FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-29-2004, 11:02 PM   #11
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 323
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CX

Evidence that demands a verdict by Josh McDowell, predicated on the assumption that people who read it are complete morons.
:notworthy And that was the only thing he was right about.
Al Kafirun is offline  
Old 05-02-2004, 09:43 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: where no one has gone before
Posts: 735
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Llyricist
Well actually there IS a "unity of style" amongst Mk, Mt and Lk. Nevermind the reason is that Mt and Lk COPIED large chunks of Mk.

But I have to agree that Gracq must have wholly ignored John in any analysis to come to his conclusion.
Also, never mind that Gracq would have to have had access to and expertise in the Greek they were written in for any "style" continuities to carry much weight.

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.
capnkirk is offline  
Old 05-02-2004, 10:29 PM   #13
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

The discussion about Nazareth variations has been split here:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=84435
Toto is offline  
Old 05-03-2004, 05:28 AM   #14
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: earth
Posts: 414
Default

CX said “Evidence that demands a verdict by Josh McDowell� was an argument he had seen (i.e. read). He asserted it was ‘predicated on the assumption that people who read it are complete morons’.
You then stated:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Kafirun
:notworthy And that was the only thing he was right about.
Aren’t you in fact saying CX is a moron?
LP675 is offline  
Old 05-03-2004, 09:53 AM   #15
CX
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Portlandish
Posts: 2,829
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LP675
CX said “Evidence that demands a verdict by Josh McDowell� was an argument he had seen (i.e. read). He asserted it was ‘predicated on the assumption that people who read it are complete morons’.
You then stated:


Aren’t you in fact saying CX is a moron?
Not to be nitpicky, but the fact that mcdowell predicated his arguments on the presumption that those who would read them are morons is not equivalent to saying that everyone who reads McDowell is a moron. The subtext is that people who read McDowell and are convinced by his arguments are morons. I suspect Al's comment was an affirmation of the subtext of my statements. Anyway it was a joke.
CX is offline  
Old 05-04-2004, 07:18 PM   #16
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: earth
Posts: 414
Default

Warning! This post is really not worth reading!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by CX
Not to be nitpicky, but the fact that mcdowell predicated his arguments on the presumption that those who would read them are morons is not equivalent to saying that everyone who reads McDowell is a moron.
No, of course not. But to affirm the truth of the presupposition that all who read Mcdowell’s book are morons is (for all current intents and purposes) equivalent to saying everyone who reads his book is a moron.

Quote:
The subtext is that people who read McDowell and are convinced by his arguments are morons. I suspect Al's comment was an affirmation of the subtext of my statements.
It is of course me being nitpicky, and I realize he was trying to say those convinced by McDowell’s book are morons, and he was attempting to agree with you.

However your actual statements at face value contain no nuance or implication that the presupposition McDowell manifests is related to conviction as to the veracity of his claims.

You could have (more properly) been taken to be insinuating the presupposition of McDowell was FALSE, especially in light of the foregoing discussion which offered other (presumably false) examples of presuppositions used by apologists.

It just amused me that in attempting to affirm you, he ended up implying you were a moron without realizing it.
LP675 is offline  
Old 05-05-2004, 11:00 AM   #17
CX
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Portlandish
Posts: 2,829
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LP675
Warning! This post is really not worth reading!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It just amused me that in attempting to affirm you, he ended up implying you were a moron without realizing it.
Unless of course I am a moron, which is not outside the realm of possibility, and the implication was intentional.
CX is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:13 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.