12:08 PM
0
Wow that's a lot of thoughts for one post! I am not going to try to engage all of your points, but here are a few things that come to mind to keep the conversation going. There seem to be a few misconceptions going on here that maybe we can clear up with a little history.
Before we start with th...
Hey folks I'm about to catch up on the chat transcript, starting from the top, so give me a second here.
@fredsbend Um ... yes that could probably have used splitting, but why don't you let that first monster stand, process the feedback you've gotten and then start fresh with anything you still see as outstanding issues in individual meta posts.
@fredsbend As noted in my answer as well, I don't think we agree at all that the traffic is too low. Of course we want it to grow, but I think most of us would rather see slow but steady growth that keeps the quality bar high rather than explosive growth that knocks the bar off entirely. We're not trying to be everything to everybody, only fill a niche and fill that niche well.
@fredsbend I wish I had an off hand example of "personal research", but I don't think the problems addressed by language like that is quite the one you're concerned about. Hang around a bit and learn the ropes ... I have an idea you might come to agree that rules like that actually protect you rather than hinder you. Our focus on Christianity and it's doctrines from an academic angle rather than on being a replacement for the church is what makes this site what it is.
@fredsbend Also, please slow down and make sure you don't cross your wires. Your chat message starts out saying "on meta, high rep persons are saying...", then you quote something somebody said in chat. chat != meta. You have to understand the person saying that has never bludgeoned anybody and has been a model for patient diplomatic approached to people that probably deserved to be bludgeoned. Please allow for a sense of humor and take time to learn people's personalities.
This goes for meta too, but it's particularly important for chat.
@fredsbend Those posts are from '11 BEFORE the last FAQ re-write. In fact they were two re-writes ago. You have to understand that sometimes material on meta is dated. We try to keep content on the main site as timeless as possible (for example we close questions about current events that won't matter to anybody next week), but things on meta aren't always that way.
Periodically, the same issues need to be aired out again all over to see if the community is still behind existing directions. I for one thing the FAQ could use help still, but please don't try to quote somebody talking about a previous iteration as support for criticizing the current iteration.
@fredsbend What do you mean by "they don't want to appear to support anything particular"? I'll admit I'm baffled by this entire line of chat. I think you might be conflating multiple inter-related but not equal issues.
@JonEricson Huh what? Is today a US holiday? Blimey if I can remember which one...
@JonEricson You're welcome to disagree as violently as you like as long as you don't ... um ... get violent over it ;-)
If you do I might have to step in with my mod-hammer to call you out. By force.
@Alypius I'm happy to reconsider the move, but lets talk about it first. it was specifically the fact that you opened something that is a denomination dispute without framing it in that context that made it a better fit on BH.SE rather than C.SE. You can't ask for exegesis on an issue provides a boundary line between Christian traditions on C.SE without addressing it specifically do a tradition.
If you want your question to provide some background history and textual analysis, it should stay on BH. If you want it to be about how Christianity has historically differed on the issue, then we can bring it back but it needs to be framed in a way that people of different traditions can agree that their tradition is represented properly.
@Alypius It was your language of trying to sound neutral that made me think BH would be a better fit, to fit well on C.SE it would need to take the opposite approach. Does that make any sense?
@JonEricson True story, they do do it well. However don't forget how much Google tailors your results to YOU. Some of my searches that always lead me back to SE don't even turn up SE sites if searched from an anonymous session through a proxy.
@fredsbend Don't bother editing it now since both I and wax have also included replies in our posts, but ya in the future I don't mind being called out but try catching me in chat first.
On that note, did you actually find my comments to be "hostile" or did you conclude me to be hostile after somebody else told you we were that way? Even before my one mistakenly judging your knowledge of an issue it seems you'd labeled me as "hostile". (Although I still think you've mis-represented cessationism, I'm willing to retract and just deal with the post not your person!) I may be strict, but does the fact that I wanted to see your posts improved (not repressed) not show at all?
Until recently, there's been a some concern about the quantity of questions and users. Sites sometimes get quiet...too quiet. But I'd like to propose that we need to shift to focusing on quality, even if it hurts our traffic:
It's hard to see, but the Christianity.SE line passed the Mi Yodey...
It's no secret. Some of the "experts" on Christianity.StackExchange.com are steeped in Scripture. Some could answer nearly every moral question with Biblical references.
I think this is great!
However... Sometimes very lengthy answers seem to be a bit off-putting. I'd venture to say that the av...
The title sums it up: I often hear it said during the debates on liturgy and music styles that are appropriate for worship that even Luther used common bar tunes (equivalent to days pop songs) for his hymns. Is this true?
Is it true that Martin Luther cursed a lot and even used some bad language in his own writings?
