Legends & warts
eric/cindy bach thebachs@fgi.net
Wed, 2 Dec 1998 09:40:04 -0600 (00912634804, 002801be1e0a$28a598c0$0f9da7d0@bach)
from Bach
Sorry, Carl. I can't resist. It sounds like somebody in the upper
administration of your university has terminally entered the "Dilbert Zone".
Twenty-five years ago we saw the same thing happening where I worked at the
time only we called it the "Peter Principle" (from a popular book of the
time) back then! Hmmmmmm.......
I'm not sure where the Fitzmeister is coming from in his latest "sermon out
the mouth", however. I think the fundie view of Peter that I always
encountered was that he WAS acknowledged to be a major screwup, but that was
what was so wonderful about xianity....that if a guy like Peter could
somehow get forgiveness and become Pope and make it to heaven, there was
hope for us little people, too. Fitzpatrick seems to think that negative
stories about Peter must be true because they could have weakened the
argument....that such a huge church personage as Peter should have been
virtually perfect. I see it quite the contrary, and him as a calculated and
premeditated part of the myth.
Bones Bach
thebachs@fgi.net
>At 11:45 PM 12/1/98 -0500, you wrote:
>>><< FITZPATRICK
>>> In my haste to respond to you, I did not make myself clear (and,
>>> unintentionally, contradicted myself). I meant to make reference to
>>>other evidence which although not "unbiased, disinterested,
>>contemporary,
>>> corroborating evidence" is nevertheless considered very strong by
>>>many scholars who are skilled in evaluating the evidence culled from
>>>ancient documents.
>>
>>FITZPATRICK
>>One of the most powerful proofs of the veracity of the Gospel writers is
>>that they did not hesitate to tell it all, even when what they told would
>
><<Major Snippage>>
>
>GEISIK
>Thank you for a very clearly worded and succinct discussion of the lying,
>deceitful, cowardly actions of Peter. I don't think I could have
>summarized his faults any better. Can I quote you to my Christian friends
>as a fellow believer who is willing to admit the shortcomings of someone
>that billions pray to every year. Someone who was supposed to be the first
>Pope? You very clearly show exactly what qualifies one as a believer!
>
>However, to address your point:
>The myth must be true because it has "warts".
>
>Recently the University I teach at was undergoing a reevaluation for
>accreditation. Some of us were selected to write reports detailing key
>areas of effort and concentration for evaluation by the accredit ion
>committee. The written guidance given us by the administration contained
>very clear instructions to include "faults, shortcomings, problem, and
>areas where we were lacking" in order to improve "believability and build
>credibility." Go figure!
>
>We can all name countless "legends" and stories where the hero overcomes
>character flaws in the final struggle of "good over evil". In fact, this
>struggle is often the central theme of these "fairy tales".
>
>Carl Geisik
>