Boinkie's Blog

Universalis

Sunday, September 30, 2012

Maybe we need a new hymnbook

link


Labels:

Thursday, September 27, 2012

Gay causing trouble again

I always read Mrs Gay Caswell's blog complaining about how the Bureaucracy in Canada is persecuting her and her fellow First Nation Christians, and how her people have to put up with drug pushers protected by big shots.

 I don't know if her complaints are real, but a lot of the problems she complains about is similar to that I had to confront as a doctor on a Minnesota reservation.... A couple years ago, she got sued for naming names of a drug pusher/big shot, and had to take her blog down. She is still fighting the case. So she has now started a youtube post.


 


Wonder if free speech will be allowed? This is Canada, not the US, and as Mark Steyn found out, libel and non Pc speech is taken seriously there.

Labels:

Friday, September 21, 2012

Follow the money


 Remember those headlines stories about a text saying Jesus being married? No?

Did they put the story in context of 4th century gnostic cults? No?

 Did they mention that a lot of scholars think the whole thing is a forgery? No?
Stephen Emmel, a professor of Coptology at the University of Muenster who was on the international advisory panel that reviewed the 2006 discovery of the Gospel of Judas, ...questioned whether the document was authentic. "There's something about this fragment in its appearance and also in the grammar of the Coptic that strikes me as being not completely convincing somehow," he said in an interview on the sidelines of the conference...

Another participant at the congress, Alin Suciu, a papyrologist at the University of Hamburg, was more blunt. "I would say it's a forgery. The script doesn't look authentic" when compared to other samples of Coptic papyrus script dated to the 4th century, he said.

King acknowledged Wednesday that questions remain about the fragment, and she welcomed the feedback from her colleagues. She said she planned to subject the document to ink tests to determine if the chemical components match those used in antiquity.
There is no context for the tiny scrap, the history of the fragment goes all the way back to 1980 CE, and she hasn't even checked the ink?
Wolf-Peter Funk, a noted Coptic linguist, said there was no way to evaluate the significance of the fragment because it has no context. It's a partial text and tiny, measuring 4 centimeters by 8 centimeters (1.5 inches by 3 inches), about the size of a small cellphone. "There are thousands of scraps of papyrus where you find crazy things," said Funk, co-director of a project editing the Nag Hammadi Coptic library at Laval University in Quebec. "It can be anything." He, too, doubted the authenticity, saying the form of the fragment was "suspicious."
headsup GetReligionblog

Harvard's website says King is a professor of church history, specializing in gnostic heresies of the ancient church:
Her particular theoretical interests are in discourses of normativity (orthodoxy and heresy), gender studies, and religion and violence.
in other words she has little expertise at authenticating scraps of papayri, only an expert in putting authenticated information into a feminist construct.

 one of the "experts" who authenticated the papyrus is, Professor Liujendijk, a self proclaimed "papyrus" specialist, and is doing research on 6th century feminism in the church, (not 4th century) but this "find" of hers suggests she tends to make a lot of presumptions. I mean, the blogsite owner thinks her detective work is wonderful, but she seems to make a lot of assumptions.

So, is she an expert in ancient scripts? Ancient inks? No, but like professor King, she is a Harvard specialist rewriting the history of ancient Christianity according to PC Feminism.

again, from the SFGate link:
However, AnneMarie Luijendijk, the Princeton University expert whom King consulted to authenticate the papyrus, said the fragment fit all the rules and criteria established by the International Association of Papyrologists. She noted that papyrus fragments frequently don't have a provenance, simply because so many were removed from Egypt before such issues were of concern.
She acknowledged the dilemma about buying such antiquities but said refraining from publishing articles about them is another matter.
"You wouldn't let an important new text go to waste," she said.
 No, but maybe you might want non feminist experts to evaluate it, especially when the "fragment" just happened to be in Professor King's area of feminist scholarship?

Why did the "anonymous collector" bring it to her?

In other words, the "anonymous collector took it to just the sort of naive person who would be targeted by a scam...wonder how much Harvard paid for it?
Some archaeologists were quick to question Harvard's ethics, noting that the fragment has no known provenance, or history of where it's been, and that its current owner may have a financial interest in the publicity being generated about it.
King has said the owner wants to sell his collection to Harvard.
"There are all sorts of really dodgy things about this," said David Gill, professor of archaeological heritage at University Campus Suffolk and author of the Looting Matters blog, which closely follows the illicit trade in antiquities. "This looks to me as if any sensible, responsible academic would keep their distance from it."
KACHING!

the real question is why the Smithsonian "fell" for pushing such a poorly authenticated piece of parchment when selling fake antiquities has been a big business in Egypt for 4000 years.

--------------------------------------

Saturday, September 15, 2012

In our prayers

from strategypage on the Alquaeda take over of northern Mali:


The Islamic terror groups in the north are also driving non-Moslems out of the area. Some 200,000 Mali Christians have fled the north to Algeria and Mauritania.



Thursday, September 06, 2012

How the left is trying to destroy the church

Get religion has a link to a NYTimes article on Jarrett, the WH advisor who is behind the president's anti catholic policies


So, The New York Times ran one of those lengthy news features the other day that set out to penetrate the walls of Barack Obama’s White House and show readers what is really happening on the inside, in the halls of power that are the center of all that is important in the universe.
In other words, “The Other Power in the West Wing” is a story that’s about politics, politics and more politics.
But there’s a problem.
You see, everywhere you turn in this story — a massive take-out about Valerie Jarrett, a key Chicago insider and Obama friend who has moved inside the Beltway — religious issues keep showing up. This starts at the very beginning, with the mysterious political story that continues to divide Democrats in this city. This is long but essential:
WASHINGTON – President Obama was in a bind, and his chief of staff could not figure out how he had ended up there.
Leaders of the Roman Catholic Church were up in arms last fall over a proposal to require employers to provide health insurance that covered birth control. But caving in to the church’s demands for a broad exemption in the name of religious liberty would pit the president against a crucial constituency, women’s groups, who saw the coverage as basic preventive care.
Worried about the political and legal implications, the chief of staff, William M. Daley, reached out to the proposal’s author, Kathleen Sebelius, the health and human services secretary. How, he wondered, had the White House been put in this situation with so little presidential input? “You are way out there on a limb on this,” he recalls telling her.
“It was then made clear to me that, no, there were senior White House officials who had been involved and supported this,” said Mr. Daley, who left his post early this year.
What he did not realize was that while he was trying to put out what he considered a fire, the person fanning the flames was sitting just one flight up from him: Valerie Jarrett, the Obamas’ first friend, the proposal’s chief patron and a tenacious White House operator who would ultimately outmaneuver not only Mr. Daley but also the vice president in her effort to include the broadest possible contraception coverage in the administration’s health care overhaul.
So, as everyone knows, there were centrist Democrats who were pleading for change on this issue, for some kind of real compromise with Catholics, evangelical Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims (as opposed to the Times and its Catholics-only approach) affected by this controversial mandate. However, Jarrett stood in the way. She was too close, too inside, to out maneuver.

---------------------
and here is an article about how the bishops allow progressives to push their agenda in the bishops' conference, often the same employees leave and then use their knowledge to push anti catholic items in the press.

LINK