Are Some Christians Immune To Rule 5?

Definition of terms and explanation of concepts

Moderator: Moderators

Are Some Christians Immune From Rule 5?

Sure Seems That Way
4
80%
No, Not At All
1
20%
 
Total votes: 5

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Are Some Christians Immune To Rule 5?

Post #1

Post by JoeyKnothead »

I'm starting to think that somehow God is up there, and he's protecting some of the Christians on this site, allowing them to just ignore any challenges they feel uncomfortable with.

I hate to sound bigoted about it, but I can document many cases where some Christians are allowed to ignore requests that they substantiate their claims. It is very discouraging to take the time and effort to challenge claims, only to be ignored. Then sure enough a few posts later they start claiming more stuff.

Am I just wasting my time? Is the "debate" part of C&A now null and void? It does no good anymore to challenge claims, all you get is being ignored, or worse, folks complaining that you'd dare challenge 'em.

Is it no longer a requirement that folks substantiate their claims?

Questions for debate:

1- Has God placed a cloak over some Christians, making it unnecessary for them to substantiate their claims?

2- Has rule 5 become irrelevant?

3- Should we just quit challenging claims when those challenges can be ignored?
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

cnorman18

Re: Are Some Christians Immune To Rule 5?

Post #21

Post by cnorman18 »

Heterodoxus wrote:
Vanguard wrote: using the Bible is evidence ....
IMU, the Bible is not evidence. The Bible is merely a collection of translations supported by, at best, a copy of a copy of a copy of each of its source documents. Of the translations compiled into the Bible by the early Catholic Church, some are accurate, and some aren't; some are apocryphal (of questionable authenticity), and others are spurious (plausible but false).

The original manuscripts are evidence, but they've been forever lost to antiquity. And, since the words in the Bible can't be verified from the original source documents, the Bible, like Christian faith and belief, is closer to being a Judaism-influenced postulation based on moot points instead of "truth."
I would happily stipulate all that; but that is not the point.

That is YOUR understanding, and it is largely mine as well: but others think differently. Some hold that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.

Neither their view, nor ours, ought to be carved in stone as a given and a hard-and-fast rule of evidence in a forum which serves both.

The points you argue above are precisely those which ought to be argued in debate, but not determined in advance. Not everyone agrees on them, and disagreement is not the same as dishonesty.

As long as I am a moderator here, no one will be declared at the outset to be an idiot - or for that matter, a benighted and unenlightened God-hater - by the rules of this forum.

Argue your point of view. Don't expect the rules to do it for you.

Heterodoxus
Scholar
Posts: 397
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:14 pm
Location: facebook.com/Heterodoxus
Contact:

Re: Are Some Christians Immune To Rule 5?

Post #22

Post by Heterodoxus »

Cathar1950 wrote:
Heterodoxus wrote:
Vanguard wrote: using the Bible is evidence ....
IMU, the Bible is not evidence. The Bible is merely a collection of translations supported by, at best, a copy of a copy of a copy of each of its source documents. Of the translations compiled into the Bible by the early Catholic Church, some are accurate, and some aren't; some are apocryphal (of questionable authenticity), and others are spurious (plausible but false).

The original manuscripts are evidence, but they've been forever lost to antiquity. And, since the words in the Bible can't be verified from the original source documents, the Bible, like Christian faith and belief, is closer to being a Judaism-influenced postulation based on moot points instead of "truth."
They are evidence of what believers believed or felt.

The writings are making the claims that people are claiming is true ....
Claims based on unverified and, in the case of the Bible, unprovable hypotheses are subjective opinions which bear no evidentiary weight or value.

There's simply no way to tell what the original writers wrote. The original writings are non-existent and the contents of the copies, in some cases written centuries after the fact by pro-Catholic (Judaism-influenced) church-employed copyists/translators, are and remain both unverifiable and uncorroborated.

In short, claims made in/based upon the Bible are no more accurate and reliable than the claim made in an old nursery rhyme that "the cow jumped over the moon."

cnorman18

Re: Are Some Christians Immune To Rule 5?

Post #23

Post by cnorman18 »

Heterodoxus wrote:
Cathar1950 wrote:
Heterodoxus wrote:
Vanguard wrote: using the Bible is evidence ....
IMU, the Bible is not evidence. The Bible is merely a collection of translations supported by, at best, a copy of a copy of a copy of each of its source documents. Of the translations compiled into the Bible by the early Catholic Church, some are accurate, and some aren't; some are apocryphal (of questionable authenticity), and others are spurious (plausible but false).

The original manuscripts are evidence, but they've been forever lost to antiquity. And, since the words in the Bible can't be verified from the original source documents, the Bible, like Christian faith and belief, is closer to being a Judaism-influenced postulation based on moot points instead of "truth."
They are evidence of what believers believed or felt.

The writings are making the claims that people are claiming is true ....
Claims based on unverified and, in the case of the Bible, unprovable hypotheses are subjective opinions which bear no evidentiary weight or value.

There's simply no way to tell what the original writers wrote. The original writings are non-existent and the contents of the copies, in some cases written centuries after the fact by pro-Catholic (Judaism-influenced) church-employed copyists/translators, are and remain both unverifiable and uncorroborated.

In short, claims made in/based upon the Bible are no more accurate and reliable than the claim made in an old nursery rhyme that "the cow jumped over the moon."
Far be it from me to speak for Cathar, but isn't that pretty much what he said?

Let's look at the whole of his post:
Cathar1950 wrote:
They are evidence of what believers believed or felt. The writings are making the claims that people are claiming is true and they are not evidence for the truth of the claims the Bible makes or how they are interpreted.


In any case, all this is a matter for debate.
This thread is about the forum rules, and the rules are NOT going to dictate a determination of the truth, falsity, or reliability of the Biblical text. That is one of the subjects we debate here.

If you want to debate that subject, start a new thread - or pick another. There are plenty on that subject. This thread isn't one of them.

If you want to argue that the rules should declare that the Bible is a load of garbage, hang it up. That's not going to happen, and as far as I can see, that subject is permanently closed. I think I can speak for the entire moderating team and the admins as well here.

The subhead of this very subforum reads, "Rational and civil debate between members of all religions and world views." We aren't going to officially rule out the views of half our membership.  

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #24

Post by Cathar1950 »

There are a number of topics in this thread that might be good subjects of another thread.
[strike]My feeling about rule 5 is that there should be no rule 5.[/strike]
I don't think it is the intent of this forum to takes sides in the debate. But it does seem that allowing the Bible to be evidence is dependent on context and purpose.
Circular reasoning is not proper evidence even if it is in the Bible.
A Biblical claim is not evidence for a Biblical claim but can be supportive or used for explanation.
There is no doubt that the Bible is evidence for the believers but that is all that should be assumed by a blanket interpretation of rule 5.

I think that any limit to legitimate questions is not in the best interest of fairness or honesty on anyone holding back skeptical inquiry.
I am sorry everyone. I thought rule 5 was that the Bible was evidence.
My mistake.
Last edited by Cathar1950 on Mon Apr 20, 2009 9:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Heterodoxus
Scholar
Posts: 397
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:14 pm
Location: facebook.com/Heterodoxus
Contact:

Re: Are Some Christians Immune To Rule 5?

Post #25

Post by Heterodoxus »

cnorman18 wrote:
Heterodoxus wrote:In short, claims made in/based upon the Bible are no more accurate and reliable than the claim made in an old nursery rhyme that "the cow jumped over the moon."
Far be it from me to speak for Cathar, but isn't that pretty much what he said?

Let's look at the whole of his post:
Cathar1950 wrote:
They are evidence of what believers believed or felt. The writings are making the claims that people are claiming is true and they are not evidence for the truth of the claims the Bible makes or how they are interpreted.


In any case, all this is a matter for debate.
This thread is about the forum rules, and the rules are NOT going to dictate a determination of the truth, falsity, or reliability of the Biblical text. That is one of the subjects we debate here.

If you want to debate that subject, start a new thread - or pick another. There are plenty on that subject. This thread isn't one of them.

If you want to argue that the rules should declare that the Bible is a load of garbage, hang it up. That's not going to happen, and as far as I can see, that subject is permanently closed. I think I can speak for the entire moderating team and the admins as well here.

The subhead of this very subforum reads, "Rational and civil debate between members of all religions and world views." We aren't going to officially rule out the views of half our membership.  
No argument/debate intended, and I've finished with this thread. In brief, Cathar's response read, on this end, like an explanatory defense of biblical claims. And, since the forum heading contains the words "Definitions and Explanations," I offered (I thought) a counter-explanation.

FWIW, my vote was pro-Rule 5, and I misread Cathar's intent. My bad! #-o

cnorman18

Are Some Christians Immune To Rule 5?

Post #26

Post by cnorman18 »

Cathar1950 wrote:There are a number of topics in this thread that might be good subjects of another thread.
True, and they often are.
My feeling about rule 5 is that there should be no rule 5.
Really?

"5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence."

That seems a reasonable rule to me.

I think you might be referring to Guidelines 2, 3, and 4 for the C&A subforum:

"2. Avoid using the Bible as the sole source to prove that Christianity is true. However, using the Bible as the only source to argue what is authentic Christianity is legitimate.

"3. For factual claims like the existence of individuals, places, and events, the Bible can be considered as providing evidence, but not necessarily conclusive evidence.

"4. Unsupported Bible quotations are to be considered as no more authoritative than unsupported quotations from any other book."
I don't think it is the intent of this forum to takes sides in the debate. But it does seem that allowing the Bible to be evidence is dependent on context and purpose.
Isn't that outlined in the above?
Circular reasoning is not proper evidence even if it is in the Bible.
Agreed, and such reasoning is nowhere endorsed as valid in the forum rules. It is not explicitly outlawed, either, for the very good reason that whether or not reasoning is circular should be determined by debate.
A Biblical claim is not evidence for a Biblical claim but can be supportive or used for explanation.
And that is covered in the Guidelines.
There is no doubt that the Bible is evidence for the believers but that is all that should be assumed by a blanket interpretation of rule 5.
Isn't that pretty much where we are?
I think that any limit to legitimate questions is not in the best interest of fairness or honesty on anyone holding back skeptical inquiry.
Agreed. That is the intent of the rules.

I'm not seeing a conflict here. What rules or guidelines would you change, and how?

cnorman18

Re: Are Some Christians Immune To Rule 5?

Post #27

Post by cnorman18 »

Heterodoxus wrote:No argument/debate intended, and I've finished with this thread. In brief, Cathar's response read, on this end, like an explanatory defense of biblical claims. And, since the forum heading contains the words "Definitions and Explanations," I offered (I thought) a counter-explanation.

FWIW, my vote was pro-Rule 5, and I misread Cathar's intent. My bad! #-o
My bad, too. I apologize for overreacting. No harm, no foul.

It has been observed before that language is a very clumsy and inexact way to communicate - but it is unfortunately the best one we have, barring the development of the Vulcan Mind Meld.

May this be the worst misunderstanding we ever have here.

...Experience compels me to add, "Fat chance."

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Are Some Christians Immune To Rule 5?

Post #28

Post by Cathar1950 »

cnorman18 wrote:
Cathar1950 wrote:There are a number of topics in this thread that might be good subjects of another thread.
True, and they often are.
My feeling about rule 5 is that there should be no rule 5.
Really?

"5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence."

That seems a reasonable rule to me.

I think you might be referring to Guidelines 2, 3, and 4 for the C&A subforum:

"2. Avoid using the Bible as the sole source to prove that Christianity is true. However, using the Bible as the only source to argue what is authentic Christianity is legitimate.

"3. For factual claims like the existence of individuals, places, and events, the Bible can be considered as providing evidence, but not necessarily conclusive evidence.

"4. Unsupported Bible quotations are to be considered as no more authoritative than unsupported quotations from any other book."
I don't think it is the intent of this forum to takes sides in the debate. But it does seem that allowing the Bible to be evidence is dependent on context and purpose.
Isn't that outlined in the above?
Circular reasoning is not proper evidence even if it is in the Bible.
Agreed, and such reasoning is nowhere endorsed as valid in the forum rules. It is not explicitly outlawed, either, for the very good reason that whether or not reasoning is circular should be determined by debate.
A Biblical claim is not evidence for a Biblical claim but can be supportive or used for explanation.
And that is covered in the Guidelines.
There is no doubt that the Bible is evidence for the believers but that is all that should be assumed by a blanket interpretation of rule 5.
Isn't that pretty much where we are?
I think that any limit to legitimate questions is not in the best interest of fairness or honesty on anyone holding back skeptical inquiry.
Agreed. That is the intent of the rules.

I'm not seeing a conflict here. What rules or guidelines would you change, and how?
Sorry but I got the rule mixed up with the rule that says the Bible is evidence.
I tried to correct my mistake. I am all for rule 5 when required.

Post Reply