Originally posted by rwingett To be a judge? Forget it. I would not agree to that. Your impartiality is very questionable. I think you'd be a hangin' judge.
But for anyone else, just announce your desire in this forum.
I sign up to be a judge. If selected, I would take the position seriously and carry out my duties dispassionately.
I sign up to be a judge. If selected, I will make my judgment through the evaluation of the mind.
Therefore I will consider as winner the person that will offer the correct (accepted by the science of Sociology) definition of the terms "Socialism/ -st", and then justify (through "common sens"😉 his personal opinion based on the teachings and the actions of Jesus.
I will follow it with interest but am on holiday so do not have the time to take part.
I probably don't know enough about socialism or Jesus to take on rwingett anyway.
I foresee a problem. Which Jesus is under discussion? A typical atheist scholars view of the historical Jesus tends to differ quite considerably from that of any given Christian. And can Pauls or others claims about Jesus be taken into account or must the Gospels be the only source of information?
Originally posted by rwingett To be a judge? Forget it. I would not agree to that. Your impartiality is very questionable. I think you'd be a hangin' judge.
But for anyone else, just announce your desire in this forum.
I wasn't signing up to be a judge. I was signing up to debate you.
By the way. I wouldn't care that much who was judge anyway. I am not out to win a contest but only to speak the truth as I understand it.
Do you want to debate me on the Jesus Socialist matter? I am not clear where this takes place and how one gets started. Usually the proponent makes an opening statement.
Are you going to do that on the DEBATE Forum or here?
I foresee a problem. Which Jesus is under discussion? A typical atheist scholars view of the historical Jesus tends to differ quite considerably from that of any given Christian. And can Pauls or others claims about Jesus be taken into account or must the Gospels be the only source of information?[/b]
I think this is a good point. To fix it, I think that ONLY the Bible should be used, otherwise, what you have are other sources written latter, such as the gnostic scriptures, that present a different Jesus. In addition, if you don't, the debate will deteriorate into a debate about who the real Jesus was or was not instead of whether he was or was not a socialist. I don't think any of us want that. So if there is not enough Biblical evidence to present your case, then I'm out!
One more thing, you may want to define what it means to be a "socialist" before proceeding. I have participated in more than one debate in which the term was contested. For example, are we only talking political socialism and is it using a particular definition etc.?
Originally posted by twhitehead I will follow it with interest but am on holiday so do not have the time to take part.
I probably don't know enough about socialism or Jesus to take on rwingett anyway.
I foresee a problem. Which Jesus is under discussion? A typical atheist scholars view of the historical Jesus tends to differ quite considerably from that of any given Christian. And c ...[text shortened]... claims about Jesus be taken into account or must the Gospels be the only source of information?
Hi twhitehead!
Regarding socialism, one needs solely to know the right sociological definition; this is the sole prerequisite if the debaters want to stand a chance in order to proceed.
Therefore for starters the debaters have simply to determine and to prove, taking into account the teachings and the actions of Christ, whether or not Jesus was really an utopian socialist and/ or scientist socialist and/ or marxist socialist and/ or filocapitalist socialist and/ or democrat socialist and/ or factual socialist and/ or christian-democrat socialist etc;
Regarding the "exact" personage of Jesus, it seems to me that this personage must be extrapolated either through the Gospels (for they are surely the platform of the religion), and/ or by means of scientifically proven and well established historical finds and evidence related with the actual life of Jesus; in addition, a "typical atheist scolar view of the historical Jesus" should be accepted if it is properly backed up;
Originally posted by whodey I think this is a good point. To fix it, I think that ONLY the Bible should be used, otherwise, what you have are other sources written latter, such as the gnostic scriptures, that present a different Jesus. In addition, if you don't, the debate will deteriorate into a debate about who the real Jesus was or was not instead of whether he was or was not a soc ...[text shortened]... mple, are we only talking political socialism and is it using a particular definition etc.?
I will define both Jesus and socialism as it suits me. My opponent may attack my definitions as it suits him. Plus I have absolutely no intention of sticking solely to the bible. I reserve the right to use any source of information.
Originally posted by jaywill I wasn't signing up to be a judge. I was signing up to debate you.
By the way. I wouldn't care that much who was judge anyway. I am not out to [b]win a contest but only to speak the truth as I understand it.
Do you want to debate me on the Jesus Socialist matter? I am not clear where this takes place and how one gets started. Usually the proponent makes an opening statement.
Are you going to do that on the DEBATE Forum or here?[/b]
If it is decided that you are to be my opponent (it hasn't been yet), then I would make the opening statement. If you had read my proposed rules you'd have seen that. I will start a new thread in the spirituality forum for the debate.
Originally posted by rwingett I will define both Jesus and socialism as it suits me. My opponent may attack my definitions as it suits him. Plus I have absolutely no intention of sticking solely to the bible. I reserve the right to use any source of information.
It seems to me that anybody can "define" everything as it suits him, but this means not that his opinion should be acceptable if it fails to pass the philosophical testament or if it is non-scientific.
Therefore, if you define socialism as "spiritual teaching" without backing this view properly, and if then you try to claim that Jesus was a socialist, as you have BTW the right to do, you can hardly expect that your opinion will be taken seriously.
Originally posted by black beetle It seems to me that anybody can "define" everything as it suits him, but this means not that his opinion should be acceptable if it fails to pass the philosophical testament or if it is non-scientific.
Therefore, if you define socialism as "spiritual teaching" without backing this view properly, and if then you try to claim that Jesus was a socialist, ...[text shortened]... u have BTW the right to do, you can hardly expect that your opinion will be taken seriously.
So, in effect, rwingett gets to define socialism as well as who the historical Jesus was? Sounds fair to me. 😉
Originally posted by black beetle It seems to me that anybody can "define" everything as it suits him, but this means not that his opinion should be acceptable if it fails to pass the philosophical testament or if it is non-scientific.
Therefore, if you define socialism as "spiritual teaching" without backing this view properly, and if then you try to claim that Jesus was a socialist, ...[text shortened]... u have BTW the right to do, you can hardly expect that your opinion will be taken seriously.
I am fully aware of the constraints which I am under. I will ask you to critique my argument after you have read it and not before. Assuming you end up being a judge at all.
Originally posted by whodey So, in effect, rwingett gets to define socialism as well as who the historical Jesus was? Sounds fair to me. 😉
My advantage is that by going first I get to set the tenor for the debate. Your advantage is that you get the closing argument. If you object to the definitions I come up with then it would behoove you to attack them as part of your argument. If they are unreasonable then your task will be an easy one.
12 Jan '09 05:27
Rules of Debate? How's this, punk!
Back to Top