Today's Facebook Argument About Biblical Slavery And Academic Standards
[Initial phase of this argument appears in this color (green).
New comments are shown in black text.
Links are blue.]
The overwhelming consensus among qualified scholars is this:
Hebrew and Christian "Bibles" specifically endorse chattel slavery; the exact same kind of slavery as the more recent transatlantic slavery.
Additionally, as Biblical scholar Dr Kara Cooney points out, the entire purpose of creating monotheism was to consolidate power by unifying everyone in a religious society under just only one voice of authority.
Mad kings and cult-leaders had mad interests.
They didn't want to have so many of their sheep-class saying "but my different god thinks we shouldn't go killing, stealing, and enslaving".
So they declared by law 'there is now only ONE GOD for our nation. And he speaks through your leader'.
-----
In reply,
Joel Book said:
"in your mind who are “qualified scholars”?
Who declared consensus?
Certainly not Christian scholars.
Man didn’t create God.
Man creates many false Gods.
Monotheism is just a result of acknowledging there is only one true God.
The rest are false.
These other conclusions you write are based on a false understanding of who the God of the Hebrews and Christians is.
----
In reply,
James Apperson said:
1. A qualified scholar is anyone who:
a.) has at least a Master's Degree, from an accredited non-religious University, where that degree specifically includes the specialization of the topic being addressed.
and whom
b.) has no declared bias which would obligate them to any specific conclusion on the matter being addressed; such as belonging to a religion which requires allegiance to any conclusion about the topic being addressed.
2. Nobody "declares" consensus.
That's not how consensus happens.
Individual scholars and institutions submit papers for peer review.
They also hold academic conferences.
That's where they discuss specific topics on stage; and also casually amongst each other.
That's how everyone in the academic community stays informed about the current state of academia in those fields.
3.
The academic community at large (consisting of thousands of schools and many more thousands of scholars) also has some really bad news for you:
They do not take religious-fundamentalist "scholarship" seriously.
None of them do.
Religious-fundamentalist schools, professors, and writers ... are virtually ignored in real academia.
Is that because of anti-religious bias?
No; not at all.
It's only because those religious institutions are not doing real scholarship.
Meanwhile, honestly,
I don't care how 'certain' you Christian fundamentalists are,
nor how how 'certain' any Islamic fundamentalist is,
nor how 'certain' a Judaic fundamentalist is,
nor how 'certain' a Hindu fundamentalist is,
nor how 'certain' anyone in any cult is.
It's not my job to deprogram you.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/.../how-religious...
-----
In reply,
Joel Book said:
"you can’t have consensus if you cut out a group of scholars. That’s actually called a bias not a consensus."
------
In further reply,
William David Troughton said:
"I have never heard that account as being a consus view , and I am a Preacher's Kid PK aged 89., activelyy involved in the church, and widely-read..
It must date from protagonists of one point of view at the time of the US Civil War.
And the Cooney conspiracy idea sounds unreal and eccentric, and not widely held.
Also we know that in confessing Jesus as Lord, early Christians were saying that Caesar is not Lord."
-------
In reply,
I offer this:
[@Joel Book]
"Monotheism", for those people, was a lot messier than you've been told.
Paula Fredriksen (born January 6, 1951, Kingston, Rhode Island] is an American historian and scholar of early Christianity.
She held the position of William Goodwin Aurelio Professor of Scripture at Boston University from 1990 to 2010.
Now emerita, she has been distinguished visiting professor in the Department of Comparative Religion at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, since 2009.
Also, ...
Daniel O. McClellan is an American biblical scholar and social media personality.
He is a public scholar of the Bible and religion and a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
McClellan was the winner of the Society of Biblical Literature's 2023 Richards Award for Public Scholarship.
In fact,
it's 100% agreed upon by EVERY qualified scholar in the word
that the Biblical Hebrews were all polytheists.
The thing you call "monotheism" is simply not in any Bible.
Neither is the Trinity.
Francesca Stavrakopoulou is a British biblical scholar and broadcaster.
She is currently Professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Religion at the University of Exeter.
The main focus of her research is on the Hebrew Bible, and on Israelite and Judahite history and religion.
---
[@ William]
Kathlyn M. (Kara) Cooney is an Egyptologist and an archaeologist.
She's a professor of Egyptian Art and Architecture at UCLA.
She is also chair of the Department of Near Eastern Language and Cultures at UCLA.
As well as for her scholarly work, she is known for hosting television shows on ancient Egypt on the Discovery Channel as well as for writing a popular-press book on the subject.
Among her academic peers, and also within the context of global academia,
she's considered "mainstream".
None of her published views are considered to be fringe.
Although, her personal religious views are not mainstream.
As a polytheist, she's perfectly willing to dignify the existence of any "deity", and to respect all expressions of personal faith.
She just happens to be very well (and formally) educated about the development of monotheism in human religious history.
The reason mainstream scholarship all sounds "fringe" to the average church-goer is:
Churches continue to paint a carefully scripted false image of our world ... onto the inside of the religious bubbles in-which they govern.
Meanwhile, ...
You won't be able to find even a single accredited not-religious University ...
which
a.) has a relevant department of religious studies
...
which is
b.) anywhere in America, Canada, European nations, or Nordic nations
...
which is
c.) teaching what @Joel Book claimed about slavery in Hebrew and Christian bibles.
----------
In reply,
William David Troughton said:
[@ James ]
"I guess it depends what one calls religious-fundamentalist, and where secular becomes secularism.
In the field of religion there is a huge amount of rigorous, peer-reviewed work going in many fields such as philosophy that true academics would take into account on their merits.
So if something was discounted purely on the basis of where the researcher holds an appointment, then one would be very justified at raising serious questions."
----
In reply,
I offer this:
[@ William ]
Regarding when you said "I guess it depends what one calls religious-fundamentalist, and where secular becomes secularism." ...
No.
It really doesn't "depend".
I never used the term "secularism".
"Secular" just means "not religious".
I was perfectly specific.
--
As for the meaning of the term "religious-fundamentalist", ...
It's "the belief in the absolute authority of a religious text or leaders"
https://www.psychologytoday.com/.../how-religious...
However,
we have no need to debate the semantics of the term "fundamentalist".
Let's not get distracted.
What I said was
"They do not take religious-fundamentalist "scholarship" seriously."
Please notice how carefully I chose my words there.
I didn't say "They do not take religious-fundamentalists seriously."
Nor did I say "They refuse to listen to anyone who IS a religious fundamentalist."
Nor did I say "They might listen to a religious fundamentalist but they'll respond with anti-religious bias".
I said "They do not take religious-fundamentalist "scholarship" seriously."
It's that specific premise and method of "scholarship" they don't take seriously.
It's like how nobody at a thoracic surgeon's convention is going to take it seriously if a surgeon submits a paper or gives a lecture about anatomy or surgery ... based on the classic board game called "Anatomy",
.jfif)
nor based on Voodoo.
I'm sure there are plenty of witch doctors who think of that as "ignorant prejudice" which "calls into question the legitimacy of medical science".
But if they really want to argue for the efficacy of their premise, methodology and results,
they need to properly submit their research for peer review.
Because until voodoo-surgery can successfully pass peer-review, ... no legitimate surgical school is going to hire them to teach it as "medicine".
However,
those schools MIGHT hire them to teach ACTUAL medicine, if they are qualified and agree to never teach voodoo at that school as "medicine".
Meanwhile, ...
When someone makes a deep and personal vow to never contract a set of doctrinal convictions,
...
they are automatically waiving the right to be considered an "objective" contributor to any-and-all conversations, inquiries, and findings about any issue which challenges that personal vow.
It's a gross and blatant professional
**conflict of interests** for any such person to be employed as an expert on any such subject.
This is why not-religious Universities do not ever knowingly hire someone like that.
Compare this to how religious "schools" typically require their teachers to sign an employment contract which obligates them to a "statement of faith" where their job DEPENDS upon only ever agreeing with the stated-views of their employer.
Legit academia refuses to employ professors who push religious dogma under the guise of "science" or "history".
In contrast,
religious-fundamentalist institutions typically insist on it.
https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxbECXEM_C6mrXTwMEoCT6uPSPwZqKAJds?si=H2kP50M9KACXSOrS
The process for ESTABLISHING when academia has anything ***wrong***
works this way:
1. Do real and ethical research.
2. Formally submit research for peer review.
At this stage, literally anyone
should feel free to challenge literally anything that is currently "accepted" (or currently debated) in that field.
3. Wait and see if your work passes scrutiny of qualified peers.
4. If your work fails to pass scrutiny,
start over again.
Rebuild your case with accurate data and rational argumentation.
Or don't.
It's your call. But if you don't, then there's nothing for academia to keep talking about.
5. If your work passes scrutiny well-enough that NONE of its **essential** supporting data or argumentation has been debunked,
BUT yet not enough that it wins "consensus",
...
any professor is allowed (and even encouraged) to let their students know about it; just-so-long-as they represent that work, and subsequent peer-review, along with rival and consensus scholarship ... correctly.
In contrast,
religious-fundamentalist "schools" push theological bias "as history" and "as science"; because they are running an ancient-yet-modified sociopolitical and economic grift.
Thus, their "standards" are NOT
the ethically-necessary standards that actual academia uses.
Thus, religious-fundamentalist "schools" typically require all of their "teachers" to sign a contract which promises they'll never contradict the grift.
------------------
Now,
as for what Joel said:
" you can’t have consensus if you cut out a group of scholars. That’s actually called a bias not a consensus."
--
Joel is also misunderstanding what I said about this.
Anyone, regardless of their religious convictions, is allowed to formally publish on any topic.
However,
once a religious apologist (or religious agency, or anyone else) publishes anything for the peer-review process which appeals to religious authority
or
which mispresents the facts of the matter in favor of their religious beliefs,
...
they are promptly given the opportunity to correct their mistakes.
If they refuse to hold themselves to the same standards all of academia is held to,
they immediately earn THAT as their reputation.
After that,
legit scholars will stop wasting their time on those hacks.
This is why they aren't taken seriously.
They burn down their own academic credibility. And then they cry foul when respected scholars stop paying attention to them.
The only exceptions are the religious fundamentalists who publish/submit work which abide by secular academic standards.
Individuals and institutions who violate those ethics are not taken seriously in academia.
Real scholars don't give a crap about what anyone says on the basis of religious authority, magic, anecdotes, or feelings.
Nor do they have much patience for dishonesty.
Christian moral-authoritarian apologists
intentionally muddy the waters
regarding what counts as scholarship.
They relentlessly attempt to blur the lines **enough** that they can pretend they haven't crossed it.
This is why religious fundamentalism is always fused with Alt-Right politics.
Because it's all the same monster.
https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxTrZt01m9qXnUeCRLyM8KPW45ELhfKNfE?si=A9i3gpo6oQ4DU1ng
They know they aren't playing by the same rules everyone else is.
And that's because the true catalyst of their ambitions is clinical Narcissism.
Driven by an insatiably entitled (yet vulnerable) ego,
they perceive every social system as a social-dominance hierarchy.
From there, they feel an intense need to CLIMB to the top of it.
Once there, they expect to be praised for that "success".
Such White Knight (and "super humble") heroes seek to "save" everyone beneath them;
from their autonomy, their money, and their health.
Meanwhile, ...
The real scholars are the ones who respect the larger project of academia, each other, and themselves ... far too much to enable such gross disrespect;
to their enterprise
and
to the value of their time.
Here's a random example of what I mean
https://youtube.com/.../UgkxvpWlaOQfhQO9LIIxt4D3hQJmVcc9E...
[Dr. Joshua Aaron Bowen graduated from the Johns Hopkins University in 2017, with a Ph.D. in Assyriology.
He was awarded the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (D.A.A.D.) and Fulbright scholarship during the 2014-2015 academic year, allowing him to spend the year in Tubingen, Germany, working with Dr. Konrad Volk on his dissertation project.
As well as his Ph.D., Josh holds a B.S. in Religion from Liberty University, a Th.M. in the Old Testament from Capital Bible Seminary, and a M.A. in Near Eastern Studies from the Johns Hopkins University.
Prior to entering academia, Joshua was a chaplain in the U.S. Airforce.]
This next example is from one of the most prestigious religious studies departments in the world.
It's a lecture given by Christine Hayes;
one of the most qualified scholars (of the Biblical Hebrews) in the world.
She is saying exactly what literally all fully accredited not-religious universities in the world teach on this topic:
https://youtube.com/.../Ugkx7utrjMW9rmGcsoFqGWlPlNDlHb4UA...
Moving forward from there,
here's the real crux of where those two poles
(legit scholarship
*vs*
grifters grifting under the guise of scholarship) divide:
https://youtu.be/6Md_xVCCHHQ?t=1358
It's what makes those Christians, Muslims, And Judaic believers
Bad Faith Actors.
Those types of churches train members to gaslight themselves without realizing it.
However,
the more clever members DO realize it.
That's when a member must make a choice;
based on their moral character.
They can walk away from that unethical cultural project.
Or they can embrace it for unscrupulous purposes.
https://youtu.be/bFEoMO0pc7k?si=1HGeQVxLn9RzDdF3
New comments are shown in black text.
Links are blue.]
The overwhelming consensus among qualified scholars is this:
Hebrew and Christian "Bibles" specifically endorse chattel slavery; the exact same kind of slavery as the more recent transatlantic slavery.
Additionally, as Biblical scholar Dr Kara Cooney points out, the entire purpose of creating monotheism was to consolidate power by unifying everyone in a religious society under just only one voice of authority.
Mad kings and cult-leaders had mad interests.
They didn't want to have so many of their sheep-class saying "but my different god thinks we shouldn't go killing, stealing, and enslaving".
So they declared by law 'there is now only ONE GOD for our nation. And he speaks through your leader'.
-----
In reply,
Joel Book said:
"in your mind who are “qualified scholars”?
Who declared consensus?
Certainly not Christian scholars.
Man didn’t create God.
Man creates many false Gods.
Monotheism is just a result of acknowledging there is only one true God.
The rest are false.
These other conclusions you write are based on a false understanding of who the God of the Hebrews and Christians is.
----
In reply,
James Apperson said:
1. A qualified scholar is anyone who:
a.) has at least a Master's Degree, from an accredited non-religious University, where that degree specifically includes the specialization of the topic being addressed.
and whom
b.) has no declared bias which would obligate them to any specific conclusion on the matter being addressed; such as belonging to a religion which requires allegiance to any conclusion about the topic being addressed.
2. Nobody "declares" consensus.
That's not how consensus happens.
Individual scholars and institutions submit papers for peer review.
They also hold academic conferences.
That's where they discuss specific topics on stage; and also casually amongst each other.
That's how everyone in the academic community stays informed about the current state of academia in those fields.
3.
The academic community at large (consisting of thousands of schools and many more thousands of scholars) also has some really bad news for you:
They do not take religious-fundamentalist "scholarship" seriously.
None of them do.
Religious-fundamentalist schools, professors, and writers ... are virtually ignored in real academia.
Is that because of anti-religious bias?
No; not at all.
It's only because those religious institutions are not doing real scholarship.
Meanwhile, honestly,
I don't care how 'certain' you Christian fundamentalists are,
nor how how 'certain' any Islamic fundamentalist is,
nor how 'certain' a Judaic fundamentalist is,
nor how 'certain' a Hindu fundamentalist is,
nor how 'certain' anyone in any cult is.
It's not my job to deprogram you.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/.../how-religious...
-----
In reply,
Joel Book said:
"you can’t have consensus if you cut out a group of scholars. That’s actually called a bias not a consensus."
------
In further reply,
William David Troughton said:
"I have never heard that account as being a consus view , and I am a Preacher's Kid PK aged 89., activelyy involved in the church, and widely-read..
It must date from protagonists of one point of view at the time of the US Civil War.
And the Cooney conspiracy idea sounds unreal and eccentric, and not widely held.
Also we know that in confessing Jesus as Lord, early Christians were saying that Caesar is not Lord."
-------
In reply,
I offer this:
[@Joel Book]
"Monotheism", for those people, was a lot messier than you've been told.
Paula Fredriksen (born January 6, 1951, Kingston, Rhode Island] is an American historian and scholar of early Christianity.
She held the position of William Goodwin Aurelio Professor of Scripture at Boston University from 1990 to 2010.
Now emerita, she has been distinguished visiting professor in the Department of Comparative Religion at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, since 2009.
Also, ...
There is no monotheism in the Hebrew Bible.
Daniel O. McClellan is an American biblical scholar and social media personality.
He is a public scholar of the Bible and religion and a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
McClellan was the winner of the Society of Biblical Literature's 2023 Richards Award for Public Scholarship.
In fact,
it's 100% agreed upon by EVERY qualified scholar in the word
that the Biblical Hebrews were all polytheists.
The thing you call "monotheism" is simply not in any Bible.
Neither is the Trinity.
Francesca Stavrakopoulou is a British biblical scholar and broadcaster.
She is currently Professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Religion at the University of Exeter.
The main focus of her research is on the Hebrew Bible, and on Israelite and Judahite history and religion.
---
[@ William]
Kathlyn M. (Kara) Cooney is an Egyptologist and an archaeologist.
She's a professor of Egyptian Art and Architecture at UCLA.
She is also chair of the Department of Near Eastern Language and Cultures at UCLA.
As well as for her scholarly work, she is known for hosting television shows on ancient Egypt on the Discovery Channel as well as for writing a popular-press book on the subject.
Among her academic peers, and also within the context of global academia,
she's considered "mainstream".
None of her published views are considered to be fringe.
Although, her personal religious views are not mainstream.
As a polytheist, she's perfectly willing to dignify the existence of any "deity", and to respect all expressions of personal faith.
She just happens to be very well (and formally) educated about the development of monotheism in human religious history.
The reason mainstream scholarship all sounds "fringe" to the average church-goer is:
Churches continue to paint a carefully scripted false image of our world ... onto the inside of the religious bubbles in-which they govern.
Meanwhile, ...
You won't be able to find even a single accredited not-religious University ...
which
a.) has a relevant department of religious studies
...
which is
b.) anywhere in America, Canada, European nations, or Nordic nations
...
which is
c.) teaching what @Joel Book claimed about slavery in Hebrew and Christian bibles.
----------
In reply,
William David Troughton said:
[@ James ]
"I guess it depends what one calls religious-fundamentalist, and where secular becomes secularism.
In the field of religion there is a huge amount of rigorous, peer-reviewed work going in many fields such as philosophy that true academics would take into account on their merits.
So if something was discounted purely on the basis of where the researcher holds an appointment, then one would be very justified at raising serious questions."
----
In reply,
I offer this:
[@ William ]
Regarding when you said "I guess it depends what one calls religious-fundamentalist, and where secular becomes secularism." ...
No.
It really doesn't "depend".
I never used the term "secularism".
"Secular" just means "not religious".
I was perfectly specific.
--
As for the meaning of the term "religious-fundamentalist", ...
It's "the belief in the absolute authority of a religious text or leaders"
https://www.psychologytoday.com/.../how-religious...
However,
we have no need to debate the semantics of the term "fundamentalist".
Let's not get distracted.
What I said was
"They do not take religious-fundamentalist "scholarship" seriously."
Please notice how carefully I chose my words there.
I didn't say "They do not take religious-fundamentalists seriously."
Nor did I say "They refuse to listen to anyone who IS a religious fundamentalist."
Nor did I say "They might listen to a religious fundamentalist but they'll respond with anti-religious bias".
I said "They do not take religious-fundamentalist "scholarship" seriously."
It's that specific premise and method of "scholarship" they don't take seriously.
It's like how nobody at a thoracic surgeon's convention is going to take it seriously if a surgeon submits a paper or gives a lecture about anatomy or surgery ... based on the classic board game called "Anatomy",
I'm sure there are plenty of witch doctors who think of that as "ignorant prejudice" which "calls into question the legitimacy of medical science".
But if they really want to argue for the efficacy of their premise, methodology and results,
they need to properly submit their research for peer review.
Because until voodoo-surgery can successfully pass peer-review, ... no legitimate surgical school is going to hire them to teach it as "medicine".
However,
those schools MIGHT hire them to teach ACTUAL medicine, if they are qualified and agree to never teach voodoo at that school as "medicine".
Meanwhile, ...
When someone makes a deep and personal vow to never contract a set of doctrinal convictions,
...
It's a gross and blatant professional
**conflict of interests** for any such person to be employed as an expert on any such subject.
This is why not-religious Universities do not ever knowingly hire someone like that.
Compare this to how religious "schools" typically require their teachers to sign an employment contract which obligates them to a "statement of faith" where their job DEPENDS upon only ever agreeing with the stated-views of their employer.
Legit academia refuses to employ professors who push religious dogma under the guise of "science" or "history".
In contrast,
religious-fundamentalist institutions typically insist on it.
https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxbECXEM_C6mrXTwMEoCT6uPSPwZqKAJds?si=H2kP50M9KACXSOrS
The process for ESTABLISHING when academia has anything ***wrong***
works this way:
1. Do real and ethical research.
2. Formally submit research for peer review.
At this stage, literally anyone
should feel free to challenge literally anything that is currently "accepted" (or currently debated) in that field.
3. Wait and see if your work passes scrutiny of qualified peers.
4. If your work fails to pass scrutiny,
start over again.
Rebuild your case with accurate data and rational argumentation.
Or don't.
It's your call. But if you don't, then there's nothing for academia to keep talking about.
5. If your work passes scrutiny well-enough that NONE of its **essential** supporting data or argumentation has been debunked,
BUT yet not enough that it wins "consensus",
...
any professor is allowed (and even encouraged) to let their students know about it; just-so-long-as they represent that work, and subsequent peer-review, along with rival and consensus scholarship ... correctly.
In contrast,
religious-fundamentalist "schools" push theological bias "as history" and "as science"; because they are running an ancient-yet-modified sociopolitical and economic grift.
Thus, their "standards" are NOT
the ethically-necessary standards that actual academia uses.
Thus, religious-fundamentalist "schools" typically require all of their "teachers" to sign a contract which promises they'll never contradict the grift.
------------------
Now,
as for what Joel said:
" you can’t have consensus if you cut out a group of scholars. That’s actually called a bias not a consensus."
--
Joel is also misunderstanding what I said about this.
Anyone, regardless of their religious convictions, is allowed to formally publish on any topic.
However,
once a religious apologist (or religious agency, or anyone else) publishes anything for the peer-review process which appeals to religious authority
or
which mispresents the facts of the matter in favor of their religious beliefs,
...
they are promptly given the opportunity to correct their mistakes.
If they refuse to hold themselves to the same standards all of academia is held to,
they immediately earn THAT as their reputation.
After that,
legit scholars will stop wasting their time on those hacks.
This is why they aren't taken seriously.
They burn down their own academic credibility. And then they cry foul when respected scholars stop paying attention to them.
The only exceptions are the religious fundamentalists who publish/submit work which abide by secular academic standards.
Individuals and institutions who violate those ethics are not taken seriously in academia.
Real scholars don't give a crap about what anyone says on the basis of religious authority, magic, anecdotes, or feelings.
Nor do they have much patience for dishonesty.
Christian moral-authoritarian apologists
intentionally muddy the waters
regarding what counts as scholarship.
They relentlessly attempt to blur the lines **enough** that they can pretend they haven't crossed it.
This is why religious fundamentalism is always fused with Alt-Right politics.
Because it's all the same monster.
https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxTrZt01m9qXnUeCRLyM8KPW45ELhfKNfE?si=A9i3gpo6oQ4DU1ng
They know they aren't playing by the same rules everyone else is.
And that's because the true catalyst of their ambitions is clinical Narcissism.
Driven by an insatiably entitled (yet vulnerable) ego,
they perceive every social system as a social-dominance hierarchy.
From there, they feel an intense need to CLIMB to the top of it.
Once there, they expect to be praised for that "success".
Such White Knight (and "super humble") heroes seek to "save" everyone beneath them;
from their autonomy, their money, and their health.
Meanwhile, ...
The real scholars are the ones who respect the larger project of academia, each other, and themselves ... far too much to enable such gross disrespect;
to their enterprise
and
to the value of their time.
Here's a random example of what I mean
https://youtube.com/.../UgkxvpWlaOQfhQO9LIIxt4D3hQJmVcc9E...
[Dr. Joshua Aaron Bowen graduated from the Johns Hopkins University in 2017, with a Ph.D. in Assyriology.
He was awarded the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (D.A.A.D.) and Fulbright scholarship during the 2014-2015 academic year, allowing him to spend the year in Tubingen, Germany, working with Dr. Konrad Volk on his dissertation project.
As well as his Ph.D., Josh holds a B.S. in Religion from Liberty University, a Th.M. in the Old Testament from Capital Bible Seminary, and a M.A. in Near Eastern Studies from the Johns Hopkins University.
Prior to entering academia, Joshua was a chaplain in the U.S. Airforce.]
This next example is from one of the most prestigious religious studies departments in the world.
It's a lecture given by Christine Hayes;
one of the most qualified scholars (of the Biblical Hebrews) in the world.
She is saying exactly what literally all fully accredited not-religious universities in the world teach on this topic:
https://youtube.com/.../Ugkx7utrjMW9rmGcsoFqGWlPlNDlHb4UA...
Moving forward from there,
here's the real crux of where those two poles
(legit scholarship
*vs*
grifters grifting under the guise of scholarship) divide:
https://youtu.be/6Md_xVCCHHQ?t=1358
It's what makes those Christians, Muslims, And Judaic believers
Bad Faith Actors.
Those types of churches train members to gaslight themselves without realizing it.
However,
the more clever members DO realize it.
That's when a member must make a choice;
based on their moral character.
They can walk away from that unethical cultural project.
Or they can embrace it for unscrupulous purposes.
https://youtu.be/bFEoMO0pc7k?si=1HGeQVxLn9RzDdF3
Comments
Post a Comment