Bosk,

I never said "no scholar disputes the accuracy of the biblical text" nor did I backtrack. What I said was "no SERIOUS scholar - even a non-Christian one - would doubt the RELIABILITY of the Biblical text."

Furthermore, that particular statement was actually refering to the reliability of the Biblical text itself, not the truth of its content. I am well aware of Kenyon & Finkelstein etc. They are the one's I was referring to in my last post concerning the dating of Jericho and AI. Therefore, not only have you attributed to me what I never said, and misquoted what I did say, you have also "quoted" me out of context. THAT, Bosk, is DISHONEST scholarship!

I would imagine that whatever credibility you had has just evaporated.

I note the ad hominem at the end of post ie. calling me a bigot and telling me to go hang myself.

Ad hominem est ad nauseum. And its a sure sign of weak or non-existent arguments.

Oliver,

In resposne to my proposition, "It is always wrong to torture babies for fun", You said "I would say it is a statement of opinion, with which, many people including me would agree. A psychopath might hold the statement to be false."

If its merely a matter of opinion then what right to do you have to call someone who disagrees a psychopath? Surely, he is no different to someone who prefers coffee with 3 sugars rather than your one sugar (for eg)? In fact, if you really believe what you said then you should object to all criminal proceedings since they ultimately arbitrary. Why should one or more person's opinion be held above someone else's differing opinion?

PART ONE

Wow… That was a quick response.

I used the word psychopath because the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders would likely have a similar (perhaps more technical) designation for baby killers and thrill killers. People having a sweet tooth are not listed.

Re: baby killing. My point was a fraction of the community hold one opinion, and, the vast majority would have another opinion on baby killing. Both groups hold an opinion.

When categorising behaviours anthropologists refer to etic and emic behaviours in the vast majority of contemporary societies (not all) baby killing is condemned. It is probably safe to call this etic behaviour. In a society, having a prohibition against the ingestion of pork or “sugar” is emic behaviour. That is, the custom is localised.

Personally, in my opinion, I do not object to all criminal proceedings. All I was saying is criminals hold opinions at the time of the crime. So does, the Judge, the Jury and the Public, before and afterwards. Extreme anarchists might disagree with laws altogether. Again, an opinion.

In conclusion, when you asked me, whether your sentence was (a) a true statement, or, (b) a construct; I, chose, (c) an opinion. I could not connect with the options offered, for the reasons previously stated.

PART TWO

What did you think about Abelard’s remarks? If Abelard himself posted the citation, what would be your reply?

Thank you for your engagement in this debate.

Aslan – you said, “that particular statement was actually refering [sic] to the reliability of the Biblical text itself, not the truth of its content” – what then is ‘reliability’ in this context, if not ‘truth’? Surely the ‘reliability’ of the Biblical text has got everything to do with one’s assessment of its truthfulness? Or by ‘reliability’ are you talking about the Bible being a dependable door-stop, or some other practical use?

I do not agree with you about Bosk’s credibility having evaporated, Aslan. On the contrary, Bosk’s comments, as well as those of Oliver and Fiona, are highly credible,I think, and a breath of fresh air in this otherwise very stale discussion.

BOAZ-David – I think you should stop picking on Fiona. You’re beginning to look suspiciously misogynous. “Wait till I get started on the ‘autonomy of women’ and what they should wear” How very patronising.

Bosk – I admire your bravery in admitting your former narrow-mindedness. I am curious to know what a self-confessed former bigot such as yourself now thinks about homosexuality?

Jane

Jane, thanks for your comments, although I think it worth noting that boazdavid's continuing jousts are off the point, increasingly puerile and snide - making him come across as a bit, well, idiotic.

Fiona, now we add 'idiotic' to your list of 'name calling' ? I have little regard for the opinions of name callers Fiona.

And Jane wonders why I focus on you ? You are the one calling me names, ridiculing my position, so, I guess the sharpest needle gets the 'ouch' response.

Jane, as for sounding mysoginistic, have a read of my post on the 'sex lies etc' thread, it should really get you going.

I deliberately make provocative statements in these areas (female autonomy etc) because it opens up some valuable areas of much needed discussion. We have one very sick society, which keeps on claiming it is making wonderful progress, while it falls apart around us. (morally)

Jane, let me repeat one very firm assertion I made in the other thread, "Females have ZERO autonomy apart from power relationships with males". (even the protection of the law relies on such power relationships) U think thats over the top ? I'll debate the accuracy of that statement without so much as one reference to the scriptures and I guarantee I will win that debate :) I may not win any new friends, but I assure you this is a fact of life that is not easily defeated. Having said that, a good read of the book of Ruth in the Old Testament will not only show the social reality of this, it will also show how DIFFERENT things are when a man puts God first in his heart and life. (in regard to his behavior toward women)

Jane, don't confuse a vigorous debate with Fiona as an attitude against women, I take people as the are and represent themselves.

Call this a vigorous debate, boazdavid? Oh you dear little man.