Vinnie

By your own admission that is a less than rational description of the situation.

I would claim my beliefs as being perfectly rational here. Ideological bias regarding Jesus does not have any significant influence on my picture of Jesus, except maybe my denial of nature defying miracles--if that may be called an "ideological bias". Unlike the vast majority of the debate participants here I fall in the middle: neither anti-Christian nor pro Christian enough to let the facts get clouded by "needs". I have not been interested in apologetics or counter apologetics here for the longest time. Yet still comments like "our Christian bretheren" pop up. That is polarization. It is worthy of little more than mockery.

I do not prioritize only canonical Gospels. In fact, if choosing out of all Early Christian writings I would take Thomas as my sacred scripture over everything in the NT. But I do not try to give all the extra-canonical Gospels importance over the canonicals as some revisionists absurdly do (ask the sometimes ridiculous Crossan how or why he managed to date GHebrews to 1st stratum!!!???).

I do no go for sensationalism. I do not start with any assumptions that the HJ has something to offer us today. He may have been little more than a crazed, egotistical, cultic lunatick rejected by family, friends, his own Jews and executed by the Romans. That remains to be reconstructed but I digress.

I do not try to give the masses a new Jesus (e.g. Borg, Crossan and some other Jesus Seminar members), I do not conveniently and extremely unbelievably try to reconstruct a canonical Christian Jesus (e.g. Tom Wright), and I take into account the details of a broader spectrum of Christian writings in my reconstruction (contra Mack and his reconstruction off of Q).

I am not worried about a politically correct Jesus or reconstruction (e.g. I will not strain to deny or not deny Jewish involvement in Jesus' death and anti-semitism).

I've never reconstructed Jesus in my own image. I recognize that Jesus was a first century Jew. I am not a first century Jew. 1st century Jews did and believed things not in line with my own thoughts, beliefs and differing worldview.

I also have a rigorous methodology that I developed and it has a very solid theoretical basing. It restricts "coloring outside the lines".

I never claimed to be able to reconstruct "the real Jesus" or give a detailed fine combed portrait.

If you feel you are less than rational in this whole debate, please feel free to not to project your own feelings of intellectual inadequacy onto me. Thanks.

Vinnie

Amlodhi

Hello Toto,

I would, first off, simply like to extend my thanks to all the moderators on this board. I think that they sincerely try their best to perform a difficult (and often thankless) function.

That said, due to its very nature, I don't think that an open discussion/debate forum such as this can ever expect to be neat and tidy. Contrary to Celsus, I think that in some respects this forum is a great deal like a democracy. Beyond specific rules of engagement, a democratic system of government is noisy, messy and often frustrating; but it remains our best method for hashing out our differences on the issues.

Beyond existing forum rules such as "staying on topic", I think that moderator intervention should be primarily concerned with protecting all posters from personal invective. Statements such as the following should be allowed:

"The theistic concept of personal revelation can be shown to be simple delusion."

or:

"The atheistic denial of metaphysical reality is a self-imposed barrier to higher understanding."

Whereas, personal invective, such as the following, should not be tolerated:

"If you weren't so stupid . . ."

And even the relatively more mild:

"I'm sorry you can't understand this . . . "

Basically, as has been said before, we should be free to debate the issues, but constrained from personally attacking the poster.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

godfry n. glad

I'm of the opinion that, by and large, the moderation on the BC&H board is reasonable. I've been moderated, rightfully, for bickering with others. I also can lead into off-topic issues. Moderation is expected in such cases. I suspect that others have been moderated, but I don't know for sure...which is as it should be.

What I see, curiously, is that those representing the HJ position here seem to get a whole lot more latitude with their mockery and general uncivil behavior. Not that there aren't non-HJ types doing the same. But once the bickering is allowed without comment and reproof, then it's downhill from there until some major intervention is required. I'd say that if you want to improve the moderation, that demanding more of all participants, and making those demands clear and enforcing them swiftly and equitably, should garner you a great deal of resentment all 'round and, in the long run, respect.


godfry n. glad

Gawen

One thing I noticed in this thread being said: There's nothing new. Well, for you oldtimers, I can see why you feel this way. But for us newbies, this is all new to us. Sometimes we, including myself, have come across an item we thought was novel in it's approach and new, only to be responded by veteran users that it's been hashed over many times and check out the library. While we newbies are still in the 'addition and subtraction' phase, veterans have graduated to physics.

Back to the OP. Moderators are moderators because they have shown the interest and qualifications. Their will be done...even if sometimes one or two may come down a little hard. Yet they still do their job effectively.
It doesn't matter what 'side' whinges. It doesn't matter what 'side' flings the insult. What matters is what a moderator decides what is a whinge and an insult and how they will rectify the situation. The weight of the world is upon THEIR shoulders and some posts here make it even heavier. I have been a Mod and know what it's like.

Lurkers have especially been invited to air their thoughts here. I do not know what a lurker is. I certainly read more than I write. Perhaps I fit into the Lurker description? At any road, I will answer Toto's questions.

Yes. I feel it solves nothing and only enhances bad feelings and more sniping.
When sniping occurs...or when poorly stated arguments are used.
Maybe. That is a Mod call. If the thread degenerates so badly and quickly, I can see cutting out the whole thread. If the combatants can recover quickly, there is no need to cut out the thread.
Isn't this addressed somewhat when a person signs up? Perhaps a wee disclaimer on the sign-up page that says even atheists have feelings, the same as anyone else? That emotions do sometimes run high and being human, we sometimes fall into bad behaviour, just like anyone else?
I like it here. I'm an adult. I'm a Viet Nam veteran. I've moderated a room. I've been around. I can take the off colour jokes and snide remarks. I don't like them, but I can take them. Some discussions are so over my head I can make neither heads or tails from them. Some are well written and thought out, using sources and other posters to back them up. Some are just mainstream arguing points and beliefs. And a very few go downhill so badly. But that's very few. Overall, the place stands on it's own and is widely known.
If by mission you mean "as part of its mission to promote non-theistic naturalism." Yes and no, but mostly yes. I mostly consider the place a debating forum/s, even if not always formally, run by 'non-theistic' persons.

The place has rules and good form. Every poster must abide by the former and should strive for the later.
Lower the tone of the place? No, I think not. It only lowers the tones of those flinging insults and misbehaving. If everyone did this then I would agree.
I've seen this from both sides of the coin here.
I agree.
I can't see this happening. There are too many sub-forums to let this happen.
Good and good. Those that post here and whinge over perceived or directly stated insults will have to take them. I don't think that will ever stop. Not as long as we remain human. Those that inflame others by "expertly pushing hot buttons"...well, shame on them.

I have no real suggestions. You Mods have done a fantastic job. It's a shame that sometimes people run to you looking for a bit of coddling to ease their conscience. IMO, II is not broken...there is nothing to fix. What one needs to remember...is that we discuss emotional topics here. And that not everyone is emotional about it. Some are matter-of-fact so much that it comes off as "I'm right and you're wrong" when no such intent was implied. This medium leaves a great deal in the way of expression. I always try to reread my posts and make a conscious effort to make sure that no unimplied insult is rendered.

*getting off me soapbox and wonderin if I should have PM'd this because of the length*

Asha'man

I'm not quite a lurker, but I certainly read more than I post.

I think personal insults and attacks are never in order, and never further the conversation. Any moderator activities that discourage such behavior are appreciated greatly. :notworthy

I think the worse part of sniping is that it continues to go back and forth forever, and the discussion is essentially over, unless it is stopped. The original insult is rarely the problem as much as the replies it generates.

Public embarrassment is a powerful tool for motivating people. Maybe we need a creative solution: don’t edit out the insult itself, but allow only a moderator to comment on it. To prevent the conversation from being destroyed, all other posters are forbidden from referring to the insult or replying to it directly. (I suspect this wouldn’t be enforceable, even if it could be effective.)

Alternately, maybe we need temporary bans from the forum? (Not II in general, just BC&H). Is that even possible? If everybody knows that the poster isn’t around to read the reply, then maybe there won’t be as many counter-insults?

(Just thinking out loud here…)

Tharmas

I’m another who does far more lurking than posting.

Why I lurk here
For me, the general study of the historicity of Jesus is a fascinating hobby. The questions that get asked (and seldom completely answered) offer insights into the nature of history and historical research itself. The fact that what we are investigating is at the same time the core myth of our Western civilization makes the subject even more fascinating because we can see the implications at work in the society around us on a daily basis.

I generally don’t debate
I don’t generally get into debates on these boards myself because I don’t feel confident enough of my knowledge, I’m really trying to learn more, I really don’t have any particular position to push, and probably most important, I simply don’t have enough time and I would end up being one of those “hit and run” posters. On the other hand I have learned a good deal from some of the debates and disputes that have erupted from time to time. I have found my opinions changing from time to time as I see different arguments get presented and demolished. In this context I value the moderation very much. I generally discontinue following a thread when it degenerates into a pissing contest.

Thicker skins required?
I’m sometimes surprised to find Christians posting on these boards at all. For one thing, by definition it must be a great challenge for a Christian to maintain a disinterested perspective in the question of the historicity of Christ. Second, I’m sure a Christian posting here on the Atheists’ Board must feel a bit of a martyr to begin with, ready to become defensive at the drop of a hat. Personally, as long as there is no proselytizing either way, I can stay comfortable with William Blake’s “I have no quarrel with honest superstition” and let it go.

The thread in question
I did not follow the “Christian Brethren” thread when it started because I thought the tone was a little belligerent, more suited to GRD, although the subject fit here. It is certainly not only Christians who accept/defend the historicity of Christ, not even on these boards (Peter Kirby comes to mind), nor are “Christians” a monolithic group that all share the same opinions on the subject. In other words the thread title and OP seemed to me to be baiting Christians and looking for a fight, and that’s not what I look for when I lurk, so the OP is as far as I’ve ever followed down that particular thread.

Why can’t we all just get along?
It’s a truism, but the way to win can sometimes be to graciously concede a point. Christians, if you want to convince us yours is a good way, you don’t have to enter every single battle and try to win every single time no matter what. You know, the existence of atheists doesn’t make Christians any less Christian. And when all is said and done, we can never prove Jesus didn’t exist. The most that will ever happen is that we can demonstrate that some of the evidence for his existence is less persuasive than we used to think.

So I'm another lurker who loves this place and says THANK YOU MODERATORS!!!

SkinWalker

I mod another board at another set of forums (I'll leave it at that. I'm not trying to advertise, but if anyone is dying to know, PM me), so I can only comment on what I've seen so far here and how I handle similar situations there.

I did notice Diana's exchange with CJD in the 1&2 Chronicles thread, and thought CJD to come off a bit ugly to be posting as a Christian in a board like this one. I occasionally see this type of exchange (even partake in it in the manner that Diana did) on my own board. Ultimately, the ugly poster ends up looking... well, ugly. Typically, I moderate only direct insults by either deleting the entire post (if it was entirely insulting, 98% quote/2% insult, or offered absolutely nothing of value to the discussion as in a frown smiley and the word "bah!") or editing the offensive remarks (turning profane words into "nice" equivalents, deleting extreme profanity, deleting sentences or phrases of direct insults, etc.).

For the most part, I leave heated debates as is and only lock or delete those threads that are completely worthless or frivolous as the rules of that board indicate it is for "serious discussion and debate."

I think that if you are a minority on a board (i.e. a theist among a multitude of atheists and agnostics, or vice-versa), it pays to be polite, respectful, factual and logical. The minority is already going to be ganged up upon by the majority and being "ugly" cannot possibly help.

I say moderate actively with extreme posts (direct insults, profanity, obvious rules infractions), but otherwise let the chips fall where they may. Debating religion will never be pretty.