CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS: New section for believers and non-believers

[Atheos canadensis]

Hi guys. As we see over and over, people seem to be really interested in discussing general apologetics. Until recently there was no official place for non-believers and believers to discuss apologetics (there was believers only section) and such discussions just spilled over into other areas, often resulting in thread closure. Now that has changed!

Click here to be taken to this new area of the site for "non-Christians to challenge the Christian faith, and for Christians to defend their faith"

Hopefully people will make use of this new place to discuss their thoughts on apologetics!

 

[AirPo]

Hi guys. As we see over and over, people seem to be really interested in discussing general apologetics. Until recently there was no official place for non-believers and believers to discuss apologetics (there was believers only section) and such discussions just spilled over into other areas, often resulting in thread closure. Now that has changed!

Click here to be taken to this new area of the site for "non-Christians to challenge the Christian faith, and for Christians to defend their faith"

Hopefully people will make use of this new place to discuss their thoughts on apologetics!

This will be interesting. There was a GA forum a while ago, wonder why they decided to try it again. There is already one shut down thread.

 

[AirPo]

I was told I could not participate, why?

You probably read and "sign." the disclosure post.

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...d-agree-before-posting.7918241/#post-68907334

 

[lesliedellow]

Great, except two out of seven threads have already got themselves locked. I will admit that when I saw the theme of one of them I thought, "Oh no, not that one again," but, even so, the mods on here seem pretty trigger happy at best.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Great, except two out of seven threads have already got themselves locked. I will admit that when I saw the theme of one of them I thought, "Oh no, not that one again," but, even so, the mods on here seem pretty trigger happy at best.

To me it looks like they are adhering to the section's statement of purpose:

"The purpose of the Christian Apologetics forum is to give non-Christians the opportunity to start threads to challenge Christian theology, beliefs and practices, and Christians the opportunity to rationally defend their beliefs...As a general guide for posting topics, non-Christians who are challenging Christianity should offer arguments as to why Christian beliefs are incorrect or untrue."

You'll note that both of the closed threads fail to meet this statement of purpose. In both cases the OP did not contain an argument for why certain Christian beliefs are untrue. It is this omission that the mods have thusfar been strict about.

 

[crjmurray]

To me it looks like they are adhering to the section's statement of purpose:

"The purpose of the Christian Apologetics forum is to give non-Christians the opportunity to start threads to challenge Christian theology, beliefs and practices, and Christians the opportunity to rationally defend their beliefs...As a general guide for posting topics, non-Christians who are challenging Christianity should offer arguments as to why Christian beliefs are incorrect or untrue."

You'll note that both of the closed threads fail to meet this statement of purpose. In both cases the OP did not contain an argument for why certain Christian beliefs are untrue. It is this omission that the mods have thusfar been strict about.

So when I started a thread asking for evidence for an historical Jesus I was supposed to say "Jesus didn't exist, prove me wrong"?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

So when I started a thread asking for evidence for an historical Jesus I was supposed to say "Jesus didn't exist, prove me wrong"?

Basically, except you would support that assertion with some sort of argument.

 

[crjmurray]

Basically, except you would support that assertion with some sort of argument.

So I should get my threads shut down for blasphemy instead of being off topic?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

So I should get my threads shut down for blasphemy instead of being off topic?

That's something you would have to ask the mods, not me. But it seems foolish to let such fear keep you from posting there.

 

[lesliedellow]

So when I started a thread asking for evidence for an historical Jesus I was supposed to say "Jesus didn't exist, prove me wrong"?

Well, quite apart from anything else, of the half dozen or so messianic claimants in first century Palestine, it is strange how Jesus of Nazareth is the only one atheists ever bother contesting the historicity of. Which is a bit ironic, given that the New Testament alone makes him by far the messianic claimant whose historicity is best attested.

 

[Nithavela]

 

[AV1611VET]

So when I started a thread asking for evidence for an historical Jesus I was supposed to say "Jesus didn't exist, prove me wrong"?

From Wikipedia:

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically, and historians consider the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) to be the best sources for investigating the historical Jesus.

SOURCE

 

[crjmurray]

Well, quite apart from anything else, of the half dozen or so messianic claimants in first century Palestine, it is strange how Jesus of Nazareth is the only one atheists ever bother contesting the historicity of. Which is a bit ironic, given that the New Testament alone makes him by far the messianic claimant whose historicity is best attested.

1. Not an atheist

2. I'm not contesting the historicity of Jesus. Just wanted to open a discussion on it because it's an interesting topic.