« first day (1147 days earlier)      last day (3492 days later) » 

El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
12:09 AM
@Flimzy Yep, I'm pretty sure.
I realized that I didn't know how to do a strict equality comparison in Python, so I did a bit of research.
 
Flimzy
Flimzy
I don't know how to do much of anything in python :)
 
El'endia Starman
El'endia Starman
...ye SCUM...
(Just kidding, of course. ;) )
 
Flimzy
Flimzy
12:27 AM
I've been learning (to hate) nodejs lately
and looking forward to the moment when I will have time to put some of my new Go knowledge to the test.
 
 
3 hours later…
Does Elisha speak?
Does Elisha speak?
3:17 AM
0
Q: Could we celebrate Mass with members who have closed our questions?

Jim G.I was just wondering: How many Christianity.SE members would be interested in celebrating an online Mass together? I suppose any Christian denomination would suffice, as long as we can agree to a mutually acceptable time. (In light of the fact that some members live in the Eastern Hemispher...

discussion
 
Jim G.
Jim G.
@Flimzy: I'd love to hear more. We're debating Node.js at my workplace too.
 
 
8 hours later…
Flimzy
Flimzy
11:49 AM
@JimG. Well, nodejs is clearly an "afterthought" (as are most of the cool features of javascript).
As a result, there aren't defined ways to do many important things. The most recent thing that bit me was the complete lack of a) documentation and b) standard practice for sub-classing nodejs modules. A node module can export literally anything it wants. It can export an object constructor, an object, data, functions, or anything else.
This means that you have no idea how any given module will behave, and if you need to subclass a module, you had just better hope you can figure out what it's doing, and hope that it's then possible to subclass it as you need.
I think the only thing node has going for it is that it's javascript, which is the same thing that runs in browsers, so there is the theoretical possibility of sharing code between the browser and the server. But in practice, that seems like a vaporware feature. How often do you really share code between the two? I think practically never--and most critiques of node I've read say the same thing.
The only "sharing" between the client and server is in developer knowledge. Which is valuable... but not as valuable as most node advocates would have you believe.
 
 
1 hour later…
Elisha and his Brethren
Elisha and his Brethren
1:20 PM
1
Q: What does the talmud/rabbinic writing have to say about Yeishu hanotzri (Jesus)?

James JenkinsI Understand that the name Jesus was not uncommon 2000 years ago, and Jewish writings about person of historical interest to the christian church call him "Yeishu hanotzri" = "Jesus the Nazarene". I understand the talmud talks about him; where and what does it say?"

history talmud-gemara historical-figures christianity
 
 
1 hour later…
Ask Elisha
Ask Elisha
2:20 PM
0
Q: Was any Medieval state ever "partially" Roman Catholic?

Saal HardaliIt is my understanding that in most of (if not all) the states in western medieval Europe the Roman Catholic church was the only recognized religious body. I'm looking for an example of a state with recognized Roman Catholic presence (priests and bishops with Papal investiture) but where there ...

middle-ages europe religion christianity catholic-church
 
 
2 hours later…
TRiG
TRiG
4:46 PM
 
fredsbend
fredsbend
5:29 PM
@TRiG Had nothing else to do except read a ten month old chat transcript?
> The historians seem to regard the cultural and sub-cultural distinctives of evangelicalism as traits that arise from its religious distinctives. I think that’s backwards. I think the subculture shapes the religion more than the other way ’round.
@TRiG I'm learning that this ^^^ is more and more true.
But then it's immediately followed with:
> That’s part of why I make a point of referring not just to evangelicalism, but to white evangelicalism. It’s whiteness defines it and determines its shape.
uhhh .... maybe.
The Foxworthian jokes were okay. I don't notice or get some of them. The skiing rededication thing was pretty funny.
 
 
2 hours later…
fredsbend
fredsbend
7:15 PM
 
Flimzy
Flimzy
7:40 PM
@fredsbend We need zombies, too!!
 
fredsbend
fredsbend
8:01 PM
@Flimzy If I understand their meme correctly, we need to kill our zombies with upvotes. Or, perhaps you are suggesting that we memefy (yes, a real word that I just coined) zombie for our own purposes. I like that idea. How does one create a meme anyway? That's like creating a viral video. Or a hot network question on SE.
 
Flimzy
Flimzy
@fredsbend I think zombies were questions with no answers, right?
And to create a meme... apparently all you need is bad grammar and a photo editor... but I like the original meaning of "meme" a lot better (which the CR post seems to use), of something short and memorable, rather than the FB/twitter definition of "A stupid graphic with text"
 
fredsbend
fredsbend
8:50 PM
@Flimzy lol. Right.
@Flimzy I think you might be right about this too.
The bot should pick it up soon.
 
Flimzy
Flimzy
"as the traditional view of marriage is monogamous by definition" That may not be strictly true... although it's kind of splitting hairs. :) "Tradition" is very culture-specific, and what is traditional in one place isn't always in another. In many places (even today) traditional marriage includes other forms.
Specifically, some existing cultures "traditionally" practice group marriage or polygyny. The latter is the most likely to have any presence on our site.
(specifically Mormons and Muslims)
 
Does Elisha speak?
Does Elisha speak?
1
Q: Proposal for tagging questions that concern marriage, both traditional and non-traditional forms

fredsbendWe've had a recent headbutting concerning the [tag:marriage] tag. It started when a new user simply thought the tag ought to be inclusive of all the forms of marriage that various groups within Christianity accept. In hindsight, it wasn't the right course to jump in and make that first edit (yes,...

discussion tags tag-wiki
 
fredsbend
fredsbend
@Flimzy Traditional, within the context of Christianity, is very much largely monogamous. Cultures everywhere have clashed in various ways with Christianity. That doesn't mean one culture's way of doing things is the or a traditionally Christian way.
 
Flimzy
Flimzy
@fredsbend Even that depends on how far back you go to establish "tradition." Christianity has been primarily monogamous since it was adopted by Rome, so about 1700 years.
I realize it is, by now, well established tradition within western Christian cultures.
But I think we ought to be careful, still, in how we word these tags/questions.
Even within the Mormon church, it's quite accurate to say that "traditional marriage" includes polygamy
 
fredsbend
fredsbend
9:07 PM
@Flimzy I'm not exactly sure, but I'm pretty sure that Christianity stressed monogamy earlier than that. More so, it stressed non-marriage, or singularity as I like to call it.
@Flimzy Saying Mormons have traditionally practiced polygamy is not the same as saying that Christianity does not largely consider monogamy as the traditional form.
The fact is that it does and has for a long time.
 
Flimzy
Flimzy
@fredsbend I haven't studied it closely (yet). But I'm pretty sure that monogamy was a Roman concept, implanted upon Christianity. The idea (AFAIAW) that Christianity (or Judaism) is "primarily" monogamous is an invention of modern monogamous societies trying to defend themselves.
But regardless...
I think we need to be careful not to alienate anyone who comes from another background (say Islam), where multiple wives are traditional.
@fredsbend But your verbiage doesn't say "Christianity largely considers monogamy as the traditional form" It says "traditional view of marriage is monogamous by definition" -- and that's not true.
The traditional view of marriage within Christianity is monogamous-- I would consider that a substantially true statement.
"traditional marriage by definition is monogamous" -- not a true statement.
 
fredsbend
fredsbend
@Flimzy Tags and their excerpts are meant to be used how the site deems appropriate. If consideration for an Islamic view of marriage on this site is important to you, then I suggest a different meta post.
> Christianity's traditional view of marriage is monogamous by definition.
changed
 
Flimzy
Flimzy
I would remove the "by definition"... but it's substantially better now.
 
fredsbend
fredsbend
Yes, it reads better without it. done.
 

« first day (1147 days earlier)      last day (3492 days later) »