- Ultimately, in order to provide a convincing
case -- even for myself -- I need to be able to answer the objections
of the opposition. I need to face the objections, and explain them away
-- if I can.
- But, to do that effectively, first I need a way to foster effective
- Yeah, right...
- But fortunately, I believe that we humans can easily
develop a "format" for insuring
effectiveness in written debate -- if only we can
get one of us who owns,
or has significant influence with,
a popular news, or general information, website to become involved.
- That's what I'm missing. I claim that given such a website, I have such
- I am currently trying to find an appropriate host. So far, no one seems
- But anyway, I claim that such a format can work miracles. It can begin
to resolve some of humanity's biggest problems -- what to believe about
Jesus is, at least, one of those.
- In this, my teensy and unknown website, I will be trying to present
my version of the arguments for
the New Testament -- for Jesus being the Prophesied Jewish Messiah.
- I have my doubts, but I also have my hopes, and what I propose to ultimately
do here (hopefully, with the help of others) is
1) Present the best case for Jesus that I can;
2) Field counter claims;
3) Counter the counter claims;
4) Field the counter claims, to my counters to the original counter claims;
- In order to meaningfully evaluate any claims I make supporting the New
Testament, we need to 'hear' responses from experts who disagree. WHAT
WE ULTIMATELY NEED IN ORDER TO EFFECTIVELY JUDGE MY CLAIMS SUPPORTING
JESUS is extended and effective debate with "the other side."
We need a kind of "TRIAL."
- So, let's get it on!
- But again, first, I need to explain this thing about "effective debate."
My proposed format involves procedures similar to those of an American
- Once upon a time, in a kingdom far, far away,
there lived a happy old couple with just ONE problem – there was
an axe stuck in their ceiling. In truth, the couple wasn’t all THAT
happy because they constantly worried that someday that axe would fall
out of the ceiling and kill somebody. One day a tired and hungry stranger
came along and the old couple invited him in for a rest and a meal. While
eating, the couple told the stranger about their life together, pointing
out that the one sour note in all their happy existence was that (damned)
axe stuck in the ceiling. At which point, the stranger got up on his chair,
and with a quick tug, dislodged the axe from the ceiling…
(Public, Written, Serial, Debate)
1. We Americans (not to mention humanity in general)
currently (just like always) face a multitude of serious and controversial issues (and decisions) for
which we are best advised to be as well informed as possible. Currently, it is such things as "global warming,"
abortion, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, immigration, gun control, health insurance,
torture, 9/11 irregularities, government corruption, media complicity,
conspiracy theory, etc, etc, etc.
2. In order to have our best shot at making the right decisions, and supporting
the right causes, we need to be as well informed as possible.
3. But, our current strategies for informing ourselves re these serious
issues leave much to be desired. They are seriously flawed and problematic
– they tend to be extremely incomplete and, above all, BIASED.
4. Consequently, many of our conclusions and decisions are extremely problematic.
(See Appendix A.)
5. And then, the ramifications of our poor decisions grow worse by the
minute… (See Appendix B.)
6. Clearly, what we need in order to fully inform ourselves re any particular
issue is ‘hearing’ both sides of the whole story.
7. In other words, we need access to extended debate between opponent
8. But we need that this debate be “effective” – we
need it to effectively present the relevant evidence, and not lapse into
a side-show or shouting match.
9. And so far, human debate hardly ever meets that standard. (See Appendix
10. Human debate tends to be so ineffective and problematic, because once
into debate, our reflexes are all wrong.
11. These problematic reflexes are just as “reliable,” and
predictable, as a knee jerk -- and they inevitably and seriously haunt
and impede our debates.
12. Once into a debate, we immediately slip into a fight/flight mode where
our all-consuming objective is to win – or at least, to avoid losing.
13. This orientation produces numerous obstacles to effective debate.
14. Honesty, candor, objectivity and fairness fly right out the window.
15. We “zone out.” We forget what we were supposedly about
and are oblivious to what we are doing instead... (See Appendix D.)
16. And, just think of what might be if
we could correct this problem – what if our legislators, for instance,
could debate honestly, openly, objectively and fairly? (See Appendix E.)
17. So, what’s the story? Why haven’t
we tried to fix this problem??? (See Appendix F.)
18. But knowing what we now know, fixing
debate – or, at least ameliorating debate -- should actually be
easy. As specific problems seem obvious, so do potential solutions. (See
19. And then, if we look closely at the
situation, fixing it might be easy as well… (See Appendix H.)
20. The guidelines for cleaning up our
act follow directly and obviously from the specific problems we create
-- and have here identified. (See Appendix I.)
21. Perhaps, the greatest obstacle to
effective debate is dealing with inherent complexity in the subject matter
and the tendency of debate to “branch” exponentially. In general,
I recommend slow and steady. In particular, I recommend that each time
we come to a fork in this dialectic road, we address only one claim, one
alternative, at a time – following where it leads -- and leave the
others behind, for later development. (See Appendix J.)
(An unrelated, developing,
Public Written Serial Debate)