@LeeWoofenden I'm just saying that the questions need to demonstrate that they have religious significance. Art by non-Christians is fine if it has religious significance! But the fact that the artist or the subject depicted is Christian does not mean the question is about Christian doctrine or practice. Perhaps the artwork was hung prominently in a church - that would be fine.

@curiousdannii I don't agree, but I've said my piece.

@curiousdannii Christian art didn't lead to an ecumenical council, icons vs iconoclasm did. You can't separate the two. That whole issue arose due to Christian art ... it would not have been an issue without that subject.

@KorvinStarmast FYI, you can quote something by putting a > in front of it. E.g., > Christian art didn't lead to an ecumenical council, icons vs iconoclasm did. looks like this:

> Christian art didn't lead to an ecumenical council, icons vs iconoclasm did.

@El'endiaStarman Hmm, I suppose I can > FYI, you can quote something by putting a > in front of it.

The quote has to be in a message by itself.

> FYI, you can quote something by putting a > in front of it.

OK

@Elishaponders... What the heck?

Free flags!

@Nathaniel Yep! I've now flagged my first post on Philosophy.SE! :-)

I wonder if the mods will be confused as to why they saw a bunch of flags from unfamiliar users. :P

@El'endiaStarman Yeah. A bunch of Christians with no sense of humor! :-P

If you want to see it ripped to shreds, sure.

@El'endiaStarman Haha!

@Nathaniel Ooh, I got Citizen Patrol on Ph.SE! Four bronze badges and counting! :-)

Same here, but I'm up to 6 :)

@Nathaniel Does that mean that you're 50% more philosophical than I am? ;-)

@LeeWoofenden Rep is probably a better indicator... so it looks like I'm only about 1.7% more philosophical :)

@Nathaniel I do suspect there's a logical fallacy in there somewhere. I'm just not sure exactly where . . . . :-D

:)

New blog post! Word study of "sent" in John