tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post3738169241071769898..comments2024-03-25T02:16:16.247-07:00Comments on Christ the Tao: Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-79189833686503712802012-11-23T07:51:30.824-08:002012-11-23T07:51:30.824-08:00Paul: No doubt you're right about your inabili...Paul: No doubt you're right about your inability to explain my alleged errors, which explains your failure to do so.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-81250710553603873842012-06-24T15:06:50.333-07:002012-06-24T15:06:50.333-07:00You definitely need to educate yourself before you...You definitely need to educate yourself before you even begin to tackle the work of REAL scholars. I can't begin to explain how much you got wrong.Paulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-2151214634166283302011-09-30T19:51:04.785-07:002011-09-30T19:51:04.785-07:00Jim: You've got to be kidding. Insignificant ...Jim: You've got to be kidding. Insignificant points? It is insignificant to point out that there is no rational connection between the data Carrier cites and the conclusion he attempts to reach with it? It is insignificant that Carrier's fundamental assumption about Christian theoogy is dead wrong: that the model of Christian growth he assumes as normative, is not only not predicted, but is contradicted by passage after passage of the Bible? It is an insignificant to point out that Christianity has been growing at 10 TIMES the rate Carrier thinks is "normal" and therefore explicable in some parts of China, collapsing his entire argument empirically as well as theoretically? <br /><br />Carrier's ship is sunk. You can stand on the wreckage and wave your little flag all you like. <br /><br />As for knowledge, since you haven't pointed to any errors in anything I've said, while I have shown several gaping historical errors in Carrier's exposition, I'll read that for the cheap braggadocio that it evidently is. <br /><br />The real "quibble" is to bring up Holding, as if the fact that Carrier has written a (no doubt equally shoddy) book on him, somehow justifies his remarkably shoddy work here.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-48469693089545284162011-09-29T18:55:16.515-07:002011-09-29T18:55:16.515-07:00I hope you know you’re doing precisely what you ac...I hope you know you’re doing precisely what you accuse your critics of doing. You’re picking and choosing insignificant points to quibble over without focusing on the brunt of the argument. If you would have more carefully read Richard Carrier’s chapter he says in the first paragraph the book that this chapter is based on. If you had looked at that book it’s clear it’s a book seeking to answer the arguments of J.P. Holding.<br /><br />“But this kind of slip-shod, half-cocked, fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants, back-of-the envelope pseudo-historical gibberish, does not, frankly, make me want to run out and make a contribution to Columbia University.”<br /><br />LOL!!! I believe this statement should be directed towards everything <i>you’ve</i> ever written about history.<br /><br />I wholeheartedly agree with the other commenter who said “You dont have the knowledge to do this type of criticism.” Ain’t that the truth!<br /><br />If I were you’d I delete this entire blog out of embarrassment. On second thought leave it. It serves as wonderful comedy after a stressful day.Jim Hoggenoreply@blogger.com