Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List')
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 616 of 1049 (669918)
08-06-2012 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 615 by Buzsaw
08-05-2012 9:45 PM


Re: Moving On
quote:
The reason remains that I'm not allowed in science, that I kick too much evo butt in them. Admin always sees to it that any effective threat to his own must be run off, no matter what it takes.
As usual Buz you are making up bullshit. You aren't allowed in the science threads because you're so BAD at arguing. In fact your recent behaviour suggests that you know that you are making up claims that would be found to be false if people were allowed to check them. People can draw there own conclusions from your refusal to provide links to back up your claims about past discussion (those of us that know that you are telling untruths especially).
You need to understand that passing off falsehoods (often obvious falsehoods) as facts is NOT a valid way of arguing. You need to understand that things aren't automatically true because you would like them to be true. You need to understand the importance of reasoning. And you need to understand that worshipping you is not a valid method of understanding reality - or the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 615 by Buzsaw, posted 08-05-2012 9:45 PM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 617 of 1049 (669919)
08-06-2012 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 615 by Buzsaw
08-05-2012 9:45 PM


Re: Moving On
Buzsaw writes:
The reason remains that I'm not allowed in science, that I kick too much evo butt in them. Admin always sees to it that any effective threat to his own must be run off, no matter what it takes.
Well Buz, this is a perfect way to demonstrate that you really do understand what evidence is; can you give us a link to the thread where you kicked butt so we disinterested lurkers can bask in your glory too?

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 615 by Buzsaw, posted 08-05-2012 9:45 PM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(2)
Message 618 of 1049 (669925)
08-06-2012 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 615 by Buzsaw
08-05-2012 9:45 PM


Re: Moving On
quote:
The reason remains that I'm not allowed in science, that I kick too much evo butt in them. Admin always sees to it that any effective threat to his own must be run off, no matter what it takes.
What Admin is trying to get you to do is understand what constitutes scientific evidence, not Biblicist evidence.
One also needs to understand the difference between evidence and inference. Evidence is an outward sign, something that furnishes proof. Inferences we should derive from facts, not from guesses.
In my simplistic understanding, evidence is something we can prove and inference is a conclusion we can draw from that which has already been proven (evidence). Theories are inferences.
IMO, a prophecy is a theory (inference) as to how the future will play out. So if one's contention is that Prophecy A has played out as described by the writer, then one has the task of showing the facts (not inferences) that support that contention.
Now the owner of this board has made it clear that on the science side of the board, the rules of science are to be followed. So when you contend that a prophecy is no longer a theory on the science side of this board you must play by the rules of science.
That means that if a Biblicist wants to show scientists or science minded individuals that a prophecy is no longer theory, then the Biblicist needs to use scientific evidence to make their case. This is the difference that Admin is trying to get you to understand. Biblicist evidence isn't going to make the cut on the science side.
Inferences are not evidence and Biblicists evidence is not necessarily scientific evidence.
If you want to play the game, you need to play by the rules. Besides, if you could actually make your case based on the rules of science, the impact would be much more impressive.
Bottom line: This is a privately owned board and as guests we should respect the owner's preferences.
As Paul supposedly said:
5 Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. 6 Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person. (Colossians 4:5-6)
Respectfully, you need to continue working out your evidence issues with Admin, not whining to the membership.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 615 by Buzsaw, posted 08-05-2012 9:45 PM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 619 by Admin, posted 08-06-2012 8:19 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 619 of 1049 (669927)
08-06-2012 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 618 by purpledawn
08-06-2012 7:15 AM


Re: Moving On
Hi PD,
Thanks for the clarifications, let me try and put a little finer point on it.
I'm not really trying to get Buz to understand the nature of scientific evidence. All I want is for him to reach sufficient consensus with others so that debate won't descend into the same repetitive back and forth about whether he's provided evidence or not. In particular I want to avoid this type of exchange:
Evo:Where's your evidence?
Buz:I've provided a great deal of evidence throughout this thread?
Evo:In which message was the evidence?
Buz:You just don't accept Biblical evidence because of your worldview.
And so on. Science threads in which Buz participates now see endless repetitions like this. As I've said nearly since the beginning of this forum, those who turn threads into discussion of the same topic will be restricted to a single thread for discussing that topic.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 618 by purpledawn, posted 08-06-2012 7:15 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(3)
Message 620 of 1049 (670034)
08-08-2012 6:52 AM


Dubious off-topic ruling
In this post Message 7
Let us note, that not one of the points ruled off-topic is primarily about scientific or historical evidence against reliability. The one that most closely addresses the issue is as much about the beliefs of early Christians as it is about reliability - which would seem to be obviously relevant for a theological discussion on doctrine. The point about Jesus' use of parables seems obviously on-topic by any standards.
More importantly, I think that Moose has misinterpreted the OP. The OP seeks to defend the reliability of the Bible on the grounds that 1) Christians should believe that God wrote the Bible and 2) that interpreting the Bible would be too difficult or too arbitrary without the assumption of inerrancy. I do not see why a theological discussion on those issues, without addressing the actual reliability should be ruled off-topic. Indeed, it would seem to be very much relevant to the OP.

Replies to this message:
 Message 621 by AdminPD, posted 08-08-2012 8:10 AM PaulK has replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 621 of 1049 (670037)
08-08-2012 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 620 by PaulK
08-08-2012 6:52 AM


Re: Dubious off-topic ruling
We've had threads dealing with the problem with literal reading of the Bible. This thread is from a literalist's position asking how can those who worship God as a Christian can do so given that they don't believe that the Bible stories are all historically true.
You didn't address the questions presented in the OP. You just asked questions that really change the focus of the thread.
He's asking non-literalist Christians how they can trust any part of the book if part is fiction?
He's asking how can non-literalist Christians worship a being that uses lies (fiction) to communicate.
He's asking how non-literalist Christians determine what is true since some is consider fiction?
This is the religious side and it doesn't matter if he believes that God wrote the Bible or not. It isn't the point of the topic.
Please try to stick with the spirit of the topic.
Thanks
AdminPD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 620 by PaulK, posted 08-08-2012 6:52 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 622 by PaulK, posted 08-08-2012 8:38 AM AdminPD has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 622 of 1049 (670041)
08-08-2012 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 621 by AdminPD
08-08-2012 8:10 AM


Re: Dubious off-topic ruling
quote:
We've had threads dealing with the problem with literal reading of the Bible. This thread is from a literalist's position asking how can those who worship God as a Christian can do so given that they don't believe that the Bible stories are all historically true?
Which would make all my points on-topic. Indeed, rejecting the idea that God literally wrote the Bible is essential.
quote:
He's asking non-literalist Christians how they can trust any part of the book if part is fiction?
He's asking how can non-literalist Christians worship a being that uses lies (fiction) to communicate.
He's asking how non-literalist Christians determine what is true since some is consider fiction?
I would have thought that pointing out that Jesus used fictions to teach would have been directly relevant to all three points. But what about the cases where the Bible seems to be presenting legends rather than fictions intended to make a point or literal history? What about contradictions in overlapping accounts ?
quote:
This is the religious side and it doesn't matter if he believes that God wrote the Bible or not. It isn't the point of the topic.
It's a religious question, and directly relevant to the question in the title of the thread! If God didn't write the Bible then He can't be accused of authoring a book of lies based on inaccuracies in the Bible. So why is addressing a relevant religious question on religious grounds ruled as being off topic?
The role of God in the writing of the Bible IS a major issue if the question is to be addressed on religious grounds. If God literally authored the Bible you can't, for instance, explain away the differences in the accounts of Judas' death by simply saying that it isn't theologically important - while if God took more of a back seat role you CAN argue that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 621 by AdminPD, posted 08-08-2012 8:10 AM AdminPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 623 by jar, posted 08-08-2012 8:46 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 625 by AdminPD, posted 08-08-2012 9:20 AM PaulK has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 623 of 1049 (670043)
08-08-2012 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 622 by PaulK
08-08-2012 8:38 AM


Re: Dubious off-topic ruling
If God literally authored the Bible you can't, for instance, explain away the differences in the accounts of Judas' death by simply saying that it isn't theologically important
Of course that can be explained and that might make an interesting thread.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 622 by PaulK, posted 08-08-2012 8:38 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 624 by PaulK, posted 08-08-2012 8:52 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 624 of 1049 (670045)
08-08-2012 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 623 by jar
08-08-2012 8:46 AM


Re: Dubious off-topic ruling
I'm sure that it can be explained in other ways (for instance, "Peter was wrong!") but it seems to me "it wasn't important so God let the human authors write as they believed, without providing a correction" is a reasonable position for a Christian to take. Why then, should it be ruled out of a topic which is specifically discussing ways to interpret the Bible which allow for such errors?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 623 by jar, posted 08-08-2012 8:46 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 625 of 1049 (670047)
08-08-2012 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 622 by PaulK
08-08-2012 8:38 AM


Re: Dubious off-topic ruling
quote:
Which would make all my points on-topic. Indeed, rejecting the idea that God literally wrote the Bible is essential.
There's a difference between saying "non-literalists don't believe that God wrote the Bible" and "Who said that God wrote the Bible?" One is stating a belief and the other is asking for proof. It isn't in the accuracy and inerrancy thread. It doesn't matter if the Bible supports his statement or not (unless he actually claims that it does, which he hasn't yet in this thread) it is his belief.
IMO, by lies he means fiction, not inacurracies. From the OP.
foreveryoung writes:
... pure fiction but that are conveyed in such a way to appear as legitimate...
The sentence that Jesus used fiction to make a point was on topic. You got one sentence, but the question that followed was not. The thread isn't about literalism. You turned it back on literalism. This thread is about non-literal interpretation.
So Exodus lacks basic historical details, what does that have to do with those who don't believe it is an actual event, but still worship God? This thread isn't about convincing the author that there is fiction in the Bible. He's asking how can a Christian who believes there is fiction in the Bible still worship God?
PaulK writes:
If early Christians did not take the Gospels as inerrant, why should you?
The thread isn't about taking the Bible as inerrant. It is about the non-literal understanding.
Your last paragraph just turned the OP around and made it about literalism.
You changed the focus of the thread.
Each thread is a new beginning. Don't bring baggage from other threads or previous knowledge of the author. Address what is said, not what you know or think the author believes.
AdminPD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 622 by PaulK, posted 08-08-2012 8:38 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 626 by PaulK, posted 08-08-2012 9:48 AM AdminPD has replied
 Message 632 by arachnophilia, posted 08-08-2012 6:16 PM AdminPD has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 626 of 1049 (670052)
08-08-2012 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 625 by AdminPD
08-08-2012 9:20 AM


Re: Dubious off-topic ruling
quote:
There's a difference between saying "non-literalists don't believe that God wrote the Bible" and "Who said that God wrote the Bible?" One is stating a belief and the other is asking for proof. It isn't in the accuracy and inerrancy thread. It doesn't matter if the Bible supports his statement or not (unless he actually claims that it does, which he hasn't yet in this thread) it is his belief.
It is implicit in his defence of Biblical reliability that Christians should believe that God wrote the Bible. Asking for a justification for that claim is hardly unreasonable.
quote:
IMO, by lies he means fiction, not inacurracies. From the OP.
More accurately he means fictions presented as facts. But, assuming God's authorship the same might be said of any event which is inaccurately described, and te death of Judas would qualify.
quote:
The sentence that Jesus used fiction to make a point was on topic. You got one sentence, but the question that followed was not. The thread isn't about literalism. You turned it back on literalism. This thread is about non-literal interpretation.
If the argument is that one mode of interpretation should be lollowed because it is better in some respect (and it is) then it is legitimate to point out that it is not. I hardly see how addressing a point in the OP can be ruled off-topic.
quote:
So Exodus lacks basic historical details, what does that have to do with those who don't believe it is an actual event, but still worship God? This thread isn't about convincing the author that there is fiction in the Bible. He's asking how can a Christian who believes there is fiction in the Bible still worship God?
If Exodus is presented as an account remote from the events, written at a time when significant details have been lost, how can we say that it is presented as an entirely trustworthy reliable account? Let alone one written with Divine knowledge underwriting every part. Presentation is an issue in the OP, and therefore this again addresses a point in the OP.
quote:
The thread isn't about taking the Bible as inerrant. It is about the non-literal understanding.
I have to disagree. Indeed it seems to me more about inerrancy than about literalism - that, after all, is why the issue of presentation become important. Foreveryoung does not argue that the Bible cannot contain fictions, he argues that certain specific accounts are presented as literal accounts and must - given the assumption of Divine authorship - be reliable or lies.
quote:
Each thread is a new beginning. Don't bring baggage from other threads or previous knowledge of the author. Address what is said, not what you know or think the author believes.
It seems to me that I am clearly following this policy, and I cannot see your objection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 625 by AdminPD, posted 08-08-2012 9:20 AM AdminPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 627 by AdminPD, posted 08-08-2012 9:58 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 628 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-08-2012 10:21 AM PaulK has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


(1)
Message 627 of 1049 (670053)
08-08-2012 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 626 by PaulK
08-08-2012 9:48 AM


Re: Dubious off-topic ruling
quote:
It seems to me that I am clearly following this policy, and I cannot see your objection.
You seem to be making assumptions that aren't there.
The questions in the OP are to Christians who use a non-literal interpretation of the Bible and still worship God.
If you or anyone else can't address the actual questions asked concerning non-literal interpretation and worshiping God, then I suggest that the thread is not a good fit for you.
Thanks
AdminPD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 626 by PaulK, posted 08-08-2012 9:48 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 629 by PaulK, posted 08-08-2012 10:24 AM AdminPD has not replied
 Message 630 by NoNukes, posted 08-08-2012 10:50 AM AdminPD has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 628 of 1049 (670054)
08-08-2012 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 626 by PaulK
08-08-2012 9:48 AM


Re: Dubious off-topic ruling
It seems to me that I am clearly following this policy, and I cannot see your objection.
He's set up a conditional and you're countering that condition. Just assume its true for the sake of argument. If you can't, then just don't participate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 626 by PaulK, posted 08-08-2012 9:48 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 631 by arachnophilia, posted 08-08-2012 5:45 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 629 of 1049 (670055)
08-08-2012 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 627 by AdminPD
08-08-2012 9:58 AM


Re: Dubious off-topic ruling
quote:
You seem to be making assumptions that aren't there.
Then please tell me what they are. I can't see any.
quote:
The questions in the OP are to Christians who use a non-literal interpretation of the Bible and still worship God.
If you or anyone else can't address the actual questions asked concerning non-literal interpretation and worshiping God, then I suggest that the thread is not a good fit for you.
I have yet to see any genuine problems with my participation in the thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 627 by AdminPD, posted 08-08-2012 9:58 AM AdminPD has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 630 of 1049 (670064)
08-08-2012 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 627 by AdminPD
08-08-2012 9:58 AM


Re: Dubious off-topic ruling
The questions in the OP are to Christians who use a non-literal interpretation of the Bible and still worship God.
And a legitimate response to the question might be that the premise that the Bible appear to contain historical documents is just wrong.
I don't think it is proper to ignore the provocative nature of the OP. The title of the post states that God penned the Bible. I understand that the title alone is not the subject under discussion, but it certainly does inform regarding the view point of the poster.
I agree with PaulK. Nothing about his post is off topic. You need not be a Christian to suppose that you can understand how they might feel.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 627 by AdminPD, posted 08-08-2012 9:58 AM AdminPD has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024