...wh-...what's going on here? We have at least three new users that posted good answers! Today!

...! Hey @AffableGeek, have you seen destinws2's videos on YouTube?

In particular, this one:

@El'endiaStarman That is way cool! Grant you, it's not "his' head, but rather "her" head (trust me, you do't want a rooster!) But thank you for sharing. Yeah... Aren't Chickens great?

On another topic - @SteelyDan, I promise I wasn't writing this with you in mind (indeed, hadn't realized you were back!), but I think it exactly has the guideline you are looking for. In order to evaluate theology, we need a published corpus. That's a pretty low bar, but a necessary one.

I know you your argument is that you don't believe in one, and that's fine for you - but to be on topic, both adherents and detractors need access to the same corpus in order to evaluate the merits of a claim.

@AffableGeek wow, that's the key right there.

you put it more succinctly than I have ever been able to

@AffableGeek no, that's my argument

@SteelyDan why can't you answer the implied "Why" of that answer? (btw it's got 2 delete votes from the community and if left unedited will likely get deleted, I'm more than willing to delete and undelete to clear those votes if you edit it to include some context).

How do you know it's implied? Can you read minds?

@SteelyDan It's implied by the nature of the site it's implicit in every question

Why are you so insistent upon goading me into spamming? So you and your cronies will have an excuse to ban me again?

@SteelyDan I have not desire to ban you. I don't want you to spam. I want you state your beliefs and back them up just like I want every other participant on this site to do.

@El'endiaStarman You also have incorrectly deleted my comments at christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5508/… and christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6135/…

so yes, you have indeed established a habit

@SteelyDan Right. Two of yours out of literally hundreds of others, including my own. In addition, those are from about 9 months ago and comments are meant to be disposable anyway.

The other mods have deleted more of your stuff than I have. What's your problem with me? Is it my attitude?

It means that Mason Wheeler's claim that my accusations are "easily refuted" is a lie (for which he owes me an apology), and I only spoke against you because you at that time because you happened to be the perpetrator at that time

@AffableGeek You should check out Destin's other videos. He lives on a farm, does awesome science videos, has two young kids, and is a Christian (Psalm 111:2). Plus, most of his videos have captioning! :P :D

@SteelyDan The rules of this site are explicit. As to the "where is the implied Why", please see this link: meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/692/…. "In order to give a valid answer about Christianity, it will almost always be necessary to reference a specific doctrine, biblical passage, or other respected external support." This rule has been in place since almost the beginning

And as I've proven multiple times before, that rule is at odds with the fundamental purpose of this site; therefore it is null and void

No, it is not.

@SteelyDan As you have asserted multiple times before ....

And sorry, you are but one participant. This is not your playground, this the collective province of all its user. If you choose not to participate within the community consensus, then you choose to suffer the consequences.

Given your stated objections to ever offering any evidence for anything, I think you should probably avoid using the word proven.

Sadly, no matter how heretical the pastor is, if I'm visiting someone else's facility, I don't get to stand up, take the microphone and say "I think you're wrong."

Sure you do.

(Sorry, didn't mean to trip on you, Trig.)

Private property is morally indefensible, after all.

This is a pretty basic Christian precept.

Especially if you can't even back it up

I can, and I have many times.

That no one has actually provided a convincing counterargument is pretty strong evidence of that.

(hint: pretending I said something I didn't, or flat-out ignoring things I said altogether, does not constitute a "convincing counterargument")

I'm looking at all your answers right now. Most of what I see is unsourced claims, reposting of moderator deleted content, and vague descriptions of "Christian Atheism" with no reference to source material. How are we supposed to refute, or even intelligently discus you claims/beliefs if we can't actually read how you came to those beliefs?

I'm explaining those beliefs right there? How are my own words not a valid source for what I myself believe, unless you wish to claim that I'm saying I believe stuff I actually don't?

The rules are very simple: 1. You must source your claims. We have explained why that is the case. 2. You must explain your reasons. We have explained why that is the case. Both of these have received the strong support of the community. What aspect have we not "convinced" the community of.

Unless if you are the entire community, which you aren't.

And again, how are my own words anything but a valid source for what I personally believe?

I am sourcing them by the mere fact of stating them publicly!

So, Dan, I'm going to make a claim, and it is going to sound mean

@SteelyDan because they aren't verifiable.

How is it not verifiable that my own statements about what I believe, are indeed what I believe?

If I play by the rules of your game, then its completely valid

that doesn't make any sense, unless you want to claim I'm lying about what I believe

I don't need to source it, and I can say, "I just made it up"

see, except I'm not making statements about what other people think or do

I'm making statements about what I myself do

What makes my statement any more or less valid then yours?

Presumably, I'm an accurate source on my own thoughts, since they are, you know, my own thoughts

Are you claiming I in fact might not know what I myself think?

@SteelyDan because it's the internet. And as far as I know you don't actually believe that, you're just sayingit.

So I write it somewhere else--how is that any different, then?

I could be "just saying it" there too

I cannot verify that you believe what you believe because you've not written it down aywhere but here

or a third party writes it down

I could be "just saying it" to him

there's no getting around that, if that's your standard--it's a literally impossible one for anyone in any context

@SteelyDan because then at least it's referenceable. All your beliefs would then be in one place that someone could examine them and make a reasoned defense instead of you just being able to claim anything you want.

if I want to examine Calvin's theology, or Augustine's theology I merely have to pick up a book and read what they've written. If I want to examine Rob Bell's theology I can pick up his book. If I want to look at Piper's theology I can read his website or one of his books. If I want examine Steely Dan's theology I have to....read 20 posts on stack exchange several of which are deleted because they didn't meet the site's quality standards? That's not the way to develop a theology.

and now you're moving the goalposts...as well as presuming you know best about how I am to develop my own ideas

awfully arrogant

@SteelyDan goal posts are right where they were. Write it down somewhere else and we can actually talk about it. A blog is sort of my minimum bar here.

(and always has been)

@SteelyDan not arrogant. If you want to propagate your theology that's fine. It's welcome here as long as the claims are externally examinable.

Theology is about allowing supporters and detractors to examine claims. Published theologians know anything they write is subject to criticism.

It is awfully arrogant of you to presume you are held to a different standard

it's just as easy to debunk a claim I present here as it is to debunk a claim I might publish in a book

it's awfully dishonest of you to presume I think I'm entitled to a different standard

when I've said nothing to that effect

No, its not just as easy debunk a claim you make here - this site is meta, not source.

And the implication of your statement, which is what theology is about, is that you are holding yourself to a different standard.

What's the substantial difference between "I believe X because Y" on Christianity.SE and "I believe X because Y" in a book, as far as one who is looking to analyze/criticize them, is concerned?

it's literally the exact same argument

If you are disallowing us to draw implications from your statements, then you are then censor

Not us :)

@SteelyDan because hopefully in a book (or blog) you'd actually source your claims or get roasted, whereas here we just delete the unsourced statements.

The difference is that your corpus is being introduced as you speak it. In a court of law, lawyers get to go through a "discovery phase." You can't introduce just any evidence at any time - that's illegal

and a book or blog is a matter of accountability. If you make unsourced claims on a blog it's a lot easier to interact with or reply than in an answer where there is little opportunity to counter claim outside fo voting or comments which aren't really the right forums for arguments.

Discovery allows fair access to evidence.

By publishing elsewhere (and frankly @waxeagle is being amazingly generous in saying a blog), you afford a discovery phase, which is the only fair thing to do.

@AffableGeek it's a minimum bar. At least then each post is basically the discovery phase and can be examined individually.

it's not a good way to form a systematic theology, but it might give us enough of a window to actually examine some statements

Now you're just being disingenuous. SE is about learning about what certain groups believe, while works about theology are concerned with proving what X believes is correct. The kind of source for "X group believes Y" is of a totally different sort than what would be required for "X's beliefs concerning Y are correct."

Groups, not individuals. I'm glad to see you're coming around on somethings.

Are you a group?

@SteelyDan right, but how can you make an intelligent examination of what some group believes without all the facts laid out? If I want to go ask a physics question for the purpose of learning and get un-sourced information how do I know it's correct? It's not all the different here.

it's even worse when the phyisicist tells me "this is my own theory and I don't believe in writing papers so it's never been published." He is refusing the peer review process of scientific journals and spouting his own untested theories that no one can examine because he doesn't publish them.

thus his answer is not only unsourced, its unverifiable.

The reasoning behind a claim can be just as easily explained and taken apart via a SE post as it can be via some sort of external publication, though

@SteelyDan this is untrue.

I can explain my reasons here just as well as I can somewhere else, and this way no one has to go somewhere else to find them

it's better this way

no. We really don't want people disecting posts in the comments. that's not what they are meant for.

No. It is not.

At the very least, a clear majority here has decided we don't think it is.

comments are meant for clarification and addition to a post. They are often used for other purposes (and here they are used for arguments), but that is neither a good use or their intended use. We actively try to discourage what you're promoting

Oh. In that case, then, it shouldn't matter either way. All I should need is "X believes Y," and that's enough.

and if people want to take it apart

they can use the explanations I provide

and take it apart elsewhere

like you're suggesting

@SteelyDan but without an external source you're not providing them with the information to make informed decisions on your answers.

You'll need more than that. You'll need to establish your ideas somewhere other than SE before they become valid scope here.

what "external source" would I need if I provide my reasoning right there in the answer?

it's all there for them to make a judgment on it

which means we are going to ask you for an external source, and if you continue to fail to provide one then we will delete them.

@SteelyDan The sources behind your reasoning?

What "sources" exactly? What such "sources" could there be?

given that my approach to Christianity is totally a-scriptural

and completely outside of any established tradition

@SteelyDan I'd guess you'd have to generate some

what would you want?

@SteelyDan no one in history shares your beliefs? You can't link to a philosopher whose writing influenced you? A theologian who shared your views on a particular point?

a blog, which I myself wrote?

And don't bother trying to argue you don't believe in doing that because that is just what you'd be doing here if we let you.

@SteelyDan if your beliefs truly are unique, then that's probably your best bet

in which case we're back to, "If you don't believe me about what I say I believe here, why are you going to believe me about what I say I believe somewhere else?"

you still haven't answered that

@SteelyDan Is this reasonable? You can answer reason based questions with reason, you can answer reason based questions with dogma/doctrine, you can answer faith based questions with dogma/doctrine. But you can't answer faith based questions with reason alone. (unless the question comes requests an answer coming from the non-existent sola-ratio) sect.

why are my own words found somewhere else somehow more believable than my own words right here?

PeterTurner: We're talking about someone talking about what he himself believes, not someone talking about what other people believe. Obviously, X saying "Y believes this" requires some sort of source

Okay, the key here is that StackExchange is not built in a way that encourages discussion of particular views. A question is asked, answers are given, and from that point comments are meant only to be used to point out factually, doctrinally, or Biblically incorrect information, or to seek clarification or elaboration. On a blog on the other hand, the comments section is definitely there to discuss what was said in the post. There is where examination and criticism of a view can happen.

@El'endiaStarman exactly

@SteelyDan external documentation of your claims. It's actually a rather generous requirement. We don't really want original theology here. If you want to develop it offsite and link to it here that's fine, but don't develop it here

and again, I ask, what's the practical difference?

@SteelyDan what Ele said

They would not be more believable. They would still be just as sketchy. But they would at least maybe be valid scope material for use here.

@Caleb I'm not saying "belivable" as in "I agree they're true" but "believable" as in "I believe that this is, in fact, what you happen to believe"

that's the contention here

No it isn't.

@SteelyDan it doesn't but it at least puts it in a place where you're standing behind it a bit more than posting it on SE

Aaand I've got to head out, unfortunately. See you all later and I better not see this place in flames when I get back!

@SteelyDan Isn't it best to take personality out of the equation?

@SteelyDan Stack Exchange is not a place to expound on our own personal beliefs. This is a place to discuss Christianity in the aggregate sense.

At least that isn't our contention.

since, as El'endia Starman pointed out, the purpose of SE is to learn about what others believe rather than judge whether or not something is actually true

then really the only sources necessary should be sources that back up someone's claim about what X believes

@SteelyDan right. And a blog provides some verifiability

it's not much, but it's more than just posting it on C.SE

I'd rather you write a book and point to that...

but a blog is the minimum bar

and how would my own words on my own blog be a better means of verifying that I do indeed believe what I say I believe (leaving aside the matter of truth-value of the beliefs themselves, of course), than my own words here on Christianity.SE?

that's the question I'm still trying to get answered

@SteelyDan externality

what is it about my own words on an external source that make them more trustworthy than my own words here?

my own words are my own words

@SteelyDan I think we're getting off track here.

it's not like we're talking about claims about what third parties believe

@SteelyDan it means you've set them out in a way that's more readable than 20 answers on stack exchange (hopefully)

This site is not a place for individuals to offer their own personal opinions in response to the questions being asked.

This site is supposed to be about what third parties bleive

You yourself said, the purpose of the site is to examine what Group X believes about Y

Stack Exchange is a place for users to get answers to the particular questions that they have.

@BruceAlderman No, we're not. The issue is that we need sources to verify that someone's claims about what X believes are true (which is quite correct, otherwise anyone could make up whatever shit they wanted); but when that X is one's own self, then (unless we want to assume that one is lying about what one believes) it is quite evident that one's own words are their own source for one's own beliefs

Blogs are better than nothing, it would be nice if there were additional votable meta data like "how good are the sources", "what kinds of arguments were made" (let people rate logical arguments higher than fallacies)

I agree with Bruce and Affable. Basically your blog would make you a valid 3rd party in our scope sense :)

@AffableGeek So you're OK with forbidding Catholics from answering questions about what Catholics believe?

@SteelyDan no, the catholic church/people group is the third party

ok, fair enough there

individual catholics and what they believe are basically off topic. What the catholic church (or subsets of it) believes is on topic

@SteelyDan If you have a blog, and someone stumbles across it and has a question about something you wrote there, and they ask the question here, then it is appropriate to give your own views here.

@BruceAlderman I'd go as far as to say if he wants to answer questions and back them up from his blog that's fine. It's borderline, but if he has an established external presence then that at least has some smell of legitimacy

@PeterTurner I still don't think you understand. When you say things like we should consider "how good are the sources," are you talking about sources for the simple statement that X believes Y, or sources relating to proving the truth-value of Y?

it's basically the "estbalished theologian" rule we're working out in @AffableGeek's meta post

The other primary reason you need to be external is that you are mislabelling yourself if you are doing theology here. If you present something "novel" how is the casual participant supposed to distinguish between your new theory and 2000 years of accepted doctrine? You are fundamentally deceiving people to do otherwise

@BruceAlderman If someone asks, "What are Christian atheist perspectives on issue X," then I fail to see how the particular Christian atheist perspective I hold on X is anything but relevant. It's not like I'm trying to provide my Christian atheist perspective to the question "What is the LDS perspective on X"?

You're right, I'm missing the point, for reasonable questions, the logic should be clear. But even St. Thomas quotes Aristotle ad nauseam for his reasonable arguments in the Summa. If you make a reasonable argument, try and see if someone else made the argument, it adds argumentum ad verecundiam to your ideas.

@SteelyDan I get that. It's the question of how to source/make verifiable your claims that ask for general truth (which is a question type I'm not generally a fan of anyways)

@PeterTurner But here we're not concerned with whether a given belief is "true" or "reasonable" or not; we're just interested in what X believes and why X believes that, regardless of how valid their reasons may be.

@SteelyDan right "what does x believe, why does x believe it, why do they believe that?" If the "Why" isn't clear then external sources should be required.

and so the sources needed are sources that show that X does indeed belief something and their reasons for it, not sources to back up the validity of that belief

@SteelyDan I'd really prefer validity along with it.

but for the most part we just need to verify that yes they do indeed believe that

thank you

now we're getting somewhere

And as stated in the FAQ, you must label the denomination you speak for - especially if it is is small. 1/2 billionith (which is what your "group" is) is small

As such, you would need to be very clear "This is my personal belief"

And we are not interested in anyone's personal belief

which, you'll note, is what I do

and you personally may not be

but if the person asking the question asks a question that asks for such beliefs

then answers from such perspectives are certainly appropriate

@SteelyDan no no, we as a site are not interested in personal beliefs.

if a person asks for personal beliefs we will close it as too localized.

or not constructive

then you need to stop doing that, because it clearly runs counter to the purpose of this site

Personal beliefs are unexaminable, unverifiable and not really constructive for an SE style format.

@SteelyDan you've raised this on meta, and we've explained why we are like this. If you still have a problem with this I invite you to contact SEI directly on this matter.

how are they not examinable, if they're laid out right in front of you? how are they not verifiable (again, you have yet to answer the question of how me saying "I believe X" in a blog or in a book is somehow more trustworthy than me saying "I believe X" here is)

I will say, if you had a meta post that asked the question, "What does Steely Dan believe?" and added as many answers to it as you'd like, I wouldn't be opposed. But in main, your particular opinion just doesn't stand up to being "on-topic"

@SteelyDan I'd like to ask, "What dogmas do Christian Atheists adhere to?" is that answerable?

@SteelyDan To me, the external sources are more of a stepping stone to further research. A C.SE answer is at most only going to provide a summary of a belief system. If a user really wants an answer to their question, they will need to be pointed somewhere that they can learn more.

@AffableGeek I would be.

link to contact SEI: christianity.stackexchange.com/help/other

that goes direct to the community team and is not seen by the moderators.

@SteelyDan because they are incomplete.

an answer is not enough to actually provide context and most of the time adequate context to your believes would need more than the 20k characters that an answer is limitd to

and would likely be off topic to the question at hand.

Rather than examine that on a case-by-case basis, you prefer to be so arrogant as to presume that you know the future?

And again, I'm not talking about providing my perspectives to questions like, "What is the LDS perspective on this topic"?

can we please get past that straw man?

@SteelyDan not saying you are. I'm talking about general truth questions.

@SteelyDan yes. It's not arrogance, it's experience

aren't those questions themselves off-topic, though?

it's also the nature of the site. Stackexchange sites want a narrow focus to questions.

@SteelyDan not off topic, often unconstructive is more like it.

@SteelyDan There is plenty of room those questions within and without Christianity, there is the philosophy of the Natural Law which is at the heart of Catholic Morality. It's not "general truth", but to me (and I think to everyone else, if they thought about it hard enough) it is THE truth.

@PeterTurner Yeah, you're really not with it. No one's saying those kinds of questions aren't valid questions in general, just that they're not the kinds of questions this discussion is concerned with or that Christianity.SE is designed to answer.

@SteelyDan btw your edit on christianity.stackexchange.com/a/11377/49 works well. You've given enough there that an external source wouldn't be necessary (although it would be helpful if someone wanted to learn more about what you believe)

@SteelyDan Fundamentally, you seem to have a very definite idea of what you think this site is supposed to be, and it seems to conflict with what the rest of the community says. Could I suggest you articulate your vision here: meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1379/… and see what the community thinks?

@SteelyDan Just trying to help out by providing white noise (helps for my kids anyway, I like to pretend I'm the north wind).

well, when you see the southern cross for the first time, it'll help you know just why you came this way

because it's a fair wind, blowing warm from the south on my shoulders...think I'll set a course and go

btw @SteelyDan meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1406/… might be a good thing to take a look at. I do encourage you to post on meta if you are unhappy with the direction of this site. I'd also encourage you to email SEI if you have problem with the moderation of this site.

@SteelyDan The Southern Cross was spectacular the first time I saw it. One of the joys of visiting Bolivia was to see that sight again. (But I found the people to be even more spectacular. ;)

And, if you really have a problem with the moderation here, I invite you to try out programmers.SE :)

@waxeagle Tried it before, didn't get anywhere

@JonEricson I spent too much time in cities with no stars in SA...I should try to get out of town next time I'm down there...

> Most of my answers are not about my personal beliefs. Why should they be? The question wasn't about what TRiG believed on the topic.

@SteelyDan What makes you think that personal opinion is ever on topic?

When it asks for certain Christian perspectives that are defined so as to include my own, for one

If someone asks for Christian atheist perspectives, then my Christian atheist perspective is quite relevant

as I said earlier:

And again, I'm not talking about providing my perspectives to questions like, "What is the LDS perspective on this topic"?

can we please get past that straw man?

I'm really getting tired of it

@SteelyDan yes it is.

but that doesn't mean you can spout unverifiable claims, or unreferenced personal beliefs. It's CA as a belief system in general not your specific flavor.

Christian atheism is pretty clearly not a monolith

and it's simply bad anthropology to insist that it must be to shoehorn it into your preconceived notions of how people should be asking and answering

@SteelyDan not saying it is. you can take a subset of it as long as there is some kind of external source for verification

even if it's just your blog

I guess I just don't get why my own words on an external source are supposed to be more trustworthy than my own words here, if the question is merely what I do in fact believe rather than the validity of those beliefs themselves?

@SteelyDan Probably partly because it allows for a more coherent overview of your beliefs, rather than the drips and drabs that come out in response to specific questions.

@SteelyDan because what you believe, if it's not set out somewhere else, is off topic. meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1406/… provides something of a minimum bar for beliefs to be on topic.

@TRiG this.

@waxeagle Well yes, but that's a recursive statement.

but what is the reasoning behind it being off-topic, though?

@SteelyDan what Trig said

I mean, I get why it's important when you're talking about what someone else believes, so you can't just make shit up

but again, unless we want to assume I'm lying when I say what I believe--in which case there's no reason that I'm also not lying when I say what I believe on an external source--that's simply not a problem when one is describing one's own beliefs

@SteelyDan because basically we're asking to to answer as if someone else does believe it I think that's the heart of it. Distance yourself from your beliefs, answer in an academic sense.

consider this site like you would academia. even if you're quoting yourself you've gotta source the paper it's found in.

we're seeking something close to academic rigor here.

we've lowered the bar to "referenceable" rather than fully referenced, but we expect people to back things up when challenged with external references. And really most of the time we expect people to provide well researched answers rather than personal opinions.

@PeterTurner. Could I ask for clarification on something? What is "a sacramental view of the world"? Because I'm not sure I'm quite getting the point of that article.

@TRiG first of all, that's the "bad catholic" news paper. But I'll read it and find out what it's talking about 'cuz I'm not biased.

happy now?

patebin? really?

@TRiG I think it's the idea that Actual Grace comes from the the mystical nature of real things made holy. You've probably seen your share of sacramentals if you've ever been to Knock or thereabouts.

@PeterTurner I've actually never been to Knock.

@TRiG My mom went there, she brought me back some... sacramentals (a rosary and a cross).

@PeterTurner And they're special because they came from a ... holy site?

it was the easiest way to start, and to be a smartass in the process

@TRiG They're more holy if their blessed, they're even more holy if they're passed over the holy site or touch a saint (that's where 3rd degree relics come from) so yeah, that's probably what the article is calling "Imagination".

Interestingly, a few months ago, as part of the local arts festival, the film club put on a showing of the documentary The Pipe. The film club meet in the Presbyterian Church. After the showing, I helped the minister (who I'd met before, and slightly knew) with washing up the teacups, etc. And I helped him pull a table out of a back room into the church proper.

The table was usually used for changing babies' nappies (diapers, to you Americans). The next day, it would be used in the service (for a christening, if I remember correctly).

The minister remarked that this lack of distinction between sacred and secular was an important part of his theology.

@TRiG yep

@waxeagle Interesting guy. We ended up in a pub till 2 a.m., talking about films, Terry Pratchett, Douglas Adams, and beer. (He's a beer geek. I'm not.)

@TRiG cool :)

@PeterTurner I suspect that the article is using imagination in a fairly broad sense, to encompass an entire worldview, or approach to life.

@waxeagle And, while doing the washing up, I tried to explain to him why something in The Chronicles of Narnia which he found beautiful, I found problematic.

@TRiG I think a Catholic would look on it as sacramentalizing the changing of diapers. And yeah, that is the worldview, I'm not sure how you're going to "pray always" without that mindset. Do you think that pastor would be comfortable with people having sex in his church?

Are you with me, Doctor Wu?

@PeterTurner I ... er. I suspect that wouldn't be a normal part of the service.

@TRiG It's not for most Presbyterians stateside (but I confess I haven't visited all the churches or even denominations that claim the name)

@PeterTurner I'm not seeing the connect you're making here though

@PeterTurner but then we stick to 2 sacraments :)

@waxeagle I did get the impression that they can be quite varied. When taking about the size of his congregation, he said something about there being some regulars who wouldn't necessarily call themselves "Presbyterians", but who had "found their spiritual home" in his church. I remarked that my previous Witness self would have found that statement all but incomprehensible, but that now I spend so much of my time on the internet hanging out with NeoPagans, I'm beginning to understand that mindset

He was quite disconcerted.

It was rather amusing, actually.

@waxeagle I'm just saying that, it may be OK to change diapers on a table that is used for christening, but it's probably not OK for people to have sex underneath a table used for christening. So you can profane a thing in a pure way out of necessity, and you can profane a thing in an impure way for no good reason.

@PeterTurner gotcha

@PeterTurner On the other hand, if someone actually did have sex under the table (well, more than one person, presumably), I'm not sure that he'd actually see the table as having been "profaned", as such.

@TRiG probably not. In general Presbyterians reject the whole concept of items being consecrated. We don't do relics, or holy sites etc

@waxeagle Funny. I do.

There's something special in Newgrange. In Giant's Ring. In Agia Sophia. In the Sultanahmet Mosque.

Probably something to do with them having been hallowed by age.

I don't actually believe any of it, but I feel it.

There's something special on mountaintops, too.

I'm prepared to believe that it's all happening within my own head. That does not, I think, make it any less real.

(Someone once remarked to me that Western culture has lost the concept of sacred time, but retains the concept of sacred space.)

@TRiG I'm with you there. Feeling a connection to places, site, experiences. Specially in nature.

@TRiG I think we call that natural revelation :)

It's God revealing himself through his creation

@waxeagle Newgrange is a neolithic burial mound. Giant's Ring I visited last time I was in Belfast. We don't know exactly what it was, but it certainly hosted ceremonies for hundreds of years.

@TRiG cool :)

So yes, I feel it in nature (woods and mountains, especially), but ancient works of humanity also hit me.

@TRiG makes sense to me

@TRiG: I also have a couple Pagan friends, and something that I've learned from them is the idea of Energy. There's a good deal of interesting stuff that I've figured out about Energy, but one aspect of it is that it can suffuse places. An aura, in effect. Another aspect is that Energy is directed by intent, so if you have a place where many people have directed their intent to a particular purpose, the Energy from that is concentrated enough for other people to feel, even many years later.

So, in the case of a burial mound, I would suspect that most people would go there with intent to honor and respect the dead, and to treat it as a sacred place (even if only in a minor sense of the word). On a mountain top, you've got the whole grandeur and awe of the landscape around you. A forest or jungle is absolutely teeming with life, and it's displayed in all its raw glory.

@El'endiaStarman Which is a useful notion; a handy way to get a grasp on things. Rather like thinking about chi is useful to martial artists, or fung shui is useful to interior decorators. That is, whether or not it's literally true, it's a useful way of thinking.

I personally happen to think it isn't true (which will not surprise you). I think the effect is taking place entirely within my head. It's the feeling of connection to my forebears which does it.

@TRiG Precisely! As it happens, the base ideas behind Energy can be found in Christianity as well, which absolutely makes sense if it's a spiritual thing.

@El'endiaStarman Considering how massive Newgrange is, and the technology they had available at the time, I suspect it was a fairly major site. It contains only three graves, but the structure would have taken a lot of effort to build, and probably was important for some time.

(It's not as impressive as the pyramids (far from it) but it is a lot older.)

@TRiG That's actually somewhat how I approached it. I was hearing about this stuff about healing over large distances (Reiki over thousands of miles) and how it doesn't weaken over distance, and other stories...so I decided to figure out what in the world was actually happening. What in particular was happening physically.

Unrelated, but from the Christian Memes Facebook page...

@El'endiaStarman I was reading a book about medicine and pseudoscience. It mentioned that these days there are diseases which are contagious over the internet (but find it difficult to cross language boundaries). One argument is that stress manifests with different symptoms in different cultures.

@TRiG I definitely agree that the placebo effect (and its relatives) are responsible for a LOT, but then there are a few cases where it doesn't explain enough.

@El'endiaStarman I've read Ben Goldacre's Bad Science and Suckers: How alternative medicine makes fools of us all by Rose Shapiro. I also have Ben Goldacre's Bad Pharma, but I've not read it yet. Interesting and thought-provoking stuff.