1. In the past, you have been kind enough both to cite Gmirkin's exact words and, in response to requests for citations, to provide citations so that other people can assess your claims. Would you kindly do so in this context?StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Wed Aug 17, 2022 1:54 pm Russell Gmirkin trashed some scholars by guilt by association [with imo respectable schools]. Nevermind institutions with Worldwide Armstrong unfortunate events.
2. People are prone to varying sorts of intemperate insults, but such insults, even when unjustified, do not detract from the ideas which the people assert, which should be assessed on their own merits. Consider, after all, Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, who insulted the physicians who denied that his hygienic reforms were necessary. But Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis's insults did not detract from his correct conclusions. For this reason, even if Gmirkin has truly trashed scholars, that does not mean that his ideas are false.
3. Just about every scholar dealing with religious history and affairs can be linked to some bizarre religious scandal if one look hard enough. I mean, Roman Catholicism (which supports many scholars of Judaism and Christianity) has its pedophilia scandal, the Dalai Lama (who supports in various ways Buddhist scholars) had unsavoury connections with Shōkō Asahara and his cult {see for further details "Knave or Fool? The Dalai Lama and Shōkō Asahara Affair Revisited", by Rob Hogendoorn at https://openbuddhism.org/knave-or-fool- ... revisited/ }, and, according to your vague words, Gmirkin may have some association with Armstrongism and the Worldwide Church of God. But none of these associations need undermine undermine the scholarship, which can be of the highest quality - although I am cautious about publications from overtly religious institutions.