NoHolyCows's latest activity
-
When you “discipline” claims “by restricting” them such that they do not take account of author subjectivity, you ignore all emotive... -
NoHolyCows replied to the thread Origins Of Christianity.Nothing in my method “ignores” emotion. Emotion is itself publicly checkable when it leaves marks in a text: vocatives (“O foolish...
-
NoHolyCows replied to the thread Origins Of Christianity.Micheal, A company-wide email goes out: “This policy is not from HR; it is from the Board. Any manager who teaches otherwise is out of...
-
We have nothing to be found in Paul's work that stands out as possibly divinely inspired, that it is not the work of man. We have many...
-
NoHolyCows replied to the thread Origins Of Christianity.What you call “purposefully ignorant” is simply the only defensible way to make public claims: restrict yourself to what the artifact...
-
NoHolyCows replied to the thread Origins Of Christianity.No, Michael. Restricting claims to what can be publicly checked in the document is not “ignoring the person,” it is refusing to invent...
-
NoHolyCows replied to the thread Origins Of Christianity.No, Michael. I acknowledged the emotion explicitly—“O foolish Galatians…,” the rebukes, the urgency—and I treated it correctly: as tone...
-
NoHolyCows replied to the thread Origins Of Christianity.I have taken the emotive register into account; Galatians contains obvious emotion (“O foolish Galatians…”, sharp rebukes, urgency)...
-
NoHolyCows replied to the thread Origins Of Christianity.Bare assertion is not an argument. The question is whether the text exhibits operations that define polemic. Galatians names rivals...
-
NoHolyCows replied to the thread Origins Of Christianity.No, it’s a direct summary of your repeated move. You concede the text exhibits the operations that define a polemic—named rivals...
-
NoHolyCows replied to the thread Origins Of Christianity.You’ve conflated two different claims and then treated their blur as a refutation. My “must” is not a metaphysical necessity; it is the...
-
NoHolyCows replied to the thread Origins Of Christianity.A “full-account” is not a feeling; it’s an explanation that makes the observed features more likely than rival explanations. To count as...
-
NoHolyCows replied to the thread Origins Of Christianity.That’s exactly where Michael keeps trying to hide. In our exchange he concedes the letter shows the very things that define...
-
NoHolyCows replied to the thread Origins Of Christianity.It’s factually accurate. In Galatians Paul narrates his commissioning “not from men nor through man” and “through Jesus Christ,” then...
-
NoHolyCows replied to the thread Origins Of Christianity.That is incorrect. I have said repeatedly that emotion and polemic are not exclusive and can be concurrent. The issue is...
