Commodore and Captain in the lead

Christians for Contraception

I was thinking of a dystopian fantasy - what if people had a 'license to breed'? The problem of course is, it's open to abuse by all sorts of people for racial or eugenics purposes. But there must be some way to control the population.

Here in Southeast Asia there's a problem when you have poor families without the economic capacity to support even a single child having a whole brood of them, then waiting on the government to dole out support. Meantime the kids become fodder for vice - just going to an internet cafe to check my email in the afternoons and listening to kids as young as 4 or 5 cussing each other at the top of their little lungs with the equivalent of the F word or SOB in the vernacular is evidence enough that society - and the church - has been deficient.

They're actually not bad kids - they're generally polite when queried or confronted and they have not yet lost all their innocence but when your professor is Gordon Freeman and your schools are one or more of the many MMPORGs available for play, not to mention sensationalist, violent and sexually charged mass media, what do you expect?

If the rich here put off marriage till they're i their thirties, till they've established an economic base, what are the poor doing procreating? Who will feed those mouths? Who will care for the farming family that makes virtually zilch and comes to our door at Christmas begging for handouts and hand-me-downs? Yet there they are each year, seven or eight kids in tow.

This might not seem a lot but consider that many of these poor kids will not finish school because their families are too poor to send them there. This robs them of the basic economic base with which to start building their lives. Where will they go then? Into turning tricks, into vice, into petty theft, into cheap thrills and addictions. And after that into prostitution, into armed robbery, into murder-for-hire, into harder and more expensive drugs and thrills.

And when election time rolls around they all count for one vote each as long as they're conscious long enough to register. Is it any wonder that convicted murderers and rapists can run for election in this country - and win?

As a Christian I agree that yes, each of these lives is important. Yet I can't help but think that if that family had planned - or had been guided by government and church (church is a very powerful influence on the surface of things) to practice proper family planning then there'd be less mouths to feed. Less mouths means more money going around to people who REALLY need it as well as to upgrading social and cultural services. Less mouths mean less consumption of resources, more resources going to less people. Less mouths mean a more equitable balance between population and the earth which supports us.

I think that ultimately we're all sitting on a powder keg - the top ten percent consuming the resources that the bottom ninety need while the bottom ninety squabble for table scraps. What to the bottom ninety are Plato or the Pleiades, as the poem goes? And with Plato and the Pleiades goes morality.

I'm not advocating genocide or sterilization or a one-child policy or anything of that sort of course, but I think that there must be a forceful effort on the part of government, civic and religious groups and media to change people's minds, particularly in developing nations about population growth. We are rapidly outstripping our capacity to produce and then either we go like lemmings on yet another death march - made all the more deadly and risky by the killing capacity of modern weapons - or society collapses on itself as a battle for resources begins.

Ultimately I think the problem is self - unbridled selfishness. In the rich countries it's "Here we are now, entertain us" and even if I have to spend like tomorrow never comes I'll have fun. In the poor countries it's "Take what we can get for tomorrow we may die" and that includes sex, even sex with one's underaged kid sister (horrific as that sounds it happened - the wife of the rapist was a distant relative of my dad's). We have, in this age without true conscience or moral compass, forgotten the peace, the joy, the honour and beauty that is to be found in the second greatest commandment : "Love thy neighbor as thyself."

Not necessarily Christians for Contraception, but rather Christians for INTELLIGENT and REASONED Conception.

We control the population now by choice - or we let circumstance 'control' it for us, with all the implied violence and heartache attendant.

Just my third world point of view.

H A  Meaney

My Russell Crowe moment

Not exactly Lucky Jack Aubrey but it's getting there.

Introducing Captain William Henry Holbourne RN, master and commander of H.M.Frigate Princess of Wales from 'Treasure of the Isla Santo Nino" Union Church of Manila's 2007 Children's Ministry Summer Camp

Capt. W.H. Holbourne, 1774

Creative Writing and history

would you say that Les Miserables' Waterloo Chapter is unreliable? Would you say that all the news reports about Virginia Tech are unreliable? Would you say the Gospels are unreliable? Would you say the Nag Hammadi writings are unreliable?

And the last shall be first - the Nag Hammadi writings are generally theological treatises many of which have snippets of narrative but are mostly sayings gospels. Many are clearly meant to be interpreted symbolically or as 'divine metaphors' explaining the illusion of this world and the truth of the divine world.

The Virginia Tech news reports are news reports and given the advanced state of technology compared to the oral traditions of the canonical gospels we do expect them to get the facts in sync. However, do they ALL refer to ALL the facts ALL the time? Will I read/hear the same things from CNN, BBC, Fox News, the Chosun Ilbo, the Korea Times? Major characters in one piece may be referred to in passing by other pieces. It is creative and smart use of data to present a point of view.

Finally, Hugo's WATERLOO chapter in Cosette, from Les Miserables. This is perhaps the closest analogy to the gospel I can give. While it is a fiction work the WATERLOO CHAPTER is the one under specific discussion. It is a creative work that nevertheless engages historical facts and gets a lot of them RIGHT. Hugo most likely was able to actually walk the grounds of Waterloo and check out Chateau Hougoumont and La Haye Saint and the Mont St.Jean ridgeline. However he was not an eyewitness and refers to oral tradition - the narratives of survivors and civilians present during the battle, as well as documentary evidence. And some 'theological speculation' as well as he concludes that Napoleon lost because the Corsican 'prometheus' had 'vexed G-d'. Hugo meets with mixed success because he - like the Gospel writers, was reporting and giving historical information according to their best sources and sometimes those sources aren't very complete or give conflicting or even wrong accounts.

Hugo refers to many correct things like the battle for Hougoumont, mentioning officers like John Lucie Blackmann by name, indeed most if not all the officers he mentions in this part of the narrative are verifiable through other sources - the only fictional participants in this 'roman a clef' are Baron Pontmercy and Thenardier.

Hugo gets some things mixed up or incomplete. He refers to the Scots Greys charging but fails to mention that they were part of a 3 regiment brigade (General Sir William Ponsonby's Union Brigade) which was in turn part of a 2 brigade division of heavy cavalry. The impression one gets is that the 'terrible grey horses' charged alone - indeed they get the lion's share of the glory thanks to Lady Butler and the Waterloo movie - but the historical fact is that it was a division of cavalry that charged, not a single regiment.

Furthermore Hugo is confused about the operations of a square. He imagines that the British square - and he should have known better - sheltered the artillery, guns and all, within the four sides of soldiers and the troops would quickly get out of the way to allow the guns to be fired and then immediately return to their place in a fantastic 'ballet' of coordinated infantry/artillery efforts. This could not be more wrong. The squares only sheltered the wounded, the officers and the regimental colours within - the artillery was left exposed OUTSIDE the squares and the British gunners had to return to the safety of the square when cavalry got too close.

Finally Hugo gets things dead wrong. The relationship between square and artillery is one thing, the presence of the '75th Highlanders' is another. There was no regiment of that title or type at Waterloo.

Hugo in this piece has a point - a 'theological' as well as a moral point and he marshals historical facts to support that. Now there are times he gets it right, times he is confused, times he gets it dead wrong. Does it detract from my reading of the work? No. Does it detract from the powerful moral and philosophical point he is trying to make? No.

It's the same case with the gospels. They use historical data in a creative fashion to create different theological pictures of Christ. They are still our earliest evidence and our most extant. They fit nicely in the proper historical patriarchial socio-religious context of Palestine from whence Jesus came from. And ultimately, they're much better reading than their Nag Hammadi rivals bringing to life through story and plot the character of Jesus of Nazareth.

H A  Meaney

The Problem with Pagels

[url]http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2007/04/02/findrelig.DTL[/url]

Some thoughts on the article...

[quote]You've been a religious scholar for more than 40 years. Did reading the Gospel of Judas change your view of Christianity?
Yes, certainly. All of these recently discovered texts show that the early history of Christianity is much more engaging and diverse than I'd ever imagined.

Just to give you one example: They show that the teaching about Jesus dying for your sins -- because God cannot forgive sins without sacrificing his only Son -- is not the only way to be a Christian.

It isn't? I had thought that idea was central to Christianity.

That's what many Christian leaders claim. But the Gospel of Judas challenges that view and suggests that the fundamental message of Jesus is that we come from God, created in God's image; when we die and leave the visible world, we step into the infinite world of God, into the divine light, and we go into that glorious light with God. How that happens it doesn't say, any more than Paul does when he talks about resurrection. But it's a conviction that's fundamental to this Gospel. And it's a very different way to look at Christianity. [/quote]

It just cracks me up how BROAD Pagels paints her version of 'Christianity' as shown in the GoJ. It's an image that even Christians can identify with, to wit: '(the Gospel of Judas)...suggests that the fundamental message of Jesus is that we come from God, created in God's image; when we die and leave the visible world, we step into the infinite world of God, into the divine light, and we go into that glorious light with God.'

Pagels is always interesting for what she says and, more importantly what she DOESN'T and how she interprets her material. I do not deny that she is a superb scholar who has contributed immensely to our knowledge of the history of ancient Christianity but she has a very obvious vested interest and sometimes it is what she leaves out, how she presents (I would use the word 'edit', if it can be understood in the vein of a film editor taking from extant raw footage and putting the film together through cutting and glueing) her material that is of concern.

a. "That we came from God"

According to Gnosticism we came from the pleroma that is G-d but G-d has no real attachment to us, he or more properly IT is more akin to 'The Force' from Star Wars.

b. "That we are created in God's image"

Perhaps Pagels is shifting the idea of 'god' or 'G-d' here from the unknowable supreme pleromic 'God' to the demiurge?

According to Gnosticism, it is the demiurge that creates 'us' (ie. mankind) and not the supreme 'God'.

c. "when we die and leave the visible world, we step into the infinite world of God, into the divine light, and we go into that glorious light with God."
Of course what is not said is that death IS the objective of the Gnostic believer, that life here in the evil (not fallen but evil through and through) material world is worse than worthless and that the Gnostic Christ is happy that Judas will 'unclothe/remove the (material and mortal) man who clothes me'.

[quote]This Gospel also presents a very different view of Judas himself, casting him as Jesus' collaborator rather than his betrayer.

'Right. But if you look at the Gospel of John, there is an account that says the night before Jesus died that he not only knew what Judas was doing but told him to do it. Jesus turns to Judas and says, "What you have to do, do quickly." And Judas goes out to set in motion the events that will lead to the crucifixion. So some people have concluded, if this had to happen and Jesus knew it had to happen and accepted this sort of terrible death, then isn't Judas in a way facilitating what had to happen in the divine scheme of things? That's been a question asked since the first century.'[/quote]

Of course she leaves out the verses which say 'Such things must happen... but WOE to the man through which these things happen. It would be better that he had never been born'. The canonical Jesus is well aware - as G-d the Son - what is going on in Judas' mind but it is a very different thing that Pagels suggests:

It is like saying that instead of Admiral Nimitz reading the Japanese 'Purple Code' via the efforts of the US Naval Intelligence and then sending out the US Pacific fleet to fight the battle of Midway - resulting in an American carrier sunk and 3 US torpedo squadrons devastated in exchange for 4 Japanese carriers sunk and the tide of the war turning; instead, Pagels suggestion is like saying that Admiral Nimitz was actually COMMANDING the Japanese fleet, bossing Yamamoto around secretly and telling him directly to attack Midway and sink the USS Yorktown, or of Nimitz sending Yamamoto messages during the battle to warn him that the American fleet was on the way, attack the Yorktown, shoot down the torpedo planes!

A world of difference!

[quote] And what answers have people come up with?

The suggestion in the Gospel of Judas is that Judas alone knew the truth of Jesus and was entrusted with a mission to hand him over to the people who arrested him. It's interesting that in this book the Greek word that was elsewhere translated into English as "betrayal" is actually a more neutral word that means "to hand over." The point is that Judas indeed did hand

Jesus over to the people who arrested him, but he did so because Jesus had not only asked him but required him to do it.

[/quote]

No argument there... however the latent suggestion that this late Gnostic gospel might somehow contain more truth than the canonical writings hangs heavy over Pagel's response.

[quote]How much do we know about the person who wrote this Gospel?

We don't know much. Whoever wrote it is probably an anonymous Christian in the second century who takes issue with the following three things: 1) that Jesus died as a sacrifice for the sins of the world, 2) that God wants and needs this sacrifice in order to forgive sin and 3) that we should act out that sacrifice in the Eucharist or the Mass or the Lord's Supper as the central act of Christian worship. This particular Christian is taking issue with this whole paradigm that is very familiar to us from the second century of Christianity.

How does he view God?

His view is that God is a loving God, a loving Father, not a bloodthirsty kind of God that desires human sacrifice. Nor does he want his followers to die for him, as some church fathers say.

What we also find here is that questions about the Gospels and disputes between Christians are not new. They are really the

way that Christianity has always been. [/quote]

'A loving Father'?

How loving is this so-called God who sends the entirely divine emanation to possess - as in 'POSSESSION' which requires exorcism - the poor shmuck Jesus of Nazareth (or perhaps it was Judas Didymus Thomas? hehehe, attack of the Jesus clones!), control this poor simple Galilean carpenter's son all through his life and then when he is done with his mission on earth of delivering Gnosis to the disciples he DISCARDS the HUMAN BEING THAT IS JESUS like an old ratty moth-eaten garment. 'You will remove the man that clothes me' says Jesus to Judas in this Gospel. Why is Pagel not speaking up for Jesus of Nazareth, the man who clothes the Gnostic Christ? Where is he in the equation? Did he even ask for this? Did he have a choice? Was he taken over without his consent? And now this poor sod is going to die a horrific excruciating death (so bad that the English language created the adjective 'excruciating' to describe the suffering) so much so that in other 'gospels' he cries out 'My God, my God (sometimes 'my Power, my Power') why have you left me/you have left me'! What about him?

Of course there is also the idea that the Gnostic Christ does not exist at all in materiality seeing as he's something of a shape-shifter. However the line by this Gnostic Jesus that he is going to get rid of the human being that 'clothes' him even as a crab gets rid of an old shell does imply that there is some sort of humanity that is involved - and it is going to be discarded. Now if this humanity was an empty, soul-less shell which is about as integrated to the divine Jesus as a crab's discardable exoskeleton or whether he was a human being that was 'possessed' by Jesus apparently differs from Gnostic gospel to Gnostic gospel.

The so-called loving father of the Gnostic Christ is worse than a God who, according to Pagels, 'desires human sacrifice' - which in itself is an over-dramatic overstatement of the historic Christian position - this so-called God cares not a whit for humanity at all. It is all part of the flawed botched demiurgic experiment and the only important thing is the latent DIVINITY that is within mankind. Mankind itself is left to rot hanging on a cross, abandoned by EVERYONE.

About 'human sacrifice'... I think that both the Jewish scriptures and the Christian gospels are clear that 'human sacrifice' is a term that is not consistent with their theology and Pagel's use of this term is utterly uncalled for. We are not talking about Carthaginian/Phoenician sacrifices to Molech or Aztec sacrifices out of 'Apocalypto'. The Jewish G-d does not 'desire human sacrifice' as though this satiated his blood lust but He does desire JUSTICE and RIGHTEOUSNESS. Human sacrifice implies possible innocence of the victim and extreme cruelty on the part of the executioner/believer. According to the historic Jewish faith, G-d tested Abraham by requiring his son Isaac as a one time test case but at the last moment Isaac was redeemed by G-d who provided a ram to take the boy's place. This is an almost exact model for Jesus who,according to the Gospel of John was the 'lamb of G-d', indeed He is metaphorically THE 'passover lamb' which is offered up in exchange for the lives of the people. G-d stands firmly AGAINST human sacrifice, saying it is an abomination when people 'pass their children through the fire' (sacrifice them to deities like Molech). Jesus' own sacrifice is performed in exchange of the just recompense for our own sins. Jesus is the ram, the male lamb, which G-d provides to save us, like He saved Isaac. Also he is the 'scapegoat' for our sins, the 'sin-eater' of sorts, the one who takes upon Himself all of our sin and guilt and thus G-d's anger is turned against Him instead of us, He - Jesus - is guilty as sin (LITERALLY!!) indeed guilty of ALL sin that by His sacrifice we may become 'the righteousness of G-d'.

[quote]Given all those disputes, how do you discern what is spiritually true?

That's the hardest question in the history of Christianity. That's why orthodoxy was invented, to say: "Let me give you a shortcut. Go to the bishop. Go to the priests, and they will tell you." [/quote]

Pagel's blithe short-cutting of history short-changes all of the rest of us. She presents Orthodoxy as a faith that is blind and dumb and rigid rather than realizing that within the context of faith we have the freedom to question a G-d who is prepared to give us answers - rather than one who ultimately does not acknowledge our existence as human beings, which the Gnostics worship.

The mere fact that Christianity has not only been historically diverse but continues to be diverse gives lie to Pagel's assertions. Yes there are times when we can take things to extremes but by and large we do not slaughter each other over religious questions - we may trade barbs here and there - but when you examine history a lot of inter-Christian strife is due to demagoguery, mob-rule, class jealousy and nationalistic pride, rather than being questions of theological doctrine. The battles between the Protestant Huguenots and Catholic majority were as much about the Protestants being, generally, wealthy and prospering middle class merchants as well as members of the nobility such as Navarre, Conde and Rohan - indeed during the early period of the wars the Protestant heavy cavalry or 'millers' (because of their simple flour-white cloth garments) were better than the Catholic gendarmes because many of the veteran gendarmes became protestants - as it did with transubstantiation or the veneration of relics. And the fact that both groups have since learned to get along (generally) - indeed during those self-same wars there were many instances when Catholics PROTECTED their Protestant neighbors - shows that there is room in Christianity for varying interpretations without resorting to drastic measures.

Also, perhaps we should go to the bishops and the priests because they actually KNOW about these things (DUH!) - if I want to get my car fixed I won't go to the baker and if I want a loaf of bread my mechanic won't be able to help me, much as he can explain the workings of the engine or the steering. If Pagels is content with DIY Christianity then that's her call but her assertion that Orthodoxy is a (dumb) shortcut is about as intelligent as suggesting that you traverse the Sahara Desert without a map, without a compass and without asking anyone for directions.

[quote]"They will sort it all out for you, you mean?

Yes. That's what religious authority is all about. I'm working on a book right now on the Book of Revelation and other books of revelation in which that is the chief question that dominates the awareness of Christians between the first and second centuries. There are many, many books of revelation and the question is, Which ones are true and genuine, and which ones are frauds -- and how do you tell the difference? There is no easy answer. I think that's the deepest question there is in theology right now." [/quote]

Of course her viewpoint will be that we should just accept all traditions of Christianity even if such traditions are mutually exclusive. 

[quote]Remember that in the early centuries, the Bible wasn't a set canon. In fact, the earliest canon list we have available is from the fourth century. For 300 years there was a lot of fluidity about which texts are the most important, which Gospels are true. You have Christianity flourishing and thriving for 300 years before you have the Nicene Creed and before you have a
canon. [/quote]

And remember Ms.Pagels that NONE of the canon lists extant EVER mention even one of the Gnostic Gospels.

[quote] It's ironic, because some people would say that without a set creed you have no truth, no way to preserve the religion over time.

Certainly that was the view of Constantine, who convened the council that formulated the Nicene Creed. He felt that this kind of diversity of Christian groups was very problematic, particularly if your concern was to unify the empire. It was for that reason that the creed was formulated.[/quote]

Where did I hear those lines before... it was the work of a second rate hack author whos name started with a D... Dan something...

At least we know in part where Danny boy was getting his ideas.

Pagels mis-states things once again. Constantine probably did not care WHICH side won - indeed his confessor was from the losing side of the debate and after his death Arianism grew so strong that the 'winners' - Athanasius being the chief villain - were for a time exiled! I think that Constantine did not really know or even care much about the arguments about whether Jesus and God were one in the same or whether Jesus was a lesser divinity he just wanted all the shouting to stop, probably because all the inter-Christian squabbling was making him - the imperial patron of Christianity and the Christian G-d - look
bad! Probably. That's just my humble opinion. His goal wasn't to 'unify the empire' by convening the Council of Nicea - he 'unified' the empire in other ways. He unified the Christian Elements WITHIN the empire via Nicea. Once more Pagelian short-cutting sells us short.

[quote]But there were Christians long before the creed. [/quote]

Well DUH!!! How does 300 something years sound? Oh Elaine...

[quote]What has been the response to the Gospel of Judas?

It's been enormously interesting. We haven't had a new Gospel like this for 50 years, and certainly not one with material this strange and fascinating. And it raises important issues. One of them is about how we understand the death of Jesus, whether it was something that God actually required before he would forgive sins. The author of the Gospel of Judas thinks that's a very brutal view of God.

You brought that up earlier, but we didn't really discuss it. Tell me more about that.

The author says: "If you say Christ died for your sins, that this is evidence of God's love, are you saying that God would not or could not forgive human sins without a bloody human sacrifice?"

A friend of mine, who was a Christian missionary in an evangelical group, told me that she went to see Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ," and when she did, she was moved to weeping because it made her feel that God loved humankind that much. Now, somebody could ask, and I think the author of the Gospel of Judas would ask: "But what kind of God do you imagine? Is God not
a loving Father? Doesn't God send Jesus to heal and save and deliver people from horrible death? Would he actually require Jesus to die before he would forgive sinful humanity their sins?" [/quote]

G-d is a loving Father yes... but G-d is also a perfect G-d who is perfect in justice and righteousness. The problem with Pagelian thinking is this. If G-d does not punish sin, why do we bother with morality? If this world is of no consequence and indeed is evilness incarnate (in materiality), does it matter whether I stuff myself with fast food, pump my veins full of drug cocktails, get AIDS and infect as many people I can (and in the light of Gnostic thoughts about death being release from the evil of materiality, I'd probably be doing them a favour!!)? The answer is no, it doesn't matter because sin does not
exist, or if it exists, it exists within ignorance. Ignorance is sin. Ignorance of one's true self, one's inner divinity, one's divine spark. That is sin for the Gnostic.

But this itself is not a free ride either. If Ignorance is the only sin and release from the human body is the ultimate goal, how does that affect my view of myself, of nature, of my fellow man? One, I only exist to escape. Two, this world is not worth saving, so the Amazon jungle, the virgin forests, the un-mined mountains and fish-filled oceans can be abused into extinction - because they're all material and evil anyway. And finally, three, actions and thoughts within the body or focused on the body do not count. It is action and thought that is spirit directed that has eternal consequence. And this is personal, DIY salvation, I am not constrained by archaic concepts like 'love your neighbor' excepting when loving my neighbor somehow gets me closer to my goal of divinity, and the Christian Golden Rule of 'DO unto others what you would have others do unto you' (ie. take an ACTIVE interest in the lives of others) is transformed into the other Golden Rule of 'DO NOT DO unto others what you DONT want others to do to you' (ie. if I am not harming others actively I'm doing fine, but I don't have to go out of my way to help them either!)

[quote] How did that idea become central to Christian thought?

The fact was that Jesus was executed in a terrible way and his followers, in order to maintain their faith, said: "There has to be a meaning in it. What could it mean?" And because they were Jews, they immediately thought, "This must be some kind of offering, like the animals that are offered in the temple." So it's a natural kind of image to use because worship of that time was [intrinsically connected to] sacrifice. But the author of the Gospel of Judas is challenging that. [/quote]

Considering that Jesus was a Jew and his followers were Jewish and his context was Jewish I would not dismiss it so easily in favor of the author of a Gospel written at least a century or more after the fact.

[quote] How so?

The Gospel of Judas suggests that Jesus intends his death to demonstrate what he taught Judas -- that he can face death with confidence and hope, knowing that we come from God, and so when we step out of the visible world, we go into God's presence. So it's a message about how to face one's own death with courage and hope. [/quote]

I just love how Ms.Pagels appropriates Christianese to bring out the best in this document while skimming over the less savory bits.

[quote] Did the new viewpoint surprise you when you first started working with this material?

There was a kind of angry tone to the Gospel of Judas that startled us and distressed us. It was very surprising to read of Jesus laughing at the way his followers are following him. It's as though this author were saying: "If Jesus were here now, he would laugh at you. He would reject the way you worship. He would say: 'What kind of God do you have in mind? The God that I know is a loving Father. But you are not worshiping a loving Father if you worship this way.'" [/quote]

Once again, Pagels SKIMS over the unsavory bits - the Gnostic Jesus laughs at his disciples because they are worshipping the JEWISH G-D and celebrating the Passover. He laughs because they are worshipping what to him is the moronic demiurgh, known to Jews and Orthodox as YHWH. Perhaps she felt if this little bit of anti-Semitism got out they'd go after her like she was Mel Gibson.

[quote]We are heading into Easter. Do you think this material could change the way people observe this holiday?

It's a good question. I think the answer is yes. I think the question some people will ask is: "What do you mean by the resurrection? Does that mean that a body actually got out of the grave, which is what some of the most dramatic stories say, the ones that are wonderfully enshrined in Easter tradition?" But if you look in the New Testament, in say, Luke 23 and John 21, you see that both Luke and John tell different accounts of how Jesus appeared. In one account, he appeared in a vision and he disappeared before they touched him, and in another he appeared in absolutely physical form. He actually ate with
them. They could touch him and they could feel the wounds.

So there are different kinds of stories even in the canonical Gospels. And what was important to the authors of Luke and John was not to decide between those stories -- the important thing is that we know in some sense that he is alive. That the resurrection happened. And that is affirmed. But one thing we can see in these other texts is that you don't have to take the resurrection literally to take it seriously. One can speak about Jesus alive after his death with conviction without necessarily meaning that his physical body got out of the grave. [/quote]

She could also relate her answer to the previous question on the laughing Jesus. She glosses over or even ignores the evident symbolism in the canonicals, connecting Jesus with Messianic figures and with the eponymous Passover Lamb and how Christianity connects with Judaism, whereas her beloved Gnosticism utterly REJECTS it.

[quote]Do you consider yourself a Christian?

Yes, I consider myself a Christian. I happen to go to an Episcopal church, but I love many of the forms of Christianity. And I could as easily be in another church or another religious tradition if I'd been brought up differently. Of course, that's what some people would call heresy. But the word "heresy" in Greek actually means "choice." And that's something that certain Christian leaders thought wasn't so good. They would say there is only one teaching. But the claim that if you don't believe the specific set of things we tell you -- whoever the "we" happens to be -- God will send you into eternal fire, strikes me as inconsistent with what I know about Christian tradition. [/quote]

Well, when you have a duck quacking in the pond and a bunch of other people call it a sparrow or a frog or a camel or a dog don't you think that it's rather illogical to accept all those definitions in the name of tolerance and plurality?

[quote]What do you think about the idea that the Bible is the absolute word of God?

There is a Protestant view that we have to take the Bible literally, even though we are talking about translations of translations and about language which from the beginning was not literal. Jesus spoke in parables. His teaching is not meant to be literal, in many cases, as compared to the ethical teaching about "Love one another." "Love God and your neighbor" -- that, I think, is very clear and straightforward. [/quote]

And there are times when he IS speaking literally. What do you do with that Ms.Pagels? Is everything meant to be a parable?

The mere fact that the Gospels make reference to historic events and places and people to contextualize it in the human story, the history of mankind, shows that we are not speaking of symbolism and ONLY symbolism here.

[quote]"Some people who aren't religious might say we're better off without these sacred texts because people have taken them literally and the result hasn't always been positive.

There is no question that Christianity, like other religious traditions, has [been] and can be very effective in promoting violence. My book on the origin of Satan was about the beginning of Christian anti-Semitism. When I worked on it, I was distressed to see how deeply, how powerfully Christianity can be turned to hate as well as to love. And it's not exclusive to Christianity. It's true for other religious traditions as well.

How has the religious climate changed in this country since you came out with the "Gnostic Gospels"? Are people responding to this sort of material differently now?

Yes. I think that many more people are questioning the sources of religious authority -- whether you are talking about a literal reading of the Bible or their minister or priest. It's not that one should disbelieve the clergy or the Bible. But I think the questions about authority and the hunger for a sense of direct connection with God are more evident than they have been, partly because we are all aware of the diversity of religion and the diversity of claims within Christianity."[/quote]

And now, having planted the seeds... she can comfortably backtrack and say 'Think for yourselves'. Danny boy's wife must have learned a LOT from her.

[quote]"Where are you seeing this happening? In your church?

Among my students, in the news media, in things that I read and discussions with people all over the country and, in fact, all over the world. Don't you see something like that?

I do. But I also see the opposite happening. I see plenty of close-mindedness and unwillingness to entertain other points of view in the name of religion.

Exactly! That's right! And I think what's happening is that, you know, everybody in the world is more and more aware that each one of us is being sort of pressed up against other people who are different. And some people get curious and interested and find that intriguing. Others just want to build up stronger walls. So I think a more conservative and a more questioning perspective are happening simultaneously. "[/quote]

Which isn't bad at all... let's have the questionning... but let's also have the TRUTH.

And Ms.Pagels, for all her Gnowledge of facts and knowledge , sadly doesn't seem to have much of a handle on that.

Shalom and blessings for Holy Week,

H A  Meaney