OK, it seems very clear that you only see what you want to see. So let me help you see what you don’t:
“…I must altogether abandon the false opinion that the sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center of the world, and moves…”
“…I must not hold, defend, or teach in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing, the said false doctrine…”
“…suspected of heresy, that is to say, of having held and believed that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center and moves…”
“…with sincere heart and unfeigned faith I abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies,…”
So you see, you were wrong and Bertrand Russell was right, but I think it’s worse is that you can’t admit it.
Kable, what is the criterion of embarrassment? And what is my argument that using the criterion of embarrassment excuses one from accusations of mere cherry picking?
That’s what I’m chiefly interested in hearing back from you about right now. But as for the other points in your post:
Every reader can see I have provided conclusive proof that no special pleading has occurred on my part.
The probabilities range from, for some passages, a near 100% judgment amongst NT scholars to, for other passages, a practically unquestioned 0% amongst NT scholars.
Almost all of John is at or near the 0% level btw.
And finally: No, there is no wish-fulfilling supernatural entity, Jesus isn’t a “lord,” (did I mention I am a Christian anarchist? I don’t believe in the legitimacy of any authority. And this comes from the bible through the criterion of embarrassment again–many of the earliest, most embarrassing texts in Paul and the gospels are starkly anti-authoritarian) I would characterize Jesus as my savior, and it has been shown to you multiple times that “personal cherry picking” is not an accurate phrase. But for that, see the questions I opened up this post with.
I think you said it was: “The passages that would be more embarrassing to the original writers the ones most probably original.” I don’t think it escuses you from accusations of cherry picking, it’s just one of many ways in which you can dress up your cherry picking.
If you think so.
To prove your claim I bet you would have to cherry pick your cherry pick your NT scholars too.
Sure, like almost all of Matthew, Mark and Luke.
Cool, so why do you call yourself a Christian instead of something else? Do you think Jesus is the best philosopher or something from the ancient world?
Thank you, but, as I also said, I want to know whether you know what my argument is that it does excuse me from such accusations.
I call myself a Christian because, (again, as I said,) I think the resurrection of Jesus is a centrally important device for expressing things of ultimate importance and value.
As far as I can tell, you are not familiar with my argument. Look, to be honest, by this point, I am genuinely unsure whether you understand what special pleading is.
As for your other question it is not one I am ready to answer right now. I admit my thoughts about it are not articulate enough yet for me to commit anything to paper.
Sorry. If you want to use a “nose of the camel” approach to submit a thread that is a general bashing thread, then you are going to have such threads shut down. If you wish to discuss a topic, submit that topic. Threads do wander, but we get too many objections to hijacks that are really separate from the Original Post and we do not tolerate deliberate efforts to use one topic to introduce dozens of others. You do not “own” the thread. If you want a general bashing thread, (as long as it is not a mere rant), then open it. This thread had a topic and you do not get to pretend that your “liberal interpretation” allows you to override board protocol.
Discussions of Biblical Literalism are really separate from issues of abortion, homosexuality, etc. If you want to discuss those issues, open a new thread.
Any further effort to hijack this thread (or to continue your special pleading to hijack the thread) will get this thread closed.
Yet you will not tell us what you mean by “special pleading” and will not give your understanding of my argument that I’m not doing it.
Look, I’ll be even more blunt. It is manifestly clear that I am not committing an instance of special pleading. This is as clear as it is clear that the sun is shiny and hot. This isn’t a difference of opinion or one person defending himself against a relentlessly effective attack. This is you completely not knowing how to use a phrase correctly, and me talking around that fact with some misplaced kindness in my complex of motivations.
An accusation of special pleading was understandable (wrong but understandable) towards the beginning of our conversation. But at this point, for you to continue along that line, especially without answering my invitation to summarize what you think my argument is and show how it fails (and so, show that I am after all committing an instance of special pleading) is ludicrous. It is as though you are insisting my argument is a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. The claim is laughable enough on its face. But when you are kindly offered the chance to defend your view that my argument is a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, you won’t even characterize my argument, much less talk about peanut butter, jelly or sandwiches. Instead, you simply link to a picture of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.
Okay, you are asking me what makes me think it is true that “the resurrection of Jesus is a centrally important device for expressing things of ultimate importance and value.” But in order to tell you why I think it’s true, I have to explain to you in some detail what it means. And explaining the meaning of it in some detail is what I have already confessed I am not ready to do. My thoughts on the matter are not articulate enough to commit to paper.
I communicated the claim to you in order to explain the sense in which I rightly call myself a Christian despite my unorthodox views. But I did not commit to any defense of the claim. I wasn’t asked to do so, and beginning to do so was not the purpose for which I communicated the claim.
No that’s all just what you tell yourself. I think I have made it pretty clear that you were special pleading, however I can’t make you accept it. Excuses for such are endless. You know that whole thing about leading a horse to water… Also cognitive dissonance theory suggests that you will continue to reinterpret everything in a way that is pleasing with your views.
OK, I accept that you can neither support your statement as true, or explain what it means. I think that’s what some people would call a clue. Perhaps you should abandon your premise.
OK, I accept that you can not fully explain why you call yourself a Christian. Sounds to me like you are just emotionally attached to the term and a few of the stories.
You have claimed that I am special pleading, but have refused to support that claim, or even to explain it. You then go on to say you’ve “made it pretty clear” that I’m special pleading. Kable, you are terrible at this.
As to your argument that I should follow the clues and abandon my premise, this is roughly like telling a poet that, because she does not know how her next poem will turn out in the end, and instead has only a current vague intimation of it’s direction, she ought to abandon the writing of poetry.
This is another perfect example. I made an argument which shows that you are bad at this kind of discussion, and instead of answering the argument, you simply asserted the opposite of the conclusion. Demonstrating once again that you are bad at this.
Frylock you have demonstrated sufficiently that you just aren’t going to get it, so I’m not going to try and explain it to you any further. If you want to continue to deny that you are special pleading and rationalize why you think you are not that’s cool too, just don’t expect me to buy any of it.
I don’t know how serious you’re being here. You can’t explain it “any further” because you haven’t explained it even once. You’ve simply asserted it, and refused to justify it even in the face of counter-evidence.
Above I said I have no evidence you understand the material at wikipedia which you linked to about “special pleading,” and I also said I have no evidence that you understand my argument that I am not engaging in special pleading. Here I’ll add that I have no evidnence you understand what explaining is.
Yeah, I’ve seen a lot of assertions and foot stamping on special pleading by Kable in this thread: I can’t find any substantiation. It’s sort of like a parody of political TV chat shows, except a better comparison might be schoolyard arguments:
I mentioned a specific example in post 248. You will deny it of course, which you did then. That’s the neat thing about special pleading and denial, you can just continue to do it.
OK, but so what? You think I am looking for your approval or something? I got you to admit you doubt the divinity of Christ, and that you can’t articulate why you call yourself a Christian anyway. That’s enough for me.
)