tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post1803120479864699730..comments2024-03-25T02:16:16.247-07:00Comments on Christ the Tao: Hector Avalos and the Laziness of the New Atheism. Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-53211284199933754002016-02-24T04:45:01.207-08:002016-02-24T04:45:01.207-08:00David, my FB Wall post was about The Case against ...David, my FB Wall post was about The Case against Evangelical Higher Education. I don't know how it degenerated exactly, but it didn't have to. You came in with a big bang is what I remember. And I'm too busy myself to correct everyone who comments. There is no acquiescencing in that. For if I did start I would have to comment on many others. I do want to be more like 君子. It's just hard when you do in fact major on things I find ignorant and you even boast about them. Cheers.John W. Loftushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07167826997171207256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-72539650965515776102016-02-24T04:34:44.670-08:002016-02-24T04:34:44.670-08:00Fine, I'll take your word for it that you read...Fine, I'll take your word for it that you read the book. (Even though you STILL misrepresent my fourth and most important argument, which constitutes half the book, as if you'd never heard of it. But maybe that's just garden variety cognitive dissonance. There are, admittedly, fewer misrepresentations of my arguments than your earlier responses -- progress of a sort, but nothing to give yourself airs over, or pretend you can now speak for objectivity and fairness of representation -- do you want me to laugh out loud?)<br /><br />And don't come talking to me about "shoddy scholarship" coming fresh from a thread in which your allies (with your silent acquiescence) accuse me of insanity, run down some of the leading scholars in the world for the crime of recommending my books, and link to all the errors and inconsistencies I demonstrate above. <br /><br />As for "mischaracterization," that's bull, and you know it. To wonder if, when someone "answers" your book by citing what, eight or ten passages and they are all in the first 26 pages, and when furthermore he badly misreads the thesis of the book's second half, that he has not read the whole book, would at most involve drawing a conclusion hastily from just so-so evidence, not misrepresentation of any of YOUR arguments. But that you actually do badly misrepresent mine, I have shown in several threads on this site. That Avalos grossly misrepresents the Bible and other texts at times, I have also shown. <br /><br />Are you not a little disgusted by that thread you started, BTW? The whole purpose was to run a whole category of people down. I showed up, and defended that category in two posts. Avalos then went after me. Followed over-the-top attacks, in a gang, on me, then (by at least one) on eminent Christian scholars. I defended myself, and your friends -- aside from Babinski, who is eccentric but at least decent most the time -- found nothing better to do with their time than try to besmirch me, as you are doing now. <br /><br />Don't you feel a little dirty? This all speaks of what the ancient Chinese called "the small man," or 小人, as opposed to the gentleman or 君子. If you want to do a pig pile on Christian scholars next time, leave me out of it. I have better things to do with my time. <br />David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-56223461423920209642016-02-24T04:13:56.109-08:002016-02-24T04:13:56.109-08:00Oops. This instead:
This is what we mean by shodd...Oops. This instead:<br /><br />This is what we mean by shoddy scholarship, if anything else. You master in mischaraterizations and non-sequiturs. It's a non-sequitur to say that if I reviewed a book and didn't comment on it all that I must not have read it all. But it's worse than that. Not only do you come to that fallacious conclusion, you go around like the emperor who has no clothes on, proclaiming your conclusion without a trace of evidence for it. Finally, it's even worse than that. You do so even though I have denied what you claim.John W. Loftushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07167826997171207256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-30159415034101937962016-02-24T03:50:47.833-08:002016-02-24T03:50:47.833-08:00David, you go around saying I reviewed your book o...<br />David, you go around saying I reviewed your book on the Insider/Outsider Test for Faith without reading all of it. You go around saying this as if there are things in it that I had not considered before.<br /><br />I read your book. Just because I did not comment on it all means nothing. I only reviewed the part that had to do with the OTF.<br /><br />If you assert that the part I didn't review had to do with the OTF, then you are wrong. The rest of your book is irrelevant to making the case for Christianity you need to make. The interesting thing is that you don't seem to even know they are irrelevant, as I showed in my book review.<br /><br />This is what we mean by shoddy scholarship, if anything else. It is a non-sequitur to say that if I reviewed a book and didn't comment on it all that I must not have read it all. But it's worse than that. You master in mischaraterizations and non-sequiturs. It's a non-sequitur to say that if I reviewed a book and didn't comment on it all that I must not have read it all. But it's worse than that. Not only do you come to that fallacious conclusion, you go around like the emperor who has no clothes on, proclaiming your conclusion without a trace of evidence for it. Finally, it's even worse than that! You do so even though I have denied what you claim.<br />John W. Loftushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07167826997171207256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-72003491310071774532016-02-23T20:06:34.943-08:002016-02-23T20:06:34.943-08:00My reply, again:
Hector: The "diversion&quo...My reply, again: <br /><br />Hector: The "diversion" is your own. <br /><br />A. I answered this point; see my response to John above. It is irrelevant to any evaluation of MY work, given those rebuttal points. <br /><br />B. I answered this point here: <br /><br />https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5071813#allposts<br /><br />Yes, it is silly, and frankly rather fanatical. <br /><br />C. Thank you for reading three of my books. But the logic is as flawed as your reading is skewed. For one thing, the first book was written 11 years ago, yet you use the present tense, "have" no expertise. For another, you generalize -- "in the subjects you treat" which is as irrational as saying "I ate an apple, a cherry, and a strawberry, which is enough to show that all fruit are red." No, it is not: you would have had to have read all my books to responsibly draw that conclusion, AND update your knowledge to the present. It might also help if you could refute a few of my main arguments, which I doubt that you can. <br /><br />Kuai Mu, not Kai Mu, is my own company, and the Jesus Seminar book was an experiment in criticism which I think contains a great deal of value, but was not yet ready for mainstream publication. In that sense, it is comparable to Richard Carrier's early works - though needless to say, I think it is superior to them, and hits closer to reality. <br /><br />I have already shown that your claim that "all praise for your work comes mainly from you" is a falsehood. I have cited praise from leading scholars who teach at Oxford, Yale, Penn State, Marquette, Baylor, etc. But even if I merely cited Amazon reviews, that would suffice to refute your claim. Why do you repeat it? <br /><br />And again, I have already pointed out that I wrote these books for a general market that includes informed scholars as well as ordinary readers. I make no effort whatsoever to solicit reviews from specialist journals. If I do, I expect the results will be just as good as when I ask leading scholars to evaluate my work -- the results of which have been overwhelmingly favorable. <br /><br />Please do not continue to repeat talking points I have already addessed. I am sure we are both too busy to waste time like that. <br /><br />Again back to the main point -- from your diversion. Do you or do you not affirm Ferguson's apparent suggestion that The Contest of Hesiod and Homer is as good or better than the gospels in terms of grounding in historicity? If so, where are your arguments? If not, why this long distraction from the facts of the really important question into vain ad hominem?David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-49357132859338356032016-02-23T20:05:08.575-08:002016-02-23T20:05:08.575-08:00Avalos again: Your grand diversionary blog post wi...Avalos again: Your grand diversionary blog post will not help you. In fact, you only confirm how indolence is one of the main features of your work. Please note these points:<br /><br />A. I asked you to address specific arguments in Slavery, Abolitionism, and the Ethics of Biblical Scholarship (2011), especially as they pertained to your claims about Stark. You did not do so. <br /><br />Since you have had the book for years now, then why do you keep repeating your claims about Stark when you have at least possibly refuting evidence in front of you? If it is not indolence, then what would you call it?<br /><br />B. I devoted a whole chapter (some 12,000 words + footnotes)<br />to my claim about Jesus commands hate in Luke 14:26, and I explain why those who try to mitigate the literal meaning of Luke 14:26 are not successful. This is in The Bad Jesus: The Ethics of New Testament Ethics (2015). You do not show any familiarity with the arguments therein before pronouncing them as silly.<br /><br />C. I have read the following books of yours thoroughly:<br /><br />1. Why the Jesus Seminar Can’t Find Jesus and Grandma Marshall Could: A Populist Defense of the Gospels (2005).<br /><br />2. The Truth about Jesus and the Lost Gospels: A Reasoned Look at Thomas, Judas, and the Gnostic Gospels (2007)<br /><br />3. (editor) Faith Seeking Understanding: Essays in Memory of Paul Brand And Ralph D. Winter (2012).<br /><br />This is more than enough to show me that you have little or no expertise in the subjects you treat.<br /><br />Moreover, these are not books published by any reputable academic presses, and Kai Mu Press is not what anyone I know would call an academic press. <br /><br />All praise for your work comes mainly from you. I don’t see those works reviewed by any major journal or scholarly organization. If they are, then please give us those references.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-25719744226954111702016-02-23T15:08:06.252-08:002016-02-23T15:08:06.252-08:00My answers: Hector: Thank you for answering my que...My answers: Hector: Thank you for answering my question. <br /><br />Let's start with your last lazy comment -- that "all praise from your work comes mainly from you." Didn't bother checking first,did you? <br /><br />(I cite 22 recommendations, mostly from scholars, including eminent scholars at Oxford, Yale, Duke, Penn State, etc, who praise my work, often in very strong terms.) <br /><br />Having had your own scholarly shortcomings frequently exposed on my blog, and seen how you reacted (angrily, without linking my critiques or so much as mentioning them), I have never asked you for an endorsement, of course.<br /><br />What am I supposed to say about Stark? I've often pointed out myself that he makes historical mistakes sometimes. So do you, and so does Avalos. So do I, for that matter. But I do not base my argument for the liberating effects of the Gospel entirely on an appeal to Dr. Stark's well-recognized authority, as Avalos seems to imply. If I did, an ad hominem attack on that authority might somehow be relevant. I rely on many sources, even in my little blog piece on abolition. I seldom make important claims without first ensuring I can back it up with independent and credible sources, which is why Avalos' attack on Stark does not even need to be dealt with in detail. In addition, given all the misleading arguments I have found in Avalos' work, including yes very dubious representations of sources, I have not felt a rush to push his work on abolition to the head of the line. I'm working on other issues right now. If I ever get back to slavery, I certainly will carefully read and check Avalos' arguments against the facts, and will admit where I find truth -- as I do, even with books by my opponents.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-37519193056347335602016-02-23T14:36:51.747-08:002016-02-23T14:36:51.747-08:00Here is Avalos' response:
Your grand diversi...Here is Avalos' response: <br /><br />Your grand diversionary blog post will not help you. In fact, you only confirm how indolence is one of the main features of your work. Please note these points:<br /><br />A. I asked you to address specific arguments in Slavery, Abolitionism, and the Ethics of Biblical Scholarship (2011), especially as they pertained to your claims about Stark. You did not do so. <br /><br />Since you have had the book for years now, then why do you keep repeating your claims about Stark when you have at least possibly refuting evidence in front of you? If it is not indolence, then what would you call it?<br /><br />B. I devoted a whole chapter (some 12,000 words + footnotes)<br />to my claim about Jesus commands hate in Luke 14:26, and I explain why those who try to mitigate the literal meaning of Luke 14:26 are not successful. This is in The Bad Jesus: The Ethics of New Testament Ethics (2015). You do not show any familiarity with the arguments therein before pronouncing them as silly.<br /><br />C. I have read the following books of yours thoroughly:<br /><br />1. Why the Jesus Seminar Can’t Find Jesus and Grandma Marshall Could: A Populist Defense of the Gospels (2005).<br /><br />2. The Truth about Jesus and the Lost Gospels: A Reasoned Look at Thomas, Judas, and the Gnostic Gospels (2007)<br /><br />3. (editor) Faith Seeking Understanding: Essays in Memory of Paul Brand And Ralph D. Winter (2012).<br /><br />This is more than enough to show me that you have little or no expertise in the subjects you treat.<br /><br />Moreover, these are not books published by any reputable academic presses, and Kai Mu Press is not what anyone I know would call an academic press. <br /><br />All praise for your work comes mainly from you. I don’t see those works reviewed by any major journal or scholarly organization. If they are, then please give us those references.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.com