Conservative Bibliobloggers Attack Again. Why? No, Really? Why?
Jeremy, who is apparently taking over the Biblioblogger rankings list, had asked recently how to decide who should make the list of BiblioBlogs. Since he asked, I responded in the comments section as follows:
Then without so much as giving a reason why he disagreed Polycarp, who now ranks in first place, responded by saying:
Then Polycarp wrote a post slamming me titled: Only Know It Alls Need Apply. Notice the title? Who or what is a "know it all"? I'm certainly not. Never claimed to be, either. I never hinted at such a thing when I offered a comment about who should be a Biblioblogger. Where does that come from? Again, this only proves my point. In this post Polycarp lists many people who did not have a college education who made a difference in the world (I didn't verify most of the names on that list though). And so the context for what follows is this one, to which I responded to Polycarp in these words:
Now Jeremy takes up Polycarp’s cause and attempts to tear into me. Remember, he's the one taking over the task of ranking the Bibliobloggers. His claim is that what I wrote last is
blatantly inaccurate
implicitly problematic with regard to race
implicitly problematic with regard to social class
My claim is that if people don’t understand the problem, or if they cannot understand what is being said, then they cannot adequately respond to it. My claim is that until Christians can exhibit a better exegesis of something written by a person in today's world then they can have little confidence to be able to exegete a biblical passage coming from the ancient world. My claim is that with thinking skills exhibited here with Polycarp and Jeremy it’s no wonder they believe.
You see, scholars have a better ability to know what is being said than others. They can see little differences in word choices that others don’t see so well. And they understand that the context of a statement or a paragraph is, well, pretty much most everything. They also know that a person cannot write everything he or she knows, especially in a short paragraph or two. That's why they must apply the principle of charity to what is written, and that's also why the context is so important.
I had said, “The rule is that, given the easy access to a college education in our part of the world today, anyone who really wanted to learn could do so.” Context. Context. Context. This statement does not deny there are people who want to learn but cannot do so, at all. The presumption I was working with was any Blogger who wanted to learn could do so if he or she wanted to, since we were talking about what should constitute the qualifications of someone on the Biblioblogger list. Nonetheless, while there are indeed more serious obstacles to getting an education for some people than others, if people really wanted to go to college they could probably do so (yes, I used the word "probably"), even if for some people they would have to want it more than others.
And while I said “Most everyone is getting an education," again the context demands that I meant most everyone who wants to learn is getting an education. I never used the word “only” as in Jeremy’s rhetorical statement: “The only thing that affects a person getting a degree is really wanting to learn?” Where did Jeremy come up with that? Is this how he interprets the Bible, by inserting words that are not there?
As I said, there are people who are Biblioblogger’s who simply hate the fact that I am one, and that I rank so highly. The best explanation for this seems to me that I am a debunker. They could prove me wrong by engaging me and not personally attacking me, but that's up to them. That’s too bad, really, for they should have no fear of me if they are correct. I should easily be argued against by the conservatives on that list. The liberals and radicals don’t even bother with this at all.
I want to get along. I really do. I initially considered it an honor to be on the list in the first place. But I must insist on being treated like an educated human being with the respect it demands.
I think the content should be about the Bible, not political commentary, nor philosophical musings. I think the blog owner should have at least a college degree in a Bible related field too. High School educated bloggers need not apply. I would further argue it should be limited to bloggers who have an accredited master’s degree too, since this should be a list of the finest bloggers. I think the list should include team blogs. I don’t see why not. However, websites that don’t allow comments should be disallowed.Now, no one can claim I want to exclude some on the blogger list so that I may overtake first place, because if team blogs were allowed I would definitely not be ranked in the top 5, or so I'm told. I was just thinking what a great list of Bibliobloggers would look like, irrespective of my own personal ranking. Judge for yourselves if you think I did this, but that was my goal. I thought to myself, if we started over what would a good one look like, kinda like asking from behind the Rawlsian veil of ignorance. Now I know we can't start over, but this is still what I think, and I have a right to comment since I am a Biblioblogger.
This should be the basis for discussion. The list is way too long too. I would also argue that unless a blog breaks into to top 200 it should not even be on the list, nor those blogs that have no data for them. After all this is a list of rankings, so if there is no data on a blog i[t] has no rank.
Then without so much as giving a reason why he disagreed Polycarp, who now ranks in first place, responded by saying:
I think John Loftus should take a flying leap.After asking him to say why he disagreed he responded in the same fashion, to which I wrote:
Listen Joel, I was asked my opinion and I gave it. What exactly is wrong with that? No, really. I want to know. And while you’re throwing ad hominems around why not at least offer a few reasons why you disagree? Sheesh.You see, this is one of the reasons why I think the standards for who is a biblioblogger should be raised, so that we have educated, intelligent disagreements. Polycarp just proved my point in his response to me.
Then Polycarp wrote a post slamming me titled: Only Know It Alls Need Apply. Notice the title? Who or what is a "know it all"? I'm certainly not. Never claimed to be, either. I never hinted at such a thing when I offered a comment about who should be a Biblioblogger. Where does that come from? Again, this only proves my point. In this post Polycarp lists many people who did not have a college education who made a difference in the world (I didn't verify most of the names on that list though). And so the context for what follows is this one, to which I responded to Polycarp in these words:
Listen, for every uneducated person who made a big difference in the world there are millions who didn’t. The odds are against it. Such things as these should be judged on a case by case basis. The rule is that, given the easy access to a college education in our part of the world today, anyone who really wanted to learn could do so. If a person doesn’t go to college to learn then that person probably doesn’t have much of a desire to learn. And given the dumbing down of American education, even a college education doesn’t mean as much as it once did. Now most everyone is getting one. Those are the odds. Quite frankly I have not been impressed with any blogger who did not at least have a college education. Maybe you could point us to one or two or however many you wish to endorse, so I might see for myself.Okay so far?
Now Jeremy takes up Polycarp’s cause and attempts to tear into me. Remember, he's the one taking over the task of ranking the Bibliobloggers. His claim is that what I wrote last is
blatantly inaccurate
implicitly problematic with regard to race
implicitly problematic with regard to social class
My claim is that if people don’t understand the problem, or if they cannot understand what is being said, then they cannot adequately respond to it. My claim is that until Christians can exhibit a better exegesis of something written by a person in today's world then they can have little confidence to be able to exegete a biblical passage coming from the ancient world. My claim is that with thinking skills exhibited here with Polycarp and Jeremy it’s no wonder they believe.
You see, scholars have a better ability to know what is being said than others. They can see little differences in word choices that others don’t see so well. And they understand that the context of a statement or a paragraph is, well, pretty much most everything. They also know that a person cannot write everything he or she knows, especially in a short paragraph or two. That's why they must apply the principle of charity to what is written, and that's also why the context is so important.
I had said, “The rule is that, given the easy access to a college education in our part of the world today, anyone who really wanted to learn could do so.” Context. Context. Context. This statement does not deny there are people who want to learn but cannot do so, at all. The presumption I was working with was any Blogger who wanted to learn could do so if he or she wanted to, since we were talking about what should constitute the qualifications of someone on the Biblioblogger list. Nonetheless, while there are indeed more serious obstacles to getting an education for some people than others, if people really wanted to go to college they could probably do so (yes, I used the word "probably"), even if for some people they would have to want it more than others.
And while I said “Most everyone is getting an education," again the context demands that I meant most everyone who wants to learn is getting an education. I never used the word “only” as in Jeremy’s rhetorical statement: “The only thing that affects a person getting a degree is really wanting to learn?” Where did Jeremy come up with that? Is this how he interprets the Bible, by inserting words that are not there?
As I said, there are people who are Biblioblogger’s who simply hate the fact that I am one, and that I rank so highly. The best explanation for this seems to me that I am a debunker. They could prove me wrong by engaging me and not personally attacking me, but that's up to them. That’s too bad, really, for they should have no fear of me if they are correct. I should easily be argued against by the conservatives on that list. The liberals and radicals don’t even bother with this at all.
I want to get along. I really do. I initially considered it an honor to be on the list in the first place. But I must insist on being treated like an educated human being with the respect it demands.