Did I Quote Mine Marcus Borg?

[Doug Shaver]

In a recent thread Tassman stated that while the majority of contemporary historians accept the historical Jesus, they do not "accept the magic bits..."

I refuted this claim

No, you didn't. You cannot refute "A majority of historians deny X" by quoting one historian who accepts X. You could only do that if the claim had been "All historians deny X."

Whether Borg believes in miracles seems to depend on how precisely one defines the word "miracle." He apparently does believe in the paranormal. I don't. I also don't believe that paranormal events, if they do occur, should be classified as miracles, and I gather from the quotations presented in this thread that Borg probably doesn't believe so, either. And if that is the case, then if you quote Borg as expressing a belief in the paranormal and then say, "Therefore, Borg believes in miracles," that is quote-mining because you have misrepresented his opinion.

[NorrinRadd]

I have a couple of questions about terminology:

What constitutes a "mainstream" scholar?

For the purposes of this discussion, is there any significant difference between "historians" and "Biblical" or "New Testament" scholars who specialize in the cultures and languages of the Bible times and places?

[Roy]

Tassman's claim was that all Borg and others believed about Jesus was that he was a historical figure and nothing extraordinary about him.

Adrift quoted Borg and proved that Tassman was wrong.

He was not obligated to quote everything Borg ever said. Just the relevant part showing that Tassman was wrong. Borg did believe in Jesus doing miracles like driving out demons and healing.

It is possible both that Tassman was wrong and that Adrift was quote-mining.

And while Adrift is not obligated to quote everything that Borg said, Borg's article includes this:
A majority of mainstream scholars view the stories of the nature miracles as metaphorical narratives rather than as historical reports.

This is so similar to and relevant to Tassman's claim,* that it should have been included in Adrift's cite, if only to explain why it didn't apply.

*

[Roy]

To me the test of quote mining in this case is very simple:

1: Adrift claimed the scholars held to miracles even including the part of the quote that divided the miracles into two types.

If Borg, in context, holds that miracles do happen then it isn't quote mining.
If Borg, in context, holds that miracles do not happen then it is quote mining.

So for those of you that hold that Adrift was quote mining: Do you maintain that Borg denies any and all miracles?

No.

But that's not relevant, since the issue isn't what Borg believes, but the view of the majority of mainstream historians.

Has all of TWeb been assimilated yet?

[Meh Gerbil]

No.

But that's not relevant, since the issue isn't what Borg believes, but the view of the majority of mainstream historians.

Has all of TWeb been assimilated yet?

Then a quote containing a statement of Borg's beliefs would be irrelevant.
Irrelevant still isn't quote mining.

Yes, I've been assimilated.
Join us.

[Sea of red]

Why should I have added more context? It didn't take away from the point at all, and I had already provided that exact context in previous exchanges with him on the exact same article. Sea, you're complaining about absolutely nothing. Contrary to your speculation, it was not at all my intent to hide anything from Tassman. I hadn't hid it from him before, why would I intentionally hide something from him now? I didn't cite the rest the passage because it wasn't relevant to the point. The rest of the passage, including the snip that you lost your mind about doesn't at all effect the rebuttal I was making.

I'm not "losing my mind" Mr Projection, but it looks like you are. You're the one that went running to make a silly poll on this, knowing the Christian fraternity would have your back because they have such high respect for you - like the nontheists use to as well.

You should have provided more context because it's always better to do so - even if it's irrelevant. I saw one of the past exchanges you're talking about and what you did was not quote Borg directly, but stated what his views were. In fact, you went on to quote other parts of the article at length, still avoiding the statement you damn well knew Tassman would have used against you in that conversion and perhaps others - which is why you didn't quote it. I'm not only one that see's this as a quote mine: Roy, Carr, and Doug are skeptical of your defense as well, and they are prefect gentlemen. So it's not like it's just myself and Tassman that see this as quote mining.

You could have handled this so much better. A simple "I should have provided more context, it wasn't intentional, sorry." would have been enough to end it. Instead you're going on the attack, which further reinforces my belief that you were quote mining.

[Meh Gerbil]

I'm not "losing my mind" Mr Projection, but it looks like you are. You're the one that went running to make a silly poll on this, knowing the Christian fraternity would have your back because they have such high respect for you - like the nontheists use to as well.

In point of fact: I have absolutely no respect for Adrift.

[Meh Gerbil]

You could have handled this so much better. A simple "I should have provided more context, it wasn't intentional, sorry." would have been enough to end it. Instead you're going on the attack, which further reinforces my belief that you were quote mining.

Don't debate people you don't trust.
Make use of the 'Ignore' feature.
I swear all of you are such little weenies.

[Sea of red]

Don't debate people you don't trust.
Make use of the 'Ignore' feature.
I swear all of you are such little weenies.

Who's the little weenie that ran off to make a thread about this? Not me.

I simply noticed the quote mine, then Adrift decided that since he couldn't really defend what he had done, he'd take refuge in the approval of the fraternity of Christians on here. And he dishonestly said it was Tassman that accused him of this, when it was myself that noticed the deception - I guess because he thought him being disliked so much on this forum would work in his favor.

Now, shouldn't you be spamming some secular forum with troll threads like you used to do ten years ago?

[Meh Gerbil]

Now, shouldn't you be spamming some secular forum with troll threads like you used to do ten years ago?

While initially entertaining I soon grew weary of watching thriving infidel communities collapse under the weight of my superior reasoning abilities.

If you genuinely believe Adrift has been dishonest you have the ability to post about it (which you've done) and then follow up with the use of the ignore feature. Life is too short to run around policing people you don't trust - it is a full time job that accomplishes nothing. Find people with whom you can discuss your ideas - people who make arguments you find interesting and people who show you respect. Why waste time with anything else?

[Sea of red]

While initially entertaining I soon grew weary of watching thriving infidel communities collapse under the weight of my superior reasoning abilities.

If you genuinely believe Adrift has been dishonest you have the ability to post about it (which you've done) and then follow up with the use of the ignore feature. Life is too short to run around policing people you don't trust - it is a full time job that accomplishes nothing. Find people with whom you can discuss your ideas - people who make arguments you find interesting and people who show you respect. Why waste time with anything else?

Fair enough.

[Meh Gerbil]

Fair enough.

BTW, you can trust me.

[Adrift]

I'm not "losing my mind" Mr Projection, but it looks like you are. You're the one that went running to make a silly poll on this, knowing the Christian fraternity would have your back because they have such high respect for you - like the nontheists use to as well.

Nope. I created the poll to settle the matter about whether or not I had committed a quote mine. I was hoping that if the vote went my way, you and the others who asserted it was a quote mine would maybe rethink your position. I should have predicted that pride wasn't going to allow you to do that, and that instead, you were going to dig in, make a series of contradictory statements in order to maintain your position, and blame the rest of the forum for dishonestly colluding with me against you. If I'm at fault for anything here it's that I gave you more credit than you deserved.

Also, you hold some bizarre views over how concerned you think I should be about who regards me. That's never been my motivation for posting on this forum. Ever. I'm not here for some sort of popularity contest. If people appreciate my posts, great. If they don't, oh well. This has been explained to you more than once already. I don't know if you've just never really followed along, or what, but I've certainly ruffled more feathers among the Christians on this forum than I have nontheists over the years. Talking about projection, this sounds like something that's far more important to you than me. That you "don't get no respect" seems like one of the main reasons you flounce from the forum every few months.

You should have provided more context because it's always better to do so - even if it's irrelevant. I saw one of the past exchanges you're talking about and what you did was not quote Borg directly, but stated what his views were. In fact, you went on to quote other parts of the article at length, still avoiding the statement you damn well knew Tassman would have used against you in that conversion and perhaps others - which is why you didn't quote it. I'm not only one that see's this as a quote mine: Roy, Carr, and Doug are skeptical of your defense as well, and they are prefect gentlemen. So it's not like it's just myself and Tassman that see this as quote mining.

You could have handled this so much better. A simple "I should have provided more context, it wasn't intentional, sorry." would have been enough to end it. Instead you're going on the attack, which further reinforces my belief that you were quote mining.

I provided plenty of context, and I left links for anyone who desired to read the rest of the article to do just that. I couldn't have handled it better, and I have absolutely nothing to be sorry about.

[Adrift]

I have a couple of questions about terminology:

What constitutes a "mainstream" scholar?

Isn't it built into the name? As I understand it, "mainstream" usually refers to those scholars whose views are within the main stream of scholarly opinion in their field of interest, or at least not at extreme variance from it.

For the purposes of this discussion, is there any significant difference between "historians" and "Biblical" or "New Testament" scholars who specialize in the cultures and languages of the Bible times and places?

I'm not sure I really understand the question, but I suppose it's one of those all cats are animals, but not all animals are cats sort of things. All New Testament historians are biblical historians, but not all biblical historians are New Testament historians. Is that what you were asking?

[Adrift]

Who's the little weenie that ran off to make a thread about this? Not me.

I simply noticed the quote mine, then Adrift decided that since he couldn't really defend what he had done, he'd take refuge in the approval of the fraternity of Christians on here. And he dishonestly said it was Tassman that accused him of this, when it was myself that noticed the deception - I guess because he thought him being disliked so much on this forum would work in his favor.

Now, shouldn't you be spamming some secular forum with troll threads like you used to do ten years ago?

First of all, Tassman did accuse me of quote mining,

And again you make rebuttal with a misleading quote mine. Why are Christian apologists so dishonest, are you trying to convince yourselves?

But where in the OP did I say that Tassman was the one who accused me of quote mining? What I said in the OP was, "I'm being accused of quote mining the article..." I didn't say who accused me of quote mining because several people had accused me of doing so. It didn't seem necessary to list each name of each person who made the accusation. I certainly didn't fail to mention you because I didn't think you were unpopular enough. You got issues bro.