Johnny Skeptic

I invite members of this forum to visit my new thread at the GRD forum that is titled 'To what extent would a loving God go in order to keep people from going to hell?' I just started the thread a couple of hours ago, and it has already attracted a lot of attention.

Izmir Stinger

Are there a large number of members that browse BC&H exclusively, and thus would not notice your thread? That seems like a strange habit to me.

Sparrow

There are many people who browse primarily one forum or just a few and may never veture to others. I can't remember tha last time I was in PD.

NatSciNarg

I'm just a lurker with limited time and so tend to lurk only around my main interest, BC&H. Thanks for the notice.
Matthew

RUmike

Actually yea, I only go to BC&H. Maybe once in a while (a long while) I'll go to GRD, EOG, or the science one.

Kosh

Still, it highly unusual (at IIDB) to start a thread simply to advertise another onein a different forum, and not a practice that should become common place.

noah

I kinda disagree Kosh. I like the idea of letting others know about good threads elsewhere in IIDB. It's the same as alerting someone to a good documentary on TV.
A thread like the one Johnny started here is useful because it creates awareness and traffic between the forums.
I'm for anything that increases awareness and debate in these forums (and elsewhere). Lots of us frequent one, maybe two forums. When I have time to spare here at IIDB, I cruise BC&H almost exclusively. You tend to develop a tunnel vision if you're not careful and miss out on some of the other valuable info and exchanges happening in the other forums.
I agree with you a bit more in practice though. You wouldn't want a half dozen or so of these new threads popping up every day. It would be easy for the practice to become spammy. Once in a while though, to remind people of the intellectual possibilities the other forums have to offer is good.

Sven

Maybe we could put a sticky thread exclusively for advertizing other threads in every forum.

Johnny Skeptic

I have been in frequent touch with Dr. Robert Price for years. I have sent him a lot of my writings, and he has given me some nice compliments. When I asked him how he was and told him about my new thread at the GRD forum, he said:

Great to hear from you!

I have been insanely busy (but enjoying it) working on the last stages of proofing, etc., for 2 books, The Reason-Driven Life (which I think you will love!) and The Pre-Nicene NT (ditto). I am getting ready to research and write a book on fundie eschatology and hysteria for Prometheus. And I have various other projects with various publishers.

I will try to address this topic while I am away in Indiana for a wedding this week. Should be fun! Typically brazenly fresh and should-have-been-obvious question! Keep 'em coming!

Bob

Thanks, Noah. In my opinion, the BC&H forum, though important, does not even come close to addressing all of the most important issues about the Bible. Philosophical arguments are just as important, if not more important, than apologetic issues. It is not nearly enough to debate the Resurrection. Even if Jesus did rise from the dead, so what? There is also the important issue of the nature of God. Some other issues are that maybe Jesus was a supernatural imposter, and alien imposter, or maybe he will eventually come to earth, but has not come to earth yet. If heaven and hell are actually at stake, surely a loving God would give us more than copies of copies of ancient documents to debate about instead of showing up in person. What could he possibly have to lose by doing so? Nothing at all. What would manind have to gain if he did so? A lot. If appearances by Jesus were good and necessary back then, then surely the same would be true today.

Well, I'd better not get too carried away in this scholarly forum, but I encourage readers here not to limit themselves to this forum.

noah

Yeah it's funny you mention that Sven. I was going to make that suggestion in my post to Kosh. I'm not sure why I didn't

Making a sticky out of thread devoted to "what's hot" in the other forums is a capital idea.

My pleasure Johnny. I see no need for anyone to limit the discourse here in these forums. A sticky would be a great way to maintain the integrity of this forum and add some extra flavor to it at the same time.

Here I disagree with you Johnny. I think discrediting the bible is the best way to assault Christianity. No bible - no Christianity. The Philosophical approach seems in my experience to be a lower odds, lower yield, assault on Christianity. There are too many shades of grey in philosophy and the Christian can always retreat behind arguments about the unknowability of god or the soveriegnty of god or simply call it a matter of faith if they don't have an answer.
I find it much more profitable to make Christians think twice, three or four times, about what their bible actually says. I'd rather shake the very ground they stand on and make them scramble to patch their theology back together than get bogged down in the nebulousness of philosophical arguments. There's much less room for Christians to manoeuvre when they defend the integrity of the bible. They are stuck with what it says. It's carved in stone. A seasoned bible critic can soon make a Christian look illogical by pointing out some of the more elementary problems with the bible for example the god's "only son" claim in John 3:16 or Paul's silly claims that "no one is righteous" or that "all have sinned". In my experience Christian defences of these problems which soon become incoherent and irrational set Christianity back more than questioning them about God's goodness which they seem to be able to answer more credibly. Emails and posts I get here and elsewhere over the course of my debates with Christians confirms that Christians lose credibility when they defend the continuity and integrity of the bible. One of the things I have seen over and over is that you can actually ambush Christians with the content of the bible, with what it actually says. Many of them haven't even read it. You get the upper hand immediately because you surprise them with the scripture they haven't read which forces them to play catch-up and defence at the same time. You force them to think out loud. It's obvious to me that this attack confuses and confounds them.
It's interesting to note here that even liberal Christians who have some tolerance for biblical errancy will eventually draw the line and attempt a defence of their scripture if the subject matter hits too close to home ie issues such as Christians being under the law or Jesus' sins and/or ineligibility to be the expected messiah not to mention the many verses that contradict Paul's doctrine of Original Sin. Attacking Paul himself is quite profitable too.

Let's not forget the bible prophecy problem for Christians, speaking of defences that set Christianity back. The Ezekiel prophecies are invaluable to skeptics. Look at the damage the Lee Merrill threads have done not only to Lee Merrill's credibility (he has none) but to fundamentalist Christianity. Who, except the most rabid Christian fundamentalist, do you suppose Lee Merrill has impressed?
More to the point, how may people do you believe have come away from those threads thinking the bible is hopelessly errant or at least wrong on the Babylon and Tyre prophecies?
The payoff is that people read those threads and are convinced that the bible is patently flawed and that those who defend it are dishonest, irrational and uninformed.

Agreed. Especially since others, as the bible tells us, also rose from the dead. Resurrection is hardly sensational and the bible makes this clear.
It's important yes but I just don't find it pays the dividends that bible criticism does unless you use the bible itself to question the nature of god.

Yes, this is fascinating. I see many possibilities here: David Ickes, Zecharia Sitchin, William Bramley, David Twichells, Carl Jung, Joseph Campbell etc.

Sounds like the Jewish version of the expected messiah. There's no question JC was not the expected messiah. This version you mention here would be a little more realistic for Xians. I'd like to know what his true purpose would be in coming to earth since his having not been here in the first place would invalidate the Christian take on him.

One of my favorite arguments. Christians like to escape the meaning and implications of bible verses by claiming the verse(s) were incorrectly translated. What a weak argument. There is no correct translation since there are no original manuscripts. The copies we have today are copies of copies of the so-called originals. Few of these existing manuscripts agree with each other. Scholars don't agree with each other on what the manuscripts say or which manuscripts should even be consulted and used to create a more accurate representation of the non-existent originals.
More to your point I often respond to Xian claims of inaccuracies in translations or bible versions by stating that the bible is god's word and since we know that a loving, omnipotent and perfect being would never allow any distortion of his word, not when the stakes are the very lives of his children, I can use any bible version I want.

Not exactly. The Christian view of Jesus is that he was a one time intervention in history and that Jesus did everything he was intended to do in that one time appearance in history ie the Crucifixion and Resurrection. Any further appearances by JC would be useless.