Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

What is a "scholarly" approach on a subject?

I submit that there is a process that needs to be followed in order for a
work to be "scholarly".  

First off, carefull research needs to be done on the issue.  If this
research is not done, then there may be something significant about
the issue that is totally overlooked, i.e. not even considered.  Or,
possibly, an alternative that looks unlikely on the face of it may
in fact be more likely when examined in detail.

Secondly, each alternative needs to be carefully weighed and
considered.  Specific reasons why an alternative is good or bad
need to be discussed in an even-handed way.

Finally, the conclusion is reached based on the evidence and the
pros and cons discussed.  Given the work behind the conclusion, those
who disagree can question a foundational element that was behind
the eventual conclusion and mutliple scenarios are possible:
the author may realize he overlooked something, an alternative
explanation that was not previously given much weight is
reconsidered, other context may be pulled in, possibly the
difference in conclusions will be explained by the different
frameworks of the participants.

The original author of the opinion then needs to re-evaluate
the evidence based on the new information or reasoning which
has been put forward.  Ideally, this should lead to a new conclusion
(which may in fact be the same conclusion).  What generally happens
is that once a conclusion is reached, the evidence is shifted to
support that conclusion.

If this sounds similar to the Scientific Method, it is true that
there are indeed similarities.

As I see it, alternatives to a scholarly approach include:

 - avoid the facts altogether
 - only admit the facts that support your conclusion
 - rationalize your belief despite the facts
 - attack those who challenge the conclusion or the facts

These, unfortunately, are the typical responses (which I am
certainly guilty of at times).  Who gains from these alternatives?
I don't think any of us ultimately gain.  I think that truth
loses.

Collis

P.S.  I believe that those who consistently refuse to examine
the facts behind their beliefs probably don't know the facts
behind their beliefs making their beliefs built on shifting
sand instead of the rock.

    And if a work is deemed "un-scholarly"?  Are we to conclude that is
    valueless?
    
    Richard
    

I�should add that I usually steer clear of dry reading material.

I do receive a few periodicals, which, IMHO, are interesting, challenging,
enlightening, inspiring, and rooted in spirituality and discipleship.

Many such articles are written by clergy or teachers (such as Walter
Wink) or gifted laity.

Richard

Re:  .2 and .3

First things first.  Do you agree on the scholarship
criteria I've outlined?  Would you modify it some?
a lot?

I would suggest that after looking at the advantages
of scholarship (as outlined or modified), we could look
at the consequences of a different procedure and *then*
make a determination about what makes sense to use/do
when judging an idea or viewpoint.

I do admit that this methodology closely follows a
"scholarship" structure (which you have not yet assented
to as a reasonable course of action).  But, we have to
start someway and I prefer a plan of action to a response
on the cuff.

Collis

    Collis,
    
    There seems to me to be something missing from your explanation of
    scholarship standards:  PREMISE.
    
    We can use identical standards for argumentation and evidence but if
    our premises differ, we arrive at radically different conclusions.
    
    Daniel

If by premise you may theory, I think that this is a
major drawback of the Scientific Method.

If by premise you mean unstated beliefs, then this
is handled just by stating and evaluating them along
with everything else.

Collis

Note 626.1                      -< scholarship >-

>First off, careful research needs to be done on the issue.

Agreed.  But how do we determine if this has been done, and more importantly,
how do we determine that the results of the research are free of the
researchers' filters (prejudices, notions)?

>Secondly, each alternative needs to be carefully weighed and
>considered.  Specific reasons why an alternative is good or bad
>need to be discussed in an even-handed way.

I would say pluses and minuses.  But I'm not certain what constitutes
reasons.  Reasons which seem logical can be (and often are) dismissed
simply because they're unsatisfactory (unsatisfying).

I do believe that reason and logic have their limits.  I would be
hesistant to dismiss altogether all things which are contrary to
reason or logic.

>Finally, the conclusion is reached based on the evidence and the
>pros and cons discussed.

It appears you are saying:  1.)Examine all that is presently known.
2.)Examine all the possibilities.  3.)Choose as right and true the
possibility that withstands the most scrutiny.

Not a bad way to do things.  And granted, this is the way I tend to
deal with many, if not most, problematic situations.  I'm in basic
agreement with this.

My reservations are as follows:

Many of the opinions I post here do not come with footnotes in their
original form.  They're from magazines and other publications.

I have limited access to supporting materials.  My personal library is
a small one.  I do not own an arsenal of theological materials and I
doubt that I ever will.

I have limited time to do research.  Generally speaking, I don't enjoy
doing indepth research, so I've got to feel there will be a high return
on my investment in order to do it.

These limitations, I fear, will put me at a severe disadvantage.

Richard

    .6
    
    I disagree.  If, for example, a person's premise is "God exists" I do
    not believe there is empirical data of sufficient nature to either
    prove or disprove this premise.  It is a matter of faith and/or
    personal experience.
    
    Daniel

Re:  .8

O.K., you can agree on certain premises as you
suggested (IF x THEN y).

Collis

Re:  .7

This is the method I learned in science class
(essentially).

This is the method I learned at work from the best
boss I ever had when I needed to come to agreements
with co-workers on which way to proceed.

This is the method I learned in Seminary when it was
time to interpret Scripture.

I would suggest that the drawbacks you list are not
drawbacks of the methodology, but rather drawbacks of
our time, effort and prejudices.  If you concede that
this is the case, I would argue that the methodology
itself is an excellant (and proven effective) methodology
and that it is effective as we make use of it.  In other
words, the more we are willing to research the facts
and base our decisions on the facts and the logic that
proceeds from the facts, the more likely we can come to
an agreement.  I have certainly found this to be
consistently true in my life.

All this leads to the question of whether we should
actually use this methodology here.  Personally, I think
that it is quite useful if we hope to do more than simply
share viewpoints (which may or may not have any basis in
fact).  If your goal is simply to share what you believe
and hear what others believe, then there is no need to
pursue the differences between the two.  But if you, like
me, desire to pursue TRUTH, then it is reasonable to test
what is said with the facts and logic at our disposable -
and perhaps, at times, to collect more facts so we can
be even more knowledgable and have a greater chance of
distinguishing between what is true and what is not.

Those who refuse to pursue this course may do so either
because they don't care about objective truth (instead, they
just care about what they personally choose to believe)
or perhaps they are hard-pressed to defend their beliefs
(sometimes there's not much basis for them; sometimes they
don't know what the basis is) or perhaps they don't wish to
put forth the effort.

I can understand these reasons and, at times, I use them
all myself.  However, I think it is unreasonable to refuse
to pursue the matter based on facts and logic while all the
time discrediting the opinions and beliefs of others who
have put forth this effort, i.e. claiming others are wrong
who have put forth the facts and logic without saying *where*
they are wrong or claiming you are right without responding
to the facts and logic which indicate you are wrong.

Unfortunately, the response in this notesfile is often to
refuse to discuss specifics which, I am convinced, would lead
to greater agreement.  Ultimately, I think the reason for this
is often that the specifics do not back up the general claims 
of those who refuse to discuss them.  Perhaps I'm wrong about
this, but it sure appears that way relatively frequently,
including, in my opinion, the currect case that this discussion
sprung from.

Collis

Note 626.10

>I would suggest that the drawbacks you list are not
>drawbacks of the methodology, but rather drawbacks of
>our time, effort and prejudices.

This may be the case, but I would hate to paint myself into a corner
by saying that I would commit to adhering exclusively to the methodology.

>Those who refuse to pursue this course may do so either
>because they don't care about objective truth (instead, they
>just care about what they personally choose to believe)
>or perhaps they are hard-pressed to defend their beliefs
>(sometimes there's not much basis for them; sometimes they
>don't know what the basis is) or perhaps they don't wish to
>put forth the effort.

What appears to be objective truth is not always true.  If it were, scientific
knowledge would never change.  But it does.  Your methodology is limited by
what can be empirically demonstrated.  Einstein, from what I've learned of
him, did not discard even a daydream simply on the grounds that he couldn't
prove it.

I would say the methodology would work best for short-term solutions (such
as, what'll I have for lunch?).

Having said this, I wouldn't mind experimenting with your methodology.

Richard

I have to agree with most of what's been written in this topic.  The
scholarly approach that Collis outlined is certainly the right way to
approach a subject: find all the relevant facts that are known about the
matter and then form a (possibly new) conclusion based on those facts.
Where the scholarly approach breaks down in a conference like this one is
that we aren't professional researchers and can't possibly know "all the
relevant facts that are known about the matter".  Some of us know more
than others about any given subject, but we're all amateurs.

Let's say that two amateur scholars, A and B, disagree about subject X
(say, the origin of the earth).  There are at least two main theories
about X; call these theories Y (e.g. the theory of evolution) and Z (e.g.
biblical creationism).  Coming into the discussion, A believes theory Y
and B believes theory Z.  A can quote experts E, F and G who also believe
in Y, while B can quote experts H, I and J who believe in Z.

Now B may know a great deal more about Z than A does, and can produce a
very large amount of evidence to support theory Z.  For whatever reason, A
isn't willing to commit the time research the subject and produce the
equal or possibly greater evidence which supports Y.

Within the confines of the the limited data that is brought up during the
discussion, the weight of the evidence supports theory Z.  After all, B,
who has spent much more time researching the subject, has extensively
studied the writings of H, I and J and probably hasn't studied E, F and G
in the same depth. Unless B is unusually objective he is less likely to
bring up the evidence supporting Y.  (By the way, to defend my use of the
pronoun "he" I should point out that A and B are male.  C and D are
female.)

Should A change his mind and embrace theory Z?  I don't think so, because
the evidence that's been brought up has been one sided.  Unless A is
willing to work as hard as B at researching the subject he should
gracefully bow out of the argument with a comment such as "You've brought
up some interesting points.  Maybe we can continue this discussion some
day if I ever find the time to study this in more detail."

It's difficult being in A's position because we like to think that our
beliefs are well founded in fact.  We want to "keep an open mind", but at
the same time we are emotionally attached to our beliefs and are unwilling
to change them.  Unless we're motivated enough to spend a lot of time on
research we get backed into a corner where we have to either drop out of
the argument, give in and agree that the other side is right, or just
ignore the other side's evidence and keep on arguing without introducing
any new evidence of our own (I think it's this third option that leads to
1000+ reply topics in notes conferences!).

This is one reason I haven't written as much in notes conferences in the
last few years.  Maybe I've become mature enough to realize that it's
pointless to keep arguing with someone unless I've got enough facts to
back up my side.  Sure, I can exchange opinions all day, but a real
scholarly debate takes *work*, and I'm not willing to spend that much time
on it.  If I read a note that I disagree with but I can't *prove* that
it's wrong, nowadays I usually just skip over the note - which means that
I skip over almost everything.

Basically I agree with you, Collis, that scholarly research is the right
way to approach a subject, but I hope you'll understand when no matter how
many facts you assemble they still aren't enough to convince people like
Richard and I.  I don't know about Richard, but for me, I'd be most likely
to change my mind if *I* did the research, learned (practically) all there
was to know about the subject, and *still* found that the weight of the
evidence showed that I was wrong.

				-- Bob

Given that there is some concensus that this is a
reasonable methodology (although not always applicable
in all circumstances), I just have one more comment.

The question about how to discuss matters (if at all) is
not on a black or white scale, but rather a sliding scale.
The choice is not a formal research project vs. unsubstantiated
opinion.  Everyday we make choices about whether to get more
facts to form a (presumably) better opinion or not, or even
to avoid the facts that are presented.

I willing admit that I am more of a "get more facts" type
of person and I certainly don't expect everyone to emulate
that style.  However, the reason that I raised this as an
issue is because there is a strong tendency by a number of
writers in this conference to not only not get facts, but to
avoid (or dispute without evidence) facts that are presented
that conflict with their beliefs.  Yes, this does happen more
in this notes conference (from my perspective) than other
notes conferences.

I find this frustrating at times because it is in direct
conflict with my search for truth.  Hopefully, the issue being
briefly addressed here will allow each of us to consider our
choices when discussing the various topics - and give us some
insight as to what our goals really are.  It seems to be a
generally held opinion that those who push deep into a subject
are those that are rigid, inflexible, etc. (presumably because
they just don't either admit they are wrong or drop the subject).
While it is certainly possible for this to be the case, I find
that it is only those who are willing to dig for the truth that
will ultimately have any hope of truly finding it (certainly
some truth will fall into the laps of those who just sit back,
but much truth will pass them by).  So, I view a willingness to
reach a common ground (if one exists) of the facts as the first
step to really being willing to grow and learn.  My own experience
has been that this is where my growth has come from.

That said, we can all choose (perhaps with a little more under-
standing) about where we want to draw the line (in finding the
facts) in the discussions which we engage in here.

Collis

As something of a mystic, I am less inclined to rely on formal methodologies.

I feel that I must add that this makes me no less a seeker of Truth than
those who would close the door to all but that which can be determined
through deductive reasoning.  I mildly resent the implication that I am.

As I've stated previously, however, I am willing to experiment.

Richard

    Bob really hit the nail right on the head.  We all have limited time
    and resources.  Not having all the facts in a personal library at our
    fingertips should not hamper us from engaging in discussions here, but
    unfortunately many people seem to see notes discussions as debates or
    contests in which the party with the larger arsenal of reference
    materials necessarily wins.  I know of at least one person who left
    this notes file because they were interested in discussing and sharing
    rather than debating, with the constant one-upmanship and debating style
    that is common here being uncomfortable for them and their preferred
    style of communication. 

    It is too bad there is so much interest here in winning and losing, and
    not enough on simply sharing.
    
    From what I have seen, much of what is claimed to be a search for truth
    here is actually more an interest in telling others the truth that one
    is already convinced of, rather than learning the truth that others may
    have to offer.  And if the other party doesn't back up their beliefs with
    a ready citation, then that proves that you are right and they are
    wrong--when in fact all it may mean is that they have a life to live
    and don't devote all their free time to defending their beliefs every
    single time someone decides to challenge them.

    -- Mike

Note 626.13       
TLE::COLLIS::JACKSON "Roll away with a half sashay" 
    
>     However, the reason that I raised this as an
>issue is because there is a strong tendency by a number of
>writers in this conference to not only not get facts, but to
>avoid (or dispute without evidence) facts that are presented
>that conflict with their beliefs.  Yes, this does happen more
>in this notes conference (from my perspective) than other
>notes conferences.

    Interesting observation...in string 554, someone contradicted the
    information I posted about pre-Christian Judaic development by claiming
    that modern scholarship supported the Exodus story.  Repeated requests
    for the source of that information were apprently ignored.
    
>  It seems to be a
>generally held opinion that those who push deep into a subject
>are those that are rigid, inflexible, etc. (presumably because
>they just don't either admit they are wrong or drop the subject).
    
    
    I think that is why it *is* important to understand when you and
    another person are approaching a question from different premises.  Two
    people can be entirely logical about something and still not come even
    close to agreement.  In the same string I mentioned, you entered a note
    discrediting what I wrote because it "contradicted" what the Bible said
    about events, apparently taking the Bible as an accurate historical
    source.  At that point, it seemed to not be fruitful for us to discuss
    the matters at hand not because we could not respect each other but
    because our *premises* were too radically different to be reconciled.
    
    I think that is a life lesson in and of itself.  Sometimes, you simply
    *cannot* discuss an issue.
    
    regards,
    
    Daniel

    RE: .14
    
    Richard....could you define what you mean by mystic?
    
    Marc H.

Marc .17,

	See Topic 39.  Briefly, a mystic is one who senses or experiences the
immediate presence of the Divine.

Richard

Re:  .15

Mike,

How do you propose that someone who seeks truth (regardless
of current beliefs) should evaluate the claims that are
made here?

You have seen some of what I propose (which is by no means
the only way of arriving at agreement, if such agreement is
possible).  Perhaps you desire that this evaluation not be
made (or at least be minimized) in this notesfile?  That is
certainly one possibility.

Collis

Re:  .14

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I believe it is possible to
both be a mystic and engage in deductive reasoning.  Perhaps
you just don't find it fruitful.

I do believe that your search of Truth is greatly undermined
if significant effort is not put into this area.  So much of
what we know/believe is subjective and ignoring/minimizing
the objective area seems to me to be counter-productive.

Collis

  >Interesting observation...in string 554, someone contradicted the
  >information I posted about pre-Christian Judaic development by claiming
  >that modern scholarship supported the Exodus story.  Repeated requests
  >for the source of that information were apprently ignored.
   
Indeed, not following through in this area is not limited to people
of particular religious convictions.

  >In the same string I mentioned, you entered a note
  >discrediting what I wrote because it "contradicted" what the Bible said
  >about events, apparently taking the Bible as an accurate historical
  >source.  

Despite our great theological differences, I thought that we might agree
that the Bible did at least have some accuracy as to what the Jewish
people as a whole believed at the time.  If indeed this is the case,
then the research you presented was fatally flawed as it claims that
the Jewish people did not believe what the authors of the Old Testament
claimed was true.  If you would like, I can pursue this line of
reasoning in the original string and perhaps we'll come to agreement
(one way or the other) as to whether the assertions of the paper are
reasonable given certain beliefs about the Bible.

Collis

Note 626.20

>I do believe that your search of Truth is greatly undermined
>if significant effort is not put into this area.

It would be interesting to know how you arrived at such a postulation,
however, I am presently more interested in how you intend to proceed with
this experiment.

Richard

Collis,

The point of the first part of this note is not to *convince* you of
anything in particular but to try to illustrate what I mean by trying
to work around differing premises...I hope it will be read in that light
and not as trying to argue something as a definite fact...

Note 626.21           
TLE::COLLIS::JACKSON 


>Despite our great theological differences, I thought that we might agree
>that the Bible did at least have some accuracy as to what the Jewish
>people as a whole believed at the time.  If indeed this is the case,
>then the research you presented was fatally flawed as it claims that
>the Jewish people did not believe what the authors of the Old Testament
>claimed was true.  

Actually, Collis, I think this is a great example of what I've been talking
about.  The lectures to which I refered in that string most certainly did
*not* make a claim about what Jews believe about their past.  It *does*
claim that A) the books of the Torah were not edited and collected from
the oral tradition (and some written sources) until roughly 400 BCE -- roughly
800 years after the first historical emergence of the nation of Israel and
well after the foundation of the Second Temple in Jerusalem.  The Jews of that
time probably did believe the origin sotries of Torah and this would fit with
the re-emphasis on Covenant Theology after the first exile B)That archeological
and historical records show an ancient Israelite religion substantially more
alike the henotheistic cultures of region than like the religion that emerged
in periods after the purported events of the Bible.

In all honesty though, I think that is beside the point.  I had hoped that
I was clear early on in that particular string that the Biblical texts were
not being regarded as accurate historical records for the purpose of the
discussion.

Your response to that premise for discussion was:

Note 554.13            
PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON

 > >when the covenant of Yahweh says "You will have no other gods BEFORE me" 
 > >the statement means precisely that.  Hebrews did not deny the existence of
 > >othe gods, they just lay claim to Yahweh as their personal deity.
>
>This is not the claim of the Bible.  The scholarship behind this loses
>a lot of credibility with me when it so distorts the Bible's clear
>teaching that there is *one* and only one God.  How many Old Testament
>references need to be cited where it says that there is only one
>God before someone will accept that this is what the Bible teaches?
>
>Indeed, the people of Israel (just like people today) refused to
>accept much of what was written by the prophets for many and
>various reasons.  The Bible itself makes that crystal clear.  However
>when the author gets into re-interpreting the Bible with a foolish
>and easily disproved claim such as this, I must object.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It is, in fact, only easily disproved if the Bible is an accurate
historical text for reference, correct?  The author was *not* "re-
interpreting" the Bible, but she was exploring historical and archeological
evidence of the past *before* the Bible was ever edited.

Now your premise was and is clearly incompatible with this, correct? There
is NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT, but I believe it *does* make it very difficult
for either of us to *convince* each other of our respective positions.
It doesn't matter how similar our methods of discussion may be -- you're
starting from Chicago...I'm starting from Tulsa...we may take the same
steps, but we won't arrive at the same place.

In all honesty, Collis, I am perfectly comfortable with that.  I don't
expect everyone to agree with me and I certainly don't expect to agree
with everyone else (what a terribly dull world that would be!).  There
are many things that I do not believe.  Although I am interested in
Christianity (largely because of the quote from 1 Corinthians I posted 
over the weekend) there are many aspects of Christian theology and
cosmology that are simply too alien to me to ever incorporate into my
beliefs. I was raised in a culture with a very, very vague picture of
non-corporeal life -- with no common image of hell, Satan or of a
specific afterlife.  These are, from what I have learned, very important
to a *lot* of Christian cosmology. I'm personally very comfortable with the
idea of my own finiteness.  I suspect it is too late in my life today, short
of a major epiphany, to change that.

What I *do* think is possible is the reason I note on this file.  I think
we can come to understand from where the other is coming, and respectfully
disagree with each other based upon that inderstanding.  I've found in life
that few things garner disrespect faster than insisting upon trying to 
convince someone that his/her *premise* is wrong. I certainly don't always
succeed in applying that approach, and some fora are not very conducive to
it, but I think C-P is a generally good place to try it.  I believe humans
are very possesive of our departure points....trying to shake them from
each other, especially in this forum, is not likely to yeild results other
than consternation.

regards,

Daniel 

Re:  .22

  >It would be interesting to know how you arrived at such a 
  >postulation...

It's easy.  I've seen the uninformed often be wrong (certainly
including myself in that category) and the informed much more
often be right.

Being informed is a matter of knowing the facts (and what we
typically consider as being the facts).  Facts plus logic
tend to bring us closer to the truth (but are no guarantee).

I certainly do not wish to demean your attempts as a mystic
which, I believe, can have great value.  However, I again
reiterate that I believe that there will be great value missing
if seeking truth through knowledge and logic is not one of the
weapons in your arsenal (forgive the violent metaphor).  From
my perspective, I see the unfortunate consequences of such a 
methodology day after day.

  >I am presently more interested in how you intend to proceed with
  >this experiment

I didn't know that this was an experiment.  However, if you
indeed mean by where I intend to go in this topic, I intended
to go to 626.13.  That is why I titled it "a final comment".
Clarification, perhaps.  Justification, perhaps.  But 626.13
is where I intended to go and I'm glad we got there (even if
you continue to disagree).

Collis  

Note 626.24

>I didn't know that this was an experiment.

In a broader sense, this whole conference in an experiment (and a bold
one at that! ;-}):

Note 1.0

>    This conference, therefore, is a bold experiment to see if "agape", 
>    love with a uniquely Christian character, can exist and be shared in 
>    an electronic medium open to all who work for Digital.

Richard

    I've reread .13.
    
    I see no practical proposal on how you wish to proceed; ie, should
    certain topics be set aside for "scholarly replies only"?  Do you
    and I agree in advance to remain "scholarly" on a particular topic?
    
    I indicated that I was willing to experiment with your methodology
    even though I'm personally reluctant concerning its limitations and
    its reward-to-investment ratio.
    
    Richard
    
    PS  I have seen the "informed" make dreadful errors.  I would be
    surprised if you haven't.
    

Re:  626.25
    
  >I see no practical proposal on how you wish to proceed

I suggest that we share not only our conclusions, but the facts,
logic and experiences that caused us to reach those conclusions.
    
  >I have seen the "informed" make dreadful errors.  I would be
  >surprised if you haven't.

That is certainly the case.  The real issue, however, is what
(or how many) dreadful errors they would have made had they been
uninformed.  If you believe that this number of errors would have
been even more, then I expect you see the advantage of becoming
informed over staying uninformed.  I also expect you practice
this advantage daily in your own life.  :-)
    
Collis

    I do not advocate the avoidance of information.
    
    Your proposal in .27 is less formal than I expected.  All I can
    promise under the circumstances is to keep the scholarly formulation
    in mind.
    
    Richard
    

    554.47
    
    Collis,
    
    	Is yours an example of a scholarly rebuttal?  Or is it simply
    a statement of disagreement?
    
    Richard
    

I would hardly classify that one response as a scholarly
rebuttal.

It seems you have missed the point that I'm trying to
make (while I clearly get the point you are making).
I think it is worthwhile to move in the direction of
getting the facts.  And then using the facts to base
our decisions on!

If you wish to continue to resist this for whatever
reason, that is your choice.

Regarding topic 554, Daniel indicated that he did not
have the time to discuss this.  Because of this, I have
so far contented myself with a few comments rather than
a detailed discussion.  However,  I do have some interest
in pursueing this and have almost (twice) brought to work
some reference material to present more evidence (evidence
which, by the way, helped me to come to the conclusions I
now hold).  Would you be interested in this, Richard?

Collis

    That particular topic doesn't intrigue me enough to pursue it
    at this time.
    
    I wouldn't describe myself as resistant.  Your mileage may vary.
    
    Richard
    

Re:  .31

  >I wouldn't describe myself as resistant.

Perhaps you prefer to think of yourself as less than 
supportive in this area.

Collis

    Well, actually, I'm really just trying to get more of a handle
    on the criteria.
    
    I mean, Daniel seems to be putting out quite a bit of external
    supporting material.  You've expressed your doubts with what he
    has presented, but not cited your sources or empirical facts.
    
    Now, it seems to me that you're simply doing the very thing that
    you've criticized me for.  I have no objection to you not taking
    a scholarly approach.  And I also realize that you've stated you
    don't always adhere to the discipline.
    
    Richard

I do admit that I have not read the recent entry that
was entered on pre-Christian religions.  Nor did I read
the first entry beyond the first dozen lines.  So I
have not read the additional supporting material.

Part of the reason for this is, again, that Daniel
indicated that he didn't have a lot of time to devote
to this.  So I have not been devoting much time to this.

Would you like me to devote some time to this, Richard?

The criteria doesn't change, regardless of my actions.  :-)

Collis

Note 626.34

>The criteria doesn't change, regardless of my actions.  :-)

Okay.  Just makin' sure.

:-)
Richard