Only adult in the room?

[Korah]

Hey, I'm not trying to insult the Forum or anyone here, but things are just crazy these days. Yeah, Jerry Seinfeld fears to tread on college campuses for fear of getting blackballed on political correctness--nobody can tolerate humor any more. I'd like to suggest it's worse than that. No one can tolerate serious discussion any more. How about we reserve say, this one thread for no side-tracking on the one side to gay weddings nor knee-jerk rejection of supernaturalism and on the other side no assumption that appeal to the Bible (or Koran or religious Law) settles anything either.
How about someone suggests something for discussion and I decide if it's a subject challenging adult conversation. When that plays out (maybe really quickly, as people's sensibilities seem to get trampled upon really quickly) we can settle on some other subject for adult discussion.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 19 by Zzyzx]
C'mon, Z,
If I were bragging, would I confess that I'm NOT three-sigma standard deviations above the norm in IQ, that I had to CHEAT to get into any of the 99.9 percentile clubs? Oh, you're right--I revealed that my cheating itself depended upon my superlatively high-IQ mind figuring out how to maneuver around the test in spite of my weakness in language skills (I only know Spanish, German, Russian with French self-taught because it's so easy to READ only, plus enough self-taught Greek to do Higher Criticism of the gospels. Never could manage Latin.)
So guilty as charged. I bragged.

At least you gave my a break about my lie that the Mega Society must have been the one that only 200 world-wide can qualify for. By definition any one-ia-a-million IQ person can get in, so that would be 7000 to 8000 worldwide. I never had a good memory (not since I was 13, anyway), so the even higher IQ groups escape me at the moment--one was called the Savant society? That's their inside joke--the word fits, but they tell us that the world highest IQ is possessed by Marilyn Mach vos Savant. Nevertheless I would guess they use the Mega Test for admittance.

I guess we all know now that even Random Ramblings is not a safe place for random rambling. Now I have to behave even here. I'll have to "convert" into an INTJ if I'm going to survive here at DC&R. No ENTPs allowed. Yes, people, students of Myers-Briggs personality assessments know that ENTPs are the most hated personality type. People can't stand their Extraverted brashness, their INtuitive spaciness, their cruei, unfeeling, cold Thinking and most of all (let's hear it for my poor long-suffering wife) their messiness intrinsic to being Perceptive instead of Judging. We don't condemn those priggish, stuffy, kill-joy Judging types, but they darn-sure judge US!

[Zzyzx]

.
Years ago an insufferable braggart who had quickly worn out his welcome with self-aggrandizement addressed a group with "What do I have to do to be a member here?"

My then wife brilliantly replied with "Be a different person."

[Korah]

[Replying to post 22 by Zzyzx]
Would it help if I offered to withdraw my acceptance from your proposed debate on seven written eyewitness sources about Jesus? So you could blame me for chickening out?

[Zzyzx]

.

[Replying to post 22 by Zzyzx]
Would it help if I offered to withdraw my acceptance from your proposed debate on seven written eyewitness sources about Jesus? So you could blame me for chickening out?

Help? Help what?

If you think it in your best interest to decline the debate that is fine with me. I don't care one way or the other -- and do not attach "chicken out" to decline even though others may.

Last I heard by PM was that you would not defend all seven claimed "written eyewitness accounts (or sources or whatever)" unless your own earlier opinions and conclusions were to be acceptable as evidence of truth.

When I asked which of the claimed seven you WERE willing to defend, there was no response.

There also may have been some objection to having two Theists and one Non-Theist closely monitor the debate to insure that Forum Rules and Guidelines were followed, that there be no personal comments, and that claims be substantiated.

If there was an implication that I wanted support from others or any special advantage, nothing could be further from the truth. I do not NEED nor want any preferential treatment.

If you do choose to decline, a reasonable alternative to consider is to present the claims one at a time in C&A to see if they hold water. For instance: "Is the Q (really 'Q' plus the Triple Tradition) written by Matthew an actual written eyewitness account?"

[Korah]

[Replying to post 24 by Zzyzx]
Excuse my ADHD, but I don't recall any communication to me asking me which of the seven to not try to defend. That's like asking whether I prefer you kill one of my step-sons or just two or three of my newborns (they're young and small and hardly anyone knows of their existence, not even signed up for kindergarten yet). Or whether I prefer to specify which of my seminar students wrote a particular paper I want to commend or just say somebody wrote it and here it is. (It would be pretty hard to deny that somebody wrote an untitled, unsigned manuscript I have in my hands, and rather more difficult to prove who did it if all the seminar students meanwhile got killed in a bus accident. Does it matter, given that I know my students handed in their assignments to me personally with their challenge to me to figure out which one wrote each paper?)
Oh, yeah, the point of my reply is that your Post #22 should be disregarded as if you did not write it? That nothing therein was to be taken personally by me as your hope and plea that I will just go away, the faster the better?
OK, so I formally withdraw any implication that I offered to back out of The Great Debate. I can take it that you're willing to put up with an insuffable braggart if he can just get his psychiatrist to find some magic pill that will bring down his hypomania without afflicting him with unbearable migraines?

[Zzyzx]

.

[Replying to post 24 by Zzyzx]
Excuse my ADHD, but I don't recall any communication to me asking me which of the seven to not try to defend. That's like asking whether I prefer you kill one of my step-sons or just two or three of my newborns (they're young and small and hardly anyone knows of their existence, not even signed up for kindergarten yet). Or whether I prefer to specify which of my seminar students wrote a particular paper I want to commend or just say somebody wrote it and here it is. (It would be pretty hard to deny that somebody wrote an untitled, unsigned manuscript I have in my hands, and rather more difficult to prove who did it if all the seminar students meanwhile got killed in a bus accident. Does it matter, given that I know my students handed in their assignments to me personally with their challenge to me to figure out which one wrote each paper?)

Is this back to saying you will defend all seven of the accounts you listed as being actual, written eyewitness accounts – without attempting to use your own earlier opinions and conclusions as evidence / proof? If so, I will challenge them one at a time individually in H2H or in C&A.

Oh, yeah, the point of my reply is that your Post #22 should be disregarded as if you did not write it? That nothing therein was to be taken personally by me as your hope and plea that I will just go away, the faster the better?

My post was a statement of my position regarding self-aggrandizing propaganda – in that case a man who seemed to think that his high IQ score (and/or whatever) would impress people.

OK, so I formally withdraw any implication that I offered to back out of The Great Debate. I can take it that you're willing to put up with an insuffable braggart if he can just get his psychiatrist to find some magic pill that will bring down his hypomania without afflicting him with unbearable migraines?

I know little about psychiatric medications or procedures. My interest here is in honorable debate within Forum Rules and Guidelines, without personal comments, with support of claims.

[Korah]

– without attempting to use your own earlier opinions and conclusions as evidence / proof? If so, I will challenge them one at a time individually in H2H or in C&A.
.... My interest here is in honorable debate within Forum Rules and Guidelines, without personal comments, with support of claims.

And of course you get to decide "debate within Forum Rules and Guidelines" already predetermined as "without personal comments, with support of claims" meaning as just noted "without attempting to use your own earlier opinions and conclusions as evidence/proof". So I tie one or two hands behind me? I'm in advance of mere Academic Orthodoxy, and my best stuff is my own discoveries. You can see that for yourself (as can any DC&R viewers by clicking on my links). Why should I care that people are too narrow-minded to look for truth, that's their fault, not mine.
If no one here is interested in honest search for truth, so be it. I'm ready to take on all comers, but not necessarily limiting myself to Christ's injunction to turn the other cheek. In addition I reserve the right to just ignore quibbling and obstructive insistence on technicalities. Is that the excuse you're looking for?

[Zzyzx]

.

– without attempting to use your own earlier opinions and conclusions as evidence / proof? If so, I will challenge them one at a time individually in H2H or in C&A.
.... My interest here is in honorable debate within Forum Rules and Guidelines, without personal comments, with support of claims.

And of course you get to decide

Correction: I suggested three people to make such decisions by monitoring the debate. If you think they are unqualified and/or wish to suggest additional people just say so.

"debate within Forum Rules and Guidelines" already predetermined as "without personal comments, with support of claims"

Anyone who is not willing to abide by rules, without personal comments, and with support of claims is not qualified to debate in DC&R at all, let alone Head to Head.

meaning as just noted "without attempting to use your own earlier opinions and conclusions as evidence/proof".

A person's opinions and conclusions are NOT credible evidence / proof in debate – whether current or previous. "I said this in 1970" doesn't prove anything at all.

So I tie one or two hands behind me?

If you think it ties your hands to disallow personal opinions and conclusions as evidence, your position is quite weak.

I'm in advance of mere Academic Orthodoxy, and my best stuff is my own discoveries. You can see that for yourself (as can any DC&R viewers by clicking on my links).

So you say. Evidently no one here or elsewhere seems to agree.

Why should I care that people are too narrow-minded to look for truth, that's their fault, not mine. If no one here is interested in honest search for truth, so be it.

Is that to say that those who do not accept your opinions and conjectures is narrow-minded and not searching for truth?

Of course you are willing to accept MY opinions and conjectures as proof of truth, right?

Perhaps in searching for truth those ideas have NOT stood the test of credibility and verifiability.

I'm ready to take on all comers, but not necessarily limiting myself to Christ's injunction to turn the other cheek.

"I am willing to take on all comers who will agree to accept my opinions and conclusions as proof / evidence in debate" isn't saying much.

In addition I reserve the right to just ignore quibbling and obstructive insistence on technicalities.

To what "technicalities" do you refer? Does that include insistence that claims and statements be supported with credible, verifiable evidence that they are true and accurate?

Is that the excuse you're looking for?

I trust that readers understand that I look for, and need, no excuses – and that I do not avoid fair and honorable debate in accord with Forum Rules and Guidelines.

An attempt to make it appear as though I look for excuses is not likely to succeed (perhaps not even in one's own mind) but is likely to backfire by illustrating who is waffling.

A wise person said, "When you discover you have dug yourself into a hole, stop digging."

[Korah]

[Replying to post 28 by Zzyzx]
I repeat.
I do not bow down at the altar of Academic Orthodoxy, no matter how many Larry Hurtado clones insist that I must.
Am I reduced to trying to maneuver danmark into debating me?
I risk modding and banishment to speak further.
"Am I half-way to China yet?"

[Zzyzx]

.

I do not bow down at the altar of Academic Orthodoxy, no matter how many Larry Hurtado clones insist that I must.

Yes, you should continue to insist that your opinions, conjectures and conclusions must be accepted as proof or evidence of your opinions, conjectures and conclusions – or you decline to debate.

Am I reduced to trying to maneuver danmark into debating me?

Rather than maneuvering and playing games it is much more honorable to approach directly.

I risk modding and banishment to speak further.

It is prudent to keep one's emotions under control and to confine debate to issues rather than personalities. Is that a difficult concept?

"Am I half-way to China yet?"

A navigational error may have occurred somewhere near Venus or perhaps Pluto.