outhouse

If one does not understand theology, then one doesnt belong in the section of the forum.

Ancient history is one small area within a scholarship. There can also be specialist within ancient history, that have no place looking at a bible.

There is no comparison, it is a field within scholarships.


If you do not understand this, you have no buisiness commenting on a definition you first need to learn.

mountainman

Let me admit from the start that I am rather impervious to
any claim that sacred history poses problems which are not
those of profane history.

Juma

And that has nothing to do with authority. It should always be about valid arguments.

Jaybees

Now, I'm really puzzled. Isn't it one of the aims of this thread to explain what theology is, who the authorities in that field are, and related questions?

Do me a favor and tell me which authority I can appeal to in this vast field of theology. What research is available. What success there has been that is univerally accepted by the experts in that fields. And much else of like nature.

outhouse

Vague questions cannot be answered like this.




If you have not figured it out, it goes against anyone who argues against "appeal to athority"


the real question here should be, how to use it right, and when one should or should not make the claim one is appealing to authority. This would go on a case to case basis.


So far the real questions have been mired in the ignornace of those in favor of ignorance over knowledge. [the whole thread]






NO

The real debate surrounds intellectually responsible research.

Toto

There are no posters here who favor ignorance over knowledge. This is just an insult on your part.

So far, you have not made any substantial statements here. Everyone agrees that proper authority is worth respect. We just disagree about the quality of claimed authority.

outhouse

But your placing the quality of trained knowledge with that of internet bloggers and others not fully educated on these matters----ignorance. making my point valid.

The devil is in the details still being ignored.


lets give credit where credit is due, lets take Earl. I would use him in many areas within language. But not within anthropology, nor other scholarships dealing with history, other then he has studied some mythology at a high level and those areas could be used in certain context.

So to make my point, mythers can be used in some areas when we find a consensus with others that possess the knowledge at hand.


There is knowledge and there is ignorance. This is not a insult, its hard fact, and if anyone feels self conscious over that fact, maybe they should take a look at their methodology.

thief of fire

Toto why did you basically ruin this thread with your personal issues?

There is niothing wrong with the opening post, and it could have led to a interesting discussion, but immediately you let your personal issues derail it.

Please stop doing this.

outhouse

By Toto taking a stronger counterpoint.

Things are being forced into focus, its not ruining anything.

Just taking things inte deeper water. The good nature of debating.



It appears her bias is showing, but it is healthy.

Juma

Why is autorities good? They are good because they have collected wast amount of inormation in their heads. Thus they are able to make conclusions and generalisations, see patterns and connect seemingly unrelated facts. They are good because thay combine and build from separate sources. That what wast learning is good for.

Authorities are not arbiters, judges or "facit".