I will ignore much of what has gone on in this thread, and get back to the basic discussion which started it. I will say this publicly, because that is the way I am, and I cannot and will not hide behind a pseudonym.

I agree with Nomad on one point, that point being that as "Moderators" some people who read and post here tend to think of us as having a power base which does not accord with the reality of the title, at least on the SecWeb. On most BBs, the Moderator is "god" and if you piss him/her off, you will get flamed, banned or insulted. That is the perceived way of things, and simply because the SecWeb treats freedom of speech the way it should be treated does not alter the possibility of censorship in some peoples minds. People, especially newbies, see as title Moderator = power. This perception will not change.

BTW, libel laws in Australia make freedom of speech pretty much a bad joke. Perhaps that is why I am pretty gung ho about the whole issue.

There is presently a thread on "Open Discussion" where I replied to the initial post, did not get a response, then someone else posted essentially the same message that I did, and got a "flame type" response from the original author. I have as plain ol’ Norm, in earlier days (pre Moderation) got flamed, argued with, insulted, attacked and had all the fun and games and joy of just being a regular arsehole. This simply does not happen to the extent that it used to, and I suspect it is because of my "title"

However, Nomad, one of the reasons that I was willing to accept the role of a Moderator here was that I was assured that I could continue to be myself on this Board, without fear or favour, and as you have already pointed out, there ‘aint that many places that this can happen. People can continue to say what they want about me (and Cat Jesus does :-}). But, because of my "title" some do not do so any more. But I really do not care what lurkers think of my posts, or your posts for that matter.

That is the way it should be, and could be if most Boards were as free of censorship as this one is.

Norm

FTR: I really don't care if christianity is polytheistic or not. It is only my engineering background that prompts me to quibble over precise definitions. Rodahi's argument that christianity is polytheistic depends on whether beings other than gods have theistic attributes, whether you call those attributes "supreme" or "divine".

Calling christianity polythestic is really just a way to get a christian's goat... and it worked very well on Nomad. Does any single doctrine or belief change if christianity is considered polythestic rather than monotheistic? No. Do you believe Jesus died on the cross for your sins? Yeah... do you think he cares if it is polytheism or monotheism? I doubt, if he exists, he spends much time contemplating it.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nomad:
Rodahi

SingleDad and others are trying to give you a graceful way out of this one. Take it.

I stand by what I have said, Nomad.

Nomad: Just so the confusion is cleared up, I will offer the dictionary again (it is astonishing to see such supposedly educated individuals so weak in their English skills. I do hope that things improve in the future)

If you think you have superior "English skills," think again.

This is condescension, Nomad, pure and simple. It is this type of snide remark that continually keeps you from being respected by many posters.

Nomad: Once again from Websters:

Main Entry: Supreme Being
Function: noun
Date: 1699
: GOD 1
And what is God?

Main Entry: 1god
Function: noun
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe[/b]

Nomad: As I said earlier, I am astonished that things like this even need to be said on this discussion board.

Your "astonishment" is duly noted, Nomad. You are going to milk this for all it's worth, right?

Nomad: I have, in the past, assumed a bare minimum of basic theological knowledge from the participants

Keep milking, Nomad.

Nomad: and when I see the regulars like Michael and rodahi confused on such basic points, well, things do not look too good for constructive discussions.

I think Ol' Betsy is just about dry.

rodahi

Nomad: Just so the confusion is cleared up, I will offer the dictionary again (it is astonishing to see such supposedly educated individuals so weak in their English skills. I do hope that things improve in the future)

Hmm... intimated.

LOL! This is rich Michael. How exactly did you "hint" that Christianity was polytheistic? You mean by stating it directely and unequivically?

It's good to see you're back. Someday, to paraphrase one of my favorite stories, I'm going to have to write an article for the Journal of Communications entitled: "A lofty tone: an insufficient vehicle for irony."

If you look in the thread on polytheism that was started as a result of your need for an excuse to flee from the thread on history, you'll find my retraction of "Christians worship Satan" on the second page.

Normally I never pick on people for their spelling errors; after more than ten years as an English teacher in three countries, they've ceased to bother me, and I make plenty myself, but for you, Nomad, I'll break my solemn vow. If you are going to criticize people for their weak English skills in a public forum, you should probably learn to spell "directEly" and "unequivIcally."

It is easy to see where you come by your expertise in recognizing "weak English skills."

The sad part is that I really enjoyed you when you were teaching me things. The fact that you staked out extreme positions on, say, the dating of Mark was interesting, and you had read quite a bit that you were able to draw on in a coherent way. Those were good discussions. But if you are really going to defend the position that there is something in Christianity's rise not amenable to explanation by mundane if complex means, then you are going to get yourself in a world of trouble, especially given your lack of a strong, instinctive comparative sense and a broad base of knowledge about the spread of religion outside of Europe.

Michael

[This message has been edited by turtonm (edited April 08, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by turtonm (edited April 08, 2001).]

I'm not sure why people even bothered to put up a fight here. It doesn't seem like a point much worth arguing over to the end, unless you have serious problems with being wrong about the tiniest little thing, which I don't find too impressive.

Honestly, some people can't seem to choose a battle that is worthwhile. If your arguments against some moderator's point is a good one, you have no need at all to bring his/her user status to the fore. You ought to just agree with sentinel00's point and move on...that is, if your arguments stand by themselves and don't need to rely on any sort of misdirection or confusion.

This is called "taking the high road."

Michael,

You are making TOO much sense here. While I respect and appreciate the eloquent way you demonstrate your intelligence, knowledge, and common sense, I am not sure Nomad will.

rodahi

A Rose for Ecclesiastes by Roger Zelazny. An excellent story.

If christians don't "worship" Satan, what do they do: "fear" Satan?

If so, what's the difference between the "fear" of Satan and the "fear" of God, whom they do "worship"? Plenty of god-fearing in the holy books.

I'm having a hard time telling the difference between "worship" and "fear" in the christian scriptures. What is the difference exactly?

I would attack their silly positions on issues; but when you appoint them moderators [which is, in a way, a stamp of approval in that you trust them to moderate well] you make people wonder why they don't know better. Being a moderator *seems* imply that they know better, so if they don't, it's not fallacious, it's just wierd [yes, the inference presupposes that you'd act rationally in our view; I'd have thought it somewhat aligned in this case, but clearly it's not--this is where it all goes wrong :] Your moderators are your own affair; if you wanted even to choose a firebreathing fundamentalist theist [before deconversion] as a moderator, that's your own affair. You'll forgive us if we'd be puzzled, though [in such a case, I'm sure some athiests would be, as well...]

Still, if anything, the fact that they're moderators should imply that they're more *intelligent* anyhow... It's the invalid arguement that seems to call the intelligence into question. It can't be ad hominum, because their status is not being used against them--if it were, it would be ad hominum, but it's the apparent fact that it isn't to their credit which makes people wonder.

Now, that was generic ad hominum. You could call it conditional ad hominum if they were saying that they ought to believe that because they were moderators; but the reason given that they shouldn't believe that is because it's seen as obviously silly. We don't worship angels or demons or the devil & God is One in essence [long defense of trinity; one person playing 3 parts in a play, etc. here :] therefore, there is one God whom we worship & that makes us monothesits, not poly-, pan- or anything else :] They're not considered in the same light as God, but as man, in that we are "only a little lower than the angels" [quoted from memory, look it up :]

It's only ad hominum if you posit that backwards; which makes me wonder about you now. In other words, I'll counter that with a charge of ad logicam, since your conclusion does not follow from those premises. I simply don't see the appeal to "he shouldn't believe it because he's a moderator" but instead "he shouldn't believe it because it's silly" which is not conditional ad hominum.