Discourse to the RRS regarding Tacitus
Offline The quote from Tacitus in question will be found below:
"But neither the aid of man, nor the liberality of the prince, nor the propitiations of the gods succeeded in destroying the belief that the fire had been purposely lit. In order to put an end to this rumor, therefore, Nero laid the blame on and visited with severe punishment those men, hateful for their crimes, whom the people called Christians. He from whom the name was derived, Christus, was put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, checked for a moment, broke out again, not only in Judea, the native land of the monstrosity, but also in Rome, to which all conceivable horrors and abominations flow from every side, and find supporters. First, therefore, those were arrested who openly confessed; then, on their information, a great number, who were not so much convicted of the fire as of hatred of the human race. Ridicule was passed on them as they died; so that, clothed in skins of beasts, they were torn to pieces by dogs, or crucified, or committed to the flames, and when the sun had gone down they were burned to light up the night. Nero had lent his garden for this spectacle, and gave games in the Circus, mixing with the people in the dress of a charioteer or standing in the chariot. Hence there was a strong sympathy for them, though they might have been guilty enough to deserve the severest punishment, on the ground that they were sacrificed, not to the general good, but to the cruelty of one man." (Annals XV, 44)
The following is the first claim by the RRS against Tacitus:
(1) It is extremely improbable that a special report found by Tacitus had been sent earlier to Rome and incorporated into the records of the Senate, in regard to the death of a Jewish provincial, Jesus. The execution of a Nazareth carpenter would have been one of the most insignificant events conceivable among the movements of Roman history in those decades; it would have completely disappeared beneath the innumerable executions inflicted by Roman provincial authorities. For it to have been kept in any report would have been a most remarkable instance of chance.
It should be noted that the quote above is complete assertion, and provides no evidence for support. It should also be noted that the assertion above screams an argument from silence, which is a logical fallacy, since the argument basis itself upon the absence of the purported Roman records which, like most ancient Roman records, could have been lost and/or destroyed by the ravages of time. That being said, I will list the 3 RRS claims in the assertion above:
1. "It is extremely improbable that a special report found by Tacitus had been sent earlier to Rome and incorporated into the records of the Senate, in regard to the death of a Jewish provincial, Jesus."
2. "The execution of a Nazareth carpenter would have been one of the most insignificant events conceivable among the movements of Roman history in those decades; it would have completely disappeared beneath the innumerable executions inflicted by Roman provincial authorities."
3. "For it to have been kept in any report would have been a most remarkable instance of chance."
Although there are 3 listed above, I will deal with # 2 for now.
The RRS asserts that "the execution of a Nazareth carpenter would have been one of the most insignificant events... ." This statement completely contradicts the RRS' position that Jesus never existed, otherwise how could Jesus be a "Nazareth carpenter?" If he never existed, he could hardly be a carpenter. Therefore, to claim this as a reason as to why the Roman authorities would not have any record of the execution of Jesus is ludicrous and completely self-defeating. Since we know that the only record of Jesus being a carpenter comes from the Holy Bible, and the RRS claims the Gospel record as a fabrication and Jesus did not exist, then to claim that the reason the Tacitus would not have read a previous record of the execution of Jesus is because he was an insignificant carpenter not worthy of note is very surprising and considerably amusing.
In order for the statement to be valid, the RRS must admit to the existence of Jesus. If not, then I will await their explanation as to why the RRS would use what they claim as a fabrication in the Gospel of Jesus being a carpenter to support their reasoning. The logical reasoning is completely invalidated, for you cannot use a a self-proclaimed fabrication to assert a possibility, truth, or a fact. If the Gospel record of Jesus being a carpenter is a fabrication as the RRS claims, then they cannot use a fabrication to quantify their reasoning as to why no Roman records existed for Tacitus to refer to. It is completely illogical. The following is an illustration of the faulty logic:
ASSERTIONS:
1. Jesus did not exist.
2. Jesus was a lowly Nazareth carpenter.
3. The Romans would not have kept a record of Jesus' execution because Jesus was a lowly Nazareth carpenter.
Question: If Jesus did not exist, how then could he be a Nazareth carpenter?
The logic simply falls apart under examination. If Jesus did not exist, he therefore could not be a Nazareth carpenter, and the RRS reasoning as to why no Roman records existed for Tacitus was because Jesus was a lowly Nazareth carpenter is logically invalidated. The only way to validate this argument is to admit that the lowly Nazareth carpenter existed, which subsequently would mean that Jesus must have existed.
If the RRS argues that "Assuming Jesus existed," then 'the execution of a Nazareth carpenter would have been one of the most insignificant events conceivable... ,'" then that assumption must come with evidence to support it. This means that in order to support the assumption, you must provide evidence to support the existence of Jesus.
Interesting twist, I must say. Either way you look at it, the argument is logically invalidated, and/or the assumption contradicts the RRS position of the non-existence of a historical Jesus.
In conclusion, according to the information available in # 1, the argument in its entirety is logically invalidated. The 3 claims I listed from the RRS in # 1 all depend on Jesus existing to be validated. Since the position of the RRS is that Jesus did not exist historically, then their argument in # 1 is logically and ideologically contradictory to their claims.
I now ask the RRS to respond to this argument before I continue through the rest of their claims against Tacitus.
Permanently banned
Before making assertions perhaps you should review more up-to-date material on this message board? Nobody here is currently making that claim, and in fact it is years old.
Tacitus is probably genuine, but it is irrelevant. It is more than likely Tacitus got his information from Pliny the Younger, a correspondent and friend of his. There were also Christians in Rome, so I see no reason why Tacitus wouldn't have been able to learn his information from hearsay both from his friend and the rumor mills on the streets. Especially since the time Tacitus wrote this in the 110's CE, two canonical Gospels had already been written, Marcion and many of his followers were already confronting the orthodoxy on their practices, and Luke-Acts was being written, while also refuting the dozens or more other noncanonical Gospels and Acts being circulated at the same time.
The distinction between Acts and Paul on Pauline theology and church theology alone is more then enough evidence to disregard the hearsay on Jesus during this period. Especially when examining the immense amount of mythmaking taking place.
----------------------------------------
Please help me get my resources so I can finish my book more quickly.
My wish list.
Et suppositio nil ponit in esse.
"You act ridiculously," said Ion, "to doubt everything. For my part, I should like to ask you what you say to those who free possessed men from their terrors by exorcising the spirits so manifestly. I need not discuss this: everyone knows about the Syrian from Palestine, the adept in it, how many he takes in hand who fall down in the light of the moon and roll their eyes and fill their mouths with foam; nevertheless, he restores them to health and sends them away normal in mind, delivering them from their straits for a large fee. When he stands beside them as they lie there and asks : 'Whence came you into his body?' the patient himself is silent, but the spirit answers in Greek or in the language of whatever foreign country he comes from, telling how and whence he entered into the man; whereupon, by adjuring the spirit and if he does not obey, threatening him, he drives him out. Indeed, I actually saw one coming out, black and smoky in color." "It is nothing much," I remarked," for you, Ion, to see that kind of sight, when even the 'forms' that the father of your school, Plato, points out are plain to you, a hazy object of vision to the rest of us, whose eyes are weak." - Lucian, Lover of Lies
On the contray, I took this evidence directly from this site, and which is found in your own post on this site at the following address:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rook_hawkins/the_jesus_mythicist_campaign/2901
Perhaps you forgot about it?
Permanently banned
I just told you it was outdated. Perhaps you don't read what people write to you? Check when that was posted.
----------------------------------------
Please help me get my resources so I can finish my book more quickly.
My wish list.
Et suppositio nil ponit in esse.
"You act ridiculously," said Ion, "to doubt everything. For my part, I should like to ask you what you say to those who free possessed men from their terrors by exorcising the spirits so manifestly. I need not discuss this: everyone knows about the Syrian from Palestine, the adept in it, how many he takes in hand who fall down in the light of the moon and roll their eyes and fill their mouths with foam; nevertheless, he restores them to health and sends them away normal in mind, delivering them from their straits for a large fee. When he stands beside them as they lie there and asks : 'Whence came you into his body?' the patient himself is silent, but the spirit answers in Greek or in the language of whatever foreign country he comes from, telling how and whence he entered into the man; whereupon, by adjuring the spirit and if he does not obey, threatening him, he drives him out. Indeed, I actually saw one coming out, black and smoky in color." "It is nothing much," I remarked," for you, Ion, to see that kind of sight, when even the 'forms' that the father of your school, Plato, points out are plain to you, a hazy object of vision to the rest of us, whose eyes are weak." - Lucian, Lover of Lies
Why is it irrelevant? Your position is that Jesus is not historically evidenced, yet you say the Tacitus quote is "probably genuine," and yet claim it as irrelevant?
How can it not be relevant if it is probably genuine? Are you doubting your position on the non-existence of Jesus?
Although we have evidence of the letters between Pliny and Tacitus, there is absolutely no evidence to support Pliny as being the one to educate Tacitus regarding Jesus, Christus, or whoever you want to call him.
Therefore, there is no reason to accept this argument.
Again, you have no more evidence to support Tacitus learning this from Christians than anybody else does of him learning it from some long lost Roman records. All is speculation, and all without evidence.
You must understand that without evidence your argument does not have any more weight or truthfulness than the one that claims Tacitus "could have gotten his information from Roman records."
Since we do not have complete records of any canonical Gospels in existence during the time of Tacitus, then again this must be regulated as speculation. I am of course aware of the GoJ parchment, as well as other evidence, but parchments and fragmented quotes of Gospel entries do not qualify that they came from the current canons. They only point to a possibility, but certainly not a certainty.
In other words, I can accept that some Gospels were in existence, but to say that the ones in existence included the current canon is quite presumptious.
Also, what evidence can you present for Luke-Acts being written during the 110s? Internal evidence clearly shows it was being written decades before. Here, let me show you:
And when we came into Rome, the centurion delivered the prisoners to the camp commander. But Paul was allowed to dwell by himself, with a soldier guarding him.
You can see by the use of "we" above that the author was claiming to be with Paul during Paul's lifetime, sometime before the temple destruction, at around AD58. According to your position, it would mean that the author was writing Acts some 50 -60 years later. This would be unlikely given the age of the person who was with Paul during Paul's lifetime.
Acts contains evidence of a 1st person narrative in many places, indicating that whoever was writing it traveled with Paul during the mid 1st century. If we reasonably conclude that the person was a mere 25 years old in AD58, it would put him in his 80s to be writing Acts sometime in the AD 110 - 115.
It would also be very unlikely that a younger person writing Acts could get away with using a 1st person narrative during the AD 110s-120s while creating a complete fabrication. It would be rather obvious to his peers that he was lying due to his age.
Therefore, I must respectfully disagree with your dating of Acts, and side with the scholars regarding a date of circa AD70.
I am willing, howewver, to entertain the notion that Acts was redacted during the 110s - 120s.
I have no argument against the war between the Gospels, as that is clearly evidenced by the Gnostics, Nazarenes, and other followers of Jesus.
What church theology are you refering to? Could you be speaking of the Nazorenes as being the church in Jerusalem? If so, I agree, the difference between the apostles theology and Paul is obvious to even a moderate student. This is precisely why there was friction between them, and why Paul was shunned.
Act 28:16
Permanently banned
Then what is it doing on your site if its outdated? Why is it still there representing your views? It was written 18 months ago, with no links to any update.
What are people supposed to do when no message about it being outdated is published? And why is your website still publishing it if it does not represent your views?
Do not blame people for getting confused when the author of confusion is your own website.
Blame yourself, no one else.
Permanently banned
They are supposed to be diligent enough as adults to stop waiting for people to give them answers and take responsibility to search the sight thoroughly enough to see if they have had their positions already answered. Adults, responsible ones, do this daily with everything in their lives, but as soon as they come to a message board, it seems, they instantly become intellectually lazy. There is a reason why we have a "google search" option on the left hand side of the website.
However, you are right I should post a disclaimer here. I do not remove old posts, because I feel that people have a right to see what I have posted in the past, even if I stand corrected on something, or update it. It is for the benefit of being open and honest, so people do not question my integrity (although it inevitably happens that the occasional nitwit will come on here and do so, often ignorantly).
I trust in the rest of your endeavors on this site you'll be goodly enough to look before you leap, and in turn you'll gain more respect around here.
Regards.
----------------------------------------
Please help me get my resources so I can finish my book more quickly.
My wish list.
Et suppositio nil ponit in esse.
"You act ridiculously," said Ion, "to doubt everything. For my part, I should like to ask you what you say to those who free possessed men from their terrors by exorcising the spirits so manifestly. I need not discuss this: everyone knows about the Syrian from Palestine, the adept in it, how many he takes in hand who fall down in the light of the moon and roll their eyes and fill their mouths with foam; nevertheless, he restores them to health and sends them away normal in mind, delivering them from their straits for a large fee. When he stands beside them as they lie there and asks : 'Whence came you into his body?' the patient himself is silent, but the spirit answers in Greek or in the language of whatever foreign country he comes from, telling how and whence he entered into the man; whereupon, by adjuring the spirit and if he does not obey, threatening him, he drives him out. Indeed, I actually saw one coming out, black and smoky in color." "It is nothing much," I remarked," for you, Ion, to see that kind of sight, when even the 'forms' that the father of your school, Plato, points out are plain to you, a hazy object of vision to the rest of us, whose eyes are weak." - Lucian, Lover of Lies
Perhaps if you understood that I did look for an update to your Tacitus argument and was unable to locate any update to it.
Please direct me to the latest update on your Tacitus argument.
Thank you.
Permanently banned
Again, I already posted the new position I hold on Tacitus above, in my original post to you.
----------------------------------------
Please help me get my resources so I can finish my book more quickly.
My wish list.
Et suppositio nil ponit in esse.
"You act ridiculously," said Ion, "to doubt everything. For my part, I should like to ask you what you say to those who free possessed men from their terrors by exorcising the spirits so manifestly. I need not discuss this: everyone knows about the Syrian from Palestine, the adept in it, how many he takes in hand who fall down in the light of the moon and roll their eyes and fill their mouths with foam; nevertheless, he restores them to health and sends them away normal in mind, delivering them from their straits for a large fee. When he stands beside them as they lie there and asks : 'Whence came you into his body?' the patient himself is silent, but the spirit answers in Greek or in the language of whatever foreign country he comes from, telling how and whence he entered into the man; whereupon, by adjuring the spirit and if he does not obey, threatening him, he drives him out. Indeed, I actually saw one coming out, black and smoky in color." "It is nothing much," I remarked," for you, Ion, to see that kind of sight, when even the 'forms' that the father of your school, Plato, points out are plain to you, a hazy object of vision to the rest of us, whose eyes are weak." - Lucian, Lover of Lies
Also, to my disadvantage, I cannot post a disclaimer on that nor can I delete the thread, as for some reason my mod abilities do not reflect well on threads that existed two or three updates ago. I do not know why, there seems to be a glitch. This is the update I would have posted, however, and will post when the glitch is fixed:
Before reading this list, one should read the first post in this thread and review my blog for additional details. Much of this information is years old (some of it as old as 6 years) and is in desperate need of revisions. Many revisions have already been made, so please read my blog for more information and see the above post for additional off-site links to revisions to many positions discussed here. [4/22/2008]
----------------------------------------
Please help me get my resources so I can finish my book more quickly.
My wish list.
Et suppositio nil ponit in esse.
"You act ridiculously," said Ion, "to doubt everything. For my part, I should like to ask you what you say to those who free possessed men from their terrors by exorcising the spirits so manifestly. I need not discuss this: everyone knows about the Syrian from Palestine, the adept in it, how many he takes in hand who fall down in the light of the moon and roll their eyes and fill their mouths with foam; nevertheless, he restores them to health and sends them away normal in mind, delivering them from their straits for a large fee. When he stands beside them as they lie there and asks : 'Whence came you into his body?' the patient himself is silent, but the spirit answers in Greek or in the language of whatever foreign country he comes from, telling how and whence he entered into the man; whereupon, by adjuring the spirit and if he does not obey, threatening him, he drives him out. Indeed, I actually saw one coming out, black and smoky in color." "It is nothing much," I remarked," for you, Ion, to see that kind of sight, when even the 'forms' that the father of your school, Plato, points out are plain to you, a hazy object of vision to the rest of us, whose eyes are weak." - Lucian, Lover of Lies
Okay, I have responded to that position and await your response.
Permanently banned
No problem, I accept your explanation and understand. Hope you get the glitch fixed soon so this problem does not continue. I could see how it could get frustrating explaining these things over and over to new people who come on board.
I wish you well, and good luck.
Permanently banned
It is as irrelevant as the Parium Marble, in that just because it says a legendary character lived or event happened does not make it so. I am not holding to different standards here, and am applying criticism to everything equally. I give my reasons below for not accepting this evidence as reputable.
No, I am not doubting it. It is just not a reputable representation of what would be required for historical evidence of a historical Jesus. This is also in light of the compendium of evidence, when viewed in its cumulative whole.
So where do you propose he received his information? It is not speculative to suggest that Pliny didn't communicate this, especially considering they were good friends and were communicating at this juncture in time. I see no reason to doubt this conclusion, as Pliny obviously communicated with others about his experience with Christians.
Claiming speculation and not giving an additional explanation does not suffice for a dismissal. You'll have to do better than this to show my hypothesis is incorrect.
Considering Tacitus usually cites his sources, I find it dubious that you would suggest this. Why does no other Christian write of these records or make mention of them? Why do they, in turn, only go back to the various Gospels and Acts, and later on, Josephus and the early church fathers? Why not the Roman records? This is a rather silly argument.
There is evidence of correspondence between Pliny and Tacitus, and that they were good friends. There is no evidence of Roman records. SO far, my explanation is statistically more probable than yours.
Why do you suppose that manuscript fragments are the only evidence for dating the Gospels? This is a little naive of you. The Gospels themselves, particularly Luke-Acts, give us some very good indications of when they were written. Since Luke-Acts took information and replicated them in its own form, means and narrative, the conclusion is adequate that Mark and Matthew came before it. Please review any modern scholarship on the dating of the Gospels and the intertextuality between them.
Not really. Especially considering the narrative reworking. I suggest you spend some time reading my article on Languages and Dating. I would admit that the form in which the canonical Gospels exist in today may not have reflected the Gospels in their entirety during the period in question.
Survey says...Oh wrong, sorry. The author of Luke-Acts clearly was not with Paul when he was alive. The author of Luke-Acts switches from first-third person because of what the authors intent was. You cannot take a Gospel at face value. I suggest you read modern criticisms for the dating of Luke-Acts. Start with Joseph B. Tyson and Richard I. Pervo. When you read them, and can adequately refute their positions, I will accept your conclusion here. However no adequate refutation exists in written form against their conclusions, which are now a year old.
Again, you're being naive. The Homeric epics show signs of first person narration as well. But the accounts were written hundreds of years after the period they are describing. You cannot take ancient literature at face value like this. You have to first understand intent, and from there make your judgments. Currently you're taking intent for granted.
That's silly. I suggest you research the Second Sophistic, please. Also consider how many pseudonymous Gospels and Acts exist written by people long after the death of those the works are ascribed to, in many cases hundreds of years later, and they were considered "canonical" by many Christians. Do you really think you have an adequate argument while not knowing any of this?
You can disagree, but your evidence is lacking, your conclusions are false, and your logic is based on ignorance and poor research. So currently you're not doing too well. Hopefully you'll read up a bit more before the next round?
Assuming the whole case in point. Do not do that. You have yet to prove a historical Jesus.
Paul isn't shunned. Paul shuns them. Read Galatians. Acts is clearly a late fiction, you cannot trust it.
----------------------------------------
Please help me get my resources so I can finish my book more quickly.
My wish list.
Et suppositio nil ponit in esse.
"You act ridiculously," said Ion, "to doubt everything. For my part, I should like to ask you what you say to those who free possessed men from their terrors by exorcising the spirits so manifestly. I need not discuss this: everyone knows about the Syrian from Palestine, the adept in it, how many he takes in hand who fall down in the light of the moon and roll their eyes and fill their mouths with foam; nevertheless, he restores them to health and sends them away normal in mind, delivering them from their straits for a large fee. When he stands beside them as they lie there and asks : 'Whence came you into his body?' the patient himself is silent, but the spirit answers in Greek or in the language of whatever foreign country he comes from, telling how and whence he entered into the man; whereupon, by adjuring the spirit and if he does not obey, threatening him, he drives him out. Indeed, I actually saw one coming out, black and smoky in color." "It is nothing much," I remarked," for you, Ion, to see that kind of sight, when even the 'forms' that the father of your school, Plato, points out are plain to you, a hazy object of vision to the rest of us, whose eyes are weak." - Lucian, Lover of Lies
It can be. I respect your understanding and appreciate it.
I like you, you seem honest. Please stay around. I hope we can continue this discussion as civilly as we have been. I ask you do not take my blunt responses for rudeness, I'm just short on time often and like to keep my replies short, unless I feel a real need to go into detail. (However, that is really what my blog is for)
Regards.
----------------------------------------
Please help me get my resources so I can finish my book more quickly.
My wish list.
Et suppositio nil ponit in esse.
"You act ridiculously," said Ion, "to doubt everything. For my part, I should like to ask you what you say to those who free possessed men from their terrors by exorcising the spirits so manifestly. I need not discuss this: everyone knows about the Syrian from Palestine, the adept in it, how many he takes in hand who fall down in the light of the moon and roll their eyes and fill their mouths with foam; nevertheless, he restores them to health and sends them away normal in mind, delivering them from their straits for a large fee. When he stands beside them as they lie there and asks : 'Whence came you into his body?' the patient himself is silent, but the spirit answers in Greek or in the language of whatever foreign country he comes from, telling how and whence he entered into the man; whereupon, by adjuring the spirit and if he does not obey, threatening him, he drives him out. Indeed, I actually saw one coming out, black and smoky in color." "It is nothing much," I remarked," for you, Ion, to see that kind of sight, when even the 'forms' that the father of your school, Plato, points out are plain to you, a hazy object of vision to the rest of us, whose eyes are weak." - Lucian, Lover of Lies
The questions you will see from me are logical questions; ones which you will face from people far greater than myself if you enter the scholarly world. Do not become offended at these questions, nor with me personally. If you cannot answer them, simply reconsider the validity of your argument and dismiss it if necessary. It is pointless to hold onto an argument if it cannot be supported, and it is also intellectual suicide to hold onto frivolous arguments in the scholarly world.
My aim here is not to point my finger and laugh at you, but to provide solid counter-arguments against your position for the purpose of approximating the truth. You need these type of arguments to help you identify the strengths and weaknesses in your position, and you need these kinds of arguments from someone with a clue.
I have a clue.
Therefore, let's take a look at what you are saying.
By using the same method of argument as you use above, we can equally say that because it says Jesus lived, then we have been given no reason to believe he didn't. Let us use some logic in assessing the text according to your argument.
The Tacitus text claims that a man named Christus, understood as Jesus, lived and was executed by Pontius Pilate. What reason do we have for doubting this claim? In order to even substantiate doubt, we must have reason. You have said you will give your reasoning below. Fair enough, now let us explore those reasons.
You have asserted that the Tacitus text is not a reputable representation of what would be required for historical evidence of a historical Jesus. Yet, you have not explained why. We are not dealing with a compendium of evidence when viewed in any cumulative whole, but only with the Tacitus text.
You must now provide arguments backed with evidence to support your position that the Tacitus text is not a reputable representation.
(Please understand that my questions may seem like demands, but on the contrary they are designed to really make you examine the validity of your arguments. This exercise will make you far stronger.)
I do not propose that Tacitus got his information from any specific source, because no evidence exists to support any assumption. It is in fact speculative to suggest Pliny as being the one to educate Tacitus because you have not provided evidence to support the claim. Your assertion that just because Tacitus and Pliny were good friends who communicated indicates that it is possible Pliny educated Tacitus can only be seen as a possibility, but without support.
You must understand that if you claim Pliny as the one who educated Tacitus, then you are claiming that Tacitus received his information about Christ from a Roman authority. Pliny was the governor of Bithynia-Pontus, and was also very active in the Roman legal system. He was known for prosecuting at the trials of many provincial governors, as well as presiding over the trials of early Christians and other trouble-makers.
Therefore, you must understand that if you are arguing for Pliny as being the one to educate Tacitus, then you are arguing that Tacitus got his information about the prosecution and execution of Jesus from an expert in Roman law, who would undoubtedly be educated in Roman legal history, which would include any history of the execution of Jesus by Pilate.
Do you now understand the problem with your argument? As you can see, it can be completely used against you, and supported with evidence.
Do not be angry, but instead take what you can get from this argument and, as I said previously, re-examine the validity of your arguments. You will realize soon that despite my knowledge on the subject of the historicity of Jesus, my knowledge is not why I am here.
I can see that smile on your face from here. You've figured out what I'm doing. Let's continue.
In the scholarly world, you must understand that speculation is left in the dust if not supported with additional evidence. Let me give you an example of exactly what I am trying to convey.
Subject 1: "Albert Einstein was a closet homosexual with a fetish for ladies underwear."
Subject 2: "How do you know this?"
Subject 1: "I just know, and I don't have to explain how."
Subject 2: "Yeah ... okay. See ya."
Your argument is not all that dissimilar from the argument above. It's considered baseless assertion, and the value of the assertion will be minimal, and over time it will be forgotten due to the fact that it has no support. Like the argument above, your argument will face ridiculing in the forum of scholarly review.
I suggest that you do not present any argument that does not have a good degree of support. Your reply to me above does nothing to negate my quoted statement, as my quoted statement remains valid due to the fact that you did not contest it with evidence.
Understand that evidence is God in the scholarly world, while talk is cheap. No evidence = no point. It's that simple. It's that cut and dry. Therefore, you must present evidence to support your claim, or abandon the claim for the sake of credulity.
Rook you will never get another chance to gain credulity if you screw up on your first book. If you present arguments like this in your book, you may never get published again. I'm not kidding you one iota. If you wish to be a serious author, then take serious critiques from people with a clue. Take them to heart. Grit your teeth, bite down hard, and take the full blunt at this point in time, because it's far better you take it now and make adjustments, then take it later and never get a 2ND chance.
This only a web forum, it is not your life. Here, you can make changes to your arguments, but once they are etched in stone in your book, well ... they are etched in stone.
I will return again to complete this argument.
Have yourself a good night, and always remember to doubt yourself. Challenge your ideas and beliefs completely. It's okay to be wrong and correct yourself, but its never okay to know you are wrong and do nothing about it.
Take that advice from someone who has been wrong far more often than anyone else I know.
Good night.
Permanently banned
Geezz, THANKS, both of you for caring and sharing , really ... (feels good)