Tracer Tong wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Again since it isn't a protected term, what does it matter?

You're going to have to remind me what a protected term is.

Things like doctor, lawyer, etc. that have very specific requirements on must meet to be able to use that as a label.
In most cases these requirements include, but are not limited to, an acadamic education in the relevant (fields).

Anyone can call him/herself a (biblical) scholar, even when they've never read the thing.

See, starting from 3:54.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Again since it isn't a protected term, what does it matter?

You're going to have to remind me what a protected term is.

Things like doctor, lawyer, etc. that have very specific requirements on must meet to be able to use that as a label.
In most cases these requirements include, but are not limited to, an acadamic education in the relevant (fields).

Anyone can call him/herself a (biblical) scholar, even when they've never read the thing.

When you say "specific requirements", are you referring to legal requirements?

Tracer Tong wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Again since it isn't a protected term, what does it matter?

You're going to have to remind me what a protected term is.

Things like doctor, lawyer, etc. that have very specific requirements on must meet to be able to use that as a label.
In most cases these requirements include, but are not limited to, an acadamic education in the relevant (fields).

Anyone can call him/herself a (biblical) scholar, even when they've never read the thing.

When you say "specific requirements", are you referring to legal requirements?

Yes. Hence it's called 'protected'.
If you treat someone while claiming to be a dietician, when you don't have the qualifications/diplomas, you can be sued.
Similarly for doctors, lawyers, psychologist/psychiatrist etc.

I might as well ask you if you deny being a Britain scholar.

OK: in that case, I agree it's not a protected term. But I don't question the use of it on that basis.

Oh great, I've managed to get to almost a whole year without passing comment on comparing oneself to Nelson Mandela and now this thread has come up again in my 'your posts' and i only went and read it again.

And now I've commented.

Tracer Tong wrote:OK: in that case, I agree it's not a protected term. But I don't question the use of it on that basis.

It's the only basis that's relevant.
The term has no rigourous definition. Agi doesn't claim it means she has any particular education or diploma.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:OK: in that case, I agree it's not a protected term. But I don't question the use of it on that basis.

It's the only basis that's relevant.
The term has no rigourous definition. Agi doesn't claim it means she has any particular education or diploma.

Since we can question people's claims about themselves and others on more than legal grounds, I don't see why it's the only basis that's relevant.

I'm aware she doesn't profess to have any formal education in the area, which is why I'm asking whether she still claims to be a biblical scholar.

Well, for most of my lifetime, people at school were called "scholars" until someone got cute and decided to rename them "learners". So if, according to my tradition, I've spent a long time going through the process of being schooled about the Bible, then scholar applies. Right now however, I'm an old person who can barely remember where she left her glasses, whether or not I took my medication, and having been through two weeks of my husband's extreme reaction to a bladder infection after hernia surgery, with sleepless nights and a young dog demanding games and walks when all I feel like doing is paying someone to allow me to sleep in a comfortable bed in a different house, I no longer remember what the fight was all about. So school me.

Tracer Tong wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:OK: in that case, I agree it's not a protected term. But I don't question the use of it on that basis.

It's the only basis that's relevant.
The term has no rigourous definition. Agi doesn't claim it means she has any particular education or diploma.

Since we can question people's claims about themselves and others on more than legal grounds, I don't see why it's the only basis that's relevant.

I'm aware she doesn't profess to have any formal education in the area, which is why I'm asking whether she still claims to be a biblical scholar.

Bullshit. I've never claimed not to have formal education. I spent ten years of my life studying Ancient History, for which I have a degree with high honours. Included in that study was another 7 years of studying the Bible. It wasn't me that called myself a scholar, if I remember correctly, I questioned whether I was entitled to do that if other people called me that. As far as I know, it's a title other people use about you, it's not something you call yourself. Which is why I asked the question, tongue in cheek. I've never heard people call themselves a scholar, no matter how educated they are. So please take your outrage about my question, and shove it in a place you find painful. I'm too tired to bother with nonsense.

Fallible wrote:Oh great, I've managed to get to almost a whole year without passing comment on comparing oneself to Nelson Mandela and now this thread has come up again in my 'your posts' and i only went and read it again.

And now I've commented.

It's a load of bullshit. If only people expressed as much outrage about kids being slaughtered by bombs, or children starving in famines, or families being left destitute and homeless by the storms at the other end of my country, or other people being evacuated from a town totally destroyed by raging fires, the world could be a much nicer place.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-08/cape-town-mops-up-after-most-devastating-storm-in-three-decades

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-40199270

I didn't say you didn't claim to have any formal education per se, but that you didn't claim to have any formal education in the area of biblical studies.

You did in fact call yourself a biblical scholar, though it was some time ago. Regardless, if you don't use it of yourself now, there's probably not much to add on that score.

I am curious about your book, though. What's your general argument vis-a-vis the New Testament?

I remember a decade ago or so, Jonathan Ross and Dom Joly doing a charity sketch that was a parody of a talent show, with Ross introducing Joly by saying "and what do you do, Dom?"

"I'm a comedian."

"Well, that remains to be seen."

Tracer Tong wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:OK: in that case, I agree it's not a protected term. But I don't question the use of it on that basis.

It's the only basis that's relevant.
The term has no rigourous definition. Agi doesn't claim it means she has any particular education or diploma.

Since we can question people's claims about themselves and others on more than legal grounds, I don't see why it's the only basis that's relevant.

If you'd bothered to read all of my posts you'd know.
There is no rigourous, ie clear definition of what a scholar is.
Anyone can call themselves a scholar.

Tracer Tong wrote:
I'm aware she doesn't profess to have any formal education in the area, which is why I'm asking whether she still claims to be a biblical scholar.

You're missing the point. I said she never claimed she's a biblical scholar because she has degree in Theology.
And you've yet to provide a sound argument as to why she should deny/retract her claim of scholarship.

Agrippina wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:OK: in that case, I agree it's not a protected term. But I don't question the use of it on that basis.

It's the only basis that's relevant.
The term has no rigourous definition. Agi doesn't claim it means she has any particular education or diploma.

Since we can question people's claims about themselves and others on more than legal grounds, I don't see why it's the only basis that's relevant.

I'm aware she doesn't profess to have any formal education in the area, which is why I'm asking whether she still claims to be a biblical scholar.

Bullshit. I've never claimed not to have formal education. I spent ten years of my life studying Ancient History, for which I have a degree with high honours. Included in that study was another 7 years of studying the Bible. It wasn't me that called myself a scholar, if I remember correctly, I questioned whether I was entitled to do that if other people called me that.

as well.

Agrippina wrote: As far as I know, it's a title other people use about you, it's not something you call yourself.

Well some people do, just like people call themselves nutritionist, X authority, X consultant etc, in an attempt to present themselves authorities because they don't have the actual credentials in that field.
Does not apply in this case, since you do have credentials with regards to this topic.

Agrippina wrote: Which is why I asked the question, tongue in cheek.

Agrippina wrote: I've never heard people call themselves a scholar, no matter how educated they are.

Well, like I said, some do, but those tend to be disengenuous shitesters.

Tracer Tong wrote:I didn't say you didn't claim to have any formal education per se, but that you didn't claim to have any formal education in the area of biblical studies.

You did in fact call yourself a biblical scholar, though it was some time ago.

Do provide a quote, rather than an assertion.

Tracer Tong wrote: Regardless, if you don't use it of yourself now, there's probably not much to add on that score.

There wasn't anything to add on that score from the start.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:I didn't say you didn't claim to have any formal education per se, but that you didn't claim to have any formal education in the area of biblical studies.

You did in fact call yourself a biblical scholar, though it was some time ago.

Do provide a quote, rather than an assertion.

"Over the years that I've been reading it, I've also kept a blog going which demonstrates my journey from a dismissive sceptic to a serious biblical scholar."

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote: Regardless, if you don't use it of yourself now, there's probably not much to add on that score.

There wasn't anything to add on that score from the start.

I don't agree, but OK.

This is the first time 'scholar' is used in this thread:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post488345.html?hilit=scholar#p488345 Used as a sarcastic response to a hostile post.

The next time Agi uses it, she's jokingly saying she's on her way, not actually a scholar.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2227353.html?hilit=scholar#p2227353

The next time it's used as a metaphorical line from absolute skeptic, to someone who's seriously studying the bible:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2417876.html?hilit=scholar#p2417876

This is where you enter the discussion by asking her were she studied. Thereby implying that you need to have studied somewhere to call yourself a biblical scholar. Which is nonsense.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2417876.html?hilit=scholar#p2417876

Then, when Agi explains she did complete formal, university education on the topic, you respond with a snide assertion that she's calling herself a biblical scholar without any academic credentials on the topic.
Which is both counterfactual bullshit, as well as regurgitation of your initial question begging that being a scholar requires an academic education.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2453456.html?hilit=scholar#p2455127

Here aban provides the various definitions of scholar, demonstrating that an academic bull on a subject is not necessary to call oneself a scholar. Only extensive research/knowledge about the subject.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2453456.html?hilit=scholar#p2455358

To which you respond with an idiosyncratic humpty-dumpty definition here:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2453456.html?hilit=scholar#p2455370

Again: Scholar isn't a title confered by universities on graduates or doctors.
The definition isn't limited or predicated on having an academic/formal education or study on the subject.
Ergo, she has no reaon to reject the label of scholar.

Tracer Tong wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:I didn't say you didn't claim to have any formal education per se, but that you didn't claim to have any formal education in the area of biblical studies.

You did in fact call yourself a biblical scholar, though it was some time ago.

Do provide a quote, rather than an assertion.

"Over the years that I've been reading it, I've also kept a blog going which demonstrates my journey from a dismissive sceptic to a serious biblical scholar."

I've explained this below.
There's multiple definitions of scholar. One being someone who's done extensive research on the subject.
Which is a perfectly valid usage in this statement.

Tracer Tong wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote: Regardless, if you don't use it of yourself now, there's probably not much to add on that score.

There wasn't anything to add on that score from the start.

I don't agree, but OK.

Your disagreement is immaterial since it won't alter the facts.