Nature’s first green is gold,
Her hardest hue to hold.
Her early leaf’s a flower;
But only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief,
So dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.
Let’s keep Dr. Ehrman’s wonderful forum golden. I promise not to say anything more unless it adds meaningfully to the subject. (No more personal comments!)
magpie said
Spiker, just a play on words. With age I have become more rounded than oblong in body shape. My corners are rounded out. Naught more than that. Greg probably retains his trim physique, I alas, do not.
Yea, Mags
I suspected as much but still wasn’t quite sure of your point. And me too! If you’re a mythicist, It would be great to hear an actual argument; something mythicists avoid like maryhelena avoids lucid thought. Do I really need to wait for The Price/Ehrman debate to hear something resembling evidence? My expectations right now are a bit low. While Price is a gifted and intelligent thinker, orator and writer the few arguments I’ve heard him make aren’t particularly compelling ( This may have been more a matter of setting: One may say all sorts of things with friends that may or may not be true. In an effort to impress each other or just a bit of trash talk)
So Price could easily beat the expectations.
spiker said
magpie said
Spiker, just a play on words. With age I have become more rounded than oblong in body shape. My corners are rounded out. Naught more than that. Greg probably retains his trim physique, I alas, do not.Yea, Mags
I suspected as much but still wasn’t quite sure of your point. And me too! If you’re a mythicist, It would be great to hear an actual argument; something mythicists avoid like maryhelena avoids lucid thought. Do I really need to wait for The Price/Ehrman debate to hear something resembling evidence? My expectations right now are a bit low. While Price is a gifted and intelligent thinker, orator and writer the few arguments I’ve heard him make aren’t particularly compelling ( This may have been more a matter of setting: One may say all sorts of things with friends that may or may not be true. In an effort to impress each other or just a bit of trash talk)
So Price could easily beat the expectations.
”…..maryhelena avoids lucid thought”.
So – now it’s on to ad hominem…
spiker, learn to play the ball and not the man….
Mags: QED Re: the whole lucid thinking avoidance
Either Maryhelena is confessing she is actually a man, indicating she likes to be dribbled or trying to make some sort of sports analogy. But in sports you play the other team and not their balls. And then there’s the whole ad hominem imbroglio, a classic maryhelena fumble
maryhelena said
spiker, learn to play the ball and not the man….
spiker said
Mags: QED Re: the whole lucid thinking avoidanceEither Maryhelena is confessing she is actually a man, indicating she likes to be dribbled or trying to make some sort of sports analogy. But in sports you play the other team and not their balls. And then there’s the whole ad hominem imbroglio, a classic maryhelena fumble
maryhelena said
spiker, learn to play the ball and not the man….
Goodness me – where have all the gentlemen gone….gone to graveyards every one…..??
spiker – when will you ever learn……?
Spiker, I am just an atheist through and through, I tend to think that there was an historical Jesus but I am more curious about how the religion got started and carried forward over time. I have not put in the time studying the documentation that others here have, including Maryhelena. I think she puts forth some interesting evidence that points up possible cultural history that might or might not have influenced the early purveyors of Christianity. At the moment I give the most weight to Dr. Erhman’s conclusions because of the depth of his scholarship. Maryhelena has obviously put in a lot of time and energy into her viewpoint also. I have not made a study of mythicists, just casual acquaintance at best. I do strongly disagree with Carrier though, because he misapplies Bayesian logic. The conditional probability to which it does apply is quantitative only. To use it for qualitative measures is only as good as the utterly subjective judgement the Carrier feeds into the formula. In other words, he makes say what he wants it to.
i agree with Judith that this current exchange has become abusive in nature rather than good natured bantering. Let us agree that you and Maryhelena disagree and leave it at that.
magpie said
Spiker, I am just an atheist through and through, I tend to think that there was an historical Jesus but I am more curious about how the religion got started and carried forward over time. I have not put in the time studying the documentation that others here have, including Maryhelena. I think she puts forth some interesting evidence that points up possible cultural history that might or might not have influenced the early purveyors of Christianity. At the moment I give the most weight to Dr. Erhman’s conclusions because of the depth of his scholarship. Maryhelena has obviously put in a lot of time and energy into her viewpoint also. I have not made a study of mythicists, just casual acquaintance at best. I do strongly disagree with Carrier though, because he misapplies Bayesian logic. The conditional probability to which it does apply is quantitative only. To use it for qualitative measures is only as good as the utterly subjective judgement the Carrier feeds into the formula. In other words, he makes say what he wants it to.i agree with Judith that this current exchange has become abusive in nature rather than good natured bantering. Let us agree that you and Maryhelena disagree and leave it at that.
Wise lady, magpie…..
(and for the record – I strongly disagree with Carrier also…..)
magpie said
Spiker, I am just an atheist through and through, I tend to think that there was an historical Jesus but I am more curious about how the religion got started and carried forward over time. I have not put in the time studying the documentation that others here have, including Maryhelena. I think she puts forth some interesting evidence that points up possible cultural history that might or might not have influenced the early purveyors of Christianity. At the moment I give the most weight to Dr. Erhman’s conclusions because of the depth of his scholarship. Maryhelena has obviously put in a lot of time and energy into her viewpoint also. I have not made a study of mythicists, just casual acquaintance at best. I do strongly disagree with Carrier though, because he misapplies Bayesian logic. The conditional probability to which it does apply is quantitative only. To use it for qualitative measures is only as good as the utterly subjective judgement the Carrier feeds into the formula. In other words, he makes say what he wants it to.i agree with Judith that this current exchange has become abusive in nature rather than good natured bantering. Let us agree that you and Maryhelena disagree and leave it at that.
Apologies Mags,
That’s an interesting point about Bayesian logic. I am still looking for a Dummies book on that. As to Atheism,we’re cousins, I guess. Were you always an atheist?
The issue was never will we agree. I don’t really care if she agrees. But offering an actual argument would be nice. Yet when rhetorical flourishes replace evidence in an argument, sometimes you can get people to actually use evidence by pushing them a bit. Consider, you often hear Justices on the Supreme Court responding with sarcasm and ridicule to the attorneys before them. Are you going to describe that process as abusive. Also when people aren’t putting forward a serious argument, pushing them a bit can make them get serious. It would be real easy to shut me up if she knew what she was talking about. Rhetorical flourishes aren’t evidence. See I can attach “its an idea whose time has come” to any proposition like, a flat earth is an idea whose time has come and make it sound important or It’s time to let the genie out of the bottle and admit we have a flat earth! Or how about a flat earth is reflected in modern cartography? What do such statements mean? Is there actually evidence for such claims or just rhetoric in the place of evidence?
However, if you ladies (meaning yourself and Judith) feel, I’m wrong here, I will abide by your ruling.
spiker said
magpie said
Spiker, I am just an atheist through and through, I tend to think that there was an historical Jesus but I am more curious about how the religion got started and carried forward over time. I have not put in the time studying the documentation that others here have, including Maryhelena. I think she puts forth some interesting evidence that points up possible cultural history that might or might not have influenced the early purveyors of Christianity. At the moment I give the most weight to Dr. Erhman’s conclusions because of the depth of his scholarship. Maryhelena has obviously put in a lot of time and energy into her viewpoint also. I have not made a study of mythicists, just casual acquaintance at best. I do strongly disagree with Carrier though, because he misapplies Bayesian logic. The conditional probability to which it does apply is quantitative only. To use it for qualitative measures is only as good as the utterly subjective judgement the Carrier feeds into the formula. In other words, he makes say what he wants it to.i agree with Judith that this current exchange has become abusive in nature rather than good natured bantering. Let us agree that you and Maryhelena disagree and leave it at that.
Apologies Mags,
That’s an interesting point about Bayesian logic. I am still looking for a Dummies book on that. As to Atheism,we’re cousins, I guess. Were you always an atheist?
The issue was never will we agree. I don’t really care if she agrees. But offering an actual argument would be nice. Yet when rhetorical flourishes replace evidence in an argument, sometimes you can get people to actually use evidence by pushing them a bit. Consider, you often hear Justices on the Supreme Court responding with sarcasm and ridicule to the attorneys before them. Are you going to describe that process as abusive. Also when people aren’t putting forward a serious argument, pushing them a bit can make them get serious. It would be real easy to shut me up if she knew what she was talking about. Rhetorical flourishes aren’t evidence. See I can attach “its an idea whose time has come” to any proposition like, a flat earth is an idea whose time has come and make it sound important or It’s time to let the genie out of the bottle and admit we have a flat earth! Or how about a flat earth is reflected in modern cartography? What do such statements mean? Is there actually evidence for such claims or just rhetoric in the place of evidence?
However, if you ladies (meaning yourself and Judith) feel, I’m wrong here, I will abide by your ruling.
Just curious and want to know, having never blogged except here:
Is contributing a mere comment simply not done and those of us who do it should stop? Is it essential that whatever we offer be an actual/serious argument as stated above?
Judith said
Just curious and want to know, having never blogged except here:
Is contributing a mere comment simply not done and those of us who do it should stop? Is it essential that whatever we offer be an actual/serious argument as stated above?
Judith, comments are always welcome on a forum. Serious arguments are few and far between – especially so on this forum which seems to be in danger of become a fan club for Bart Ehrman. Scholarship does not require that approach – as Ehrman, I’m sure, would not be impressed to find his views given special status…..i.e. his views are welcome but they are not sacrosanct …..Sure, its interesting to follow Bart’s scholarship – not forgetting that there are other scholars worth reading as well.
Knowledge is not static. All of use need to keep awareness of that simple fact in mind….
Judith said
Also, it would be good to know The Forum Rules. When trying to find them, Rules for the Forum takes me to “Please Read This Before Starting”. Clicking on that does not take me to wherever those rules are. Can someone tell me how to get there?
I gave up trying to find the elusive forum rules…..
maryhelena said
Judith said
Just curious and want to know, having never blogged except here:
Is contributing a mere comment simply not done and those of us who do it should stop? Is it essential that whatever we offer be an actual/serious argument as stated above?
Judith, comments are always welcome on a forum. Serious arguments are few and far between – especially so on this forum which seems to be in danger of become a fan club for Bart Ehrman. Scholarship does not require that approach – as Ehrman, I’m sure, would not be impressed to find his views given special status…..i.e. his views are welcome but they are not sacrosanct …..Sure, its interesting to follow Bart’s scholarship – not forgetting that there are other scholars worth reading as well.
Knowledge is not static. All of use need to keep awareness of that simple fact in mind….
Interesting debate. I became fed up with the tribalism and one-eyed hero worship of some posters on the ‘Comment is Free’ website operated by the Guardian in the UK so I set up my own blog (www.boltonian.edublogs.org) where courtesy was a sine qua non. The adversarial nature of the discussions on CiF was particularly noticeable in these sorts of debates – on the origins and validity of religion in general and Christianity in particular. As this is an area of interest for me it became the source of some of the most rewarding threads on ‘boltonian.’ However, after a few years, it was obvious that the same few posters were contributing to each discussion (we even met once a year or so in London) and we weren’t getting any new blood onto the blog, so it sort of died a natural death. It still exists so please take a look and tell me if you think I should put some effort into reviving it – happy to do so if people will contribute. I concluded that most people actually enjoyed the vitriol and insults that tribalism encourages and that civilised and respectful discussion eventually becomes anodyne. I would be interested in your views.
Boltonian said
maryhelena said
Judith said
Just curious and want to know, having never blogged except here:
Is contributing a mere comment simply not done and those of us who do it should stop? Is it essential that whatever we offer be an actual/serious argument as stated above?
Judith, comments are always welcome on a forum. Serious arguments are few and far between – especially so on this forum which seems to be in danger of become a fan club for Bart Ehrman. Scholarship does not require that approach – as Ehrman, I’m sure, would not be impressed to find his views given special status…..i.e. his views are welcome but they are not sacrosanct …..Sure, its interesting to follow Bart’s scholarship – not forgetting that there are other scholars worth reading as well.
Knowledge is not static. All of use need to keep awareness of that simple fact in mind….
Interesting debate. I became fed up with the tribalism and one-eyed hero worship of some posters on the ‘Comment is Free’ website operated by the Guardian in the UK so I set up my own blog (www.boltonian.edublogs.org) where courtesy was a sine qua non. The adversarial nature of the discussions on CiF was particularly noticeable in these sorts of debates – on the origins and validity of religion in general and Christianity in particular. As this is an area of interest for me it became the source of some of the most rewarding threads on ‘boltonian.’ However, after a few years, it was obvious that the same few posters were contributing to each discussion (we even met once a year or so in London) and we weren’t getting any new blood onto the blog, so it sort of died a natural death. It still exists so please take a look and tell me if you think I should put some effort into reviving it – happy to do so if people will contribute. I concluded that most people actually enjoyed the vitriol and insults that tribalism encourages and that civilised and respectful discussion eventually becomes anodyne. I would be interested in your views.
I had a look at your blog. Probably a great idea at the time if you were able to take a few of your Guardian contacts along with you – with the idea of developing a sort of online social-club to discuss whatever ideas that you, and they, found of interest. This type of blog, without new blood, does seem to eventually run it’s course. Anyway, I’m sure that it was enjoyable while it was running…
I really don’t know anything about running a blog i.e. how to get new blood, new ‘visitors’ etc. Maybe the social club type blog is just not sustainable in the long term. Perhaps people want the wider audience of a Guardian type situation. i.e. public verse private outlet for their comments. A more hit and run type of commenting rather than having to support their arguments….
Yes, great to have gone the way of requiring good manners…..Unfortunately, good manners are hard to come by on internet forums. A certain amount of give and take can spice up a debate but when things get personal then unpleasantness rears it’s head. And yes – this forum has not been immune…..
Judith said
This is not the place (Paul Crucified Jesus Topic) but could a special topic for ways to keep The Forum good be set up to try to provide a guideline for maintaining civility and respect for one another? Or is that too idealistic?
I’m sure Bart has a set of rules somewhere….
The problem with rules is that they need someone to enforce them. Usually a forum will have a moderator to step in when a poster is played rather than the ball. If there is no moderator, as seems to be the case with this forum, they any ‘policing’ that needs to be done should be on the shoulders of everyone on the forum. i.e. uncivil behavior should be addressed rather than let slide.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
2 Guest(s)