swampman posted:

Hey and they make Strawberry milk which is supposed to be pink colored. Logically raising the question do strawberries taste like a combination of blood and milk? What have i stumbled onto without the assistance of other posters? Could someone call the news and release this and credit me as an expert witness please? Does news still exist?

yes you can hear all the jews you need @: thedailyshow.com/full-episodes

roseweird posted:

what the hell does 'end of history' mean and give me one good reason not to throw rocks at anyone who says it

finally i agree with you on something roseweird: fukiyama was wrong: Huntingdon was right

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

is there a better word than 'homophobia' to describe people who accept it, aren't scared or threatened by it, but just don't like the homosexual agenda?

roseweird posted:

could any rhizzone catholics recommend a good commentary on romans, or on paul and pauline theology generally? my liberal protestant teachers never dealt with him and i feel pretty lost when reading his letters

start with Adversus Marcionem

Why did I give this book only one star?

Because Badiou's lack of thorough research was extremely aggravating.

For instance, near the beginning of the book, Badiou simply states that, of all the canonical epistles attributed to Paul "at least six are certainly apocryphal" (32) without providing any references. Now, I believe that all of the canonical epistles were either written or dictated by Paul and I believe there is a lot of evidence to back up my view. This having been said, I know that most critical scholars still regard II Timothy and Ephesians to be authentic. Badiou, however, does not. This leads me to believe that he's only relying on a minimal number of scholarly sources (the fact that Badiou does not reference his historical statements really bothers me).

Secondly, Badiou simply states that the resurrection was a fable and not a historical event (in the colloquial sense of event). Only those who are quite ignorant of recent (and historical debates) can assert such a claim with this kind of confidence (once again, Badiou makes no effort to reference his assertion). There are numerous monographs and debates available showing that there is far more evidence in favour of the bodily resurrection of Christ than the non-resurrection or a merely spiritual resurrection. Just think of the works by N.T. Wright and Gary Habermas to name but two. Shimon Gibson, a non-Christian archeologist has, himself, stated in his book The Final Days of Jesus, that "he reality is that there is no historical explanation for the empty tomb, other than if we adopt a theological one, i.e., the resurrection" (165). So, once again, the fact that Badiou simply states that the resurrection is a fable, without even acknowledging the controversy, suggests that he hasn't been doing his homework.

Thirdly, it is only because Badiou dismisses the book of Acts as 'ideologically tainted' (a common Marxist tactic) - the book, Badiou claims, was most likely written to appeal to Roman society " is an official document, whose function is to provide an account of the first decades of Christianity that would be as uniform, organization, and "Roman" as possible" (26) - that he can assert that Paul avoided using rational arguments and miracles to authenticate his message. Throughout Acts, Luke reports that Paul and Barnabas/Silas performed a number of miracles: with the Jews in Iconium "they remained for a long time, speaking boldly for the Lord, who bore witness to the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands" (Acts 14:3); with Gentiles in Malta, Paul survived a poisonous snake bite. These are but two instances (of many others). Badiou, however, does not need to deal with them because he has already eliminated the book of Acts from the 'authentic and trustworthy writings'. This, for those who are interested, is an easy way to make research and argumentation easier: simply assert that all the books that challenge your thesis are 'ideologically tainted' and then carry on without worry. (To be fair, Badiou does discuss Paul's message to the philosophers on Mars Hill, though only to show that Paul was an anti-philosopher - throughout Badiou makes it clear that he does not believe the Mars Hill-debate really happened).

What do all of these criticisms amount to? Perhaps you will charge me with 'missing the point'. Badiou's argument does not stand or fall because of any historical details, you might say. I disagree. Whether the resurrection did or did not happen does affect the status of Paul's message. If the resurrection did happen (there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support the fact that it did) then Badiou's claim that the truth-event of resurrection is neither conceptual nor historical must be altered. Moreover, if we incorporate the book of Acts (as well as the rest of Paul's epistles) into the study, Badiou will have to admit that there were times when Paul reasoned, and other times when he performed miracles.