Are Some Christians Immune To Rule 5?

[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?

[micatala]

Moderator Comment

I've brought this thread and Cephus' post in particular up for discussion in the moderator thread.

For now, I am going to move the thread to the Discussion area as this seems to be less a debate thread than a commentary on the enforcement of the rules.

I would say there is no reason to stop making challenges, as long as the challenges are made within the rules.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 1 Post 4:

Are you really saying the Bible is not evidence or that it is rather weak?

I'm saying citing a source to prove that very source is accurate is circular reasoning that should not even be considered, much less allowed, in a debate forum. Cite the Bible till the cows come home, just have them cows pulling a cart of evidence.

Are you really suggesting there is no such thing as a "not legitimate enough" challenge? Really? All challenges are legitimate?

What claims do you consider immune to challenges?

As stated previously, it is a central tenet of ethical debate that one offers evidence or retraction when called on their claims.

It is my contention that since so many theists are allowed to ignore challenges, then there must surely be a God protecting them from rule 5.

The OP would still be better served in the "Comments, Suggestions, and Questions" subforum. As you refuse to profer any sort of evidence for this supposed god of yours I will accept your premise. Welcome to the fold.

See the reply immediately above this one, I've offered evidence, I await some sort of something to show my conclusion is invalid.
-----------------------------------
From Page 1 Post 7:

Most can't other than running back to the Bible or Koran and repeating what it says ad nauseum. They are not here to debate but preach. They are like driving over roadkill - makes a satisfying pop but it was already dead.

LOL. I agree. The roadkill analogy is apt.

I reassert my OP, there must surely be a God when so many theists are allowed to simply ignore requests for substantiation of their claims.
------------------------------------
From Page 1 Post 8:

HOWEVER, the requirement of "substantiate claims" is NOT enforced upon apologists who make claims (as Joey is famous for noting).

And so, we must conclude there really is a God, and He's protecting some theists from the requirement of rule 5.

Refusing to support claims and being permitted to continue to post more claims IS giving a handicap to the weak side.

I contend this is Jesus' supernatural protection; he did like the handicapped so.

I have (with admin knowledge and approval) approached several religious colleges and seminaries with invitations (or challenge?) for faculty and students to join our debates – with no known positive response (and one very notable disastrous impersonation attempt).

I'm starting to realize the more entrenched one's views are in Biblical claims, the further they find themselves removed from the requirements of rule 5.

I contend God is Himself a Biblical literalist, and has decided to protect the more literalist minded members of this forum by allowing them to just claim whatever they want and ignore any and all challenges to their claims.

I agree, with the proviso that if a claim is challenged it is ethically required to be either substantiated or withdrawn.

Based upon this statement, I think it only logical to conclude there is a God, and He's removed any requirement of ethics from either debate itself, or those who prefer to ignore challenges to claims.

The evidence is overwhelming that God's up there, and He's supernaturally removed these requirements from some of His favored theists.
------------------------------------
From Page 1 Post 9:

It's what I've been saying for years, theists get away with things that atheists never could, simply because of the nature of their beliefs. Everyone knows they're incapable of supporting their beliefs with evidence and well-reasoned arguments and if Rule #5 was imposed on them, they'd either never be able to respond or they'd all leave and where would that leave us?

More independent evidence that God has offered supernatural protection for some of His favored theists!
------------------------------------
From Page 1 Post 10:

IMO a little slack is due to Christians

I contend this is God supernaturally speaking through Flail!!!!!!!!!!!

Unless...unless...unless Flail is God!!!???

[Vanguard]

I agree that, to the best of my knowledge, DC&R is the most level ground on which Christianity and opposition are debated. HOWEVER, the requirement of "substantiate claims" is NOT enforced upon apologists who make claims (as Joey is famous for noting).

Refusing to support claims and being permitted to continue to post more claims IS giving a handicap to the weak side.

I don't see it quite that way. Joey is famous for noting what he thinks are unsubstantiated claims. However, that does not in and of itself make it so. Again, I put things on a continuum and find that a good percentage of thiest arguments lack in any substantiation outside of the Bible. Some efforts are commendabe and honorable though most leave me non-plused.

The "warm-market" intellectualism in Christianity is legend. When teaching the adults in Sunday School I try to challenge them where appropriate to rethink certain positions.

Would you be so bold as to challenge your Sunday school adults to view and join these debates? I have asked this or similar question several times and have not received a single affirmative answer (only evasions).

I am not impressed enough with any in the congregation to pitch it to them.

There is extra-Biblical evidence only that it is understandably very weak in convincing a non-beleiver. Z, don't you remember the thread you started where you weighed the strength of different kinds of evidences? You progressed from strongest to weakest. I liked that commentary very much. It surprises me a bit when you now speak of these exchanges in terms of "no evidence". Shouldn't all claims be put on this continuum of strong - weak evidentiary standards?

I agree and will revise my statement to read, "The 'evidence' brought forth to substantiate biblical tales is, in my opinion, very near the 'no evidence' end of the 'strength of evidence continuum'".

When a student scores consistently below 60%, they are regarded as failing. Perhaps I extend the same reasoning to evidentiary standards.

Indeed it does seem as though the preponderance of "scores" are low.

As you say frequently, a non-believer and believer should state their claims and let the readers decide for themselves (or words to that effect).

I agree, with the proviso that if a claim is challenged it is ethically required to be either substantiated or withdrawn.

I disagree. Though this may be true in some cases, "substantiation" lies within the eyes of the beholder. You or I may not be impressed with the standard though that is a different issue. For that matter, some challenges are not worthy of a response to begin with.

With "in any other context" I attempt to convey that hearsay support and known frauds (such as Josephus) used to support claims by politicians and used car salesmen, for example, are NOT considered as evidence by most discerning people. When they are discovered and exposed, all credibility is removed (except in the case of religion).

I was not aware Josephus was exposed as a fraud?

Those who accept such tales with "slim to none" verification are known as gullible (or suckers) -- and may make ideal candidates for religious recruitment.

Do you hold the same opinion (i.e., gullible or suckers) for those "born into" their particular faith? I baptized many under this low standard you speak of and I did not consider them "suckers".

The "evidentiary standards" of this site may seem "rigorous" as compared to those of a "Christians only" or "Christians preferred" site BUT they are FAR from rigorous when compared to any valid academic / scientific debate or discussion.

As a person who HAS presented research and conclusions for critical examination by independent and capable (and often opposed) others, I can assure everyone here that the demand for evidence in those situations is INTENSE and standards of evidence make ours here "look like kindergarten".

Agreed. Though for a "common man's" forum this site maintains a worthy standard. Certainly you don't expect that every claim maintain the standard you have experienced in academia?

[cnorman18]

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?

All religions have a subjective view at their core. This the only support it has. Therefore in the end it is just an opinion. Where rule 5 kicks in is if they are forced to support that opinion.

Most can't other than running back to the Bible or Koran and repeating what it says ad nauseum. They are not here to debate but preach. They are like driving over roadkill - makes a satisfying pop but it was already dead.

It is the other, much greater set of Christians that will try and find support for their subjective view (i.e. to be objective) and if they cannot then either become like the others or change their opinion.

Others like cnorman18 know this and doesn't think we should be discussing subjective views anyway. Which is one way to hide from the objective.

Just for the record, I've never said that. I have acknowledged from the beginning here that all religious views have a subjective basis. I did recently remark that that wasn't relevant to the topic of a particular thread, which it wasn't (the thread was about the effects of "religion," not about its origins or truth claims). But I have certainly never said that subjective views ought not be discussed, "to hide from the objective" (which is what?) or for any other reason.

You are fond of mindreading motives for arguments that I don't even make. Bad habit.

I shall shortly be posting my views on this subject separately.

[cnorman18]

The primary problem with Rule 5 and the charge "dishonorable debate," of course, goes back to "Is the Bible evidence?" There are other issues, sure, and we'll get to those presently; but the question of the Bible, I think, is primary.

The standards of the C&A subforum on the Bible as evidence are ambiguous - and deliberately so. That makes no one happy. But here is the conundrum:

If we declare the Bible to be hard evidence of anything, that clearly makes the assumption that the Bible is true; and that would constitute an unfair, biased, whatever, unlevel playing field, yes?

On the other hand; if we declare that the Bible is in no way evidence, it's hard to see how that does not entail the assumption that the Bible is false: and that does not constitute a level playing field, either. Like it or not, it's not going to be a formal rule of this forum that the Bible is BS.

I consider the Bible sufficient evidence to hold an opinion. If someone is asked, "Why do you believe X?" and that person answers, "Because the Bible says so, right here," that seems to me to be a legitimate and on-point answer. It is not a "claim" that requires support beyond what was said: "You asked me why I believe this, and I told you."

On the other hand, if someone is asked, "Why should I believe X?" or "Is X objectively true?" a Bible quote is entirely inadequate. That IS a "claim," and if one is speaking to a person who does not share a belief in the Bible's authority, that claim needs some support other than that book for the nonbeliever to take it seriously. But it cannot be said that no evidence at all has been presented, no effort made to substantiate one's claims, or that one has been dishonest. To say that the evidence presented is inadequate is both more accurate and less insulting.

It seems to me that first we ought to determine whether what is being said is an objective claim of fact or an opinion. It further seems to me that any sentence which begins "I believe..." is clearly an opinion.

Then, when a theist does make an objective claim of fact that presents nothing more than the Bible as evidence, it is both more accurate and more objectively honest, as opposed to polemically provocative, to remark, "That justifies your opinion to you, but to prove it true to me, you need to show me something I can believe in" - as opposed to merely dismissing the argument and "demanding evidence" as if none had been offered at all. Not to mention accusing that member of outright dishonesty and "dishonorable debate."

Consider this: You have seen posters ridicule science as "a lot of guesses"? Silly and offensive, right? Well, SOME theists are just as offended when the Bible is dismissed as a load of lies, fiction, and fairy tales. Assuming that to be true is just as unfair and unacceptable as assuming the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God. The truth or rationality of religious ideas is what we are trying to debate here; and you don't conduct a debate by declaring one side wrong before you begin.

A debate over whether the Bible is sufficient evidence in debate is perfectly appropriate (and clearly necessary); but the charge that theists who present no evidence other than the Bible are "presenting no evidence at all" and are thus "debating dishonorably" is simply out of court. Like it or not, they think it IS evidence, and attacking their collective character for so thinking is tantamount to condemning them for being Christians in the first place. Now, who will call THAT "fair and unbiased"?

Accept that your opponent is presenting what he believes to be evidence, and debate whether that evidence is enough for whatever truth-claim is actually being made to be accepted by someone who does not share those beliefs. THAT is open and honest debate. As I have said to more than one member here, "Disagreement with your standards or way of thinking does not constitute dishonesty."

Let's get past this. Respect means not only not ridiculing, demeaning or dismissing as insignificant your opponent personally, it means not ridiculing, demeaning or dismissing as insignificant their views as well. Some may bristle at that; "Those views aren't worthy of respect," they say. Sorry, that's not logically admissible - unless you're willing to calmly accept it without complaint when others dismiss and demean your own, by mocking science as "guesses" and "myth."

You see, "I'm right and you're wrong"" isn't evidence for either side. That's what we're trying to debate.

A final note; Sure, there are other issues. Some members routinely ignore points that have been made and fail to respond to them. Some deliberately misstate and twist the positions of others; and some claim to speak absolute truth and give no more authority or source or reference for their views than their own unsupported opinion and experience. THOSE practices, I would agree, are indeed "dishonorable debate."

And you know what? Some of those members are atheists.

Genuinely dishonorable and dishonest debate is to be exposed in the process of debate. We have no explicit rules about any of the practices above; who would make it a requirement that every point be answered and every opinion footnoted? YOU and I decide when a member has ducked a point, presented a specious or hollow argument, and we do it by argument, and not by an appeal to the rules.

I think the same should apply to the Bible presented as evidence - or religious dogma in general, for that matter. "That isn't evidence, and you are therefore dishonest in presenting it" is a qualitatively different statement than "That isn't evidence to me." The former is a slap in the face: the latter is a subject for further debate.

Which is better and more productive?

[Vanguard]

The primary problem with Rule 5 and the charge "dishonorable debate," of course, goes back to "Is the Bible evidence?" There are other issues, sure, and we'll get to those presently; but the question of the Bible, I think, is primary.

The standards of the C&A subforum on the Bible as evidence are ambiguous - and deliberately so. That makes no one happy. But here is the conundrum:

If we declare the Bible to be hard evidence of anything, that clearly makes the assumption that the Bible is true; and that would constitute an unfair, biased, whatever, unlevel playing field, yes?

On the other hand; if we declare that the Bible is in no way evidence, it's hard to see how that does not entail the assumption that the Bible is false: and that does not constitute a level playing field, either. Like it or not, it's not going to be a formal rule of this forum that the Bible is BS.

I consider the Bible sufficient evidence to hold an opinion. If someone is asked, "Why do you believe X?" and that person answers, "Because the Bible says so, right here," that seems to me to be a legitimate and on-point answer. It is not a "claim" that requires support beyond what was said: "You asked me why I believe this, and I told you."

On the other hand, if someone is asked, "Why should I believe X?" or "Is X objectively true?" a Bible quote is entirely inadequate. That IS a "claim," and if one is speaking to a person who does not share a belief in the Bible's authority, that claim needs some support other than that book for the nonbeliever to take it seriously. But it cannot be said that no evidence at all has been presented, no effort made to substantiate one's claims, or that one has been dishonest. To say that the evidence presented is inadequate is both more accurate and less insulting.

It seems to me that first we ought to determine whether what is being said is an objective claim of fact or an opinion. It further seems to me that any sentence which begins "I believe..." is clearly an opinion.

Then, when a theist does make an objective claim of fact that presents nothing more than the Bible as evidence, it is both more accurate and more objectively honest, as opposed to polemically provocative, to remark, "That justifies your opinion to you, but to prove it true to me, you need to show me something I can believe in" - as opposed to merely dismissing the argument and "demanding evidence" as if none had been offered at all. Not to mention accusing that member of outright dishonesty and "dishonorable debate."

Consider this: You have seen posters ridicule science as "a lot of guesses"? Silly and offensive, right? Well, SOME theists are just as offended when the Bible is dismissed as a load of lies, fiction, and fairy tales. Assuming that to be true is just as unfair and unacceptable as assuming the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God. The truth or rationality of religious ideas is what we are trying to debate here; and you don't conduct a debate by declaring one side wrong before you begin.

A debate over whether the Bible is sufficient evidence in debate is perfectly appropriate (and clearly necessary); but the charge that theists who present no evidence other than the Bible are "presenting no evidence at all" and are thus "debating dishonorably" is simply out of court. Like it or not, they think it IS evidence, and attacking their collective character for so thinking is tantamount to condemning them for being Christians in the first place. Now, who will call THAT "fair and unbiased"?

Accept that your opponent is presenting what he believes to be evidence, and debate whether that evidence is enough for whatever truth-claim is actually being made to be accepted by someone who does not share those beliefs. THAT is open and honest debate. As I have said to more than one member here, "Disagreement with your standards or way of thinking does not constitute dishonesty."

Let's get past this. Respect means not only not ridiculing, demeaning or dismissing as insignificant your opponent personally, it means not ridiculing, demeaning or dismissing as insignificant their views as well. Some may bristle at that; "Those views aren't worthy of respect," they say. Sorry, that's not logically admissible - unless you're willing to calmly accept it without complaint when others dismiss and demean your own, by mocking science as "guesses" and "myth."

You see, "I'm right and you're wrong"" isn't evidence for either side. That's what we're trying to debate.

A final note; Sure, there are other issues. Some members routinely ignore points that have been made and fail to respond to them. Some deliberately misstate and twist the positions of others; and some claim to speak absolute truth and give no more authority or source or reference for their views than their own unsupported opinion and experience. THOSE practices, I would agree, are indeed "dishonorable debate."

And you know what? Some of those members are atheists.

Genuinely dishonorable and dishonest debate is to be exposed in the process of debate. We have no explicit rules about any of the practices above; who would make it a requirement that every point be answered and every opinion footnoted? YOU and I decide when a member has ducked a point, presented a specious or hollow argument, and we do it by argument, and not by an appeal to the rules.

I think the same should apply to the Bible presented as evidence - or religious dogma in general, for that matter. "That isn't evidence, and you are therefore dishonest in presenting it" is a qualitatively different statement than "That isn't evidence to me." The former is a slap in the face: the latter is a subject for further debate.

Which is better and more productive?

That's some mighty fine "moderatin'", c-man and I agree with every point you've made. Though I have been arguing this for some time and much to my envious chagrin, you have nailed the point better than I ever have.

Kuddos on one of the best posts I've seen yet.

[cnorman18]

The primary problem with Rule 5 and the charge "dishonorable debate," of course, goes back to "Is the Bible evidence?" There are other issues, sure, and we'll get to those presently; but the question of the Bible, I think, is primary.

The standards of the C&A subforum on the Bible as evidence are ambiguous - and deliberately so. That makes no one happy. But here is the conundrum:

If we declare the Bible to be hard evidence of anything, that clearly makes the assumption that the Bible is true; and that would constitute an unfair, biased, whatever, unlevel playing field, yes?

On the other hand; if we declare that the Bible is in no way evidence, it's hard to see how that does not entail the assumption that the Bible is false: and that does not constitute a level playing field, either. Like it or not, it's not going to be a formal rule of this forum that the Bible is BS.

I consider the Bible sufficient evidence to hold an opinion. If someone is asked, "Why do you believe X?" and that person answers, "Because the Bible says so, right here," that seems to me to be a legitimate and on-point answer. It is not a "claim" that requires support beyond what was said: "You asked me why I believe this, and I told you."

On the other hand, if someone is asked, "Why should I believe X?" or "Is X objectively true?" a Bible quote is entirely inadequate. That IS a "claim," and if one is speaking to a person who does not share a belief in the Bible's authority, that claim needs some support other than that book for the nonbeliever to take it seriously. But it cannot be said that no evidence at all has been presented, no effort made to substantiate one's claims, or that one has been dishonest. To say that the evidence presented is inadequate is both more accurate and less insulting.

It seems to me that first we ought to determine whether what is being said is an objective claim of fact or an opinion. It further seems to me that any sentence which begins "I believe..." is clearly an opinion.

Then, when a theist does make an objective claim of fact that presents nothing more than the Bible as evidence, it is both more accurate and more objectively honest, as opposed to polemically provocative, to remark, "That justifies your opinion to you, but to prove it true to me, you need to show me something I can believe in" - as opposed to merely dismissing the argument and "demanding evidence" as if none had been offered at all. Not to mention accusing that member of outright dishonesty and "dishonorable debate."

Consider this: You have seen posters ridicule science as "a lot of guesses"? Silly and offensive, right? Well, SOME theists are just as offended when the Bible is dismissed as a load of lies, fiction, and fairy tales. Assuming that to be true is just as unfair and unacceptable as assuming the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God. The truth or rationality of religious ideas is what we are trying to debate here; and you don't conduct a debate by declaring one side wrong before you begin.

A debate over whether the Bible is sufficient evidence in debate is perfectly appropriate (and clearly necessary); but the charge that theists who present no evidence other than the Bible are "presenting no evidence at all" and are thus "debating dishonorably" is simply out of court. Like it or not, they think it IS evidence, and attacking their collective character for so thinking is tantamount to condemning them for being Christians in the first place. Now, who will call THAT "fair and unbiased"?

Accept that your opponent is presenting what he believes to be evidence, and debate whether that evidence is enough for whatever truth-claim is actually being made to be accepted by someone who does not share those beliefs. THAT is open and honest debate. As I have said to more than one member here, "Disagreement with your standards or way of thinking does not constitute dishonesty."

Let's get past this. Respect means not only not ridiculing, demeaning or dismissing as insignificant your opponent personally, it means not ridiculing, demeaning or dismissing as insignificant their views as well. Some may bristle at that; "Those views aren't worthy of respect," they say. Sorry, that's not logically admissible - unless you're willing to calmly accept it without complaint when others dismiss and demean your own, by mocking science as "guesses" and "myth."

You see, "I'm right and you're wrong"" isn't evidence for either side. That's what we're trying to debate.

A final note; Sure, there are other issues. Some members routinely ignore points that have been made and fail to respond to them. Some deliberately misstate and twist the positions of others; and some claim to speak absolute truth and give no more authority or source or reference for their views than their own unsupported opinion and experience. THOSE practices, I would agree, are indeed "dishonorable debate."

And you know what? Some of those members are atheists.

Genuinely dishonorable and dishonest debate is to be exposed in the process of debate. We have no explicit rules about any of the practices above; who would make it a requirement that every point be answered and every opinion footnoted? YOU and I decide when a member has ducked a point, presented a specious or hollow argument, and we do it by argument, and not by an appeal to the rules.

I think the same should apply to the Bible presented as evidence - or religious dogma in general, for that matter. "That isn't evidence, and you are therefore dishonest in presenting it" is a qualitatively different statement than "That isn't evidence to me." The former is a slap in the face: the latter is a subject for further debate.

Which is better and more productive?

That's some mighty fine "moderatin'", c-man and I agree with every point you've made. Though I have been arguing this for some time and much to my envious chagrin, you have nailed the point better than I ever have.

Kuddos on one of the best posts I've seen yet.

Thanks; but I should make it clear I was speaking as a member, and not as a moderator.

Two or three further thoughts occur to me:

I have often taken exception to arguments on the part of conservative Christians that their opponents secretly know they are wrong, but refuse to admit it; that argument is about as illegitimate as it gets, and it seems to me that the allegation that a fundamentalist "only argues from the Bible because he knows he can't support his views in fair debate" is remarkably similar. Speculation about unknown facts seems legitimate to me; speculation about the motivations of one's opponents, aka "mindreading," does not. It's hard to justify calling someone dishonest when he's giving you the most profound truth that he believes he has.

That said; when a Bible-believer present Biblical arguments, that is neither dishonest nor dishonorable at the outset; but refusing to move off that dime and insisting that nonbelievers must accept them is an entirely different matter. That may not be dishonorable debate, but it is inarguably ineffective debate, and it seems to me entirely proper for others to dismiss it at that point - and move on. After that impasse is reached, further bickering amounts to no more than beating the proverbial dead horse. If a member has no more evidence to offer than that which he knows will be rejected, continuing to argue those points may be sincerely and honestly meant, but it is futile and more than a little silly.

Even more importantly; arguing from a claimed position of superiority is out of court unless one can prove that objectively, that is, in terms that others will reasonably be compelled to accept. A claim of spiritual enlightenment, special knowledge of God or supernaturally enhanced understanding of the Bible, though (again) sincerely anrd honestly meant, depends on nothing more than one's word, and on matters that others do not necessarily accept as "real" in the first place. That is neither evidence, nor authority, that nonbelievers can reasonably be expected to accept. Such arguments are guaranteed to be rejected, and are thus pointless. Again; "honorable"? Certainly. Effective and/or persuasive? Not in the least.

A claim of special expertise that can be verified by objective criteria, though, such as an advanced degree, carries weight - though such expertise does not guarantee acceptance.

It is often said here, but rarely taken to heart, that the object of these debates is not to determine who wins and who loses, who is right and who is wrong, but to exchange and compare ideas and refine and perhaps revise one's own; and also that one's true audience is not one's direct opponent (who is unlikely to change his opinion anyway), but the hundreds of others who read and observe these debates and discussions.

[Zzyzx]

.

That's some mighty fine "moderatin'", c-man and I agree with every point you've made. Though I have been arguing this for some time and much to my envious chagrin, you have nailed the point better than I ever have.

Kuddos on one of the best posts I've seen yet.

I agree with you Vanguard, he 'splains it better than you (but you don't do too bad).

Well said, Cnorman, whether speaking as an individual or as a moderator.

I will modify my thinking and my comments accordingly. Thank you, gentlemen.

[Heterodoxus]

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."

[Cathar1950]

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 and they are not evidence for the truth of the claims the Bible makes or how they are interpreted.