I guess I should apologize for saying something that got me suspended, but I WAS under the impression that Hell was the one place where the first commandment was somewhat relaxed, and I could be a big a jerk here as some others are being big jerks toward me. I guess in that I thought wrongly.
I have chosen not to defend myself, for it only adds to the furor, but I must say I found it questionable that one person went so far as to say that I was probably lying when I listed several eminent scholars, and that she would not even bother to google and see if they existed, or had real positions anywhere. Well, she could have googled away, and would have found seminaries or universities at Princeton, Duke, Notre Dame, Vanderbilt, Goettingen, UNC, Boston U, etc.
That represents a level of disparagement I do not care to respond to, normally.
But beyond that, I am not going to engage in defending myself here. I really am interested in thoughtful discussion -- and not in banter and flippancy and obstructionism -- on the threads I have started, and it is being increasingly pointed out by both friends and foes that those who do not wish seriously to participate can simply ignore them.
Yes, and it is also being pointed out that simpler, and less prolix, posts would be appreciated. Your lists of eminent scholars may well be accurate, but we don't all have the time, or inclination, to look up the many works you refer to, or to buy them from the egregious Amazon...
You keep forgetting that others can post how, and what, they wish on the threads which you have started, within the parameters set by the Ship's Crew, of course.
Banter, and flippancy, are part of the culture of the Ship, whether you like it or not, and, if you consider that to be obstructionism, tough. Purgatory is, I know, the thread for serious discussion, but your constant lectures, and setting of exam questions, don't really fall into that category, so you must expect a possibly adverse reaction.
I say again, keep it simpler, and don't keep referring to other scholars. Tell us, in answer to our questions to you, what you think.
More than one host or administrator seems to be pointing out that banter and flippancy should not be part of a serious discussion of scriptural texts in the Purgatory thread. And I do always eventually tell what I myself believe.
You rage against me here and then appear there as a wolf in sheep's clothing. But I will continue to request and get serious discussion there, despite you.
Advice # 1 for "serious discussion:" When presenting an argument, provide your own support for it. Don't expect / require / demand other posters to do this work for you.
Advice # 2 for "serious discussion:" Get to the point. Cut to the chase. Concision is your friend.
More than one host or administrator seems to be pointing out that banter and flippancy should not be part of a serious discussion of scriptural texts in the Purgatory thread. And I do always eventually tell what I myself believe.
You rage against me here and then appear there as a wolf in sheep's clothing. But I will continue to request and get serious discussion there, despite you.
Gosh! So I'm a wolf in sheep's clothing? My Old Mum would be proud...
I pick you up on the word 'eventually'. You remind me of the old joke:
Rural Churchgoer - "Oi prefer Vicar's sermons - 'e sez 'in conclusion', and 'e do conclude. Curate, 'e sez 'lastly', and 'e do last...."
And just who, exactly, says banter and flippancy can't be part of 'a serious discussion of Biblical texts'? Personal attacks, and insults - no, of course not. But who the Hell are you, to say how others must contribute to a thread?
O, and what @Ohher said. Heed the words, and note how few were needed to make a couple of good points.
And I do always eventually tell what I myself believe.
@James Boswell II you’d get a lot less grief from other posters if you put what you believe first, and your supporting arguments second.
As in, “I believe x about this, for the following reasons ...”
Otherwise, it feels as if you are trying to lead others to a specific conclusion you have already decided upon via series of prompts and questions. Which makes the reader feel manipulated and patronised.
@Doublethink
Thank you, Doublethink. You always share good points with me, and I have already tried to take some of your advice. And I very much value the way you have dealt with me in seeking greater clarity on certain threads, and hope you will continue.
Let me just say this, however.
I sometimes think that it may at times be better not to state right upfront entirely what I think, but to lead into it and then go onward to some eventual conclusion. That in a way seems to me to be even more honest, for the reader may or may not arrive where I arrive, but she or he has not been urged or "prejudiced" pro or con in that direction before the argument even commences.
I grant you, however, that your points are a good argument against my trying to handle it in that way, and I can see the validity in what you say. I only wanted to share my thinking along that line with you.
@Doublethink
Thank you, Doublethink. You always share good points with me, and I have already tried to take some of your advice. And I very much value the way you have dealt with me in seeking greater clarity on certain threads, and hope you will continue.
Let me just say this, however.
I sometimes think that it may at times be better not to state right upfront entirely what I think, but to lead into it and then go onward to some eventual conclusion. That in a way seems to me to be even more honest, for the reader may or may not arrive where I arrive, but she or he has not been urged or "prejudiced" pro or con in that direction before the argument even commences.
I grant you, however, that your points are a good argument against my trying to handle it in that way, and I can see the validity in what you say. I only wanted to share my thinking along that line with you.
Thanks again.
Jim
I can identify two aspects of your posting which you may (or may not, you do you) consider amending:
1. You are mistaken in your concept of this discussion board. We are not readers to be led on a journey. To use this model (and even to 'graciously' allow deviance from your intended conclusion, spare me) is to be seen as pompous and manipulative. People don't like feeling manipulated or subjected to condescension.
2. You are excessively fond of the following construct:
[emollient bullshit] BUT [what I really think].
Do you really think we are unfamiliar with this? Better and smarter shipmates than you have been called out on it. It is this formula that got you into trouble: I apologize [bullshit] BUT I'm wickedly glad I did it [what I really think]. You might consider saving us all time, and do us the honour of assuming we are brighter than you seem to think, by cutting to the chase.
I sometimes think that it may at times be better not to state right upfront entirely what I think, but to lead into it and then go onward to some eventual conclusion. That in a way seems to me to be even more honest, for the reader may or may not arrive where I arrive, but she or he has not been urged or "prejudiced" pro or con in that direction before the argument even commences.
So you're saying that you personally are likely to be urged or prejudiced by other people's opinions, and so you shouldn't read their opinions before you've expressed your own?
If you find yourself replying that you aren't worried about yourself, that the above doesn't apply to you, but you're worried about other people, the readers...
Ask yourself what do you believe or assume makes you different from other people or your readers?
And then don't post here again until you've made a sincere and earnest attempt to abandon whatever belief or assumption that is.
How precious! "If I say what I think first, y'all will be instantly swayed to my opinion, and not want to post your own—which of course I will rip to shreds for my amusement."
If anyone would like to be amused at the Professor's expense, have a look at his re-publishing of umpteen tl;dr posts on the John the Baptist thread.
Although it's not at all funny from the POV of the poor Hosts who have to wade through the shite.
He clearly has not learnt anything from his suspension, or from the quantity of helpful advice given to him, almost invariably in a friendly fashion, by Shipmates.
I just read the last few pages of the JtB thread. It is very weird, I can't really capture the flavour of it, a cross between a headmaster, and a scoutmaster, with something else, like someone very old.
Well, she could have googled away, and would have found seminaries or universities at Princeton, Duke, Notre Dame, Vanderbilt, Goettingen, UNC, Boston U, etc.
I have kept Back a bit from commenting but now I will. @James Boswell II I agree with several people here you seem to miss understood the meaning of discussion but would add you seem to misunderstand how forums work. Long informative posts don’t work in this situation. An internet board is a place for succinct posts that say a lot in a short time. Long deep posts act as a wall and block discussion. I guess the exceptions are those boards that are for experts in a particular field, but not general discussion boards like this. They are really no a place to develop an argument. That is not their function.
I just read the last few pages of the JtB thread. It is very weird, I can't really capture the flavour of it, a cross between a headmaster, and a scoutmaster, with something else, like someone very old.
Me too - he reminds me of the sort of crusty old cove, some of which we had at my Grammar School back in the 60s. Rather scruffy, badly shaven, worn gown/academic hood, egg stains on badly-knotted tie...you get the picture.
Add to this a constant state of irascibility, a refusal to listen to any Boy who dared put his hand up (even in response to a general question), and a penchant for setting vast amounts of homework...
In all honesty, I'm no longer reading this vicious crap (so if you want to give me any serious advice, better do it on the threads)
--but I did happen to see Bishop Index Finger's last one.
Yeah, my lack of humor is pretty obvious:
_______________
Rublev said:
If the NT had a Hell thread: What would the Corinthians say? What would Pilate say? And what about Judas?
--There's a gap in the market. We need some Christian midrash.
James Boswell II said:
"What would Pilate say? And what about Judas?"
--Well, I guess Judas could finally set us straight on whether he hanged himself or fell forward and burst open.
Rublev said:
There are plenty of writers on board the Ship. We could have a competition to write the best NT hell thread / midrash / pseudonymous letter.
James said:
I doubt if anyone could come up with a gospel much better than The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which should have been titled The Gospel of Jesus the Divine Spoiled Brat.
Rublev said:
The clay birds that came to life are a nice touch though, aren't they?
James said:
Yeah, one clap of the brat's hands and the evidence the elders could have used against him for making graven images on the Sabbath just got up and flew away!
--Also, his stretching of the too short wooden board to make it the same length as a longer one was a nice touch. Joseph liked that.
--By the way, when the boy kept striking playmates dead and teachers blind, Joseph once grabbed him by the ear lobe in protest. Damned if I would have grabbed him by anything!
Rublev said:
Sounds like you have a winner in the Apocryphal Gospel category. Closely followed by The Acts of Paul and Thecla...
James said:
I don't know anything about the Acts of Paul and Thecla. I hope they kept it clean.
__________
This is hardly vicious by Hell standards. Just a couple of suggestions for having more people engage with you. You’ll note, James, that you only have two or three people regularly talking with you, despite the fact that many people are interested in these topics on the ship. You’d have much better attendance if some adjustments were made.
James. Hell is a place to take things that cannot go on other boards, this leaving them free to discuss the topic at hand. I was very careful how I posted last time remember. People like the threads you start. Don’t get huffy. You don’t have to prove anything, but when several people are saying the same thing it would be good to put their advice into action.
But I have not stopped reading his threads, but I have stopped replying on them, and here's why:
They are superficial.
No matter how long the reply he does little more than present his own thoughts without evidence. He does quote theologians, but there is no evidence that he hs actually read them. I can do that. I can read a blog that quotes theologians then I can put these quotes, or just their names then if someone asks me about it say, "Look them up." There is plenty of length to JBII's writing, but they are lacking in the depth I look for in Purgatory.
They are dismissive.
JBII even dismissed all ao what Matthew's Gospel had to say about John the Baptist on the Purgatory thread by saying: The Pharisee/Sadducee wording represents the author of Matthew's intense dislike for both parties, abundantly indicated throughout that gospel. He dismisses shipmates who disagree with him in a similar way. Again it is superficial. This is a place for discussion, not dismissal
They are rude and arrogant. I will get back to you on that. If when the reply comes it is neither superficial or dismissive then it could be tolerated. But it really comes over as someone setting himself up as a great teacher then, when a question is asked, has absolutely no idea at all. Two days of looking then brings no depth. See superficial above. If you want to teach, you need a platform other than the Ship, the ship has never been about teaching, but a teacher needs to show some understanding of their subject. JBII shows no such evidence.
Is James Boswell really copy-pasting his own posts to prove he has a sense of humour? Oh dear.
Oh dear, indeed. Had he bothered to take my remark about a lack of humour in context, he would have seen that I was merely adding to the list of schoolmasterly characteristics that I recalled from my Yoof. Of course, if the cap fits...
But no - that's too much trouble for the pretentious prat of a professor. As @balaam rightly says, anything on 'his' threads that doesn't please him is dismissed forthwith.
You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment, except to say that the Professor appears to have abandoned 'our' thread (not 'his' ) to such Hellbound Hereticks™ as Martin54, Rublev, and one or two others.
I have put a thick exercise book down the back of my trousers, ready for the Professor's cane, should he decide to chastise me in the traditional fashion.
You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment, except to say that the Professor appears to have abandoned 'our' thread (not 'his' ) to such Hellbound Hereticks™ as Martin54, Rublev, and one or two others.
I have put a thick exercise book down the back of my trousers, ready for the Professor's cane, should he decide to chastise me in the traditional fashion.
Oh dear, now "Another Brick in the Wall Part II" is playing in my head.
It seems that Hell is too hot, or unpalatable, for the Professor, as he's just said elsewhere that he isn't going to look at any posts here, ever again, at all, no, not never...
Well, that's his prerogative, I suppose, but it does rather smack of childish flouncing...
It seems that Hell is too hot, or unpalatable, for the Professor, as he's just said elsewhere that he isn't going to look at any posts here, ever again, at all, no, not never...
Well, that's his prerogative, I suppose, but it does rather smack of childish flouncing...
Well you could give his tediouslyboring threads the same treatment perhaps?
On the other hand I enjoy any diversions from his pontifications.
Indeed, though the H&As might have a different view...
The thing is, of course, that he can post as many words as he likes, but that doesn't mean anyone is actually going to read them*. I now scroll swiftly past his crocks of shite, but look at some of the contributions made by others (though there aren't many of the latter - can't imagine why...).
*Apart from the Hosts, who are to be numbered, IMHO, with the Saints, and Martyrs.
His thread on John the Baptist is currently wandering all over the place, and he seems to have accepted it. Perhaps he's learning.
I seriously wouldn’t count on it. My guess is that he’ll find himself involuntarily and permanently ashore before he actually learns how to carry on a discussion here.
Indeed, though the H&As might have a different view...
The thing is, of course, that he can post as many words as he likes, but that doesn't mean anyone is actually going to read them*. I now scroll swiftly past his crocks of shite, but look at some of the contributions made by others (though there aren't many of the latter - can't imagine why...).
*Apart from the Hosts, who are to be numbered, IMHO, with the Saints, and Martyrs.
James said:
First, thank you for reading "the whole of this thread."
You wrote, "James Boswell II" does not think Jesus’ words were condemnations for reasons as yet obscure."
--It surprises me that you say the reasons are obscure. I must be a very poor communicator.
Sometimes a small bit of self-awareness does creep in, apparently.
But now I find myself with the final verse of Robert Burns’ “To a Louse” stuck in my head.
James said:
First, thank you for reading "the whole of this thread."
You wrote, "James Boswell II" does not think Jesus’ words were condemnations for reasons as yet obscure."
--It surprises me that you say the reasons are obscure. I must be a very poor communicator.
Sometimes a small bit of self-awareness does creep in, apparently.
Comments
I have chosen not to defend myself, for it only adds to the furor, but I must say I found it questionable that one person went so far as to say that I was probably lying when I listed several eminent scholars, and that she would not even bother to google and see if they existed, or had real positions anywhere. Well, she could have googled away, and would have found seminaries or universities at Princeton, Duke, Notre Dame, Vanderbilt, Goettingen, UNC, Boston U, etc.
That represents a level of disparagement I do not care to respond to, normally.
But beyond that, I am not going to engage in defending myself here. I really am interested in thoughtful discussion -- and not in banter and flippancy and obstructionism -- on the threads I have started, and it is being increasingly pointed out by both friends and foes that those who do not wish seriously to participate can simply ignore them.
You keep forgetting that others can post how, and what, they wish on the threads which you have started, within the parameters set by the Ship's Crew, of course.
Banter, and flippancy, are part of the culture of the Ship, whether you like it or not, and, if you consider that to be obstructionism, tough. Purgatory is, I know, the thread for serious discussion, but your constant lectures, and setting of exam questions, don't really fall into that category, so you must expect a possibly adverse reaction.
I say again, keep it simpler, and don't keep referring to other scholars. Tell us, in answer to our questions to you, what you think.
You rage against me here and then appear there as a wolf in sheep's clothing. But I will continue to request and get serious discussion there, despite you.
Advice # 2 for "serious discussion:" Get to the point. Cut to the chase. Concision is your friend.
Gosh! So I'm a wolf in sheep's clothing? My Old Mum would be proud...
I pick you up on the word 'eventually'. You remind me of the old joke:
Rural Churchgoer - "Oi prefer Vicar's sermons - 'e sez 'in conclusion', and 'e do conclude. Curate, 'e sez 'lastly', and 'e do last...."
And just who, exactly, says banter and flippancy can't be part of 'a serious discussion of Biblical texts'? Personal attacks, and insults - no, of course not. But who the Hell are you, to say how others must contribute to a thread?
O, and what @Ohher said. Heed the words, and note how few were needed to make a couple of good points.
@James Boswell II you’d get a lot less grief from other posters if you put what you believe first, and your supporting arguments second.
As in, “I believe x about this, for the following reasons ...”
Otherwise, it feels as if you are trying to lead others to a specific conclusion you have already decided upon via series of prompts and questions. Which makes the reader feel manipulated and patronised.
Quite why he's trying to do it is another matter.
Thank you, Doublethink. You always share good points with me, and I have already tried to take some of your advice. And I very much value the way you have dealt with me in seeking greater clarity on certain threads, and hope you will continue.
Let me just say this, however.
I sometimes think that it may at times be better not to state right upfront entirely what I think, but to lead into it and then go onward to some eventual conclusion. That in a way seems to me to be even more honest, for the reader may or may not arrive where I arrive, but she or he has not been urged or "prejudiced" pro or con in that direction before the argument even commences.
I grant you, however, that your points are a good argument against my trying to handle it in that way, and I can see the validity in what you say. I only wanted to share my thinking along that line with you.
Thanks again.
Jim
I can identify two aspects of your posting which you may (or may not, you do you) consider amending:
1. You are mistaken in your concept of this discussion board. We are not readers to be led on a journey. To use this model (and even to 'graciously' allow deviance from your intended conclusion, spare me) is to be seen as pompous and manipulative. People don't like feeling manipulated or subjected to condescension.
2. You are excessively fond of the following construct:
[emollient bullshit] BUT [what I really think].
Do you really think we are unfamiliar with this? Better and smarter shipmates than you have been called out on it. It is this formula that got you into trouble: I apologize [bullshit] BUT I'm wickedly glad I did it [what I really think]. You might consider saving us all time, and do us the honour of assuming we are brighter than you seem to think, by cutting to the chase.
Well said, though.
If you find yourself replying that you aren't worried about yourself, that the above doesn't apply to you, but you're worried about other people, the readers...
Ask yourself what do you believe or assume makes you different from other people or your readers?
And then don't post here again until you've made a sincere and earnest attempt to abandon whatever belief or assumption that is.
Although it's not at all funny from the POV of the poor Hosts who have to wade through the shite.
He clearly has not learnt anything from his suspension, or from the quantity of helpful advice given to him, almost invariably in a friendly fashion, by Shipmates.
@James Boswell II I agree with several people here you seem to miss understood the meaning of discussion but would add you seem to misunderstand how forums work. Long informative posts don’t work in this situation. An internet board is a place for succinct posts that say a lot in a short time. Long deep posts act as a wall and block discussion. I guess the exceptions are those boards that are for experts in a particular field, but not general discussion boards like this. They are really no a place to develop an argument. That is not their function.
Me too - he reminds me of the sort of crusty old cove, some of which we had at my Grammar School back in the 60s. Rather scruffy, badly shaven, worn gown/academic hood, egg stains on badly-knotted tie...you get the picture.
Add to this a constant state of irascibility, a refusal to listen to any Boy who dared put his hand up (even in response to a general question), and a penchant for setting vast amounts of homework...
--but I did happen to see Bishop Index Finger's last one.
Yeah, my lack of humor is pretty obvious:
_______________
Rublev said:
If the NT had a Hell thread: What would the Corinthians say? What would Pilate say? And what about Judas?
--There's a gap in the market. We need some Christian midrash.
James Boswell II said:
"What would Pilate say? And what about Judas?"
--Well, I guess Judas could finally set us straight on whether he hanged himself or fell forward and burst open.
Rublev said:
There are plenty of writers on board the Ship. We could have a competition to write the best NT hell thread / midrash / pseudonymous letter.
James said:
I doubt if anyone could come up with a gospel much better than The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which should have been titled The Gospel of Jesus the Divine Spoiled Brat.
Rublev said:
The clay birds that came to life are a nice touch though, aren't they?
James said:
Yeah, one clap of the brat's hands and the evidence the elders could have used against him for making graven images on the Sabbath just got up and flew away!
--Also, his stretching of the too short wooden board to make it the same length as a longer one was a nice touch. Joseph liked that.
--By the way, when the boy kept striking playmates dead and teachers blind, Joseph once grabbed him by the ear lobe in protest. Damned if I would have grabbed him by anything!
Rublev said:
Sounds like you have a winner in the Apocryphal Gospel category. Closely followed by The Acts of Paul and Thecla...
James said:
I don't know anything about the Acts of Paul and Thecla. I hope they kept it clean.
__________
HILARIOUS! HILARIOUS! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP!
Thanks, Mom.
We've been very restrained IMHO, even on this thread.
But I have not stopped reading his threads, but I have stopped replying on them, and here's why:
They are superficial.
No matter how long the reply he does little more than present his own thoughts without evidence. He does quote theologians, but there is no evidence that he hs actually read them. I can do that. I can read a blog that quotes theologians then I can put these quotes, or just their names then if someone asks me about it say, "Look them up." There is plenty of length to JBII's writing, but they are lacking in the depth I look for in Purgatory.
They are dismissive.
JBII even dismissed all ao what Matthew's Gospel had to say about John the Baptist on the Purgatory thread by saying: The Pharisee/Sadducee wording represents the author of Matthew's intense dislike for both parties, abundantly indicated throughout that gospel. He dismisses shipmates who disagree with him in a similar way. Again it is superficial. This is a place for discussion, not dismissal
They are rude and arrogant.
I will get back to you on that. If when the reply comes it is neither superficial or dismissive then it could be tolerated. But it really comes over as someone setting himself up as a great teacher then, when a question is asked, has absolutely no idea at all. Two days of looking then brings no depth. See superficial above. If you want to teach, you need a platform other than the Ship, the ship has never been about teaching, but a teacher needs to show some understanding of their subject. JBII shows no such evidence.
Oh dear, indeed. Had he bothered to take my remark about a lack of humour in context, he would have seen that I was merely adding to the list of schoolmasterly characteristics that I recalled from my Yoof. Of course, if the cap fits...
But no - that's too much trouble for the pretentious prat of a professor. As @balaam rightly says, anything on 'his' threads that doesn't please him is dismissed forthwith.
I have put a thick exercise book down the back of my trousers, ready for the Professor's cane, should he decide to chastise me in the traditional fashion.
Oh dear, now "Another Brick in the Wall Part II" is playing in my head.
The latest effusions are almost incomprehensible, and he would do well to hie him to the Styx, and practice BBCode there.
For a long time.
Well, that's his prerogative, I suppose, but it does rather smack of childish flouncing...
A form of verbal diarrhoea, I guess.
On the other hand I enjoy any diversions from his pontifications.
The thing is, of course, that he can post as many words as he likes, but that doesn't mean anyone is actually going to read them*. I now scroll swiftly past his crocks of shite, but look at some of the contributions made by others (though there aren't many of the latter - can't imagine why...).
*Apart from the Hosts, who are to be numbered, IMHO, with the Saints, and Martyrs.
You misunderstand. He’s not “junior hosting.” He’s maintaining order in his classroom.
But yes, the style is becoming increasingly bizarre.
Amen and Amen.
But now I find myself with the final verse of Robert Burns’ “To a Louse” stuck in my head.
I read that post. It is seriously creepy. I hope Rublev has enough sense to take a third party along.
I think you'll need all the help you can get.
I hope Rublev is keeping an eye on the Professor, and maintaining a good distance between the two of them...