New subforum poll - Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma

[otseng]

It has been suggested to "add a specific forum for debating Christian theology. It would be an open forum for all, but focused on theology rather than arguments for/against the Christian faith."

After some discussion, here is the proposal:

Rename "Christianity" to "Christianity and Apologetics" - Argue for and against Christianity

Add new subforum "Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma" - Exploring the details of Christianity

One of the big differences between them is that the "TD&D" subforum would assume that the Bible can be accepted as a reference without debate, whereas the "C&A" subforum would be the place to question the authority of the Bible.

If you have any other suggestions on what they should be called, feel free to add your comments here.

[Lotan]

... the "TD&D" subforum would assume that the Bible can be accepted as a reference without debate, whereas the "C&A" subforum would be the place to question the authority of the Bible.

Another 'Holy Huddle Room'?
I'm sorry, but I don't see the value in taking an uncritical view of the bible when discussing theology. I can think of several doctrinal arguments off the top of my head that are the result of textual problems (redaction), based on manuscript evidence. Where would they fit? A pro-bible bias can only artificially limit the answers to any particular question at the expense of other, possibly more correct ones.
With the exception of the word "evolutionism" in the subtitle this site has done an excellent job of avoiding this kind of bias. I would hate to see open discussion restricted in this way.

[Bugmaster]

Yeah, I agree with His Evilness Himself (i.e., Lotan). We already have a Holy Huddle Room, so I see no need for another one. Note that I'm not opposed to the Holy Huddle Room itself, I'm just opposed to redundancy.

[otseng]

Another 'Holy Huddle Room'?

Not quite another Holy Huddle Room. TD&D would be for debating only and would be open to anyone. HHR is for discussion only and only open to those who belong to the Christian usergroup. So, there would be no redundancy.

[Bugmaster]

Not quite another Holy Huddle Room. TD&D would be for debating only and would be open to anyone.

I thought that the Bible would be accepted as hard evidence inside TD&D ? Part of me actually wants to see TD&D implemented, just to watch the flames about which Bible is accepted as evidence... But it's only a small, mean-spirited part of me :-)

[McCulloch]

Another 'Holy Huddle Room'?
I'm sorry, but I don't see the value in taking an uncritical view of the bible when discussing theology. I can think of several doctrinal arguments off the top of my head that are the result of textual problems (redaction), based on manuscript evidence. Where would they fit? A pro-bible bias can only artificially limit the answers to any particular question at the expense of other, possibly more correct ones.

But we do that within the confines of the existing forums. If you state the question for debate as "What does the Bible teach about ... " or "What is the authentic Christian position on..." then you have, in effect, created a question which would belong in the new forum. I, for one, find those questions interesting.

[theleftone]

I'm sorry, but I don't see the value in taking an uncritical view of the bible when discussing theology.

You don't need to check your critical views at the door. You can debate issues like the following with ceasing to be critical of the Bible:

How does Paul view Christ? Is the Trinitarian doctrine consistent with the teachings of Scripture? What is Martin Luther's view of the atonement? What influence has Saint Augustine had on Western culture? And so forth.

There are a number of theologians and biblical scholars who debate these issues in scholarly circles, though they ultimately do not accept the Christian faith. Thus, I see no reason why it's impossible for those here who do not accept it cannot participate in the discussions.

I can think of several doctrinal arguments off the top of my head that are the result of textual problems (redaction), based on manuscript evidence. Where would they fit?

This depends on the approach. Are you seeking to use this textual issue to debunk Christianity? Then it would fit in Christianity forum. Are you seeking to debate the merits of how it supports "xyz" doctrinal position? Then it would go in the theology forums.

A pro-bible bias can only artificially limit the answers to any particular question at the expense of other, possibly more correct ones.

I wasn't suggesting a "pro-bible bias" for the forum. In fact, in some cases, the Bible wouldn't even be necessary for the debates. We can argue about Martin Luther's theology of atonement without having to appeal to the Bible for support. In fact, doing so would be a strawman as we'd be going outside of the one who's view we're trying to reason through.

I would hate to see open discussion restricted in this way.

I don't see it as "restricting" open discussion. I see it as categorizing the debates where those with interest in one or the other can more readily find the debates they're interested in.

[theleftone]

Note: Of course, McCulloch and otseng may have different ideas in mind than I do. However, the ideas I expressed above were more along the lines of what I'd like to see the forum represent.

[Lotan]

TD&D would be for debating only and would be open to anyone.

No, not anyone. Only those who "assume that the Bible can be accepted as a reference without debate". The number of possible approaches to theological questions is limited by this restriction.

But we do that within the confines of the existing forums.

You make a compelling argument for the redundancy of this proposed new subforum.

I, for one, find those questions interesting.

Me too, I just don't see the point in trading scriptures back and forth when some of these same scriptures may be spurious. The rules of this subforum would give equal weight to all scriptures and thereby introduce a bias. Our recent exchange on the "God Favors Slavery" thread would be a good example. I could never have argued for Paul's innocence without a critical approach to the relevant texts.

You don't need to check your critical views at the door. You can debate issues like the following with ceasing to be critical of the Bible:
How does Paul view Christ? Is the Trinitarian doctrine consistent with the teachings of Scripture?

I''ll leave aside the first question because it's a little too big, but the second question provides a perfect example of the problem that I'm trying to point out. Any discussion of the trinity will eventually include 1 John 5:7 (aka the Johannine Comma). Here's a typical description...

" These extra words are generally absent from the Greek manuscripts. In fact, they only appear in the text of four late medieval manuscripts. They seem to have originated as a marginal note added to certain Latin manuscripts during the middle ages, which was eventually incorporated into the text of most of the later Vulgate manuscripts."

Clearly, this serves to weaken the argument for the trinity, at least based on this particular text, but according to the rules of the proposed new forum this information would be inadmissable. The result is that any conclusions drawn from the argument would be worse than wrong; they would be misleading.

There are a number of theologians and biblical scholars who debate these issues in scholarly circles, though they ultimately do not accept the Christian faith. Thus, I see no reason why it's impossible for those here who do not accept it cannot participate in the discussions.

They could participate. They just couldn't do so honestly.

I don't see it as "restricting" open discussion.

No, it's wide open to anyone who is willing to "assume...without debate". I'm afraid that I'm not one of those.

[McCulloch]

But we do that within the confines of the existing forums.

You make a compelling argument for the redundancy of this proposed new subforum.

As I see it, the new forum will not allow for questions and debates which we cannot now currently have, but it will be a convienient place to categorize some of the debates.
Sort of like

• What is authentic Christianity?
• Is it true and valid?
• Science and Religion
• etc