Doctor Scratch wrote:What a dumb request. What, do you want a quote that says, "The Nehor is fallacious"? You posted that review the other day that said that caution is wise vis-a-vis intent. As far as I'm concerned, that explodes your original insistence that "intent" is so crucial in this case.
I want some clue that anyone outside this board agrees with you about how weak intent is in history.
Nope!
Yep!
???? That requires a pretty simplistic/reductive understanding of reality, The Nehor. The psychiatrists (arguably correct) interpretation doesn't render the experience any more or less "real" for the abductee. This is something that you seem to fail to realize: they is no "objective" history. Just ask DCP and LoaP. They'll call you naïve, too.
The abductee may think it is real....and it was. It was a real hallucination. I believe in an objective reality. There is no truly objective history. There are however objective historical facts. When a story recounts facts they either did or did not occur.
It's not as simple as that.
It demands you eject the supernatural elements on the basis alone that they are supernatural, a strong bias. Admittedly, it does not all have to be true but each part either is or isn't. I personally wouldn't trust a writer who tells a true story and fills it in with lies passed off as truth.
Have you heard of James Frey?
Yep. Didn't read his book. I would never trust a non-fiction book from him again.
I have not read that book but the Gospels do not suggest that they are historical fiction in any way.
Sure they do. (Or can, in any case.)
No, they really can't.
I distrust people giving psychiatric appraisals from 20 centuries away.
Your tone argument still hasn't been rescued.
I'm not familiar with my tone argument. Can you fill me in or did you make it up?
In the realm of history, I disagree.
Which, of course, is why you'd believe the alien abductee, and bigfoot witness, the citizen of Atlantis. There is a phrase for this: it's called being a sucker.
Again, you fail to grasp the simple two-step process I've laid out. I can't make it any simpler.
Nope, this is what I've always been saying. It claims to be historical. It was intended as historical. Now I need to figure out whether it is accurate or not.
Hence why the "intent" part isn't a good measure of historicity.
Agreed, though it is a good first step though towards figuring out if it's accurate.
[/quote]Step 1: Find out if text is historical. Look at intent, reception, and the text itself.
If text is historical, proceed to Step 2.
Step 2: Determine whether text is accurate or not using any and all appropriate methods.
Same as always. I argue the Gospels pass Step 1.
Yes; and intent alone is not enough to establish historicity. Your argument is fallacious on those grounds. Reception is irrelevant, since a good chunk of readers dismiss the Bible as history. In terms of the "text itself," well, you haven't ponied up much evidence beyond your intent argument. Your own argument doesn't even pass its own standards.
WHERE DID I SUGGEST THAT INTENT ESTABLISHES HISTORICITY? Never. Nowhere. Ever. Anywhere....in all these pages. Not once. Ever. Feel free to share where this was said.
In the plainest terms I laid out what I'm saying. If you don't get it here then it must be beyond you.