Rick Sumner

Thank you Peter, your customary level-headedness explains what my frustration could not.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Toto

If I have confused Rick with Vinnie, I apologize. I am not going to parse through everything Rick has written at this point, like a stalker, looking for clues.

It is my take on Christian apologetics. It was part of my explanation of why Doherty did not think Nomad's arguments worthy of rebuttal. You may see more value in apologetics or in Nomad's arguments - I apologize if I am reading something into what you wrote that is not there, but my opinion is that practically everything I read from Nomad on this board (which has been years) was fundamentally irrational and illogical, although clothed in rational sounding language - much like William Lane Craig's apologetics.

Rick claims that apologetic arguments are faith based. But I think that if you look at actual apologetics, they do not start out with a statement of faith, but instead try to justify the faith (or facts needed to support the faith) on neutral-sounding grounds.

This is getting far afield.

It's nice of you to stick up for Rick, Peter. Rick could have avoided most of this if he had clarified that unlike others who use that term for mythicists, he does not hold fringe theorists in contempt - which does not fit in with the way he has used the term in this thread - especially after he repeats the common canard that mythicists have a religious devotion, a cult-like attachment to Doherty, after he claims things about the Jesus Mysteries list that are patently false as anyone who has read any of the list would realize.

So Rick, why are spending so much energy playing the victim? You have accused me of putting words in your mouth that I quoted from you. You have used a term that is often used as an insult, and expected me to realize that you did not mean it in the common sense that it is used on these boards. You could have clarified this if you wanted to, but you seem to prefer to pounce on anyone who draws a conclusion from what you write that is not what you privately believe. Can you take a little responsibility for communication? Clarify what you mean if you have been misunderstood rather than claiming villification? Stop being so evasive? Do you realize the level of hostility that you project? Is it intentional? I may have assumed that you were that contemptuous of mythicists because of this general hostility.

One last example.

This is a quibble. Doherty's thesis is that Christianity started with a mythical Savior. I ask if a rational person can accept that thesis. You start to equivocate - not completely, you say. I ask why, and you bring up some of the evidence that Doherty uses. But since his argument is based on a pattern, it does not rest on any one small piece of evidence. Doherty himself could become convinced that one or another example he gave was wrong, without budging an inch on his theory.

But somehow we have spent several posts with increasing hostility disputing something that we do not seem to disagree on after all, based on a confusion between the thesis and every piece of evidence used to support the thesis.

Enough of this.

Rick Sumner

I did. Repeatedly. I also emphatically stated that I do not consider mythicists "nut cases," I clarified, repeatedly, that I do not equate fringe theories with "nut cases" or "conspiracy theorists," and so on. It's not my fault that you chose to ignore my explicit statements in favor of a reading into my words.

Do you understand what ad hominem is? Surely you understand why this won't be addressed beyond that.

Enough of this indeed.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Peter Kirby

Merriam-Webster gives the definition of apologist as, "one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something," and apologetics as, "1: systematic argumentative discourse in defense (as of a doctrine) 2: a branch of theology devoted to the defense of the divine origin and authority of Christianity."

Bill Craig is, without doubt, a Christian apologist. I have actually written a lengthy reply to his essay for the historicity of the empty tomb. In it I refer to "the logical structure of Craig's apologetic," I say that "Craig writes as an apologist, I write as a skeptic," and I ask, "if Bultmann holds this opinion, why does he not believe it to provide the support that apologists see in it?" That is the extent of such references.

However, suppose that in the hundred or so times I refer to Craig, I often say "apologists like Craig" and "Craig makes the apologetic maneouver that," etc. I would be implicitly be making an ad hominem that one can discount what is said because it comes from an apologist and/or it is towards a conclusion that is congenial to Christianity. This is even though it is a fact that Craig is an apologist. (And "apologetics" does have negative connotations to many people; haven't you heard of phrases along the lines of "nothing more than apologetics"?)

That is what I understand Rick to have been saying, particularly when he uses the neo-con analogy. Some people defend the Christian faith, some people hold to neo-conservative politics, and some people research ideas that have very little acceptance in academia. It becomes an ad hominem to highlight these facts in order to discredit what their arguments say.

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto

I was not engaging in an argument where I tried to refute a statment by calling it apologetics or by referring to the person who made the argument as an apologist. This would have been ad hominem, as it addressed the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. It would also have been ineffective debating technique. I don't think that it matters whether there is one reference or many, if that is used as an argument. On the other hand, apologists do not see the word apologist as an insult. They wear it proudly, name their websites after it.

I was trying to explain why Doherty gave up debating Nomad, a self-described apologist, and why this did not mean that he lost the debate.

On the other hand, I think that even a single reference to someone as a "conspiracy theorist," a "fringe theorist," or the like can be not only an ad hominem, but an insult, depending on the context - and the context almost always indicates that it is an insult. The only exception I can think of is Michael Shermer's book on Borderland Science, which explores fringe sciences while treating them with some respect. When someone uses the term fringe theorist in the middle of describing cults or religious devotion to Doherty, I think the context is clear, and merely claiming that "of course, there's nothing necessarily wrong with fringe theories" does not clear the air.

I am tired of this topic. For my part, I will try to be especially careful in my use of words when discussing things with certain people.

Peter Kirby

I thought Doherty's exit had more to do with Nomad's harping on things that no scholar would do, such as Doherty providing his own English translations at times. This has no relevance since anyone can go look at the Greek and disagree with the way that Doherty interprets the passage. Scholars shouldn't be working off of translations, so this is actually a credit to Doherty unless it can be shown from the Greek that his readings are tendentious.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

A final note is that Rick's point was that he would not go about substituting "fringe theorist" for "mythicist."

best,
Peter Kirby

Metacrock

We can show it from the Greek, and he had the guy from Cambridge helping him.

Toto

He said He mischaracterized my use of the term apologist, I contend. I do know the difference between conservative arguments and apologetics, but I wonder if Rick really knows what apologetics is if he does not recognize that Nomad was in fact doing apologetics for his entire sojourn on this board (whatever he is doing now on ebla.)

Then, while he said that it would not be appropriate to replace "mythicist" with "fringe theorist", that it would be perfectly accurate.

Rick then went on in that post to claim that the term cult was perfectly appropriate for mythicists, and that some people who agree with Doherty are "Fundamentalist" about it. (A clear misuse of the term Fundamentalist, or else a clear misunderstanding of Doherty and other mythicists.)

Does this constitute slander of mythicists? It's worded so Rick can claim that not all mythicists are nutburgers, but he's certainly throwing around a lot of loaded and very unfriendly language.

In the Doherty-Trafford debate Doherty bows out after saying

Rick Sumner

No I didn't. What I stated was that whether it was appropriate or not for some mythicists was a matter of opinion. I also noted that it was idiomatic.

This isn't what I said either. What I said was "There are certainly people who adhere to Doherty's argument with all the tenacity and reason of a Fundamentalist."

Enough is enough. The steady stream of strawmen you have presented in attempting to define my position such that it agrees with your initial villification of me is wholly inappropriate. If you cannot deal with what is said, and cannot conduct conversation without flaming, then it is probably in everybody's best interests if we simply don't address each other in the future.

This has been nothing short of appalling. You have consistently failed to present my position in a manner even remotely resembling what I have said. You have, repeatedly, arbitrarily redefined it, and failed to read what is said even when it is stated explicitly. When challenged on your nonsensical attacks, you defend yourself with jabbering about not behaving as a "stalker."

If you can't defend what you say, don't say it at all. Again, your conduct here has been nothing short of appalling. Were it possible to ignore moderators, I assure you I would do so. This thread has been nothing but a steady string of invective and wholly unsupported, unevidenced and untrue personal attacks.

Regards,
Rick Sumner