“Do these persons deserves our attention?”
Then shut up.
“Should they be recognized as authorities? No, they deserve calculated contempt for their efforts. (By this, I do not mean emotional or behavioral contempt, but a calculated disregard for their work from an academic perspective.)”
Hang on. You’re criticizing their academic skills based NOT on their skills, but on the fact that they criticize the Bible?
That’s just a teensy bit dishonest, no?
I mean, if you have the academic chops to point out where they make academic errors, do so. If you’re simply butthurt that they DARE question scripture, then go shove an NIV up your ass. As, uh, as a balm, that’s it.
“They have not even come close to deserving our attention, and should feed only itching ears with similar tastes.”
Yes, yes, that’s the measure of academic accuracy, reading to the choir.
“Skeptics with largo egos who complain that this site does not always link to the articles it is addressing need to be told that their efforts -- engaging what I will call from here on "trailer park scholarship" -- do not deserve links.
[...]”
So, Mr. Situational Integrity, here, doesn’t need to exhibit the bare minimum of honesty, based on the audience’s reception? Is that how it works?
“Who are these people trying to kid? Their scholarship, as a whole, is reckless and pitiable;”
Just because you dislike their conclusions. Can’t point out where they’re wrong, but you insist they are.
“ what they know, they have learned from reading a few popular books with no conception of the broader issues and fields at hand.”
So what did you read to get this attitude, Mr. Men comics?
"These people deserve not links, but contempt and obscurity.”
Uh huh.
See, If i were to write an article that proved Jesus was Gay, you’d want links, right? So you could point out where I’m wrong, or where my source was wrong? And If i simply said, “I won’t link you to my source, you’re too brainwashed,” I’d think myself a poor scholar.
You, on the other hand, just approach academics as an echo chamber.
