dx713

I'm not sure about separate sections for the different books, but the question about the book of Mormon raises a good point about the name of the section.
Why "biblical criticism"?
Why not "abrahamic texts criticisms"? I would read thread about Koran, if some interested experts happened to pass by.

Sheshbazzar

Rule 10. Not to discuss moderation or the rules in the general forum.

In OP of this thread we have been led and invited by the moderator to discuss those very subjects in this general forum.

Specifically, the moderation of, and proposed new rules regarding;

1. 'Civility'-

2. 'Hobby horses'-

3. 'Chili'-

Question. Is Rule 10. banning the discussion of 'moderation or the rules in the general forum' being relaxed or suspended for the purposes of replying to the points raised in the OP of this thread or not?

I have a few things that I would like to say on each of those three subjects. Do I need to use baby talk?

I am not inquiring about any proposed exclusionary 'high-brow' or 'low-brow' sub-forums where the snobs can keep the riff-raff out, or by vote consign anyone whose opinions they do not agree with. (for an example see the post following)

My interest is in this open FRDB Forum where the door is open to all on an equal basis.

stephan huller

To be honest I prefer forming a conspiracy sub-group than an 'elite' section for people that aren't birdbrains simply because of the history of BC&H. I am not glorifying the old days. I think that the site has in many ways been improved especially for the study of the supernatural Jesus (= can you imagine trying to float the supernatural Jesus of the Christian heresies in the old days). But - just to cite a current controversy I am involved in a contemporary thread - when you have a hardcore group arguing that the Therapeutae ARE pagans (not that they might be but certainly are, 100 percent true) despite the universal consensus of scholars and the clear testimony of Philo, it is things like this which deserve a subgroup.

This shouldn't become a free association and 'imagination station.' The word 'ratio' appears in the name because - presumably reason and logic matter here. The idea that Jews could be pagans in spite of the first commandment or that Christians were 'really' invented in the fourth century despite the survival of New Testament material from the third century or the like is simply untenable. It is illogical to assume massive conspiracies 'suppressing the truth' through inventing ALL the surviving testimonies.

I like the subgroup idea because a closet is an apt metaphor for where you keep things that embarrass you. No one can be proud of the participation of out and out conspiracy theorists. They should be kept in a special area where their speech is tolerated but separated from meaningful dialogue.

Another problem I have found is that if you have made an important point in a discussion for instance it is inevitably followed by a post from aa or mountainman (both which inevitably takes up half the available screen) and then another and another of the alogoi and then another page is created so that new people to the forum might not see what meaningful things might have been said in the previous stages in the debate and instead hear about Constantine or how corrupt Irenaeus is. Even putting these people on ignore doesn't work because the ratio of dismissible posts to interesting posts is like 10:1.

And isn't that what it comes down to? I think the reforms are about making the forum interesting again not restricting free speech. If I am not convinced that Christianity was invented in the fourth century why would I care to hear from Pete about it during a discussion of what Christians ate in the second century? How is that possible relevant? Or if I am discussing Irenaeus's understanding of the Trinity why do I want to have six posts from aa 'reminding' me that Irenaeus 'is a forgery' or some such nonsense? Or duvduv who has never read any of the material? and so on and so on.

stephan huller

Why not simply have the person establishing the thread be able to limit certain people from participating in his discussion? Facebook has these kind of settings with respect to picking and choosing which people can see certain kinds of information. In this case if mountainman wants to proselytize his gospel of the fourth century founding of Christianity he would be free to exclude me from the conversation. I could still see the conversation but I couldn't post messages there. The person who starts the thread would in effect be a 'sub-moderator' whose authority would be limited and ultimately would be subject to Toto and the powers that be. But he would have the power to exclude posters who are abusive or excessively moronic - in order to keep the overall discussion lively.

I think many people at the forum are worried about the 'powers that be' here becoming fascist. But in this case, it's more like the natural working of friendships and associations. Let's say I started a discussion about the Islamic idea of someone other than Jesus being crucified. I could restrict mountainman et al from participating but he could start a rival thread saying that there was no crucifixion because Constantine created the Church in the fourth century and exclude me.

The two discussions could simultaneously and attract mostly the same lively discussion but Pete and I wouldn't have to converse with one another unless we wanted to.

I happen to resent the manner in which some posters (= Pete) use every post on ever subject to spam their points of view. This would be prevented with my model for this forum and vice versa. Freedom of speech is also preserved.

What causes many of us to become disenchanted with the current paradigm is that we see people abusing the current free speech model.

Chili

I would write this just the other way around to read Is-ra-el and be one with god instead of worship him. And in case you wonder, his ears are on your own head and shouting is not needed.

Toto

This was tried at one point, and we reverted back to BCH very quickly, although the description of the forum does include all sorts of Abrahamic religious criticism. There are some Qur'anic criticism threads - we just don't have enough experts.

"Biblical Criticism" is a stock phrase. "Abrahamic texts criticism" is not.

Toto

That rule was only meant to apply to off topic comments on moderator actions in thread. Your comments are not off topic here - they are invited.

Your message will come across more effectively if you use careful adult terminology, avoiding words that are only intended to invoke an emotional reaction.

When people post as if they are having an episode of Tourette's Syndrome, it's not helpful.

Thank you.

Toto

If people want to have that much control, they can start their own blog.

If you think a post does not contribute to your thread or another, you can ask a moderator to split it out.

TedM

I'm think the sub-group might be difficult to pull off, but it may be worth a try.

I don't favor much censorship either.

My approach of limiting the number of postings and threads addresses the quality concern in a way that I think will be easier than a subgroup and less subjective than censorship. I think there will be a natural gravitation toward a higher quality for the reasons I gave previously. It just seems like the simplest approach to try with the least downside risk.

Of course it requires the forum be able to be configured with such limits. If it can't be, it isn't even a viable option.

Sheshbazzar

Actually I am. I am extremely proud that this has been a place where those who are not allowed to have their say on other repressive Theologically oriented sites, have been allow to express their views and have them critiqued rather than just being banned or dismissed out of hand.

Although I do not agree with or accept mountainman's conspiracy theory, he has none the less made tremendous contributions to the general knowledge of this forum, and led us into a closer and more critical examination of many ancient documents, inscriptions, and claims.

Chili often presents us with a unique and mind expanding perspective on otherwise obscure or overlooked material.
The closed minded wish for a sterile forum, one there are no birds nor butterflies nor bees cluttering up their sterile environment.
They are too short sighted to realize that it is the... excretement... of the birds that fertilizes the earth that brings forth the sprouts, and that it is the presence of butterflies and bees that pollinate the flowers and bring forth the fruits.