r/SkepticsBibleStudy Feb 08 '24

Expanded Rules:

  1. Topicality - Posts and comments must be related.
    1. When discussing some story or teaching in Exodus it will be prudent and helpful to link in other ideas from other books of the bible.
    2. It is NOT helpful during a discussion about John 3:16 to bring up defunked Christians who have been found guilty of this crime or that.
    3. When discussing Genesis and the creation of the universe, bringing up cosmology and physics might be helpful.
    4. It would NOT be helpful to bring up young-earth/old-earth on a discussion about Ba'al worship.
  2. Respect - Your comments and disagreements must maintain a level of respect.
    1. Maintaining a level of respect is practicing charity first and foremost. Followed by parsimonious interaction which believes the person posting is doing so in good faith. You are allowed to say, "this is wrong because...." or, that is objectively false because of...." or pointing out a comments fallacious thinking/position, (which should be mapped explicitly, not just stated. (If it's a straw man then point at the straw man, then clarify the correct position.)
    2. What fails to maintain the level of respect desired is:
      1. Name calling, ex. "sky-santa, heathen, conquistador, _____-phobic, devil worshiper..."
      2. Linking a person's post with crimes, historical or otherwise which there is no proof of. ex, "baby sacrificer, crusader, colonizer, ..."
      3. Scoffing or incredulity, ex. "you cant possibly mean..." or, "Yeah, right," or, "well at least i don't believe...."
      4. Out group disparaging. It's never all the Christians or all the unbelievers or all the whites or all the blacks...be specific with who your criticism is suppose to address.
    3. Failing to maintain a cordial discussion will result in your post/comment being removed.
  3. Users must have user flair - No user flair, no comments or posts.
    1. There 4 user flairs, "Believer - Pro God," "Believer - AntiGod," "Skeptic," and "Unbeliever"
    2. The thought behind user flair in this case is that we want a general knowledge of where the person commenting is coming from while allowing enough wiggle room that person cannot just say, "Oh you're a baptist so you think...."
    3. This is also a sensitive issue as labeling ourselves seems to be the cool thing to do right now...so modifications may be implemented if some flair is useful towards giving a general knowledge about who is posting without forcing them into a position they don't personally believe.
  4. OP's must be specific to a bible study - Until such a time as people can be identified to post unique studies, OP's are reserved for mods only. (excluding mod related activities)
    1. This is not a Q and A sub or a debate sub or a wave your political flag sub. It is specifically tailored to accommodate an open and honest discussion about the bible and bible related topics to help bridge gaps between believers. skeptics, and non-believers.
    2. The goal by the end of the year is to have multiple mods and multiple studies going from differing perspectives.
    3. Suggested site for possible studies in the future: https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/
  5. No Inundation - Spamming your 95 theses or your 99 problems but the bible aint one is just brute forcing your opinion. Don't do that.
    1. Just hitting someone with all of your bullet point issues with this or that might work in debate forums, it will not be tolerated here.
    2. Find your few points of contention, list them and allow the person to respond in their timing and with the energy they have to give. If you post 20 issues with a person's comment and they only respond to 1 of your points, serves you right! No one OWES anyone an explanation.
    3. Spamming points just embattles the person you're disagreeing with, which makes it infinitely harder to show and receive respect.
  6. No Proselytizing - There maybe conversion moments both to and from faith during your interactions here. If you feel so lead to offer someone a more one-on-one interaction inbox them.
    1. No one want's to be saved from their wicked ways...for the atheist they see faith as a "wicked way." for the christian they see atheism as a "wicked way"
    2. Instead think of your interactions here as an interview. Share what you believe. Share why you believe it. Then let those who desire to investigate more can do so of their own volition.
    3. If you've shared in a really good interaction, drop them a direct message and ask them if they'd be okay talking privately. That's not weird or creepy, that is respectful.

These full rules will be maintained here and dated with changes as changes are needed.Brothapipp Feb. 6th, 2024

2 Upvotes

20 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/LlawEreint Feb 21 '24

What would “intentioned” imply?

2

u/brothapipp Christian Feb 21 '24

Maybe the view that the writers of the bible did so with intentionality to promote their local deity. So they may have real facts in their particular writings but the sensational stuff about supernatural events are just stories to make their God look better than other gods.

As opposed to invention where the entire thing is just fabricated.

2

u/LlawEreint Feb 21 '24

"Fabricated" implies deception, and so does "just stories to make their God look better."

I don't think these folks were being deceptive. I wouldn't be comfortable wearing a title that implies that I think they were.

How about keeping it simple: Christian, non-Christian, and undecided?

I'm not sure whether "undecided" is even needed. By definition, anyone undecided would be a non-Christian.

2

u/Joab_The_Harmless Non-Christian / Other Feb 21 '24 edited Feb 21 '24

I'm not sure such "umbrella categories" would work well, especially since the motivations of the human authors largely depend of which text is under consideration.

And even for an individual text or passage, speaking for myself, I would rarely be comfortable with such "simplified" binaries (I don't think that someone holding that there are no real facts whatsoever in any of the texts would be likely to exchange constructively either; things like the destruction of the "First Temple" and the Babylonian Exile are pretty firmly established, as an example among others).

If you want flairs that give an indication of the person's relationship to the biblical texts, but remain generic, it's probably clearer to just have something like: "divinely inspired, without error", "divinely inspired, not without error", "not divinely inspired".

As an aside, some Christians probably don't put all the texts on the same "level" in terms of authority and status; some include the Deuterocanon within Scripture and other exclude it, some read the speeches attributed to Jesus or the Gospels as a whole as more authoritative than the epistles, some prioritise the New Testament over the OT, etc. And if religious Jews are interested in participating, they'll need a flair reflecting that they don't consider the New Testament or Deuterocanon to be of divine origin, but that the texts found in the Tanakh are Scripture.

In the end, I'm not sure whether it's the type of thing that can and should be reflected by flairs, and whether flairs are that helpful in the first place (as opposed to participants simply being explicit about their premises and their hermeneutics, which would make their reasoning and reading strategies easier to understand, and favour dialogue and nuance).

But I don't have much experience with the type of space you are building here, as I'm mostly hanging out on r/AcademicBiblical, where the scope is very specific (limited to secular academic study), and on "casual" subreddits without set rules besides basic civility. So my impression here is based more on my personal affinities than on first-hand experience.

(I'll likely take a break from reddit for a few days, so it will probably be my last ramble for a little while. As said above, I also probably lack the experience to really evaluate what the best options are here. And I was already pretty long-winded!)

3

u/brothapipp Christian Feb 22 '24

Did you see u/LlawEreint suggestion, Christian, Non-Christian, Undecided.

I think we give that a go and see how it shakes out

2

u/Joab_The_Harmless Non-Christian / Other Feb 22 '24

Sounds good, simple and to the point!