Handling belligerence

[shernren]

And now that AV1611VET is crashing the party here as well, I really, really can't wait for July 22nd. Less than a month more!

 

[Mallon]

Has anyone here resorted to using the ignore function? I swear, if I hear one more word along the lines of "evolution is a concept from the imagination of an unbelieving man" I'm going to explode.

 

[Willtor]

Along those lines, would anybody be interested in organizing a thread of frequently asked questions with me? I don't mean like TalkOrigins. I mean a few of the common PRATT questions we get here with short, concise responses. Even if they aren't complete responses, just something to get brain juices flowing (yech, brain juices) and move away from the common Hovindisms.

The idea is to come up with something that we can direct new members to (or old members for whom it hasn't sunk in) where they don't have to go wading through pages and pages of text. References to it would also be a lot more personal than references to TalkOrigins or even some theologically-minded site. I'm sure we all know how frustrating it is for somebody to start a bunch of threads with just a bunch of links expecting us to read them *ahem*.

 

[Mallon]

I think I would be up for that. One thing I would like to see, though, is something along the lines of the talkorigins list of Creationist Claims, but dealing with the theological/biblical issues of YECism, rather than the scientific issues. We're long overdue for something like that.

 

[gluadys]

Along those lines, would anybody be interested in organizing a thread of frequently asked questions with me? I don't mean like TalkOrigins. I mean a few of the common PRATT questions we get here with short, concise responses. Even if they aren't complete responses, just something to get brain juices flowing (yech, brain juices) and move away from the common Hovindisms.

The idea is to come up with something that we can direct new members to (or old members for whom it hasn't sunk in) where they don't have to go wading through pages and pages of text. References to it would also be a lot more personal than references to TalkOrigins or even some theologically-minded site. I'm sure we all know how frustrating it is for somebody to start a bunch of threads with just a bunch of links expecting us to read them *ahem*.

I would be particularly interested in theological PRATTS rather than the science oriented ones that TalkOrigins covers.

Things like:
Why a literal interpretation is an interpretation (i.e. not identical with the Word of God)
Why a literal interpretation is not a default interpretation
Why a figurative interpretation is not calling scripture false or dismissing it, etc.
Even What does 'literal' mean? as many think it means "true" or "real" and often refer to figures as "literal". A classic example is the idea that the snake in Eden was "literally" Satan. That turns the whole idea of "literal" inside out.

 

[Willtor]

I agree. Especially in the context of this forum, it might be good to stick to theological topics. If people want to deal with the particulars of an old Earth or evolution or whatever else, we (they) can set something up in Crevo.

I was thinking something along the lines of a scholastic treatment with views and responses to those views. In order to keep them short and concise, if there is an issue like, "It would seem that a non-historical treatment of Adam and Eve would undermine substitutionary atonement," the response would not include questions of whether substitutionary atonement is correct (a topic for GT) but whether the two actually are contradictory.

Again, I'd very much like to keep it short so that they don't have to wade through very much. But it can be a springboard for discussion. And when we do get random links with a "Top 10 dangers of Theistic Evolution" hopefully it will be enough for many of them simply to cite the thread.

Thoughts for topics?

 

[crawfish]

Ahhh. I finally took advantage of the "ignore" feature. My blood pressure thanks me.

 

[Mallon]

Ahhh. I finally took advantage of the "ignore" feature. My blood pressure thanks me.

I always feel like I'm going to miss something completely rediculous if I put someone on ignore. Because it is the rediculous people I would chose to ignore.
Can't say as my hand hasn't been hovering over the button lately, though...

 

[Melethiel]

I've never had anyone on ignore...before I became a mod, I just scrolled past posts which annoyed me. Now, I have to read half of them anyway...

 

[Willtor]

Okay, I have from Gluadys (my paraphrase):

Whether it is appropriate for authors of Scripture to use figurative language:
Objection 1: Default interpretation is literal
Objection 2: Figurative interpretation undermines Scriptural truth

In the discussion, one can read how most treatments of the fall take things otherwise than literal (e.g. the snake = Satan).

---

From my own thoughts:

Whether it is sound exegesis to try to learn elements corresponding to modern modes of knowledge from the Bible:
Objection 1: God knew we would have science and would therefore have incorporated scientific knowledge in the Scriptures.
Objection 2: God's verbal inspiration would preclude inaccurate or imprecise cosmology.

---

What other topics interest you? Any additional "objections" under either of these categories? Again, as Mallon pointed out, let's try to restrict it to theological discussion. I know Shernren has written a lot on these sorts of topics.

 

[Mallon]

Ahhh. I finally took advantage of the "ignore" feature. My blood pressure thanks me.

I just caved, too. If you're tired of the lunacy spewed by some of the more... enthusiasitc members, the best thing you can do is just ignore them, rather than responding to their posts. They crave conflict, so let's not to give them what they want.

 

[shernren]

Okay, I have from Gluadys (my paraphrase):

Whether it is appropriate for authors of Scripture to use figurative language:
Objection 1: Default interpretation is literal
Objection 2: Figurative interpretation undermines Scriptural truth

In the discussion, one can read how most treatments of the fall take things otherwise than literal (e.g. the snake = Satan).

---

From my own thoughts:

Whether it is sound exegesis to try to learn elements corresponding to modern modes of knowledge from the Bible:
Objection 1: God knew we would have science and would therefore have incorporated scientific knowledge in the Scriptures.
Objection 2: God's verbal inspiration would preclude inaccurate or imprecise cosmology.

---

What other topics interest you? Any additional "objections" under either of these categories? Again, as Mallon pointed out, let's try to restrict it to theological discussion. I know Shernren has written a lot on these sorts of topics.

- God would not use evolution, as it is a continuing and imperfect method of creation, whereas the Bible presents creation as being finished and perfect before the Fall.

- Evolution is a human invention of naturalistic origins for life so that God is not seen as being responsible for the creation of life.

Yeah I've written a lot, however the posts I've written are a lot more meandering and exploratory. What we need is something written entirely to the point (of whatever issue is being discussed), of didactic or even homiletical nature. I wouldn't mind taking some of these up.

 

[Willtor]

- God would not use evolution, as it is a continuing and imperfect method of creation, whereas the Bible presents creation as being finished and perfect before the Fall.

- Evolution is a human invention of naturalistic origins for life so that God is not seen as being responsible for the creation of life.

Yeah I've written a lot, however the posts I've written are a lot more meandering and exploratory. What we need is something written entirely to the point (of whatever issue is being discussed), of didactic or even homiletical nature. I wouldn't mind taking some of these up.

I'd certainly appreciate that. I'ma try to compile a list of topics and raw structure for responses. Then, once we have a good set of information, we can work the structures together and then turn them into concise arguments.

Actually, I'm going to start a thread on that, now.

 

[Willtor]

Here's the planning thread. Continue the frustration with belligerence.

---

I don't think I've ever put anybody on ignore. There's one fellow in Crevo who I've almost done so. But I always feel awkward and then when somebody else quotes the person I realize the person has had an impact on the thread even if I couldn't see it.

 

[Willtor]

Ah, my self-righteous, "I've never put anybody on ignore." I think that's about to end.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I always feel like I'm going to miss something completely rediculous if I put someone on ignore. Because it is the rediculous people I would chose to ignore.
Can't say as my hand hasn't been hovering over the button lately, though...

That is the primary reason I never use the ignore. There might just be that one little tidbit of ignorance that steps out from someone and like a lion hungry for prey, pounce on it.

And I never underestimate the atheists.

http://www.christianforums.com/t5719911-if-you-were-a-pope.html

quote: If I were a pope I would like to share my skepticism towards the existence of any gods.