"Spiritually conscious" = reality impaired

Apparently, Neale Walsh of Conversations with God (Patheos) is planning to write a five part series. On what this series is supposed to cover I'm not quite sure. The first part, "How can spiritually conscious people respond to our world?", seems to be an exercise in spewing as many vague and incoherent phrases as possible while simultaneously being as contradictory as possible. It makes no sense, so, I really don't have any idea what it is supposed to be an introductory piece to.

Even after you set aside the first obvious question posed by the title itself; what the fuck does he mean by "spiritually conscious", the initial paragraph just demonstrate how clueless Walsh is.
"I cannot remember a time during my half century of adulthood when the average human being on this planet found herself or himself looking directly into the face of more stressful events, circumstances, and situations than those now presenting themselves daily around the world."
Umm, does he have some issues with memory/retention or is he being incredibly disingenuous? Walsh is only a little older than I am but does not seem to remember that period of US history we labeled The Cold War. I guess the constant threat of nuclear annihilation just slipped his mind.

Ignoring the tail end of the Cold War is ridiculous enough without him spending a few paragraphs talking about how uniquely disturbing the current era is. He crosses the line from being willfully ignorant to the point of stupidity into being out right contradictory when he immediately follows this claim with "This, of course, is not a new inquiry. Shakespeare put it this way, asking in the famous words of Hamlet 'whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them'…?"
Huh? So, we are living in a unique era despite a late sixteenth century playright commenting on many of the same issues and themes.

About the only consistencies I noticed in the whole piece were Walsh's ability to carry-on in random and meandering directions as well as a penchant for empty phrases incorporating the word "spiritual."

"History" in the Bible

I did not have a chance to watch the new History Channel mini-series I mentioned last week. However, I have noticed some rather entertaining responses to the initial airing by theists. I especially found Joel Hoffman's take on it quite amusing. In "The Bible Isn't The History You Think It Is" he tries to sound scholarly but what he really does is employ a type of literary sleight-of-hand. He seems to be comfortable admitting that the majority of the Bible's contents are not historical. However, this concession seems to be mainly about making his opinion that there is a part of the Bible that is historical more plausible. The Bible does not contain any "history" in terms of verifiable facts. None. There are aspects of the bible that can be useful in terms of understanding the mind-set and sociological circumstances of a particular time-frame. That, however, does not seem to be what Hoffman means.

He creates an artificial division that I do see as being potentially useful.
"One way to understand the difference between history and fiction in the Bible is through the Old Testament's natural division into three parts:
    The world and its nature (Adam to Terah).
    The Israelites and their purpose (Abraham to Moses).
    The Kingdom of Israel and life in Jerusalem (roughly from King David onward)."
This can be a handy delineation when approaching biblical studies within its own context, as literary analysis. It still isn't history. His reference to King David is a pretty good indication of his lack of critical thinking or ability to approach historical research from an un-biased fact-based position. There is no extra-scriptural support for David as an historical figure. There have been many claims to the contrary but not one has ever been confirmed by anthropology, archeology, or geology. I have previously written post on various "historical" figures in the Bible and about the supposed archeological proof for such legendary figures.

Hoffman makes even more ridiculous claims further on in his piece.
"The situation not unlike a modern newspaper, which combines news with opinion, puzzles, comics, etc. The news can be accurate even if the comics are not. The same is true for the different parts of the Bible."
Actually, there is no comparison. Who cannot distinguish the pieces intended to be factual from those intended to be opinion and/or entertainment in today's newspaper? It should also be pointed out that any news story can be fact checked. There are any number of sources external to the newspapers that can be used for this purpose. There is plenty of documentation that can be reviewed and pieced together to establish fact from fiction.

Personally, I think the following does an excellent job summarizing his whole rationale and approach:
"All of this is important for people who want to believe, for instance, that a man named Jesus was crucified in ancient Jerusalem (as described in the Gospels) even if they don't believe that a donkey spoke aloud (Numbers); or that Jews lived in Jerusalem during the first millennium BC (Kings, for example) even if they didn't leave Egypt 600,000 strong (Exodus)."
He believes that parts of the Bible are historical not because there is evidence supporting such an idea but because he wants to believe it.

Christian Scholars Finally Trounce Barton

Two academics from Grove City College, a conservative Christian college, have taken on David Barton's most recent book. I am going to have to get a copy of Michael Coulter and Warren Throckmorton's Getting Jefferson Right. It sounds to be as well researched and documented as Barton's The Jefferson's Lies is fabricated and full of shit.

I am actually rather impressed with their attitude as reported in the July'August issue of Church & State.

"...Engaging in scholarship as a Christian is not about who is on our team; it should have as an aim of uncovering the facts about a subject, whether it is a historical figure or a theory of social science, and following the data where they lead."

I doubt they'd actually apply that approach to the "historicity" of Jesus but at least they are willing to stand up to a fellow theist on other historical issues.

"Christian" Historians

I agree with Mr. Clark that historians should denounce publicly scumbags like David Barton for fabricating all sorts of nonsense and then trying to pass it off as history. However, I'm also a little disturbed by what he does not say, or rather clarify, in his Patheos piece. In "Barton, Larson, Fischer: Checking in with the Liars for Jesus" he uses the term "Christian Historian" a handful of times without making clear what exactly he means by it.

If he means to reference historians who specialize in religious history, specifically Christianity, that's fine. If he means individuals who are Christians first and "historians" second then that is a problem. It may seem a subtle difference but it is not. If you are a historian you apply the standards and principles of historical research regardless of the specific topic. If you can not do so for personal or ideological reasons you are not an historian, period.  Even with the best of intentions and/or credentials such individuals should be more accurately labeled propagandists or apologists, not historians.