FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-25-2001, 06:21 PM   #1
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post Tell Dhortey I want my turn at bat!

In my opinion Nomad plastered him. But I too am dissatisfied that he didn't do that on the Paul-Gnostic stuff. I am willing to debate that. I'm willing to debate just the Issues that Dhorety wants to debate, if you can get him back here.
 
Old 05-25-2001, 08:07 PM   #2
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

In my opinion there was little actual engagement in the debate, but certainly Nomad did not "plaster" Doherty. Nomad was more evasive, misrepresentative and abusive, and less detailed in his responses.

However, I would very much like to see you, Metacrock, debate Doherty. From what I've read of your posts you would be much more substantive regarding Doherty's arguments and less likely to drown your opponent in bare assertions and hostile remarks. That's not to say I don't think Nomad made any good points in the debate. But Nomad avoided rather than debated Doherty's arguments head-on.

I doubt, though, that Doherty will return. If he does, the moderators simply MUST take control at the outset and issue guidelines. For starters, there must by a limit to the number of posts, as in all formal debates. That way the participants are pressured to be more on-topic. And certainly there MUST be a proposition set up at the outset to be affirmed or denied, so that the debaters know EXACTLY what they must concentrate on. Nomad took advantage of the lack of moderation and wasted the opportunity to take on Doherty's arguments themselves. Metacrock seems eager to do what Nomad didn't do.
 
Old 05-25-2001, 08:15 PM   #3
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Nomad is nothing to marvel at, but he is at least cooler than his boyfri...uh, I mean; 'friend', Layman. So cut the chubby fellow some slack. I'd wager that he made some good points - he is not a Fundie arguing that all who do not agree with his interpretation of the 'historical' Jesus are obviously proven to go to Hell judging by the facts surrounding Christ, he is merely arguing for the existence of Jesus, against some guy (Earl Doherty) with a rather outlandishly far fetched conspiracy-type theory that "Jesus never existed" that he rather obsessively commits to and defends.

But about this debate; where was it? How can it all be viewed? I'm lazy and theres tons of shit here, and my comp is so fucked up that many times it barely even displays an entire window. So cut any bullshit slandering of me for not knowing where the thread is, and just say where it is. Ok? Is that so difficult for you your majesties?
 
Old 05-25-2001, 08:22 PM   #4
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

The Jesus Puzzle Debate

And Baby, have a Chill Pill.

[This message has been edited by SingleDad (edited May 25, 2001).]
 
Old 05-25-2001, 08:23 PM   #5
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Interesting attitude you have. The debate is in the "formal debates and discussions" forum, found at the bottom of the screen, the "hop to" window.
 
Old 05-25-2001, 09:15 PM   #6
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Exclamation

Talk about from the frying pan into the fire. Does anyone but Meta think he's suitable?

More importantly, in the unlikely event ED wants to restart the debate, I suggest a nontheist would make a much more useful and illuminating antagonist. IMHO, one of the problems with Nomad was that he had so much invested in other issues that he couldn't face historicity detachedly. And this is, after all, the Secular Web.
 
Old 05-25-2001, 09:21 PM   #7
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by JubalH:
Talk about from the frying pan into the fire. Does anyone but Meta think he's suitable?

More importantly, in the unlikely event ED wants to restart the debate, I suggest a nontheist would make a much more useful and illuminating antagonist. IMHO, one of the problems with Nomad was that he had so much invested in other issues that he couldn't face historicity detachedly. And this is, after all, the Secular Web.
</font>
Ohhhh. This is the secular web. Well then, I'm surprised you even let us post here.
 
Old 05-25-2001, 09:31 PM   #8
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Layman, my remarks were directed to ED. I'm sure he understood the point.

Still, out of curiosity, are you really supporting Meta for the role?
 
Old 05-25-2001, 11:01 PM   #9
Toto
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Layman:
Ohhhh. This is the secular web. Well then, I'm surprised you even let us post here. </font>
Couldn't you read that big headline up there, in the funny letters? Where did you think you were?

Secularists believe in free speech. And a good fight.

But I think that a secularist-secularist debate would be more enlightening. Apologists seem to inhabit a parallel universe of logic.


[This message has been edited by Toto (edited May 26, 2001).]
Toto is offline  
Old 05-26-2001, 03:34 AM   #10
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Toto:
But I think that a secularist-secularist debate would be more enlightening. Apologists seem to inhabit a parallel universe of logic.</font>
LOL. I agree with the statement... but I probably don't read it the same way you do.
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:41 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.