Diogenes the Cynic

Ha. Good point. :thumbs:

Amaleq13

Not really because the basis for the rejection is not the same. With regard to ID, representatives of science have been eager and willing to specifically identify the flaws or false claims. Why scientists generally don't consider it science has been explained repeatedly and thoroughly. The same is simply not true with regard to the representatives of biblical scholarship and mythicism.

Unlike for mythicism, the evidence and arguments relevant to these claims have been directly addressed by scholars and a majority consensus reached on that basis. Individuals can and do continue to argue for the minority position but they cannot make the same claim as those arguing for mythicism (ie scholar neglect).

Personally, I have only found it necessary to make a point of the majority consensus when someone insists on claiming the minority position is actually the "mainstream" position or that it is only held by skeptical/atheist scholars. Other than that, I would think that directly addressing the relevant evidence would be the most rational approach.

EarlDoherty

Be serious. You expect me to research every obscure piece of revisionism about Soviet history? I have enough to deal with in all the Christian revisionism in the second century.

Next you'll be telling me that Stalin never existed! :-)

Earl Doherty

Marxist

No, I expect you not to repeat Nazi lies, just because you're too lazy to research an issue before you agree with your Fundamentalist Christian opponents.

On the contrary, it is you who is the revisionist here. Of course, being a 'revisionist' isn't necessarily a bad thing. Just like Christians have long controlled Biblical scholarship, for the longest time Western scholarship on the USSR was controlled by rabid anti-Communists. It should also be no surprise that many of the Cold Warrior scholars have been religious Christians, such as Solzhenitsyn, and their anti-Communism is in part motivated by their religious beliefs.

Cute.

Didymus

If Westar was troubled by ethical concerns, wouldn't they have mentioned those concerns in their rejection of the offer?

Didy

EarlDoherty

Boy, you've sure got a bee in your balaklava. I know I've ticked off orthodox Christians, but orthodox Stalinists?

Have I missed a new evangelical rehabilitation movement?

Earl Doherty

Vorkosigan

If necessary I can supply you with the arguments and methodologies used to draw those conclusions. On the other hand, when we hear "the majority of scholars believe in the historical Jesus" and then ask for their methodological basis........ the silence resounds.

Because, there is no reliable, coherent, and accepted historical methodology in HJ studies. That's the big diff between the claims about the Pastorals and Paul (for example) and claims about the HJ.

Vorkosigan

Marxist

Is trying to insult me by calling me a Stalinist all you can do?

I expected better from you.

Diogenes the Cynic

I'm going to step in here before this goes any further. Let's please drop the Stalin digression before it gets any more personal and try to return to the topic of the thread please. Thank you.

DtC, Moderator, BC&H

EarlDoherty

(Moderator: this message contains no insult)

"Marxist" came at me in thoroughly nasty fashion for voicing an established opinion (right or wrong) I'd have had no reason under the sun to investigate, lazy or not. If he had a differing view, or some scholarly opinion to show otherwise, he could have presented it in a reasonable manner for everyone's edification. Believe me, I'd have no objection to hearing that the quintessential atheist despot of the 20th century was not as much a monster as religionists like to claim. Lashing out at me was completely unjustified.

I'm willing to let the matter rest.

Earl Doherty