It's apparently quite a popular story to "disprove doubting Atheists" regarding the miraculous crossing of the Red Sea by the Israelites during the Exodus of the Hebrew bible that in the late 1970s, archaeological evidence was found at the bottom of the Red Sea of a "chariot army."
I first saw i...
@TRiG @El'endiaStarman I know why. Because the topic is sex. People get excited.
> I have noticed after almost every question and answer on this site someone comments to moderate or corral what they are saying. 'This site is a little different' than others, we get it. I'm not sure that this format suits discussion on Christianity all that well. In any case I won't be posting again. Source
I've been trying for a while now to figure out how to explain the difference without pushing them further away, but I can't seem to get it right.
I replied:
@viatori This site is for the academic study of Christianity, the religion, not for personal study for the Christian, the dedicated believer. The site is not meant nor designed to handle question types like this. Instead, it's primary goal is to catalog the beliefs and history of all christianity, past and present. You see, this is a study of description, not proscription. I personally think this question is too broad and a little to opinion based. — fredsbend22 mins ago
Then I get in return:
Well, let me again apologize for bothering the 'academics'. I will be on my way. — viatori17 mins ago
Did my comment come off as rude or unhelpful? Maybe it's too wordy.
What if it were:
> The site is not meant nor designed to handle question types like this. Instead, it's primary goal is to catalog the beliefs and history of all christianity, past and present. This is an academic study of description, not a personal study of proscription (i.e. what to believe, what to do).
@fredsbend Perhaps the last sentence could be 'Instead of attempting to definitively say what is "true" or "right," we describe what different Christians believe to be true or right.'
@fredsbend I think some people may be offended by the use of the word "academic" because it could imply something like "only intelligent people are welcome" - of course that is not what you mean, but some might misread is that way
@fredsbend "Scholarly" is probably better, but may still put some people off. That is not necessarily a bad thing though if they really are interested only in what you describe as "personal study of proscription".
I support linking to the "We can't the truth" meta post as well... For a lot of new users, they don't necessarily comprehend how such history there is behind the debate of doctrines and naively think there is a clear "right" answer that no one could disagree with.
@ThaddeusB I think therein lies the problem. Some people have been Christians for decades and don't even realize that. It's like a culture shock to realize that differing theologies are equally legitimate if you take their assumptions.
I really like the guy's commentary. And that he's doing it while racing. That track looks pretty fun too.
I find it hilarious how he'll just be talking about the game fairly normally and then he messes up and interjects with complaints, then goes right back to commentating.
At around 10 minutes, he ends up playing a track he's played before. It's incredible to see how much smoother and precise he is because of that memory.
The last one had me crack up a couple times. It was a short track with a couple surprises, so he's narrating..."yeah, some servers hAVE DIFFERENT SKIns that make everything look different" because at that point, he encountered an unexpectedly sharp bend in the track.
The Upper Room
The Upper Room