Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [gthomas] Re: Re: The Sermon on the Light

Expand Messages
  • Rick Hubbard
    Bauer Wrote: Why do you call my thought poignantly obtuse ? What do you mean by that, anyway? & don t you think that someone in your discipline might sound
    Message 1 of 7 , Jan 3, 2001
      Bauer Wrote:
      Why do you call my thought "poignantly obtuse"? What do you mean by that,
      anyway? & don't you think that someone in your discipline might sound
      "obtuse" to a sociobiologist?

      You may be correct that there exists some "cross disciplinary communication
      interference." Your post is sufficient evidence to support such a
      conclusion. Please read the following, however, about the purpose of the
      gthomas list:

      "The Papyri Oxyrhynchi 1, 654 &; 655 and Nag Hammadi Codex II,2 (The Gospel
      of Thomas) are literary papyri of interest to biblical scholars specializing
      in extra-canonical texts (the writings outside of the New Testament). This
      list is dedicated to the scholarly discussion of the Gospel of Thomas and
      provides an online forum for those working or interested in New Testament,
      History, or Religious Studies."

      Do you see anything in the list description that mandates any deference to
      your particular point of departure? I do not.

      Bauer wrote:
      My point was simply that if you go around cutting & pasting together
      bits-&-pieces of literature you're not understanding it in a holistic sense
      & you can get it to "mean" just about anything.

      And THAT, of course is poesis!

      Bauer wrote:
      Such literary meanderings are useless from a scientific perspective. They
      have about the same degree of validity as the "Bible codes" the
      Fundamentalists talk about. Reading every tenth verse (or whatever) is
      supposed to have a "hidden meaning".

      "Literary meanderings", as you characterize them, are not scientific
      postulates. Their intent is to goad the mind into activity, or into hyper-
      activity. The nature of science (as I'm sure you will agree) is to present
      hypotheses that are subject to falsification. The inherent nature of
      religion is that it is precisely UN-scientific (i.e., not subject to either
      confirmation or falsification). When one discipline legitimizes the other,
      then one or the other is in-valid (so you are correct in your assessment
      about "Bible Codes" and the like).

      Bauer Wrote:
      If you have trouble with the jargon, look it up, you're on the web.

      If I were interested in the relevance of the jargon, I would do so. I am not
      interested, so I will not. By contrast, if you are interested in the
      "jargon" of religion I suggest you spend 8-10 years in formal study of the
      discipline of religion, then you too can be TRULY confounded!

      Rick Hubbard
      Humble Maine Woodsman
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.