My review was because I called out Vanessa, in her ability to understand and apply rigor vs exegesis. I challenged her understanding of both rigor and theology, then boom my review was gone. Rigor is showing a precise and accurate solution to the problem being assessed. Being precise and accurate can oppose each other, as much as, support each other. Anyone who has studied higher forms of math and science understand rigor; in the same way a Theologian understands exegesis and eisogesis. Rigor is not feeling and/or emotional relation. Vanessa is using Eisogesis not rigor or exegesis, she’s reading into the text to find what she wishes or thinks. Eisogesis expresses the readers own subjective thoughts rather than the meaning (Exegesis). Exegesis is a legitimate interpretation right out of the text or as it reads out of text which conveys the writer(s) meaning. So what are you using to examine the text in relation to your ‘quasi-religious’ view of yourself and mankind? It’s a simple question, any first year theology or philosophy student will tear through your thoughts. Just as any first year math or science student will tear through your proofs to find the meaning or answer. I’m not a smart person, yes I have higher degrees in the various subjects above but I don’t have all the answers. However, I’m not sure what you’re trying to convey outside your own personal experience in relation to the text which I’m conflicts with the pod-commercials you do and episode 1 of the 2nd season where you try to define your method. It feels like a Sunday Sermon at a Fundamentalist Protestant church where the pastor tries to relate new ancient text to today’s society. Except Jung and Joseph Campbell proved this is not possible. Both of you being part of Christian religion, you might be headed in the right direction if you apply Campbell’s thought of every society developing their own myth to understand the world around them. I think that’s what you’re doing but don’t call it Rigor because it’s not. The incorrect use of language confuses really subjective people, meaning those who don’t learn to earn the knowledge- meaning, those people who are easily swayed to think one way or another based on a pundits biased position. Just see Fox News and MSNBC or hit up you local church, as they try to take a myth ‘religion’ from another culture and time to apply it today. All we end up with is confusion and calling the same God by how many different names which causes persecution. It does nothing but lead to wars, borders and more divide instead of uniting and working together towards a common ground in understanding one another. Although, the pod is easy to follow, critical thinking should be inspired not told. This is where you’ve missed the point- inspiring others to think for themselves. Confrontation done with diplomacy and out of respect achieves more than brainwashing millions with outdated ideas belonging to other times and cultures. Sadly, it just doesn’t make churches or countries wealthy and superpowers. The far eastern cultures are closer to the answers than those who come from the west. I should know a little, sadly I am an American who has studied all over the world from East/West Europe to Africa to the Middle East all the way through Asia and back to the US. What I’ve discovered Our arrogance will forever be our ignorance…
