@JamesT most religious groups are in this motif even stackhousexchange.

I also understand that I'm not likely to get that on this site. Since the site has pretty standard guidelines about not accepting an individual's personal interpretation, but rather expecting established doctrinal teachings, that puts you in an impossible position.

That situation was discussed here, where a member offered a suggestion for loosening up the restrictions.

@Anonymous None.

My earlier reaction to you was inappropriate, which is something that was hinted at by one of the actual mods. I shouldn't have attacked you in the way I did. I can only ask your forgiveness, but I don't really expect you to give it.

I make mistakes. Often.

@DavidStratton Whom are you addressing?

Being cool-headed and even-tempered isn't one of my strong suits. My sarcasm tends to come out pretty easily, and it was inappropriate of me to take it out on you, or anyone else for that matter.

@TheodoreA.Jones - You - it's all a continuation of the original post.

@DavidStratton Established doctrinal teachings? And the contrast is only a very few find the gate which is the actual truth! I am sure you will get a long way fellow carried along by doctrinal teachings.

@TheodoreA.Jones I understand that, but That's really beside the point. You do understand that the Christianity.stackexchange.com site is explicitly NOT about Truth? And you seem interested ONLY in Truth, because you see doctrinal teachings as malarkey (to put it nicely). Hence the blog suggestion... I guess I don't understand why you'd be interested at all in a site that's completely based on the premise that we're not interested in Truth?

"For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom. 2:13 Which contemporary doctrinal teaching does not contest that man's conviction?

I'm not saying you shouldn't participate, by the way, just trying to understand

I guess (and don't take this wrong) but when i read your posts and the things you say, I see what appears to be a lot of contradictory statements between what you say and how you act. This is an example - You are very well-versed in Jesus' words, and you seem very established in the beliefs that they should be obeyed explicitly, but you ignore these words...

I assume that in your mind there's no contradiction, and that I'm simply misunderstanding. THAT'S what I want to understand - very much.

@DavidStratton "It is appointed unto each man once to die and then the judgement." At judgement they will wish they had paid attention to what I've said and been fully skeptical of religious convention.

@TheodoreA.Jones Does that thought fill you with joy, or with sadness at the fate of those that reject your words?

Do you participate as you do in the hopes that someone will somehow be saved through your efforts? Is that it?

@DavidStratton Let's get something straight. They are NOT my words. Is this clear? Sadness in that the contrast that only a few find the gate is dismissed as immaterial. However there is a great deal of satisfaction that no excuse is possible for a defense at judgement. I am not here to serve men.

@TheodoreA.Jones OK. Can I ask you this? I asked the previous question because Jesus was very clear on what the most important commandments are in Matthew 22:37-4037 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

So if Jesus Himself said that the most important commandments are to love God, and love our neighbors... If you feel satisfaction at the thought of men burning in hell, is that love for your neighbor?

the reason I asked about sadness is that if you love someone you shouldn't want to see them hurt, and especially not for eternity... I'm just trying to understand the apparent contradiction is all.

That was part of why I inappropriately called you a "fraud" the other day. I am just having a very hard time reconciling the idea that you believe that perfect obedience is absolutely necessary, but that you somehow think you're one of the few, when you're not even showing the slightest bit of interest in the second-most-important commandment as Jesus gave it...

I know that in your mind this isn't a contradiction, and I'm trying desperately to see it from your angle.

I also have a hard time understanding this.. you say you're not here to serve men, and Amen to that! But that implies that you're here to serve God.. And God loved the world so much that he sent Jesus to die for our sins (or came as Jesus to die for our sins) Nowhere ever did jesus, who is the perfect example of God's love, ever glory in the destruction of the lost.

Luke 19:10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

If He is our Master, and perfect obedience to his will is necessary, then how can we glory in the destruction of Sinners when he did not?

@DavidStratton I would be very impressed, if you managed to figure out Theodore's theology. Theodore is known to be not very explicit about things.

@DavidStratton Jesus christ did not die in your place. That is your error.

@Anonymous - If He is bringing God's Truth, then it is imperative that I do understand it. ONE of the reasons I participate here is to get points of view that I don't believe or understand...

@TheodoreA.Jones OK. I think now we're getting somewhere.

Please explain.

@DavidStratton Wow. So beautiful. Sniff.

@DavidStratton So, you think that he's a prophet?

@Anonymous "For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom. 2:13 Theology 101. That man is not referencing the OT code of law.

@Anonymous I didn't say that. I said I want to understand and try to see it as he does. I'm saying that I believe it's a mistake to be dogmatic and to assume that I know it all, and that everyone's view is worth understanding and considering, rather than rejected out of hand.

@TheodoreA.Jones @OK. I know why I believe Jesus died in my place, Can you tell me why I'm wrong? My belief isn't because some Church told me so, it's based on Scripture, but perhaps I have misapplied Scripture. Can you explain to me why I'm wrong?

@DavidStratton Wow. This is not how I picture a stereotypical Christian fundamentalist. Heh-heh-heh.

@TheodoreA.Jones - Just for some background, i was once a die-hard Atheist that thought that God was a made-up imaginary friend for people too weak to face life without some made-up being watching out for them. Today I believe in the God of the Bible with every fiber of my being. I say this just to demonstrate that when I say I am willing to hear views I don't agree with, you know that I'm not just blowing smoke, and I do challenge my own assumptions. Otherwise I'd still be an atheist.

In other words, I am serious about being open-minded and challenging my own assumptions, and that is why I'm asking, and not just ignoring or marginalizing you .

@DavidStratton You seem very sensible and prudent; I still can't believe how you manage to believe in young-earth creationism. In my head, young-earth creationism and rationality just don't mix very well.

@DavidStratton Are you going to challenge your own assumptions again and return to being an atheist? ;) You know, you can go back and forth and never really settle on a theological issue and maybe wind up as a true agnostic. :D

@Anonymous Residual issue. See Jn. 16:8 Your assumption is that Jesus' murder is a direct benefit for yourself. However he says that guilt relative to sin is be the remaining issue AFTER his crucifixion. Since this statement was made prior to his crucifixion crucifying him did not resolve anything.

@Anonymous You stay on point. Is this clear?

@Anonymous - It didn't mix well for me, either, and it took years of tearing down one illusory belief in "science" after another to bring me to my current way of thinking. But it is consistent with my character. I was open to alternate explanations of various things, and to be honest, so many of the "textboook" explanations didn't make sense once you give them actual thought...

Looking up John 16:18....

@DavidStratton Jn. 16:8

@TheodoreA.Jones thank you

@TheodoreA.Jones Backing up and reading the surrounding verses for context....

@DavidStratton Are you trying to say that you do not believe in science? Well, of course people don't believe in science. Science is an academic discipline; it's not something you believe in. Though, there have been some ardent scientists who are very stubborn about their beliefs. Just to say that even scientists are like everybody else - imperfect.

@DavidStratton So, how strong was your die-hard atheism? Wouldn't you really be a Catholic atheist?

@Anonymous No, I'm saying that it's a mistake to believe that evolution falls within the realm of science. It can't be tested, verified, it's not repeatable, etc. The scientific method doesn't apply. All we can do is say "Based on the evidence, this is the most plausible explanation". Wat they leave out is "barring the existence of an Omnipotent Creator, because if we believe in that, well...

Anyway, I'm going to drop the creation debate and focus on John 8 and surrounding verses for a while...

John 16:8

Sorry. typing too fast. @TheodoreA.Jones - I am reading again...

@TheodoreA.Jones - Is Jesus God? Is he God incarnate?

@DavidStratton Jesus Christ is God manifested in the flesh according to the scripture.

OK.. So Did Jesus retain his Omnipotence and Omniscience? Just so you know where I'm going with this, assuming that Jesus is fully God, how could He have been murdered, had He not allowed it to happen. And if he, who is Omnipotent, allowed it to happen, did He not willingly lay down his life for some reason?

Also, I'm working from the assumption that the Bible is completely consistent, infallible, and inerrant as described at christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9946/…

So by definition when I see apparent contradictions that means I need to understand that God doesn't contradict Himself so I need to look deeper...

@DavidStratton According to the scripture he was murdered. See Acts 7:52c. and "Do not go beyond what is written." 1 Cor. 4:6

OK... So now I can state where I'm confused. Give me a minute to type this up... But the context of John 16:8...

@DavidStratton The scriptures do not contradict themselves, but all theologians contradict the scriptures.

So if we look at that, the initial dialogue it begins back in chapter 13... Where jesus predicts peter's denial and His own death... Jesus clearly knows what's about to happen, correct?

In 14;6, He states "“If you love me, keep my commands. " - Consistent with what you've been saying...

14;23-24 also consistent with the idea that we need to actually obey Jesus' teachings... "23Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. 24Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me."

Then in John 15 we have this: 9“As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love. 11I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. 12My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.

13Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

14You are my friends if you do what I command. 15I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. 16You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you. 17This is my command: Love each other.

So, thus far, we have the idea that obedience to the Law is what saves.. is that correct?

@DavidStratton Well, this concept certainly has spread across many disciplines - the humanities, social sciences, philosophy, and even religion. And somehow that leads you think that evolution is antithetical to the concept of God? You may be unwilling to talk about creationist stuff right now, but still, I am not sure how you manage to hold young-earth creationism... out of other Christian beliefs.

@DavidStratton I mean, what made you reject old-earth creationism or intelligent design creationism or theistic evolution?

@DavidStratton No. No person will be declared righteous by God for observing the OT written code of law. For if that were the case there is no reason for Jesus' crucifixion.

@TheodoreA.Jones Still on the same page... OK. So I'm going to abandon where I was going because I had assumed that this was where our understanding diverges... So how ARE we declared righteous, by what mechanism, and what is the purpose of Jesus' crucifixion?

"For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom. 2:13 That man is not referencing the OT written code of law.

OK. What law is he referencing?

And thank you, by the way, for taking the time to go through this and help me understand your way of seeing all this.

@DavidStratton A law was added after Jesus' murder, burial, resurrection and ascension. See Heb. 7:12 That's the law you must have the faith to obey to be declared righteous by God.

Hebrews 7:12 tells me that the Law must be changed, but not to what, so I'm going to take a few minutes to read the surrounding verses.

@DavidStratton See Rom. 5:20 "The law was added so that the trespass of Jesus' crucifixion might increase."

You will not understand the scriptures by the method of contextual critique.

@TheodoreA.Jones What do you mean by that? I'm just trying to make sense of the verses, and I don't see how you can completely ignore context... I'm not trying to take some twisted "doctrinal" theological method, I'm just reading for pure understanding... I don't see how you can ignore context completely. Can you explain what you mean by that? because I thought I was starting to get there...

I mean if I tell you "You can't say that" and you try to take that along, without more context to give it meaning, how would you understand what "that" is, and why you can't say it?

Not thological methods, just purely the way God designed us to think...

@DavidStratton God's word is true, but it is a little here and a little there. For it is the Holy Spirit that teaches God's children. No one else teaches them.

I'm about to go off on a tangent here... Before I do, I'd like to just point out that I've kept my word and not attacked, but have been honestly trying to understand, and I hope that you will see that what I'm about to say could be taken as either an attack or an honest attempt to understand, and I'm asking you to give me the benefit of the doubt based on conversation today...

So how do we know what is of the Holy Spirit granting understanding and what is of the devil or our own imagination? What is the plumb-line, particularly when people can take the same verses and understand several different meanings from the same verse? How do we know which is correct? Yours? Mine? Caleb's? None of the above?

I worry about 2 Corinthians 11:14 "And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light."

Clearly with so many schisms within Christianity SOME of us have got at least something wrong.. And we ALL base our belief s on our own, fallible, human understanding of Scripture, and we all have faith that the Holy Spirit is guiding us into truth.. but some of us have to be mistaken. How do we tell which ones that is?

@DavidStratton Can't blame you for the tangent. Might be helpful. As to the second part of your response. The scriptures are true. But they will not and cannot contradict themselves. But one must have been born again of God before God teaches him.

In the end, my constant prayer is that God understands my limitations and I don't trust myself, but rather Him.

@TheodoreA.Jones I also agree that the Scriptures cannot contradict themselves. However, as a former atheist, i can easily point out hundreds of "apparent" contradictions... But all of those are based on taking verses out of context, hence my earlier questions about context.

So I know my own logic is fallible, human, not equal with God, but I also believe that god made us so that we can understand him. he can guide us into truth.... I may be wrong, but my own personal understanding of the best way to resolve such apparent conflicts is what's described [here](Rules behind resolving alleged Biblical discrepancies).

I also believe that God will confound the lost and give wisdom to those He has chosen as fits his purpose, and I trust His purpose. Even if his purpose is for me to end up in Hell, if it suits his purpose, who am I to argue?

His will, not mine, is what matters.

So when you see apparent contradictions, how to you handle them? I mean you can't deny that there are apparent contradictions, but since God cannot contradict Himself they aren't real contradictions, how are they resolved in your mind?

@DavidStratton So they are. But what a man needs to know is already written. If any man lacks wisdom let him ask of God. The schisms you referenced are the result of the two methodologies of textual critique and hermeneutics. No one using those things will interpret the Bible correctly. Now let's move on. The gate that one must have the faith to use to get into God's kingdom is a small and narrow thing and you MUST use this gate or not escape serving the penalty of eternal death.

@TheodoreA.Jones I have a feeling I'm going to need to call it quits soon and take this up again tomorow. (Lots to process) but am I correct in my understanding that we agree that it is faith that saves us? (possible diversion point) and if we have true saving Faith, that will be expressed in obedience to the Law of Faith and love? (I'm expecting that we're diverging somewhere here but you will be able to explain it to me.)

@DavidStratton I think we've narrowed down Theodore's theology. He has got to be Protestant, if he believes in "sola fide".

@DavidStratton It is faith to faith. Faith that the law was changed by the grace of God and faith that obeying the Law of Faith does result that God will declare the man who obeys this law righteous. Let me say that I do understand your frustration and empathize with you in this regard.

@Anonymous Well not quite. For the Protestant only gives lip service to sola fide. Me. I'm the real deal friend and know it.

@TheodoreA.Jones I'm going to star that and come back tomorrow if you don't mind. Please don't respond to this tonight because it'll probably be lost on whatever other conversations happen here... but I know I'll have more follow-up questions when I'm less tired.

Thank you for your time tonight, and for taking the time to talk to me in spite of my earlier nastiness.

BTW, I did vote to close this question of yours earlier because it's asking for Truth and I do stand by my comment about it being a good subject for a different site, BUT... for future reference, it is perfectly acceptable to answer your own question and "share your own knowledge question and answer style". You just have to stick within other site guidelines while doing so.

I think you have a lot to share, and it frustrates me that you are constantly getting shut down because of the site guidelines. There are ways to phrase things differently to allow the to stand. I understand your conviction to speak the truth, I just wish that you'd be able to find a way to get truth posted in a way that falls within the site's rules.

At any rate, that came up because the "Share your own knowledge Q and A style" effectively allows you to get your message out, if you can figure out how to phrase it so that it doesn't come across as "your own opinion". I'm hoping to be helpful, not pushy or argumentative...

@DavidStratton It is advisable that Theodore A. Jones tries to examine Christianity from an outsider's perspective or tries to explain a specific concept in Christianity to a non-Christian. In professional circles, answers are usually kept distant from the writer, so that the writer's personal beliefs do not matter... well, as long as they pertain to the subject.

Which topic is going on?

@DavidStratton while I agree with you to a point, there is a point where the contradiction between words and actions unmistakably puts someone in the false prophet camp even if they truly believe what they are saying. I'd say the fact that Theodore's own actions are opposed to that of the message that even he claims to be bringing are evidence of that

but then again, I can understand you wanting to get there for yourself, I reserved making a judgement call on it till I had seen what it was he was trying to say

your question about if he takes joy in being superior to others was a very good question though that I didn't think to ask

@TheodoreA.Jones Theodore, you don't own the chat room, please remain civil and respect what topics people want to discuss. You don't have any right to dictate what people can or can't discuss

just because it might take the focus away from you

@DavidStratton that's easy enough, be polite and don't insult or instruct people in what they can or can't do

and to sumarize for you Theodore's theology, it is a justification through works of following a law that is only revealed by the spirit to true believers that isn't actually in the Bible, only mentioned(according to him, via a redefinition of the term law in a verse with no reasoning behind the redefinition)

and he has yet to ever answer what that law is no matter how asked

I spent several days trying to get at his underlying view and that was as much success as I had

the fact that I spent 4+ days to get what can be summarized in 3 sentences should be telling

since he would rather boss people around and insult them than give concise statements about his views

I too honestly gave him the benefit of the doubt, but he has progressively burned those bridges with me through his own actions rather than his words

though I feel only sadness for him

@AJHenderson Well, you did say that that is only revealed by the spirit to true believers. If it's only revealed by the spirit like speaking in tongues, then perhaps it's one of those personal religious experience type of things. :)

@TheodoreA.Jones Please keep it civil. You can leave the discussion whenever you want, or implore others to stay on topic. But do not authoritatively tell others what and what not to do.

This applies even more so when discussing sensitive topics. Abrasiveness just serves to poison the discussion. Please be nice.

@DavidStratton David. I'm am not offended by anything you have said to me. As matter of fact I was very surprised that you've contacted me. So you've voted to close the question I asked? Well it is not unexpected. Someone will always take exception with the Lord's ruling that there are only a few, very few, that ever find the gate into God's kingdom. To avoid further interruptions suggest you contact me by email .

@TheodoreA.Jones Theodore, don't take David's voting to close a question as a personal problem with it. It simply isn't the purpose of this site for questions like that. There are plenty of other places that it is appropriate (such as for example, having a polite discussion in chat about it). It isn't the Word's of Jesus specifically, but I think 1 Peter 2:13-17 is a good verse about this.

if you accept that, then you have to accept that we are supposed to respect human authority so far as it does not conflict with God's authority, and even when there is a conflict we are supposed to conflict it in a respectful manner

here, there are rules setup for accomplishing the sites goal in an orderly manner. It's most strict on the main site because otherwise it would become a disorganized mess

@AJHenderson The Acts 2:38 command is both a command and a law. Obey it as a command by the faith of confessing directly to God that you are truly sorry his only begotten son's life was lost by crucifying him and be baptised into what you've confessed for the forgiveness of your past sins. Refuse and you've crossed a line by law that is not forgivable and does carry the penalty of eternal death. Last week you contested that there are not two trees. In spite of the fact that the Lord

has said that there are. Lk. 7:43-45 A true disciple of Jesus Christ does not directly contest what he says.

it's not that your views are unwelcome so much as it is that the way you are trying to present your views isn't holding to the form that governs this particular site. If you think there should be a broader definition to those, you are welcome to make that argument on Meta or to propose an Area 51 site for the broader topic

@AJHenderson I use what is available. After all. All things have been made by Him and for Him. Have they not?

@TheodoreA.Jones yes they have, but Jesus also didn't go breaking in to people's homes, waking them in the middle of the night and yelling his message at them

he spoke either publicly, privately when invited or in the temple

keep in mind that while SE may be on the Internet, it's effectively someone's home

because it is a privately owned and operated site

so the parallel holds

@TheodoreA.Jones well I can safely say I'm not happy that Christ was killed. I do believe it was neccessary, but I repent not only of his need (in my understanding of God's will) to die, but also of my sins that put him in that situation.

@AJHenderson It is my opinion that you know very little of what Jesus Christ said or what he did or did not do from you former statements. All things have been made by Him and for Him.

@TheodoreA.Jones show me where he broke in to someone's home to preach biblically

and again, you are being disrepectful. You know nothing of my knowledge of the Bible or Jesus's life and ministry

@TheodoreA.Jones I'm not sure what you mean though by saying I contested that there are not two trees

I agree that there are two trees, I just disagree on your interpretation about applying the two trees to entire church organizations instead of individuals

@TheodoreA.Jones I already warned you about not keeping it civil. When your chat suspension gets over, please try to stay civil.

but alas, I really don't want to go in to another discussion with you as you seem unwilling to see that your viewpoint is really not significantly different from many others. You seem to think that the mainline Christian churches glory in Christ's death, but that is not true. They repent of their sins and also repent of the fact Jesus' death was necessary. If I could have made it so people wouldn't have killed Jesus, I would have.

The only difference is the belief in the reason he was killed rather than the reaction to it.

I guess put another way, why do you think Christ allowed himself to be murdered if not for a reason. He had legions of angels that could come and save him at his command

clearly he was more than able to prevent his murder

it was necessary in God's eyes for some reason

since it was a) not Jesus will to die, but God the Father's (as evidenced in Jesus prayer in the garden of gethsemane)

@AJHenderson @DavidStratton I think Theodore A. Jones is suspended right now, as ManishEart suggests.

@AJHenderson Instead of trying to understand Theodore, let's just call it quits and declare that we will never understand this guy. Until Theodore becomes more cooperative and friendly, we may temporarily ignore him, as if he does not exist or does not affect the discussion in any way. Conduct business as usual. If Theodore learns how to contribute constructively to the Stacks Exchange Network, asking and answering good and insightful questions, then he may be allowed to return to Chat.

@Anonymous yeah, I agree. I've mostly been ignoring him but he did finally give me a straight answer on the law he was referring to. I just wanted to respond to that before letting it rest

since that was new information

but I think it has run it's course now and I don't think there is really any more to productively be said

@AJHenderson can you link to it or tell me what it is?

@JackDouglas it's fairly recent in the discussion

3 of his statements up

basically the law he is refering to is to repent and be baptized

he takes that to mean to repent of killing Christ

so his core issue with mainline churches seems to be relatively simple and the rest of his views seem derivative of trying to make sense of that

I'm pretty convinced he legitimately believes what he's saying now since it sounds like the fundamental issue he has is that Jesus being killed can't be a good thing

OK, thanks :)

and thus (rightly, I'd argue) sees it as something needing forgiveness. He just then disagrees (for some unknown reason) that it is necessary for salvation, but rather that repenting of that killing (and fundamentally rejection) of God is what is necessary for salvation.

it's actually startlingly closer to a contemporary Christian world view than I expected from earlier discussions and how opposed he is to most Christian teaching, but perhaps that's just from a fundamental misunderstanding of most core Christian theology

in the modern Christianity sense

I wonder what 'repent' means in this context: I usually understand it to be more than 'be sorry'?

yeah, to be sorry is more deep than "be sorry" but I'd argue that fundamentally, since under the conventional Christian world view, Christ was killed for (because of) our transgression, we repent of our sins (which are directly causal to Christ's death at the hands of rebellious humanity) and thus in part, repenting of our rebellion to God also includes repenting of our part in Christ's death

I'd say that the contemporary Christian view is actually inclusive of Theodore's views, it just continues to repent for all our sins, which can all fundamentally be represented as rebellion against God

that all said, there is clearly something in his life that has caused him to build up a lot of animosity, but I can understand the frustration from trying to make your point clear and having it not understood as well

cross-cultural communication can be very hard, can't it

so it may just be that coming through poorly

@JackDouglas particularly on the internet where backgrounds and tone can not be measured

that's why I tend to be overly verbose

takes longer to say things, but hopefully prevents misunderstandings

it's also the easiest way to tell if I'm getting frustrated

my answers and explanations get shorter and shorter normally.

though not always

I sometimes just get more snide, but I try to avoid that

:)

a quick wit is not a great asset when it comes to dealing with difficult discussions

something marriage has really helped me understand at an even more deep level than I understood before

thankfully I've only had a couple of times where I snapped and let my wife have both barrels, but every time the results have been immediate and devistating

to not only her, but to me as well

I hear you: my wife has heard every witticism I can come up with too many times already ;)

btw this is a pretty useful post from one of the SE employees, well worth a read if you haven't seen it already

I hadn't seen that post, but it is good

actually, I need to re-read it myself

the 'having fun' bit is good :)

oh gosh, the footnotes on that

@AJHenderson Neither are YOU the owner of this chat room either.

@TheodoreA.Jones Please do not flag things unless they are really offensive.

@TheodoreA.Jones Sure. And the only thing he's telling you to do is to be civil. Which is part of chat rules anyway, so he's not telling you what to do -- just reminding you of the rules.

@JonEricson Who is that a picture of? It looks like a middle-aged man with gray hair.

@Anonymous My avatar? It is a middle-aged man with gray hair.

Drinking tea.

@JonEricson I see. Is he related to you?

@JonEricson I think this is the first time you've uploaded a picture that is not you.

@Anonymous We share identical DNA, but he's got a lot to learn in the next 5 or so years. ;-)

@Anonymous Actually it is me from several years ago.

And you've missed a few avatars. ;-)

@JonEricson I don't get it. How can you change so much in so little time? You seemed younger before.

@JonEricson Did you somehow become younger instead of the usual becoming older?

@Anonymous Not that I know of.

@JonEricson In your earlier pictures, it seems to me that you had blonde-brownish hair. Now you have grayish-white hair.

@JonEricson Did you dye your hair?

@Anonymous It depends on how short my hair is and how much sun I've gotten lately.

@JonEricson Do CMs get any sun?

@ManishEarth We get out of our cages once a week. I hide in a corner to avoid the harsh eye of the sun. ;)

@JonEricson lol

Must be pretty hard getting the cat CM into a cage.

This is what happens when I'm in the sun too long:

en.gravatar.com/userimage/5232752/…

ha!

Actually the problem is the sun tricked my laptop's camera into overexposure.

@ManishEarth Fellows Henderson came rolling in here this morning for the express purpose of harassing me. In case you are not aware of it it is commanded "Do not show partiality in judging; HEAR both small and great alike ." Dt. 1:17 Where is any evidence of uncivility other than Henderson's rail aginst me?

That is

I have not read all of the thread, no. But in the surrounding context he was being pretty civil

@TheodoreA.Jones He may have also come to chat with the express purpose of having a constructive discussion. Which didn't happen, but still. You don't know his intentions.

And for what it's worth, he may be feeling the same way about you now, now that you've been rude to him more than once.

I repeat, it's fine to discuss these things, but given that it is a sensitive topic, try extra hard to stay civil. When discussing your beliefs, you may feel offended and get angry when someone else stated contradictory beliefs. That does not mean that you should go into the realm of personal attacks. Or tell the other what to do.

heh

Hello there, @enderland :) What happened to your furry avatar?

I figured it wasn't Christmas anymore lol!

ah

(I switched to that around Christmas last year, and realize during summer it, well, wasn't that time anymore)

ha!

@TheodoreA.Jones Speaking as a C.SE mod and owner of this room, I've seen more incivility from you than from AJ, and what "incivility" I've seen from him has generally been in response to yours.

@ManishEarth D. Stratton had requested to converse with me concerning his concern. Anyo made an attempt to divert the conservation I was having with stratton by interjection of a former religious perspective of Stratton's that was not pertinent. And for saying to Anyo to stay on topic I get a fifty seven minute suspension that last over three hours based on the false allegation of Henderson. Yeah you people a really truly fair minded. Aren't you?

@TheodoreA.Jones You could have said "could we please stay on topic?"

generally speaking, it takes two to tango so to speak

Yep

@TheodoreA.Jones I never claimed to be the owner of the chat room, but I do know the rules by which SE asks people to abide. Very few people (including moderators) are actually working for SE

@AJHenderson which is actually somewhat depressing when you figure the entire SE business model is supported by us volunteering our time... :)

@enderland well, they do provide the servers and such for us. They basically make money from supporting the community technically but let us do our thing mostly

it isn't like they are overly burdonsom with ads or anything

I think it's a fair trade

(obviously)

@Anonymous his name isn't Benjamin

@TheodoreA.Jones I didn't come in here to harass you, you can actually see that I'm involved in the chat even when you aren't here. If you feel that I have wronged you somehow, please feel free to let me know how.

(in a polite manner of course)

@ManishEarth You are really fair minded aren't you? Yes or No?

@TheodoreA.Jones you do realize how to me (an observer in this chat for the first time in a long while) this comes across as baiting/trolling right?

@TheodoreA.Jones I'd like to say yes but I'm probably not. This isn't the sort of question that I myself can answer :/

Also what ender said

@TheodoreA.Jones btw, if you don't know about it, if you want to be able to have a conversation free of interruption, there is an option to make your own room and you can set the topic for discussion there

then it would be perfectly fine to ask someone politely to stay on topic for the room

politely

Civility rules apply in all rooms.

Less so in those types of rooms, but they still apply

@enderland What is the "this" that comes across as bating or trolling?

@TheodoreA.Jones it is asked as a rhetorical question where you've already implied the answer yourself

that's generally a trollish behavior on the internet, not just specific to this context. The more polite way to approach it would be to ask how a particular situation you think is unfair was fair

that way the concern can actually be addressed

@AJHenderson Did I ask you anything?

no, but I can still voice my agreement with enderland

@TheodoreA.Jones Careful now

He has the full right to reply there

it is a public chat room

@TheodoreA.Jones Please stop making this chat room about, um, personalities.

and I'm trying to help you understand where he is coming from which is your desire right?

Yes, please. What Jon said.

whenever you ask a question with strong implications and as a leading question it is almost ALWAYS trolling in the eyes of the receiver or observers

@enderland A fifty seven minute suspension that lasted over three hours without a reasonable foundation? And this is being fair minded in your opinion? Yes or No?

Again - when you ask leading questions it makes me as the recipient really annoyed (this is why it's generally referred to as trolling)

@TheodoreA.Jones why do you think there wasn't a reasonable foundation? Manish was kind enough to point out the behavior that was in violation of the rules and even offered feedback on how to approach it better in the future. I don't know what happened with 3 hours vs 57 minutes, but neither is really a particularly long time.

@TheodoreA.Jones "a fifty seven minute suspension that lasted over three hours?" No, it was a one hour suspension which lasted one hour

"without a reasonable foundation" -- that's where we disagree.

do you feel that the suspension was too severe or that you didn't do anything to deserve any suspension? or is it something else that we are missing that has you clearly upset? As I've mentioned before, I personally genuinely meant you no harm and would like to make peace if at all possible.

@AJHenderson Did I ask you a question? Yes or No? Regarding that it is commanded to answer with Yes or No.

I did flag a statement as being an apparent violation of the rules, but I did so specifically because I was an outside observer to the situation and believe I was looking at it from as unbiased of a viewpoint as possible. Note that this doesn't do anything without others also looking at the situation and independently agreeing that it was a problem. It was not a personal attack, just an attempt to keep order.

Theodore, I am only trying to help resolve the situation. Why are you so opposed to my trying to help? Do you believe that I am somehow trying to not help the situation? I'm not sure why my input trying to help bring better understanding to the situation should be so strongly rejected.

Anyway, there's not much point to dissecting the past behavior of participants here.

Instead, take this as a warning for future discussions: Keep civil.

@AJHenderson Henderson an accident might have happened for you have have an unbiased view. As all can see you've done a great job of keeping order. Haven't you?

@TheodoreA.Jones Please keep sarcasm out of this too.

Also it's best to refrain from commenting on a person when you're discussing opinions. I don't think you did that, but it came close

@AJHenderson "That all said there is something in his life that has caused him to build up a lot of animosity" this statement of yours is not derogatory? Really goes a long way of keeping the peace doesn't it?

@TheodoreA.Jones Yes, it is. And given that it was after being provoked by you twice, I find it condoneable

@TheodoreA.Jones ok, thanks for pointing out something I can respond to. I'm sorry if you took offense at that. I did not mean it in an offensive manner, but rather trying to understand where you are comming from. Some people have had hard lives and are used to people being against them, so they tend to expect that from people

that is what I meant

you seem to have been very distrustful to anyone dialoging with you and have been very quick to see people as being against you. It's just my personal observation, not a judgement of you.

hope that makes more sense

if anything, it was honestly feeling bad for you because a world where you think every other person is against you is a very lonely world indeed

@ManishEarth And just what specifically are you referencing that also gives Hederson the right to be as obnoxious as he wants to be without sanction?

@AJHenderson Maybe you should pray for cynical people.

@TheodoreA.Jones chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/11225020#11225020, chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/11228140#11228140

@AJHenderson Henderson you do not have any intention of understanding me. "For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom. 2:13 or that man either.

@Anonymous I never said I haven't

Again, can we drop this topic now?

@ManishEarth Sure. You suspend Henderson for being totally obnoxious for fourteen days and we can drop anything you want to drop.

@TheodoreA.Jones To me, you're being obnoxious in making that statement itself. Please stop.

Take a day off, think about other things.

@TheodoreA.Jones since day one you've been obstinate, and very rude. Attacking other users because they had the gall to talk to you in a public forum, is not appropriate. Please use this time off to think about what being Christlike means to you and how you should be behaving in public. See yah in 10 days.

in totally unrelated context

where does the phrase "Jesus H. Christ" come from?

(I could probably google this I know)

@enderland pretty sure someone asked that

we probably migrated it to english

and they probably closed it as GR

> ...although according to Mark Twain it was already well-established by 1850. Twain refers to an episode in his youth when he was working as a printer's apprentice. One of the other apprentices was criticised by the preacher Alexander Campbell for abbreviating "Jesus Christ" to "J. C." in the printed version of one of his sermons because it served to "diminish the saviour's name". The apprentice reset it to read "Jesus H. Christ"

there would be an entire wikipedia article

@enderland I think Jesus H. Christ is a misnomer. Jesus has no middle name, and Christ is his title. H is not supposed to be there at all. Jesus is believed to be the son of Joseph and Mary. So, he may as well be accurately named Jesus son of Joseph.

yeah it sounds like it developed as a "woops whatevs" type thing which turned into a somewhat derogatory phrase

Does anybody wonder who was Jesus' maternal and paternal grandparents?

@Anonymous paternal grandparents ... himself? and...erm... himself?

well the grand daddies would be Jacob and Heli

@ManishEarth you could argue that Joseph's parents were still grandparents if not biological

@AJHenderson If Jesus was a real person, then he would have a mother and a father, maternal grandparents, and paternal grandparents. Alongside his mother and father, I doubt he would be an only child due to the high rates of infant mortality in ancient times. So, it would be likely that he would have had extended family members, such as brothers and sisters and cousins and nieces and nephews.

@Anonymous it is widely believed that he did have brothers and sisters

atleast outside catholic traditions

I believe the party line for catholicism is that Mary remained a virgin indefinately

but that view doesn't hold for most other denominations

but basically every Christian denomination maintains that Jesus had no biological father

and the ones that do believe he had a biological father are generally considered heretical by the denominations that don't believe that as it's a fairly key theological point