« first day (924 days earlier)   

6:30 AM
@JackDouglas Actually, I suspected collusion, although I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories! B-)
@FrankLuke @Daи In fact, back in the day, we had a massive Access database that took care of year-on-year course management. Its loss is still mourned. (Replaced by central software provision that isn't a patch, so to speak, on the old one.) True story.
 
 
1 hour later…
7:59 AM
@Davïd I had no idea that Frank had that tucked up his sleeve and I don't think Frank was fishing for me to post the question (not that you are suggesting either necessarily). Just a nice coincidence in the end: and it's managed to find it's way onto the supercollider too :)
 
@All My $.02 worth. This question accepts fables as valid commentary. The metric one would use is "Is this a belief system that uses objective truth(the Bible OT/NT) and are it's adherrants functioning within it's Statement of Faith? This elliminates the Rastafarians, Kohoutekites, and any multitude of Looney Tooners who want to legitimize superstition.
 
@user2479 I think Dan's point is that BH.SE doesn't define itself in religious terms. If "Rastafarians, Kohoutekites...etc" bring useful analysis to the texts we care about then they are as welcome as anyone. That question stinks as the -6 indicates, but...
@Daи: Is it "off topic"? It (1) asks about the interpretation of a specific text (Rev 2:17) and (2) can be answered from the text (see my answer). What more does it need to qualify? That it takes its own interpretation of the text is (I assume) not inherently invalid for the site. That it makes its interpretation from outside the text makes it questionable. In this case, however, that outside view is also what makes it answerable by the text. — ScottS 18 hours ago
... I think Scott is basically spot on here ^^^^
it's more the tone of the question that is lacking: someone (maybe me, maybe you...) should consider improving it?
 
@All (cont.) It would also include in that same catagory those who have strayed from their original beliefs(Bishop Pike, Jim Jones,Matthew Fox) and developed a system and practice contrary to their original beliefs.
 
@ScottS you may be the best qualified person to improve the question: if you have the time and are willing, please do so. I hope the tone could be changed without doing damage to the OPs perspective or to the basis for your excellent answer. — Jack Douglas ♦ 11 secs ago
 
8:15 AM
@JackDouglas If not, the 'tinfoil hatwearers' will roll, and this site will quickly descend into someone's bad opiate experience. I don't see where the questioner was asking a 'valid' question regarding the use of the text, rather, he was asking to 'legitimize' his trip through the 'Looking Glass'; in which case we judge delusions as valid.
 
I think perhaps if it can't be improved, it needs to be deleted
but anyone can edit, and I'd be loath to lose Scott's answer
 
@JackDouglas Agreed-but where do you draw the line?
 
@user2479 there are no hard and fast rules, but I find this helpful
 
@JackDouglas I see your point, but (mostly) up until now the tone has been within a "framework" that has been established; and any 'deviations' have followed accepted rules of hermeneutics. Do we recognize delusions as valid? Do you communicate with insane people as if they are making sense?
 
8:31 AM
@user2479 doesn't Scott's answer answer your question? The question on it's own is clearly worthless, but even a bad question serves some purpose if it provokes a useful answer
 
@JackDouglas Given what I just shared, the 'snake-wearers' would be valid. No, they won't put a basket of snakes in my church, but it does say in Mark 16:17-18, "And these signs shall follow them that believe..." 4 out of 6 are practiced as a normal occurance on any given Sunday across a broad spectrum of churches.
 
@user2479 of course. This is a public square though (think Athens), not a church.
 
@JackDouglas I loved ScottS's answer, and would be loathe to lose it. I'm just concerned that the lowering or negating of any standard would bring out the crazies who would ask and/or challenge any legitimate belief based on their recent delusion(we used to call it LSD trip).
 
I know, and (perhaps in slightly different terms), I share your concern about quality. Why not edit the question? It now at -7 with my DV, so it is clearly in need of it.
 
@JackDouglas I see the need to save ScottS's answer, and close it, with the admonition that "We take the Bible seriously". I'm not even sure the OP took the Scriptures, as opposed to his fanasies seriously.
 
8:43 AM
If no-one improves the question, that's probably the best option
 
9:29 AM
@Davïd congrats on your first question :)
 
9:41 AM
@JackDouglas My better instinct was sure that was the case. In fact, it was one of the things I thought might have cropped up in the Library. And behold! It was so. :)
@JackDouglas Thanks. I've been thinking about it for some time now; am interested to see the answers it might attract.
@JackDouglas And on this one, my £0.02 - insofar as it is a question about the interpretation of the book of Revelation, a sane answer it worthwhile. OTOH, it reads more like an assertion of identity than a question of interpretation of a biblical text. If the latter is in fact the case, it should be closed as "Not a question".
 
 
3 hours later…
12:40 PM
@JackDouglas I am not offended by "tone," just what I perceive as "untrue" (whether from a wacky point of view or an otherwise orthodox Christian). So I'm not sure how qualified I am to edit it. I see @Davïd being right about "it reads more like an assertion of identity" at certain points, amidst its attempt to lead one through "questions" to try to prove the assertion. I could soften that assertive language if that is all that is needed to tone it down. What "tone" are you referring to?
 

« first day (924 days earlier)