heated discussion on important issues
One of the things we are taught in school, secular or religious, is that we should, in any discussion, cool or heated, not make sweeping, sensationalist, or conspiracy-theory statements. It seems that Harpur, my post, and consequent comments, have been guilty of this. I was telling my wife Lisa this morning over coffee (ah, life seemed so simple then!), that I decided after the first page of Harpur’s book
Sweeping:
“I will clearly document that there is nothing (emphasis mine) the Jesus of the Gospels either said or did… that cannot be shown to have originated thousands of years before” (p. 10).
“Everything (emphasis mine)… already existed in the Egyptian sources… there is irrefutable proof that not one (emphasis mine) single doctrine, rite, tenet, or usage in Christianity was in reality a fresh contribution to the world of religion” (p. 10).
Sensational:
“…engaging in this endeavour reveals some extremely disturbing facts” (p. 8f).
“… what I describe and document in the following pages is one of the most far-reaching tragedies in history” (p. 2).
Conspiracy Theory:
“Whenever any of this material has been mooted seriously, others have rushed to crush it, dismissing it summarily or labeling it as rank heresy” (p. 7).
“Kuhn’s books (his main source) have never been given the wide recognition they so deeply deserve. He simply stepped too often and much too hard on too many powerful toes, particularly those of the vested religious institutions and their hierarchical keepers” (p. 10).
I promise to keep reading and give this book a chance because I believe in open and honest dialogue, and all sides must be considered. Oh! For just one of the other “sides”, check out this critique of Harpur’s ideas and his sources.
Share This
Where are those damn hierarchical keepers when I need them?
We are taught not to make sweeping, sensationalist, or conspiracy-theory statements IN CANADA. This is the polite society we live in and this has proven to be a very good thing for the “peace, order and good government” that we all value here.
But you, me, and everyone else will make sweeping, sensationalist, or provoking statements freely about subjects that we have an intimate understanding of and can defend vigourously. We do it all the time and that is not a bad thing either.
Where this all gets sloppy and ugly is when ill-informed people make sweeping, sensationalist, or provoking statements on matters they know little about. And that happens way to often and - prepare yourself for a sweeping statement - in my experience more often than I am comfortable with in religious circles.
The question I have is, does Harpur have an intimate understanding of, and can defend vigourously, the subject matter he is presenting. He likely believes he does. Can you show that he doesn’t?
Well, I’m not an Egyptologist. Neither is Harpur. His sources are outdated and apparently not recognized by other Egyptologists today. What I’m saying is, I’m not sure it is good scholarship to say “… the ENTIRE (emphasis mine) body of Christian doctrine is simply a revamped and mutilated Egyptianism” (p. 10), even as it wouldn’t be good scholarship to say that Christianity has NO Egyptian influences. So, no, I can’t show he doesn’t. But shouldn’t we be suspect of any ideology that with one stroke wipes out the historical roots of an entire world religion, just like we should be suspect of any world religion that with one stroke wipes out any admission of outside influences?
why does everything that is not mainstream have to be a “conspiracy theory” in an attempt to invalidate the point being made. Why can it not simply be a theory?
I don’t believe much will come of your reading of Harpur if you are not prepared to engage it with an open mind. Read the theory, assess the facts and make up your mind. Don’t make up a bullshit list to show how good you are at showing inconsistencies with established beliefs.
Okay.
I hear you, David. I have read the book myself and yes, I agree that Harpur makes bold statements. But that is about as much as I am willing to agree with you on your statements.
I have read a lot of christian theology - one summer in Toronto I read 60 books in 2 months as a lifeguard at private pools with no patrons. I don’t believe that Harpur is any more bold with his statements or weaker in his defence than any of the authors of those books I have read.
Unfortunately, Harpur’s perspective appears to set you in a defensive posture and this is unfortunate. If his material seems weak to you, perhaps it requires further study on your part. But I don’t think his thesis lacks merit and for me it presented an idea that has given me hope and understanding beyond anything I have read for many many years.
You cannot defend your world view and claim to be a truth seeker. That is absolutely not possible. But it is certainly human and we all do it. Resist the urge!
The statement “in the world but not of the world” is nothing more than a warning not to let yourself stray from the culture of propaganda that keeps you a “believer”. The same is true of the inserted story of Jesus saying to Thomas “blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Doubt is the greatest sin in christianity. Which is odd since the god of christianity doesn’t generally appear to have a problem with it.
My good friend Jeff: I’m not permitted, it seems, to draw any conclusions prematurely. So neither are you. Na-na-na-na-na-na! (Please read critics of Harpur, as well as his fans.)
I think David’s use of “conspiracy theory” was not in reference to Harpur being part of a conspiracy but Harpur’s suggestion that there’s a conspiracy to keep the ‘truth’ from the masses that he’s once again uncovered. It’s like saying, “My new book is so brilliant that only stupid people don’t get it.” If I don’t ‘get it’ I must be stupid, or in this case, if I don’t think Harpur makes sense I must be part of ‘the conspiracy’ or a close minded nit.
Story time: First year of university Philosophy Class. First class. Prof passes out this paper that’s a ‘test’. He asks us a series of about 50 questions that we get throgh in about half an hour. Now we ‘grade them ourselves’. He begins the grading by telling us how incredible it is that we could answer 50 questions in half an hour that philosophers have struggled with, debated and wrestled with for centuries. Basically he say, “you guys just don’t get it.”
One of the older guys in class finally speaks up and says, “Maybe we’ve been wrestling with these same questions before we ever came to Philo 101. Maybe we’ve come to some conclusions based on our own experiences and study.”
The Prof was having none of it. If you hadn’t ’studied’ philosophy and read all the right books, gone to the right conferences, you couldn’t possibly have an insight or conclusion worth holding, let alone sharing.
It was a revealing moment for me about the arrogance and prejudice. We were just close-minded nits to him because we didn’t accept his conclusions or because we’d reached our owns without his class.
Part of learning is evaluation. It’s not closed minded to recognize a red herring or other bad reasoning. Pointing out some shakey thinking isn’t ‘defending your world view’. David’s list is just a list, he didn’t add any ‘defense’ to it. Those statements are just what they’re labeled. He doesn’t say they’re wrong or he disagrees, he just observes. Why would anyone seeking truth have a problem with that?
Thanks for all your comments. Yes, Brian, I truly intended to critique Harpur’s METHOD more than his CONTENT. I didn’t intend to critique the CONTENT… not at this point. I do believe his method, right from the start, is suspect. But even my wife Lisa suggested, after the fact, that I read the book first, THEN critique it! She some smart
She is smart! But if I can be a little post modern, I don’t think any of us can truly read without critiquing at the same time.
We all interpret, that’s why I finally woke up from the “we just let the Bible speak for itself” movement I once was part of.
But go for it and tell us what happens!