Toto

That's a nice statement, but that particular poster has been completely unsuccessful in showing that people who disagree with him are motivated by "anti-religious ideology" or practice "bad history." In fact, he seems to know nothing about how to distinguish good or bad history.

Do you have anything relevant to Biblical Criticism or History that you want to post?

Toto

Because your purpose in bringing it up has been to bait and insult other people and avoid the real issues of the historical record.

Any more questions?

Chaucer

So why bother to concede in the first place, as you have done, that historicists can also have emotional baggage at all? If you view the question itself as tainted, how come you have already conceded the _possibility_ of emotional baggage for one group but not the other? If you view the question as tainted, then why concede the possibility for even one group? Yet that's exactly what you've done. You have readily taken the question seriously enough in addressing the _possible_ emotional foibles of one group already -- historicists. Only when the logical follow-up that _some_ individuals of both philosophical persuasions have the same _possibility_ of emotional baggage does the question suddenly become tainted. How come?

Chaucer

Toto

:banghead:

It's all possible, and all OFF TOPIC.

Do you have anything you want to say about actual history or Biblical criticism?

patchy

I must admit to being genuinely baffled by your unusually combative stance, Toto.

I'll admit to having NO experience or backstory regarding this Chaucer, so you may very well be warranted in your suspicions, and I might be inadvertently defending the equivalent of say, a Dave Hawkins in my more familiar Evolution/Creationism forum.

But, not knowing the history, I see nothing in Chaucer's question that's particularly irrelevant--in fact, one might argue that one's emotional biases (or not) might form an essential part of how one not only conducts biblical scholarship, but the way in which one processes it. Which (conceivably) goes to the central core of this whole forum, not a side alley deviation from it.

Off Topic?

I don't really think so--I think it may be something that we WISH was "off topic"--in other words, in a perfect world we'd be assured that ALL scholarship, or the proper digestion of it by laypersons, was completely free of subjective bias, but...we don't live in a perfect world. In the real world, it's a question worth asking--and answering.

Then again, I can see that this thread is one millimeter away from getting booted to Elsewhere, so...never mind, I guess.

Toto

If you knew Chaucer's history here, you would understand.

Here's one of his early efforts, with some defamatory comments removed:

http://freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=271751

I don't want to rehash this.

patchy

I trust your judgment, then, and I'm not being cheeky.

I admit to being naive about the history, so I will defer.

You've ALWAYS impressed me to no end, with both your extensive knowledge of all things biblical, and your ability to clearly and concisely convey them.

The phrase "if you knew the history" is enough of a word to the wise, so... consider it heard!

judge

How do you know he has been completely unsuccessful?

judge

I would have to disagree. I think Chaucer has brought some much needed balance many to issues discussed on this forum.

mountainman

One could take the historicists position by playing devil's advocate and arguing against the mythical and the fictional positions. The problem in doing so is the distinct lack of ancient historical evidence, which at the end of the day, is to be valued over and above the emotional associations placed in the outcome by tradition.

At the end of the day Chaucer, the emotions -- freely visible to all parties contributing and lurking -- must always take second place to discussion and the interpretation of the extant ancient historical evidence, even when that evidence is represented by an empty set.