[re-moved]This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 12-21-2005 04:20 PM

i admitted my first few arguments in the thread you're probably referring to were a tad off-topic. that was my mistake, and i acknowledge that. however, you failed to put it into perspective of a larger picture, using "that's off-topic!" as way to kill a perfectly valid argument. namely that if the islamic depictions of god is similar to the jewish depiction of god, and the christians feel they are inspired by a jewish god, then there is a decent argument for them being the same.it's not "off beat" or designed to trip up an opponent. it's an argument. and a valid one. it wanders a little away from where you wanted to go, yes, but the point it makes is exactly the point of the thread. it's not a red herring if it actually argues the point in the question -- i'm sorry if the logic was somehow confusing.moreover, i have a moderation request. and it's that we hold the fundamentalists to the same standards. you are far to quick to scream about how an argument violates the boundaries of your topic when it is against your position, but you readily accept the ones that confirm your position.for example, faith keeps making an argument based on god's name. god's name is "jehovah" (which it's not), and allah's name is "allah" so they are not the same god. even though the argument has been shown to be bunk, she keeps repeating it, ad nauseum -- missing the obvious point. god's name is never mentioned in the new testament. not once. there's a vague invocation of it, maybe. but it's debatable, and still not the actual name. rather, the tetragrammaton itself only appears in the old testament.and if i can't make comparisons to old testament scripture, why can she?This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 12-29-2005 02:14 AM

---

אָרַח

This is not a debate thread. Do not respond to this message.

how's complicating the issue now with irrelevancy, buz? the issue is not the NAME, but the fact that it's not found in new testament, which was the boundary you set for the debate. it was one of faith's main points, that they didn't have the same name. the name is not mentioned in the new testament. period. it's a blatant double standard to forbid a source when it's used against you, but allow it when it's used for you.if you want to debate what the name is, again, start a thread and i will continue to explain it to you, ad nauseum, until you understand that no modern academic english translation uses the form you seem to like, and why.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 12-30-2005 08:46 PM

---

אָרַח

This is not a gebate thread. Please do not respond to this message,

yes, faith, and you are one of them. please remember that if one expects respects for their beliefs, they should be ready to respect others too, without the help of a moderator.calling people cultist and idolators isn't the way to go. and yes, i know most of the people you run into share your beliefs. most people who go to an art museum like art, too. the same way you get the idea that you represent a sizeable number of christians, minus the bits about not counting certain types of belief. look, people here are bound to disagree on stuff, including how to believe. but trashing peoples' faith as somehow not legit or cultish, or idolatrous is just insulting.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 12-30-2005 08:56 PM

---

אָרַח

question.is it not a "general discussion?" and if the topic is "moderator procedures" between members, shouldn't that be allowed?

---

אָרַח

i pose this complaint as a short post to be ironic, but to make the point somewhat clear.which is worse, three or four one-line quips, or two solid pages of length moderation posts and responses?

---

אָרַח

i argued this point a little better in chat the other night than i probably will here.why am i asking for randman to be allowed back? we never get along. we always disagree. he can be a real pain in the ass, at times. but i don't feel that because he didn't do well as an admin that we should ban him as a member. randman will never understand the rules. he will always claim bias. in effect, we ARE biased against creationist. they play by different rules than we do. this debate is the clash of the those standards more than the clash of argument or evidence. they attack us -- but we attack their faith with questions first.i sit strangely between two camps. i have faith, but i reason as a scientist would. my personal journey of faith is based on questions. i need to think about it, analyze it, doubt it, and question it. i need opposition. and so does the board. we are in the steady process of homogenizign the board, culling the creationists because they don't play by our rules. and why should they? our standards are in effect rigged against them. from the beginning, they can't win.how do you level a playing field when we're playing two different games? i say let randman back, and relax on the creationists a bit. we need more of them, not less. otherwise there is no debate.

---

אָרַח

quote:

---

Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation

---

that presupposes that creationism can and always should be supported with evidence (which it's not) and or reasoning abilities (doubtful). i don't mean to be insulting, but it's FAITH, not intellect. i had an idea in chat, the other night. i'm going to suggest something similar. but i'd like to introduce it with an anecdote.when i was in high school, the a common complaint was the dress code. nobody ever thought it was fair. i was on my school's advisory council, and one of the things we came up with was having students draft the dress code themselves. that way it wasn't "administration vs. students" but something the students themselves came up with, and would agree to. the rules they drafted were nearly identical to the ones already in place.so i suggest we let the creationists draft the rules. with oversight, of course -- any rule would have to be approved by both camps. that way, there can never be a complaint that the rules are biased against creationists, and never even any such sentiment.what do you think?

---

אָרַח

i've debated randman before, so i have some idea. he can be a pain in the ass, i agree. he likes to scream about bias and conspiracy, i know. then the debate is pointless as well. this is not an isolated phenominon. even though randman is not a typical creationist, this sort of thing is pretty common, isn't it?i'm trying to explain the origin of this kind of problem. i don't think many on the evo side here really understand how dangerous and insulting standards of evidence and rigorous questioning can be to faith. i have some idea -- i've reached the point my journey where i no longer want to question for fear's sake.they are not here to be questioned -- attacked -- by us. they are here to convince us of the beautiful truth they know in their hearts. our rationality is rudeness to them. and so they act rudely to us. and we should punish those things, that's fine. i just don't think he should be banned because we can't get him to agree.

---

אָרַח

agreed. that whole bit she was responding to was very condescending christian-ese, even aside from actual bit that was over the line.at least brenna is straightforward and to the point.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 01-13-2006 04:08 PM

---

אָרַח

ok fair enough.

quote:

---

Mat 7:3-5 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

---

---

אָרַח

ray, you are obviously enraged. it is apparent you are upset in a irrational manner caused by the inability to refute or engage.this is just another fundamentalist rant. absurd nonsense from a confused mind made neccessary by your fundamentalist conspiracy worldview and theistic needs. to deflect from this fact you misrepresent.

---

אָרַח

hey admins, not to respond to an offtopic post, but this is the place to report such a thing and request moderator action -- even if it is two posts above in the very same thread.why is ray allowed to call me "an uneducated juvenile" and a "hillbilly" and a "drop-out?" i mean, granted, i think it's pretty funny: of all the people complain about grammar and punctuation, it's the vice-president on the international beaurocracy of strange phrases himself.i don't think we should have "Admins coddling this drop-out" that can't even take a joke. This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 01-28-2006 04:58 PM

---

אָרַח

question. where and how do we request moderation action then?

---

אָרַח