tjakey

"God" is a crank theory, so as long as there are goddites around I guess crank theories are unavoidable.

Ben C Smith

That, to me, is the main irritant. I personally do not mind seeing entire threads on crank theories (however defined), and can even get into their spirit to some extent should I choose to read them. But it does bother me when other kinds of threads -- all kinds of threads -- wind up with comments from the fringe, no matter how irrelevant. A person sincerely asks, for example, on what basis mainstream scholars hold to certain positions, and suddenly there are posts decrying mainstream scholarship. Someone inquires as to what some obscure verse in Luke might mean, and immediately there are posts to the effect that Luke is late, and fictional, and sheer propaganda.

But you are probably right: That is the price one must pay for an open forum.

Ben.

Toto

Perhaps we have a different definition of troll

I think our problem comes from people who are sincere but clueless, not atheists posing as Christian nuts just here to stir things up.

Johnny Skeptic

Marginal? My word, how much more marginal can you get than by claiming that a God would use copies of copies of ancient texts as a primary means of communicating with humans when he could easily telephathically communicate the same messages to everyone in the world, thereby discouraging dissent instead of encouraging dissent? Did God use writings to communicate with Adam, Eve, Noah, and Abraham?

Since you reject even the skeptic sources that you consider to be the most credible, it is obvious that what you said does not make any sense.

mountainman

Docetism is a recognised mainstream Christian euphemism.

The theses of Athanasius Kircher and the AbbÈ Hardouin, who (in the hope of disarming the protestant appeal to primitive Christianity) argued that the whole corpus of ancient literature, including the Fathers, up to about 900 A.D. is a forgery.



There is no need to take anything "personally".
We are all in this thing called "LIFE" together.

What would it take for you to add to your website another 12 pages from "The Bazaar of Hereclietes", from Appendix 4: The metaphysic of Nestorius (omitted) pp. 411-420, currently tagged on your page here. Is this possible? Would you do this for nothing? Would you prefer some sponsorship, or the purchace of a CD? I am quite prepared to contribute to the completeness of the web publication of this work.

Is there any reason that "The Bazaar of Hereclietes" -
Appendix 4: "The metaphysic of Nestorius" missed your
web publication? I would be interested to read this.

Nestorius was a key figure of the fifth century, and I
for one am totally intrigued as to what his system of
metaphysics represents.

Isn't it time we buried the hatchet?



Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Ben C Smith

Hope that helps!

(Wait... is this trolling?)

Ben.

squiz

It is a bit unfair to lump mountainman's "Boss-man" theories along with Doherty's JM. I think spin's point is a good one.

aa5874

On this forum, JM guys outnumber HJers almost 2:1, based on an informal poll.

JM RULES.

Iasion

Hi all,

I agree,
fed up with pages and pages of stupid crap from aa and mm and s'hitman and others.

Yes,
the moderation is failing here.


Iasion

Toto

The moderators' job is not to censor the opinions that you find stupid or crankish. There are fully moderated lists and fora for that.

For example, I don't know that Iasion and Roger Pearse could agree on who is a crank.