The Upper Room

curiousdannii

12:43 AM

@fredsbend It's not as bad as on English.SE.

@Nathaniel Anyone know why it's -2? The only thing I can think of would be accepts.

fredsbend

@curiousdannii Receiving a downvote is -2. I guess you never get those ;)

curiousdannii

@fredsbend I get downvotes, but if they were cancelled when a user gets removed then we should get +2

Ask Elisha

0

Q: When was the last time the Catholic Church excommunicated someone for political reasons?

The Roman Catholic Church has a long history of excommunicating people. These days it is mostly constrained to excommunicating bishops who break with doctrine. The Pope regularly sends letters to political figures touching on political matters. (Russian President, Australian Prime-minister, UN S...

curiousdannii

I think people deleting their accounts is very strange. You can always just not visit.

Nathaniel

@curiousdannii If he upvoted one of your questions, and you downvoted three of his answers, that would do it.

curiousdannii

12:53 AM

@Nathaniel Ah okay. Are only recent rep points cancelled when a user is deleted?

Nathaniel

@curiousdannii From what I can tell, all the votes are reversed, so it's not like old posts with 3 votes that are deleted for being obsolete. In the latter case the owner keeps the rep, but here they don't.

curiousdannii

@Nathaniel In that case it seems rather strange that I only got -4 total.

Nathaniel

@curiousdannii Why's that?

Remember that every negatively voted post that he ever posted has been deleted. So if he had several -1, -2, -3 answers out there that you had downvoted, your rep will be returned

curiousdannii

@Nathaniel I feel like I would've voted far more times than that. I guess that could've been negated by several of his upvotes on my posts being cancelled, but I didn't he gave me many of those

Nathaniel

Yes, I'm guessing that's what it was. I've checked a few posts that I know he upvoted/downvoted (thanks to screenshots he shared) and those counts haven't been updated yet. But perhaps tonight they will be updated to reflect his votes disappearing.

(just in case you want to screenshot your current votes and compare tomorrow :))

You did what to the cows Elisha?!

6:53 AM

0

Q: Is Jesus really one of the disputes of Sidhas in Himalayas?

I came to know that Jesus in his childhood, in spite of giving respect to his father Joseph's words, came to India to learn magical talents and spirituality from Sidhas in Himalayas. After learning the arts from them, he went back to his land and implementing these talents and thus impressed many...

vedas puranas belief christianity

Does Elisha speak?

12:43 PM

0

Q: Can a user change screen name?

I recently looked back at a question that had an answer from a well known user and the answers is still there but instead of the old familiar moniker there us a user number. It seems he changed his handle Is that allowed?

bug user-accounts

fredsbend

2:36 PM

Apparently this site is more concerned with dogma than history. — fredsbend 3 mins ago

There is no credible, sound evidence that Jesus visited India. — fredsbend 7 mins ago

Can't say I'm surprised. Indians, as a culture, tend to prefer exaggeration and hyperbole.

Lee Woofenden

4:08 PM

Okay, the discussion and voting on this question is getting my goat:

6

Q: How was Jesus the Seed of David if Jesus is God who created Man (Adam), and David is the seed of Adam?

How is Jesus the Messiah, the seed of David, if Jesus is God, and God created Man (Adam), and David is the seed of Adam? This is a never-ending circle, and can't physically be possible. We are told in the Old Testament that the Messiah will be the seed of David. This prophecy is fulfilled in the ...

jesus nature-of-god genealogy trinitarian logic

The question asks how the issue presented has been resolved by "Christian theologians and denominations that affirm the Incarnation: that Jesus is fully human and fully God?"

The answer with the highest vote total specifies no Christian theologians or denominations at all, but just gives a general answer with no reference to any theologian or denomination, but only a couple of related references to the Bible. As I understand it, this makes it NAA, and it should be deleted.

The answer with the second highest vote total does provide support from Christian commentators, so it isn't NAA. However, it asserts as fact an idea that is really only a theory: that Luke's genealogy of Jesus was actually traced through Mary rather than through Joseph, even though the text itself simply doesn't say that.

Then my answer, which has a negative vote total, provides both a denominational basis and quotations from a Christian theologian, both of which fit the parameter of the question: "Christian theologians and denominations that affirm the Incarnation: that Jesus is fully human and fully God."

This looks to me to be a clear case of users upvoting and downvoting based on whether they agree with the answer, and not based on how well the answer actually addresses the question, and abides by site guidelines.

I would appreciate feedback on whether my assessment is (likely) correct, or whether I'm missing something here.

Nathaniel

4:25 PM

@LeeWoofenden This is the type of question I consider voting to close as too broad, especially once it becomes clear that it's not sufficiently scoped. Steve's answer isn't that great, but it reflects a common understanding, so it gets votes for being considered "right." H3br3wHamm3r81's answer also benefits from being considered "right" by more people than yours.

Lee Woofenden

@Nathaniel So you're saying that I'm "right" that the voting is based on whether users agree or disagree with the answers, and not on how well the answers actually answer the question according to site guidelines?

@Nathaniel And do you or don't you agree with me that Steve's answer is NAA because it doesn't provide the requested scope, or support pursuant to that scope, as broad as that scope may be?

Nathaniel

@LeeWoofenden Basically yes. The thing is, even if this isn't too broad, two different approaches to handling the question are inevitably going to voted on according to voter bias. If I ask a historical question about someone divisive, say Calvin, committing a crime, and one answer says yes he did, and the other says no he didn't, and both make equally strong cases, then the Catholics are going to tend to prefer the first answer and the Calvinists are going to tend to prefer the second answer.

Lee Woofenden

@Nathaniel I should add that I find this statement in @H3br3wHamm3r81's answer to be both false and offensive:

> One would have to be foolishly dogmatic to assert that the Greek text does not support the aforementioned translation. Both John Gill and John Lightfoot had an exceptional grasp of biblical (Koine) Greek.

The fact of the matter is that this is a hugely debated issue going back to the early days of Christianity. Many different theologians and excellent Bible scholars have come to many different conclusions, as outlined in the Wikipedia article on the subject: Genealogy of Jesus.

Can an answer really make a statement that is both offensive and patently false from a purely objective, historical perspective, and have that false and offensive statement stand unchallenged?

Nathaniel

@LeeWoofenden I recommended deletion on it when it came through the queue, but someone else disagreed, so I imagine your flag came back as disputed. I have found that I am more likely to agree with NAA flags than average (which is why I brought this up on meta)

@LeeWoofenden I'd certainly challenge that line. If it said "...to assert that the Greek text cannot support..." then it would be more defensible, but as is it seems unnecessarily strong.

Lee Woofenden

@Nathaniel I understand that, even if I don't like it. I realized early on that because the doctrinal stance my answers represent is heterodox to traditional Christians, my answers will simply not get the upvotes that answers given from larger and more traditional will get, and my answers will also get more downvotes because more users here will disagree with them. This annoys me, but I understand that it's an unavoidable fact due to human nature.

@Nathaniel In this particular instance, on that particular issue, I simply wanted confirmation (or not) from those outside the situation, and thus a little more objective than I am, on my sense that the votes so far are largely based on agreement or disagreement, and not on the quality of the answers.

Nathaniel

4:42 PM

@LeeWoofenden I'd still say your answer could be stronger, however. For example, I find your exegesis of Matthew 22 unconvincing. Why is the typical analysis ("he's asking a rhetorical question") problematic?

Lee Woofenden

@Nathaniel Aside from the fact that my NAA flag has not so far been accepted, what set me off on this was @KorvinStarmast's now deleted (by himself) comments that because Steve's answer gives a perspective broadly accepted by Christians, it's not necessary for it to state a denominational perspective or provide backing from theologians, as requested by the question.

That seems to be to be utterly wrong according to site guidelines. How can that answer have any claim to being an answer within the scope of the question, as broad as that question is?

@Nathaniel I attempted to challenge that line in the comments. But all of those comments have now been deleted. I don't really object to that, since it was becoming a long discussion of content. But still, that line is simply false, as well as being offensive. How would I (or someone else) go about challenging it without having the comments once again deleted?

@LeeWoofenden That should have read, "as broad as that scope is?"

Basically, since Steve's answer provides no support from Christian denominations or theologians that fit the parameters of the question, it reads as personal opinion.

@Nathaniel If he was asking a rhetorical question, what was the point of the rhetorical question? Rhetorical questions don't just hang in the air for no purpose. They are rhetorical specifically because they are intended to make a point rather than asking a question that seeks an answer.

Nathaniel

@LeeWoofenden Ultimately, because it addresses #1 in my meta post. Some people tend to apply NAA flags only to things that violate #1.

@LeeWoofenden A downvote is probably your only option. Critical comments that are short and don't spiral into discussion will often remain for a long time, but I agree, I wouldn't leave a second comment in this case.

Lee Woofenden

@Nathaniel But that's not what the site guidelines say. They say quite clearly that answers must respond within the scope of the question. And the site's requirement of providing support for an answer, so that it is not mere assertion, and susceptible to being mere opinion, means that an answer must show that it is within the scope of the question, which Steve's answer does not do.

@Nathaniel I am thinking of leaving a comment referring to the Wikipedia article on the subject showing that Christian theologians and Bible scholars have taken many different positions on this subject.

Nathaniel

@LeeWoofenden Sorry, I should have said #1 and #2, not just #1. But where you begin to extend is where you say "an answer must show that it is within the scope of the question..." I agree, but that's not consensus as far as I can tell, especially when talking about things that "everyone" (i.e., Nicene Christians) know.

@LeeWoofenden I could see that being appropriate.

Lee Woofenden

4:58 PM

@Nathaniel So the consensus is that @KorvinStarmast is right, and answers that "everyone knows" don't have to abide by site guidelines when it comes to satisfying scoping and providing support for the answer?

That's just plain wrong.

Nathaniel

@LeeWoofenden Take a look at this question: Where is the jug of oil that never ran dry?. Technically, I don't answer the question asked. And yet I got a bunch of upvotes. It's theoretically possible that there is some sect out there that says "I have the jar!" But because "everyone knows" that my answer is right, it stays.

I agree with you that this question and your question are different. But how different they are is a matter of opinion, on which there isn't a consensus. So by default, without a consensus, Steve's answer may survive.

Lee Woofenden

@Nathaniel Well, I suppose I'll have to check my optimism and naivete at the door here as well as everywhere else. As everywhere else, the favored ones get a free pass as long as they don't do anything really egregious, while the less favored ones have to show their pass and have it closely scrutinized at every checkpoint.

@Nathaniel Well . . . ask a silly question, get a silly answer. :-P

@Nathaniel But more seriously, some questions just have basic flaws in their premise, and "answering" them is a matter of pointing out that basic flaw, which your answer does. Poor questions are hard to answer "properly" according to site guidelines precisely because they are poor questions—which in this case is reflected in the question's -3 vote.

Nathaniel

5:16 PM

@LeeWoofenden To a Nicene Christian, at first glance, Steve's answer is pointing out a basic flaw in the premise of a silly question. It's only after more consideration and especially awareness of other opinions that it becomes more clear that a more extensive treatment is necessary.

Lee Woofenden

@Nathaniel I don't see how anyone could view it as a silly question. It deals with a substantive issue of Christian theology. Even if there are well-established answers, it's still a good question.

However, more broadly, I happen to think that the answers provided in the major Christian denominations simply don't hold water biblically. From my perspective, they require ignoring or reinterpreting whole swaths of the Bible in ways that violate both the letter and the spirit of the Bible text.

Asserting as a "known fact" that Luke's genealogy traces Jesus' lineage through Mary rather than through Joseph is a case in point. There's simply no warrant for that in the Greek text of Luke itself. No Bible scholar would ever have come to that conclusion reading Luke by itself, were it not for the conflict with Matthew's genealogy. If only the Gospel of Luke existed, it would be taken as a "known fact" that Joseph was the son of Heli, and so on.

In fact, as outlined in the Wikipedia article, there is also a theory that holds that it is Matthew's genealogy that goes through Mary, while Luke's goes through Joseph. The very fact that two entirely opposing theories could exist among Christian theologians and Bible scholars on such a simple, basic issue establishes that the text itself does not provide a clear resolution to the conflict.

@LeeWoofenden I should have said, "Asserting as if it were a known fact . . ."

Nathaniel

@LeeWoofenden Yep. And I'm thankful that you're here and that you point out (some of) our blind spots.

Lee Woofenden

5:34 PM

@Nathaniel Well, I've now done that here. We'll see if it is acted upon, or even survives.

@Nathaniel I appreciate that. I'm used to being the odd man out. I've done it all my life. But sometimes it does get wearying.

Lee Woofenden

5:47 PM

@Nathaniel To add a further wrinkle, as shown in its revision history, the question as originally posted had no scoping at all. The current scoping was apparently arrived at through a process of comment and discussion with @ThaddeusB, and I believe the OP as well, that is now fading from my mind.

When Steve posted his answer, the successive revisions were still in process. At the particular time he posted his answer, the scoping was: "What is the Catholic explanation for this apparent logical impossibility?" It was soon changed to "Trinitarian," and then, within an hour's time, to its current scoping of "Christian theologians and denominations that affirm the Incarnation: that Jesus is fully human and fully God?"

So the current scoping was not in place when Steve gave his answer. However, even if we give the answer a pass on that basis, it still has the same problem, which is that it doesn't actually state or support its scope.

I think, but am not sure that the revisions were done with input from the OP. Perhaps @ThaddeusB has a better recollection than I do.

With a bit of searching, I found at least some of that discussion in the Upper Room here and here.

I wish we could ask the OP whether the current scoping does, indeed, reflect his wishes. But his user profile shows that his last visit to the site was in Sept. '15.

fredsbend

6:04 PM

The worst questions on the site.

Would it be worth the effort to go through those and flag the really bad ones without any decent answers for deletion?

@El'endiaStarman @David @waxeagle @Caleb [Where's Caleb been lately? I haven't seen him in ages.]

@LeeWoofenden I think it's a very stupid question in the first place, so I don't see how answers can be any good. No offense, I've only actually read Steve's and chose to not read the others, because I think the question is dumb.

It feels like the kind of question a kid would ask, not that childish questions are bad. You have to start somewhere, but I find it wholly uninteresting.

My point here is that you can't expect consistent or fair voting on such a question.

Lee Woofenden

@fredsbend Just a note: This link gets to the worst questions only if the pagesize is set to 50.

fredsbend

Weird. I would think that page size would be in the URL variables. I guess not.

What good is a page variable, if there are three distinct page sizes?

Lee Woofenden

@fredsbend Was it dumb when Jesus asked the same basic question in Matthew 22:41-46?

fredsbend

It seems there is a variable, but it's not there by default: christianity.stackexchange.com/…

@LeeWoofenden I don't think that's the same question.

Same players, different game.

Jesus was showing that David was beholden to the Christ, not the Christ to David.

Lee Woofenden

6:21 PM

@fredsbend Not exactly. But it deals with the same issue: Whether and in what sense Jesus was the "seed of David."

@fredsbend I think it's more than that. I think Jesus was also—and probably primarily—questioning the whole line of interpretation and reasoning saying that the Messiah was a lineal, biological descendant of David. That was (and as far as I know, still is) the orthodoxy in Judaism. And ironically, it is still the orthodoxy in much of Christianity today. I think Jesus was laying the ax to the root of that faulty, because materialistic and worldly, idea and doctrine.

The Gospels themselves also give no support to the idea that Jesus was a biological descendant of David. Both genealogies (Matthew and Luke) are traced through Joseph, and both of those Gospels explicitly deny that Joseph was Jesus' biological father. Further, it is implied that Mary was descended from the tribe of Levi rather than that of Judah (David's tribe), since she was a relative of Elizabeth, who is explicitly stated to be a descendant of Aaron (Luke 1:5).

Mary is nowhere said to be a descendant of David.

Nathaniel

@fredsbend Get to 10k and you can vote to delete yourself ;-). And yes, I can attest that Caleb has been around recently keeping the place clean.

fredsbend

@Nathaniel You in your little special club now, huh? Hanging out with mods in secret rooms. All while the fate of posts hangs in your fingers.

Humph!

@LeeWoofenden I mostly agree.

Nathaniel

@fredsbend No special rooms. Just a page that shows all the crap that's been deleted recently, and on each piece of crap, the name of the person/people who deleted it :)

fredsbend

in Creationism vs. ☐, Dec 11 '15 at 7:31, by fredsbend

@LeeWoofenden You always do this to me. I say something, you disagree, then later you seemingly agreed all along.

@Nathaniel So, the moderator tools are literally covered in crap?

Nathaniel

@fredsbend There's no shortage of it, for sure.

El'endia Starman

6:34 PM

.....that explains the brown stains.

fredsbend

lol

wax eagle

6:58 PM

@fredsbend he may not be in chat, but he's still the leader in the clubhouse on flags handled :)

El'endia Starman

By far.

Well, actually, David is pretty close. They've both handled about twice as many flags as I have.

Does Elisha speak?

0

Q: 50 questions before I can comment?

Do I have this straight. I need to ask enough questions to get 50 reputations before I can place a comment?

discussion

Lee Woofenden

@fredsbend You do like to quote yourself on that. The key word is "seemingly."

@fredsbend I think not literally . . .

fredsbend

7:57 PM

I thought someone mentioned the SFF moderator elections recently in here. This seems to have spawned a network wide proposal:

75

Q: Let's disallow nominations from people who've been suspended in the past year

Well, it's election season again. On sites all over the network, moderators are being selected from among the good folk willing to volunteer their time to help guide and support their communities. I'm proud to be part of a system that governs itself in this manner; for all of its inherent messine...

discussion election account-suspension feedback nominations

I answered that its a bad idea, but that's not the popular opinion apparently.

wax eagle

I think your post would have more merit if it was a permanent ban. This is a year, which is fairly reasonable.

Transcript for