In all fairness, neutrality is a neccessity for a moderator.

It would be immoral for a moderator to take part in a debate, or judge the contents of such, while holding such a position.

If he did, then the argument of bias would surely be called.

It is however, his job to ensure a proper environment (by whatever definition he is given by those who entrust in eddie his position) by monitoring the tone of posts.


And THIS must officially be my last post of the day, as I'm sick and not getting anything done at work. :-P



Love,
Goth_Slut

__________________
My favorite universe analogy:
A circle has a finite diameter, and a finite circumference, yet the ratio between the two is infinite.

DISCLOSURE FROM ADMIN: "Sheila Rangslinger" was discovered to be a sock puppet identity created by J.P. Holding. Any statements about J.P. Holding in this post were written by J.P. Holding himself. More.



Instead of eating his hat, why not this?

Holding will register here if and only if Brian Flemming agrees to a debate co-hosted by this board, TheologyWeb, and as a bonus, Holding will contact his Skeptic friend Kyle Gerkin about having it (or a copy) hosted on the Secular Web!

Just think of it! Brian can publicly defeat one of the most despised apologists on the Net before THREE audiences! He'll win accolades from his Skeptical peers! He'll deconvert tens of thousands of Christians who use Holding's site every month! And all he has to do is show everyone the goods! He'll sell skintillions of DVDs for this movie and the next one! He'll be able to drive a Lexus! Wear a Rolex! Pay for ONE college history course! He'll never have to deal with apologists on the Net again because HE BEAT HOLDING!

Well, that is...unless he really doesn't have confidence in his case... Then that would be different.

I'd say precisely the opposite. Threats should generally be met with resistence and negative reinforcement (i.e. they should if at all possible ensure the issuer that he/she doesn't get what he's/she's after). In this case much more so, IMO, because . . .
I'm not familiar with that forum, but if Holding is popular there then you may very well want to do what you can to discourage them from participating here, because people who are impressed with the likes of JP aren't remotely likely to offer anything here but sophomoric clutter, intellectually vacuous distractions and other such ostacles to rational, honest, meaningful discussion.

Byron

__________________
At that time, a friend shall lose his friend's hammer, and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night before . . .

Once people feel they know the truth,its impossible for them to learn anything new.Its a hard feat to teach a man who thinks he knows everything.Yet I say ,lets not ban him,at least not yet.Its important for people who sit on the fence to see and hear people like him.So they can recgonise the danger.

__________________
“There is only one good; knowledge,

and one evil; ignorance.”

Socrates 470B.C.?-399 B.C.?

Action taken.

1. J.P. Holding has not been banned.

2. The "Sheila Rangslinger" identity, which Holding employed as a nasty sock puppet to shill for himself, HAS been banned.

J.P. Holding has been invited to re-register under his own name.

Given his extremely antagonistic and self-promoting behavior since he arrived here as "Sheila," I feel we've been more than fair to Mr. Holding. And it has never been our intent to prevent anyone from learning Holding's point of view on religious issues.

I would encourage everyone to visit Mr. Holding's website, where he argues vigorously against those who promote the "Christ Myth" theory.

The website:

Tektonics
http://www.tektonics.org/

Here are some selected essays by Mr. Holding. He doesn't allow comments or other discussion about them on the site, but here are the links:

"Jesus: God's Wisdom"
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.html

"Shattering the Christ Myth"
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

"Great Expectorations" (critique of TGWWT)
http://www.tektonics.org/gk/godthere.html

On the other side, many arguments against "The God Who Wasn't There" are dealt with here:

Official movie FAQ:
http://www.thegodmovie.com/faq.php

"Responses to Critiques of the Mythicist Case" by Earl Doherty
http://home.ca.inter.net/oblio/CritiquesLicona.htm

If you would like to hire Mr. Holding to speak on "The God Who Wasn't There," you may contact him here:

http://www.tektonics.org/qt/speaking.html

As I was the one other time I had to do this, I am sorry to have had to ban anyone at all. But I believe this action will make the forums more useful for everyone, regardless of their point of view.

This thread is now closed.

__________________
Eddie
Moderator, Movie Forums
TIP: Don't feed the trolls