The rantings of a obviously childish, insecure, ego-maniac, - a true legend in his own mind.

I used to bother reading some of Metacrock's posts as I attempted to learn what history I could, regardless of the source. Regardless of his condescension, his egotistical attitude and his strange assertions that his or anyone else's beliefs of history are somehow "proven".

I am not a professional historian and this is why I do the best I can to study to increase my knowledge with the time I have available. This includes reading stuff from the "opposition". Until I can attain the sufficient expertise to be able to sufficiently evaluate and critique all the claims that theists like to throw out, their claims will remain interesting, but essentially useless claims from my perspective. The only alternative to this course of action, is blind acceptance, which, naturally, is hardly a reasonable path to take. I'm simply not that gullible.

But putting all that aside, I no longer intend to give Metacrock's posts the time of day until such time as he offers a public apology to Mr. Carrier and to us for this ridiculous statement of his that I have quoted above. (Preferably in a new thread so that it can be easily recognized.)

No matter what smidgins of useful historical knowledge Metacrock may actually have, they are simply not useful enough to outweigh the disrepect, contempt and utter unprofessionalism he displays here. I have no idea how ANY other reputable historian (or even theologian for that matter) would want to be in any way associated with someone who makes these kinds of statements. It is simply beneath the respect level of even the lowest of amateurs.

I don't know what school or schools Metacrock has attained or is attaining his oft cited degrees from, but I certainly hope he is not an example of the standard of professionalism or respectability that they cultivate.

Talk about a legond in your own mind, what do you call Carrier? The guy thinks he's the only one who knows anything.And why do you include yourself in "you guys?" I guess I should have narrowed it down a bit, but that doesnt' mean I necessarily think that of everyone here.

Meta =>Yea? than why is it that everytime the sketpic always answers facts and documentation with personal insults? Look at the thread I started on Josephus. Rosemary's cute little babby says "shut the F____ up! Idiot!" When I had said nothing at all insulting.[/b]

Metacrock, that thread is so silly that it deserved abuse. It was pure troll. However, CLB's comment was way out of line, and he was reprimanded (I think -- hang on a second). yes, Rodahi reprimanded him. So you are out of line doubly here.

I have a question for you that I want you to think about. We (you and I, and II generally) often find ourselves at this pass -- you complaining that everyone just insults you, and then apologizing for your own insults and outbursts and letting the thread peter out. Why is this?

You an see it there blanently. I just give factual answers, the skeptics start with the name calling.

What "name calling?" And you did not start with facts but with lots of speculation.

Why do they always assume that they have no culpability in anything they say and Chrisitans are suppossed to just lay down and get stopped,and if the Christian even hints that they are wrong than it's time to break out the four letter words?

Where did Carrier or anyone else in that discussion use 4-letter words?

yea, I probably do owe you an apology. There are some damn bright people here. You, Physics Guy, many others. Carrier is not an idiot. I called him that out of anger. I don't know why you can't understand that when you attack someone on the thing they define themselves by you are just basically rapping them.

Metacrock, we may attack you on the thing you identify yourselves by, but -- guess what! -- YOU came HERE. This is our house, not yours. You came here and demanded to be attacked in the most obvious and aggressive way (not that we mind, that's what it is all about). Now you complain that we threaten your core identity. But you put yourself in the path of that threat by your choice. And you behave like a Big Man who can take it, bragging about your studies at a world-famous seminary with world-famous scholars. If you can't take it, don't come.

When you smash a pionists hands you are crippeling him and taking away his identity. When you say to a scholar "You don't know anything and I will not see you as anyone who knows anything" you are striking at the basic idienty of who that person is. That is as brutal as physical violence, and it is also callculated move. I've seen it too many times not to think they do it on purpose, merely becasue they can't afford to say "O well maybe you have a good point, maybe I should read more." NO they would rather destory someone's inner self than to do that.

All you had to do was crush Carrier in the return argument. Just show that he hasn't read the right stuff, and marshal the evidence. But you didn't really.

But maybe it is that in this deterministic secular age you have forgotten the concept of an inner self?

Perhaps its just that my inner self is not threatened by disagreement.

Carrier began the debate with the assumption that i am not an historian.

You're not, AFAIK. Your MA is in theology, no?

I emailed him and told him my educational level, and yet he insisted on speaking as though I know nothing even before I had a chance to develop my arguments. He doesn't know what I had to say. he's just assuming he does because he can't answer the arguments.

We'll have to disagree on whether he answered the arguments.

All of you owe me an apology. Each and every one of you do and not one of you has ever even come close to admiting that.

Please. When have I ever called treated you badly, eexcept in my first post to you on Kuhn, and that quickly apologized for. Nobody owes you anything, and whining like this makes you look pathetic.

Just tell me this, I have the same level of degree that he does.

So do I, but its the type, not the level, of degree that counts.

I have a Masters degree in Theology, he has only taken some classes. Now why should I accord him any sort of presumption for being a big authority?

I don't see how mastery of theology, a field of invention about a fictional being, makes you an expert in historical research. Perhaps you can clarify by describing the coursework you've done. I understand your doctoral thesis focuses on constructivism somehow, and 18th century thought, but I don't see how this applies to the NT.

I have known world famous textual critics and world famous theologians whose names are in all the text books and will be remembered for a long time, and he's not known in the acadmeic world beyond a small circle. Why should I just cow tow and allow him to have the presumption as the big authority?

Nobody said you should kow-tow.

I've known world-famous people in my field, but I don't see how that makes me an expert; just someone who has met people.

he began with condecention and put downs and he never did anything to prove his case, he saw he was losing and he ran away,and turned it personal to save face.


He did not begin with condescension. But he ended quite well.

Because they don't need it. You do. You don't even look up basic facts in current reference books. To draw an example from our other debate on the census, you are wont to cite hugely outdated scholarship without taking even a few hours to visit a library and consult recent work (or even a standard reference book in the field). Here, you think I'm talking about Roman Law when I'm talking about Jewish Law (and seem entirely unaware of any of this material), you don't even look into the history of the Holy Sepulchre (that one could get from a mere encyclopedia) before making rather bold claims about it, and you act as if you've never heard a historian say we can't be sure a story is false but we have enough reason to doubt it--you even try to argue that one can't make such an argument (!). You mispell very, very basic names, and cite ancient passages you clearly did not even read. Whereas I draw from examples of historical method outside the topic to illuminate this one, you seem oblivious to the way historians do things in any other field, and are making no effort to find out. You import no examples from a neutral topic as benchmark analogies for your reasoning or claims about method. Instead, you are focussed so intently on "winning" this debate that you aren't even making an effort to learn.

This decribes you to a 't.' Remember, in our last discussion of myth, you wanted to claim that Campbell did not say his ideas applied to Jesus -- slippery slope reasoning, you called it -- when in fact he makes it clear in dozens of his books and interviews? I was a little put out by the ignorance you showed then. You have a habit of making such claims that two minutes of research could easily dispose of, like the Holy Sepulchre that Carrier showed was totally absurd. What are we supposed to do? Not conclude the obvious?

Michael

Richard Carrier

Funny how I never argued here that Mark had to have made it up. Indeed, I never even argued that it was definitely made up at all: only that there was enough suspicion that it could have been that we can't have faith in the story. This simply reiterates how hopelessly childish and incompetent you are. You won't even listen to my argument, and thus never address it. You keep attacking a phantom, then call me a child for refusing to argue someone who won't even address what I actually say. Methinks the child here is you: only one of us has behaved petulently and engaged in abusive insults and immature taunting.

Now, I also quote Michael White who says that the curcifiction was a Roman gig, completley. Now why would the Romans crucify someone for blasphemy in Judaism?

Again, you miss my words "as well" -- showing your incompetence and unwillingless to pay attention yet again. I could multiply examples a hundredfold. Any objective reader who follows this thread will know who the real "idiot" here is (and I use this word because I'm only quoting you!).

No difference in criminal charges and sedition that is where you are totally wrong. You want to pretend that I dont' do the digging, but I know you have read the Brown book and yet you miss the explicit argument, backed up with Talmudic statments that there was a distinction between one charged with sedition by a foreign occupational army and one found guilty of criminal charges under Jewish law.

And you never paid attention to the distinction between the requisite atoning burial and honorable reburial, showing once again your inability or unwillingness to read or try to understand a word I say. You still won't even take the trouble to read the Jewish Laws themselves. What sort of 'patheti-sad' scholar are you?

On page 1210 he says point blank a noble law biding Jew could be crucified for sedition agianst Rome and burried honorably by the Jews,and if that is not the case than how do you explain the Macabean martyrs?

I'll stop here. I submit Metacrock is a fantastical "idiot" (to quote him again). He actually thinks the Maccabees fought Rome!!! I rest my case. He spells Ignatius 'Ignites' (sorry--claiming dyslexia doesn't get anyone off that hook) and Egerton 'Egatron'. Given your demonstrated ignorance on so many matters (such as thinking the Maccabeean martyrs had anything to do with the disposition of executed bodies under Roman rule, or that a pre-Markan miracle narrative was the same thing as a pre-Markan passion narrative, much less anything to do with an empty tomb narrative), I don't think dyslexia is at fault here (a disorder that has not affected any of your other spelling--even you claim I misspelled more words than you, yet only you are getting key words wrong, repeatedly, like Egatron and Ignites). This is really all so very sad.




[This message has been edited by Richard Carrier (edited June 11, 2001).]

Richard Carrier

Since Metacrock is directing readers of his website to this thread, I think it fitting that those readers also be directed to:

Metacrock the Scholar

James Still

This is pretty hard hitting and I'm sure some will accuse Richard of sinking to Metacrock's level. But personally I draw a distinction between the inability to suffer fools gladly and hurling insults because one is embarrassed by losing a debate.

(P.S. The father-son Maccabees fought against Antiochus of Syria in the 2nd century BCE. Hanukkah, the Feast of Lights, is a celebration honoring the rededication of the temple after the pagan defiling. Thus, despite attempts to Christianize it, Hanukkah has absolutely nothing to do with Christmas, elves, Santa, Jesus, or gift giving -- it is a celebration of a military victory over paganism.)

I couldn't agree more madmax. I quit paying
attention to his posts last week.

I guess my question for rodahi is: What are
the guidelines at II for banning someone
from the boards? Has Meta crossed that line
yet?

Meta - the tribe has spoken, it's time for
you to leave.



[This message has been edited by Kosh (edited June 11, 2001).]

Richard, you are a coward.

You took one part of my post, and used it as an excuse to bail on a discussion you knew that you could not win.

How interesting.

As for your treatment of Metacrock, I will address that on the Feedback Discussion Forum, and I hope that you will be man enough to apologize for your behaviour when we are done.

I knew you were feeling superior. On the other hand, we will see how it lines up with your own words on how to carry on a discussion.

As I see it, you have failed to address a number of points that I have raised, nor did you answer any of my questions.

As I said, you are a coward. If you wish to address my post, then do so, but to bail, and to do so with the flimsiest of excuses? Well, how Dohertyesque of you.

And here, would you calm yourself please? I am trying to figure out why you believe in the Muslim sacking of the Library of Alexandria c. 7th Century. You have failed to provide a single primary source to back your beliefs, nor have you told us if it is the ONLY reasonable position to hold. My guess is that it is not, and that at the very least your view is hotly contested. If this is, in fact, the case, then I will expose this bit of dishonesty on your part.

BTW? If you had actually READ the threads that I linked to, you would see that I am quite familiar with Jewish burial practices. Some time, when you wish to have a conversation, please do a bit of homework on what your opponent believes, especially before you lie about them.

Bye Richard. But stay tuned.

Brian (Nomad)

[This message has been edited by Brian Trafford (edited June 11, 2001).]

Ok I'm going to change the snide comment I made in introducing the link. But I would think that linking to your site would be to your advantage. If you would rather i not do so than i'll take it down.

Richard Carrier

Oh dear no! Please keep that snide, childish remark. And the link. Nothing better proves my case against you than your own words in this thread. The more who read it the merrier. It will be clear who takes this seriously and who is eager to learn and understand.