Welcome!

[His Name Is John]

It seems to me, that new members rarely post a introduction thread anymore. As such I am making this thread as a way that new members can say hi, and get to know a couple of people on the forums.

So to all the new members:

First of all, hello!

Second, why don't you tell us a little bit about yourself?

[robinriley]

[Replying to post 295 by Clownboat]

(Clownboat)
If you can present a convincing case,
I would be willing to once again believe that the scriptures are inspired by a god.

(Robin)
You got the wrong guy, dude ... it's your mind, I'll mind my own.

(Clownboat)
It saddens me to know that you are not willing to change your mind ...

(Robin)
Paul uses the Greek word, which I read as "trust" ...
It's not something that I did, I didn't self-will it in other words ... shix happens, right!

(Clownboat)
People that come here that are so sure of themselves often end up preaching and not debating. I trust that will not be the case with you even though your mind is made up.

(Robin)
Not my agenda; like I originally said, everyone is intitled to their own ...
Smoke um if you got um ... think of me, if it helps you not be sad, as a scriptural sudoku puzzler; that is, where other's go with their doctrines is just fine with me, more power to um; what interests me is just know what the verses say, the down in the weeds details. I've found that with most of those, who you feel so sad about, is that
they have no idea what the verse actually says, that they are building their doctrines upon ... I too have been there, done that, suspect that we all have ... so now, I FIRST try to read the words in a verse, really read them ... syntax, parsing, declinations, try to duley recgnize figures of speech, and their actualy applications, and their limitations; also try to recognize idioms, not always adjust their quirky wording, but more so that I'm not mislead by making assumptions about what they say ...

(Clownboat)
IMO, if someone presents a compelling case for something,
"my mind is made up" is not a valid rebuttal in debate.

(Robin)
Again, You got the wrong guy, dude ... not looking for debate, looking for help in the better reading of Pauls letter to us; first, figure out what the very words truely say, and only then ... say in a decade or two from now, only then might I be confident enough to start prechin' at you ... let's wait until then, ok.

(Clwonboat)
Either way, I hope to learn from your posts...


(Robin)
Au Contraire my good fellow ... it is I who want to glean facts, word facts from you.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 297 by robinriley]

Thanks for the response.

While I digest what you send, I recommend "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman (available Amazon Kindle or paperback for $10 range)


Z

[robinriley]

[Replying to post 295 by Clownboat]

(Clownboat)
"If you can present a convincing case,
I would be willing to once again believe that the scriptures are inspired by a god."

(Robin)
You got the wrong guy, dude ... it's your mind, I'll mind my own.

(Clownboat)
"It saddens me to know that you are not willing to change your mind ...IMO, if someone presents a compelling case for something, "my mind is made up" is not a valid rebuttal in debate."

(Robin)
Again, You got the wrong guy, dude ... not looking for debate, looking for help in the better reading of Pauls letter to us.

(Clwonboat)
"Either way, I hope to learn from your posts..."


(Robin)
Au Contraire my good fellow ...
it is I who want to glean facts, word facts from you.

(Robin)
Let's see if I've got this straight ... that is, a couple "pointers" that some fellow poster sent me, after he took offense to what I said above ... First of all, Clownboat, I'm curious, did you complain about my reference to "Dude," or is this just someone else making mountains out of molehills? But if "Dude" did offend you, I certainly take it back, because no real Dude I know, would be that thin skinned. Should I, then, also take back calling you a "good fellow" ...

Speaking of which, reading over the many pages of all these different topic threads, in the many different categories open for discussion, I've come away with a rather disturbing impression ... perhaps it would be interesting to take a poll and see what the results are ... that is, it appears that there are not too many moderators nor site supporters that are Believers.

I've noticed a negative bias, in other words ... so it almost seems (to me) that the premise of this "Debating Christianity" isn't so much aimed at attempting to resolve mistaken beliefs resulting from bad religion, or misleadng translations, but raher more so aimed at dissuading the our weaker brethren/ believers from thier faith ... throwing them an anvile when their having trouble even treading water.

I, for one, would be fascinated in seeing how such a poll turned out ... being aimed at those running this forum ...if answered truthfully?

Q: "Are you a believer? A: Yes/ No"

[Zzyzx]

.

Let's see if I've got this straight ... that is, a couple "pointers" that some fellow poster sent me, after he took offense to what I said above ... First of all, Clownboat, I'm curious, did you complain about my reference to "Dude," or is this just someone else making mountains out of molehills? But if "Dude" did offend you, I certainly take it back, because no real Dude I know, would be that thin skinned. Should I, then, also take back calling you a "good fellow" ...

I sent you a friendly PM without prompting from anyone suggesting parsing "Dude" from forum vocabulary and suggesting addressing issues rather than persons. I may have also suggested learning to use the quote function effectively.

Many newbies seem to have difficulty focusing on issues / topics / subjects WITHOUT personal comments of any kind toward fellow debaters. After they have been a member for a while unwarranted personal comments begin to receive Moderator Comments or Warnings.

Speaking of which, reading over the many pages of all these different topic threads, in the many different categories open for discussion, I've come away with a rather disturbing impression ... perhaps it would be interesting to take a poll and see what the results are ... that is, it appears that there are not too many moderators nor site supporters that are Believers.

For benefit of the uninformed: The site is owned and administered by a Christian (and very capable debater) and the Moderating Team is equally balanced between Theists and Non-Theists.

No partiality is shown to any theistic position. Any perceptions to the contrary are unfounded / unsupportable / excuses.

I've noticed a negative bias,

There IS an imbalance (not a "negative bias") between Theist vs. Non-Theist presentations in debate.

Why is that – since one cannot legitimately blame Forum Rules, guidelines, policies, practices?

Could it be that Theism cannot be successfully defended on a level playing field where no theological position is given favorable treatment – when "scriptures" cannot be used as a trump card to prove truth?

Many Christians appear to be accustomed to being granted a dominant or unopposed position (as may be characteristic of preaching in churches or in Christians-only environments). Claims and statements that may be accepted by a fawning audience in the absence of strong opposition views are routinely challenged in open public debate – and often found to be unsupportable.

in other words ... so it almost seems (to me) that the premise of this "Debating Christianity" isn't so much aimed at attempting to resolve mistaken beliefs resulting from bad religion, or misleadng translations, but raher more so aimed at dissuading the our weaker brethren/ believers from thier faith ... throwing them an anvile when their having trouble even treading water.

If Christian debaters cannot or do not hold their own or present compelling / convincing arguments can that rationally be blamed on opponents and/or the Forum itself?

One Theist suggests that it is because his fellow Christians are less intelligent (or "stupid"). I disagree with his conclusion. http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... highlight= (Post #4 in particular)

Many apparently highly intelligent and well read / educated Christians pass through the Forum but do not seem to be able to fare well in debate.

I, for one, would be fascinated in seeing how such a poll turned out ... being aimed at those running this forum ...if answered truthfully?

Q: "Are you a believer? A: Yes/ No"

Based upon long experience and stated theological positions of Admin and Moderators: Yes = 4, No = 4.

Now what?

[robinriley]

.

Let's see if I've got this straight ... that is, a couple "pointers" that some fellow poster sent me, after he took offense to what I said above ... First of all, Clownboat, I'm curious, did you complain about my reference to "Dude," or is this just someone else making mountains out of molehills? But if "Dude" did offend you, I certainly take it back, because no real Dude I know, would be that thin skinned. Should I, then, also take back calling you a "good fellow" ...

I sent you a friendly PM without prompting from anyone suggesting parsing "Dude" from forum vocabulary and suggesting addressing issues rather than persons. I may have also suggested learning to use the quote function effectively.

Many newbies seem to have difficulty focusing on issues / topics / subjects WITHOUT personal comments of any kind toward fellow debaters. After they have been a member for a while unwarranted personal comments begin to receive Moderator Comments or Warnings.

Speaking of which, reading over the many pages of all these different topic threads, in the many different categories open for discussion, I've come away with a rather disturbing impression ... perhaps it would be interesting to take a poll and see what the results are ... that is, it appears that there are not too many moderators nor site supporters that are Believers.

For benefit of the uninformed: The site is owned and administered by a Christian (and very capable debater) and the Moderating Team is equally balanced between Theists and Non-Theists.

No partiality is shown to any theistic position. Any perceptions to the contrary are unfounded / unsupportable / excuses.

I've noticed a negative bias,

There IS an imbalance (not a "negative bias") between Theist vs. Non-Theist presentations in debate.

Why is that – since one cannot legitimately blame Forum Rules, guidelines, policies, practices?

Could it be that Theism cannot be successfully defended on a level playing field where no theological position is given favorable treatment – when "scriptures" cannot be used as a trump card to prove truth?

Many Christians appear to be accustomed to being granted a dominant or unopposed position (as may be characteristic of preaching in churches or in Christians-only environments). Claims and statements that may be accepted by a fawning audience in the absence of strong opposition views are routinely challenged in open public debate – and often found to be unsupportable.

in other words ... so it almost seems (to me) that the premise of this "Debating Christianity" isn't so much aimed at attempting to resolve mistaken beliefs resulting from bad religion, or misleadng translations, but raher more so aimed at dissuading the our weaker brethren/ believers from thier faith ... throwing them an anvile when their having trouble even treading water.

If Christian debaters cannot or do not hold their own or present compelling / convincing arguments can that rationally be blamed on opponents and/or the Forum itself?

One Theist suggests that it is because his fellow Christians are less intelligent (or "stupid"). I disagree with his conclusion. http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... highlight= (Post #4 in particular)

Many apparently highly intelligent and well read / educated Christians pass through the Forum but do not seem to be able to fare well in debate.

I, for one, would be fascinated in seeing how such a poll turned out ... being aimed at those running this forum ...if answered truthfully?

Q: "Are you a believer? A: Yes/ No"

Based upon long experience and stated theological positions of Admin and Moderators: Yes = 4, No = 4.

Now what?

(Robin)
Let's first addess your concern about the proper use of quotes ...
Unless this is a some esoteric test of initiation on this forum, on ALL other forums that make an issue of assigning proper recognition to statements that others have made, the quotation is just required so as to prperly identify the person making the quoted statement ... so tell me, most attentive Zzyzx, can you not ... not ... identify who is speaking when I "quote" you without the quotation markings, when I show you speaking thusly ...

(Zzyzx)
I sent you a friendly PM ...

(Robin)
Sorry friend, but it was not a "friendly" PM ... it was "motherly" to be sure, but I dontg need another mother; but it was certainlhy NOT a friendly message, it seemed more a rather condensending, and yet I forgo reporting you to the moderators ... I wont be so forgiving next time.

(Zzyzx)
"Many newbies seem to have difficulty focusing on issues / topics / subjects WITHOUT personal comments of any kind toward fellow debaters."

(Robin)
Obviousy you are not a "newbie" ... so this belittleing slur is aimed at me, right?
However, the ironic thing is, your very comment about "newbies" making improper personal comments ... is EXACTLY what you are doing, right now!

(Zzyzx)
"After they have been a member for a while unwarranted personal comments begin to receive Moderator Comments or Warnings."

(Robin)
Let's get this straight, and out in the open ... your are threatening me ... right!
I consider this harassment ... and, now, openly ask the moderators to caution YOU.


(Zzyzx)
"For benefit of the uninformed ..."


(Robin)
Again, Zzyzx, you are being rude, and making inapproapriate personal comments ...

(Zzyzx)
No partiality is shown to any theistic position.
Any perceptions to the contrary are unfounded / unsupportable / excuses.

(Robin)
My observations, after spending a great amount of time reading the many posts on this forum, are obvioulsy different from your impressions ... granted, it's subjective, but for you to paint me as making "unfounded, unsupportable excuses" ... Really, "excuses?"
Excusses for what, pray tell? All I commented upon, was the most obvious "flavor" that I'd smelled ... it's you that appear to be floundering for "excuses" ... AND attacking me.

Be advised, Zzyzx, you too are accountable to the "rules" ... be rude, be gone!

(Zzyzx)
Many apparently highly intelligent and well read / educated Christians pass through the Forum but do not seem to be able to fare well in debate.


(Robin)
I rest my case ... "many highly intelligent and well read Christians" ...
do not fare well on this forum.

Ummmm ... is that the "fault" of these highly intelligent and well read CHRISTIANS ... or might it be, the negaitive bias of the moderators, and those of similar ilk, who respond, as you have, with castigations, and not so well hiden denigrations?

Are you, then, telling me ... telling all of us ... that these highly intelligent and well read Christians dont do so well because they are un-intelligent, not so well read .. or just maybe, it has something to do with the make-up of the non-christian moderators?

By the way, Zz, are you a beliver ... if not, then let's just forgo any more conversations together ... ok?

[Zzyzx]

.

Let's first addess your concern about the proper use of quotes ...
Unless this is a some esoteric test of initiation on this forum, on ALL other forums that make an issue of assigning proper recognition to statements that others have made, the quotation is just required so as to prperly identify the person making the quoted statement ... so tell me, most attentive Zzyzx, can you not ... not ... identify who is speaking when I "quote" you without the quotation markings, when I show you speaking thusly …

Kindly refer to http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=9533 and http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... .php?t=582

Notice how it works below.

I sent you a friendly PM ...

Sorry friend, but it was not a "friendly" PM ... it was "motherly" to be sure, but I dontg need another mother; but it was certainlhy NOT a friendly message, it seemed more a rather condensending, and yet I forgo reporting you to the moderators ... I wont be so forgiving next time.

Feel free to report whatever is inappropriate. One of the other moderators or administrators will evaluate the merits of your complaint.

I here quote verbatim what I said in PM with subject "Friendly suggestions"

It would be prudent to parse "Dude" and euphemisms of substitute words such as "shix" from your debating vocabulary and to learn to use the quote function effectively http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... .php?t=582

Motherly? Condescending? Not friendly?

"Many newbies seem to have difficulty focusing on issues / topics / subjects WITHOUT personal comments of any kind toward fellow debaters."

Obviousy you are not a "newbie" ... so this belittleing slur is aimed at me, right?

If someone wishes to take personal affront from a general statement that is their decision – not mine. They decide which shoes to wear and whether a general description fits them. If you do not "have difficulty focusing on issues / topics / subjects without personal comments of any kind toward fellow debaters" then don't put on that shoe.

However, the post to which I respond here seems to indicate a great deal of focus on individuals.

However, the ironic thing is, your very comment about "newbies" making improper personal comments ... is EXACTLY what you are doing, right now!

By all means REPORT any infraction of Forum Rules and Guidelines. Don't complain in threads.

"After they have been a member for a while unwarranted personal comments begin to receive Moderator Comments or Warnings."

Let's get this straight, and out in the open ... your are threatening me ... right!

Wrong. Consult Forum Rules regarding Moderator Comments, Warnings, Probation, Suspension and Banishment – that apply to ALL members.

I consider this harassment ...

Is that an emotional response to a general statement?

and, now, openly ask the moderators to caution YOU.

Feel free to send a PM to Admin or any Moderator to express your complaint.

"For benefit of the uninformed ..."

Again, Zzyzx, you are being rude, and making inapproapriate personal comments ...

A general statement is not a personal comment. Those who are uninformed may recognize themselves in a general statement that is NOT addressed to them personally.

No partiality is shown to any theistic position.
Any perceptions to the contrary are unfounded / unsupportable / excuses.

My observations, after spending a great amount of time reading the many posts on this forum, are obvioulsy different from your impressions ... granted,

Readers will decide for themselves if opinions based on eight (8) days of membership are more valid than ones based on seven years of membership and more than a year of experience moderating these debates.

it's subjective, but for you to paint me as making "unfounded, unsupportable excuses" ... Really, "excuses?"

Notice that one valid use of the forward slash (/) is to separate between alternatives.

Excusses for what, pray tell?

Excuses for Christians not faring well in debate is a possibility. Is that correct?

All I commented upon, was the most obvious "flavor" that I'd smelled ...

"Smell" may not be a very reliable indicator of reality.

it's you that appear to be floundering for "excuses" ... AND attacking me.

I do not need nor make excuses. I made no attack on you personally. If you think otherwise use the "!" button atop each post to report any legitimate infractions.

Be advised, Zzyzx, you too are accountable to the "rules" ...

Absolutely. All of us are required to abide by the rules.

be rude, be gone!

Seven years and not ever even close. I would not advise anyone to stand on one foot waiting.

Many apparently highly intelligent and well read / educated Christians pass through the Forum but do not seem to be able to fare well in debate.

I rest my case ... "many highly intelligent and well read Christians" ...
do not fare well on this forum.

Oh, you have made a case? For what?

Ummmm ... is that the "fault" of these highly intelligent and well read CHRISTIANS ... or might it be, the negaitive bias of the moderators, and those of similar ilk, who respond, as you have, with castigations, and not so well hiden denigrations?

"Negative bias of moderators" is a figment of the imagination (usually of those who do not fare well in debate – or who have a negative attitude themselves).

Are you, then, telling me ... telling all of us ... that these highly intelligent and well read Christians dont do so well because they are un-intelligent, not so well read ..

Absolutely not. When a Christian made a statement about his fellow Christians being of low intelligence and "stupid" I disagreed strongly. Is that difficult to keep straight?

What, then, DOES account for the imbalance – since it cannot be blamed on stupidity or on the Christian site owner / administrator or moderator favoritism of Non-Theism?

Could it be that belief and emotion based on unverifiable ancient beliefs, emotions and stories does not hold up well in debate where religious promotional literature not shown favoritism?

Some Theists seem to have difficulty adapting to NOT being given preferential treatment. Perhaps the shock of actually facing strong opposition is disconcerting.

or just maybe, it has something to do with the make-up of the non-christian moderators?

What, exactly, is the "make-up of the Non-Christian moderators" to which you refer?

Since there is a theistic balance in the Admin and Moderating Team, and since major decisions are made by vote, how can "unfair" (or whatever) complaints be considered valid? What is the evidence?

By the way, Zz, are you a beliver ...

Careful reading of my signature (which clearly states theological position) and user-groups should allow one to have no doubt that I am a Non-Theist (and not a "believer" of any of the thousands of proposed gods or the tens of thousands of religions that worship them).

if not, then let's just forgo any more conversations together ... ok?

Not okay. Anyone is free to comment on any post. If you wish to refrain from responding to whatever I may say that is your business. However, I decidedly will not refrain from commenting on what you may say.

Those who are willing to converse only with fellow believers may be more comfortable in Holy Huddle sub-forum where only Believers can post.

[Zzyzx]

.
Moderator Intervention

Ehram is a hack!
He'd be a hack wheather the observant reader of his pandering

Ad Hominems and disrespectful characterization are not permitted here. However, it is permissible to say that you disagree with him.

was a christian or anything else ... but he is good at selling books to people already of the same bias.

It is wise to read opinions that views that differ from one's own -- regardless of one's theological position.

Rules
C&A Guidelines

______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[Danmark]

Moderator Action

The debate on Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus has been split [inexpertly]. That debate, which has nothing to do with welcoming new members, has been diverted to:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 043#722043

______________

Moderator actions indicate that a thread/post has been locked, moved, merged, or split.

[robinriley]

Moderator Action

The debate on Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus has been split [inexpertly]. That debate, which has nothing to do with welcoming new members, has been diverted to:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 043#722043

______________

Moderator actions indicate that a thread/post has been locked, moved, merged, or split.

(Robin)
Ahhhh ... the anti christian bias is dripping oozing slimming it's way to the the light of day ...

So thell me, protective moderators ... it this fellow, this author of books ...YOU ... like, is he a member of this forum?

....NO!...

He is not a member of this forum ... nor should he be "PROTECTED" by you ... kind, "unbiased" ... "fair minded" ... CONTROLLERS!

That is, if I ... if anyone takes any stand agains tthe "already determined" way things should be ... be them NOT EVEN participants on this so-called "debate" forum, then this alternate opinion is CRUSHED without any valid reason.

Do you NOT see yourselves for what you REALLY are???

[Danmark]

Moderator Action

The debate on Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus has been split [inexpertly]. That debate, which has nothing to do with welcoming new members, has been diverted to:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 043#722043

______________

Moderator actions indicate that a thread/post has been locked, moved, merged, or split.

(Robin)
Ahhhh ... the anti christian bias is dripping oozing slimming it's way to the the light of day ...

So thell me, protective moderators ... it this fellow, this author of books ...YOU ... like, is he a member of this forum?

....NO!...

He is not a member of this forum ... nor should he be "PROTECTED" by you ... kind, "unbiased" ... "fair minded" ... CONTROLLERS!

That is, if I ... if anyone takes any stand agains tthe "already determined" way things should be ... be them NOT EVEN participants on this so-called "debate" forum, then this alternate opinion is CRUSHED without any valid reason.

Do you NOT see yourselves for what you REALLY are???

Moderator Warning

Please do not comment on moderator actions. The 'Welcome' topic was split [clumsily by me] so Misquoting Jesus could be critiqued and debated in its forum, while this one is reserved to welcome new members and for them to introduce themselves.
This action has nothing to do with anyone's position, either pro or con, regarding the book. You are not only free to criticize Misquoting Jesus in the proper forum, you are encouraged to do so here:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=28045

You are also free to demonstrate why Ehrman or Paul, George Washington or Jesus, God or Diogenes or anyone else promulgates false claims, knowingly or otherwise. But simply calling people "liars" is considered uncivil whether they are members of the forum or not. You are free to argue about forum rules on the "Comment and Suggestions" section, but not in regular debate forums because it derails topics.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.