Archive for the ‘Dilettante’ Category
Nor scientist. So instead of talking about the subject, please, stick to movies. And, by the way, I don’t really think all this is your fault. Instead, it’s the fault of whoever at that ‘University’ invited you to speak. Clearly they aren’t interested in the search for truth. Instead, they’re about the quest for publicity (which is all, dear Cameron, that you bring to the table).
Arizona State University’s Gammage Theater in Tempe, Az hosted a special pre-screening of The Unbelievers film Friday March 29 and 30. The movie that is set to release later in 2013 includes renowned scientific minds like Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking and ASU’s very own Lawrence Krauss.
After the screening Krauss moderated a panel that opened discussion on free thought, science and atheism amongst several of the people involved in the movie. Those people were Richard Dawkins, Director of Photography Luke Holwerda, Director Gus Holwerda, Ian McEwan and Cormac McCarthy (left to right, respectively). The film, which is based around atheism, also conatins appearances from such celebrities as Cameron Diaz, Ricky Gervais, Woody Allen and Tim Minchin.
Via Dan Ortiz on the Facebook.
Best. Lunatic. Ever! With 10,000 thanks to Robert Williams Jr for the unending source of laughter!
And boy is it a doosie. This email was sent to Francesca….
Two things to note… the Bible wasn’t written in English, so the whole premise is stupid. Just rankly stupid. Little wonder the ‘book’ hasn’t gotten much notice. And second, Francesca gets more nutbag email than anyone in the history of the 21st century (so far).
Anyway, Mr 19 year old ‘scholar’, here’s your Dilly. Enjoy it… You’ve certainly earned it-
Someone in the KJV Only Camp Has Gone Insane(er) : ‘PocketDoctrines’ Wins This Week’s Dilly the Dilettante Award
For, according to James McGrath, the ignoramuses at ‘PocketDoctrines’ are actually asserting that the KJV is better than the originals- for a list of reasons which demonstrate their inability to think clearly.
‘PocketDoctrines’ must be an assemblage of dilettantes who don’t know anything about how books (from scrolls) developed. Nor do they know how to exegete Jeremiah 36, which says nothing about God destroying scrolls but a wicked king doing so. Nor are they aware of the fact that some of us actually do read ancient languages and- believe it or not, the KJV is derived from those sources, they are not dependent on it. Point 5 is utterly anglo-centric and ignores the truth that most of the world doesn’t read English. And, further, what did the people who lived before 1611 read? Are we to believe they had no bible just because they didn’t have the KJV? Point 6 is just stupidity enfleshed. And point 7 proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the KJV only crowd knows nothing about the history of the text.
In sum, the people who produced the rubbish at ‘PocketDoctrines’ are dilettantes of the most ignorant and uninformed sort. So, here’s your Dilly, ‘PocketDoctrines’:
This one arrived in the inbox this morning and whilst I normally just ignore such stupidity this one was so ignorant and so moronic I feel compelled to pass it along. Especially given the author’s self-evident name…
It’s made even funnier by the fact that it’s in response to this post, and by the fact that it’s author is a member of a blog called ‘Conservatives who love America’ (which means he’s a sycophant of Limbaugh-ism). In sum- ignorance enfleshed.
I suspect he must be kin to Little Honey Tee Tee.
Fuller ANE Studies writes on the facebook-
No wonder the series’ advance defenders have been NT scholars. This review answers one of my main questions about the series: Only five of the ten episodes are dedicated to the Old Testament. That was never going to work from a narrative perspective, since the OT is 3/4 of the Bible. It’s a misrepresentation of the Bible, and it reinforces in the popular mind that the actual history of Israel and Judah is of no consequence. Also learned this: “The sins of Sodom are represented by kissing, dancing and fire-eating.”
Absurd dilettantism is all we can expect from Hollywood. They never get it right and they never will until such time as they inquire of and follow the guidance of actual biblical scholars. Mark Burnett knows less about the Bible than Simcha knows about actual archaeology. Indeed, you have to give it to Jacobovici, he may be a sensationalizer but he knows at least a tiny bit. The same can’t be said of Burnett.
No one who watches the series by Burnett should labor under the delusion that it is at all accurate. The parts I’ve seen definitely haven’t been and even when he uses scholars he cuts and pastes and they end up saying things I seriously doubt they have said.
Finally, as an aside, I got an email from Christianbooks.com saying that they highly recommended the series. For shame.
I’ll go ahead and give you your award, Bill. Normally I like to read books before I find them disreputable but given two simple facts: 1) you aren’t a biblical scholar and thus have no more business writing a book on Jesus than you do writing a book on quantum physics (and neither does your co-author Mr Dugard, a ‘running coach’ (good lord), and 2) you’re a blowhard, I’ll go ahead and presume that your work will be pure worthlessness and so here’s your Dilly.
Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly plans on “Killing Jesus.” That will be his next book. O’Reilly has topped bestseller lists with two prior histories, “Killing Kennedy: The End of Camelot,” and “Killing Lincoln: The Shocking Assassination That Changed America Forever.” Because his television talk show keeps him busy, O’Reilly has a coauthor, Martin Dugard, who will continue to work with him on “Killing Jesus.”
Here ya go- the pair of ya-
First, Christian Brady remarks
Theology and the Bible should never be separated. (Unless it is systematic theology. After all, the Bible isn’t very systematic.)
I agree. The Bible is theological to its very core; and true Christian theology is biblical to its very core. Systematizations are problematic, but not nearly as problematic as the Priest who declared of her sermon:
It was pure theology, no specific biblical references.
Blah. If it wasn’t based on biblical texts specifically it isn’t even impure theology- it’s dilettantish theology of the worst kind.
Chris then observes
That is wrong on so many levels. I think even Jim would agree.
Oh you bet he does. You bet he does! I don’t know who that woman was, but she should keep silent in the Church. In absentia I present her this week’s Dilly- and it’s well deserved-
So, apparently, the ‘Science Guy’ is all excited about Pat Robertson’s latest blatherings (though why anyone is loony enough to think Pat Robertson a hero of any sort is a mystery to me). This led Mr Science, for whatever reason, to tweet his joy, suggesting Robertson’s followers should join him. Naturally the HuffPo wet itself in delight and retweeted the Science person’s misguided opinion.
I replied to both that the fact is, Pat Robertson’s ‘followers’ should be following Jesus, not him.
And now, the wry twist. It seems that Pat Robertson has followers who blindly align themselves to whatever views he holds, as the penultimate tweet in the series from the screenshot below shows:
If Mr Baugh is right, then Pat Robertson’s ‘followers’ are worse off than I thought and in fact they should be much more concerned with their souls than with creationism or anything else.