Jeffrey Gibson

In the light of Peter's latest misrepresentations of what Constantine said about Arius, I feel compelled to ask the following questions:

Is there anyone here -- especially among subscribers who have some facility in Greek and Latin and some actual grounding in ancient history -- who have become convinced that Pete is correct in his thesis that Christianity did not exist before Constantine and that Constantine was the inventor of Christianity.

Is there anyone here who thinks that in the light of the way Peter argues his case that he/she is likely to become convinced of the validity of Pete's thesis?

Who here has reason to think that Pete tends to misread, misunderstand, and misrepresent the "evidence" that he appeals to?

Who here thinks that he manipulates his evidence in order to make it show the things he claims it shows?

Who here thinks that when asked for proof of what he claims (i.e., that many of the non canonicals were explicitly written as satire and would have been seen as such by those for whom they were written; that Arius was referring to Jesus in his famous sophisms, etc.), he dodges providing what he needs to provide to validate his claim.

Who thinks that Pete frequently makes claims about things he really doesn't know much about?

Who is tired of seeing him invent new ways of trying to prove what he believes about Constantine?

Who thinks that those ways are more often than not questionable, if not actually fallacious?

Who is tired of seeing him trot out the same (questionable and question begging) "evidence" again and again in his attempts to prove his Constantinian thesis?.

Who here thinks that Pete has violated forum rules about riding hobby horses?

Who here is tired of seeing him try to do exegesis of Greek and Latin texts on the basis of English translations of them?

Who here thinks that his postings do not contribute to the reputation of the Forum as a place of rational thought, and, in fact, have instead given the forum a reputation as a place where cranks and crackpots hang out?

And who, because of this, would like to have the board free of his postings on Constantine and Christianity?



A show of hands, please, on these matters.

Jeffrey

stephan huller

Whether or not there are a handful of morons that take pleasure in this silliness it's stupid. The premise is utterly ridiculous. I don't even think Pete believes it. I think that he proves to himself that massive historical frauds COULD HAVE been perpetrated in history by attempting one himself today. The problem is that Pete seems oblivious to the fact he isn't convincing anyone. It's an endless "work on progress" proving fraud by fraud always searching for the right argument which convinces the masses, which overcomes truth. We will not be rid of this art project until Pete passes into the next world where the pagan gods will reward him for his diligence

Jeffrey Gibson

OK. That's one. Who else?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

I'd turn this into a poll, but I don't know just how to do it. I tried clicking on the function under post new thread, but no poll features came up.

Jeffrey

Toto

Pete has not convinced anyone. But there are still people here who seem to think that he makes a contribution, if only by raising questions.

Pete is a nice guy, unfailingly polite and personable. In many people's eyes, this seems to be more important than being right, or even being coherent.

I myself think that he has worn out his hobby horses.

Jeffrey Gibson

And who are they? And are the questions raised of any merit. Or are they more of the nature of Clive's?

Never said he wasn't.

Really? Many people's? And even if that's true, isn't the purpose of the board to promote rational discourse?

I'd like to see who else does as well.

Jeffrey

Toto

I think that avi and Iskander will come to Pete's defense.


Yes, the purpose of the board is promote rational discourse, but it turns out that humans are not wired for rational discourse. They are wired for social factors, and rational discourse can get trampled underfoot by the emotional content of messages. To top that off, many intelligent people use their powers of reason to justify the beliefs that they arrived at through social or economic or political means.

You might have seen the sign on some upper level manager's desk that says something like "BE REASONABLE. DO IT MY WAY." You might be aware of the Reason Foundation, which promotes a political theory based on a pseudo-scientific economic theory.

There is an entire field of study connected to modern political discourse, on the best means of persuading people to be reasonable and see things my way. Newt Gingrich made his political career by training Republican operatives to use language that provoked an emotional response that bypassed the rational part of the human psyche. George Lakoff tried to counter this by getting Democrats to learn to "frame" issues to get a better emotional response.

The idea behind the rules on this board has been that we talk about ideas, not personalities. In theory, if the personal bashing is removed, the emotional level of the debate can be lowered, and reason will prevail. It doesn't always work that way, as you can see.

Part of the problem is that if you attack Pete, you look like a bully and he becomes the victim, and people rush to sympathize with him, because "he has a right to his beliefs" or some similar factors based on human sympathy.

Robert Tulip

Wow, Irenaeus and Tertullian take your hats off to the new arch-heresiologist Jeffrey Gibson!

I have not engaged with Mountainman (Pete) on his Constantine theories, but found him perfectly reasonable, interesting and informative in recent threads on demons, therapeuts and Isis, unlike Jeffrey Gibson who displayed a remarkable facility for speaking through the wrong orifice and completely failed to comprehend the subject matter of those threads.

I have noticed that some of the brood of vipers here use a classic ad hominem fallacy when engaging with Mountainman, that when they lose an argument they say MM also believes a false Constantine conspiracy theory and therefore everything else he says should be disregarded.

As to the crackpot problem, at least Mountainman does not believe in supernatural entities and miracles, and genuinely engages in rational discussion. I recall that Roger Pearse suggested Chili should be given a rest, and I agree with Roger on that.

MrMacSon

There seems to be a consensus that Constantine & Eusebius¹ had a key role in establishing and cementing Christianity as a mainstream religion, so it may become an issue as to how much emphasis one places on various verbs such as 'inventing' or 'establishing'; and various adverbs & adjectives associated with them or similar words.

1 It seems Eusebius started with the Septuagint and played a key role in development of the Gospel Books

.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebiu...text_criticism

.

stephan huller

So the enemy of my enemy is my friend? Gibson is not an apologist for the Church because he exposes the idiocy of an Imperial conspiracy theory. I despise people who make 'friends' on the basis of 'usefulness.' This is a discussion forum. How can someone align themselves with another person or purpose merely because they are 'aligned' against the same enemy? Don't you have better things to do than fight dying religions? Clearly you are only 'friendly' with Pete because his myopia justifies your own.

Only because you share a common hatred and lack of objectivity.

which you displayed your complete ignorance and were humiliated.

a thread in which I whipped both of your asses

again another thread in which you displayed you don't know what you are talking about

I can't believe that because Jeffrey isn't a nice guy that you characterize his postings as 'speaking through his ass.' You recognize that he can read Greek better than aa can write English. Right? How then can you shut him out merely because he isn't 'palsy walsy' with everyone here? Yes unlike Pete, Jeffrey is 'prickly' - so what? What does being nice have to do with anything? You have a guy who knows a lot of useful things to help you understand early Christianity and you choose instead to befriend a maniacal troll.

Ah, no. Jeffrey actually contacted experts in the field of Egyptology and you ran for cover. That's what happened.

What else is there to do with someone whose posts are absolutely without substance? He doesn't understand anything and so - as a tactic - asks leading questions which he 'answers' in the most incredible way to secure the very answers he wanted in the first place.

And what 'arguments' do you imagine those to be as you just admitted a second ago that you that you have not "engaged with Mountainman (Pete) on his Constantine theories." What other 'arguments' does he have? He just asks a series of open ended questions which are just veils to re-introduce the moronic conspiracy theory which you admit you haven't 'engaged with' him?

So the 'arguments' he 'won' apparently are the 'linguistic' questions (= daemon, therapeutae) he acknowledges he has no expertise. HA! Imagine that! Pete 'beat' the entire panel of experts in spite of having no knowledge of Greek. ----'-- fucking deranged.

What else is there to Pete? Again, it would help if you identified the debates he 'won' at the forum to help us examine his 'victory/victories.'

If empty propaganda = rational discussion then Pete is certainly the most rational person at the forum.