The work I utilized in the post is from Mark. S Smith. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_S._Smith Professional Scholars like this don't sacrifice their work efforts and the respect that comes from that rational approach and legitimate research - that is incorporated into reference works for future students and other scholars to draw upon - by giving intentionally misrepresented or biased assessments in order to satisfy a personal religious belief, and the similar religious beliefs of others.
That applies to history of any sort.
There is an emerging trend in *some* biblical, and in a larger scope, historical scholars and "archaeohistorians" to coin a term. These are people who have went to great effort to obtain highly credentialed and relevant educations and perform legitimate research - for a passion of career that is very important to them, obviously.
They actually utilize an a posteriori scientific method. They follow the evidence where it leads, then a conclusion is made based on *all* of the data.
They don't make the conclusion, then look only for the evidence that supports that, excluding any conflicting data.
For instance, if evidence is found that George Washington had a coconut pounded up his rectum before each battle as a some sort of bizarre ritual, irrefutable and verifiable as just that, a bizarre ritual, they don't try to present it as: "Coconut enema treatments he thought would alleviate his irritable bowel syndrome".
In order to preserve some notion of a historical image or belief people may hold. They don't add spin.
Yeah, Ar Ar(RR) generally makes sweeping proclamations, and would really prefer it if you'd limit your response to the same type of grand proclamations. That way, as you said, he can say to the effect: "WELL!, we both just have our BELIEFS don't we, and mine is just as good as yours!"I think RiversideRedneck has been twisting scripture again. He does that a lot, but don't tell him. He likes to pretend that the claims made against him are just as ungrounded and unevidenced as the ones he makes, and things like this just have to be ignored.
When supported by fact evidences and other similar material are supplied in response to his bare assertions that refute those assertions or require him to respond in kind, he might likely not respond back to those posts. They get, "Lost in the mix, oops!" LULZ...
The non responded to posts, when due to what I just described are my favorites. It's an implicit concession of defeat or inability to refute by the other party.
That's what religious faith boils down to, no? Religious faith requires no evidence whatsoever. Religious faith will ignore evidence, facts or proof that refute the religious faith.Christians are just as good at mythopoeisis - making up mythology as they go along - as were their ancient forbears that wrote the original stories.
For faith based thinkers, reality, including the bible, is whatever you need it to be.
What was it Martin Luther said?
"Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God." Martin Luther
"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church?[...] a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." Martin Luther