Debate moderation

Originally posted by bbarr
I was being glib, but I do think the topic is far too broad. Is the Bible a reliable source of historical knowledge, scientific knowledge, or spiritual knowledge, or ethical knowledge, or...?

Originally posted by bbarr
"I was being glib, but I do think the topic is far too broad. Is the Bible a reliable source of historical knowledge, scientific knowledge, or spiritual knowledge, or ethical knowledge, or...?"

bbarr, fully agree. Hope this rough outline facilitates the decision of selecting a specific topic of general interest:

The Bible is 1) The Source of the Gospel [1 Corinthians 15:3-4 "3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, which is the power of God to Salvation."]; 2) The Power of God [1 Corinthians 1:18 "For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God].

3) The absolute standard for truth. 4) The mind of Christ; 5) The source of Divine power; 6) Always effective [Isaiah 55: 11 "So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it."]; and 7) Endures forever [Luke 21: 33 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away."; 1 Peter 1:25 "But the word of the Lord endures forever. And this is the word which was preached as good news to you."]. (New American Standard Bible)

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by bbarr
"I was being glib, but [b]I do think the topic is far too broad. Is the Bible a reliable source of historical knowledge, scientific knowledge, or spiritual knowledge, or ethical knowledge, or...?"

bbarr, fully agree. Hope this rough outline facilitates the decision of selecting a specific topic of general inte ...[text shortened]... r. And this is the word which was preached as good news to you."]. (New American Standard Bible)[/b]

I think if Christians want to debate the purely Christian nitty gritty of Christian doctrine with fellow Christians ~ like the stuff in your post above ~ you should seek out a Christian moderator who has memorized and internalized a lot of the necessary creed and dogma and is able to regurgitate it quickly or knows where to get stuff from the web to copy paste.

Originally posted by FMF
I think if Christians want to debate the purely Christian nitty gritty of Christian doctrine with fellow Christians ~ like the stuff in your post above ~ you should seek out a Christian moderator who has memorized and internalized a lot of the necessary creed and dogma and is able to regurgitate it quickly or knows where to get stuff from the web to copy paste.

Originally posted by JS357
I am literally on vacation. Only have a kindle. Back Dec two. Proposed topic is

The Bible is a reliable source of knowledge.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by JS357
I am literally on vacation. Only have a kindle. Back Dec two. [b]Proposed topic is

The Bible is a reliable source of knowledge.[/b]

If, as you say, you agree with bbar that JS357's proposed topic is "far too broad", and instead you want to debate things like "The mind of Christ" and "The source of Divine power" and things like Jesus being "raised from the dead on the third day", then this will surely be a debate that you will want to have with fellow Christians [as opposed to non-Christians] and if so, I reckon you'll need a Christian moderator who is fluent and adept at trotting out all the Christian doctrine and texts related to the bits of Christian dogma you are debating.

CalJust
bbarr
DeepThought
Zahlanzi
Lemonjello
JS357

You have been nominated ... if you are willing please volunteer!

Originally posted by wolfgang59
CalJust
bbarr
DeepThought
Zahlanzi
Lemonjello
JS357

You have been nominated ... if you are willing please volunteer!

Alright, I'm in. Let's see how this all shakes out.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
CalJust
bbarr
DeepThought
Zahlanzi
Lemonjello
JS357

You have been nominated ... if you are willing please volunteer!

Ok, I will give this a shot. I will try to think of a worthy topic and start a thread within the next week or so.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Ok, I will give this a shot. I will try to think of a worthy topic and start a thread within the next week or so.

What I had in mind was that the general forum population
create a thread and nominate you (or another) as mod.

Originally posted by Agerg
I'd add Lemonjello to that list

Yeah, let's let the atheists create the list.

You want credibility? Then don't stack the list on your side.

[/eyeroll]

Originally posted by DeepThought
That's basically implied I'd have thought. I doubt anyone would claim it makes a good handbook for midwives; or that it not being a good handbook for midwives means it is not a reliable source of knowledge. There's a clear implied relevance rule. Or did you mean that the topic is far too wide?

What is the scope of the moderator(s)? And how many ar ...[text shortened]... out (this one should be used sparingly).

Do they intervene pre-emptively or only when asked?

So.

Let me get this straight.

You claim 'Logic Uber Alles'.

Then you're stacking the deck to the atheists too.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I think those 5 "rules" will suffice (lets not overcomplicate it!)
For the sake of practicality I think ONE moderator per thread.

My idea is for anyone to start a thread with the mod's name in
brackets in the thread title. Anyone who thinks the mod will not
be impartial can simply ignore that thread. The mod should be pro-active.

I will start a thread for volunteer mods.

This implied "Let's make threads the theists can't really participate in" isn't going to work, except unfortunately, some theists will take the bait and let themselves be pilloried.

Originally posted by Agerg
Call me a pessimist but what happens when the likes of Dasa and "friends" are on the case? How exactly can even a good thread be moderated once it devolves into a mud fight? (as is often the case these days)

So a "good thread" is only those conforming to atheist rules on what a religious debate should be?

Please.

Originally posted by FMF
I think if Christians want to debate the purely Christian nitty gritty of Christian doctrine with fellow Christians ~ like the stuff in your post above ~ you should seek out a Christian moderator who has memorized and internalized a lot of the necessary creed and dogma and is able to regurgitate it quickly or knows where to get stuff from the web to copy paste.

So, Christians can only "regurgitate" and "cut and paste"?

Sorry, your slip (I meant bias ) is showing.

Originally posted by Suzianne
So a "good thread" is only those conforming to atheist rules on what a religious debate should be?

Please.

why do you assume a spirituality thread must be about religion?

Originally posted by FMF
If, as you say, you agree with bbar that JS357's proposed topic is "far too broad", and instead you want to debate things like "The mind of Christ" and "The source of Divine power" and things like Jesus being "raised from the dead on the third day", then this will surely be a debate that you will want to have with fellow Christians [as opposed to non-Christians] ...[text shortened]... ut all the Christian doctrine and texts related to the bits of Christian dogma you are debating.

At least this is a more digestible form of the original draft of this post (see above).