What I mean is, there's a lot of pseudoscience around AIDS there already. I'd be very surprised indeed if some of that hadn't spread to Mozambique and other countries.
I would look at the case of the Kansas Board of Education and their decision (later reversed) to include intelligent design in school curriculum
that's an example of a very small (but vocal) minority "oppressing" the commonly-held view
In the U.S. (especially in Kansas), atheism is a very small minority opinion
but atheists succeeded in essentially scaring the school board into removing that recommendation--which did not remove evolution from curriculum, it simply added ID to be taught along with it, one of at least two possible theories.
@Flimzy. There's been more said in the creationist chat room (and some stuff said here and moved there). That's the place for an actual discussion on the merits of ID itself. But in the context of "oppression" of Christians we can perhaps talk about it here.
And the problem is that the ID people are fighting in the wrong place. If they were actually concerned about demonstrating the truth of their "theories", they'd be doing some research and trying to be published in scientific journals. They aren't. Because they have nothing to publish and no leads with which to do research.
Instead, they're fighting to get it into the classroom. Because they're not fighting a scientific battle. They're fighting a cultural battle. Dishonestly.
The science classroom is, quite simply, not the place for novel scientific ideas. It's the place for well established scientific ideas.
@TRiG: I'll say just this one statement, since more is off topic here, and belongs in stead in the creation room... But I believe that evolution is also not well established science. It's still a valid theory, perhaps, but it's so far from unproven that to say it belongs in a highschool (or jr. high) class room seems like a bit stretch, too.
I recall watching a documentary on PBS about the Kansas school board Supreme Court case which directly challenged their decision to teach Intelligent Design in the science classroom.
There are also many who treat evolution as an atheistic philosophy (and perhaps even more opponents who think all evolution proponents think it's an atheistic philosophy)... I think the ID debate is an attempt to even that playing field.
If evolution were taught without any atheistic bias, I personally, would not have any problem with it.
One of the smoking guns that ID is Creationism rebranded, aside from the lack of a scientific basis for argument, was the fact that their text book "Of Pandas and People" (if I recall correctly) went through many revisions, and the current one that they used said "Intelligent Design" where older revisions of the book used the word "Creationism". They did a word find/replace to make it more palatable in class...
@Flimzy. It would, quite simply, be impossible to teach biology without covering evolution. It's the backbone of the science. Without evolution, biology is simply a random collection of facts. Evolution makes sense of it.
@TRiG: Perhaps. But evolution does not presuppose atheism. Although many who teach it do--and tie the two together. And this is one of the things many ID/Creationists dislike.
@Flimzy It is of little relevance today, however, it shows where the goals of the originators of the term lie. It isn't a valid argument against its validity, but it shows that they are really just the same thing (when people often try to treat them differently, as if ID is more "scientific")
@Flimzy It actually can (many arguments for irreducible complexity) but it makes it more palatable by not associating it with a particular religion, overtly. :P
@TRiG: Evolution does not presuppose atheism? Read any definition of evolution... That many tie the two together? Read anything Carl Sagan wrote on evolution. That many IDs/Creationsists dislike this? Read any anti-evolution material by Creatonists.
I would agree that many atheists take a particularly atheistic point of view with regards to evolution, however, that is not science talking. That's the atheist talking. :P One thing I like to point out is that science cannot possibly make any statements on the existence/non-existence of God (or any god) simply because God is untestable.
@TRiG I used to really get invested in arguments over Creationism/Evolution with other Christians and I'm not particularly proud of that. I will debate it but I don't go all out like I used to. It actually caused some strife between myself and some of my friends, and lots of anxiety. After praying some, God got me to calm down and get some perspective.
So now I say that it's not a point of salvation, because the lessons of the Genesis accounts are evident regardless of your interpretation of the story as literal history or literary device. And God is satisfied with that.
When it comes to those who are going to be scientists, that's another matter, but only for the sake of the health of the scientific disciplines. ;)
Eating a fruit* is not even a real wicked deed like killing somebody or something. Why did this whole sin thing get started with something so innocuous that by today's standard it wouldn't even be considered a sin?
* I'm pretty sure it was a fig.
@TRiG I would be more concerned for those who do that if they were doing so with science that is of more importance in their lives and in others' (such as vaccination). But no one cares if John Doe on the street believes in evolution or creationism, so long as he's not in a position as a science teacher/professor or sets school policy.
I couldn't care less if the guy who does my taxes is an evolutionist or creationist. So long as he has the important things right, that's water under the bridge.
not to bring this off course, but does one of the mods know what happens if a question is tagged with 2 tags, and later the second tag is marked as a synonym of the first? does it automatically remove the second tag?
Proposed edit #1:
Add:
Any and all areas of Christianity are suitable for asking questions. However, there are a few points to be made first.
This site is not a debate forum. We are here to talk about Christianity, not tear each other down. Users do not expect to be challenged on thei...
I don't at this point know if I believe in a literal Adam or not... It's not a question I've ever thought was very important.
If I ever do form a firm opinion on the matter, it won't be without considering scripture, naturally.
I think it's a bit naive, and perhaps a bit rude, to assume that anyone who considers Adam to be figurative does so in disregard to scripture. I'm not quite sure if that's what your last comment was suggesting or not.
I mean, certainly many who disregard Adam as literal disregard scripture... but I don't think it's fair to assume that of everyone.
I don't remember if I've read about C.S. Lewis's position on the matter, but I trust if he thinks Adam may have been metaphorical, he came to that view with great respect for the scripture.
Note that I'm also not saying I always agree with Lewis... I think his views on pacifism, in particular, were very under-informed :)
Lewis was a brilliant man in many ways but he held some of his pre-conceived ideas over Scripture in quite a few situations. He wasn't one to exegete from Scripture, he conceptualized about things on his own, often from mythology, then applied his conclusions to what Scripture must be saying.
I like Lewis a lot, and love most of his works and value his contributions to articulation Christian concepts, but he just isn't know for his study of the word itself.
The point I'm trying to make is that someone can have a very different interpretation of scripture--even on a point that you think is a "slippery slope"--and they can do so with full respect for scripture.
@Flimzy Certainly not everyone does such things in disregard for Scripture, in fact most think they are doing so specifically in light of it, but I was objecting to your statement that most people could agree it's not important.
@Flimzy The last two lines of your answer sounded like they were headed that direction. Not everybody would agree the most important take away point is simply a figurative concept. In fact lots of people I know would object to that being the main point.
@Flimzy Ya we should chat....somehow I think we're talking apples and oranges and both assuming the other is saying something they aren't. I just nuked the last part of our comment thread because it didn't seem to add anything valuable to your answer until we are communicating on the same plane. (I can pull them up for reference if we need to when we chat).
I'm sure that most of us agree that abortion is sinful and certainly not okay...most of the time. However, I'm thinking of two rare circumstances that may be exceptions.
The mother would die but the baby would (probably) live if an abortion is not performed.
The mother AND the (still-living) ba...
The Catholic Church considers the Pope infallible, but only in limited circumstances. The Pope is a human being like the rest of us, and capable of sinning. However, when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, i.e. with papal authority, he is infallible.
How do Catholics know when the Pope speaks ex cathe...
yes, after reading that I was curious of those statements, but couldn't find a list
"The Vatican itself has given no complete list of papal statements considered to be infallible. A 1998 commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem, written by Cardinals Ratzinger (the later Pope Benedict XVI) and Bertone, the prefect and secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, listed a number of instances of infallible pronouncements by popes and by ecumenical councils, but explicitly stated (at no. 11) that this was not meant to be a complete list.[24]"
There have been only two recognized ex cathedra statements in the last 200 years Munificentissimus Deus defined the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin in 1950 and Ineffabilis Deus defined Mary's Immaculate Conception in 1864.
It's hazier before that because criteria for papal infallibility were set in 1870 with the First Vatican Council
You asked if asking about a list of ex cathedra statements was in scope for this SE. I believe it is.
Also note that "infallible" and "ex cathedra" are not complete synonyms; there are papal teachings considered infallible that are not ex cathedra pronouncements because the magisterium or ecumenical councils say they are...
@dancek No. Please no. But our instructions as mods include leaving breadcrumbs when we clean up comment threads mentioning WHY that particular set was cleaned up and that it happened.
@ElendiaStarman let's keep that in mind, particularly with the complaint(s) on meta. I've been checking other mods work including yours and don't see anything that shouldn't have been deleted, but let's make sure we leave breadcrumbs to explain what happened. I've been leaving some variation of <comments removed because [reason]> where reason is obsolete or inappropriate or off topic or whatever.
@dancek I left a comment that became obsolete?!? Pshaw, impossible.
@Caleb kinda makes sense. The community should always trust mods. If not, the whole model falls apart. (Of course, before pro tems we were basically waiting to get them :P)
getting disputed and declined flags sucks. I've already twice tried to flag a non-answer only to see that I can't flag it 'cause I already did and some one person disagreed
@Flimzy I figured that was tongue-in-cheek, but better safe that sorry.
@dancek looking...
Remember "disputed" can happen from other high rep users, it might not be a moderator thing.
@dancek I can see why both of those could potentially be non-answers, but I don't think they warrant moderator intervention to delete/etc. They both attempt to deal with the right topic, they just don't develop the argument. In other worse they are low quality, but that is something votes can probably take care of.
@Caleb if that's the way it is, I'll accept that. I've misunderstood something about downvoting and flagging (I only flagged those, I thought that was the right course of action).
@dancek I can't retro-actively accept a flag (and it wasn't pro-tems that disputed it) but at least on this one it sounded like there was a valid point being made, it just wan't an full answer so I made it a comment instead.
@Caleb yep, I know declined/disputed flags are done for. I've already had flags disputed and then the post deleted by a mod on the next day. For declined ones, it sucks more because it's effectively -20 flag weight.
On the other it sounds to me like the OP might actually have a point, it's just really badly worded/explained. I would downvote and leave a comment that you can't make out how exactly the answer relates to the question, but I think I'll leave it as an answer so he has a chance to work on it. @jonathonbyrd you coping this?
@dancek -10 I thought.
And I know how it feels, I had quite a few disputed and a couple declined ones myself.
FYI, besides the badge if you hit 500 etc, it's not a huge deal. The flags on the moderators screen get sorted by who has the highest flag score, but believe me, we in the end it's not an algorithm but a human making a call on it. We see the name of who made the flag and a name that we recognize as having spent lots of time trying to constructively help is going to make a bigger difference than being first in the list.
But either way I would have marked those flags as helpful whether action was taken or not, I don't see a reason for a decline.
If you do get declines, feel free to ping any of the mods here and we can discuss it.
Being a mod is kind of like having your hands tied -- permanently tied to a big stick. We can't go touching and giving opinion on everything. We have two choices. Use the big stick and make executive decisions or wait for the community to pitch in with some opinions and then use the big stick to lend credence to them. If users like you aren't flagging, we can't just go whacking at stuff.
Yeah, there was a bit of talk either in this main chat or in the mod chat about a few of the most active close-voters suddenly being unable to vote without immediate effect.
The laws in Leviticus are not separate, individual commands, but rather the whole of the Moses' Law is a unit, "which if a man do, he shall live in them" (Lev 8:5). This includes the laws of the temple and the sacrifices. You can't keep some or most. This answer is the entire basis of the Christi...
I'm not sure it matters, although having at least ONE of those is nice. If you edit a post for any other reason at least give the verses some formatting.
I've actually taken to not giving numbers at all, just the verse reference.
When I give a three verse quote in support of my point I want people just to read all three verses, so I call it out as book X:Y-Z but then just give the text for all three verses without numbers.
If I then go on to reference individual bits its nice to have the references, but with anything less than 10 verses or so, if I quote it in an answer it's usually because I think every word is relevant. Verse numbers tend to make me skip around when reading. Example
But that's a personal thing, I wouldn't edit others answers to be like that.
Although I do sometimes remove the verse when it's duplicated in a copy paste of a single verse (Gal 5:26 "26 ...........")
Sure, for single-verse quotes, I think having the number is redudant
But for multi-verse quotes, I've been adding the numbers... in the example you just quoted, I might add superscript 17, 18, and 19 to your Luke 10:17-19 quote, for instance.
If you think that's going to annoy you, or any other OP, I'll probably stop doing that.
@Flimzy I personally like <sup>, which is why my userscript uses that, too. Mostly verse numbers are not needed, and superscript doesn't get much in the way.
I think I'll stick with that convention unless/until someone complains
Plus it's nice to be consistent with your script, assuming there are any number of people using that :)
user2334
@Flimzy can you cool it with the minor edits on every single question? It breaks the front page for visitors and for people asking questions as you've pushed everything asked recently off of it
I think I would make a judgement call based on how deliberately the OP has formatted anything. If they have gone out of their way to be consistent with a motif, I would just leave it alone. If they haven't bothered to make it a quote or link the verse or whatever, that's pretty much license for you to clean it up and use your own preference/judgement on how it will be best read.
In the absence of Markdown support for Bible quotations, how should people format quotes from the Bible? For instance, here is 2 Timothy 1:7-8 (KJV) (both are really good verses) with some different formatting:
Format A
7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of lo...
@Flimzy Over half the things on the front page are there because you happened to edit them, not because they are new questions or have new answers. Everything being methodically edited doesn't help the natural flow of attention on interesting/quality topics.
@Flimzy Catch minor edits on new posts that are already on the home page, or let them go, or do them at a trickle a couple per day, but don't do batch editing period.
Of course my goal today wasn't to batch edit anything... I was reading Qs and As to find one I could put a bounty on
Okay, I found my bounty question.
user2334
9:16 PM
@Flimzy Another way to throttle edits is to keep them substantial: from many of your edits, it looks like you're just expanding things like Heb n:n to Hebrews n:n. That's not really something that deserves an edit, and I gotta believe every post can use more editing than that, which should take more than a few seconds to do
@MarkTrapp: Every one of my edits today (I think) has been adding scripture reference links and/or mentioning the translation of the Bible used (when it was previously absent)
@MarkTrapp: Of course those all appear to be minor edits in when looking at the diff version... but I think they're more substantial than the diff would make them appear.
@MarkTrapp: IOW, I've been bringing the posts into compliance with the meta post on the issue
I did expand 'Heb' to 'Hebrews', but in conjuction with some other major changes--including correcting an actual error.
user2334
@Flimzy I would consider linkifying every single citation when the post already specifies what translation they're using minor: it doesn't substantially improve the quality of the post
@Mark: When they already mention the translation, I don't bother.
@Mark: I only bother when they either don't mention the translation, or sometimes when they don't even mention the scripture reference.
... unless I have some other reason to edit the post, too... then I'll go ahead and fill in those other gaps at the same time.
I do see one edit of mine today where the translation was mentioned, and I added a link... but in my defense, I didn't notice the translation was mentioned until after I made the edit...
because it wasn't quoted using a standard quoting format... heh
BTW @Flimzy I scratched out an outline of a replacement answer for my death post with a bit more of a Bliblical rather than logical outline. I wasn't at a computer at the time and haven't gotten around to it today, but I haven't forgotten.
It's too bad though, it looks like I'm going to end today in the BLACK on the rep front.
Eating a fruit* is not even a real wicked deed like killing somebody or something. Why did this whole sin thing get started with something so innocuous that by today's standard it wouldn't even be considered a sin?
* I'm pretty sure it was a fig.
Proposed edit #1:
Add:
Any and all areas of Christianity are suitable for asking questions. However, there are a few points to be made first.
This site is not a debate forum. We are here to talk about Christianity, not tear each other down. Users do not expect to be challenged on thei...
In the absence of Markdown support for Bible quotations, how should people format quotes from the Bible? For instance, here is 2 Timothy 1:7-8 (KJV) (both are really good verses) with some different formatting:
Format A
7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of lo...
