4th century, not 3rd.

Ten years ago I sent an email to a Roman Catholic Theologian at CTU and an adviser to my Master’s work there to fill me in on her thoughts of the Princeton educated, self-appointed, god-head, Gagnon.

She, Sister Barbara Bowe, RSCJ, ThD, (Harvard University) – A student of Helmut Kester and Krister Stendahl) replied in her email that “no one listens to him[Gagnon]“, and his career will go far “with his church.”

Sister Barbara is deceased and she is half right on all accounts:

1. No one really listens to him.
2. His career will go far.

Whatever you glean from her statements, which I admire, she was full aware that I turned to science, abandoned the Catholic church (as I do not possess the gift of faith), and focused my mind to Molecular Biology.

What does this mean? I repeat Gagnon’s formal charge to all his foes, like Jean-Fabrice Nardelli:

“He is not a Biblical Scholar.”

There is no record that Nardelli made the above-mentions claim!

From the outset of his Review, Nardelli only wished to tackle Gagnon’s review of science, his review of Greco-Roman studies, and his review of Pauline texts.

One must remember that Paul was a Jew/convert ‘christian.’ Paul should never be praised for bringing his Jewish, god-fearing, misogynist life into Christian history. BUT DON’T WE ALL LOVE THE TYRANT? HE TELLS US HOW TO LIVE A BETTER LIFE!

However, Christianity was/and was not unified until the 3rd Century (the Tyrant Constantine and the Council of Nicea).

GAGNON can make whatever theological conclusions he wants BASED ONLY ON HIS ABILITY TO INTERPRET SCRIPTURE – Princeton University said he could.

Gagnon is NOT, however, allowed to make claims beyond his theological scope (a worthless study I might add, except to vilify and falsely educate the ignorant, which he does daily in the classroom and on his website – where he is a politician).

In short: Gagnon is not a scientist, he is not a mathematician, he is not statistician, he is not a molecular biologist, he is not cellular biologist, he is not a psychologist, and he IS NO Historian (Nardelli has shown this).

Gagnon is an online, Facebook creature, who uses his Princeton work to tell the world how it should think, act, behave, and grovel at the knees of his own god, who created nothing from the beginning of time.

Several years ago I watched a video debate between George and someone whose name I can’t remember. I don’t even remember the subject. But I do remember listening to George, and concluding that he had an exceptional ability to absorb, retain, and easily recall vast amounts of information. But in my view, he was woefully lacking in the intelligence required to properly connect the dots in a rational way (or maybe he was just unwilling). I felt he was using his command of information-recall to perpetrate a snow-job. And that’s how I see Robert Gagnon.

*Robert Gagnon is Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, whereas Robert George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University.

FWIW, makes me think of Newt Gingrich, whose effortless falsehoods cover history, politics AND theology. Is Gagnon the Gingrich of theology?

said the Red Queen in Alice, “I can believe six impossible things before breakfast.”

From the encyclopedia of psychology Freud on projection and reaction formations.”A type of defense mechanism whereby unacceptable, anxiety-causing emotions or impulses are masked by an exaggerated version of the opposite emotions or impulses.”

exactly who is the Well Read Queen?

I have, however, done my own dissection of one of George’s pieces, and logic doesn’t play a large role. The one I remember was a very elaborate “argument” that was completely circular, starting off with Catholic doctrine on marriage and ending with — Catholic doctrine on marriage.

When it comes right down to it, they’re both hacks, they’re both intellectually dishonest, and I doubt that either of them could reason his way through a grocery store without help.

But George’s logic at least has enough consistency to have a veneer of thoughtfulness. If not, we would not so enjoy when Rob Tisinai illustrates its inconsistency.

With Gagnon it really requires a deep and abiding faith (in Gagnon) to get through the first few paragraphs without laughing.

So while I think Robert George comes close, I gotta stick with Robert Gagnon.

Robert P. George