Your Feedback

Do you approve my moderation?

  • Yes

    Votes: 19 51.4%

  • No

    Votes: 4 10.8%

  • I have no oppinion in this

    Votes: 14 37.8%
  • Total voters
    37
Status
Not open for further replies.
OK
Then, being pedantic again, shouldn't CR be in the sub called human science? Y'know CR being anthropology and all?

Human Science (11 Viewing)
psychology, cognition, sociology, anthropology, archaeology
 
As far as I'm concerned you are doing a good job. I don't see why anyone would think otherwise.
 
sniffy said:
OK
Then, being pedantic again, shouldn't CR be in the sub called human science? Y'know CR being anthropology and all?

Human Science (11 Viewing)
psychology, cognition, sociology, anthropology, archaeology
Click to expand...

True, but the placement of subforums in Sciforums is not only determined by their logical place in the sciences system, but also by tradition, their popularity and interests and specific needs of members and administration to "make this place flow better".
 
I just never understand why people want to use scientific principles when analysing God? The two are very separate spheres or topics (or whatever the correct word may be).

Science deals with the natural and physical (this dimension) and faith has to do with the spiritual things which is what Jesus Christ came down to to make us aware of (if you believe that He is truth). The carnally minded (those whose perspectives are from a wordly perspective) obviously will never get it because they cannot perceive it! So what's there to debate really?

@Avatar: If you raise matters of faith in a forum then you ARE asking for preaching because that is a tool that believers use to get others to believe and to explain their faith.

From a Christian perspective, when we preach God's Spirit will confirm the testimony of Christ if it is truth that we are speaking, truth being the record of Jesus Christ that is God's purpose and plan for our salvation. The grace of God (which is His way of communicating to us) always accompanies truth and enlightens, illuminates, awakens the soul with an urgency to know God, gives the heart to perceive Christ and draws faith from the heart. When a sinner yields the heart to this inspiration of grace by choosing to reciprocate with faith he is declared righteous by God because he has met God's standard (Christ) and expectations (the works of faith).

The paradox lies in what exactly the works of faith are. The answer to that is the key to experiencing the fullnes of Jesus Christ in our daily lives as He mediates His covenant that He has shed His blood for as our advocate (which is what He promised). The whole point is for spiritual transformation. From darkness to light. From the law of sin and death to the law of grace and truth. From the fruit of iniquity to the fruit of the Spirit. From the perspective of the soil to the perspective from the throne of God. From the wisdom of the world to the wisdom of God.

So none of this can be seen with the physical eye! It's an experience acquired within the restrictions of the covenant of Jesus Christ (not Moses, not David but Jesus Christ).

Why waste your precious time trying to understand things that cannot be seen by using your imagination and your principle? Stick to science atleast you'll have facts to work with.
 
Last edited:
Comparative Religion does not analyze god, it analyzes cultures, societies, rites, etc.

Anthropology is not physics. Read a few books on it and you'll understand how these things can be discussed scientifically.

For example, Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity (Cambridge Studies in Social and Cultural Anthropology) by Roy A. Rappaport
 
Oh ok, it's just that when you asked if the God of Jesus is the same as the God of the Jews I thought the question was about God....

Think i'll read more about comparative religion :eek:)
 
Comparative religion is a field of religious study that analyzes the similarities and differences of themes, myths, rituals and concepts among the world's religions. Religion can be defined as "Human beings' relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, spiritual, or divine".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_religion
 
Posts about one raven moved to a new thread in the About the members subforum
 
I continue to think you are doing a fine job, here. I am sorry for my own straying within threads I even took steps to keep others in line.
I hope we can actually have a comparative look at reincarnation and I promise next time to keep my wheels in the lane.
 
Unfortunately I am very busy with university and work these days, my last year in masters, so I'm not able to contribute much right now.

I think your posts are excellent and an example for others.
 
How can one discuss anything here?

I just read the rules in this category and one is not supposed to discuss a religion using the main source for that religion, i.e., the bible. That's like discussing Einstein's theory with being able to use or mention Einstein's theories. :eek:

One is not supposed to promote atheism but the rules state that a "rational" approach to God is to claim there is no God. That's atheism. :eek: So what is the point of this category and what is there to discuss without breaking the rules which have already been broken in the rules themselves? :bugeye:
 
Last edited:
Avatar said:
Hi,
it's been over a month that I'm moderating Comparative Religion subforum, and not without help from the members, who have on various occasions reported and brought to my attention problems that had to be dealt with.

I encourage and support that, because 1) I'm often busy and away in the woods, both concrete and wood, for days; 2) I recognize that without the members there is no forum, and without a community there is no intellectual productivity through discussion and that good feeling when you are on the same path with other people, so I suggest we continue to moderate this place listening to the best and most noble of our interests.

So, in relation to that I want to hear your honest feedback on what you like and dislike about my moderating? What would you like to improve, and what is your general vision of this subforum, if you have one?

Now, I won't listen to every little whim of an upset child, but I promise to take in mind your thoughts and ideas which I subjectively will recognize as of sound reason and logical.

p.s. If someone has a personal, irrational vendetta to soothe, this is not the place, do it through PMs.
Here is the place to discuss and plan the future and the current state of this subforum.

Cheers,
Avatar
Click to expand...

For one thing, I just initiated a thread that is simply gone. There is no mention of it, whether it's been moved, deleted, etc. So why is that?

Secondly, the rules themselves are contradictory because they say not to promote atheism or theism but at the same time we're supposed to have a more "rational" approach to God. That's an irrational statement since all of us have to come from one of those 2 reference points in each of our posts since we all either believe in God or we don't.

And thirdly, how can one discuss any religion without using the very source for that religion such as the bible? Again, that's like asking someone to discuss Einstein's theories without being able to use or mention Einstein's theories.

So I see nothing rational in the rules which makes it impossible to post in this category without knowing if one is breaking the rules. :rolleyes:

So why don't you just make the rules easier and less contradictory by calling this category "Bible critique"? That way, you don't have to worry about being objective and having both sides being presented. You can only talk about one side even though scientists are supposed to look at all sides of an issue. ;)
 
Last edited:
For one thing, I just initiated a thread that is simply gone. There is no mention of it, whether it's been moved, deleted, etc. So why is that?
Click to expand...
You should read your PMs. ;)
since all of us have to come from one of those 2 reference points in each of our posts since we all either believe in God or we don't.
Click to expand...
Discuss like it didn't matter you believe anything or not. This is not a belief, but science based subforum - Comparative Religion is a discipline of Anthropology.
And thirdly, how can one discuss any religion without using the very source for that religion such as the bible?
Click to expand...
You can quote it - as a part of comparative argument.
So I see nothing rational in the rules which makes it impossible to post in this category without knowing if one is breaking the rules.
Click to expand...
Not my problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top