spin wrote:I'd guess you'd be happy for the department of UFOlogy at the local tertiary institute to be responsible for investigations into the historicity of the Roswell event or the local faculty of the paranormal to be in charge of investigations into unexplained manifestations.

When one's position involves having one foot nailed to the floor, it's not strange that you run round in circles and get nowhere.

It is nice to see your mask of objectivity publicly ripped to shreds by yourself.
As most biblical scholars have worked at leading academic institutions and have had, until fairly recently, a background of expertise in related subjects, such as classics, that is a ridiculous analogy.
I may indeed have one of my feet nailed to the floor, by my fondness for christianity, but I don't see much evidence that your rage is doing your freedom of thought much good either. If not driven purely rage you do seem to have a kind of hyper skepticism which is tantamount to trying to clean a window with shoe polish.

Ian Tattum wrote:

spin wrote:I'd guess you'd be happy for the department of UFOlogy at the local tertiary institute to be responsible for investigations into the historicity of the Roswell event or the local faculty of the paranormal to be in charge of investigations into unexplained manifestations.

When one's position involves having one foot nailed to the floor, it's not strange that you run round in circles and get nowhere.

It is nice to see your mask of objectivity publicly ripped to shreds by yourself.

Yawn. You consent to a corrupt system so you defend it with ad hominems.

Ian Tattum wrote:As most biblical scholars have worked at leading academic institutions and have had, until fairly recently, a background of expertise in related subjects, such as classics, that is a ridiculous analogy.

You are looking past the analogy and perverting it. Would you or would you not think it was ok if well-trained UFOlogists were given charge of the historicity of the Roswell event??

Ian Tattum wrote:I may indeed have one of my feet nailed to the floor,...

I didn't have you in mind, but biblical scholars. (I may not have made that thought clear enough.)

Ian Tattum wrote:...by my fondness for christianity, but I don't see much evidence that your rage is doing your freedom of thought much good either.

You seem to have a limited range of possible options to consider when analysing the world. Ordinary people would have no reason to consider rage in this situation. It would seem for you its either rage or adulation. The spectrum is somewhat wider.

Ian Tattum wrote:If not driven purely rage you do seem to have a kind of hyper skepticism which is tantamount to trying to clean a window with shoe polish.

Oh, fuck, not hyperskepticism!!!



Sorry, I didn't find much thought in your post. I get the idea you were just too quick to react.

spin wrote:

Ian Tattum wrote:

spin wrote:I'd guess you'd be happy for the department of UFOlogy at the local tertiary institute to be responsible for investigations into the historicity of the Roswell event or the local faculty of the paranormal to be in charge of investigations into unexplained manifestations.

When one's position involves having one foot nailed to the floor, it's not strange that you run round in circles and get nowhere.

It is nice to see your mask of objectivity publicly ripped to shreds by yourself.

Yawn. You consent to a corrupt system so you defend it with ad hominems.

Ian Tattum wrote:As most biblical scholars have worked at leading academic institutions and have had, until fairly recently, a background of expertise in related subjects, such as classics, that is a ridiculous analogy.

You are looking past the analogy and perverting it. Would you or would you not think it was ok if well-trained UFOlogists were given charge of the historicity of the Roswell event??

Ian Tattum wrote:I may indeed have one of my feet nailed to the floor,...

I didn't have you in mind, but biblical scholars. (I may not have made that thought clear enough.)

Ian Tattum wrote:...by my fondness for christianity, but I don't see much evidence that your rage is doing your freedom of thought much good either.

You seem to have a limited range of possible options to consider when analysing the world. Ordinary people would have no reason to consider rage in this situation. It would seem for you its either rage or adulation. The spectrum is somewhat wider.

Ian Tattum wrote:If not driven purely rage you do seem to have a kind of hyper skepticism which is tantamount to trying to clean a window with shoe polish.

Oh, fuck, not hyperskepticism!!!



Sorry, I didn't find much thought in your post. I get the idea you were just too quick to react.

Not sure about being too quick, frustrated more like! You repeat your belief that religious studies and theological faculties are part of a corrupt system, which does not allow any true intellectual freedom. A more reasonable explanation for their tameness could be that as christianity has dwindled the pool of competent applicants , who have any interest in biblical studies, has shrunk. I am not sure that the likes of SGF Brandon or John Allegro will ever be seen again, but whatever their private opinions, most of the scholars that I encountered teaching the subject were quite happy to let students develop their own ideas.

Ian Tattum wrote:

spin wrote:Sorry, I didn't find much thought in your post. I get the idea you were just too quick to react.

Not sure about being too quick, frustrated more like!

I can understand the frustration. Hegemony functions through consent. People tend to defend the status quo, as you do through your frustration.

Ian Tattum wrote:You repeat your belief that religious studies and theological faculties are part of a corrupt system, which does not allow any true intellectual freedom.

I didn't use the word "corrupt". It suggests a wilfulness that isn't appropriate. And it's not quite the system that does not allow intellectual freedom, but the consent given to the status quo.

Ian Tattum wrote:A more reasonable explanation for their tameness could be that as christianity has dwindled the pool of competent applicants , who have any interest in biblical studies, has shrunk. I am not sure that the likes of SGF Brandon or John Allegro will ever be seen again,...

(I don't know Brandon's story, but Allegro was a species of circumvention of the status quo. His trajectory was fast-tracked after WWII, as an older student, so his adherence to the status quo was not ingrained. He was not a young brain in its formative stage, but a bright latecomer. And his scholarship was flawed, playing too much to popularism and while a good technical scholar was at times hasty. Besides, he went right off the rails when he discovered just what the rest of the people he had to work with were like. He got too provocative and had himself ostracized, leading to the virtual loss of his career and meddling with weird shit. He was the one ray of light in the early field of Qumran scholars. Most of the others were not up to the task. Only Milik had any shine. We had to wait until the 1990s before the scrolls got more competent treatment. Allegro was dead by then, I think.)

Ian Tattum wrote:...but whatever their private opinions, most of the scholars that I encountered teaching the subject were quite happy to let students develop their own ideas.

It's called "repressive tolerance". You can do whatever you like within decorum. But if your waywardness starts to make too much noise or attract too much attention, your activities tend to get curtailed. Very few people stray: you need to have some perception of where to stray, which usually doesn't present itself, because you are not inclined to notice opportunities to stray. Why should one? The system is usually self-correcting... and if it's not, it self-corrects more forcefully.

Go and spend a significant amount of time in a muslim country and as an outsider you'll see lots of things within the society you wouldn't like and wouldn't consent to (and I don't refer to politics). Naturally the vast majority of the people of the country consent, otherwise it wouldn't be that way. Spend sufficient time there and your perception just may be changed enough to return to your own environment with different eyes. You would then bear the seeds of dissent.

spin wrote:

Ian Tattum wrote:

spin wrote:Sorry, I didn't find much thought in your post. I get the idea you were just too quick to react.

Not sure about being too quick, frustrated more like!

I can understand the frustration. Hegemony functions through consent. People tend to defend the status quo, as you do through your frustration.

Ian Tattum wrote:You repeat your belief that religious studies and theological faculties are part of a corrupt system, which does not allow any true intellectual freedom.

I didn't use the word "corrupt". It suggests a wilfulness that isn't appropriate. And it's not quite the system that does not allow intellectual freedom, but the consent given to the status quo.

Ian Tattum wrote:A more reasonable explanation for their tameness could be that as christianity has dwindled the pool of competent applicants , who have any interest in biblical studies, has shrunk. I am not sure that the likes of SGF Brandon or John Allegro will ever be seen again,...

(I don't know Brandon's story, but Allegro was a species of circumvention of the status quo. His trajectory was fast-tracked after WWII, as an older student, so his adherence to the status quo was not ingrained. He was not a young brain in its formative stage, but a bright latecomer. And his scholarship was flawed, playing too much to popularism and while a good technical scholar was at times hasty. Besides, he went right off the rails when he discovered just what the rest of the people he had to work with were like. He got too provocative and had himself ostracized, leading to the virtual loss of his career and meddling with weird shit. He was the one ray of light in the early field of Qumran scholars. Most of the others were not up to the task. Only Milik had any shine. We had to wait until the 1990s before the scrolls got more competent treatment. Allegro was dead by then, I think.)

Ian Tattum wrote:...but whatever their private opinions, most of the scholars that I encountered teaching the subject were quite happy to let students develop their own ideas.

It's called "repressive tolerance". You can do whatever you like within decorum. But if your waywardness starts to make too much noise or attract too much attention, your activities tend to get curtailed. Very few people stray: you need to have some perception of where to stray, which usually doesn't present itself, because you are not inclined to notice opportunities to stray. Why should one? The system is usually self-correcting... and if it's not, it self-corrects more forcefully.

Go and spend a significant amount of time in a muslim country and as an outsider you'll see lots of things within the society you wouldn't like and wouldn't consent to (and I don't refer to politics). Naturally the vast majority of the people of the country consent, otherwise it wouldn't be that way. Spend sufficient time there and your perception just may be changed enough to return to your own environment with different eyes. You would then bear the seeds of dissent.

Interesting reply, but just one brief comment for now- you did describe the system as corrupt- in your previous post

Yes, you're right: I did refer to the system as corrupt. My interest in my most recent post was to separate the people involved from any corruptness. They do what comes naturally. Perhaps even the word "corrupt" regarding the system is more a reflection of my seeing it from a position with some modicum of independence. The system is just organic in its self-replication. Would it be reasonable to call a system that discriminates against a portion of its own population for some historically determined reason "corrupt"? It is probably overeasy for me to have played the corruption card. As a response to your rhetoric, it just seemed the appropriate tone.