This is indeed horrifying - thanks for posting a factual account, which is precisely what our media is showing itself consistently unwilling to do in so many arenas.
That being said, is it legitimate to still find it incredibly fishy that Patreus has been kept from testifying on this matter (I still don't see what adultery has to do with his testimony on this event)? Would be interested in your take.
Thank you for posting this video. I watched the short clip and heard the sentence, "life is that gift from God". But you entitled the post "rape as a gift from God". Is there another video clip where he makes that statement?
Bill, to clear-up an important point: current scholarly consensus is that there indeed was a historical figure named Jesus upon whose life all of these writings under discussion are based. This point is considered beyond argumentation among historians (Dawkins et al obviously don't quality as 'historians' in any real sense). In fact, there is not one 'historian' whose work is respected in the academy today that is claiming otherwise. The 'possibilities' you mentioned are logical possibilities - but literally nobody doing serious work in this field considers them interesting according to the currently available historical data. Joining the current conversation means investigating who Jesus was according to the data, not whether he was. -Andrew
Thank you for the very thought-provoking post. Thank you for emphasizing that we need to learn from one another and for highlighting that falsely sanctifying our own religious figures is really a way of avoiding this humbling educational process.
Your post correctly implies that this 2nd cent document further confirms the existence of a historical 'Jesus', and also confirms that early communities considered the details of Jesus' life to be of incredible significance.
I'm curious if you are aware of the long-standing interpretation (restated by John Paul II among dozens of others) of 'adam' in Genesis 2 as pre-sexed humanity? This reading implies that the significance of '2nd adam' was not maleness (and therefore marriagability) but some mysterious ability to 'represent' both male and female.
You drew a very interesting connection between David and Muhammad, one that helped throw into relief the claim that early Christians made about 'old testament saints': they were not holy but rather unholy people called into a covenant in order to be 'types' for later covenant members. The ot saints' lives were thus thought to display 'covenant reality' - including the feature that in covenant, marital/sexual relations were answerable to God and therefore under judgement. The claim would therefore be that Muhammad differed only in that he was not under this same covenant accountability and judgement.
Lack of empathy or 'not getting out enough' is not necessarily the issue here (though it might be). There are, after all, times when moral principles cause us to take a course that is more difficult. Can't we all think of such situations from our own personal experience when 'doing right' cost us dearly? Just because one supports such a principle does not mean they must be aware of every situation in which it is difficult to carry out. After all, Pro-choice people tend to care less about post-abortion care than the right to abortion. That could be labeled lack of empathy…but my point is that has nothing to do with whether abortion is right or wrong.
On the flip side, saying abortion is wrong is not the same as saying 'get over it'. If your point is that those in the pro-life camp should be equally fervent about post-birth care and support, that makes sense to me. But, in the post above, the appeal to empathy does not logically connect with supporting abortion, and perhaps this is why the post is nothing more than a personal attack.
This is indeed horrifying - thanks for posting a factual account, which is precisely what our media is showing itself consistently unwilling to do in so many arenas.
That being said, is it legitimate to still find it incredibly fishy that Patreus has been kept from testifying on this matter (I still don't see what adultery has to do with his testimony on this event)? Would be interested in your take.
Thanks for your work.
Thank you for posting this video. I watched the short clip and heard the sentence, "life is that gift from God". But you entitled the post "rape as a gift from God". Is there another video clip where he makes that statement?
Bill, to clear-up an important point: current scholarly consensus is that there indeed was a historical figure named Jesus upon whose life all of these writings under discussion are based. This point is considered beyond argumentation among historians (Dawkins et al obviously don't quality as 'historians' in any real sense). In fact, there is not one 'historian' whose work is respected in the academy today that is claiming otherwise. The 'possibilities' you mentioned are logical possibilities - but literally nobody doing serious work in this field considers them interesting according to the currently available historical data. Joining the current conversation means investigating who Jesus was according to the data, not whether he was. -Andrew
Dr. Cole,
Thank you for the very thought-provoking post. Thank you for emphasizing that we need to learn from one another and for highlighting that falsely sanctifying our own religious figures is really a way of avoiding this humbling educational process.
Your post correctly implies that this 2nd cent document further confirms the existence of a historical 'Jesus', and also confirms that early communities considered the details of Jesus' life to be of incredible significance.
I'm curious if you are aware of the long-standing interpretation (restated by John Paul II among dozens of others) of 'adam' in Genesis 2 as pre-sexed humanity? This reading implies that the significance of '2nd adam' was not maleness (and therefore marriagability) but some mysterious ability to 'represent' both male and female.
You drew a very interesting connection between David and Muhammad, one that helped throw into relief the claim that early Christians made about 'old testament saints': they were not holy but rather unholy people called into a covenant in order to be 'types' for later covenant members. The ot saints' lives were thus thought to display 'covenant reality' - including the feature that in covenant, marital/sexual relations were answerable to God and therefore under judgement. The claim would therefore be that Muhammad differed only in that he was not under this same covenant accountability and judgement.
Much thanks for your work,
Andrew
Lack of empathy or 'not getting out enough' is not necessarily the issue here (though it might be). There are, after all, times when moral principles cause us to take a course that is more difficult. Can't we all think of such situations from our own personal experience when 'doing right' cost us dearly? Just because one supports such a principle does not mean they must be aware of every situation in which it is difficult to carry out. After all, Pro-choice people tend to care less about post-abortion care than the right to abortion. That could be labeled lack of empathy…but my point is that has nothing to do with whether abortion is right or wrong.
On the flip side, saying abortion is wrong is not the same as saying 'get over it'. If your point is that those in the pro-life camp should be equally fervent about post-birth care and support, that makes sense to me. But, in the post above, the appeal to empathy does not logically connect with supporting abortion, and perhaps this is why the post is nothing more than a personal attack.