Bede

Surely it's a matter of which theist? Some of us (cough, cough) have pissed off far too many people around here to ever be acceptable in a position of authority. But some haven't. This thread strikes me as actually about one person who would do a good job.

mike_decock

I chose neutral, not because I don't care, but because I'm undecided. I love BC&H and I don't want to see the quality of discussions degrade either due to a lack of moderators or due to a lack of active participants.

I personally have no objection to accepting a theist moderator here as long as their belief system doesn't compel them to promotive a theistic worldview (which would be in conflict with SecWeb's mission statement).

The only reason I can't say that it's a "good idea" is because it may become a divisive issue which could cause more problems than it would solve.

-Mike...

Amaleq13

Joel,


As I read the above, it appears that the selection of the current moderators took into account their religious beliefs. Is that true?

Before I joined this forum, I participated in a primarily Christian group and was often the sole voice of reason...er, non-belief. The "moderator" was more of a "group creator" and participant but I felt my views were treated with respect for the most part. In fact, I think my opponents were more careful to avoid allowing their preconceived notions to dominate their consideration of my arguments if only to avoid the obvious rebuttal.

As long as they are fair, I don't care about the beliefs of the moderators. I guess that makes my vote "moderate agreement".

Haran

I assume the moderator status of the theist(s) in question could probably be revoked at any time, so why not have a trial run?

Ultimately, I haven't voted because I can't decide whether it would be a good thing or not. Noting that, what seems like much of the time to me, when a theist brings up claims of extreme bias nothing is done or they are told that moderators feel there is no problem, I can't imagine that a theist would have too much influence in that direction.

Like Layman, I do forsee a problem with respect if a theist moderator must ask a non-theist in a theist vs. non-theist debate to "keep it civil".

Vinnie

You don't need a theist moderator. You need more informed participants who are not Jesus skeptics. That way we can actually discuss and toss out ideas regarding Christian origins and the historical Jesus without it reverting into "Jesus never existed", "Oh yes he did", "Oh no he didn't".

What gets accomplished when we debate and redebate and redebate what every competant scholars already takes for granted? Absolutely nothing. Its like debating young earth creationism over and over and over again. Its a complete waste of time.

Vinnie

Angrillori

Like several others who strongly disagree, I wasn't going to post why. However, I hope I can distill my point enough that it isn't a "broadbrush accusation."

Here's my concern. Theism of any sort, is faith based. That is, it is a belief, without, and sometimes, in spite of evidence.

Biblical criticism specifically, and history in general, are the study OF evidence.

No matter what else, a moderator, any moderator, will leave "fingerprints" on the board. I don't know if theist "fingerprints" are appropriate for THIS specific board.

I just can't make them mix in my head.

Does anyone else see what I'm getting at? If so, could you elaborate a bit?

Xixax

I voted neutral. Not because I have no opinion, but because I have leanings in both directions. I read this forum avidly, but realize that I have little to offer in light of the years of experience others have on each subject so I do not post much, if at all.

I think the right theist could do a great job, however I would hate to see the better contributors ( I will refrain from naming anyone for obvious reasons ) leave or feel restricted in any way because of the addition.

As it is, if you have someone in mind that you feel would do a good job and you are currently in need of a new moderator, I would say add them and see how it goes. However, if you're just thinking of adding a moderator, and are testing the waters to see if you should examine theists more closely to see if any of them would qualify, I would say there is little point since the benefits do not seem to outweigh the potential pitfalls.

Celsus

Thanks for all the comments so far. I'm very encouraged by the fact that we can indeed have level-headed discussions in this forum after all. I will reply to some of the points raised in the morning. Good night all.

Joel

Jim Larmore

I think a level headed theist mod would be great and add some balance to this board. I disagree with an earlier statement concerning what moderators do. I have had some of my most lively debates with the moderators on this forum, i.e. Dr.Rick, Roland98, peez, Rufus Atticus, etc. etc. , yeah they keep us all in line but they also very much so participate in the debates and I think that is good.

Roland98

I'm neutral on the issue--I can see both good and bad points to it. But I don't think that theist mods would be too biased to do a good job. I spend a good deal of time on an interfaith board (consisting mainly of Christians, though)--and I've never encountered a problem with the Christian moderators there. The key would be to find ones who are able to withstand criticisms of their beliefs without taking it as a personal attack--people who can't separate the two should never be considered for moderation duty here, IMO.