Minimalist

One man's Freedom Fighter is another man's terrorist. So it also seems with trolls. I'm content to allow the mods to determine what is and what is not a troll.

Now.....let's get back to the business of demolishing this god crap, shall we?

DCHindley

No (your name, that is),

I'm afraid that this disdain goes both ways.

A significant number of academics appear to literally groan at the thought of dealing with the general ignorance and undisciplined prejudices of their own students, much less the general public. Many would be happy to only have discourse with others of their own kind. They have, after all, invested a LOT of time and effort to get where they are, and have incredibly nuanced points of view (at least in their own sub-disciplines) which they will gladly share with others who can understand where they are coming from conceptually. Even when they do not agree with one another, and they often don't, they can at very least respect the others' POV as reasoned and based more or less on the actual evidence in context.

Where does the general public come in? We dispense knee jerk and reactionary opinions, drawn uncritically from our general misunderstanding of facts and their contexts. We are, after all, accountants, forklift drivers, mail carriers, clerks, machinists, etc, usually not able to read the original languages or having the benefit of 3++ years of full-time post-graduate study of the historical evidence, reviewing how past scholars have already digested it, and reasoning through it ourselves. We rail at the fact that others, especially the professional critics, just can't see what seems *obvious* to us.

The problem is that the "entire context" is not the entire context, and whatever the entire context is - it is not obvious! We average everyday folks, even the rather well-read ones (say, like you or I) actually have grasped a significantly smaller portion of it than the average professional critic has. Honest, I lie not. Oh sure, some professional academics can be opinionated and cranky, even over-confidant in their opinion of their own acumen and their ability to "rightly divide the truth." But that doesn't mean they are not dishing out a fair portion of good well-digested fact.

Long ago (well, the 19th century) the pool of knowledge about ancient history grew large enough that no one academic can be adept in all aspects of the field. So, there are really many academic Points of View. What we amateur critics can do is read the works of as many of the professionals as we are able (whether we agree with them going in or not), check the facts used (the texts, the archeology, etc) as best as we are able (that is, in translation, as reviews, etc) and with the resources available to us (libraries, second hand bookstores, discussion groups, etc), and continuously compare and contrast them. In the end we can sift out a reasoned opinion, while still retaining a respect for the individual voices that contributed to its development.

Is that *really* so hard?

DCH

Roland

Maybe it would help defeat the MJ theory if an HJ-er ever came up with a halfway plausible explanation as to why the earliest writings about Jesus are the most vague regarding his life and the later ones (anything pretty much post-150 CE) the most specific. Is there another figure in history in which this is the case?

Ben C Smith

Yes. Francis of Assisi.

Ben.

Amaleq13

Observing that resorting to childish name-calling is suggestive of childish intellect and inability to formulate an adult response is not against the rules.

I would ask if you are kidding but I know better.

I was referring to this portion of the statement immediately previous: "you have helped show to anyone rational that they are simply incapable of supporting their position".

That is when you are ahead and that is when you should quit!!!

Continuing to beat the man's dead horse does not make you look good. And calling him names while you do it certainly doesn't help matters, either.

DCHindley

Buddha & Zarathustra.

DCH

Iasion

Thanks Ben,

I should clarify that
I don't think the moderation is failing in general terms - on the contrary, the moderators do a good job, generally effective and also tolerant.

But,
current moderation, even if on policy, does not seem to be effectively handling the current issue of runaway crackpottery.

Yes,
non-mainstream and alternative views are great, and often spark lively and fruitful debate. However, what we are seeing lately is little more than preaching - the posters don't really answer the questions put to them, they simply treat direct questions as another springboard for re-preaching their beliefs.

They don't actually deal with the issues when they are brought up - e.g. aa just doesn't seem to get the point about applying his thesis to other works, no matter how many times the issue is put to him, no matter how many times he is specifically and directly asked for an example of a similar work which passes his criteria as non-fiction. Frankly, I don't want to read another single word from aa until he has actually tried to find such a work and reported his results. (There is a fair chance that if he ever DID, it could lead to an "aha!" moment for him, and maybe his argument could finally take a step.) Not that aa is the worst, by any means - he has a few thought-provoking things to say, much passion, and plenty internet time :-)

So -
I think we need a new moderation rule that covers this specific issue - actually answering the questions put to you in a meaningful way.

Perhaps - after 3 posts in a thread which fail to directly address an important issue raised by several interlocutors, the poster is silenced on that thread until they answer to the moderator's approval.


Iasion

schilling.klaus

'stupid crap' characterises everything that those propagate who believe in first-century canonical gospels, a pre-70 Jerusalem community, authentic Paulines, authentic Clement and Ignatians, and other hilarious frauds.

Klaus Schilling

Årçhai

Well, I'm new here. . . Took a look through this forum and have to agree. What is going on? If I wanted to read G.A. Wells, then I'd go buy his books. . . Either that or I'd surround myself with Dan Browne.

Clement and Ignatius aren't as important as Paul (who is authentic, and even atheistic NT scholars agree on that; at least, between 6-8 of his books). Which it turns out. . . There is a pre-70 Jerusalem community by extension, which then gives high probability to first-century canonical Gospels. There's really no reason to think otherwise. . . Unless we get into people like Tom Harpur, movies like Zeitgeist and Gnosticism.

Ben C Smith

I think we found the and others.

Ben.