Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 01-02-2009, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Jeffrey - The reason we don't allow posters to call people liars on this board is that we recognize that no one can read another's mind. Why are you so insistent on branding something a lie?

what a curious statement in the light of this claim that I am hotly intent "on branding something a lie"!

In any case, and more importantly, I note with interest that this and all else from you below is not in any way an anwer to the questions that I raised with you in reponse to your remark that your question of whether or not Inamely, whether you were thereby saying "not only that Richard Carrier would lie to me [note not the same as me branding something a lie] or you if we asked him about about his capabilities in this regard, but, more importantly, that he is incapable of giving mythicism a fair hearing" but that Richard Carrier has not told the truth in his blog report about what the JP will be considering.?

Will answers to these questions be forthcoming?

I think that Richard Carrier is honest. Any implication otherwise is a product of your imagination.

But Richard Carrier is not a member of the Jesus Project, and is reporting what he learned from from others. He might be mistaken.

Your syntax needs an editor.

But why do you keep repeating the word lie.. lie.. lie ? You know that this has been identified as a Republican propaganda technique - repeat a word in conjunction with your opponent, and it sticks, whatever the actual connection?

Quote:

Wasn't a claim. It was -- as the smiley face indicated -- a jest.

But it wasn't funny.

Quote:

Especially since you have been questioning them at length, dragging this thread off topic, and wasting my time?

Are you saying that the (at least one) topic of this thread isn't what the JP will and will not investigate, let alone that in his posts to this thread Earl did not make (without your admonishing him not to or letting him know that he was dragging the thread off topic) by making a topic of discussion in this this thread both the "fact", at least according to him, that the JP will not be looking at his work and the reason why they would not do so even if it were to be suggested that it should be?

Please note that I am not trying to be confrontational. All I'm doing is seeing clarity.

Jeffrey

If you want to discuss the scope of the Jesus Project, surely you can do so without spewing accusations of lying or not telling the truth.

If you want clarity, start with your own language. Find a good editor.

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-02-2009, 03:04 PM

[quote=Toto;5728142]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

what a curious statement in the light of this claim that I am hotly intent "on branding something a lie"!

In any case, and more importantly, I note with interest that this and all else from you below is not in any way an anwer to the questions that I raised with you in response to your remark that your question of whether or not, namely, whether you were thereby saying "not only that Richard Carrier would lie to me [note not the same as me branding something a lie] or you if we asked him about about his capabilities in this regard, but, more importantly, that he is incapable of giving mythicism a fair hearing" but that Richard Carrier has not told the truth in his blog report about what the JP will be considering.?

Will answers to these questions be forthcoming?

Quote:

I think that Richard Carrier is honest.

This does not answer my questions.

Quote:

But Richard Carrier is not a member of the Jesus Project, and is reporting what he learned from from others.

He wasn't there at the Amherst meeting?

Quote:

He might be mistaken.

But do you think he is?

Quote:

But why do you keep repeating the word lie.. lie.. lie ? You know that this has been identified as a Republican propaganda technique - repeat a word in conjunction with your opponent, and it sticks, whatever the actual connection?

Which, interestingly enough, you are using now against me.

Quote:

But it wasn't funny.

Neither are any of Joe Wallacks attempts at humor. But I see no admonitions against such of his "bon mots" as "Jewrassic Pork" or public calls that he retract them

Quote:

Are you saying that the (at least one) topic of this thread isn't what the JP will and will not investigate, let alone that in his posts to this thread Earl did not make (without your admonishing him not to or letting him know that he was dragging the thread off topic) by making a topic of discussion in this this thread both the "fact", at least according to him, that the JP will not be looking at his work and the reason why they would not do so even if it were to be suggested that it should be?

Please note that I am not trying to be confrontational. All I'm doing is seeing clarity.

Jeffrey

Quote:

If you want to discuss the scope of the Jesus Project,

So the question of whether claims that the JP has no intentions of discussing mythicism are true or are based in actual/direct knowledge of what the JP is up to is on topic?

Quote:

surely you can do so without spewing accusations of lying or not telling the truth.

Where in this thread have I accused anyone of lying or of not telling the truth, let alone "spewed" such accusations?

Quote:

If you want clarity, start with your own language. Find a good editor.

Ouch! But I was asking from clarity from you.

And as long as you are making a suggestion to me, I hope that in the spirit of fair is fair, I may be permitted to make one to you without being accused of having a confrontational tone-- and that's to leave off with the overblown (inflammatory?) rhetoric (Spewed?) and to stop putting words in my mouth.

Thanks!

Jeffrey

Toto · 01-02-2009, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

He wasn't there at the Amherst meeting?

As a presenter, not as a member of the Project

Quote:

Neither are any of Joe Wallacks attempts at humor. But I see no admonitions against such of his "bon mots" as "Jewrassic Pork" or public calls that he retract them

Joe Wallack has not made complaints about moderation or insults to other posters, and then claimed that they were just a joke. And no one has complained.

Quote:

So the question of whether claims that the JP has no intentions of discussing mythicism are true or are based in actual/direct knowledge of what the JP is up to is on topic?

If you discuss those issues as issues, not if you use the issue as a way of making a personal attack.

Quote:

Where in this thread have I accused anyone of lying or of not telling the truth, let alone "spewed" such accusations?

You continually drop insinuations, and then refuse to own up to them. Please stop playing this game.

Quote:

Ouch! But I was asking from clarity from you.

And as long as you are making a suggestion to me, I hope that in the spirit of fair is fair, I may be permitted to make one to you without being accused of having a confrontational tone-- and that's to leave off with the overblown (inflammatory?) rhetoric (Spewed?) and to stop putting words in my mouth.

Thanks!

Jeffrey

You're welcome.

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-02-2009, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

He wasn't there at the Amherst meeting?

As a presenter, not as a member of the Project

So he was there. And as he himself indicates not only for his presentation, but for those of others as well, yes?

So I ask again, do you think he was indeed mistaken in what he reports about the scope of the JP?

Quote:

You continually drop insinuations, and then refuse to own up to them.

Ok -- so the charge has now been changed from making outright accusations that someone is lying to "dropping insinuations" that they have been.

So could you please point out where in this thread I've done this?

Quote:

So could you please Please stop playing this game.

You mean the game of charging people with things that they haven't done and then having to back track in order to save face -- which, to use your language about what I said here (and which puzzled at least Ben) is what you appear to me to be doing now.?

Jeffrey

JoeWallack · 01-02-2009, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But it wasn't funny.

Neither are any of Joe Wallacks attempts at humor. But I see no admonitions against such of his "bon mots" as "Jewrassic Pork" or public calls that he retract them

JW:
Well of course just like Jesus I Am always happy to see my name invoked. I confess that the mere reading of this fershlugginer intercourse between you and Toto is solid evidence that I have no sense of humour. Perhaps we could persuade Dr. Carrier to write his next article on the subject of MJH (The Mythical Joseph Humor).

Joseph

Toto · 01-02-2009, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

...
So I ask again, do you think he was indeed mistaken in what he reports about the scope of the JP?

...

How much do you understand about committees? The Jesus Project is a Committee set up by Paul Kurtz's Center for Inquiry (full disclosure - I am a contributor and supporter of CFI). The various strong personalities involved all have their own agendas, and I would expect that the scope of the JP will be a constantly evolving thing. You can read Carrier's blog and see that R. Joseph Hoffman has convinced Carrier that his ideas were listened to - and they probably were - but there are going to be other influences on Hoffman and on the scope of the Project.

Why not wait for some actual results from the JP?

Do I have to split this thread?

Chili · 01-02-2009, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

[
Do I have to split this thread?

Let me first add they are much better off to look for a piece of the ark because Jesus was just a Nazarite by nature who was 'born from Jerusalem on high' . . . and there have been millions (?) of them since except that they are now called Jesuits by nature (= followers instead of worshipers of jesus).

I think that the right place to put your money is to do away with the JP project and let just nature take its own course and there will even be some in America within a hundred year or so.

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-03-2009, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

And you wonder why mythicism can gain no foothold in established academia, why it can’t even get off the ground where mainstream scholars are concerned. Not because it has been addressed, or because as a group they have the courage to examine it honestly and carefully. They’re all simply afraid of it. It becomes a mortal sin even to consider devoting any effort to studying it. (A characteristic mark of religion by any measure.) Even those who are open-minded or subscribe to it in some degree are hamstrung in having to bow to the majority fear and reluctance.

Even in a setting where it has been declared at the outset by those organizing the project that a direct part of its agenda is to address the existence question, the thing has gotten buried because of the peer pressure from those taking part who refuse to countenance such a thing (and no doubt from those in the background, like university paymasters). Even a free spirit like Robert Price has been stifled by that pressure. If there was anything to demonstrate that mythicism will never be given an honest shake in established academia, this is it.

It certainly makes a mockery of any claim by mainstream forces (and that includes anti-mythicists here who regularly appeal to this imagined ‘authority’) that mythicism has been grappled with and refuted by superior minds with superior knowledge. Putting your fingers in your ears and making noises so that you can’t hear what you don’t want to hear constitutes no such thing.

Billing itself as “The most rigorous methods, data, and open debate” in “the first methodologically agnostic approach to the question of Jesus’ historical existence”? I take it this is a joke, right? Price's comments about half the participants leaving if the question is addressed, and the exclusion from the masthead of any active and recognized mythicists, says it all.

Well, it leaves the field (as always) open to outsiders like me, and to groups like this. Of course, we bear the full brunt of the opposition since the supposed authorities have absented themselves from the debate.

Earl Doherty

FYI

After seeing reading both this and what Richard Carried has noted on his blog about what has been and what's going to be discussed at the Jesus Project meetings -- a note which stands in apparent contradiction to what Earl writes above -- I decided to write yesterday to Robert Price to see if he thinks Earl's charges and claims have any grounding in fact.

Here's what I sent to him.

Quote:

Robert,

I just saw a message from Earl Doherty (see here) which is grounded in the assumption that the members of the the Jesus Project have ruled his "work" and his views as something not worth considering. Most interesting is his explanation for this "fact".

And you wonder why mythicism can gain no foothold in established academia, why it can’t even get off the ground where mainstream scholars are concerned. Not because it has been addressed, or because as a group they have the courage to examine it honestly and carefully. They’re all simply afraid of it. It becomes a mortal sin even to consider devoting any effort to studying it. (A characteristic mark of religion by any measure.) Even those who are open-minded or subscribe to it in some degree are hamstrung in having to bow to the majority fear and reluctance.

Even in a setting where it has been declared at the outset by those organizing the project that a direct part of its agenda is to address the existence question, the thing has gotten buried because of the peer pressure from those taking part who refuse to countenance such a thing (and no doubt from those in the background, like university paymasters). Even a free spirit like Robert Price has been stifled by that pressure. If there was anything to demonstrate that mythicism will never be given an honest shake in established academia, this is it.

Now even it it were true that the Jesus Project has ruled out considering Earl's "work" and views (and I see from a Blog post from Richard Carrier that it has not), it strikes me that his explanation of why they would do so is the epitome of what I call the crank's lament. But I could be wrong.

So I wonder if you'd let me know about the truth of his specific charges:

1. That the main (if not the only) reason that his work and his views wouldn't be considered worthy of discussion at Jesus Project meetings is that most members of the Jesus Project "... are all simply afraid of it" and

2. That members such as yourself who are familiar with his work/views and are open to their having some plausibility/validity have been, or would allow themselves to be, stifled by, peer and paymaster "pressure" not to take it into consideration.

I hope all is well with you -- and Happy New Year!

As ever,

Jeffrey

I will post (with Robert's permission, of course) any reply to my message that he sends me.

In the meantime, what is to be made of the contradictions between Earl's claim that his views have been ruled out of discussion at the Jesus Project as not worth listening to, let alone that the sole reason they have been ruled out is that they are viewed by most of the JP participants as too dangerous to discuss, with what Richard notes?

I'd also like to hear from Earl himself about whether he was ever invited by anyone at the Jesus Project to come and be a participant.

It seems to be the case, does it not, that in the above he [Earl] implies that he was not.

Jeffrey

I've just received permission from Robert Price to post his reply (that I received shortly after 9am yesterday to the message I noted above that I sent him (and which I sent yesterday off list to Toto before he made his claim that "we" [and therefore presumably he] had no first hand knowledge from JP participants about what the JP intended to consider).

Here it is:

Quote:

Robert M. Price

January 2 at 9:05am

Jeffrey,

I am surprised to read these words of Earl's. I invited him to the conference, but he could not attend. There has been free and open discussion of mythicism at the first JP meeting, and a session on it has been scheduled for the 2nd. I am not aware of any feeling toward excluding Earl, whose work I of course value extremely highly. I will pursue the matter. Thanks for letting me know about this.

Bob

Very curious, no?

Jeffrey

Toto · 01-03-2009, 11:05 AM

Does "invited" refer to the fact that anyone who paid the price of admission could attend the conference? Was Doherty invited to be a fellow of the Project? Submit papers?

I know that Doherty has been busy with the second edition of The Jesus Puzzle.

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-03-2009, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Does "invited" refer to the fact that anyone who paid the price of admission could attend the conference? Was Doherty invited to be a fellow of the Project? Submit papers?

You'll have to ask Price. But in responding positively to this message of mine (which I also sent yesterday as well)

Quote:

Jeffrey Gibson

Today at 10:20am

Bob,

May I publish your message to me about Earl's claims on IIDB?

Jeffrey

Bob replied:

Quote:

I love Earl's work and am eager to see it given maximum exposure. I think he may be too pessimistic about it's receiving a hearing at the Jesus Project. I will do my best to see him participating if he wishes to, and I very much hope he does.

So if I had to guess, I'd say yes, he was (and is and will be) invited to give papers there and to participate in other ways as well.

In any case, Bob's messages surely show that he has not cowed to peer pressure, even if there were any, not to consider, bring up, or discuss mythicism at the JP, as Earl has claimed was/is the case.

Quote:

I know that Doherty has been busy with the second edition of The Jesus Puzzle.

How is that relevant to the validity of the claim that Earl has made (see here) that "Certainly, no recognized mythicist was invited to participate" in/at the JP?

Jeffrey

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-03-2009, 11:05 AM	#29
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Does "invited" refer to the fact that anyone who paid the price of admission could attend the conference? Was Doherty invited to be a fellow of the Project? Submit papers? I know that Doherty has been busy with the second edition of The Jesus Puzzle.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.