« first day (12 days earlier)      last day (4618 days later) » 

El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
12:34 AM
@MasonWheeler: Hello there! First time I've seen you in chat, I think...
 
Mason Wheeler
Mason Wheeler
Hey. I've been here a few times. Not too much, though
Mostly just looking around
 
Tyler Gillies
Tyler Gillies
oh yay, people are talking
 
Mason Wheeler
Mason Wheeler
They are? Where?!?
 
Tyler Gillies
Tyler Gillies
responding to backlog is so dreadfully boring
 
Mason Wheeler
Mason Wheeler
Just killing time at the moment while the new Delphi version installs.
 
Tyler Gillies
Tyler Gillies
12:37 AM
 
Mason Wheeler
Mason Wheeler
Embarcadero Delphi
Embarcadero Delphi, formerly CodeGear Delphi, Inprise Delphi and Borland Delphi, is an integrated development environment for Microsoft Windows applications originally developed by Borland and now owned and developed by Embarcadero Technologies. It utilizes a dialect of the Object Pascal programming language known as Delphi. Delphi XE is the most recent version and is distributed in four different editions: Starter, Professional, Enterprise and Architect. History Delphi was originally a confidential research project at Borland which evolved into a product that was to be called AppBuild...
 
Tyler Gillies
Tyler Gillies
@MasonWheeler thnx
i did a little pascal in high school for a class
 
Mason Wheeler
Mason Wheeler
Yeah. It's still around, and a heck of a programming language.
 
Tyler Gillies
Tyler Gillies
@MasonWheeler does that mean its good or bad? :)
the "heck of a programming language"
 
Mason Wheeler
Mason Wheeler
Good
 
Tyler Gillies
Tyler Gillies
12:46 AM
@MasonWheeler what do you enjoy about it?
/me is javascript and ruby
 
Mason Wheeler
Mason Wheeler
Well, first off, it's based on Pascal, which means it's very easy to read and understand without having to stop and parse everything. Second, it's extremely well thought out and it really has the "it just works" quality figured out, like no other language I've worked with.
It's actually had a lot more influence on programming than you might think. When Microsoft found themselves without the resources to compete with Java back in the late 90s, they did what they do best: throw around a ton of money to copy what someone else has that actually works.
They hired Anders Hejlsberg, the architect of Delphi, away from Borland and had him build something to compete with Java, and if you know what you're looking at, the end product (C# and the .NET framework) looks a whole lot like Delphi rewritten to feel like Java.
 
Tyler Gillies
Tyler Gillies
Interesting
 
Mason Wheeler
Mason Wheeler
nodnod
 
TehShrike
TehShrike
lol, I shouldn't be surprised to walk into a SE Christianity chat room and see a discussion on programming languages
 
Mason Wheeler
Mason Wheeler
Anyhoo, they just did a major release last week. The biggest in several years, really. They added long-overdue support for cross-platform development, and a new vector-graphics-based UI framework. (Sorta like WPF but without the insanely sharp learning curve.)
 
Tyler Gillies
Tyler Gillies
12:55 AM
its my theory that everyone on SE is a programmer
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
@TylerGillies Well, SO is responsible for starting this whole shebang...and who frequents SO? :P
 
Mason Wheeler
Mason Wheeler
Not everyone, but a disproportionate number, yeah, considering the nature of the original site...
Yeah, what El'endia said! :P
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
@MasonWheeler LOL...we said basically the same thing! :P
 
TehShrike
TehShrike
The question is, can we keep our discussions of religion more civil than our questions about various programmer's trollbait? ;-P
 
Tyler Gillies
Tyler Gillies
@TehShrike programming languages are religions ;)
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
12:58 AM
@TylerGillies But are religions programming languages?
 
Mason Wheeler
Mason Wheeler
As long as we can keep our discussions about religion, I think we can. I've seen an alarming number of flat-out trolls on here, though, trying to ask atheist-themed questions about the validity of religion instead. If you see those, make sure to flag them. We wouldn't tolerate people on SO talking about how computer programming is worthless, now would we?
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
...
Wait...a programming language based on Christianity...
 
Mason Wheeler
Mason Wheeler
@El'Endia: Of course! How do you think God created the world? :P
(Obligatory comics reference: xkcd.com/224 )
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
@MasonWheeler guffaws Hmmm...I feel like there was an XKCD comic on that...
@MasonWheeler D'oh! Answered my "question" before I posted it!
 
Mason Wheeler
Mason Wheeler
heh
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
1:01 AM
Anyway, said programming language would probably be a lot like this:
 
Tyler Gillies
Tyler Gillies
@MasonWheeler oh damn you linked first. i get cred for the onebox though ;)
 
Mason Wheeler
Mason Wheeler
@Elendia: Heh. I've seen that before.
 
Tyler Gillies
Tyler Gillies
@MasonWheeler me also
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
@MasonWheeler @Tyler: I'm not surprised. :P
 
Mason Wheeler
Mason Wheeler
...and everything goes silent again
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
1:10 AM
chuckle Yeah...that happens... :P
 
Tyler Gillies
Tyler Gillies
i worship satan
(not really but thought that might stir up conversation)
 
Mason Wheeler
Mason Wheeler
umm... yeah. Let's not try to stir up conversation that way, please?
 
Tyler Gillies
Tyler Gillies
ok heh
 
Mason Wheeler
Mason Wheeler
From Area51's stats on Christianity.SE:
Every site needs a solid group of core users to assist in moderating the site. We recommend:

150 users with 200+ rep (currently 95 users with 200+ rep)
10 users with 2,000+ rep (currently 7 users with 2,000+ rep)
5 users with 3,000+ rep (currently 0 users with 3,000+ rep)
So go find a bunch of good questions and answers and vote them up! :P
 
Tyler Gillies
Tyler Gillies
ok
 
Mason Wheeler
Mason Wheeler
1:17 AM
(Although, if the recommendation is what we're supposed to have after 90 days, we're well ahead of the curve.)
 
Tyler Gillies
Tyler Gillies
all the good questions get closed though ;)
 
Mason Wheeler
Mason Wheeler
if they're truly good, then vote to reopen them
Got anything specific in mind?
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
@MasonWheeler Christianity seems to be consistently ahead the curve in terms of participation. :P :D
 
Mason Wheeler
Mason Wheeler
Well, we do represent a tradition that's always been good at getting organized. :)
 
Tyler Gillies
Tyler Gillies
@MasonWheeler i was mostly joking
ok vote limited reached
i'll try to max out every day
 
Mason Wheeler
Mason Wheeler
1:21 AM
cool
 
TehShrike
TehShrike
I got here via christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1977/… which got re-tweeted by the main SE account
 
Mason Wheeler
Mason Wheeler
And what did you think of the question? I've always kinda wondered what criteria it uses to decide which questions to broadcast.
 
TehShrike
TehShrike
Well, I think it would be better if my comment on the question were addressed
 
Mason Wheeler
Mason Wheeler
checking...
 
TehShrike
TehShrike
Obviously the term "welfare" leads very directly toward government programs, as opposed to other charity
But they didn't specify government welfare.
And the top answers didn't assume it.
Which is reasonable, but I still think it should disambiguated.
 
Mason Wheeler
Mason Wheeler
1:32 AM
yeah
 
TehShrike
TehShrike
And then I clicked on christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/17/… and was impressed at the quality of the answers
Also, I'm curious what would make this question acceptable: christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/47/…
Would "how did the book order of the various major Bible translations get decided?" be acceptable?
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
@TehShrike Well, as far as I know, pretty much all major Bible translations have the same book order...
 
Mason Wheeler
Mason Wheeler
Not sure. This SE is still pretty new, and we're still kind of hammering out the community standards. It's not really consistent yet.
 
TehShrike
TehShrike
Also, you're not the first person to misspell my nick (by a long shot), but I think you managed to find a new variation! :-P
 
Tyler Gillies
Tyler Gillies
the best way to determine if something is acceptable is to ask it, then the community can use it as a real example of if it is acceptable or not, instead of just speculation. Thats my opinion however
 
TehShrike
TehShrike
1:38 AM
This question is a bit of a mess: the title references Sola Scriptura, but they seem to be asking whether or not people are qualified to interpret the Bible themselves? Or something? christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2/…
 
Tyler Gillies
Tyler Gillies
@TehShrike when you say "interpret the bible" do you mean the original text, or interpreting someone's translation?
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
@TehShrike Indeed, other people have raised that point.
 
Mason Wheeler
Mason Wheeler
Part of the problem with that one seems to be agreeing on exactly what "Sola Scriptura" means in this context.
 
TehShrike
TehShrike
@TylerGillies Based on that question, I think they were talking about the original text
@MasonWheeler Definitely
I think the asker misunderstood what it was, and thought it had something to do with people having the ability to comprehend the words on their own, as opposed to it being a philosophy stating that the Bible is the only source of truth
 
Tyler Gillies
Tyler Gillies
@TehShrike i was trying to figure out the country of origin for the flag on your avatar. I then realized it was for Duff beer. LOL
 
Mason Wheeler
Mason Wheeler
1:46 AM
Yeah. Part of it is that Peter is very steeped in Catholic tradition, whereas most of the rest of us aren't, and so he tends to bring a bunch of different baseline perspectives and presuppositions to the table.
 
 
1 hour later…
wax eagle
wax eagle
2:49 AM
1
A: What happens to people who have never heard about Jesus?

SanI think it's important to first note that the bible teaches that everyone is convicted of sin, righteousness and judgement by the Holy Spirit (John 16:8). In other words, people have within them an intrinsic sense of whats right, wrong, and the fact that there is some ultimate accountability for...

its sad that this answer doesn't have more votes. Its the "right" one :)
 
 
4 hours later…
dancek
dancek
7:07 AM
I'll just mention my userscript for generating markdown from BibleGateway again (I think not many have seen it, but it's useful for many)
 
 
6 hours later…
C. Ross
C. Ross
12:46 PM
Morning all
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
morning, you get the holiday today?
 
C. Ross
C. Ross
@waxeagle yes, but I never take it today
I get more work done on holidays
 
Caleb
Caleb
@waxeagle Holiday?
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
@CRoss makes sense, lots of things you can do when none of corporate is around...
@Caleb its Labor Day.
in the US
 
Caleb
Caleb
@waxeagle Oh. Right.
We just finished up Ramadan and Şeker Bayramı here :)
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
12:55 PM
@Caleb cool. NPR has actually run a fair amount of stories on Ramadan this past month. I was kind of impressed. I guess with all of the tumult in that part of the world more folks are aware of it.
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
1:39 PM
0
Q: What do you believe in and what is official?

baneAlmost every Christian I met believes in a different thing. Some of them say that God is just "energy within us" (although, to me being a enthusiast physicist, that made no sense at all. Some go as far as believing that every word of The Bible is absolutely and undisputably true (and that made ev...

god church belief
 
C. Ross
C. Ross
@waxeagle not sure that's answerable ...
without making a huge list of confessions and creeds, and then talking about the people who don't hold to any of them
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
@CRoss exactly.
 
C. Ross
C. Ross
hmmmm, maybe that'd be an acceptable answer. Give a few examples of creeds, then just say others disagree ...
 
Caleb
Caleb
@waxeagle: It looks like you assembled your post with copy/pastes and got them in the wrong order. I just edited it but if I was off track please revert :)
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
@Caleb that works for me.
@CRoss I vtc'd it. and I'm in the process on a comment for why
 
Caleb
Caleb
1:48 PM
@CRoss I think that's the broadest scope question I've seen here yet :)
 
Caleb
Caleb
2:07 PM
So far in the last ten minutes we have the dictionary and German to English translation cited as revealing something about Christianity.
Good question just in:
1
Q: Why has God punished every human for one persons mistake

Jonathan. God expelled Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden because Eve ate the Apple God told her not to. And this let evil into the world? If God loves every one, so much so that he let his son die for us, why has every subsequent human and animal had to live and deal with the result of evil. How does ...

nature-of-god
Talk about a common mis-perception....
 
mxyzplk
mxyzplk
Hey guys. Rather that continue to argue in comments, I wanted to come here and discuss what's going on with question closing.
 
C. Ross
C. Ross
@mxyzplk k, what's up? I haven't seen any of your comments
 
mxyzplk
mxyzplk
I guess I don't understand the reasoning behind many of the closes and think that what it's going to leave is the kinds of pointless,trivial questions we see littering the site already.
Hey man!
There are two main reasons I disagree with, but I think there's an an underlying philosophy problem.
6
Q: Add a new close reason

RCIXThis question got closed as "off-topic" recently. The reason it was closed is because it's a question asking for pastoral advice, and if not that it's probably a duplicate. In any case, if we're going to close questions for that, oughtn't we have a close reason specifically for it?

feature-request close-reasons
and
12
Q: Is "Some Christians say..." a valid justification for a question?

Mark TrappWe've had a few questions lately that present an argument from a vague or ill defined set of "Christians" and ask for reasons why said group believes what they do: Why do some Christians believe it is moral to be a homosexual? Atheism is the default position. Isn't the burden of proof on th...

discussion on-topic-definition
Though both having some good reasons behind them, are being terrifically misapplied IMO.
We had a big struggle with RPG.SE understanding that enough subjectivity needed to be allowed to discuss "real" issues and not just stupid rules trivia.
The same thing is happening here.
1. If someone is just looking for personal guidance, then a "pastoral" reason might be legit, but really it's just "too localized" based on the Venn diagram pic.
It's being applied to "having a vested interest in the question."
@Caleb you can join us here too
Anyway, a lot of the question closes are being applied unevenly and to IMO many of the questions with the most promise, the questions people actually want answers to, not skeptic troll nonsense or creationist blathering.
 
Caleb
Caleb
2:28 PM
 
mxyzplk
mxyzplk
@waxeagle for example, is broad in scope, but it's a legit question from an outsider - "Hey who does set the rules for christians?" There's a simple answer that people will find helpful in the future, which is that every sect/person sets their own rules, ideally loosely based on the Bible but there's no trademark owner of "Christian" so it can be anything. Does anyone not understand that people do find that confusing and an answer to it would help add value?
 
C. Ross
C. Ross
@mxyzplk my problem with that question wasn't that it was off topic, but that it was ranty. I think it needed heavy edits...
 
mxyzplk
mxyzplk
I know the close rate on the very small percentage of interesting questions makes me reluctant to uptake the site. If it really is going to be expert for experts, then let's promote that - because it's hard to get an actual decent answer so far.
@CRoss Ranty in that it's personal to the guy? How is it more ranty than any question that personally impacts anyone, like the top rated parenting.se q I link?
It's one thing to be closing rampant trolls and clear violations of general SE principles. But it's probably too early in the site to be making up a raft of new close reasons to drive folks away with.
 
C. Ross
C. Ross
@mxyzplk he has his preferred answer in the question. He is aggressively stating that any answer to the contrary is wrong.
 
mxyzplk
mxyzplk
the format fixes that.
wait what answer
which question are you talking about?
Oh, sure, he gets some answers he doesn't want to hear, but they are getting upvoted etc. just fine. One of the beauties about SE is what the OP says doesn't totally go...
I have answers I like and don't like presupposed to christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1565/…
If this isn't going to be a big Yahoo! answers collection of trivia, then you want more questions like christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1565/…. I asked it because it's a question I have, but also because it is one of the ways to promote better questions (@CRoss like the high rated q's you and I have on RPG.SE)
But "it's personal advice" and "oh you can't identify the exact Christians that say it" can and are turning into universal close rules that apply to way too much
 
C. Ross
C. Ross
2:39 PM
@mxyzplk thinks
 
Caleb
Caleb
@mxyzplk So trolls are only spout nonsense but creationist blather? Sir, I'm happy to join you for a conversation about the issue at hand but please be respectful.
@mxyzplk I think part of the issue here is that "Having a vested interest" means something different in the context of religion than it does in a programming problem. Christians believe that these issues have eternal consequences. When the wires get really crossed, a secular forum like this is not the place to air out the issues, that person really needs to be moved into a different context.
 
mxyzplk
mxyzplk
SO was founded on asking a question about a problem you have. It's what makes the format strong.
Do you seriously contend that this site should NOT be about that? It should just be about problems "in the abstract"?
Of course, most of the beliefs discussed here do have everlasting implications... But are you only welcome to talk about them if you just don't care much?
 
Caleb
Caleb
@mxyzplk And what makes it a really hard fit for religion. We're doing our best.
 
mxyzplk
mxyzplk
This isn't skeptics.SE.
 
Caleb
Caleb
No of course it should be about real issues, but the problem with the question you are bringing up is NOT that it was off-topic!
The question buried in there is very much on topic. If you think you can edit it down to that with only the background needed to ask the question then go for it.
 
mxyzplk
mxyzplk
2:47 PM
What makes asking a question about how I should configure Apache to keep hackers out on server fault not the exact equivalent of what you mean by "pastoral advice?"
OK, so as long as it has less personal backgorund it would be OK?
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
@mxyzplk no one's going to kill themselves over that answer.
 
C. Ross
C. Ross
@mxyzplk if it had less preconceived notions it would be ok.
 
mxyzplk
mxyzplk
It's not just this question, btw. I feel like the new close reasons being come up with are immediately getting expanded too far. I've cast a lot of close votes here myself, but there are some that are inexplicable to me.
Well so are we back to "can't have a personal stake in it?"
 
Caleb
Caleb
Think about the difference between "What do Catholics believe about daemon possession" and "help I'm being pestered by daemons, make them go away". Both revolve around the same issue, but one we can deal with in SE's format and the other we really SHOULD NOT BE.
 
mxyzplk
mxyzplk
We/the OP could edit out some of the background, would that make them less invested in it? @waxeagle is it the investment that's bad? Again that makes this skeptics.se. "Oh talk about stuff, but don't be you know, too attached to it."
How about "People in my church are telling me that demons are all over the place, making the meat in my icebox rot, is this a Biblical belief or what?"
You see, you keep going back and forth on the real answer here.
Is it OT because it is actually relevant to a person?
Iwould say sure, it's OT if it is ONLY relevant to that person, by clear SE precedent (see the Venn diagram - all people/allchristians/just you)
But I don't believe there is any precedent for "it's OT if it's important to you."
What are you worried about?
 
Caleb
Caleb
2:52 PM
If your really passionate about dealing with things we cannot on SE join a good ministry team at a church, there is more of these kinds of things to deal with than people to deal with them. SE just isn't the format to deal with people who are threatening suicide as the result of their experiences and secular QnA isn't the format to deal with that.
 
mxyzplk
mxyzplk
If someone gets bad technical advice on SO they could kill someone, you realize that... Their code could open that bridge at the wrong time and bang.
That is a false standard not relevant to other SEs and not relevant here.
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
@mxyzplk SE doesn't give legal advice though does it? or medical advice?
pastoral advice is protected under the same legal protections that medical and legal advice in the US is it not?
 
mxyzplk
mxyzplk
He is not asking "help, I'm contemplating suicide." He was saying that in the past, the difficulty of the position he is in has made him contemplate suicide, and I think it's OK for people to mention the emotions and life stuff that Christianity touches upon, because that might be considerd to be, you know, important
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
@mxyzplk fair enough.
 
mxyzplk
mxyzplk
@waxeagle No, not different from 'techical advice'
If someone from SE has said "legally, people should not offer other people personal advice about religious matters for legal liability reasons," fine. But they haven't, that is just being made up in people's brains.
people could take answers from any SE, apply it to some part of their lives, and get poisoned/tweak their kids' fragile psyche/drop a bridge on someone. We think we're more profound and important, but we're not.
look at the list of SEs.
I guarantee you that at least here in Austin you get a lot more holy wars over parenting topics than all the denominations' theology put together.
I would counsel asking SE before making decisions based on pseudolegal stuff. Weh ad a similar thing on RPG.se where we were worried about copyright and cut and paste and stuff, started considering all kinds of things, till SE said "hey actually it's worse legally to consider those things, please just move along."
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
3:06 PM
@mxyzplk much less concerned with legal implications than people actually getting to the right place for help...
 
mxyzplk
mxyzplk
And so closing their question is likely to do that?
Again, if someone is just askign for personal specific help, fine.
I have edited the question under discussion, it needs peer review - does that make it more acceptable, or does more of the individual's background need to be removed to make it good?
 
Caleb
Caleb
I approved your edit and I think it's one helpful step, but I think it needs more.
The part you removed provides one clue. The OP went on with a whole "testimony" section, then asked a question that the specifically said wasn't related to that story.
In light of that, I think it could be edited down to just that question without the story.
 
mxyzplk
mxyzplk
3:26 PM
What does that serve? All questions should be denuded of all context why?
Christianity is only about "the facts?" Because I think that's a different scope than what most people understand...
Good questions DO have context.
Stack Overflow Blog: Good Subjective, Bad Subjective
Posted by Robert Cartaino on September 29th, 2010

Stack Exchange is about questions with objective, factual answers. We’ve been crystal clear about this for as long as I can remember, even back to the earliest, pre-beta days of Stack Overflow. It’s right there in the standard Stack Exchange FAQ:

What kind of questions should I not ask here?

Avoid asking questions that are subjective, argumentative, or require extended discussion. This is not a discussion board, this is a place for questions that can be answered!

Thus, questions that are not answerable — discussions, debates, opinions — should be closed as subjective. It seems simple enough: Fact good; opinion and discussion bad. But why? …

please read.
the way to get to good subjective is NOT to reject personal experience. it is to EMBRACE it. It is the specific differentiating factor in the "Back it up" principle in this blog post.
The goal should not be for this SE to be "objective." The goal should be for it to be "good subjective."
Because the former goal reduces to something not all that useful.
It's just for historical facts and "what's that verse again."
 
Shog9
Shog9
4:23 PM
Two people edit that question, and neither one fixes "aloud"...
@mxyzplk: you make some good arguments, but... What do you think the asker is looking for in an answer?
 
 
2 hours later…
Caleb
Caleb
6:06 PM
@dancek: Here's one reason I asked that last question.
 
dancek
dancek
@Caleb yeah, I approve of the question itself. It's a good one.
 
Caleb
Caleb
The title was just a hook :)
 
dancek
dancek
Yeah, I guess it's ok though it's very misleading in itself.
 
Caleb
Caleb
@dancek Misleading to ask a question from a standpoint of a common mis-perception?
(I might have to examine a lot of my questions if that's the case.)
 
dancek
dancek
@Caleb I mean the title is misleading. It contains an assumption of the fruit being an apple, one the question doesn't. The question is not misleading, I'm not caliming that.
 
Caleb
Caleb
6:13 PM
@dancek Ok I see what you mean.
I knew when I wrote it it might get edited out by some edit nazi (like myself) and I wouldn't be offended, but for the sake of it being a common mis-perception, searched phrase, and attention getter I would argue it can stay unless we plan on asking "Was the fruit an apple?". I've been expecting that to show up from somebody or other since day one.
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
@Caleb I was a bit "What is Caleb thinking" but then read your question and was cool with it
 
Caleb
Caleb
6:44 PM
@dancek: If something is a "center" on a timeline, wouldn't that imply that some things came before as well as some after?
 
dancek
dancek
@Caleb I don't understand
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
@Caleb jinx you owe me a coke...
 
Caleb
Caleb
@dancek I thinking about your answer to my last question. Christ's coming was specifically foretold in Gen 3:15. How do all the people who put their faith in him as a promised sacrifice not count as Christians. Wasn't he the central point for them too?
 
dancek
dancek
@Caleb oh, I didn't mean central point theologically but as just, well, the main thing.
@Caleb I can see the point in answering that Christianity has always been around, but I also think saying Christianity begun in 33AD or something makes sense.
 
Caleb
Caleb
@dancek God's plan of redemption though his Son wasn't the main thing for OT folks?
 
dancek
dancek
6:50 PM
I know a lot of people that lived before were saved by Christ, per Heb 11. But that wasn't what the Christianity we speak of today means.
 
Caleb
Caleb
@dancek The primary context that this definition becomes problematic in is accusations leveled against Christians that their understanding of God and sin and all those things only started up late in the game anyway, so it must be fabricated.
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
@dancek I'm with Caleb though. Although I'm not sure the term "Christianity" actually truly has much value :P
 
dancek
dancek
@Caleb never thought of that, never heard those accusations...
 
Caleb
Caleb
@waxeagle I don't either -- it's particularly troublesome on this site -- but somehow we have to be able to point people to the fact that while it might have gotten a NAME and maybe even changed shapes a little as far as practices, our understanding of God, sin, and the general way the world works didn't change.
 
dancek
dancek
@Caleb that certainly is a good point. Of course God's grand plan of salvation begun right after the Fall, and it's been the same plan to this day.
 
Caleb
Caleb
6:53 PM
@dancek I've seen it from three different people on the site just today :) Hence the question.
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
@Caleb right. "Christianity" is just the true continuation of OT Judaism. Its the fulfillment of God's promises from as early as the first part of Genesis...
only needs 4 more valid flags to get deputy...
 
Caleb
Caleb
@dancek I'm not saying your answer is strictly wrong because the church as we know it today DID get started then, the covenant changing from a people group to a belief group is pretty significant and certainly foundational to modern Christianity but I think at least a nod should be given to the fact that Christ wasn't a latecomer to history and our ideas about God, sin and how those were going to be reconciled have ALWAYS been centered on Christ, not just since he came but before he came.
@waxeagle What HAVE you been flagging? Do comment flags count?
 
dancek
dancek
@Caleb "those bad posts you never saw because I flagged them" :P
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
@Caleb Mostly the garbage. ..I'm not sure if comment flags count. I usually drop one when I see a fairly well resolved group of comments...
I fairly routinely go through the front page and click on the timestamp for anyone with less than 50 or 150 rep...
you can find a lot "not and answer" or "very low quality" flags there...
 
dancek
dancek
@Caleb I'm editing right now. Makes me feel a little dumb not to think of that myself, but it certainly makes sense. I'm not sure how good biblical support I can give here, though.
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
7:02 PM
@dancek Romans 5 is a good place.
sin entering and being defeated by 1 man.
 
dancek
dancek
@waxeagle that, and Hebrews 11, and John 1... but I'm having a hard time really making a solid argument. Well, I'll search some more and then post.
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
@dancek its a challenging argument, because it requires you to look at the entire OT as a look towards Christ, you can pick out 2-3 elements (I would take Adam, Isaac and Moses if you want 3 quick ones and use them as people who point Christ).
 
C. Ross
C. Ross
7:22 PM
I'd add Noah and David to that
but keep in mind that this is types and shadows
 
Feeds
Feeds
 
dancek
dancek
The edited answer is finished, I did what I could while keeping it short. It could be better, of course :)
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
@dancek looks good. I think you nailed the important part.
 
dancek
dancek
@waxeagle thanks
 
Caleb
Caleb
+1
 
Caleb
Caleb
7:43 PM
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
@Caleb yeah...
 
CiscoIPPhone
CiscoIPPhone
I don't understand it.
I don't know what "the credulous will be deafened by the roar (how cruel is that?)" means
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
@CiscoIPPhone I think its trying to say that beyond reasonable doubt is hard enough to obtain from 12 people that trying to obtain it from 6+ billion is impossible. This doesn't make sense to me
@CiscoIPPhone basically those who do believe would be overwhelmed by the doubters in their belief. Again the answer doesn't really make sense...
 
Caleb
Caleb
Hmmm, I read a little more figurative speech in there....
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
@Caleb oh, i didn't get that...
but subtlety is often lost on me :)
 
dancek
dancek
8:01 PM
0
Q: Crucifixion -- torture stake or cross?

dancekThe Jehovah's Witnesses state that Jesus was not nailed on a cross, but on a torture stake. The New World Translation of the Bible is phrased accordingly. For example: Matthew 10:38 (NWT) And whoever does not accept his torture stake and follow after me is not worthy of me. (All the other...

crucifixion jehovah-witness
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
just post the link on its own line
 
dancek
dancek
@waxeagle lol
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
@dancek man editing chat is nice, I feel very weird on FB or gmail chat when I can't edit...
@dancek This might end up having to be 2 questions. 1 asking why JW's believe in torture stake. and 2 asking whether there is historical evidence that it was a cross. I don't know if its valid as one q. I want it to be, but I'm not sure.
 
Caleb
Caleb
@dancek I've never heard of a torture stake so I edited my sub-question into yours :)
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
@Caleb my understanding is that they adopted the torture stake because the cross was a dishonor (I feel like that was part of the point though)
 
Caleb
Caleb
8:08 PM
"They" being JW's or ____?
And I agree on the dishonor bit, that was the whole idea. (I need to add that to the "confound the wise" question.)
Dispute about Jesus' execution method
Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus died on an upright pole: "The Gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John use the Greek word stau·ros′ when referring to the instrument of execution on which Jesus died. (; ; ) The word stau·ros′ refers to an upright pole, stake, or post." In their own translation of the Bible, they use the phrase "torture stake" to translate the Greek word σταυρός (stauros) in the three passages cited: [http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/mt/chapter_027.htm?bk=mt;chp=27;vs=40;citation#bk40 Matthew 27:40,] [http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/mr/chapter_015.htm?bk=...
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
@Caleb I was about to link this :)
@Caleb JWs
 
Caleb
Caleb
You've got to give me something since you're apparently taking all the flags :)
@waxeagle Do you have some kind of reference for that? That could be the start of an answer ;)
 
dancek
dancek
I edited in the picture. I was looking at the article before either of you! ;)
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
@Caleb :P
@Caleb will see what I can come up with. That is hearsay from a JW in Ecuador, so I have no clue if a ref exists...
 
Caleb
Caleb
If 10 upvotes gets you a good answer badge does -10 get you a bad answer badge?
3
 
dancek
dancek
8:18 PM
@Caleb When it's about the decalogue we should award the -10 Commandments badge
 
Fabian
Fabian
@Caleb It's pretty rare to have an answer that downvoted without it being "not an answer" and deleted.
 
dancek
dancek
8:44 PM
christianity.stackexchange.com/review doesn't work for me, hasn't since the public beta started. Is this normal?
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
@dancek whats your rep?
 
dancek
dancek
@waxeagle ~1900
 
Fabian
Fabian
@waxeagle review doesn't have any rep requirements
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
@Fabian gotcha, it just shows up at some rep level?
 
Fabian
Fabian
@waxeagle No, it shows up for everyone
 
dancek
dancek
8:48 PM
So it's working for you all?
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
@Fabian my 101 rep parenting account says otherwise :P. I can get to parenting.stackexchange.com/review, but it doesn't show in the top bar.
@dancek yes
 
Fabian
Fabian
@waxeagle Hmm, you're right. But then the bar is pretty low, as I see it on sites where I only have about 300 rep
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
@Fabian gotcha.
@dancek what are you expecting to see? what are you seeing?
 
dancek
dancek
@waxeagle I'm seeing "Page not found". I sent email to SE about it.
 
Fabian
Fabian
@dancek I'm pretty sure that shouldn't happen
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
8:57 PM
@dancek good plan.
 
Caleb
Caleb
9:09 PM
 
dancek
dancek
@Caleb your edits are good, and the question itself is an important one. Hard to anticipate what will happen there, but I'm willing to take the chance :)
 
Caleb
Caleb
I just tried to fix "begun on" to "began at" but typo-ed it as "begat", which made @dancek's answer read: "Christianity begat the fall of man"! The 5 min grace period on second-edits is a beautiful thing!
 
dancek
dancek
@Caleb :D
Thanks for editing though, I hate to have such mistakes in my text.
 
JustinY
JustinY
9:34 PM
4
Q: How has God destroyed the wisdom of the wise?

JustinYIn 1 Corinthians 1:19, Paul writes: 1 Corinthians 1:19-20 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdo...

god science
Any thoughts on improving that question? It seems to be too broad.
 
Caleb
Caleb
Hey Justin. I just mentioned something I've intended to write up for that question in chat a little while back.
I didn't think it was too broad actually, only that a good answer would take some time to think out.
I think the "a book has been written on the subject" line in the faq is going to have to go for this site :)
 
JustinY
JustinY
Thanks. I'm looking forward to the answer.
 
Caleb
Caleb
0
Q: On what point have not barrels of ink been poored out?

CalebInsofar as it is to pertain to Christianity, I think the standard wording of the SE FAQ is unreasonable. There have been libraries of books written about every angle of the subject matter at hand. If you can imagine an entire book that answers your question, you’re asking too much. Any ques...

discussion scope
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
@Caleb: [chuckle] I like how you pretty much always have some wordplay in your Meta posts... :P
 
Caleb
Caleb
Hey guys, I really think this answer could use more than my one measly +1:
1
A: What is the essence of sin?

Jonathon ByrdThe law was given so that we might know what sin was. 1 John 3:4 (NIV) Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. Romans 5:13 (NIV) To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. ...

 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
9:51 PM
Hmmm...you're right. However, I can't upvote it yet... :P
 
Caleb
Caleb
When did you run out today? Over breakfast?
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
Um...between 1 and 1.5 hours ago, methinks? :P
I had like 5 or 6 votes left at that point; all the rest had been used up that early early morning.
Mmmpgh...I want to VTC this question:
0
Q: Are faith and proof mutually exclusive?

hippietrailMust something be unprovable to permit faith in it? Is it possible to have faith in something which is certain provable fact? If something is proven beyond any doubt can you still have faith in it? How?

faith
Because it can be answered with a link to dictionary.com and a sentence pointing out that what he's describing is the definition of faith...
Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a VTC option that's for "This question can be answered by Googling."...
@Caleb: What in the world is "fith"? :P
 
Caleb
Caleb
10:07 PM
@ElendiaStarman Fixed
My typing/spelling has been pretty bad all day.
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
[thumbs up] :D

Lol.
 
Caleb
Caleb
Just before you came in here I seriously butchered something of dancek's.
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
@Caleb I read about that. Didn't get to see the error itself though... :P
 
Caleb
Caleb
10:24 PM
I cant' wait to see what some of the troll pundits do with my latest few posts. Something to look forward to when I wake up (except I'm out of coffee, that doesn't bode well).
 

« first day (12 days earlier)      last day (4618 days later) »