I mentioned that there were so many errors on Wright's part that it would become tedious to try to address each one, but I would be happy to do so if you wish. The two I did mention, Abram and The Great Commission are so important that it is hard to imagine one with Wright's perported background, overlooking them.

Meanwhile we've just shown you that those aren't errors. Rejecting truthful lines of reasoning is, by definition, dishonest. I'm repeatedly mentioning the issue of honesty not because you responded so vehemently to it, but because it is a legitimate accusation.

Interbane wrote:

I mentioned that there were so many errors on Wright's part that it would become tedious to try to address each one, but I would be happy to do so if you wish. The two I did mention, Abram and The Great Commission are so important that it is hard to imagine one with Wright's perported background, overlooking them.

Meanwhile we've just shown you that those aren't errors. Rejecting truthful lines of reasoning is, by definition, dishonest. I'm repeatedly mentioning the issue of honesty not because you responded so vehemently to it, but because it is a legitimate accusation.

Explain how my criticism of Wright and TEoG is dishonest.

I didn't say your criticism of TEoG was dishonest. The lines of reasoning I was referring to were mine and geo's. The same lines of reasoning you ignored by repeating the same overturned criticisms. If you truly aren't following what is being said, then I apologize, your problem is not dishonesty. But for all that, I hope you see how frustrating it is having typed something then you act as if you completely skipped our posts.

stahrwe wrote:I titled this the way I did because this is not my discussion and I don't want to presume to speak for the Discussion Leader, DWill. I expect he will have his own, much different from mine.

Sorry for being absent from the discussion. I was out tramping around the woods for a couple of days, as it turned out during about the only rainy period in the last three months. I appreciate this approach you've taken to addressing your problems with The Evolution of God and Wright.

I tried to remain objective about this book. In the final analysis, I am not sure if I did or not. I found the entire book a contrivance of lightweight speculation. That might have been acceptable except the Wright did not even address the elephant in the tent. His entire premise was that monotheism evolved out of polytheism as a result of some sort of conscious process by auhors and editors. Why, and how is never explained.

Just to remark on a difference, I thought he raises momentous questions with his speculations, so they don't appear lightweight to me at all. Concerning your fourth sentence, the degree to which he portrays the change to monotheism as a conscious process is something that we could discuss at more length, but I agree that it presents a reasonable objection to Wright's general thesis that religion changes in response to the facts on the ground.

What Wright ignored was the very specific call of Abram out of Ur back in Genesis. Ur was polytheistic and Abram (later changed to Abraham) had relatives back in Ur who remained polytheists. This call explains very neatly the emergence of monotheism and the ongoing struggle the Jews had with polytheistic tendencies without the rampant speculation that Wright engages in often in such extreme ways as to discredit himself.

It's true that this answer was available to Wright if he chose to accept the Bible on its own terms, face-value. But he's a Bible revisionist, as I am (though admittedly not a very knowledgeable one), and that makes him see the Abraham story in a very different way from yours.

My other complaint is that almost every page of the book has glaring errors or misstatements. In this way he reminds me very much of Murdock. It is almost impossible to address his errors because they are so many but I will cite one which should be a proxy for all. On page 249 Wright states, "...the real Jesus - the "historical Jesus" - didn't emphasize universal love at all. At least, that's what a close and critical look at the scriptures stongly suggests."

This is a remakable statement.
First, how can the historical Jesus be found in a close examination of the scriptures? The how is to ignore the scriptures or at least reinterpret them in such a way that Jesus disappears.

You should in this case tell us give us more from your list of particulars; otherwise you can't show that the error you tell us about is only one of many (if it is in fact an error).

I'm not sure I understand your objection to Wright trying to discern the historical Jesus from scripture. I thought in fact that it might win him a point with you that the Gospels convince him that Jesus really lived and had a career as a preacher, even if we can be sure that only a few, if any, of the words in the Gospels were said by him. Agreed, Wright's claiming that Jesus did not preach universal love is a "remarkable statement," given that "Jesus Seminar" folks would pick out just these sentiments as being the most authentic of those attributed to Jesus. Wright's argument depends on the dating of passages of scripture. The way to dispute him would be to contradict him on the dating.

Second, Wright claims that he is a Christian, and attended Sunday Schoold, etc. Yet he makes a statement like the one cited above which flies in the face of Matthew 28

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Christians are commanded to go into the whole world teaching about the love of Jesus for them. This is such an important passage of scripture that it has its own name. It is called "The Great Commission". It is inconceivable that Wright would not be aware of it if he had even a basic understanding of Christinaity.

Wright doesn't claim to be a Christian today.

I agree, it's inconceivable that Wright was unaware of this. But again, his argument, based on the dating of passages is that Jesus did not really say this. It is a later writing that reflects the evolution that had taken place toward universal love within the fledgling religion. You will be hostile to the very idea that there is a single "red-letter" word in the Gospels that wasn't actually said by Jesus, which only illustrates again that you and Wright begin miles apart.

DWill wrote:

stahrwe wrote:I titled this the way I did because this is not my discussion and I don't want to presume to speak for the Discussion Leader, DWill. I expect he will have his own, much different from mine.

Sorry for being absent from the discussion. I was out tramping around the woods for a couple of days, as it turned out during about the only rainy period in the last three months. I appreciate this approach you've taken to addressing your problems with The Evolution of God and Wright.

I tried to remain objective about this book. In the final analysis, I am not sure if I did or not. I found the entire book a contrivance of lightweight speculation. That might have been acceptable except the Wright did not even address the elephant in the tent. His entire premise was that monotheism evolved out of polytheism as a result of some sort of conscious process by auhors and editors. Why, and how is never explained.

Just to remark on a difference, I thought he raises momentous questions with his speculations, so they don't appear lightweight to me at all. Concerning your fourth sentence, the degree to which he portrays the change to monotheism as a conscious process is something that we could discuss at more length, but I agree that it presents a reasonable objection to Wright's general thesis that religion changes in response to the facts on the ground.

What Wright ignored was the very specific call of Abram out of Ur back in Genesis. Ur was polytheistic and Abram (later changed to Abraham) had relatives back in Ur who remained polytheists. This call explains very neatly the emergence of monotheism and the ongoing struggle the Jews had with polytheistic tendencies without the rampant speculation that Wright engages in often in such extreme ways as to discredit himself.

It's true that this answer was available to Wright if he chose to accept the Bible on its own terms, face-value. But he's a Bible revisionist, as I am (though admittedly not a very knowledgeable one), and that makes him see the Abraham story in a very different way from yours.

My other complaint is that almost every page of the book has glaring errors or misstatements. In this way he reminds me very much of Murdock. It is almost impossible to address his errors because they are so many but I will cite one which should be a proxy for all. On page 249 Wright states, "...the real Jesus - the "historical Jesus" - didn't emphasize universal love at all. At least, that's what a close and critical look at the scriptures stongly suggests."

This is a remakable statement.
First, how can the historical Jesus be found in a close examination of the scriptures? The how is to ignore the scriptures or at least reinterpret them in such a way that Jesus disappears.

You should in this case tell us give us more from your list of particulars; otherwise you can't show that the error you tell us about is only one of many (if it is in fact an error).

I'm not sure I understand your objection to Wright trying to discern the historical Jesus from scripture. I thought in fact that it might win him a point with you that the Gospels convince him that Jesus really lived and had a career as a preacher, even if we can be sure that only a few, if any, of the words in the Gospels were said by him. Agreed, Wright's claiming that Jesus did not preach universal love is a "remarkable statement," given that "Jesus Seminar" folks would pick out just these sentiments as being the most authentic of those attributed to Jesus. Wright's argument depends on the dating of passages of scripture. The way to dispute him would be to contradict him on the dating.

Second, Wright claims that he is a Christian, and attended Sunday Schoold, etc. Yet he makes a statement like the one cited above which flies in the face of Matthew 28

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Christians are commanded to go into the whole world teaching about the love of Jesus for them. This is such an important passage of scripture that it has its own name. It is called "The Great Commission". It is inconceivable that Wright would not be aware of it if he had even a basic understanding of Christinaity.

Wright doesn't claim to be a Christian today.

I agree, it's inconceivable that Wright was unaware of this. But again, his argument, based on the dating of passages is that Jesus did not really say this. It is a later writing that reflects the evolution that had taken place toward universal love within the fledgling religion. You will be hostile to the very idea that there is a single "red-letter" word in the Gospels that wasn't actually said by Jesus, which only illustrates again that you and Wright begin miles apart.

I am always amazed at the enthusiasm with which you yankees trapse off into the woods on hikes. Here in Florida we don't hike in the woods. There are not that many places where the woods aren't swamp and there are things there that will eat you.

My complaint isn't that Wright disbelieves the Abram story, it is that he ignores it. If he mentioned it and then burried if for some reason I would not object as strongly. But it seems ridiculous to me to just ignore it, especially in a book perporting to explain the origins of the monotheistic God.

My concerns regarding the book are summed up well by the author himself on page 102. The last paragraph refers to 'selective decoding of the Bible'. If you are going to selectively decode the Bible you can make it mean anything you want. It is the same problem I pointed out to Robert Tulip about considering the Bible as allegory. Once you start on that road there is no possibility of consensus. A poem means what it means to the reader and there are no wrong answers. A bible story means what it means to the reader and there are no right or wrong answers. And your selective decoding is as valid as my selective decoding.

My complaint isn't that Wright disbelieves the Abram story, it is that he ignores it. If he mentioned it and then burried if for some reason I would not object as strongly. But it seems ridiculous to me to just ignore it, especially in a book perporting to explain the origins of the monotheistic God.

There is no need to mention something which isn't true. Why do you keep mentioning this? The distinction is not to say that it is also definitely false, just that it is not shown to be true, therefore it does not hold any weight in the analysis.

If you are going to selectively decode the Bible you can make it mean anything you want.

You think that what you do is any different?

DWill wrote: Sorry for being absent from the discussion. I was out tramping around the woods for a couple of days, as it turned out during about the only rainy period in the last three months.

I've always wanted to point out that we're not far from one another DWill. We live in western North Carolina. My wife and I are from the Eastern Shore of Maryland which is even closer to you.

Speaking of tramping about in the woods, I'm gearing up to hike Cold Mountain (yes, that Cold Mountain). I've always wanted to hike it, but it's a somewhat daunting 10.6-mile hike. I want to make sure I'm in pretty good shape first. Soon, before it gets too cold.

I've changed the title of this thread from "My concluding thoughts" to simply "My thoughts" because the title gives newcomers the false impression that we are now wrapping up the discussion of "The Evolution of God." We're only getting started and are not even 50% through the discussion period. And with a book discussion this active this forum will probably remain out of the archives for at least one or two additional months beyond the end of the stated discussion period. "My concluding thoughts" seems to be a rush to end the discussion and whether this is your goal or not it is harmful to BookTalk.org.

Interbane wrote:

My complaint isn't that Wright disbelieves the Abram story, it is that he ignores it. If he mentioned it and then burried if for some reason I would not object as strongly. But it seems ridiculous to me to just ignore it, especially in a book perporting to explain the origins of the monotheistic God.

There is no need to mention something which isn't true. Why do you keep mentioning this? The distinction is not to say that it is also definitely false, just that it is not shown to be true, therefore it does not hold any weight in the analysis.

Because Abram/Abraham is the central common ancestor for Jews, Christians, and Muslims. His story is also the story of the emergence of monotheism from polytheism. Wright may discount it as a myth but he should at least devote a paragraph in his book to doing so. In my opinion his failure to do so begs the question and leaves him wide open for what to me seems a devasting attack. Two thirds of the book of Genesis is devoted to Abraham and his children and grandchildren. His story creates the nations of Israel and the Arab states. How can he just ignore it?

If you are going to selectively decode the Bible you can make it mean anything you want.

interbane wrote:You think that what you do is any different?

Yes, and your comment is not a rebuttal of my argument.

Chris OConnor wrote:I've changed the title of this thread from "My concluding thoughts" to simply "My thoughts" because the title gives newcomers the false impression that we are now wrapping up the discussion of "The Evolution of God." We're only getting started and are not even 50% through the discussion period. And with a book discussion this active this forum will probably remain out of the archives for at least one or two additional months beyond the end of the stated discussion period. "My concluding thoughts" seems to be a rush to end the discussion and whether this is your goal or not it is harmful to BookTalk.org.

Perhaps a better title would be Stahrwe's concluding thoughts. I was pretty much told to drop out of the TEoG discussion but I felt like I wanted to at least weigh in on a couple of what, to me at least, were important points before I dropped out of this one completely.