The Upper Room

1:57 AM

@TRiG that's because your chat profile is associated with your SO acct

@waxeagle He didn't create the room; he merely ran across it.

2:36 AM

@El'endiaStarman no, the rooms that start when he isn't logged in, those are because he's got an SO associated profile

@waxeagle Ohhh...probably should've checked what message you were replying to like I usually do 99% of the time... >.>

@El'endiaStarman it's cool, apparently Warren has a blog post written? have you had a chance to look at it?

@waxeagle No, I have not. I'll go take a look.

Q: What is the most recent positive portrayal of a priest you can remember in film?

@El'endiaStarman thanks.

1 hour later…

Stack Exchange

3:43 AM

So, this possibly might have flown on main, but I'm enough on the edge about its validity that I want to put it here. Honestly, I can't remember the last time I've seen priest portrayed positively in a movie, TV show, or book that's more than about say, 20 years old. Am I missing something, or ...

discussion

David Stratton

3:55 AM

Believe it or not, Mel Gibson in Signs. imdb.com/title/tt0286106

A man whose faith is shattered, and then restored. Portrayed as real, loving, honest... Nothing negative about him at all.

3 hours later…

Caleb

7:06 AM

@AffableGeek Re your flag on CS's questions. I agree. Most of them should have been closed on sight. One thing closure does is protect from abuse. Closure plus one or two downvotes gets things off the front page so that not every visitor sees it an piles on. Only more experienced community people who are more likely to help re-write will see them.

I closed a couple and offered some comments on this one.

This is a classic case of this site is really not good for seekers. Seekers need answers, but this isn't the best place to get them. Some homework first makes all the difference.

One serious issue is that such poorly researched questions immediatly attract answers from non-experts and the whole thing spirals downhill really fast. That's not doing anybody a service or making our corner of the internet a better place.

3 hours later…

Stack Exchange

9:49 AM

Q: Meta tag cleanup

I cleaned up tags on a bunch of posts today, partitularly the faq tag. I removed a couple of posts that I haven't seen referenced in a long time and don't seem to be frequently encountered problems any more as well as a few that were specific to cleanup projects that are now historical (thank goo...

discussion meta faq-discussion

3 hours later…

Affable Geek

1:03 PM

@David Stratton. Thank you!

Affable Geek

1:18 PM

@Trig - I do believe that "What the Hell is Going On" video is one of the funniest and well thought pieces of theology I've seen in a long time. Thanks!

Caleb

I'm going to have to agree that is pretty stinking funny. Even if I disagree completely with the premise, the irony of the position in history we find ourselves is not lost on me.

And the sky turning into static. I died.

2 hours later…

A: What's the difference between "hallow", "sacred", "holy" and "saint"?

3:35 PM

In my own usage, a sacred object or place is one that humans have deemed to be dedicated to their God(s), while a holy object or place is one that God has reserved for his use. In other words, you could well believe that the artefacts of another religion are not actually holy, but accept that the...

Suggestions?

@AffableGeek I must admit I'm a fan of David Mitchell.

4:05 PM

in English Language & Usage, 19 hours ago, by MετάEd

@Bane What part of ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn don't you understand?

5 hours later…

8:38 PM

Guys, do any of you want to contribute to a theological debate?

in English Language & Usage, 34 mins ago, by MετάEd

@DavidWallace The notion that women are property is very, very widespread. I cannot think of any of the Abrahamic religions that do not agree with it, to a greater or lesser degree.

It's sparked of there, and got quite heated.

9:01 PM

@TRiG I've already contributed, given that you referenced an answer on one of my questions on J.SE... :P

@El'endiaStarman Dat's zho!

(Sorry. I'm still reading Girl Genius. The Jägerkin are affecting me.)

@TRiG (Naht a prahblem!)

@TRiG Anyway, when did you start reading Girl Genius?

@El'endiaStarman About four weeks ago. At frantic pace. Caught up in a week and a half, and have been following along since. Currently rereading some of the older stuff that I read far too fast the first time around.

It really is rather good.

And I find I like most of the main characters, which is helpful.

@TRiG I agree. I've been keeping up with it for several months now.

Just leaving the Sturnhalten sewers.

9:08 PM

Do you/have you read Gunnerkrigg Court?

...and I just used "read" in its present AND past sense simultaneously! :P

@El'endiaStarman Impressive!

@El'endiaStarman And no, I haven't.

Should I?

A: Exodus 21:22: is "mischief" related only to the mother or to the baby, too?

@TRiG Oddly, I just discovered a case where the Mosaic law seems to value women more closely equal to men than did Babylonian law:

Thesis The Mosaic law for a woman suffering the violent end of her pregnancy covers an exception to the "eye for an eye" principle. This law was not able, nor did it claim, to restore circumstances to their prior state. Rather, it was intended to provide a measure of justice and deterrence. ...

Not sure if I can contribute helpfully to the other chat, however...

Looking over there, I'll pass. Life is too short.

@TRiG Yes, you should. Gunnerkrigg Court

@JonEricson Interesting, but complicated.

I've seen arguments that the "Christian" interpretation of that verse is in fact quite modern.

A: The application of "harm" in Shemot (Exodus) 21:22

@TRiG I pointed out that it goes back to Calvin, at least. (Though, that is rather modern in this context.)

Personally, I don't buy it.

This is less anachronistic:

This passage speaks of a case where men fighting negligently [due to their cations this is not considered an accident] caused a woman to have a miscarriage. Despite the death of the baby, the punishment is a fine, rather than a punishment for killing. They would be liable for additional damages...

9:19 PM

@JonEricson But the universal acceptance of the doctrine is "younger than the McDonald's happy meal", is not reflected in the 1977 NASB, and that change is now denied.

@El'endiaStarman Opened. I'll read it soon.

9:34 PM

@TRiG Humph. It's clearly not the case that these doctrines are universally accepted. Daniel B. Wallace (who teaches at Dallas Theological Seminary) wrote an article defending the translation of Junias as a woman's name.

@JonEricson Very technical, that.

@TRiG I think people tend to overestimate their own ability to interpret ancient texts. I know I do!

@JonEricson I'm happy enough to leave that one to the experts.

Seasoned Advice Blog: No smoker? A $80 grill is enough for tasty pulled pork.

10:09 PM

@wax eagle: I just noticed this post and I'm totally going to try it:

waxeagle on September 19, 2012

Hello! I’m wax, and today I’ll be talking to you about how to make pulled pork using nothing more than a Weber grill and a lot of patience (ok, maybe a few more things, but we’ll get to that). Usually you have a big honking smoker, or at least something more akin to a drum than a grill.

When a smoker is loaded with a heap of coal, it can be left to smolder for hours and will keep a consistent low temperature, while the coals in a grill will instead burn hot and quickly. However, through a bit of research, and some practice, I’ve found that there is a good way to heat my grill to 250°F and …

@JonEricson it's worth the semi-sleepless night :)

@waxeagle Might as well make some bread at the same time.

Yarrgh! It's happening again!

Religious debates in EL&U, cooking discussion in the Upper Room. No doubt they're talking English language over in SO chat again.