The Upper Room

« first day (175 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (4463 days later) »

user2334

12:02 AM

@JonEricson You specifically said you would do just that: "For this question, I would take on the Fundamentalist, inerrantist, and literalist position..."

user2334

I'm sorry you're offended by the implication that you can't possibly present a complete and accurate picture of a highly-contentious facet of Christianity that has been the subject of 2,000 years of theological debate, not to mention countless schisms, but that's still not my main issue with the topic.

user2334

It would be great if we could cover a topic like that in a fair and objective manner in a way that would satisfy all Christians about the subject: I think it'd be pretty difficult, but we could at least try it

user2334

What I strongly object to is the notion that one side of such a topic could be presented on the blog with the invitation for others to write a similar blog post for their own perspective if they don't like it. The purpose of the blog isn't to troll people, it's to supplement the content and character of the main site

Pyrodante

I wrote a religious themed blog post the other day... defending against people attacking the new spiritual fitness test in the military

Harmen

It's a shame this question is closed: http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6040/is-a-skeptical-viewpoint-more-objective-than-christian-viewpoint-in-matters

I think it shows differences between christians, and it might be a very interesting question for people who are not very familiar with christianity and therefore have prejudices about christian ways of thinking. I wish I could reopen it

Jon Ericson

12:16 AM

@MarkTrapp Yes. That was a mistake, which I struck out based on your comment.

@MarkTrapp And I agree. But I don't have any idea where you got that notion. I see how you might have misinterpreted my answer to mean that I meant that, but I never did.

What I meant, was that in order to have all views represented, I'd step out of my usual belief to cover a position I have strong sympathy toward. But I don't think that's a good idea anymore. Your comment helped me clarify my answer.

I'm now convinced that we are in violent agreement. We both want all views (or a reasonable sample) to be covered. Do you agree?

Jon Ericson

12:33 AM

I've got to go, but I'll check in tomorrow.

user2334

@JonEricson Yes, but what I'm insisting on is that when those views are presented on core, divisive topics on Christianity, they're done so simultaneously (in the same blog post) and comprehensively (no undue weight to specific positions, or people playing "devil's advocate" and summarizing a counterposition found on Wikipedia or Catholic Encyclopedia). If that can't be done, the topic should not make it to the blog.

user2334

I'm extremely skeptical that a topic like the nature of Biblical authority can ever meet those requirements, which is why I prima facie object to the topic.

Stack Exchange

4:37 AM

Q: Is any corporate sponsorship allowable on this site?

Ok, first off, I have zero affiliation with Logos Bible Software, beyond the fact that I love it when I am doing my sermon prep. That said, I'd like to write Bob Pritchett and propose two things. I'd like to send him a script I wrote that mines C.SE and Biblical Hermeneutics for all scripture...

11 hours later…

Affable Geek

3:09 PM

@Harmen You can vote reopen.

I'm purposely trying to flush out the trolls a little bit on my "numerous discrepancies" question. I may be a little harsh in calling them out as cowards, but I'd really to get the anonymous downvoters to come out into the open. They may be surprised that if they're any good, they'll get upvotes.

(That seond line is in no way directed to you @Harmen - it was just a general statement unrelated to the first!!!)

wax eagle

3:37 PM

@MarkTrapp my vision for the blog (and I think this lines up with Peter's) will be separate posts that are linked. Clearly marked as "expressing view point X." and linked back to the topic summary which will have the schedule and view points that will be covered. We won't get every angle of every topic and some of them might divisive.

One of the things I want to express very clearly is that the site (and sometimes even the authors) doesn't espouse the views presented in the post, nor claim the collected views to be a complete representation of the Christian views on the subject.

I hope that helps clarify the mission of the blog a bit.

« first day (175 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (4463 days later) »

all rooms