Preposterously Reverend Lord Professor Bishop Baron Lord Richard Harries, Baron Pentregarth, Gresham Professor of Divinity, Baron, Bishop, Professor, Lord…

And in the Big News today from a Faith Perspective, Dr. Livingston I presume. But Dr. Livingstone was not alone. He had a wife.

History is only just beginning to discover the existence of women and other minority groups.

The Big Book of Magic Stuff has known about women and other minority groups all along. Everything will be fixed in the Invisible Magic Afterlife. Isn’t that nice.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gpbzWs8xnmLn6K_DTt3ArEdkS6ZVb3F6/view?usp=sharing

6 thoughts on “Preposterously Reverend Lord Professor Bishop Baron Lord Richard Harries, Baron Pentregarth, Gresham Professor of Divinity, Baron, Bishop, Professor, Lord…

  1. Classic “Mornington Crescent”. At least he had the courage to bring Jesus into it, instead of the perennial St Paul. Very comforting to know no matter how sh1t life becomes it’ll all be sorted out in the Invisible Magic Afterlife.

    Like

  2. “History is not fixed and final, but an interaction of the past and the present, a continuing re-interpretation of the past in the light of fresh perspectives…”

    Who could disagree? Certainly Biblical scholars and historians (as opposed to theologians) studying ancient Middle Eastern cultures would concur whole-heartedly with Lord Harries; through their careful studies of ancient scriptures we can now know that much of the ‘Hebrew’ Bible was shared with or pillaged from other ancient texts, from cultures with similar creation and salvation myths. These studies are fascinating, but to what degree do these historical analyses and re-interpretations affect the faiths based upon them? Are they happy to accept reinterpretation in the light of new perspectives? Do Jews accept that there was never any Egyptian captivity, that there was never any exodus, and no land ever ‘promised’ to them to the exclusion of other tribes? All these myths have been equally important to Christians, as their own salvation myths are firmly based upon Old Testament writings. How do they see these reinterpretations? Perhaps Bishop Harries, in his next TFTD, might enlighten us.

    Harries, as is trendy amongst TFTD contributors now, refers to ‘the Hebrew Scriptures.’ But they are his Christian scriptures; the millennia old division between Old and New Teataments has played a critical purpose in his religion – the new relationship with the IMF through Jesus, formed out of the old. Perhaps it is now thought insensitive or even racist to refer to the scriptures of the Jews as ‘the Old Testament,’ but that denies 2,000 years of Christian belief in their Messiah being the one promised in the OT, the Messiah which the Jews failed to, or refused to acknowledge. It’s all a bit of a theological tangle really.

    It is now far more common to allow female partners – married or otherwise – to stand in their own right (and indeed male partners). It is rarer today for someone to be simply the wife or husband of someone more ‘important.’ Dr Biden is the First Lady of the USA, but still a person of standing in her own right; so was Cherie Blair when her husband was PM. If wives have been overlooked for centuries, or seen only as a lesser adjunct to their ‘master’ then surely that is owing to the strict definitions of what a wife was expected to be as defined in Harries’ BBOMS. He didn’t seem to keen to own that particular truth this morning.

    Sorry to have gone on a bit.

    Like

  3. We like people going on a bit if it is to debunk the rubbish spouted by some of the TFTD contributors.

    Harries says, “History is not fixed and final but an interaction of the past and the present, a continuing reinterpretation of the past in the light of fresh perspectives.” So, that is history explained then, but, as Liverpudlian explains, that is the complete opposite of the “history” in the BBOMS. Although the Bible has been reinterpreted over the last 2000 years it is still seen by Christians as the word of god and Harries seems to think it still holds some kind of truth about the supernatural powers of his IMF. Why can’t he see this how his own definition makes this so wrong-headed of him?

    I am currently reading a book from 1901 called Britain Over The Sea, a series of essays about colonialism from 1600 to the late 1800s that I found in my late mother’s collection. On the works of David Livingstone, W. G Blaikie says, “A foreigner has remarked that, in the 19th century, the white has made a man of the black; in the 20th century Europe will make a world out of Africa. When that world is made and generation after generation of intelligent African look back on its beginnings, …. the name that will be encircled by them with brightest honour is that of David Livingstone.”
    That essay, and many others in the book, will certainly have reinterpreted Livingstone’s works and Africa’s place in the world since then.

    Like

  4. Even if an IMF wanted to write the New Tasty Mint, it would have produced nothing more convincing or forward-thinking than what we have.
    This is because its Visible Third was supposed to return soon-ish so there’s no point writing anything relevant to any period after the 1st century.
    Perhaps the IMF died or didn’t set its timer – whatever the case, Harries & co have a BBoMS which they must defend by admitting that future interpretations will improve on what they thought yesterday.

    Like

    1. Perhaps the visible bit did come back when he said he would. Maybe it’s just that no one payed attention to him…

      Like

  5. The only thing I would add to Liverpudlian’s eloquent contribution is that an increasing number of scholars – mostly ancient historians – are coming to the view that Jesus was just as mythical a character as Abraham or Moses. But if theologians or Bible students were to accept that Moses never existed, there is no compelling reason for them to draw the line at Samuel, or Daniel, or Jesus. It’s a slippery slope, and even putting a toe onto it is a dicey business.

    And I suppose it’s a statement of the obvious, but given that Livingstone was a staunch Christian (a Congregationalist) and a member of the LMS, and was virtually canonised by the Victorian Christian establishment, one has to ask who wrote Mrs Livingstone out of the story in the first place.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s