« first day (1933 days earlier)      last day (2702 days later) » 

12:01 AM
@Joshua If I don't lie and the Nazis kill the children I haven't sinned.
So no, I don't accept that there are situations where avoiding sin is impossible.
 
12:26 AM
@Birdie What is it about lying that makes out always a sin? Divine Command Theory?
 
@Joshua Yep, more or less.
 
12:41 AM
@Birdie You entirely disregard consequentionalist ethics? I'm rather the opposite: I don't have much truck with philosophical purity. I'm happy to wear sweat-shop manufactured clothes, so long as I buy them from a charity shop rather than a department store.
 
@TRiG Depends what you mean by "entirely disregard", as outcome should be considered. But certainly the end never justifies evil means.
 
> Rahab lied and it was counted to her as righteousness!
I'm surprised I've never seen this argument before. I like it.
 
@TRiG Can you show me verses from the Bible that say that Rahab's 'lie' specifically was counted to her as righteousness?
 
@Birdie Never is a strong word. A word which breaks down for most people in all kinds of real-world situations.
@Birdie Presumably, the correct course of action in that case would be to stay silent?
 
@TRiG Or fight the Nazis, or some other course of action. But not lie. God doesn't present that to us as a valid action in the Bible.
 
12:46 AM
@Birdie So what constitutes lying? Any deception? What about if God both commands you not to lie and then commands you to be deceptive? And I'm aware the Rahab argument is a bit simplistic but when you boil it down Rehab had the choice to lie or give up the spies.
 
"No one who practices deceit shall dwell in my house; no one who utters lies shall continue before my eyes." - Psalm 101:7
Rahab's a good example of good intentions, bad actions, good outcome. God never says (that I'm aware of) that her lie was acceptable or good or counted as righteous, though.
I'm not aware of God commanding me anywhere to be deceptive.
 
@Joshua The Witnesses thread their way through this knot by redefining lying. Seriously. They say that a lie is "an untruth told to a duly constituted authority", so if you can convince yourself that the person to whom you're talking is not a duly constituted authority, you can say whatever you want to them. This ... bothers me.
^^ This is not an actual quote. It's off the top of my head. The actual wording is available in the Insight book under the heading "Lie".
 
Ultimately, God's Word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path, not arguments of consequence. I firmly believe that if I love and obey God then He will work out everything to my good, and will carry out His plan. Any attempt by me to circumvent His commands by some feeble human argument from consequence is a lack of reliance on the divine sovereignty of God, in much the way that Abraham's lie to Pharaoh about his relationship with Sarah was because he lacked faith in God's sovereignty
, and took matters into his own hands.
If you can show me from Scripture where it is commanded or permitted by God to lie in extreme circumstances based on expected outcome to prevent some other person's sin, then I will accept it as true. I am not aware of such a passage.
If God's plan is for the Nazis to kill the children, then no amount of my lying will prevent them from doing so. If His plan is that they will not, no amount of me telling them the truth or being silent will result in the deaths of those children.
 
1:19 AM
@Birdie And where does the Bible say that God plans for Nazis to kill children? I don't think that that sort of predestination is a regular belief of any branch of Christianity, even if some can tread a little close to it with absurd notions of "God's will for your life".
@Birdie Or, as a more succinct question, do you look both ways before you cross the road?
 
@TRiG "The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble." - Proverbs 16:4
"I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the Lord, who does all these things." - Isaiah 45:7
" The Lord of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand:

25 That I will break the Assyrian in my land, and upon my mountains tread him under foot: then shall his yoke depart from off them, and his burden depart from off their shoulders.

26 This is the purpose that is purposed upon the whole earth: and this is the hand that is stretched out upon all the nations.

27 For the Lord of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? and his hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?" - Isaiah 14:24-27
many other passages, I can continue if you like
"The Lord kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up." - 1 Samuel 2:6
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. “For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it." - Isaiah 55:8-11
Yes, but my looking does not prevent my death. I am commanded to not be foolish; not looking would be foolish. "The prudent sees danger and hides himself,
but the simple go on and suffer for it." - Proverbs 22:3
 
2:10 AM
23Now therefore behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the LORD has declared disaster for you.” 1 kings 22:23
9And if the prophet is deceived and speaks a word, I, the LORD, have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel. Ezekiel 14:9
 
@Joshua These don't permit me to lie.
 
Augustine and Calvin vs. Chrysostom and Hodge :)
 
@Birdie Are you called to a holiness greater than God's? Come now. It's clearly more complex than Divine Command Theory
 
@Joshua I'm called to the holiness that God commands in the Bible, no greater or lesser.
@Nathaniel Nice summary, fits more or less with my understanding of the positions on the matter.
Definitely going to side with Augustine and Calvin here though.
 
2:28 AM
That's the direction I've leaned as well, but Hodge's exception does have certain appeal. I need to read John Murray's Principles of Conduct, as I think he defends a similar approach.
 
@Birdie "48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." There is no other standard of holiness besides God himself for you to attain.
@Nathaniel I've seen it. It's a good Q&A. I'm firmly with Chrysostom :)
There are far too many occurrences in the Bible that if they happened today we would call objectively evil that are instead praised and celebrated. Our modern ethical model imposed on God's morality generally works. But that doesn't mean it's always correct
 
@Joshua That presumes that God is on the level of humans with regards to what He is permitted to do and not do. Being held to God's standard of perfection does not mean that the requirements to achieve that perfection are equivalent.
 
You can get the right numbers for a circle using basic circle using just 3.14 but start doing more complex things and suddenly its not quite right.
 
@Joshua Can you please reference these praised and celebrated occurrences?
 
Gideon, Sampson, Tamar, Jael killing a man in his sleep, David being an adultering murderer after God's own heart, Rahab lying there's more. Busy atm. Kids bedtime
 
2:49 AM
@Joshua None of those accounts praise the evil that they did, but merely record it (sometimes with explicit punishment and disapproval from God, sometimes without). E.g. David losing his first son. Rahab's lying was not praised or celebrated. Deborah praising Jael is not equivalent to God praising Jael. Sampson was not praised for his wickedness, but rather punished. Not sure where Tamar's actions are praised.
 
@Birdie I'm just saying a lot of "objectively evil" things happen and no one seems to bat an eye. They are about to stone Tamar (cause divine command) but when the truth is revealed Judah says "She is more righteous than I" but he of course isn't stoned. I'm just saying there is a completely different attitude to it all.
Like I said. The simplistic model works 99.9% of the time but when you really stress it it doesn't quite match up with reality (in this case ultimate reality of God)
 
@Joshua No one seems to bat an eye because "there is none righteous, no not one". You can't decide on the morality of an action purely on the reaction of the people observing it. There are many wicked things carried out by people in the Bible which aren't explicitly condemned in the same passage, even though they are clearly against the commandments of God. This doesn't mean that they are somehow OK.
 
Just because you can describe and reproduce a result (tell a lie and sin) 10/10 times doesn't explain why its a sin. It doesn't mean you've discovered what makes the lie a sin. It's just means you usually sin when you lie.
 
@Joshua What do you define sin as?
 
@Birdie Anything that violates the character of God. Sin is corruption of holiness, falling short. All sin can be traced back to a perversion of an attribute of God. These have been revealed in scripture.
 
3:07 AM
@Joshua I'm not sure I understand this definition or how it is useful/can be applied (nor exactly how you get it from Scripture). Sorry for my slow-mindedness, but could you perhaps explain a little more?
 
3:23 AM
@Birdie If you can find the time at some point, this will do a better job of laying it out than I can do here. I'm happy to attempt to answer additional questions. I found this article before and it expresses it better than I probably could. I don't necessarily endorse this site or church (really don't know it) but on its own merit this article its excellent.
 
@Joshua Thanks for that, it seems to pretty much correspond to my understanding. The short definition I typically use is "Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God." And that article clarifies that the law of God includes heart attitude, not just physical actions.
Just to ensure we're on the same page, do you have any issue with "Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God."?
 
3:39 AM
@Birdie As long as I can clarify that the law of God is the expression of God's character. Not the letter of the law as a man has interpreted it. I think Jesus speaks against that plenty.
 
@Birdie I don't know about Joshua, but I do. It's rather impersonal. I think 'rebellion' better gets at the essence of sin
 
Paul speaks in Gal 3 of how the Law was a guardian until grace came. It was given to instruct our hearts. Not order our behavior.
@curiousdannii Rebellion is certainly broad enough to cover any violation of God's character.
 
@Joshua When I talk about the law of God, I mean specifically that which is written in the Bible, and I do agree that the law of God as written in the Bible is an expression of God's character.
@curiousdannii Sure, but rebellion against what? The strictures of the law set in place by God in the Bible, yes? We can't exactly rebel against we-know-not-what.
 
@Birdie But I think in the sermon on the mount Jesus shows us quite clearly that the letter of the law missed the point. Jesus appears to add more to the law and make it harder, but then we realize that was in the character behind the law from the beginning.
 
@Joshua When you say "the letter of the law", what do you mean by this?
 
3:49 AM
@Birdie I would say rebellion against God's character (I used the term violate before). And the entire bible is telling us God's character, so we should know what we are rebelling against (or not).
@Birdie Letter of the law is every time the Pharisee's criticized Jesus for breaking Sabbath laws. I'm sure they were thinking "No, violating the Sabbath is always a sin" just like you said "Lying is always a sin" (no offense meant in comparing you to Pharisees :P)
 
@Joshua It doesn't really make sense to rebel against "character". You rebel against laws or persons who give laws.
@Joshua Jesus didn't violate Sabbath laws commanded by God in the Bible, only the man-made ones.
 
@Birdie Rebellion against God's law (which are founded in Him and who He is) is rebellion against the person of God.
 
@Joshua Sure, so we're on the same page then regarding what constitutes sin (I think?). If God said to do something and you don't, you've sinned. If God said not to do something and you do, you've sinned.
 
@Birdie And I"m saying Rahab didn't sin against God when she lied, she only broke a man made understanding of God's law. But if anyone thinks it is more in line with the character of God to let the Nazi kill the children than to send him the wrong way...well... I think you've misunderstood the character of God and therefore misunderstood the law.
And I FULLY understand such decisions that violate the simple model (the 99.9%) are NOT to be taken lightly and by no means are license to just lie whenever and tell people its ok
 
@Birdie No, relational rebellion against God. Sin exists without the law, though the law teaches us what it is
 
4:01 AM
@curiousdannii So it's possible to sin against God without breaking one of His commandments?
 
Ethics is our relationship to the law. Morality is our relationship with other (God and/or man)
 
@Birdie Not since he gave the command to love, obey, and submit to him. Every sin is a violation of that
 
@Joshua Would you agree that any example in Scripture of someone doing a 0.01% not-sin would require explicit approval of God to not be just another example of sin?
 
@Birdie His commandments are expressions of his character which is immutable and eternal. The commandments are not (in a sense they are, but are given to us in time and space.
 
That is, surely we can't take everything that the people of God did in Scripture as good, and if they do something which violates an existing law of God and God does not expressly approve then it is still a rebellion against the character of God, yes?
 
4:06 AM
@Joshua I'm not sure if there is actually a law given by the time of Rahab that forbids lying in all situations? The 10 commandments don't say don't lie, but don't give false testimony (in a court context probably), while verses like Lev 19:11 limit it to "one another", suggesting that lying to Israel's enemies was not forbidden
 
@curiousdannii It's reasonable to assume that Rahab wasn't aware of any of the God-given commandments, but ignorance doesn't excuse her.
 
@curiousdannii Oh I agree, but as you have said, sin exists without the command. In fact, this shows us how Rom 1 and general revelation and accountability support what I'm saying. "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[fn] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."
In what way is knowing God's attributes and nature connected with knowing what is right or wrong, holy or sinful? If not what I am describing. If it is only based on divine command then Paul's argument falls.
@Birdie I largely agree. I'm just saying I would rather understand the inner workings of the system and be able to explain the cause of the result rather than simply give a consistent description of its behavior, of the result. We observe: Lie>Sin. Lie>Sin. But WHY? Not just "God said so" but why is it even important to God?
53
Q: What is the meaning of "All models are wrong, but some are useful"

gpuguy "Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful." --- Box, George E. P.; Norman R. Draper (1987). Empirical Model-Building and Response Surfaces, p. 424, Wiley. ISBN 0471810339. What exactly is the meaning of the above phrase?

 
@Joshua Because lying is an abomination to God, in keeping with His character. But that doesn't help the argument that there's some lying that is not an abomination to God. "Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who act faithfully are his delight." - Proverbs 12:22, it doesn't give an exception "Lying lips except those trying to save lives are an abomination".
 
@Birdie Well first of all: That's a proverb. They don't need to name exceptions because they are by definition not absolute. They are truisms.
 
4:22 AM
@Joshua I've never heard the idea that the book of Proverbs does not contain absolute truth; can you source that from the Bible or give something to back that up?
 
@Birdie Yes...Its the first wisdom book. Just read the other ones, Ecclesiastes and Job and suddenly you'll find wisdom just isn't quite as simple as Proverbs made it sound.
 
@Joshua I'm going to have to spend a bit of time on that one and will probably ask a c.se question for clarification, I think. Regardless, there are plenty of other passages in the Bible that forbid lying, e.g. "Keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking deceit." - Psalm 34:13
 
@Birdie "deceit" = "mirmâh, meer-maw'; from H7411 in the sense of deceiving; fraud:—craft, deceit(-ful, -fully), false, feigned, guile, subtilly, treachery." Lot more to it than just saying something that is objectively false
 
Certainly what Rahab said falls inside that definition, though.
 
Proverbs seems problematic for this sort of thing. Proverbs 26:4–5: Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.
 
4:30 AM
@Birdie It was not treachery, it was allegiance to God.
@Birdie youtube.com/watch?v=Gab04dPs_uA This may be helpful. Really enjoy these guys. Their full length audio podcasts are actually way more in depth, I haven't even seen most of the videos.
 
@Joshua It was false, guile, deceptive, and fraudulent. It's a hard ask to suggest that Rahab wasn't breaking the law of God generally, which is presumably why you were arguing from consequence before (or was that someone else?).
 
@Birdie Think someone else mentioned consequentialism, which is a method of ethics
 
@Nathaniel I don't really want to jump into a second topic but I don't see that passage as problematic.
@Joshua Alright, my bad. Certainly Rahab had a lying tongue when she lied to the cops, though.
 
@Birdie But its only easy because they dovetail. But what if they were 10 chapters apart? Either way you are synthesizing the two thoughts into one better understanding (which is what we are asked to do with all scripture)
 
No problem; carry on. There may be better examples, but we can discuss it later.
 
4:37 AM
Ok lets go to Proverbs 12 and start reading...
 
4:50 AM
Ok haha that chapter doesn't have as many as others, but that section of Proverbs has lots of overly general statements that clearly aren't always 100% true every time, but are meant instead to communicate a principle. Not a rule.
 
Even then, God setting forth a principle that He considers lying lips to be an abomination is kinda hard to just set aside for Rahab. And the issue still stands that nowhere does the Bible say that it was fine for her to lie, so the de facto case is still that she sinned when she lied, according to the rest of Scripture. There has to be further evidence to prove that she didn't sin in that instance to move past the status quo (the 99.9% as you say, although I believe it to be 100%).
 
5:14 AM
@Joshua Good article. Thanks for the link. It does miss a major statement on sin, however:
> Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would not have sin. But now that you say, 'We see,' your sin remains." (John 9:41)
Jesus is here saying that if someone is not aware that something is wrong (or right), that is, if a person is "blind," that person does not sin if s/he violates the law against (or for) that thing. But those who are aware of the law and violate it anyway do sin. So a person's awareness of what is good or evil is a key factor in what is sinful for that person.
This doesn't mean we can just remain ignorant and blissful. The Israelites, for example, were commanded to rigorously teach the law to their children so that they would know the law. But if a person through no fault of his or her own is not aware of the law, or has actively been taught a different law by religious or civil authorities, then there is no sin in breaking the law that is not known, even if breaking it might be evil in an objective sense.
@Joshua It might be tough to find a passage in the Bible in which God explicitly commands or condones lying. But it's not hard to find stories in which people who engaged in lies and deceptions were not punished for it, but were blessed by God. Reading the explicit commandments is important. But it's also important to read the stories, which provide human embodiments of principles conveyed in the Bible.
The most obvious case of a lying, deceptive manipulator who was not punished by God but was instead blessed is Jacob, whose very name, literally "heel-grabber," means "a deceiver, a supplanter." And there is story after story of Jacob deceiving, manipulating, and telling bald-faced lies to get ahead.
Not the least of those stories is his carrying out his mother Rebekah's scheme to steal his brother Esau's blessing, which he did with a coolness and panache all his own, flat out lying to his father in a way that went even beyond his mother's instructions. And yet, it was shortly after he was forced to flee his brother's wrath that he had the famous encounter at Bethel in which God blessed him and said that the lineage and covenant would go through him.
I suppose you could say that Jacob was "punished" in that he never saw his beloved mother again (she died before he returned to the Holy Land). And of course, he did have to live away from his homeland and family for over twenty years. But no matter what he set his hand to, he succeeded. And he did a pretty good job of hoodwinking his father-in-law and enriching himself in the process as well.
Yet God continued to bless Jacob, giving him not just great wealth, but twelve sons, which, in Old Testament terms, is the ultimate blessing.
It's a little hard to argue that the God of the Bible is utterly opposed to lying when he continued to bless Jacob, whose success in this world was greatly based on engaging in lies and trickery in order to accomplish his goals.
 
5:37 AM
@LeeWoofenden It's pretty easy to argue that. Because God blesses imperfect sinners. If we had to be perfect to receive blessing from God then we'd be in a bit of a pickle.
If ignorance of the law means that sin is not punishable sin then it would be better that we never evangelise anyone, for fear that they not be saved and yet be destined for punishment now they had gained knowledge of sin.
 
@Birdie And yet, Jacob flat out lied, knew very well that he was lying, and God never punished him for it.
 
@LeeWoofenden Do you think God punishes us for every sin we commit?
 
@Birdie First of all, it's really hard not to learn any laws at all. They're all through every culture that one grows up in. But beyond that, ignorance has its own problems even if it may mean avoiding sin. If we do things that are seriously problematic, we're going to suffer consequences for it even if we didn't know it was wrong.
So ignorance really isn't particularly blissful. It's like walking around in a pitch black room and running into all sorts of obstacles, some of which can injure or kill you.
@Birdie I think that if the Bible meant to give us a blanket condemnation of all lying, it would have illustrated that by having Jacob suffer serious consequences for his bald-faced lies, trickery, and deception. But instead it shows him profiting by it, and more than that, being blessed by God.
 
@LeeWoofenden Why didn't Pontius Pilate and the Pharisees suffer serious consequences in the Bible for killing the Lord Jesus Christ?
 
@Birdie Ultimately, they did. The Jews, in particular, lost "their seat and their nation," just as they feared, in 70 AD. That was a seismic shock to Judaism, which had to almost completely reinvent itself in the aftermath. And Jesus himself spoke of that coming event during his last visit to Jerusalem.
But when it comes to Jacob, we're not just talking about him not being punished. We're talking about him succeeding greatly through his lies and trickery, and being greatly blessed by God.
 
5:45 AM
@LeeWoofenden That was quite a lot later; many of them would have died by then, and many may not have been directly affected by it. It is also not shown to be a punishment on those individuals for their sin, either.
A lot of people succeed greatly through sin in this life. And being blessed by God, as already shown, is not dependent on being perfect.
 
@Birdie Punishment happens on whole groups and cultures of people as well as on individuals. And for the Jews of Jesus', their culture and nation was a key part of their identity. For them, losing it, and their temple, was the ultimate disaster.
 
@LeeWoofenden Sure, but for the specific individual of Pontius Pilate (I'm just using him as one example of MANY in the Bible who sinned greatly but were not shown to be immediately punished for that specific sin), we have no evidence that he suffered in this life at all for his part in the death of Christ.
 
@Birdie Sure. But once again, if the Bible wanted to convey an absolute ban on lying, it would not have told a story in which an errant liar succeeds through his lies and is immediately blessed by God. Rahab is another case in which a person who flat-out lied is not punished, but rewarded by God's people in that she and here family were saved while the rest of the inhabitants were slaughtered.
@Birdie Pontius Pilate was not considered to be one of God's people. Further, according to at least one of the Gospel accounts, he tried to exonerate and release Jesus, but was overridden by the crowd. The Gospel accounts lay Jesus' death primarily on the Jewish religious authorities, and only secondarily on Pilate.
 
@LeeWoofenden But he got away with it.
If God wanted to convey an absolute ban on killing innocents then Pilate would have suffered some punishment according to your reasoning. He didn't, so I guess that means that killing innocents is OK sometimes.
 
Pilate was an outside player in the story. His fate wasn't particularly important. But the fate of the Jews and their nation was central to the story. And the Gospel account ties the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple less then 40 years later to their rejection and crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
 
5:51 AM
brb driving home
 
@Birdie Once again, the Romans were not considered to be God's people. They were not under the Law of Moses, which was the key issue for the faithful up to the time of Christ.
The Romans were presented as pagan oppressors. There is no love for them in the Gospels, though some individual Roman soldiers and commanders do figure positively in the story.
I'm not saying I think lying is generally a good thing to do. But as I said earlier, the commandment is not "Thou shalt not lie," but "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." And there are enough stories in the Bible of people lying in order to accomplish some result that was in line with God's will to call into serious question an absolute ban on lying under all circumstances.
Personally, I think people who lied to the Nazis to save innocent lives were doing God's work, not violating God's laws.
Their lying was not against the neighbor, but for the neighbor.
 
 
8 hours later…
2:15 PM
@Caleb Mind if we discuss this in here first? Once I'm on the same page as you I can comment, and that avoids having a discussion about scope be a new user's introduction to the site.
My thought process was perhaps not well-explained in the comment, but my point was along the lines of what is argued regarding the biblical basis for oompa loompas – if the only criteria for a question is "I heard this somewhere," then we have no way of answering it and it's better to ask the person who said it.
In this case I think the practice is more common than my initial google searches revealed, so my evaluation was wrong and this criterion doesn't apply.
But if the question had been, "Why should I leave my Bible open to Matthew 12:10 every night, precisely 1.3 feet from my bed and 2.4 feet off the ground," then I'd be inclined to close that as POB. Or, if it had turned out that the only person in the world who had ever said "sleep with your Bible open" was the guy's mom, then I'd be inclined to close as POB.
Am I on the right track here?
 
3:04 PM
@Nathaniel Ya that makes some sense. By concern is there is a certain genre of question where people keep hearing and hearing things and can't put their finger on it or name the doctrine or whatever, and I think one thing we can do field those. The trick is to suppress them getting "truth" answers and only allow answers that identify what the thing is and where major groups stand on the issue.
Already we have one "truth" answer on that question—they are a magnet for then—but I think we can apply our usual answer guidelines and make a case that if he doesn't fix it to address the issues I commented on it's NAA (I probably would have just deleted it if I didn't have what would look like a conflict of interest having answered myself).
Also in this case I guess I was coming at it knowing right off the bat it wasn't oompaa loompas or one guy's mom because I've run across it many times in across several major branches of Christianity (Protestant, Cult, Catholic & Orthodox) and in several countries (US, Mexico, Bulgaria).
Which brings up another problem. My answer doesn't cover the real situation. A lot of people do take this quite literally and no small few teachers that know better and understand the idiomatic meaning go ahead and use in anyway in spite of (in hopes of?) the superstitious way it's often understood.
 
@Caleb Yeah, that makes sense. Rather than wording it the way I did, I probably should have more explicitly asked him where he had heard this, that is, ask him or someone to demonstrate that it was actually somewhat common. I'm still not a huge fan of the question since he doesn't technically say that he wants the proponents' view of what it does.
 
@Nathaniel I just edited it, does that help?
 
Yep, much better.
 
By the way sorry about the absurdly tardy flag handling on meta.
 
3:20 PM
Ha! No problem. I wondered if perhaps the delay was due to approvals needed for the FAQ.
Thanks too for updating the pastoral close vote reason; that's excellent.
 
3:50 PM
@Nathaniel No. The only real hold up was hoping another mod would take care of it first.
The FAQ tag was 30 seconds (mods have unilateral control over that). The close reason I can never remember how to do, but it turns out it's a lot easier than it used to be. It took two mods collaborating (one to propose one to approve) but that took a couple hours today for another mod to be online at the same time, so again a couple minutes once we actually decided to do it.
 
Ah. I didn't know that about the close reason process; makes sense.'
 
 
2 hours later…
6:16 PM
@Caleb Better after the edit, but still too "truthy," I think. I made a few more wording changes to steer it away from that.
 

« first day (1933 days earlier)      last day (2702 days later) »