Vorkosigan

It's nice that you had an intellectual for a grandfather. But it's not relevant to anything, except perhaps how your own prejudices were formed.

If you think the mythicist view is intellectually sterile, show it. If it really is intellectually sterile, how hard can that be? Frankly, I don't like interacting you because I'm rather tired of the constant flow of (1) exhortations about your amazing credentials and logic skills combined with (2) the dead certainty that an intellectual stance you have never studied is utterly without merit (3) and your need to constantly belittle it. It makes it difficult for people interacting with you to have a discussion. This may be a revolutionary idea, but why don't you focus on the texts instead of how awesome you are, or all your preceding generations are, or whatever?

Vorkosigan

LegionOnomaMoi

Actually, now I am wondering if you are "intellectually sterile" in some way. The point was that this description was his, not mine. How many times do I have to repeat this? He was brilliant, impatient, and had little respect for those who did not know as much as he (which was just about everybody) and so had little respect for opinions even when he should have. I brought him up because he was not raised christian and was not religious at all, and thus his reaction could not be because of religious bias or christian bias. Yet apparently you are incapable of grasping this.

I didn't say I thought it was intellectually sterile. I said my grandfather did. I then specifically stated how intolerant and judgmental he could be.

All this was apparently missed by you. Something this simple, and you are incapable of following it. Should I use you as a model for mythicists?

Vorkosigan

LoM, one aspect of my intellectual sterility is that I know that the value of anecdotal evidence is precisely shit. The question really is why you thought it meant anything.

Vorkosigan

LegionOnomaMoi

Hmm...I brought it up in the context of an assertion about Christian apologists and their reactions. I began it with the religious beliefs of my grandfather. In logic, we call this a counter-example. I continued it as such.

But you continued to hack away at the use of this example as something other than what it was (and apparently you are still doing so) in order to...well, I don't know. Defend the honor of mythicists everywhere by throwing aside logic, reason, and honesty? You insisted on attributing to me what I specifically said was the product of another, despite my explanations. And after repeated explanations, you resort to the "it's shit" defense as something to hide behind rather than admit you were wrong. Don't worry though: there are plenty of mythicists to support you here. In fact, one of the most well-read and intelligent members I have encountered here falls back on that same defense. So at least you are in relatively good company.

Vorkosigan

No, seriously, are you contending that an anecdote about your grandfather refutes claims about the way Christian culture has shaped the Jesus debates? Be serious! Conclusions about whether or not the Jesus debates are shaped by Christianity are based on two centuries of evidence, not what someone told you about granddaddy.

Really, I can't believe you offered that as an example of "logic." I mean, that's well beyond pathetic.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

delete

LegionOnomaMoi

Absolutely! As long as you are willing to interpret what I wrote in whatever way you wish. Apparently that is your desire.

Are really this determined to act like someone incapable of reason? What I said, and the context in which I did, is there. The issue was quite specific: why might the assertion that Jesus was just a myth result in reactions which had little to do with religion? Toto suggested that Christian apologists have reacted to this claim differently than others which have offended them. I started my response with an anecdote about my agnostic grandfather who was raised Jewish. And you are apparently determined to prove that mythicists are incapable of following simple contexts.


Yay! You have related a conclusion that is utterly, completely, and in all other ways unrelated to what I said about my grandfather. And while you were at it, you demonstrated the very unending devotion to irrational conclusions in the face of any evidence to the contrary you seem to have argued I was imagining. I appreciate your help.

I guess he was correct: iniusta ab iustis impetrare non decet; iusta autem ab iniustis petere, insipientia est.

hjalti

Those OPs could've been cut by 95%. You don't see unnecessary verbosity like that in good monograrphs!

hjalti

Have you written anything more specific on the garbagish nature of dr. Carrier's book?

Vorkosigan

You're just playing games.

Can your next OP be about a text or an idea? These long-worded personal and group attacks of yours are tiresome.