Originally posted by Takod
View Post
Although he references his professional career(s) often in his many non-secular works, there is a clear separation from these works when it comes to his writings on conundrums of crime, etc.
As far as I am aware you referenced a lack of understanding during the podcast and I was wondering what precisely about it might help illuminate some factors of it pertaining to the matter at hand and more precisely to the case itself.
I'm not sure whether or not this is a rhetorical question, but I'll attempt to address it, either way.
Yes, I duly acknowledge that quite often I have no f...ing idea what he's talking about, but he goes to great pains to qualify every intricate detail. He tackles biblical questions methodologically, backs up his conclusions, and welcomes all challenges. In this respect, one could highlight the precision of his thinking and writing, when it comes to the most serious subjects. His "Lighter Side" was a departure, to some extent, from this precision, but he was, again, open and responsive to challenges. Anderson was rarely haphazard with his (especially) written remarks. This is quite obvious and relative to why we should give more consideration to his words than we generally do (regarding the Whitechapel murders).
This is how I initially interpreted the last question, as if it was rhetorical:
"You don't understand Anderson's religious views, which would make your understanding of his character questionable, which would then cast even more doubt on your judgement of Anderson's reliability, hence, your whole argument falls apart."
If this was the case, I would disagree.
Is there a belief, perhaps, that his Presbyterian beliefs may have influenced somehow his apparent certainty in some matters over others?
Leave a comment: