Homophobia is un-Christian

[sojourner]

I wasn't trying to make some argument about not judging others. The point I was trying to get at is this: dismissing other groups within one's religion interferes with self-reflection. There IS homophobia, misogyny, and all sorts of other nastiness throughout the Christian scriptures. As long as the Christians who express this nastiness are dismissed as "inauthentic",
the nastiness in the source material won't be addressed.

I thought we were discussing the judgment that many have against homosexuality and homosexuals, based on their religious convictions. If that's the case, it's entitlement. They feel they have the "correct" interpretation, they have the authority, based on the "fact" that they're part of the "elect," that they "have the Holy Spirit," and are, therefore, "qualified" and "directed" to "tell the 'Truth.'"

But you're correct. There is homophobia -- based on a misunderstanding of what such acts are, and misogyny -- based on a particular understanding of women and their place in the human family. It's only when such misapprehensions are addressed for what they are that we can be honest about the continuing bigotry displayed by many Christians.

 

[sojourner]

You know, if you trot out the old story about how "the eye of the needle" is actually a narrow gate in Jerusalem that's moderately inconvenient for a laden camel to get through, you'll score a revisionist apologetics hat trick.

Again: I'm not buying it.

I believe the Aramaic word for "camel" is the same as "rope." A rope going through the eye of a needle makes far more metaphorical sense than a camel doing the same. It's a slight mistranslation. It's got nothing to do with a Jerusalem gate.

You're not buying it, because you know little (apparently) about ancient Middle East culture. Take a look at this by Walter Wink, eminent theologian and bible scholar:

 

[serp777]

Homophobia is only unchristian if you pick and choose morals of the bible to fit with modern secular society. On what moral authority do Christians suppose that the bible is not against homosexuality? That's your particular interpretation based on your own beliefs. its confirmation bias. Just look through exodus, Genesis, and Leviticus. I mean you'll find all sorts of nastiness like killing your son who believes in false idols, or killing gays, or committing genocide against the Canaanites, or slaughtering the children of Egypt because the pharaoh didn't believe that an old man had his words backed by a cosmic Saddam Hussein who only cared about a small population of Jews. I mean you can basically justify any morality you want by picking and choosing from the bible. It does have some nice things but also other things like being a scapegoat for the sins committed by a non existent fore bearer.

So now Christian just apply a filter to the bible and then take morals at random depending on whether or not their politics or social circles align.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe the Aramaic word for "camel" is the same as "rope." A rope going through the eye of a needle makes far more metaphorical sense than a camel doing the same. It's a slight mistranslation. It's got nothing to do with a Jerusalem gate.

I agree.

You're not buying it, because you know little (apparently) about ancient Middle East culture. Take a look at this by Walter Wink, eminent theologian and bible scholar:

By "eminent", do you mean "fringe"? Based on a quick Googling, the only people arguing this seem to be Walter Wink and a handful of Christian bloggers who don't attribute their source. Every indication I have is that this hypothesis is only being put forward by people with very specific - and apparently revisionist - agendas.

In any case, I find the apparent lack of acceptance - or even mention - of his claims by mainstream Biblical scholars or non-Biblical historians to be very telling.

 

[sojourner]

I agree.


By "eminent", do you mean "fringe"? Based on a quick Googling, the only people arguing this seem to be Walter Wink and a handful of Christian bloggers who don't attribute their source. Every indication I have is that this hypothesis is only being put forward by people with very specific - and apparently revisionist - agendas.

In any case, I find the apparent lack of acceptance - or even mention - of his claims by mainstream Biblical scholars or non-Biblical historians to be very telling.

Walter Wink is a very well-known and well-accepted scholar -- but you'd probably need to move more deeply in scholastic circles other than a "quick Googling" to know that. Somehow, a "quick Googling" doesn't instill a lot of faith in me where more scholastic studies are concerned. I don't know what you're trying to get at with regard to the term "revisionist" you've been throwing around. There's nothing "revisionist" about solid scholarship.

 

[ChristineES]

Why? If you really do trust in God as Jesus preached in the Gospels, what possible reason would you ever have to be violent? I've asked you this a few times in different ways, but I haven't gotten a straight answer.

It's not even about pacifism. You can still think that violence is wonderful while realizing that your powerful ally is better at fighting than you are.

Imagine that your house is on fire, but the fire department is already on scene. You see that a team of firefighters is pulling one of your family members out of the fire to safety. Would you rush in, push them out of the way, and do the job yourself? I wouldn't... and not because I don't care about the well-being of my family member; it would be because I recognize that the family member's well-being is already being served better than I could ever do myself.

Don't Christians believe that God is already on scene in every crisis, and infinitely more capable than a team of firefighters? Forget violent intervention; why ever intervene at all? Do you think you'll do a better job than God? Do you not trust God to do what needs doing?


Add into this the premise that homosexuality is a sin and you have a ready-made recipe for homophobia:

- "same-sex marriage in our church would defile a holy place! We need to drive those gays out!"

- "gay rights groups are leading people astray just like the Pharisees did! We can rubuke them just as harshly! Jesus wasn't wishy-washy; we shouldn't be either!"

I will just restate what I originally said: It is unChristian to be anti-anything, including anti-gay. We who truly follow Christ are not supposed to stone people, harm people in any way. We are not allowed to judge or condemn others and we are to show mercy. There is nothing else I can add to that. Christians who are not merciful, who condemn others, etc are not, and I reapeat NOT following Jesus commands.
You can either accept that or reject it. I am done with this debate. There comes a time when I just start repeating myself. (And no, I am not angry, resentful, or disappointed).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Walter Wink is a very well-known and well-accepted scholar -- but you'd probably need to move more deeply in scholastic circles other than a "quick Googling" to know that. Somehow, a "quick Googling" doesn't instill a lot of faith in me where more scholastic studies are concerned.

It's not my job to instill faith in you. You have the burden of proof for your own arguments. At this point, all we have is a YouTube video of someone you say I should be impressed by. All I've really said so far is that I don't see why I should find him impressive, so if you want me to regard him more highly, it's up to you to make your case.

I don't know what you're trying to get at with regard to the term "revisionist" you've been throwing around. There's nothing "revisionist" about solid scholarship.

What I'm getting at is that so far, I see no evidence of "solid scholarship", but plenty evidence of an agenda that could bias an interpretation.

 

[sojourner]

It's not my job to instill faith in you. You have the burden of proof for your own arguments. At this point, all we have is a YouTube video of someone you say I should be impressed by. All I've really said so far is that I don't see why I should find him impressive, so if you want me to regard him more highly, it's up to you to make your case.


What I'm getting at is that so far, I see no evidence of "solid scholarship", but plenty evidence of an agenda that could bias an interpretation.

You want to find out? Do your own research -- the info is out there. Heck, he taught at Union and Auburn --he's not just "some nut." I'm not going to assuage your skepticism for you, but I don't see how you can fairly judge something you know little about...

 

[sojourner]

Homophobia is only unchristian if you pick and choose morals of the bible to fit with modern secular society.

Judging unfairly is patently "unchristian." The bible has no morals of its own; it reflects the morals of the people who wrote it. It's "job" is to provide an underpinning of tradition for us to use to help in interpreting our own experiences with the Divine.

On what moral authority do Christians suppose that the bible is not against homosexuality?

"Moral authority?" Let me throw this back at you: On what moral authority do Xtians suppose that the bible is against homosexuality? Truth is, the bible isn't "for" or "against" anything. Its writers have their biases -- as well as its readers. But since the bible is an inanimate object, it is unable to form opinions of its own; it merely states what the writers wrote.

The "moral authority" comes from a study of and adherence to Christian principles, as portrayed in the bible, in extra-biblical writings, in the teachings of the church, and from a study of scientific, sociological, psychological, and cultural disciplines.

That's your particular interpretation based on your own beliefs.

The belief that "the bible is against homosexuality" is a particular interpretation based on one's own beliefs.

you can basically justify any morality you want by picking and choosing from the bible.

Justification is a red herring.

So now Christian just apply a filter to the bible and then take morals at random depending on whether or not their politics or social circles align.

What filter do you think that might be? It might be a filter of common sense, realizing that the ancients didn't have all the information they needed to make the claims they make. It might be a filter of study, learning not to impose ancient thinking onto modern context. It might be a filter of exegesis, learning to read out of the text what was actually meant, and then temper that thought to the modern context. It might be a filter of fact, whereby certain biblical claims can be proven wrong. It might be a filter of priority, whereby one weighs seemingly obtuse statements against the preponderance of statements that form the overarching message of the texts, themselves.

 

[serp777]

Judging unfairly is patently "unchristian." The bible has no morals of its own; it reflects the morals of the people who wrote it. It's "job" is to provide an underpinning of tradition for us to use to help in interpreting our own experiences with the Divine.

"Moral authority?" Let me throw this back at you: On what moral authority do Xtians suppose that the bible is against homosexuality? Truth is, the bible isn't "for" or "against" anything. Its writers have their biases -- as well as its readers. But since the bible is an inanimate object, it is unable to form opinions of its own; it merely states what the writers wrote.

The "moral authority" comes from a study of and adherence to Christian principles, as portrayed in the bible, in extra-biblical writings, in the teachings of the church, and from a study of scientific, sociological, psychological, and cultural disciplines.

The belief that "the bible is against homosexuality" is a particular interpretation based on one's own beliefs.

Justification is a red herring.

What filter do you think that might be? It might be a filter of common sense, realizing that the ancients didn't have all the information they needed to make the claims they make. It might be a filter of study, learning not to impose ancient thinking onto modern context. It might be a filter of exegesis, learning to read out of the text what was actually meant, and then temper that thought to the modern context. It might be a filter of fact, whereby certain biblical claims can be proven wrong. It might be a filter of priority, whereby one weighs seemingly obtuse statements against the preponderance of statements that form the overarching message of the texts, themselves.

Judging unfairly is patently "unchristian.

And the definition of fair as well as christian is subject to personal interpretation.

The bible has no morals of its own; it reflects the morals of the people who wrote it.

This is semantics essentially. The bible contains moral positions within it.

Let me throw this back at you: On what moral authority do Xtians suppose that the bible is against homosexuality?

Well I suppose they would use bible passages as the moral authority--particularly those from Leviticus, Corinthians, and Romans. I'll cite passages if need be but you seem to have a good amount of knowledge about the Christianity in general. Now on what authority would Christians determine that the bible isn't against homosexuality?

Truth is, the bible isn't "for" or "against" anything.

If it reflects the morals of those who wrote it, then it was intended to be for or against some things. This is mostly just semantics again. Saying the bible is against something is basically saying the authors intended the bible to reflect a moral position against something. Its just short hand. Its like saying "This essay is clearly against abortion."

And anyways, one would hope it would be against genocide, or slavery, or scapegoats, or stoning adulterating women, etc but you're right its not explicitly against those things.

But since the bible is an inanimate object, it is unable to form opinions of its own; it merely states what the writers wrote.

No way? The bible is inanimate? And it doesn't have a brain? News to me. This is just playing off the semantics. Everything written states what the writers wrote. Its a tautology and I fail to see how this is arguing against my position at all. I find it strange that you're implying that I thought the bible was capable of coming to its own conclusions regarding morality. I don't think I ever claimed that the bible has a brain or artificial intelligence but quote me if im wrong.

The "moral authority" comes from a study of and adherence to Christian principles, as portrayed in the bible, in extra-biblical writings, in the teachings of the church, and from a study of scientific, sociological, psychological, and cultural disciplines.

And people who study these things come to radically different conclusions because much is ambiguous and much depends on an individual's personality. Its certainly not a reliable moral authority. Plus it all depends on moral relativism and the society/time period; this shows that not only is even more unreliable, but that the basis for such morals comes from secular society and rational thought rather than from an ancient book. This is also where confirmation bias comes into play.

The belief that "the bible is against homosexuality" is a particular interpretation based on one's own beliefs.

IDK, its pretty hard to misinterpret this:

"Leviticus 20:13 ESV / 693 helpful votes
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

"1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ESV / 971 helpful votes
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

There are a variety of other passages as well. Based on what the bible says, its perfectly reasonable for a Christian to come to the conclusion that homosexuality is an abomination. So its based on the bible as well as ones beliefs.

What filter do you think that might be? It might be a filter of common sense, realizing that the ancients didn't have all the information they needed to make the claims they make. It might be a filter of study, learning not to impose ancient thinking onto modern context. It might be a filter of exegesis, learning to read out of the text what was actually meant, and then temper that thought to the modern context. It might be a filter of fact, whereby certain biblical claims can be proven wrong. It might be a filter of priority, whereby one weighs seemingly obtuse statements against the preponderance of statements that form the overarching message of the texts, themselves.

Saying something is common sense assumes you know what common sense is in the first place. Most people for instance would not think that an object can be in two places at once, but it occurs all the time in the world of the quantum. Common sense can in fact be inherently deceptive.

But anyways, I have no idea what filter it might be. It could be a combination of those, or a bunch you didn't put down. It all depends on the person, the time period, and society. The filters are problematic because it means that you have determined what filters allow you to make a valid interpretation based on some authority. Ancient people considered their filters and interpretations to be very good. 1000 years from now, its likely that our current interpretations and filters will be considered ignorant and invalid.

 

[sojourner]

And the definition of fair as well as christian is subject to personal interpretation.

Not entirely. There is a sense of the community that helps define.

The bible contains moral positions within it.

But they're neither cohesive nor coordinated particularly.

Well I suppose they would use bible passages as the moral authority--particularly those from Leviticus, Corinthians, and Romans.

Why? Levitican law patently doesn't apply to any but Jews, and we are not living within the culture of either ancient Corinth or Rome.

Now on what authority would Christians determine that the bible isn't against homosexuality?

The "moral authority" comes from a study of and adherence to Christian principles, as portrayed in the bible, in extra-biblical writings, in the teachings of the church, and from a study of scientific, sociological, psychological, and cultural disciplines, such that an historical continuity is maintained.

If it reflects the morals of those who wrote it, then it was intended to be for or against some things.

Perhaps. But do we know for sure that the writers intended their morality to be universal or lasting? Or were they writing to particular people in a particular context?

Saying the bible is against something is basically saying the authors intended the bible to reflect a moral position against something.

Is it? Did they for all contexts?

And anyways, one would hope it would be against genocide, or slavery, or scapegoats, or stoning adulterating women, etc but you're right its not explicitly against those things.

No, it's not against those things from our POV. From their POV, the genocide of enemies was seen as salvific, scapegoating was a religious practice, and slavery was a social norm. Where we run into trouble is when we insist that our values be imposed upon the biblical context and message.

No way? The bible is inanimate? And it doesn't have a brain? News to me. This is just playing off the semantics. Everything written states what the writers wrote. Its a tautology and I fail to see how this is arguing against my position at all. I find it strange that you're implying that I thought the bible was capable of coming to its own conclusions regarding morality. I don't think I ever claimed that the bible has a brain or artificial intelligence but quote me if im wrong.

Yes, but you see, saying that "the bible says..." or "the bible believes..." or "the moral position of the bible is..." imbues what the authors thought with a certain unassailable and universal authority that the bible simply does not have, except in the minds of fundamentalist back jobs.

And people who study these things come to radically different conclusions because much is ambiguous and much depends on an individual's personality. Its certainly not a reliable moral authority.

No. It isn't. You're right.

Its certainly not a reliable moral authority. Plus it all depends on moral relativism and the society/time period; this shows that not only is even more unreliable, but that the basis for such morals comes from secular society and rational thought rather than from an ancient book.

Yup. The only thing the bible provides is historic and cultural framework.

IDK, its pretty hard to misinterpret this:

"Leviticus 20:13 ESV / 693 helpful votes
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

"1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ESV / 971 helpful votes
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

There are a variety of other passages as well. Based on what the bible says, its perfectly reasonable for a Christian to come to the conclusion that homosexuality is an abomination. So its based on the bible as well as ones beliefs.

Not if you understand that homosexuality as an orientation was unknown to the writers. Not if you understand the shame/honor system under which that society operated. Not if you understand the translational difficulties, language barriers and cultural differences. What's reasonable is to expect people who espouse hard-and-fast answers and claim their belief as "fact" to thoroughly and responsibly exegete the texts without bias.

But anyways, I have no idea what filter it might be. It could be a combination of those, or a bunch you didn't put down. It all depends on the person, the time period, and society. The filters are problematic because it means that you have determined what filters allow you to make a valid interpretation based on some authority. Ancient people considered their filters and interpretations to be very good. 1000 years from now, its likely that our current interpretations and filters will be considered ignorant and invalid.

This is precisely why it's dangerous to make such implacable and universal, eternal judgments. Part of common sense tells us precisely what you said: That interpretations Never. Last. and that interpretations are not hard fact. The whole argument from authority is (true to form) a fallacy. The bible simply isn't such an authority, so to make an argument that supposedly is impervious to time and change using biblical passages is fallacious.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You want to find out? Do your own research -- the info is out there.

IOW, make your argument for you.

You know what would give your argument a lot more weight? One non-Christian source - just one - that supports your claims about what Roman soldiers were and weren't allowed to do.

And I'm talking anything here. Maybe a record of the punishments doled out by a legion commander ("3 soldiers were executed for desertion in battle, 8 were whipped for making townspeople carry their gear 4 miles, etc."), maybe a record of some event ("an insurrection in the town of _____ was put down after the townspeople refused to give up their cloaks to the legionaires and rioted.")... anything that supports your claim.

Heck, he taught at Union and Auburn --he's not just "some nut."

And Tom Harpur is a Rhodes Scholar who taught at the Toronto School of Theology and won major awards for his books. If we're going to play "battling credentials", your argument is moot, because apparently I should accept that Jesus was a re-hash of Horus first.

... or we could take the approach that I prefer: judge the claim based on its own merits rather than the merits of the person making it. By that measure, all you've given is empty claims.

I'm not going to assuage your skepticism for you, but I don't see how you can fairly judge something you know little about...

Ah - the Courtier's Reply.

I think it's rather hypocritical of you to judge my level of knowledge - a subject you know next to nothing about - in the same breath where you criticize what you perceive as the same thing from me.

In any case, I'm not too worried about your judgement of me, especially since I get the impression that you would dismiss any position on this issue as uninformed if it disagrees with yours.

...But just for fun, can you tell me exactly what level of knowledge is required before "do not resist an evil person" becomes "resist an evil person (... just do it non-violently)" and "rejoice and be glad when people persecute you" becomes "persecution is a negative thing that you should avoid"?

 

[sojourner]

You know what would give your argument a lot more weight? One non-Christian source - just one - that supports your claims about what Roman soldiers were and weren't allowed to do.

Pu-leeze! This isn't some Christian/non-Christian thing. It's a cultural anthropology thing.

... or we could take the approach that I prefer: judge the claim based on its own merits rather than the merits of the person making it. By that measure, all you've given is empty claims.

Thing is, you haven't given anything but empty and unfounded skepticism as the basis for your "judgment."
If you can come up with one credible, peer-reviewed scholar who makes a valid, solid case for Walter Wink not being worth listening to, I'll recant, come to Canada and lick your shoes.

I think it's rather hypocritical of you to judge my level of knowledge - a subject you know next to nothing about - in the same breath where you criticize what you perceive as the same thing from me.

It ain't hypocritical. If you knew what was what in the theological community, you'd know about Walter Wink and wouldn't be dismissive of him.

In any case, I'm not too worried about your judgement of me, especially since I get the impression that you would dismiss any position on this issue as uninformed if it disagrees with yours.

Well, you've certainly done that already (<cough> hypocritical). But I've noted that every time -- without exception -- I come up with a valid rebuttal to your thoughts, you get snarky. Judging from your post here, I must be on the right track. Yay for me!

...But just for fun, can you tell me exactly what level of knowledge is required before "do not resist an evil person" becomes "resist an evil person (... just do it non-violently)" and "rejoice and be glad when people persecute you" becomes "persecution is a negative thing that you should avoid"?

Just for fun, if you'd actually watch the video and pay attention... you'd know the answer. But it seems you'd rather be outright dismissive, because that's more fun than being forced to admit you're wrong.

I think we're done here.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just for fun, if you'd actually watch the video and pay attention... you'd know the answer. But it seems you'd rather be outright dismissive, because that's more fun than being forced to admit you're wrong.

I've been mostly travelling for the past week, and I pay for my data usage. If you had given anything to suggest that it would be worth my time or data charges to watch your video on my phone, I would do it. You haven't. If this issue isn't important enough to you to make your own argument, it sure isn't important enough to me to pay good money to watch your video.

If I get dismissive, it's because you've been intellectually dishonest with me so many times that my patience tends to be very short with you. I suppose I should be *completely* dismissive and just ignore you, but it's against my nature to do that. Despite your track record, I don't like to assume with anyone that just because they've made bad arguments in the past that their next argument will be bad too.

... so I engage with you, and then you dance around the issues instead of arguing anything substantial, and then I get frustrated. I suppose I should know better by now.

 

[sojourner]

I've been mostly travelling for the past week, and I pay for my data usage. If you had given anything to suggest that it would be worth my time or data charges to watch your video on my phone, I would do it. You haven't. If this issue isn't important enough to you to make your own argument, it sure isn't important enough to me to pay good money to watch your video.

If I get dismissive, it's because you've been intellectually dishonest with me so many times that my patience tends to be very short with you. I suppose I should be *completely* dismissive and just ignore you, but it's against my nature to do that. Despite your track record, I don't like to assume with anyone that just because they've made bad arguments in the past that their next argument will be bad too.

... so I engage with you, and then you dance around the issues instead of arguing anything substantial, and then I get frustrated. I suppose I should know better by now.

Take a gander at Wink's curriculum vitae. You'll quickly see that he's no fly-by-nighter, and very much within the standing of the theological and scholastic communities.
http://www.walterwink.com/wink_cv.pdf

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Take a gander at Wink's curriculum vitae. You'll quickly see that he's no fly-by-nighter, and very much within the standing of the theological and scholastic communities.
http://www.walterwink.com/wink_cv.pdf

Walter Wink's qualifications are irrelevant. If he's a diligent scholar, then his claims will be properly sourced, and these sources will be available for others to examine, too. If his claims about, say, what Roman soldiers could make residents do in their provinces are correct, then we would expect to see documents from ancient Rome that support it. If he's correct, then I would expect, say, mention of this particular rule in a code of Roman military law, or a historian making some mention of the effect of this policy in Gaul or Brittania. As long as your only source for this claim is Walter Wink, I'm not going to believe it regardless of Wink's reputation, because if it's true, it should be referred to elsewhere.

If it was such a common practice that a First-Century Judean audience would have understood the reference without explanation, then it's common enough that we should expect other sources that refer to it. Where are they?

 

[sojourner]

Walter Wink's qualifications are relevant. He knows what he's talking about, and doesn't just go around making stuff up, or he wouldn't have those qualifications.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Walter Wink's qualifications are relevant. He knows what he's talking about, and doesn't just go around making stuff up, or he wouldn't have those qualifications.

That's good. In that case, there ought to be a compelling body of available evidence that, when examined with a high level of academic rigour, supports his claims. Where is it?

 

[sojourner]

That's good. In that case, there ought to be a compelling body of available evidence that, when examined with a high level of academic rigour, supports his claims. Where is it?

Did you check out his list of books and articles, as well as his list of guest lectureships, and academic appointments? I'm more than sure his source material is cited in his published material, or it wouldn't be published.
[edit]
When I run across people with these kinds of credentials, I tend to take what they offer at face value. I don't waste a lot of time on empty skepticism, because that skepticism will only confirm the validity of their research. We can waste a lot of time and energy to "discover" what is already known. There are just givens in the academic community that we don't bother to check up on, ourselves, because smarter and more connected people have already done that work for us. That's how people like Wink get published and get on faculty at well-known graduate schools.

For purposes of this forum, which isn't dependent on (or, frankly, worthy of) a high level of scholasticism, Wink's statements ought to be able to stand on the merits of his accomplishments and reputation in the scholastic community, without less-knowledgeable people participating in faux watchdogging of his claims. If I were writing a scholastic article, Of course I'd check his data before putting my name on something. But I'm not even using my name on this forum, and no one's reputation is at risk. As it is, suffice to say that Wink is an expert and his witness is valid here. When people operate at this level of scholarship, they, themselves become the reference for subsequent work.

It's kind of like checking up on Frank Lloyd Wright's architectural claims, or on Steven Spielberg's movie making claims, or Niebuhr's philosophical claims. As if you know something they don't. It's just so much empty hubris.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Did you check out his list of books and articles, as well as his list of guest lectureships, and academic appointments? I'm more than sure his source material is cited in his published material, or it wouldn't be published.

Wait... you expect me to go through all the publications of a professor with a 40+ year career to find the citation for one specific claim? Really?

At least throw me a bone by giving me the title of a paper he made it in.

[edit]
When I run across people with these kinds of credentials, I tend to take what they offer at face value. I don't waste a lot of time on empty skepticism, because that skepticism will only confirm the validity of their research. It's like questioning whether the sun is really bright, or just sort of "appears" to be bright. We can waste a lot of time and energy to "discover" what is already known. There are just givens in the academic community that we don't bother to check up on, ourselves, because smarter and more connected people have already done that work for us. That's how people like Wink get published and get on faculty at well-known graduate schools.

Then there's a difference between you and me. If a fact is as obvious as "the Sun is bright", then it's trivial to confirm.

For purposes of this forum, which isn't dependent on (or, frankly, worthy of) a high level of scholasticism, Wink's statements ought to be able to stand on the merits of his accomplishments and reputation in the scholastic community, without less-knowledgeable people participating in faux watchdogging of his claims. If I were writing a scholastic article, Of course I'd check his data before putting my name on something. But I'm not even using my name on this forum, and no one's reputation is at risk. As it is, suffice to say that Wink is an expert and his witness is valid here. When people operate at this level of scholarship, they, themselves become the reference for subsequent work.

... which makes it all the more odd that he seems to be the only one selling this particular set of claims. For the purposes of this forum, I think a good rule of thumb is that if a claim has only one source, it's probably not accepted by the mainstream.

... for the purposes of this forum, of course.

It's kind of like checking up on Frank Lloyd Wright's architectural claims, or on Steven Spielberg's movie making claims, or Niebuhr's philosophical claims. As if you know something they don't. It's just so much empty hubris.

Of course, you realize that Fallingwater had to be structurally rehabilitated because Frank Lloyd Wright didn't put enough rebar in his balconies, and the flagship gas station he designed never pumped even a gallon of gas because it couldn't meet code, right?

You would be wise to question the people you elevate to the status of prophet. Nobody is infallible.