DrW wrote:Does anyone know if this book has been discussed over on the MADBoard (MDD)?
From what I can see, this looks like something that Kevin (Xander) Graham could use to consolidate his position over there.
I have not had contact with Kevin over this book, but I know he has contact with Dr. Ritner. I also know he is well aware of this book. The bit I know of Kevin, I am sure he is quite up-to-date on Ritner's work in the book. How to present this on MDD Board would be interesting to say the least. I did not do well there, I posted once and was banned. I doubt I would be a good candidate to comment on their board.
Doctor Scratch wrote: It puts them in a bit of a bind, doesn't it? On the one hand, doing nothing would be tantamount to admitting defeat. On the other hand, if they respond, it could very well be disastrous. I have a hard time seeing how they would be able to restrain their vitriol.
It must feel like the walls are falling in on the Maxwell Institute. No matter how they spin their apologetics and no matter how much money is thrown at the Institute, it just keeps crumbling.
Ritner has done for the Book of Abraham what Michael Coe has done for the Book of Mormon.
An atheist commenting on scripture?
Sort of ironic, isn't it? Sort of like a theist commenting on logic or reason.
But scripture is writings, mostly verbiage. Those words are only "scripture" to the theist, who imbues those words with some divine character.
The atheist who looks at those writings can approach them objectively, as writings, not as the theist who has already declared them 'scripture' and thus has a biased agenda when addressing those writings.
Not really, the field of biblical studies is loaded with atheists.
sock puppet wrote:Sort of like a theist commenting on logic or reason.
Absolutely. Because the fact that some fundamentalist nincompoops lack logic and reason gives 100% proof that all theists are completely incapable of using logic and reason.
By the same token, mere expression of atheism/agnosticism infallibly endows the speaker with logic and reason. It's the atheist's version of the sinner's prayer or the Shahada.
Doctor Scratch wrote:Congrats to Ritner--this is a real blow against the Mopologists, who have been trying for a long time to damage his reputation. It will be very interesting to see what kind of a response--if any--will be dropped out onto the pages of the FARMS Review. I'll bet that John Gee is just quaking with rage in response to this book.
Maybe they will go ahead and publish the Schryver nonsense and let him "take the bullet" that Gee would otherwise have to take?
"I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not." Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)
Buffalo wrote:Fantastic stuff! Wish I could afford to buy a copy
I have to admit I bit the bullet. I can't wait for it to get here.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
Doctor Scratch wrote: It puts them in a bit of a bind, doesn't it? On the one hand, doing nothing would be tantamount to admitting defeat. On the other hand, if they respond, it could very well be disastrous. I have a hard time seeing how they would be able to restrain their vitriol.
It must feel like the walls are falling in on the Maxwell Institute. No matter how they spin their apologetics and no matter how much money is thrown at the Institute, it just keeps crumbling.
Maybe this is why the MI budget has been slashed (per Doctor Scratch's informant). The church is coming to realize that old-fashioned polemical apologetics is not the way to go.
"I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not." Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)