youngalexander

What say we cool it?

My reading is my reading.:angel:

GakuseiDon

Yeah, agreed. There are much more interesting things to talk about. (There should be a "sharing a beer" smilie icon)

Iasion

Greetings,

I thought you were rude and abusive.

Earl is absolutely right (and far better behaved than you.)

You belong on TheologyWeb, not IIDB.


Iasion

GakuseiDon

Martin Luther sounds fairly close to the ideas in Paul's day.

Some more on this: According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish thought around that time held that:

Ted Hoffman

You understand it from where? What are your sources?
Air divided to two parts? Sources please.
Lower parts of the air? Sources please.
Sources please. Sources that differentiate superior and inferior demons aand their habitats.
Sources please.
In a short while. First, we need to know what you understand by evidence.

jakejonesiv

Yes.

Jake Jones IV

Roger Pearse

Not that I could see, on a quick inspection.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

RPS

As vernacular for the idea that Earl's interpretation can't be supported.

The same way I classify claims that religionists are necessarily irrational or even mentally ill -- as hyperbole. I think we're better off without it but I'd rather free speech prevail, especially since such hyperbole gets used all the time (even by regulars) in emotionally charged arguments such as these.

S.C.Carlson

This thread was very informative for me because I had never really understood until now what was going on with the kata sarka argument that had gotten a lot of people here interested.

That being said, I think the thread jumped the shark when Earl Doherty compared himself to Galileo, implicitly making Jeffrey Gibson out to be the Inquisition. In that light, I don't think that Jeffrey's comparison of Earl's complaint to that of Marshall Gardner is "vitriolic."

Stephen

Ted Hoffman

I am glad this matter is being discussed because I was very disturbed by the goings on in this thread (to be honest, and I hope I am allowed to be honest, I had the sinking feeling that the board was being overrun by fundies [hey, dont delete that - Richard Carrier used it and it was not deleted!])

I felt, correctly or incorrectly, that Gibson was being given a free reign and Doherty was being boxed into a corner. And Gibson was taking that inch and making every kilometre out of it. And his, um, buddies, krosero and GDon came alive and weighed in seeing that the door was flung open for them. And I bet he is laughing his a__ off as we poor atheists discuss over how to manage his important presence without offending his delicate habits and ruffling his scholastic demeanour.

For example, Jeffrey writes elsewhere that Doherty lied. And I write here that Gibson is not saying the truth in making that claim, and my post gets edited immediately because I used the word lie. And Jeffrey takes that as a good sign. He even goes as far as protesting when we use his own name to refer to him! I mean, how inane can things get? Someone who uses the moniker jgibson000 complains when he is called Gibson? If "Gibson" is so abrupt as his supervenient sensibilities choose to tell him, why the hell did he even use it in the first place?!!!! Why not call himself j000 if gibson is so offensive?
How inane can things get! It is like Richard Dawkins using RDawkins000 here and getting hysterical when someone refers to him as Dawkins!. I mean, how many Gibsons on the net have an interest in Biblical criticism?

Look at what is happening here: GDon, Roger Pearse and krosero predictably back Jeffrey. These are people who have been vocal in their anti-atheist stances. krosero is more guarded but GDon calls Doherty's arguments "superior nonsense".

I have no problem with Christians or even historicists. In fact, I even have no problem with Jeffrey. He has done nothing out of what I expect from a historicist, self-righteous believer. What riles anyone who has been around is that he can be given some leverage on an atheist board! while the atheists are told to behave themselves.

Jeffrey called Doherty a liar at the list I linked to. That is what Christians do and its perfectly fine with the moderators there. Try calling Jeffrey a liar there and I will pay you $5000 if your post goes through. And he comes here and presents some lame, convoluted excuse for calling Doherty a liar and that is fine?

This is an individual who is arrogant enough to claim that because kata sarka is so important (for whatever reason), the point to be made was so important to Carrier that Carrier's discipline, thoroughness, erudition and integrity were unable to stop Carrier from cooking an argument. And we allow him to make these rude, disrespectful claims yet we have no reason to believe he is even competent enough that he can distinguish cooked from uncooked kata sarka interpretations!

Doherty made a very serious post about re-evaluating evidence and I hope Jeffrey and others take it seriously. All I ask of the mods is to treat Gibson the way they treat other Christians and atheists on board: impartially.
I have no problem with GDon calling Doherty's thesis "superior nonsense". I also have no problem with Jeffrey claiming Carrier cooked whatever he chooses to claim Carrier cooked. That is what Christians and believers do everyday. I would be shocked if he did anything different.
What riles the hell out of me is my not being allowed to do the same thing. Why place this shield around him that enable him to mock us and ridicule us, and yet when we attempt to ridicule him, or even shame him, we are slammed and told to cut the nonsense and stick to the facts?
On our own board! :banghead:

And he is still comparing Doherty's tenor to that of Gardners? Does Jeffrey know what tenor means?