGAN with self-described Christian fundamentalists.
Secondly, it IS a modernist movement of 20th century conservative religionists from various Christian-identifying denominations. So, that Christian fundamentalists are often targeted as being problematic (as opposed to Muslim or other non-Christian entities), that's because Christian fundamentalists started the term and usage. "Fundamentalism" at its roots IS a conservative religious "christian" movement from 100 years ago.
Thirdly, "fundamentalists" were specifically acting against what they perceived to be modern rationalists, so those religious fundamentalists were the ones who drew the line, not the non-religious.
More on the origins of "christian fundamentalism..."
ReplyDeleteAbout the author:
I teach in a nondenominational seminary, but the doctrinal statement of Shepherds Theological Seminary is baptistic. I identify myself as a separatist – that it is unbiblical to work together with theological liberals in order to fulfill the Great Commission. I continue to be delighted to call myself a dispensational premillennialist.
So, a very conservative man. According to him:
In the view of William Bell Riley, one of the most important fundamentalists in the first half of the twentieth century, The Fundamentals were step one in the naming of the movement. Riley says that he and the editor of The Fundamentals, A. C. Dixon, were together for several days at a Bible conference in Montrose, Pennsylvania in 1919. There,
“we agreed to call the initial meeting that brought into existence ‘The World’s Christian Fundamentals Association.’”
After the first conference of the WCFA in May of 1919, attended by over six thousand fundamentalists, Riley says, “The Fundamentalist Movement was a new-born infant, but a lusty and promising one.”1 In Riley’s view, he was the one who named and inaugurated the fundamentalist movement. Indeed, the WCFA became the foremost non-denominational fundamentalist organization in the 1920’s.
A year later, July 1, 1920, Curtis Lee Laws, the editor of The Watchman Examiner, wrote an article about a recent gathering of Bible-believing Baptists who had convened to plan
how to oppose theological liberalism in the Northern Baptist Convention. Laws proposes three names for these Baptists in his article... [and] He concludes “We suggest that those who still cling to the great fundamentals and who mean to do battle royal for the fundamentals
shall be called ‘Fundamentalists.’”
The Fundamentalist Fellowship of the Northern Baptist Convention was formed at this time. Thus, by 1920, one hundred years ago this year, the name “fundamentalism” was being applied to both non-denominational and denominational organizations
created to oppose theological liberalism and other evils, such as evolution.
https://shepherds.edu/a-brief-history-of-fundamentalism/
["Other evils..." rolls eyes!]
Their list of "fundamentals..."?
(1) inerrancy,
(2) the virgin birth of Jesus Christ,
(3) the substitutionary atonement,
(4) the bodily resurrection of Christ, and
(5) the authenticity of miracles.
Later, the authenticity of miracles was often combined with another doctrine and the Second Coming of Christ was listed as number five.
Now (and this returns us to the Pharisees as fundamentalists), we may recall that the Pharisees were problematic (according to conservative writers today) because they were arrogant and added rules to God's Word, lists of "sins" to avoid that were not in the Torah.
ReplyDeleteRight?
But then, look at the fundamentalists of 100 years ago and their list:
Inerrancy is not a biblical teaching. Not in the Torah and not in the Bible. It's literally not there AS A TEACHING. There are some few passages that modern fundamentalists read and extract that as a teaching, but it's literally not there.
And note: It's certainly not there in Jesus' teachings.
Fundamentalism=Pharisaism? Check!
The virgin birth is LIKEWISE not biblical, at least not as anything like an essential teaching of Jesus. It's not a teaching of Jesus at all, literally.
Same for "substitutionary atonement." These are all add-ons, ideas and human theories promoted by humans much after the time of Jesus and the Bible.
We could debate the "essentiality" of the last two, but we can not with authority that Jesus nowhere commanded a belief in his resurrection as essential to his teachings. That's just literally not in the words of Jesus as recorded in the Bible.
So, on the "essentials" that fundamentalists devised 100 years ago, they are either not biblical or perhaps, at best, barely there, at least as an essential. And again, certainly not there in Jesus' actual words.
So, whether or not it's fair to say that the Pharisees were fundamentalists, it's certainly reasonable to note that modern fundamentalists are Pharisaical.
Also, glaringly absent in the "fundamentalists" list of "fundamentals" is the mention of anything like grace, forgiveness, love or allying with the least of these (ie, Love)... notions that were clearly so essential in the teachings of Jesus, as we have them recorded in the Bible. That's not nothing.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen Jesus says, “in everything do to others as you would have them do to you, for this is the Law and the Prophets”, he is citing the written Torah - the law of the Pentateuch (first five books written by Moses) - and the oral Torah - the prophetic literature. He has no beef over the oral Torah. He is in fact the fulfillment of the Prophets - oral Torah.
ReplyDeleteA glaring lesson that Marshal doesn’t know what he’s reading. But he uses the evasive lies of his helicopter engineers and other radical protestant ideologues who make up shit to please their White male ears. Marshal is a stone cold committed liar.
Jesus’ point in Matthew is that these fundamentalist pharisees evade their own scripture’s commands to love and work for justice. Instead, they burden people with behavioral conformity.
This is the heart of brutality that comforts Marshal, Craig, Stan, the fake Scot and all this fragile White fundamentalist, terrorizing generation.
"Not amongst scientists. That is, science is predicated upon the notion that any theories and "facts" can be disputed IF there is data to back up the dispute. No theory or notion is sacrosanct in science. By definition."
ReplyDeleteYeah...this is the way it's supposed to be, but not the way it plays out. For example, there is plenty of evidence which contradicts the climate alarmism which has led to nonsensical political proposals and mandates. The entrenched do not relent when those who contradict point out their faults and flaws.
"Now, it may be the case that non-scientists and perhaps some scientists grasp on to some theories and facts so tightly that they aren't willing to consider additional evidence, but that would be a scientific aberration. It's a problem with the people, not the scientific method or "science.""
So you'd like to believe, but the problem is within the scientific community. Fraud in peer review is so common place, that some journals won't pay them any attention. Craig covered this in a recent post at his blog, but the problems with peer review is not new at all.
This is not to say that there exists scientists willing to go where the evidence takes them. But to pretend that's the rule is clearly not the case given what we see in the news these days.
" This post is talking about the interesting article that Stan shared and the case for "fundamentalism" (as typically defined) has a negative impact upon thinking seems sound."
Sure. To those who find faithfulness to Biblical Truth inconvenient, that might be the case. But that's what Stan found to be the unsupported finding of the article. Even your excerpt does little to back up that contention. It merely asserts that's the case.
"In the experience of many, religious fundamentalism results pretty consistently in a closing down of the mind, of being less open to new or competing ideas or hard data if it conflicts with the fundamentalists' views."
Nonsense. And where's the evidence for this? The mere fact that people of faith aren't quick to swallow every goofy notion which comes down the pike? That's not being closed minded just because they can easily smell BS.
"As to your theory (that Jesus would have no conflict with the pharisees if they were fundamentalists), you'd have to present some data or solid reasoning to support it. You might begin by how you define fundamentalism."
ReplyDeleteIt's not "a theory" simply because it flies in the face of your insulting attitude toward people of true faith. It's a reality anyone who digs deeply into the subject can learn. Jesus routinely reciting to them what the Torah says is an obvious hint they weren't true to it. Why would that be? Because they believed something else or something more. I first became acquainted with these details through a piece written by a Jew who rejects the Talmud as having any priority over the Torah. There is no mention in the OT of any "Oral Law", and certainly not in the first five Books.
"Aside from that, Feodor has it right, I believe, that the Pharisees were quite rigid on THEIR rules of morality. They had a closed down mind to other interpretations and possibilities."
I don't read feo's comments, and past experience gives me no confidence he ever has anything right. It wasn't rigidity in their beliefs which was the problem. It was the beliefs themselves, which were not focused on the written Law which was to guide the people of Israel. It was focused on the so-called "Oral Law", which is why I suggested that if they were truly fundamentalists, there'd be no conflict between them and Christ. Christ was a fundie, too.
"So, first of all, for all the modern conservative religionists who object to "fundamentalism" being a term to harshly define ("attack") Christianity, it should be remembered that Fundamentalism, as a philosophy BEGAN with self-described Christian fundamentalists."
But the word is used to demean and disparage, as if there's something wrong with conviction in the fundamentals of the faith. This conviction leads to those with less or none of it to push back against people of faith, because it doesn't allow for the unChristian notions and behavior being promoted.
"Thirdly, "fundamentalists" were specifically acting against what they perceived to be modern rationalists, so those religious fundamentalists were the ones who drew the line, not the non-religious."
"Modern rationalists"...that is, those who rationalize, much like you and feo do and as progressives in general do (I'm embracing grace, here, because I've not met all progressives).
"More on the origins of "christian fundamentalism...""
ReplyDeleteNone of this has anything to do with the claim made in Psychology Today.
"Inerrancy is not a biblical teaching. Not in the Torah and not in the Bible. It's literally not there AS A TEACHING. There are some few passages that modern fundamentalists read and extract that as a teaching, but it's literally not there."
You're once again doing your usual thing, wherein if a word or concept isn't specifically mentioned in Scripture, it isn't Biblical. Yet simply googling "Verses which affirm the Bible's inerrency" and a host of lists can be found which affirm the concept...from 16 to as many as 100 verses (supposedly, as I didn't open them to read them all)...and articles galore which argue for the concept as true. When anyone rejects the concept, I have to wonder what utterance of God the Father, Son, their prophets or apostles is in error? Which of any sayings is that upon which one can't rely as true? Those who question the inerrancy of Scripture are those who find too much of it inconvenient.
"And note: It's certainly not there in Jesus' teachings."
No. All those citations of His wherein He begins, "It is written..." doesn't in the least compel one to accept what is "written" as trustworthy and without error. Sure.
"Fundamentalism=Pharisaism? Check!"
Huh??? YOU'RE the one who said one equals the other. They were NOT "fundamentalists" in the sense that they were not preaching the Torah as the source of Truth, as contemporary fundies affirm the Truth of the Christian Bible. They were adding to it their own rules and laws.
"The virgin birth is LIKEWISE not biblical, at least not as anything like an essential teaching of Jesus. It's not a teaching of Jesus at all, literally."
That's a weird thing to say since it's actually in the Bible...it's where the world got the notion in the first place. It doesn't have to be a teaching of Jesus presented in Scripture, as any of His recorded words are, for it to nonetheless be true. Yet, there it is in Scripture.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/virgin-birth-jesus-christ/
"Same for "substitutionary atonement." These are all add-ons, ideas and human theories promoted by humans much after the time of Jesus and the Bible."
We've been through this and you lost this debate but carry on like Monty Python's Black Knight. That's absolutely Biblical and also, Jesus taught it Himself.
ReplyDelete"We could debate the "essentiality" of the last two, but we can not with authority that Jesus nowhere commanded a belief in his resurrection as essential to his teachings. That's just literally not in the words of Jesus as recorded in the Bible."
It's a debate you'd lose worse than SA. But this notion that Jesus had to command belief in either is absurd. It's the fact of those which are fundamental, not whether or not there's some verse demanding our belief. But to disregard these things, or worse, to reject any of them sets one apart from true Christianity, because those are facts of the faith.
"So, on the "essentials" that fundamentalists devised 100 years ago, they are either not biblical or perhaps, at best, barely there, at least as an essential. And again, certainly not there in Jesus' actual words."
This is just you imposing a requirement which is to your liking, but not reasonable or rational in the least. All the five points are directly and distinctly Biblical.
"So, whether or not it's fair to say that the Pharisees were fundamentalists, it's certainly reasonable to note that modern fundamentalists are Pharisaical."
It's not at all fair because the difference is obvious. Fundies abide Scripture, which at the time of Christ, and attested by His constant referencing, was the Torah. The Pharisees put the so-called "Oral Law" above the Torah. How is that being a fundie? Fundies don't add to Scripture. Those who falsely claim a parallel do so because God's Word is a burden, not that additional rules and laws are imposed upon them.
"Also, glaringly absent in the "fundamentalists" list of "fundamentals" is the mention of anything like grace, etc..."
You mean things that lots of others...religious or not...do, too. Maybe you should have defined what you think being a fundie is. Think of it this way: The list of five essentials would be like apples being an essential or fundamental ingredient of apple pie. What kind of crust is used isn't fundamental but that some kind of crust is. Ala mode or with whipped cream on top isn't fundamental to an apple pie. Some use those with their pumpkin pie. Others for their cherry pies. But for them to be "glaringly absent" from a list of ingredients isn't required for apple pie in order for a pie to be apple.
A man who cannot acknowledge his lie isn’t a man. A Christian who cannot acknowledge his lie about scripture isn’t a Christian.
ReplyDeleteMarshal rejected oral Torah. The Prophets and the Psalms and all the books after Deuteronomy are oral scriptures according to Judaism at the time of Jesus… and therefore by Jesus, too.
But Marshal chooses willful pride over admitting the obvious:
His argument was manufactured evasion.
His credibility has always been nil. Because he’s ignorant of almost everything.
So, despite my practice to skip over feo's comments, he provides reason why that practice is wise.
ReplyDeleteThe Talmud is NOT an "Oral Torah", but commentaries on how the Torah should be understood, some of which are in conflict with each other. The point of the Talmud is that this "Oral Law" was handed down to Moses the same time as that written in the Torah. Yet, neither in the Pentateuch or any other OT book is an "Oral Law" mentioned. There's also no mention of the Pharisees until the NT.
feo conflates "oral scripture" with "oral law". There's no problem with orally passing down histories. But insisting that an "Oral Law" was handed down to Moses when there is never any mention of it in the OT is then simply fantasy taught to maintain power over the people. THIS is what Jesus was rebuking when dealing with the Pharisees. He never spoke of an oral law but only of that which was written.
I know feo takes great pride in his diploma from "Bubba's Seminary and Bait Shop", but it doesn't compel any respect for him whatsoever, especially when he makes stuff up in posturing as in any way superior.
It's an idiot's idea that ignoring someone because they come with the facts that cannot be refuted, the facts don't then exist. But we can all see how Marshal has ignored not just what I present. Marshal ignores the Christ as written about in the gospels. Because the facts of what Jesus said, Marshal doesn't like. Just recently Marshal doesn't like that Jesus promised us the Holy Spirit would come and teach us everything. Not a book. Marshal doesn't like that that very Spirit has to go to some effort to convince Peter that the gospel of Jesus Christ and the grace of god are available to Gentiles, because Peter doesn't think we are clean. Apostles aren't perfect, the scriptures reveal. But Marshal thinks both the book and the apostles are perfect. He lives in lies he tells himself.
ReplyDeleteAnd, as predicted, Marshal has spent some time going back to his helicopter engineers and other half-assed, uneducated "biblical authorities" to find his new evasion: the Talmud. One can imagine Marshal loving to write this word that sounds so authoritative to him though he doesn't know what it is. And why should he? Marshal has never done any serious study of anything about Christianity.
Does Marshal know that the Talmud is a combination of two major traditions of teaching: the Mishnah and the Gemara? Does Marshal know that the Mishnah was compiled around 200 CE and the Gemara around 500 CE? Does Marshal know that the Talmud is the foundational commentary material on which rabbinical Judaism developed? Does Marshal know what rabbinical Judaism is?
If he knew these things, then the pathetic harlequin would not be going around with no clothes. Dan was talking about Jesus and the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Did Jesus live before or after 200 CE? Did Jesus live before or after 500 CE? Did Jesus live before or after the beginning of rabbinical Judaism? Rabbinical Judaism began to form as the mainstream variety of Judaism after the compilation of the Talmud, so after 500 CE.
Marshal's new evasion is to ignore that Dan was talking about the time of Jesus, referred to in Judaism as Second Temple Judaism. Because the Second Temple still existed. It was destroyed in 70 CE by the occupying Romans.
So the Talmud obviously has nothing to with the fact that the Sadducees only placed the authority of scripture in the first five books of Moses and rejected the prophets, Chronicles, Kings, the Psalms, etc, everything after the Torah. The Pharisees, however, found a great deal of authority in the prophets, the so-called "history" writings, the psalms, and more and it oral Torah.
Marshal, claiming that Jesus did not agree with the Pharisees on scripture by going beyond the Written Torah... has ignored the prophets, the psalms, the history like narratives of Israel.
Marshal, trying to ignore Dan's point, wanders into rejecting the basic understandings of Christianity.
btw, does Marshal know that in every synagogue there is an Ark of the Law placed in the wall of the synagogue that holds their scroll copies of the Torah? And does he know those scrolls are only the first five books? Not the prophets. Not the psalms. Not Kings. So, the Sadducees still carry a distant influence all these centuries into rabbinical Judaism.
Marshal now needs to find a third evasive lie.
But pointing out these disingenuous lies where Marshal rejects Jesus own words and Jesus own historical time, still does not bring us back to Dan's point:
ReplyDeleteJesus' argument with the Pharisees wasn't about their reading of scripture - Jesus surely thought of the prophets as authoritative scripture just as the Pharisees did. Jesus' argument was the behavioral burdens of ritual and obedience that the Pharisees put on the people of Israel. Jesus even rebelled about the prohibition to do work on the Sabbath... by curing people. That! sounds so like Marshal and this parochial coven of thugs who worship scripture but deny what it says about love being the greatest commandment.
And Jesus argument with the Sadducees, the priestly elite, was how they help all positions of power and privilege and did not deign to feed the hungry or clothe the naked or take care of widows and orphans, the foreigner and stranger.