« first day (1440 days earlier)      last day (3189 days later) » 

1:35 AM
@ThaddeusB Gah! You keep making me choose between keeping my post near the top and approving your edits! What a dilemma! :)
 
2:03 AM
@Nathaniel :) Your fault for suggesting we work on our tagging... making some noticable progress - when you posted 40th place had 82 questions, now its 85 ... 3/118ths of the way to 200 :) is shooting up, will likely enter the top 40 soon (Bible book tags seem to be much more commonly missed than other types)
 
@ThaddeusB Yes, good point. It's a shame there isn't an easy way to prevent mere tag edits from taking over the front page, but that's the way it is.
 
@Nathaniel agreed. In fairness, at least half of my edits had already been bumped by new (usually low quality, now deleted) answers
 
@ThaddeusB Yes, I noticed that; that's a great approach to take.
 
 
1 hour later…
3:20 AM
@Nathaniel "replace holy ghost with pneumatology; it ought to be a synonym" -> it has been suggested but requires 4 2500+ users to approve it (has 1 so far)
 
@ThaddeusB Yep, I'm the one.
 
Perhaps @El'endiaStarman can simply approve it for us :)
 
That would be the faster approach
 
3:36 AM
@TRiG I remember that we posted google search suggestions once before in here. This one seemed interesting:
user image
7
 
4:29 AM
@ThaddeusB For once it looks like that's not a mod supervote.
 
 
2 hours later…
6:23 AM
@fredsbend Pfft!
 
 
7 hours later…
1:51 PM
This one's for @Peter:
 
 
2 hours later…
3:36 PM
0
Q: Are questions about Jehova's Witnesses on topic?

brandaemonWhile Jesus Christ appears to be an important part of JW doctrine, I'm not sure Jehova's Witnesses fit the general description of a Christian denomination (assuming Christian implies the doctrinal teachings point to Jesus as a Savior; JW doctrine as far as I know considers him more of a prophet?)...

 
 
3 hours later…
6:54 PM
@Mr.Bultitude The question is asking what the biblical basis is for testing anyone who claims to be a prophet.
He gives an example: There's a guy healing and such, and claims that God says that they should just believe that the healings are miracles and not test what's happened, or they would then suffer those very diseases.
Essentially, this person is making a prophetic claim. He's preforming miracles, and making prophecy, but then goes on to say that you can't test him, just believe it.
The question is asking for the biblical basis that we should test him.
The Bible actually has a lot to say on that, so I take it a step further and note that the Bible doesn't just plainly state "Yep, test the prophets." It also gives you various ways to do that.
@ThaddeusB I really would like to read that answer. It sounds like a good laugh.
@El'endiaStarman A little help. wink ^^^
@Mr.Bultitude I go the lake one time. Once! And I pay with this.
One ounce of pleasure has given me several pounds of pain.
Such is life.
 
7:12 PM
@fredsbend yep, it was pretty funny. I should have saved it, but didn't think about it at the time. After all the guy did give me permission to reuse it in any manner as long as he is credited. :) ... Don't worry about missing the suggested edits - I'm sure I'll have many many more before I get to 2K rep.
 
0
Q: Defining the scope of the "judgement" tag

ThaddeusBDespite its frequent use, the judgment is currently without a tag-wiki description. It is also a rather ambiguous term and has been used on several different kinds of questions, including: God's judgment of individuals or groups of people within Biblical history (Example) God's judgment of peo...

 
7:28 PM
@El'endiaStarman Looks like the synonym went through (I assume it hit 4 upvotes since it was at 3 earlier today). still shows as having 88 questions - it should have gone up to 98 or so (there were 13 holy-ghost Qs and a few had both). Does it take the system such time retag/count the tags them (like as a batch process or something)?
 
@ThaddeusB it's showing 98 now
At least, the tag link in your comment shows 98. The question of when the general list of tags will update is still pending.
 
8:20 PM
@fredsbend Well, you just sniped out an edit from under me, so you've got that. :P
@fredsbend Here.
Hurry up and get enough rep to see deleted answers!
 
8:48 PM
@El'endiaStarman Thanks.
 
@El'endiaStarman One day, I'll get there.
@El'endiaStarman @ThaddeusB I especially like the part about angels being tetraploid humans, and nephilim being triploid and sterile.
 
@TRiG [waves hand dismissively] Too late now. If you REALLY want that attribution though, it's [points] up there.
 
How things got that way is beyond me.
 
@fredsbend Okay. I wasn't going to read it, but now I have to.
 
8:52 PM
However, my understanding of polyploidy conditions is that they are usually fatal for animals, but not plants.
Polyploid cells and organisms are those containing more than two paired (homologous) sets of chromosomes. Most species whose cells have nuclei (Eukaryotes) are diploid, meaning they have two sets of chromosomes—one set inherited from each parent. However, polyploidy is found in some organisms and is especially common in plants. In addition, polyploidy occurs in some tissues of animals that are otherwise diploid, such as human muscle tissues. This is known as endopolyploidy. Species whose cells do not have nuclei, that is, Prokaryotes, may be polyploid organisms, as seen in the large bacteri...
Wikipedia article section on humans says triploid humans exist but they almost always die at birth or miscarry.
 
9:19 PM
@bruisedreed You said, "Do you think that the person who said "the faith that saves is never alone" was contradicting Protestant theology?" But who actually said this? I see that it is commonly attributed to Martin Luther. But so far I have not been able to find any reference to where he said this. Wikipedia refers to it as "The Reformed formula," and provides a reference to R.C. Sproul, not to Luther.
Sola fide (Latin: by faith alone), also historically known as the doctrine of justification by faith alone, is a Christian theological doctrine that distinguishes most Protestant denominations from Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, and some in the Restoration Movement. The doctrine of sola fide or "by faith alone" asserts God's pardon for guilty sinners is granted to and received through faith alone, excluding all "works," All mankind, it is asserted, is fallen and sinful, under the curse of God, and incapable of saving itself from God's wrath and curse. But God, on the basis of the life, death...
 
9:51 PM
@LeeWoofenden Looks like that would be a good question. It might require a knowledge of German, French, or Latin to get it right though.
 
@Nathaniel Just to add some context: I was ridiculed here for not immediately recognizing its source as Martin Luther. But so far, it appears that its attribution to Martin Luther is an Internet legend.
 
@LeeWoofenden I saw the conversation; I had to look it up myself and I'm reformed. Either way though, it was said and is said by lots of people in reformed circles.
 
10:12 PM
@Nathaniel I understand that. But the question is whether it was stated by Martin Luther.
@Nathaniel Further, it is a self-contradictory statement. The whole doctrine of Sola fide is based on fancy ratiocination that is largely self-contradictory.
It stretches the meanings of words so far that in the end they become meaningless. And it certainly has nothing to do with what those words meant to the writers of the Bible.
 
10:27 PM
@fredsbend That is my understanding of the genetics as well. Additionally, even if polyploid humans could live to adulthood, that extra genes would not make them giants and especially would not give them supernatural powers :)
 
10:42 PM
@LeeWoofenden I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Within reformed doctrine there are some tough things, for sure, but to me that one is not one of them. Scary thought, right? :)
 
@Nathaniel The reason I wanted to know if Martin Luther actually said that is that I was planning to use it in the answer I am now composing about the Biblical basis against Sola fide. But since it's not at all clear that he said it, I'll leave it out.
 

« first day (1440 days earlier)      last day (3189 days later) »