Reflectorites
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000 18:01:25 EST, AutismUK@aol.com wrote:
[...]
>PR>I don't think an open neutral view of Dn 9:24-27 would conclude what you
>conclude of it, to be honest.
Disagree. If: 1) a combination of a reasonable terminus a quo and means of
calculation yield a date that falls within the time of Jesus' public ministry,
and 2) The Jews were expecting the Messiah at this time; and 3) Jesus went
on to found a world religion; then that should be sufficient evidence for a
neutral person to concluded that Jesus was the Messiah.
But we will probably just go around in circles on this, so Paul and I will
have to agree to differ on it.
Paul probably cannot afford to admit this, which shows that *no* amount
of evidence would be sufficient for him. IOW, even if Dn 9:24-27 *was*
genuine predictive prophecy and Jesus *was* the Messiah, Paul's anti-
supernaturalistic philosophy would prevent him from admitting it.
In that sense, Paul is perfectly and literally sincere when he says: " to be
honest". Paul is indeed "honest" within the metaphysical framework of his
anti-supernaturalistic philosophy. But if Jesus is the Messiah, then Paul's
anti-supernaturalistic philosophy is simply *WRONG*!
[...]
>SJ>Disagree. This so called "construction of the Gospels" in the hands of
>an anti-supernaturalist becomes a *re*-"construction of the Gospels"
>or rather a *de*-"construction of the Gospels"!
>PR>Err... most of the work was done by Christians Steve.
They may have been "Christians" but if they were operating under "anti-
supernaturalist" assumptions then their controlling philosophy was
naturalism, not Christian theism. The Bible warns Christians about this:
Col 2:8 "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and
deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the
basic principles of this world rather than on Christ."
>SJ>And the "complete story of the 70 weeks" would be OK, except a
>philosophical naturalist would invent his/her own naturalistic "story" to
>account for it.
>PR>I don't think that is necessary.
Since Paul is a "philosophical naturalist" he wouldn't!
>>>SJ>But historically it is untrue. the Apostle Matthew who wrote this
>>PR>You see, this isn't "historically true" either, as you really should
>>know.
>>The authors of the gospels aren't "known" and we certainly don't know it is
>>the "Apostle Matthew".
>SJ>See what I mean about *de*-"construction of the Gospels"!
>PR>I'm sorry Steve, but this is nonsense. It is a tradition that the author of
>the Gospel was called "Matthew". It is grossly inaccurate to call it
>"historical". You say below it is tradition (quoting R.T. France)
There is no necessary dichotomy between "historical" and "tradition".
"Tradition" just means `handed down', and there is no reason why the unanimous
tradition handed down in the early church that the apostle Matthew wrote the
gospel which bears his name, should not be correct.
>SJ>There is nothing inherently wrong with "tradition". One of the first
>phases of liberal *de*-"construction of the Gospels" is for the critic to
>try cast doubt on the reliability of tradition in order to substitute his
>own tradition on how the gospels were constructed.
>PR>Tradition is unreliable, Steve, isn't it ? You can't call something
>historical just because it is "traditional".
I don't agree that "Tradition is" necessarily "unreliable". A tradition
*could* be unreliable and the evidence for it should therefore be weighed.
But there is good evidence that Matthew wrote the gospel of Matthew in that:
1) no other candidate has ever been suggested; 2) the internal evidence fits
what is known about Matthew; 3) Matthew was not a prominent apostle
and if it was just made up to give the gospel credibility, it would make more
sense to ascribe it to Peter, for example. Two of the gospels (Mark and Luke)
are not even named after an apostle, and only one (John) is named after a
leading apostle.
There is therefore no good *reason* why the traditional view that Matthew
wrote the gospel that beards his name should be rejected.
>PR>The idea that it is true because
>>no other name has been suggested is a bit of a nonsense because
>>any other name would just be made up.
>SJ>Note the unquestioned assumption that it just can't have been
>Matthew!
>PR>It might have been. It might have been someone else. You don't know,
>Steve, and if you are honest you'll admit this.
I have already said this (see below). Paul is again converting a "we don't
know" into a "it wasn't".
Even if Matthew's name was attached, Paul could claim it was a forgery, or
another Matthew. All the *evidence* (both external and internal) is that the
gospel ascribed to the apostle Matthew by the early Church was in fact
written by him.
>SJ>The internal evidence of the gospel of Matthew fits the description of
>Matthew the Jewish tax collector.
SJ>If he wasn't its author, there is no reason why the gospel should have
>Matthew's name attached to it, since he was not a prominent apostle.
>Indeed the only prominent apostle whose name is attached to a gospel
>is John. Two of the names attached to gospels were not even apostles:
>Mark and Luke.
>PR>Not really. It's a tradition. That's it. "Historical" it isn't.
See above. Paul thinks there is a necessary dichotomy between "tradition"
and "Historical". But there would not be much history of the ancient world
if all tradition was rejected as necessarily unhistorical.
But since Paul just ignores my evidence it is obvious he just wants to
find a pretext to confirm his anti-Christian prejudice.
>PR>There is, however, a lot of
>>scholarship pointing out that the Gospel authors are unknown.
>SJ>One doesn't need "a lot of scholarship" to point that out. It is conceded
>by *everyone* that "the Gospel authors are unknown" in the sense that
>they don't bear the authors' names. However, the early Church ascribed
>them to the authors whose names they bear and the internal evidence of
>each of them fits those ascriptions.
>PR>Err... not really. This is just an assertion.
No. It is *Paul* who is making "just an assertion".
I could post evidence to back up my assertion, but Paul's track record is
that he would just ignore it. Perhaps Paul would state in advance what
evidence he would accept that, for example, the apostle Matthew wrote the
gospel of Matthew?
>>SJ>was a Jew to his fellow Jews and he was reflecting their common Jewish
>>expectation at the time that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem.
>>PR>And this isn't true either.
>>SJ>What's the "either" relate to? Paul seems to have converted a "we ...
>>don't know" into a "it isn't true"!
[...]
>>PR>It is highly debatable whether Micah 5:2 is a prophecy of the birthplace
>>of the Messiah.
>SJ>It is not "debatable" *at all*.
>PR>Yes it is, we're debating it (this is a joke).
Paul is not really "debating it" - he is just *denying* it. Paul has produced
no actual *evidence* for his position to date. If Paul has any actual
evidence that the 1st century Jews were expecting anywhere else but
Bethlehem (as predicted in "Micah 5:2") as "a prophecy of the birthplace of
the Messiah" let him post it.
>SJ>There is no other place in the Scripture
>where the birthplace of the Messiah is predicted. And the *uniform
>testimony of both the NT and Jewish tradition is that Micah 5:2 is a
>prophecy of the birthplace of the Messiah, in Bethlehem.
>PR>There are other alternatives.
>SJ>I note that Paul does not say what these "alternatives" are.
>PR>Well, there is the "name" alternative.
Paul *still* has not said what this "alternative" is! I presume that is because
Paul *has* no actual evidence of any actual "alternatives" to Micah 5:2 that
was believed by 1st century Jews.
>PR>It is also very easy to say
>>that such evidence exists without stating what it is.
>SJ>I *have* produced evidence and Paul just presents unsubstantiated
>assertions. Three gospel writers Matthew, Luke and John say that the
>Messiah will be born in Bethlehem:
>
>Mt 2:1 "After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the
>time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem"
>
>Lk 2:4-7 "So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in
>Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David ...
>
>Jn 7:42 "Does not the Scripture say that the Christ will come from
>David's family and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?"
>PR>I know, you think quoting the Bible is "evidence". Don't you think Jn7
>suggests a motive, incidentally ?
The fact is that Paul doesn't accept *anything* as "evidence" for
Christianity, not from the Bible nor extra-Biblical evidence!
But Paul contradicts himself. He denies that "quoting the Bible is
`evidence'" when he doesn't like it, but when it suits him he quotes from it
as evidence, e.g. "Jn7"!
And there is no "motive". The fact is that David did come from Bethlehem
(1Sam 17:12) and the prophet Micah (Mic 5:2) predicted the Messiah
would also come from Bethlehem. That is why Paul's claim that "It is
highly debatable whether Micah 5:2 is a prophecy of the birthplace of the
Messiah" is false.
The combination of Bethlehem being David's birthplace and then being also
predicted by Micah 5:2 as Messiah's birthplace would *guarantee* that no
other birthplace would be expected by the Jews
>SJ>Edersheim was a Hebrew speaking Jewish Christian who was familiar
>with the Jewish Talmudic writings. I cited his testimony as an expert
>witness as itself evidence that "the testimony of Rabbinic teaching,
>unhesitatingly pointed."
>
>In addition, I have found a place where Edersheim gives a reference
>from the Jewish Talmud to the Messiah being born in Bethlehem:
>
>"As shown by the rendering of the Targum Jonathan, the prediction
>in Micah v. 2 was at the time universally understood as pointing to
>Bethlehem, as the birthplace of the Messiah. That such was the
>general expectation, appears from the Talmud, (Jer. Ber. ii.4, p.5a)
>where, in an imaginary conversation between an Arab and a Jew,
>Bethlehem is authoritatively named as Messiah's birthplace."
>(Edersheim A., "The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," 1886,
>Vol. I, p.206).
>PR>I can't comment on this other than to say the book doesn't sound a
>particularly neutral one from it's title. I have learnt not to trust what
>Christians say some document says.
No one said it was "neutral" - Edersheim was a Jewish Christian who
believe that Jesus was the Messiah. On Paul's criterion he would only
accept evidence for Christianity from those who believed it was false!
But Edersheim cited the Talmud reference and Paul, if he was really
interested in the evidence, could check up to see if it was true.
>PR>Only Christians think Isiah predicts a Virgin
>>Birth. It is very simple to do.
>>SJ>Same as above. Of *course* only Christians think Isaiah predicts a Virgin
>>Birth. If one believed it, one would almost certainly become a Christian,
>>if one wasn't already.
>>PR>But it isn't actually convincing to anyone who is neutral, let alone an
>>atheist is it ?
>SJ>Note how Paul slips in the word "convincing", with all its connotations
>of absolute proof. All I claimed is that it was "evidence" to someone
>who is *genuinely* neutral.
>
>It is certainly not *evidence* to an atheist who would rule out in
>advance that there even *could* be evidence of predictive prophecy.
>PR>Really. Have you read it ?
I am not sure what Paul means here. Of course I have read Isaiah 7:14, I
quoted it!
>PR>And Isiah doesn't predict a Virgin Birth.
>SJ>Here is what Isaiah 7:14 says:
>
>Isa 7:14 (AV) "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
>Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his
>name Immanuel."
>PR>No, I meant the bits around it. You know, the context.
I have indeed read also "the bits around it [Isa 7:14] ...the context". It
confirms the Christian interpretation.
But I am not going to do Paul's work for him. If he disagrees, let him post
his own evidence.
>SJ>It's even better in the Septuagint:
>
>Isa 7:14 (LXX) "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
>behold a virgin shall conceive IN THE WOMB, and shall bring
>forth a son and thou shalt call his name Emmanuel." (my emphasis)
>
>Since the "in the womb" is redundant, and not in the original Hebrew,
>the LXX translators presumably added it to emphasise that a virginal
>conception was intended.
>PR>Or its an error in translation.
No. It is what pre-Christian Jewish scholars understood Isa 7:14 to be
saying. Paul is only saying it is "an error in translation" because of the
dictates of his anti-supernaturalistic philosophy. But it is Paul's philosophy
that is the "error" not the Greek-speaking Jewish translators of the LXX.
>>SJ>Actually I might be wrong on this. According to Zacharias, Moslems also
>>accept the Virgin Birth of Christ: ...
>>(Zacharias R.K., "Jesus Among Other Gods, 2000, p.39)
>PR>I would be very wary of accepting what Zacharias says as factual,
>especially as (typically of an apologist)
>SJ>Note Paul's "shoot the messenger" way of dealing with contrary
>evidence, especially his words "typically of an apologist". Since
>Christian apologists are automatically regarded by Paul (and his ilk) as
>not "factual" they are *guaranteed* to always arrive at a conclusion
>which just confirms their anti-supernaturalistic prejudice.
>PR>No. Not all apologists are as dishonest as Zacharias is.
It is interesting how Paul declares those who disagree with him as
"dishonest". But I guess that is Paul's final `head-in-the-sand'
defence!
>PR>the actual supporting statement is not produced.
>SJ>But Paul needs to read his opponents words more carefully. Zacharias
>states above the part of the Koran where it is: "Surah 19.19-21".
>PR>I wasn't clear. Apologists will often claim a text "says something" when
>it says nothing of the kind. However, as I know little of the Qu'ran I can't
>refute your claim.
It *was* clear. If Paul doesn't even know what "Surah 19.19-21" means
then it is *his* problem, not Zacharias'.
>PR>The Qu'ran has Jesus as a major prophet, but not the Son of God.
>SJ>Neither Zecharias or I said anything above about the Koran having
>Jesus as "the Son of God'. Christian theology does not regard Jesus
>being born of a virgin as synonymous with Him being the Son of God.
>The Son of God existed before His incarnation via the virgin birth as
>Jesus of Nazareth.
>PR>?????
If Paul has a question let him ask it.
>SJ>But Matthew was a Jew writing to Jews and he knew what Isaiah 7:14 ...
>> meant to Jews. The Heb. word "virgin" here is the Heb. 'almah which ...
>>means "a lass ... damsel, maid, virgin." The Greek translation of the Old
>>Testament, the Septuagint, ~ 200 BC, translated it Gk parthenos, which
>>means "a maiden; by impl. an unmarried daughter:--virgin". This is the same
>>Gk word Matthew uses in Mt 1:23 "The virgin will be with child ...."
>PR>This isn't true either. Almah does *not* imply virginity though it doesn't
>>discount it. The word bethulah (sic) means virgin.
>>
>>Almah means "young woman" (who may or may not be a virgin). The
>>only reason the Gospel author used it was because it is mistranslated
>>as virgin (parthenos) in the Septuagint,
>>SJ>It is Paul's unsubstantiated *claim* that the third century BC Greek-
>>speaking Jewish scholars who translated the Old Testament into Greek did
>>not know the meaning of the Hebrew word 'almah and "mistranslated" it!
>>PR>Sorry, are you really questioning this one.
>SJ>What I am questioning is Paul's unsubstantiated claim that the third
>century BC Greek-speaking Jewish scholars who translated the
>Septuagint did not know the meaning of the Hebrew word 'almah and
>"mistranslated" it!
>PR>Well, the concept of virginity isn't in the original text, is it ?
If the Hebrew word 'almah means "young woman of marriageable age" and
the Jewish scholars who wrote the Septuagint translated it by the Greek
word parthemnos, then "the concept of virginity" *is* "in the original text".
>PR>The word "almah" does not
>>mean virgin. It means young girl. Virgin is a different word.
>SJ>Paul contradicts himself. He said earlier that "Almah means "`young
>woman' (who may or may not be a virgin)". Now he is saying "`almah'
>does not mean virgin."
>PR>No, this is not a contradicition, Steve. Almah *may* be a virgin. But it
>does not mean "virgin". There is a different word for "virgin" Can't you
>grasp this ?
I *can* read! If: 1) "Almah *may* be a virgin" then that contradicts: 2)
Almah "does not mean "virgin". If 1) is true then when Isaiah wrote "an
almah will conceive" he may have meant "virgin". But if 2) is true he could
not have meant "virgin".
>SJ>The fact is that there are two Hebrew words: 1. bethulah - which
>definitely does mean "virgin" (but could mean an old spinster); and 2.
>almah - which means a young woman of marriageable age (and in that
>culture was synonymous with virgin, because once a young woman
>was married she was called issa - married woman. Almah only appears
>seven times in the Bible and it is never used of a married woman:
>PR>Look , quoting apologists who agree with you doesn't really get you
>anywhere.
I now know it "doesn't really get" me "anywhere" with Paul! But at least I
am quoting *some* evidence.
PR>Almah doesn't mean virgin. All it means is it might be !
Paul is still contradicting himself: "doesn't mean" and "might be" are
contradictory if referring to the same thing.
>SJ>So the Heb. word "almah" is *exactly* the right word for Isaiah to use
>because he is meaning a young woman of marriageable age who was a
>virgin and then having a child as a sign:
>
>word virgin, however stresses the supernatural character of the
>birth, and hence is to be preferred."
>
>PR>I have isolated this because this is the apologist at work with rare
>honesty. I want this because it gets me where I want to go.
See previously on basic assumptions.
>PR>What happens
>is that parthenos is an enlargement in translation.
>SJ>Again Paul contradicts himself. Previously he claimed it was a
>"mistranslation", now he is claiming it "an enlargement in translation"!
>PR>Oh for crying out loud. Are you that stupid ?
I regard such ad hominems as a sure sign that Paul's argument is not going
well!
PR>Do I HAVE to explain everything in single syllable words ?
No. Paul has to do is stop contradicting himself!
And start posting some *evidence* too BTW.
>SJ>Paul got it right the first time when he said: "Almah means "`young
>woman' (who may or may not be a virgin)". The Greek speaking 3rd
>Century BC Jews who translated the Hebrew OT into Greek knew
>from the Isaiah's choice of the less usual word almah, and from the
>context, that the right word to translate almah into Greek was the word
>parthenos - "virgin".
>PR>So why not use the word for "virgin" then if you wanted it to mean
>virgin ? I mean, I'll take your word for it that it can mean "old woman"
>but this is disqualified in this case presumably.
It *was* the word for "virgin" in this case. Bethulah would have been less
precise because it could have meant a virgin of any age. Almah means a
young woman of marriageable age, i.e. a young virgin.
>SJ>And that is the word that Matthew uses in Mt 1:23 and applies to
>Jesus.
>PR>Besides all this, this applies to events around that time ANYWAY !
>Presumably this is why you can quote Giesler in pages but when
>quoting Isiah only give the one verse.
See above. I am not going to start quoting "pages" of Isaiah! If Paul has
any other verses of Isaiah he wants to quote to make his point he can do
so.
>PR>Matthew saw this,
>>assumed that it meant virgin in the original which he couldn't read,
>SJ>This is one of the most amazing things I have ever read. How does
>Paul, (who claimed in a previous post that the author of Matthew is
>unknown), know that that author couldn't read the "original"?
>PR>I agree this is an error.
Thanks to Paul for this. I take it that Paul now concedes that "the author of
Matthew" may have been able to read the "original" Hebrew?
PR>He was simply working from the Septuagint.
What evidence has Paul for this?
>PR>then invented the virgin birth myth.
>SJ>This is just the anti-supernaturalist liberal critics' "myth"!
>PR>Oh, for crying out loud, do you have to drag out this CRAP everytime
>you can't think of an answer.
This *is* my answer! There is no *evidence* that the NT writers "invented
the virgin birth myth" except the modern myth peddled by "anti-
supernaturalist liberal critics".
PR>Why the hell should I bother to reply to you ? What's the point ?
Maybe that *is* the point!
But since Paul's "reply" consists of flat out denials and unsubstantiated
assertions, it is indeed hard to see what Paul's "point" is in debating this
topic.
Paul doesn't *need* to read any evidence that I might put forward for Dan
9:24-27 being real predictive prophecy because, according to Paul's anti-
supernaturalistic philosophy there just *cannot* be any evidence for the
supernatural.
But OTOH there has been a point for me in debating with Paul. For me it
has always been important that I base my faith on *evidence* and I have
benefited greatly by researching these issues and posting them.
However. having posted the evidence, there is nothing more that I can do.
Paul is free to reject the evidence of Dan 9:24-27 and Christianity in
general. But if it turns out to be true (as I am sure it is) then Paul will be
held accountable for his rejection of the evidence.
PR>I think, if I was honest I decided you were irredeemebly stupid
>when I read your first accusation of "contradiction" above.
See above on Paul resorting to ad hominems being an indicator that he
knows his argument is going badly.
PR>You don't seem to be able to think, even at the most basic level.
>But for some unknown reason I kept going, through a second
>brainless contradiction accusation, until the crap about liberal
>etc.
I must say I am amazed that Paul is not aware that the arguments he is
using are those that "liberal" anti-supernaturalist theologians use. This is
not a label put on them - it was the term that they used for themselves:
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=liberalism
[...]
Main Entry: liberalism ... 2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern
Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content
of Christianity ... c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential
goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for
the protection of political and civil liberties ...
--------------------------------------------------------------
But their so-called "intellectual liberty" was (or became) unbelief in the
very thing that Christianity claims itself to be-a supernaturally based
religion.
PR>(I know all the stupid abuse words that fundies use to persuade
> their donkeys not to read anything with a degree of intelligence)
I don't mean it as "abuse words" (like Paul uses "fundies") but as a word
the anti-supernaturalist critics use of themselves.
PR>Whenever you can't come up with a Bible you'll just use stupid
>fundie buzzwords like "anti-supernaturalist liberal critics". Just
>because you are so damn stupid you don't read any books other
>than drivel by the Gieslers of this world.
See above on ad hominems.
PR>What all that fatuous garbage means is "I can't think of an
>answer, so I'll just accuse you of prior motives, so I don't
>have to think about it".
No. It *is* my answer! Paul's answer is that those who disagree with him
are "stupid". My answer is that my opponents (including Paul) are
intelligent, good people, who have adopted an anti-supernaturalist
philosophy.
PR>The joke is that the person with the bias is you. That's why you
>use words like "historical" to describe a traditional belief.
We *all* have a "bias". It is my Christian "bias" which inclines me to me to
regard the "traditional belief" of the early Christian church as "historical" in
the sense of essentially factually reliable.
It is Paul's *anti-Christian* "bias" which inclines Paul to regard the
"traditional belief" of the early Christian church as *not* "historical" in the
sense of essentially factually reliable.
But at least I have posted *evidence* for my position, which is more than
can be said for Paul.
PR>How can I have an intelligent discussion with someone who just
>writes off 'Q' as an "invention".
Well, Paul could produce *evidence* that `Q' ever existed for starters (e.g. that
even *one* person, Christian or non-Christian, quoted from in the last 2,000 years,
or even *mentioned* it before the 19th century!
PR>I try to talk about the patterns of
>writing in Matthew ; how he adapts his material ; and you get
>some crackhead who either ignores the point,
In fact I *agreed* with Paul on this. The difference is that by "adapt" Paul
means made it up!
PR>won't even go and look,
"Go and look" *where*? Paul has never cited any sources. Besides, this is
a debate, and telling one's opponent to "go and look" is a losing point. It is
not up to one's opponents in a debate to provide one's evidence. If Paul has
any evidence he should *post* it.
PR>posts pages of preachy drivel from stupid apologetics
>tracts that ignore the point
At least I *do* post evidence to back up my assertions! Paul is free to do
the same if he *has* any evidence.
PR>as well and use the same stupid
>"Oh these are liberal blah blah lots of fundy code words for
>don't read it" lines.
See above.
PR>I mean if you think I'm anti-Bible, I cannot be any more insulting
>about it than you are.
I have not said anything "insulting" like Paul has (e.g. "stupid", "dishonest",
"fundies", etc). The words I used like "liberal", and "anti-supernaturalistic"
are valid descriptions of the Biblical critics' position.
PR>Here's something for you to do. Go and read ALL of the text around
>Isaiah 7:14, not just this bloody line.
I have, many times. In fact I did it the other day. But I am not going to
make Paul's points for him. If he wants to post some quotes from Isaiah to
make his point, let him do so.
PR>Then see if it REALLY is a
>"prediction" or if it's not just talking about that current time. But
>you won't do this.
See above. I *have* done this. It doesn't support Paul's claim. A simple test
of this is that the pre-Christian Jews interpreted Isa 7:14 as predicting the
Messiah. The Septuagint shows this by its translation of almah as
parthenos, and Matthew's using it shows it too.
PR>You'll post another dozen volumes of rubbish
>apologetics about "how it really isn't that because we don't like it".
No. I have said repeatedly that I am trying to wind down this thread. I will
only post new evidence if Paul makes a new claim.
PR>Yes, I'm cross.
I am sorry that Paul feels "cross". But all I have done is vigorously argue
for my position, backed up with evidence.
PR>I've no doubt this will cause yet more preachy crap about how
>"nice" Christians are.
Unfortunately a lot of Christians aren't as "nice" as they should be. That
includes me BTW. I apologise if I have said anything personally nasty to
Paul.
PR>I find your idiotic approach far more
>denigrating than just being called "stupid".
I don't think Paul is stupid at all. As I said, I think Paul is an intelligent,
good person who has adopted a false anti-supernaturalist philosophy.
PR>I've also no doubt you will view this as "victory". I really don't
>care. I suggest you read your "contradiction" claims if you
>think you've really "won" an argument.
I am not interesting in a "victory". I am only interested in getting at the
*truth*.
Paul seems to be here admitting that I have won this debate? But how
could that be if: 1) I am "stupid" and 2) my position is wrong?
I will leave it to Paul to ponder the obvious answer to that conundrum.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ridicule is a popular and political tool but not a scientific tool. If you want
to challenge a thesis, you do it with facts and science." (Douglas K.,
"Taking the plunge," New Scientist, Vol. 168, No. 2266, 25 November,
2000, pp28-33, p.33. http://www.newscientist.com/nl/1125/taking.html)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Dec 20 2000 - 18:01:31 EST