@Banno My general view is if they are here for theology only then they may find other parts of the forum interesting.

Exposure to different views/ideas is a tricky and messy business, but overall the benefits for some are worth the annoyance others feel imo.

Preaching should be banned (but a warning doesn’t hurt). I used to see that on another forum I was on. They were asked to stop or leave. Some stopped and got into discussions, others left and some kept on preaching resulting in a ban.

‘Preaching’ is not ‘theology’ though. It seems like the boundary you are looking for is more about that?

There are good philosophical and social reasons to remove certain threads. — Banno

You could just notify a mod if you have a concern. You post this in order to be a pompous ass. What's worse is you're crap at philosophy as well.

While I agree that specifically theological topics are not part of the general philosophy curriculum, I don't agree that philosphical consideration of theological subjects, or theological perspectives, should necessarily be excluded.

It's an open forum, contributors can choose not to respond to topics they feel are out of scope. I rarely respond to any overtly theological OPs.

While I agree that specifically theological topics are not part of the general philosophy curriculum, I don't agree that philosphical consideration of theological subjects, or theological perspectives, should necessarily be excluded.

It's an open forum, contributors can choose not to respond to topics they feel are out of scope. I rarely respond to any overtly theological OPs.

What you say two times is true?

Of course. I post on religious topics myself. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the demarcation, and to offer a reminder to the mods.

There's an issue of balance, and I am aware that I am not alone in thinking that the balance is off at present. Others have raised the issue, and the topics I listed above do show an uncomfortable bias.

I do agree that philosophy of religion and theology are not the same. Mind you I thought the vitalism/Darwinism thread a perfectly acceptable general subject.

Cool. So why? And which threads do you think ought not be on the forum?

I noted that pointed to the factual error in the OP of that thread and didn't comment.

:up:

Banno How about banning antitheists? — I like sushi

What did we do wrong? :gasp:

And which threads do you think ought not be on the forum? — Banno

Sometimes I do comment on specifically theological OPs that this is a philosophy forum not a theology forum. But I don't know if a lot more should be done about them. 'The dogs bark, the caravan moves on'.

Woof.

The rash is back. So I'm bumping this thread. There are good philosophical and social reasons to remove certain threads.

The list in the OP would today read:

Adam Eve and the unjust punishment
Divine Hiddenness
Multiple Messiah Theory
Explanations of Christian Hell?
Understanding the Christian Trinity
The Possibility of Infinite Punishment in Hell
Are there any scientific grounds for god?
The eternal soul (Vitalism): was Darwin wrong?
An Argument Against Theological Fatalism
Jesus and Greek Philosophy

Again, these threads should be removed if they
...take scripture or revelation as a starting point for discussion; theology, not philosophy.
— Banno — Banno

Banno utters nonsense again! Philosophy will take any commonly held belief as a starting point for discussion or inquiry. That's very evident in Plato's dialogues, and Plato is arguably the definitive philosopher. The subjects mentioned here involve deep philosophical questions. Banno seems to want to limit "philosophy" to "what interests Banno", and that's a very selfish attitude, especially since Banno's interests are very shallow.

Banno seems to want to limit "philosophy" to "what interests Banno", and that's a very selfish attitude, especially since Banno's interests are very shallow. — Metaphysician Undercover

:up:

Why? Is this a divine revelation you have had, an arbitrary definition you have adopted or what? There are threads on current affairs, on environmental issues, on the latest space telescope, etc, which have good claim not to be philosophy by most definitions. — unenlightened

This is a really good point. There's a lot of science and pseudo-science on here, but you don't see much about cracking down on scientific posts that are clearly not philosophy of science. I'm happy to see those threads here, as well as the ones you mention and the ones about religion. Bad quality bothers me a lot more than whether or not something fits the forum mold exactly.

Good post. Well thought out and argued.

While I agree that specifically theological topics are not part of the general philosophy curriculum, I don't agree that philosphical consideration of theological subjects, or theological perspectives, should necessarily be excluded. — Wayfarer

I don't think you can have a full discussion of metaphysics without including religion.

I noted that ↪T Clark pointed to the factual error in the OP of that thread and didn't comment. — Banno

I'm a bit confused about the reference to me in this. I do agree with @Wayfarer that the vitalism thread was a worthwhile one.

Banno How about banning antitheists?
— I like sushi
What did we do wrong? :gasp: — 180 Proof

As I've noted here before, atheism and religion are the only topics where bigotry is encouraged on the forum.

Sometimes I do comment on specifically theological OPs that this is a philosophy forum not a theology forum. But I don't know if a lot more should be done about them. 'The dogs bark, the caravan moves on'. — Wayfarer

Although there is a lot of crap here on the forum, including a lot of religion crap, I have been impressed with the quality of some of the religion-related threads recently.

Your teeth are like a flock of shorn ewes that have come up from the washing, all of which bear twins, and not one among them has lost its young. — Song of Solomon 4:2

If philosophy is the love of wisdom then it is necessary to address claims of wisdom. Theological beliefs and claims are part of our intellectual and spiritual history. They are not simply relics of the past, they inform our understanding of ourselves and the world.

To address them is not to accept them. As philosophers have always known, if for no other reason, we must understand them in order to combat them.

Why? Is this a divine revelation you have had, an arbitrary definition you have adopted or what? — unenlightened

Cause that way there will be more room for all old Banno's threads to be revived.
So hopefully a Holly Day will come, where TPF's first page will be full of Banno's old threads resurrections and new ones also.
Only those will be permitted. The only really worthy ones! The time will COME, and all of you unfaithful bastards you will then post in.. TBF

Bigotry isn’t a great look.

There is a BIG difference between antitheist and atheist. Maybe you read atheist by mistake :)

I read what you wrote. I'm an antitheist who wants to know why you think I/we should be banned.

"Bigotry" by or against?

As I've noted here before, atheism and religion are the only topics where bigotry is encouraged on the forum. — T Clark

Banno doesn't seem to be getting much encouragement in this topic today, assuming he's a suspect.

why you think I/we should be banned. — 180 Proof

You should be banned for using i.e. and () too many fucking times. Kidding.

Have look down this page and contemplate the quality philosophical content.

I admit that I was fixated on the dental condition of a donkey, but others gave a more serious reply.

Have look down this page and contemplate the quality philosophical content. — Banno

I have five posts on this page. They were all civil and substantive. Many of the others also were.