stephan huller

If you are simply looking for reasons to hate me. I can help you by providing some personal information that will assist you in that regard. Just send me an email address it will all save us time and energy). I can also send a 'head shot' photo that you can blow up to find any size punching bag or inanimate object which would be suitable for target practice, burned effigies etc. Moreover each of us at the forum could supply you with that kind of personal information - a resume of failed experiences - so that you could size us up, prove that you are our superior and then you could move on to whatever it is that you normally spend time doing during the day, night when you aren't working on this seemingly endless personal confidence building exercise.

Chili

There is such a thing as philosophic underpinning that should not only be based on truth but bear witness to truth so it will stand eternally.

And there is a difference, and it matters little what Marcionites believed, but instead it must emanate from the truth whereon they stand and is wherein they will unite and not divide.

It so is Iconic and this includes the written word, and imagination is not part of this. Just go to Aristotle Posterior Analytics 100a12 ff. where he holds that what we call knowledge and know-how are neither handed to us as well developed, nor do they emerge from other, more knowledge conditions:
Brackets are mine added to give direction in the text, and notice that he goes from 'opinion' to 'being engaged' to non-being to 'living being' as in "to be or not to be" wherein I Am is found.

So imaginations are good, but only to bring war about as we see in the above that really should take place in our own world (read mind) where we must be the under-goer of the event that leads us to the end, and there find that knowledge is without identity to stand all on its own.

To be clear on this, that now means that there is no historic 'real' JC while yet the story as told is real.

Forgot the punch-line wherein if truth will stand on its own we are no longer part of the argument and must necessarily be untouchable there. And don't they call this infallible sometimes too? as fearless while not pandering fallacies of any kind!

Jeffrey Gibson

And here I thought the issue was not your person, which has nothing to do with whether you are right or wrong in what you claim, but the validity of the claims you make, the strength of the evidence you use as warrants for them, your logic, and whether you are competent to judge what stands as good evidence and what does not.

Argumentum ad Misericordiam does not become you.

Jeffrey

stephan huller

Really? You can honestly say that you've participated in this forum in good faith? I must take back my statement about your honesty.

One doesn't need a degree from Oxford to see that you consider the people who participate at this forum to be intellectual inferiors. That isn't necessarily an untrue statement. It may well be true that you have a peerless educational background. However it would be dishonest to claim that you have come here to 'engage in collegial discourse.'

As such - since you participation is not in good faith (= akin to someone who joins a sports team to prove how badly his team is) it is not unfair to bring in your motives for participation in this conversation or any conversation at this forum.

The question then arises is that if you engage in a conversation with people at the forum only to prove the inferiority of the participants, one can fairly write off your motivation as agenda driven. The same accusation you (fairly) make against members of the forum.

You compare me to Pete and Robert Tulip but in all fairness one can make a similar charge against you. Pete establishes threads to discuss his interest in an absurd fourth century conspiracy. Robert Tulip is part of some New Age pseudo-cult and has an agenda driven participation at the forum. I am interested in Marcion and establish various threads which seek to encourage feedback about various ideas, various possibilities which may or not be true about the sect.

But your participation is equally agenda driven. You join discussions to prove the inferiority of the participants. Yes, you end up generally unscathed from the discussions and - as previously noted - you provide a valuable service insofar as you fact check the various participants in terms of what they claim, what they know etc.

Nevertheless you yourself remain unexposed because you don't contribute anything other than a critique of ideas advanced at the forum. If you were appointed as a moderator at the behest of the forum it would be possible to refrain from questioning your motives. The question is what makes some decide to assist the traffic lights governing the flow of traffic all the while critiquing the driving of each driver that passes by? That's a fair question given the strangeness of witnessing someone stand in the middle of the road directing and critiquing traffic when the traffic lights are still functioning?

In the same way that it is fair to say that Pete starts threads that are agenda driven, it is also fair to say that your need to function as critic at this forum is agenda driven. It is the agenda and the logic of a bully. While there is no crime in being a bully at this forum (= as long as it does not transgress the rules) one can question the compulsion of someone again who feels the need to stand under working traffic lights directing and critiquing the drivers who pass by. I would say that person is overly insecure.

To this end, if it makes you feel better directing and critiquing the members who participate in this forum, it seems a harmless enough obsession. But at the same I don't think that if you can lump people together with Pete and Robert Tulip that others at the forum should be able to do the same with you, especially if the shoe fits. Yes you are like Pete and Robert Tulip. We're all like Pete and Robert Tulip. We all come to this forum to participate here in order advance some sort of 'agenda.' Only your agenda seems to be driven by hate and your logic is the logic of a bully.

With that said I look forward to your continued participate in the forum. After all our participation in the forum is only as free as our insecurities.

stephan huller

So let's discuss the evidence relating to Marcion. Which sources do you like. Which sources don't you like. What's your read on Marcion? Oh wait a minute. You don't have any opinions on Marcion. You've just come here to develop opinions about me.

How unfair! There's got to be some fancy Latin term term that you learned in Oxford to obscure your motives and allow you to pretend (at least to yourself) that you are engaging in 'academic discourse.' I can't wait to have my vocabulary expanded again. Enlighten me O good sir.

Jeffrey Gibson

I join discussions on topics that I think I know something about and that interest me to demonstrate how and why claims that I (and others) take to be uninformed an ill founded are uninformed and ill founded. That my doing so has the effect of making a poster who posts uninformed and ill founded claims feel inferior is not my fault, nor is it my concern -- just as it is not a doctor's concern when he/she uses his/her medical knowledge to dispute a bad self analysis of a medical condition.

Funny how you don't complain about what I'm doping, let alone discourse on my reputed ego boosting intentions in doing it, when I show things you also think are crap for what they are.


What is the "logic of a bully"?

Question away, even assuming that I have the needs you say I do, am actually under the compulsion you think is mine, and that your analogy is apt.

But how this would show that I am wrong to do what I do here -- which unlike you, is not to engage in ad homimens -- let alone that what I say about the validity of claims made here, and the legitimacy of the assumptions behind them and how informed or uninformed a given poster happens to be on the matters he/she posts about is untrue, not to mention unnecessary, as you seem to think it does, is beyond me.

Nor do I have any idea why -- except to make yourself feel better after doubt has been cast on your scholarly competence and mastery of the materials you make claims over have been raised -- you feel the need to ask them.

And if anyone here is showing him/herself to be possessed by insecurities, it's you, in your persistence in this habit of yours of attacking my person and raising questions about my motives for saying what I say about claims.

Isn't the adage "when you have evidence, attack the evidence. When you have no evidence (and don't want to let anyone know that you don't) attack the man"?

Er ... what??

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Umm .. look above. I told you what I thought Marcion was up to in his use of Jesus' words to show that Adamantius was blasphemous and what he felt about Adamantius claim that the Jewish god was the one true good god.

You even acknowledged in your response to my message that I had a "read on" Marcion. How else could you say, as you did, that I was naive and wrong to think this?

How convenient that in order to make anotherArgumentum ad Misericordiam and another ad hominem against me, you forget/neglect this.

Jeffrey

stephan huller

So let's pick a topic related to Marcion that doesn't have me or anyone at the board in the subject header (i.e. "Pete and Arius"). Then I will know this is a collegial discussion. And why don't you start by saying something productive like "I think Marcion ..." or for that matter "I think (ANYTHING) ..." and we can have an even more productive conversation (because I can resist my urge to dismiss ideas)

Jeffrey Gibson

I have no inclination to interact with someone who not only acts like a spoiled five year old when his ego is not stoked, but misrepresents what I say and do and goes in for innuendo and character assassination in order to score some points against me.

Jeffrey

spin

This seems to be where you two plock-hets are escalating into barricade warfare.

Jeffrey, you're too quick with the black hat. I'd like to see you wear a different colored hat sometimes. And Stephan, take those false claws off. You'll hurt yourself. (Stephan wears the red & green.)


The ® belongs in some way to Edward de Bono who was responsible for the hats.