Paul's Writings Underpin Western Thought

[Amarok]

Nope you must have read a different comment then the one she wrote because that's not her central argument . And even if it was their is no contradiction between  accepting the scholarly consensus when they are right about something and accepting Carrier is more correct then the consensus .Once again you prove you have no horse in this race .

[RoadRunner79]

Nope you must have read a different comment then the one she wrote because that's not her central argument . And even if it was their is no contradiction between  accepting the scholarly consensus when they are right about something and accepting Carrier is more correct then the consensus .Once again you prove you have no horse in this race .

It seemed that she was arguing that you don't need to know why, just accept the consensus.  What you are saying here, sounds similar to what I said.  We agree!  You should go with whomever give the better reasons, even if that goes against the current consensus.  That is all that I have been saying.  If you don't have any information, then perhaps you would just go with the popular opinion.  However, when there is reasons against that opinion, then it doesn't get a pass, just because of popularity or authority.   It needs to have a foundation to support it, more than this.

[Amarok]

She said nothing of the kind and another block of text that does not counter my point.

[RoadRunner79]

She said nothing of the kind and another block of text that does not counter my point.

So you agree with me then!   And if I misunderstood, that is fine.... I can admit that I am wrong.   However that brings me back to my question of why?

[Amarok]

You have used a great many words to say nothing at all

[RoadRunner79]

Seems that you have difficulty understanding English : 

And I figure that you don't care about evidence or reason.   You're not interested in discussion. It seems that for you it is mostly based on the conclusion, which is why you constantly attack the person and the source; rather than arguments. It's why you declare victory, before (or usually without) argument. It why with Henry recently, even when shown directly that you where wrong, that you cannot admit it. I mostly reply to you for others, who wish to think critically.

[Amarok]

Seems that you have difficulty understanding English :  

Nope i understand English fine 

And I figure that you don't care about evidence or reason

Yes i do too bad you never provide any just apologist bunkum 

 You're not interested in discussion. 

Lol the irony .Your not interested in discussion your interested in apologetics

It seems that for you it is mostly based on the conclusion,[size=small]which is why you constantly attack the person and the source; rather than arguments.

If only there were any real arguments and yes i attack the person as there is nothing else to attack your comments are definition of apologist vapidity  

  It's why you declare victory, before (or usually without) argument.

I declare victory because you come to sword fight wielding a toothpick .How could one not declare victory over that .

 It why with Henry recently, even when shown directly that you where wrong,

 Yeah Henry didn't show i was wrong sorry. 

that you cannot admit it.

Why would i admit to something that did not happen 

 I mostly reply to you for others, who wish to think critically.

This sentence is the epitome of incorrect

[Jehanne]

All bullshit you have him by the balls Jehanne he's wriggling

LOL -  Her main argument seems to be, that you should blindly follow the scholarly consensus (although it may seem only when it agrees with her bias).    

However Carrier is far from the mainstream consensus.   Which puts yourself and Min shit out of luck as well.   I'm at least willing to listen to the reasons, and weigh them before deciding that Carrier is a bad historian.  With Jeahnne he loses out a priori.

Dr. Richard Carrier advocates a minority hypothesis; so what?  With respect to low-level NT criticism, Dr. Carrier's views are completely mainstream.

[Amarok]

LOL -  Her main argument seems to be, that you should blindly follow the scholarly consensus (although it may seem only when it agrees with her bias).    

However Carrier is far from the mainstream consensus.   Which puts yourself and Min shit out of luck as well.   I'm at least willing to listen to the reasons, and weigh them before deciding that Carrier is a bad historian.  With Jeahnne he loses out a priori.

Dr. Richard Carrier advocates a minority hypothesis; so what?  With respect to low-level NT criticism, Dr. Carrier's views are completely mainstream.

He desperate to misrepresent your position and make baseless accusations of bias . And then misrepresents Carrier and shows he has fuck all understanding of his work  . Then actually has the balls to declare he's listen or weighed the evidence before deciding. I'm shocked reality didn't collapse  into a singularity of bullshit from that statement .

[Minimalist]

However Carrier is far from the mainstream consensus.  

Tell me something, RR.  Are you incapable or just unwilling to think for yourself.  Why do you feel compelled to select "experts" ( and you mainly seem to choose those who tell you what you want to hear ) to lead you by the nose?

I know xhristards are sheep but you could put up a little resistance.