[irrelig]Chuck’s sources: Q, the Earliest Gospel by John Kloppenborg and Jesus: According to the Earliest Witnesses by James Robinson
Leighton’s source: unknown, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say Wikipedia
For this episode, we discuss the hypothetical document Q, theorized to explain the near-verbatim similarities found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark. We give some brief history about the theory and then quickly delve into what the Q community, which very likely was early, rural, and Galilean, had to say about the teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
And although we’re a little late to the party, we take a moment to discuss the very serious issue of Elevatorgate.
87 Responses to “107: Q”
I don’t know if this format is easier for you guys, but the last two podcasts were awesome! Thank you again!
Chuck, you feeling ok?? Podcast posts two days in a row??
Does it betray my geeky ignorance that my first thought when I saw “Q” was Star Trek?
I’m actually disappointed that there doesn’t seem to be any Q-jokes.
Q went back in time to mess with the gospels to ensure Picard looked like an ass when saying the universe was designed
That’s not to say I didn’t enjoy it. You should have Rebecca on for Coffee sometime. I also would like more Ewa on the show. Maybe the goddess Inanna/Ishtar would be something for Leighton?
Great podcast. The information was fascinating. Way more interesting than Leighton’s jokes, that’s for sure.
The show actually gets pretty damn good when you guys get down to brass tacks sooner rather than later and both of you sound like you know what you’re talking about.
Here’s hoping “would you like to see my etchings” as a veiled proposition is replaced by “I’ve got an electron microscope in my room”.
Okay, the opening kinda confused me. Can anyone link me to what this “Elevatorgate” is, as it’s referred to?
My Q theory is that Desmond Llewelyn will come again to dish out witty banter and high tech gadgets to agent 007.
It’s very confusing, partly because there’s so much misrepresentation and several separate controversy-causing events which people were arguing about. Start here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKHwduG1Frk
Then maybe go here:
http://skepchick.org/2011/06/on-naming-names-at-the-cfi-student-leadership-conference/
When PZ posted about it it set off a real shitstorm of thousand-plus comment threads on various blogs:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/always_name_names.php
Some of the reaction was about Watson’s CFI speech, while other quite vile reactions were simply blatant sexism and dismissal of Watson’s concerns. In that thread Richard Dawkins weighed in:
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2011/a-priest-and-a-rabbi-go-into-an-elevator-and/
Then Rebecca Watson called Dawkins “the past” and her fellow Skepchicks decided to start a sort of boycott. It’s somewhat calmer now, maybe finish off with this:
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2011/07/why-we-have-to-talk-about-this.html
Aren’t you glad you didn’t know anything about it, now?
This shit has nothing to do with feminism. Nothing.
In hindsight, I should have included that part in the audio where Watson explains why she was made uncomfortable by the proposition. During the edit it seemed like overkill, but it would probably go a long way to avoid confusion for someone who hasn’t heard about the elevatorkerfluffle. Maybe I’ll edit it back in.
I’ll tell you why it was creepy. It’s not because it was an enclosed space, or because it was 4am. It’s because the guy was probably an ugly looking dude.
If it was some hunk like Scott Clifton who offered her coffee, Rebecca would’ve been all like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW8j3x3GzxY
I share the same sentiments expressed by others, in that this episode was really good and informative.
Yeah Hez, if only you weren’t fat and ugly, then girls would like you.
Hey, it wasn’t me!
If I was to leave a bar at 4am, I’d be *way* too plastered to bother with etiquette such as employing euphemisms for sex.
Hez: errrr… derrrr… fuck….?
This podcast was good stuff. Chuck, love the elevator girl voice. So sexy. (Phone sex? Give me a call.)
Hez, my point exactly.
If only you weren’t fat and ugly, you would be sooo loved.
Dolts, the lot of you.
I’m rather new to this whole new testament thing, and I’ve been studying up on it lately, but my bible translation regarding the running away from your accuser before you get to court (I’m looking at Matthew 5:25) says “Reach agreement quickly with your accuser while on the way to court, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge hand you to the warden, and you will be thrown in prison.” It says nothing about running away. What am I missing?
Hey Hez, just because you’re shallow doesn’t mean everyone else is.
@Karyn: This is one of the difficulties of translating from one language into another. From the commentary section of http://bible.cc/luke/12-58.htm (where you can read a lot of different translations of the passage) we have this:
Give diligence – Δος εργασιαν, Give labor, do every thing in thy power to get free before a suit commences.
It does seem like Jesus is saying do whatever is necessary to get the hell out of there before you’re brought to a judge. Any specific advice such as “reaching an agreement” is just speculation on the translator’s part.
Quick question, with regards to the elevator sketch… Are you on Rebecca’s side or the dude’s? It’s quite hard to tell.
My two cents on Elevatorgate, for what it’s worth:
1) I agree with Watson that propositioning someone when you are alone with them in an elevator at 4am is at the very least socially inept. By and large, men need to be more aware of male privilege and more welcoming to women in the atheist/skeptical movement as a whole, or else the movement will live and die solely for old white males.
2) I think Watson abused her position as keynote speaker to make a petty swipe at McGraw, a female student in the audience who disagreed with Watson on her blog.
3) I think it’s good that the skeptical movement is talking about these sorts of problems because the nerds/geeks/highly educated people who make up the bulk of the movement tend to be socially inept, but also (by and large) willing to change when informed of their ineptness. But it would also be nice if we could discuss these matters calmly and without recourse to cries of misogyny, misandry, rape apologetics, etc. The nuclear meltdown that occurs subsequent to these accusations does no one any good.
Ok, thanks, that’s sort of what I needed to hear. I contest that the guy was just socially inept; I don’t think you can proposition someone at 4am in an elevator without having some idea of what you’re doing, but that’s just getting down to assumptions.
Good show, btw
I’m really trying to give the guy the benefit of the doubt in this situation because we haven’t heard from him. Given his actions as relayed by Watson, he’s at least socially inept. I agree that he may well be a few things in addition, but I just don’t have enough data to draw a firm conclusion. Male privilege can be incredibly blinding, but being blinded by male privilege does not always equate to being a misogynist. That’s why I think these discussions are important; otherwise-innocent people with blinders on can have their consciousness raised and perhaps become aware of those blinders for the first time. Sometimes that’s all it takes to start removing them.
Re the sketch, we weren’t trying to come down on anyone’s side, we were trying to make fun of everyone involved. I never know from this end how or if we succeeded. I was hoping someone would have told us how offended they were by now, but my guess is that we culled that herd a long time ago.
I thought this episode was going to be about star trek!
Am I nerdier than you guys?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_(Star_Trek)
Right. It’s impossible to judge without testimonies from all parties. However, I think this became less about the specific elevator situation and more about Dawkin’s (and other skeptics’) revealing comments that somehow seemed more crass than your sketch. Rebecca’s video, which didn’t even make a big deal about the incident, drew some ugliness and real misogyny into the open.
By the way, I like how you assume going into it that everyone will be offended by the sketch, rather, it’s the degree to which they are vocally offended that concerns you most.
Anyway, thanks again for clarifying.
@Queen of Hearts: I tried to think up a funny Star Trek Q joke or find a sound byte or two that I could toss in, but finally gave up. I will turn in my nerd card.
@percy: Dawkins’ original “Muslima” comment was bad enough, worse that he compared the situation to being mildly annoyed at someone chewing gum in his presence, and even worse for me is that he still seems not to get why there ever was an issue in the first place. I don’t think Dawkins is a misogynist, but he does seem blissfully ignorant of some very basic things.
There is some real misogyny in the skeptic-atheist movement, no doubt. I gave up reading the Pharyngula comment threads because of it, and found myself increasingly uncomfortable with the people who agreed with me on the McGraw issue (they seemed to use it as a diversionary tactic to draw attention away from the elevator guy’s behavior). I think it would be nice to calmly discuss why, as a free-thinking movement, we have such problems with these issues.
But the more I think about it, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe a nice calm discussion isn’t what we need. Maybe we do need a nuclear meltdown to smoke the misogynists out into the light of day to show their faces for what they are. The more this happens and the more publicity things like this get, the more people in and out of the movement will realize exactly how inappropriate and unacceptable this behavior is.
If that happens, maybe I’ll stop avoiding skeptical-atheist conferences for the exact same reasons I avoid Star Trek conventions.
When everyone is banging on a cow bell sometimes more is just too much and it is just a meaningless din regarding this whole elevator gate episode. I think the comments on Skepchick and Pharyngula smoked out a lot of misogyny and misandry that apparently was below the surface for some time. The whole episode shows just how fucked up self described rational skeptics* can get. I laughed my ass off on the opening bit. Someone has to make fun of the shit storm.
*I include myself in this group.
I wonder what Leighton’s two cents are… 😮
Otherwise, you summed up my position as well, Chuck. Will you marry me?
Yes. Yes I will.
chuck can you bring out the mormon in you and marry me too?
Thanks, Chuck. I checked a couple of translations, and all of them basically said the ‘work it out’ bit, rather than the ‘run away’ bit, but I imagine some of those translations (KJV) might be biased in their translations.
Re: elevatorgate sketch. It was highly offensive. I loved it. I’ve given up trying to have a position on that one.
@lunds: I wonder if “gay polygamist” has a shot at replacing “atheist” as America’s most hated group.
Don’t think so Chuck, gay polygamists would at least stay in shape.
Gay polygamists? Those are okay. But they better damn well believe in god!
Great show. Thanks for all the Q tips.
Nice job Charles, that pun was acute.
hello. good episode… they keep getting better and better.
as for the whole elevator thing…. i can’t say i really get what the whole mess is about…. i think maybe she could have confronted the person who did it and explained that it made her uncomfortable…
Can I get in on that marriage? We’ll make it an atheist bisexual polygamist dealy.
This episode was great, best in awhile.
The feeling of manhate the offensive skit inspired in me was a nice thrill.
With Anders comes Ser Pounce-a-Lot, though.
Have you ever covered “Ceasar’s Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus” by Joseph Atwill?
We haven’t, but based on the title alone I just purchased it.
@Leela: The more the merrier.
Here’s Bob Price’s review:
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/rev_atwill.htm
Can I get some perspective here – one of my first reactions to the elevator situation was to feel a bit sorry for the guy. Every body likes to f*$# and to get up the courage to ask someone that requires at least a little bit of gumption. And now every body knows about it. It sounds awful. Being leered and jeered at too, is awful. But my first reaction was to feel sorry for the guy for being outed. Has leighton’s misogny finally got to me?
Being alone anywhere with a man you scarcely know can be frightening – no matter what you look like – some people don’t care what you look like as long as there’s a warm body. I think the guy may have been concerned with being rejected in front of a group so he decided to ask her out on the elevator; however he should have thought things through instead of trying to run his game – that made him a chump.
I miss the days where women were nothing more than sexual objects for men to use. Can’t we go back to the days where the Deuteronomy rape laws ruled the land?
I like your stuff on martyred prophets in the new testament. It made me see the contrast between the old and new testaments in a different way.
Old Testament: God protects prophets and adulterers are stoned.
New Testament: God protects adulterers and prophets are stoned.
In the old testament, God protects prophets in spectacular, even flamboyant, fashion. In the new testament, they pretty much all get hung out to dry. I don’t know of God protecting any prophets in the new testament. If he does, it’s not in a very memorable fashion.