Roger Pearse

Thank you everyone for your responses. It seems that there is not in fact a consensus that the whole forum is being spoiled, which is what I wished to ascertain.

There is a little confusion in the thread about *individuals* who are trolling, insulting or just not worth our time. But this has been the case in this forum for a long time, and can be dealt with by using the 'Ignore list' facility as soon as you see a post from some poster and realise that (a) you can't think of any polite response and (b) it makes you angry.

I've always run with a pretty extensive ignore list. My concern (articulated correctly by Jeffrey Gibson) is that *every* thread is tending to be rendered worthless by the same old crank single issues.

The idea that the forum should only discuss views held by the biblical studies academic establishment is not one that I hold or was proposing. All of us are amateurs, and all that we know is a product of general reading. I am deeply averse to arguments from authority on matters of religious (or political) controversy. I remember too well what happened to the discipline of sociology.

On the other hand no-one much -- academic or not -- believes the Jesus Myth idea outside of a narrow circle. It is depressing that even this basic fact would be controverted by those who peddle it. As such it is a fringe idea.

I agree that separate threads about JM matter to no-one -- I just ignore them, myself.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

schilling.klaus

by naivity and charlatanism

Klaus Schilling

deadman_932

Eh, I dunno how they decided on what "insults" to allow and which to not allow. And yep, I don't view it as an insult if you can demonstrate it, but that puts mods in the position of trying to determine what constitutes "proof." It's damned hard figuring out when someone really IS a lying troll or merely convinced of nonsense or believes that they're making a valid point when they reject your criteria. It's a lot harder to be a mod when you have to be a rhetorician and semiotician, too (I've been a mod and I'd never do it again, it's a thankless task). Funny thing there is that Theology Web seems a bit looser on such insults than here...but, hell, this way really is easier on mods, and they ARE volunteers , after all.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, and did you notice that Robert Byers got banned? The system works!!

Ted Hoffman

Apologists dont want "crank theories." The alleged crank theorists think the apologists theories are crap from head to toe. Yet an individual who is a troll is regarded as a scholar by apologists because he trolls within the rules and takes shelter around semantics of Greek words, references BDAG, TDNT and posts acres of texts in Greek while defending the apologists position.

I am all for ignoring those we think are posting garbage though I dont keep an ignore list. If someone posting manure today starts making sense tomorrow, I will engage them.

Peter Kirby

Hello Roger, hello all,

There is a general tendency at work in all public Internet forums:

(1) Ads and completely unintelligible gibberish are given minimal attention.

(2) Completely intelligible, logical, well-considered prose is given minimal attention.

The reason is the same in both cases: there's just nothing to say in response.

(3) Only somewhat intelligible, illogical, ill-considered vitriol is given the most attention.

The reason here is the mirror opposite: people think of plenty to say in response.

There is probably a mathematical argument to the effect that communication follows a curve that increases to the largest volume as you approach the least sensical without getting into the absolutely nonsensical. That is, as sensibility approaches 0, volume of discussion increases without bound. Contrariwise, as sensibility increases positively, volume of discussion tapers.

There is some relief to be found in moderated discussion. The trick there is to set the bar low enough so that the conversation allows just enough of an illogical bent to inspire people to respond, while at the same time encouraging an atmosphere of congenial co-discovery that prevents things from wobbling off into the natural end of all debates on the Internet:

"o rly"
"ya rly"

And so on.

The application to IIDB is: the moderation at IIDB has enforced successfully a ban on the advertisements and the completely non-sequitur. This allows those posting here to do a brisk business in mostly-nonsense, which is where the real volume of casual discussion lies in any domain. If you do not tolerate mostly-nonsense, you will (in my judgment) have to give up your habit of checking the IIDB.

To be fair, there is plenty of mostly-logical discussion at IIDB as part of the curve; the weight of volume, however, is with the mostly-illogical. If wading through the latter to get to the former is worth it to you, continue to check here for posts.

aa5874

And also, a crank theory.

The bodily resurrection and ascension of Jesus will always be crank, even though believed to be true by billions.

John Kesler

There are moderated forums available, in which only views which conform to "mainline" scholarship--or the beliefs of the moderator--are tolerated, but for all their drawbacks, I prefer open forums like IIDB. If I see that a particular poster is a waste of time, I simply ignore his or her posts.

1 Corinthians 1:23 is relevant: "...we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles." The "crank theory" that a crucified man was actually the savior of the world was a hard sell, but it appears to have gained traction.

aa5874

That "crank theory" gained traction through fiction, violence and political collusion. On IIDB, we have no such options. I think.

Peter Kirby

Conformity in doctrine is not a necessary or even common function of moderation in scholarship.

Årçhai

I've got the choice of believing virtually every modern scholar in the field, or you. Who am I going to pick? I mean, with Gospel dating; heaven forbid the Bible contain prophetic literature. . .