What qualifications are required?

I placed this in the Coffee House because I do not expect this to be an in depth topic, and it was also in danger of derailing another non-debate thread.I am really just looking for a couple of answers from EltonianJames because I feel he hasn't given me any satifactory responses to a couple of questions.I asked two questions:1. What quaifications do you think people should have before they are allowed to comment on the Bible? 2. What qualifications do you have in regard to discussing the Bible? James answered the second question first: 2nd Generation preacher. I have been studying and preaching the gospel for over thirty years. I dare say there are no evolutionists in here that have studied the Bible as long or as in depth as I have.Being a second generation preacher doesn't really mean that much to me, does this mean you have came through some formal training?The answer to the first question is confusing: As to your other query, eveyone is capable of commenting on the Bible. The same cannot always be said as to their qualifications.James, you have stated that too many people here comment on the Bible when they are not really qualified to. So, I will rephrase the question:James, in your opinion, what qualifications would an individual need before you would consider them qualified to talk about the Bible?I personally believe that anyone who can read is qualified to comment on the Bible.Cheers.Brian.

Assuming this is an appropriate thread for this discussion, I will attempt to answer you here. Yes. Degreed and ordained. I would hope this is satisfactory as I did not come here to discuss my lengthy education, the academic position I currently hold, or the instituitions of learning which I have attended. If that is your desire then understand you will be sorely disappointed as the discussion will be short-lived and extremely one-sided. First, they should have a deep understanding of the subject they wish to discuss. This automatically requires that they have read the Bible in it's entirety from cover to cover at least once and have done extensive follow-up studies. This is the least that is required for legitimate qualification, IMO. Though I am able to comment on the theory of evolution in general, I would not consider myself qualified to discuss every aspect of it as I have not studied every area of this theory in depth. I know my limitations and am quite willing to acknowledge them. Are you? You have a confusing, (to me, at least), understanding of the term "Qualified". I can read. Does this ability somehow qualify me to comment on any subject regardless of the level of study that i have given to a particular field? I think not.

---

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." Albert Einstein

I'm surprised that "being able to read the Bible in its original languages" doesn't occur to you to be a qualification. For instance, as a literature major, I wouldn't consider anyone to be qualified to make authoritative statements about Russian literature unless they were able to read Russian.

quote:

---

I can read. Does this ability somehow qualify me to comment on any subject regardless of the level of study that i have given to a particular field? I think not.

---

I, for one, think that it does. As long as you maintain a sense of humility, understanding that others may know more about a subject than you, you are willing to read and understand other sources (not necessarily exhaustively -- just as extensive as necessary to get the gist of what the data and interpretations actually are), and you attempt to use common sense and logic to determine which arguments are good and which are nonsense. But this is what I think Brian means.If discussion can only occur between experts, then there would be no reason for message boards such as this to exist. Experts already have venues for their discussions -- these are called academic conferences. Message boards exist so that those of us who are not experts and do not have the time or resources to become experts can come together to discuss topics that are nonetheless of interest.

well that's why i asked him in regards to his qualifications why he should be allowed to look down his nose at us for being underqualified, when he can't even tell me what my signature says, and its significance.i don't think years of study is a good litmus test for qualifications. when people go through years of study and then come out with views that are easily refutable with the text itself, well...and i've stumped ordained pastors before.

---

אָרַח

Now, now, crash. I'm sure he's read the Bible in the original King James English.

{grandpa simpson mode}Many years ago, when EltonianJames was still in three-cornered pants, a new church was being built in Winnipeg. The roofers had their company slogan on their trucks: "Over 150 years in the roofing business." The last row of shingles started at the ridge, like it should. By the time they got to the end, they were off by a foot and a half.{/grandpa simpson mode}The moral of the story: No amount of experience is a substitute for being able to follow a straight line.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Based on my own lengthy soujourn here I sometimes give this reminder to new posters: This is a debate forum.It is not a theological seminary.I agree with Brian. Anybody who can read is qualified to comment on the Bible. At EvC, any member who has an opinion is welcome to post it.It is the quality of your comment that counts, not the length of your pedigree.If you don't like that principle, you haven't been here so long that you can't find your way out.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

One issue we have is the difference between the Science fora and the Religion fora.There is a very specific method that science follows, this includes providing evidence for any claims. This evidence is not only expected to lend credence to your particular claim but also to fit with other evidence/facts. Anyone posting in the science fora should be able to follow the scientific method in any discussions or claims.The religion fora are much more subjective. Over the years we have had any number of religions, sects, and denominations represented here. Very few religious posters agree with all religious claims of another. If anyone following any particular belief system expects that only their viewpoint is correct and others are not "qualified" to post will be sadly disappointed here.I try to not allow belief bashing by anyone, but differences of opinion surrounding any particular belief are to be expected and are NOT bashing. Factual claims concerning religion or belief are another matter. Factual claims demand facts to back them up.Hopefully other mods will chime in with their viewpoints on this.As to the claims elsewhere that moderation is biased on this site, please step up and volunteer. I'm sure Percy will take any offer into consideration. As it is we have admins with a wide range of beliefs.Percy is deist, and I believe that Moose would be categorized as such also.Jar is Christian, as is Phatboy, Jazzlover_pr, truthlover, and hangdawg13.I consider myself agnostic/atheist and I belief that brian, schrafinator, Nosyned, IrishRockHound and sylas fall into either the agnostic and/or atheist side.

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Hi James, Yes, this is a thread where you can discuss topics. Being able to read is satisfactory to me, I have never dismissed anyone's opinion because they have no formal theology qualifications. A members ability to read is good enough for me. I was just trying to establish if you were applying a double standard or not. And how would you determine that they have fullfilled your criteria, would this be concluded during a conversation with you?Also, what if someone has read the Bible from cover to cover and has done extensive follow up studies and you still disagree with them, what is the next step? I very rarely post in the science forums because, like yourself, I have not studied the topics extensively.I have my areas that I wish to improve my knowledge on, and this is taking up so much of my time that I wouldn't be able to study the science topics anyway! I stick to the subjects that I find very interesting, that way the studying is a pleasure rather than a chore. But, you will be lucky to ever find me on a science thread. Yes indeed I do, and I have done at the forum here several times. There is only so much a person can cram into their head and remeber clearly. I have been corrected here quite a few times, and rather than getting upset and having a tantrum I thank the member for their help.I don't get embarrassed or ashamed if I post somethign that is incorrect, I just make sure I learn from my mistake. We are only human after all, and we all make mistakes. It does qualify you to discuss any subject, IMO, but it depends on what you are discussing, and how you conduct yourself in the discussion.I have seen many times when a non-specialist informs a subject specialist that they are talking nonsense and are then unable to tell them exactly why they are talking rubbish.I wouldn't dream of telling someone like Edge about geology, if there was something I wanted to know about geology I would certainly ask Edhe for his opinion. If I then read some information that I thought contradicted what Edge had told me I would ask him for clarification. He would more than likely know exactly what I have read had been used before and explain this to me. But, too many non specialists read a website constructed by another non specialist and conclude that this non specialist is right about everything and the guys who have done all the hard work are wrong. It is the height of bad manners IMO. That's fine, you are entitled to think this.However, in regard to the Bible, I think that the Bible is such a complex book that it is accessible at a great many levels. I think a non-specialist and a specialist could have a very beneficial discussion, as long as the non-specialist realises their limitations.Also, if someone wishes to become qualified in an academic sense they must begin from an unqualified stance. I have noticed through my own study of the Bible that my own understanding of certain verses has changed. I would say though, that I lean more towards the historical, sociological and idealogical aspects of the texts than the spiritual.It's a great book, and one I'll be studying for a long time to come.Brian.Edited out a stray 'not'This message has been edited by Brian, 07-26-2005 02:49 AM

For an internet-based discussion board open to the general public? If this site required such stringent qualifications for any of its topics, there would be very little discussion. Have you read a modern book on Evolution from cover to cover? Or even any Darwin? Have you kept up on any biology journals? The argument to require "qualifications" is an "ad hominem" fallacy - an attack on the person, rather than the person's argument. Let people's arguments stand on their own. If you can disprove it, do so. A lack of education or diplomas does not in any way detract from a well-thought-through argument with supporting evidence.

For what it is worth, I do not at all consider myself a deist. I consider myself to be very much agnostic.I am curious about the reasons you thought I was a deist.Adminnemooseus

I think you will find that many of the people you specifically mentioned would meet or exceed your listed qualifications as several of them have been Religious Instructors. I can only speak about my personal experience, I'll leave others to address their own. Well, I've read the Bible, word by word, page by page, cover to cover, not once, not twice but many, many times. In fact I've worn out more Bibles than most folk have ever owned. I'm a cradle Episcopalian that grew up in a very active religious family and that continues to actively worship. I have formally studied the Bible however that was only over a period of about five or six years and many years ago. I have continued informal study continuously since them. I have been an adult ed Sunday School teacher as well as a Youth Sunday School teacher. I have presented many classes on the origin of the Protestant Revolution and in particular, the COE. In addition I've attended the Presbyterian Church, Luthern Church and was even an RA one summer (but she was so cute and the only way I could be near her...). I am an Evolutionist.I support Gay Marriage.I believe it is far more likely that an Atheist will get to Heaven than a Christian.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

To chime in, I agree that anyone obviously has the right to comment on the Bible. To study the book, there are differing beliefs regarding the qualifications.
1) Some believe that the most effective study is to get to the meaning of the original languages.
2) Some believe that the "word" literally existed for all time and that the meaning stems from the heart rather than from any sort of human attempts at definition. In other words, the source is God rather than man. One drawback: No way of proving anything to anyone. Either they share your heart or they do not.I believe that atheists and christians all have an equal chance at Heaven since it is not through our efforts that we get there anyway! One thing that I have learned at EvC is that everyone deserves an equal say...we ARE a discussion board and NOT a theological forum. (well said, whoever said it previously!)

Darn, I knew that. hhmmmI "believe" that in one of your sigs you mentioned something about not knowing and somehow I remembered that and took it as deist.ggrrr long day.