John Dominic Crossan - Skepticism towards traditional Christianity

[robrecht]

No, regardless of what the Roman Church decides to do about it, Crossan describes a theology that is diametrically opposed and contradictory to anything believed in the Roman Church. He rejects the miraculous and Divine nature of Jesus Christ, and rejects the Resurrection in any form. I have made no such diametrically opposed nor contradictory beliefs concerning the Baha'i Faith.

I need no such authority to express my view based on Crossan's statements of belief diametrically opposed and contradictory with Roman Church beliefs.

Not even an issue here. The Roman Church has no authority here. My view is not remotely related to, dependent on, nor responsible to the Roman Church. This is silly.

No

I'm sorry you don't understand. The authority of the Roman Catholic Church here has no relevance. No reason for you to dispute that. Furthermore, you've yet to demonstrate any capacity to understand Crossan's theological views, let alone to understand his views or the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church better than Crossan himself such that you could ever hope to better define these than he himself has. It is not a question of your authority except in measure of your competence, or rather lack thereof. I've yet to see any reason to substitute your judgement of Crossan's views for his own.

But you have stopped disputing my acceptance of your self-designation as a theist. Have you finally accepted this point?

[shunyadragon]

I'm sorry you don't understand. The authority of the Roman Catholic Church here has no relevance. No reason for you to dispute that. Furthermore, you've yet to demonstrate any capacity to understand Crossan's theological views, let alone to understand his views or the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church better than Crossan himself such that you could ever hope to better define these than he himself has. It is not a question of your authority except in measure of your competence, or rather lack thereof. I've yet to see any reason to substitute your judgement of Crossan's views for his own.

This is a perpetual motion problem in our dialogue. You interpret differences in opinion and view between us as 'I do not understand the issues at hand.' This is not the case. I perfectly well understand Crossan's beliefs and views, and he is abundantly clear and specific in his books and I have read his books.

But you have stopped disputing my acceptance of your self-designation as a theist. Have you finally accepted this point?

You brought up the comparison, and it was unfortunate.

[robrecht]

This is a perpetual motion problem in our dialogue. You interpret differences in opinion and view between us as 'I do not understand the issues at hand.' This is not the case.

No, you yourself are the one who said you did not understand!

I perfectly well understand Crossan's beliefs and views, and he is abundantly clear and specific in his books and I have read his books.

You brought up the comparison, and it was unfortunate.

If you so perfectly understand his views, how come it was I who had to point out to you that Crossan considers himself to be a Christian and irrevocably Roman Catholic. How could you not know that if you perfectly understood his views?

[shunyadragon]

No, you yourself are the one who said you did not understand!

WHAT did I say I did not understand?

If you so perfectly understand his views, how come it was I who had to point out to you that Crossan considers himself to be a Christian and irrevocably Roman Catholic. How could you not know that if you perfectly understood his views?

Sarcasm of perfection has no rational place here. Crossan's claims of labels of belief are superficial and have nothing to with the matter of fact statements of the nature of his belief concerning the nature and identity of Jesus Christ. I surely can disagree with Crossan if I choose.

[robrecht]

WHAT did I say I did not understand?

You did not specify. I merely asked if you understood my post and you simply said, "No."

Sarcasm of perfection has no rational place here.

I am not being sarcastic. You are the one who claimed to understand Crossan perfectly.

Crossan's claims of labels of belief are superficial and have nothing to with the matter of fact statements of the nature of his belief concerning the nature and identity of Jesus Christ. I surely can disagree with Crossan if I choose.

Of course you can disagree, but you have failed miserably to demonstrate that you understand his views perfectly. You did not even know that he absolutely considers himself a Christian and irrevocably Roman Catholic.

[shunyadragon]

You did not specify. I merely asked if you understood my post and you simply said, "No."

Be specific concerning Crossan, and not your contorted argument.

I am not being sarcastic. You are the one who claimed to understand Crossan perfectly.

Sarcasm noted, perfectly well understood does not mean I understand Crossan perfectly. You are twisting figures of speech.

Of course you can disagree, but you have failed miserably to demonstrate that you understand his views perfectly.

Please stop twisting figures of speech. It is getting tiring. I have not demonstrated anything miserably.

You did not even know that he absolutely considers himself a Christian and irrevocably Roman Catholic.

I knew, but I do not agree with Crossan. We have had this discussion before, and I have read his books.

[robrecht]

Be specific concerning Crossan, and not your contorted argument.

The 'contorted' observation that you apparently find difficult to understand (it is not contorted) pertains much more to you than to Crossan.

Sarcasm noted, perfectly well understood does not mean I understand Crossan perfectly. You are twisting figures of speech.

You said, "I perfectly well understand Crossan's beliefs and views ..." so I replied, "If you so perfectly understand his views ..." Same exact words. No twisting of speech. When i later said, "You are the one who claimed to understand Crossan perfectly," I was not changing my meaning in any way whatsoever. You claimed to 'perfectly well understand Crossan's beliefs and views', but I needed to point out to you such a fundamental fact that Crossan absolutely considers himself to be a Christian and irrevocably Roman Catholic. Again, I am not being sarcastic.

[robrecht]

Please stop twisting figures of speech. It is getting tiring. I have not demonstrated anything miserably.

True. You have not demonstrated anything.

I knew, but I do not agree with Crossan. We have had this discussion before, and I have read his books.

And the administration here at TWeb has read your posts and they do not agree with you that you are a theist. They too believe that they have understood you. Except, of course, when they have no idea what in the world you are talking about.

[robrecht]

I knew, but I do not agree with Crossan. We have had this discussion before, and I have read his books.

No, you did not know. Here is the previous exchange:

robrecht: According to him he is irrevocably Roman Catholic.

Shuny: "False, please cite where he claims this.

[shunyadragon]

The 'contorted' observation that you apparently find difficult to understand (it is not contorted) pertains much more to you than to Crossan.

No meaning.

You said, "I perfectly well understand Crossan's beliefs and views ..." so I replied, "If you so perfectly understand his views ..." Same exact words. No twisting of speech. When i later said, "You are the one who claimed to understand Crossan perfectly," I was not changing my meaning in any way whatsoever. You claimed to 'perfectly well understand Crossan's beliefs and views', but I needed to point out to you such a fundamental fact that Crossan absolutely considers himself to be a Christian and irrevocably Roman Catholic. Again, I am not being sarcastic.

Please, in English this is a figure of speech, and does not mean I understand Crossan perfectly. If English is your second language I understand, or . . . are you just being anal about my use of English.

I do not understand Crossan perfectly.

It may well be a fundamental fact that Crossan [claims to] absolutely consider himself to be an . . . 'irrevocably Roman Catholic,' but I do not agree. Reasons given.

[robrecht]

No meaning.

Please, in English this is a figure of speech, and does not mean I understand Crossan perfectly. If English is your second language I understand, or . . . are you just being anal about my use of English.

Actually, you are the one still complaining about my English here. I already told you I was not intending a different meaning.

I do not understand Crossan perfectly.

Yes, I know.

It may well be a fundamental fact that Crossan [claims to] absolutely consider himself to be an . . . 'irrevocably Roman Catholic,' but I do not agree. Reasons given.

It is indeed a fundamental fact. I had to give you the quotation two or three times before you finally accepted it. You do not agree and you consider his self-designation to be superficial and hypocritical. I think he has a much more profound appreciation of the Catholic tradition than you and that you will continue have difficulty grasping this if you stop short at merely criticizing his confession as superficial and hypocritical. Likewise, those who criticize your theist confession may fail to grasp the depth and profoundit of your faith if they do not try to better understand and appreciate your perspective.

[Adrift]

Duragizer. Do a smell the tar and feathers of another witch hunt!

First of all, "Do a smell the tar and feathers of another witch hunt!" isn't a sentence that makes sense. What is it to "Do a smell the tar and feathers?" Did you possibly mean "Do I smell the tar and feathers?"

Second of all, I'm not sure if you noticed, but I'm not a mod. So it would be pretty pointless for me to go after someone for something that I have no control over.

Third of all, I believe I was one of the few voices who initially supported your right to determine your own faith tag.

Fourth of all, Duragizer has never claimed to be anything but a "Christian Agnostic", and it's displayed prominently within his faith tag area, which is quite unlike what your situation was.

Fifth of all, as far as I can remember, Duragizer has never posted in any area where he wasn't allowed to post, given his faith tag. When he's posted (which isn't often) he's pretty much limited himself only to Natural Science 301, where he's allowed to post. So I have no idea why you're using him as an example of someone who's able to get away with something he ain't.

[shunyadragon]

First of all, "Do a smell the tar and feathers of another witch hunt!" isn't a sentence that makes sense. What is it to "Do a smell the tar and feathers?" Did you possibly mean "Do I smell the tar and feathers?"

Second of all, I'm not sure if you noticed, but I'm not a mod. So it would be pretty pointless for me to go after someone for something that I have no control over.

Third of all, I believe I was one of the few voices who initially supported your right to determine your own faith tag.

Fourth of all, Duragizer has never claimed to be anything but a "Christian Agnostic", and it's displayed prominently within his faith tag area, which is quite unlike what your situation was.

Fifth of all, as far as I can remember, Duragizer has never posted in any area where he wasn't allowed to post, given his faith tag. When he's posted (which isn't often) he's pretty much limited himself only to Natural Science 301, where he's allowed to post. So I have no idea why you're using him as an example of someone who's able to get away with something he ain't.

First my response did not assume you were a mod, nor had any influence on the matter. It was simply a response to the problem of the situation.

Where he posts is not the issue. Where he is allowed to post would be the issue. Would Tweb consider him a Christian theist or an agnostic?

There are other examples, which does not seem to bother Tweb, for example is JimL agnostic as his tag indicates, or is he atheist as his posts indicate?

About the time I started posting on tweb I considered myself agnostic, I certainly wasn't a bible believing christian, but since then I have come to consider myself more of an atheist.

What if I put the designation of Baha'i agnostic?

I do not believe that the Tweb oligarchy is willing to consider what a Philosophical Agnostic that believes in the Socratic Method to question everything even one's own beliefs, and it does not determine one's religious belief.

There is also a belief system of Agnosticism, which would 'believe' in varying degrees that there is insufficient reason, nor evidence to believe in either Theism nor Atheism.

[Adrift]

First my response did not assume you were a mod, nor had any influence on the matter. It was simply a response to the problem of the situation.

Where he posts is not the issue. Where he is allowed to post would be the issue. Would Tweb consider him a Christian theist or an agnostic?

There are other examples, which does not

What if I put the designation of Baha'i agnostic?

I do not believe that the Tweb oligarchy is willing to consider what a Philosophical Agnostic that believes in the Socratic Method to question everything even one's own beliefs, and it does not determine one's religious belief.

There is also a belief system of Agnosticism, which would 'believe' in varying degrees that there is insufficient reason, nor evidence to believe in either Theism nor Atheism.

TWeb staff would likely consider him an agnostic, and thus limit him to only those subforums open to agnostics. Since, as far as I know, he's never tested these waters, it's never been an issue. I'm certain, though, that if he were caught in a subforum not open to his faith designation, he would be told to move along. I'm also certain that staff would have little issue with you changing your faith designation tag to "Baha'i agnostic". That change would still express that you're an agnostic, and limit you to those forums open to agnostics. You may want to discuss this with a mod though.

[Adrift]

There are other examples, which does not seem to bother Tweb, for example is JimL agnostic as his tag indicates, or is he atheist as his posts indicate?

It looks like you edited and added to your post while I was replying to your original post, so I did not see this question.

As far as I'm aware, there is no place that JimL can post as an agnostic that he can't post as an atheist, so I can't see why the staff of TWeb would find this problematic. The purpose of having you change you faith designation (as I understand it) was to prevent you from posting in subfora you weren't allowed in. JimL doesn't really have that issue even if his faith designation is not exactly accurate.