$666 for contemporary evidence of Jesus - Split off
Posted on: February 13, 2008 - 7:20pm
Offline
$666 for contemporary evidence of Jesus - Split off
Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Considering I've been studying this subject for 9 years now, and am being peer reviewed for publication for the worlds top academic journal by the worlds leading theologian, I believe I have more authority than you do.
Which publication is "the worlds top academic journal"? Which scholar is "the worlds leading theologian"? When were these things decided, how and by whom?
"Any fool can make history, but it takes a genius to write it."
Oscar Wilde
- Login to post comments
Well it seems that you have assumed a tone that wasn't intended. No problem - these things happen pretty easily on the net.
That's all I'm suggesting.
It was a digression and I had no idea it would have generated more than a post or two in response. But point taken. There are some other issues in your last post that I could respond to and some points I could elaborate on, but in the interests of not hijacking I think I'll leave them to some other time. The status of Jesus the Apocalypcist probably deserves its own thread sometime, for example.
I thought that was so obviously a joke that it didn't need a smiley. Lighten up Rook. I'm trying my hardest to keep things civil and your over-defensiveness isn't helping.
I'm not entirely clear on what "claim" you're referring to. Since you seem to have objected pretty strongly to my reference to you being a polemicist/apologist, I'll assume that's the "claim" you mean. Come on Rook - is this something you'd get from a scholar or from a polemicist? "[S]preading the word of the Mythicist stance"? "[N]o longer will we stand idle and allow the false perception of a myth to be propogated as fact continue"? "These are your normal, everyday people, your teachers, your cab drivers, your parents, a sibling. Some of them are even peers of yours, or a scholar or professor who have long - too long - fit into the mold of trying to please the majority."?
When was the last time you heard a scholar couch their position in terms like that? That's the language of a polemicist, and a pretty damn passionate one at that.
So sorry, but it's that sort of stuff that leads me to see you as a polemicist (though in the technical sense of the term, since sometimes its misused as a perjorative). You can disagree with that opinion of mine if you like, but you can't say I've "crossed the line" simply by holding that opinion. In light of the polemical language above, I'd say it's a well-founded opinion or a fairly reasonable one to say the very least.
"Any fool can make history, but it takes a genius to write it."
Oscar Wilde
I am a polemic in the sense that I am trying to be educational and controversial (my position is naturally controversial), but an apologist? Come now, you are simply redefining terms here. I am not defending a position, but tearing one down. Gleason Archer is an apologist. I am a historian. Perhaps you have not read any of my recent blog articles, or perhaps you just stopped reading after that thread you linked to above. Whatever the case may be, there is a clear distinction between what I am and what Josh McDowell is, especially when it comes down to research.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
Love is defined as a chemical reaction in the body that is tied to memory. (Amnesia and Alzheimer patients lose the recognition of loved ones, and don't experience love for that person). However, love is a self-defined emotion.
In essence you are equating the existence of a common chemical reaction (emotion) to the possible existence of some figure.
Basically, your argument is this:
Pixies exist because you can't prove love exists.
(You may fall back to the softer position and simply claim that "like love, god can't be proven to exist" but by claiming that you know this quality of God you already assume god exists. How would you know God can't be proven to exist, if you can't show he exists at all; that he has that quality?
Its not very logically rigorous, I'm afraid.)
I believe it is called "argument ad ignoratium"
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov
Uhhhh. Kent Hovind is not now, nor has ever been a 'Doctor'... he has NO academic credentials what so ever and currently, is an inmate in a federal prison, thus showing that his theories on tax law are at least as valid as his views on biology and paleontolgy, and that he hasn't GOT a million dollars to hand out.
LC >;-}>
Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.