Brother Daniel

Nice to see that I can agree with Riverwind about something.

Me, I'm here for the tangents.

Layman

It was not clear what Kirby meant by "doctrinal" Christian nor was it clear what he meant to exclude them from. But Kirby did mention me by name and singled out apologists--with whom he knows I self-identify--by calling them pigs. Yet he continues to host my material and link to my blog. So while it may be clear to you what he meant, it was not and is not to me.

I am not here to prove myself to atheists by denouncing Christians who Kirby or other atheists don't like, especially when the parameters of his attack are unclear. I certainly am not here to denounce the likes of N.T. Wright and William L. Craig as deserving of no voice in the study of Christian origins. The listing of those two by Peter by name makes me think a narrow understanding of "doctrinal" Christian was not really what he intended. If they have no place at the table in your or Kirby's opinion than I do not presume that I do either. If you think N.T. Wright is corrupt you will think I am corrupt.

This was all rather obvious in my posts, I thought. If not, I hope this clears it up for you.

Peter Kirby

It was clear enough.

Doctrinal Christians are those who have an a priori (relative to the subject matter of historical investigations of the beginnings of the Christian religion) commitment to the truth of certain doctrines about Christian origins, where those doctrines may range from the historical existence of Jesus, to the bodily resurrection of Jesus, all the way to the full inerrancy of the King James Bible.

Second sentence of the O.P.

This is true. On reflection, the language of exclusion doesn't express what I wanted to say, which is basically that doctrinal Christians have a self-inflicted wound when it comes to doing history of Christian origins. This does not mean that they cannot participate; it does mean that they must be ever mindful of their own precommitments to particular answers to particular questions in the study of Christian origins. If they can acknowledge their prejudices in those areas of overlap with their Christian doctrines, and/or avoid those areas where their doctrine intersects with history, they can even possibly do history of the subject without reproach.

The problem came in when Christians in this thread claimed injury because I was excluding them. Not at all. Their wounds are self-inflicted, and I noticed the bloody mess at the table, and while I wish they would get their wounds cleaned up before proceeding, it is not an ideal world and that's not happening any time soon.

Brother Daniel

I thought it was perfectly clear from the 2nd sentence of the OP. ETA: I see Peter beat me to it.
By opposing a particular line of argument against the OP that you made, not (IIRC) by lumping you in which the category of people in question.
I didn't say anything about denouncing anyone (by name), only about distancing yourself from a defined category.
No one asked you to do so.
If the scholarship of NTW and WLC is not corrupt, then they can be defended as not belonging to the category in question.

Riverwind

:rolling:

Why don't you ask Peter about his recent experience with the infidel community upon converting (I think) to Christian (only to convert back, I think, a week later).

Many do not see their biases, especially atheists who are already prone to thinking they are more intelligent and insightful than anyone else.

Brother Daniel

I see. So you can't see the difference between expressing disappointment when someone changes his mind and explicitly encouraging someone to remain (willfully) committed to not changing.

That supports my contention that your claim of symmetry in commitment (between believers and unbelievers) is itself a presumption of yours, not a response to evidence. (In keeping with your modus operandi of following your commitments.)
Now you're back to the question of bias again. I was talking about commitment. Why the constant shifting of ground?

Layman

If that makes someone corrupt then it makes me corrupt. I obviously an inclined to certain positions in favor of my religion and always have been. That doesn't mean I'm committed to the idea that the historical evidence will prove all of these points, of course. It doesn't mean that negative historical evidence would not lead me to a different conclusion. It just means I'm biased.

When you say you want to exclude N.T. Wright and William L. Craig from having anything to do with the study of Christian Origins, just how are us lesser lights supposed to understand your remarks?

The problem started in your opening post because you proposed a pretty radical field-altering proposal and then refused to explain what you meant. How do you expect Christians to react when you tell them they shouldn't be allowed to participate in discussions about Christian Origins?

Layman

Not really, because Peter then seemed to say it could be maintained my methodological naturalism.

But if it just means a Christian who is biased in favor of reaching results supportive of my religion, then I am one of the corrupt, though I think that a silly word for it. I'm also committed to genuine arguments and analysis of the evidence.

As I said, if Wright and Craig are in that group, I am fairly encompassed by Peter's category.

There's the catch? If its just a somewhat vague category, we can attack it all we want, can't we? But if its a category that is more substantively contoured by explicit mention of top scholars welcome in almost any academic journal or conference, then you shy away.

Sure you did, though it was more like, "Admit your guilt or denounce the communists you know."

But this is surely the point. It was not their scholarship that was attacked here, but their religion.

Roger Pearse

I'm not sure about that, tho.

This comment begs the question, at least to me.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Brother Daniel

I can't figure out what you're saying here. Care to try it again?
Of course it doesn't just mean "biased Christian". Commitment entails bias, but bias does not (in general) entail commitment.
I didn't think the category was so vague. Given the (likely) possibility that Peter's opinion of the quality of Wright's and Craig's work is different from yours, it surprises me that you would treat the mention of those two as a source of greater precision (for the definition of the category) than the explicit wording of the definition offered.

But that doesn't matter. If you believed yourself to be included in Peter's initial attack, then your responses, while still disturbing to me, are more understandable.
A somewhat closer analogy would be "admit that communists exist, and please tell me you aren't one of them".
I'm not convinced that that is a valid dichotomy. If their religion (narrowly defined) corrupts their scholarship, then those who point out this corruption could equally well be said to be attacking their scholarship or attacking their religion (narrowly defined).