The Upper Room

11:58 AM

Wow we're on a roll today. +1/-1 for everything I've posted.

5 hours later…

Q: Is it mandatory for one to claim himself "Christian" to be counted as a Christian?

4:30 PM

Hi @jcolebrand

-3

There are many christian sects, one of which is here which claim that they are not Christians, yet their faith contains things like belief in Jesus as son of God and they appear to all as Christian. And people wont mind calling such a sect as christian even though they themselves don't claim to ...

DO CHECK this out

4:50 PM

@Ali for starters, that's a question for the meta site, not the main site.

So you've already not understood the workflow involved

I feel like you fundamentally misunderstand how the Stack Exchange network operates

5:04 PM

@Ali Just for your reference, @jcolebrand is a moderator on a different site (and hence a moderator on the chat system network wide, but not on C.SE. While we are happy to have him here helping explain stuff to you -- particularly since he understands the SE system well -- there might be some local site norms that we enforce on C.SE that he isn't up to speed on.

@Caleb wait, you encourage asking meta Q on the site proper?

Or am I misunderstanding the intent of his Q? Seems like he wants to be able to use the fundamental proposition to uphold other questions on the network.

There is a reason I don't lurk in this room, tho, as @Caleb alludes to. I only responded the other day for the flagging of comments which had no reason to flag.

@jcolebrand No, not if it really is a meta Q. But that question could go either way depending on the reason the OP asked. On the surface it's actually a valid question for main (just a bit pedantic). If the reason for asking the question is to find out what is or isn't acceptable scope for questions/answers then yes it is a meta Q.

@Caleb Given his past interaction in chat alone I read the intent as meta.

That's why I took it in that direction.

As an outside observer putting one thing beside another is easier, as is taking things out of context.

@jcolebrand I think you are probably correct, but since as a stand alone question it wasn't clear, I actually took the time to clear up the linguistic issue by answering it on main. I actually suspect it was more of an attempt at soap-boxing a viewpoint rather than learning about C.SE, which is why I didn't migrate it.

Aye.

Hence "I feel like you fundamentally misunderstand how the SE network operates" and I feel like we're on the same page here, even if I'm not intimately familiar.

Of course, I have no more domain of authority for C.SE or I.SE or J.SE or BH.SE than mitigating chat issues.

5:13 PM

@jcolebrand Yup. I think we are :)

@jcolebrand Thanks for doing that by the way.

@Caleb meh, I was annoyed really ;-) but you're welcome.

Sorry I missed the party the other day.

Nah, it wasn't much fun. All the booze was over in the Tavern on the Meta

5:31 PM

hii

hii @jcolebrand

FYI

A: Can the new testament be a valid historical record on the real life of Jesus?

5:58 PM

As a Christian myself, I regret to inform you that the answer is "No". As near as we can tell, none of the Gospels were written within a generation of the actual life of Jesus. The oldest appears to be Mark, which was written down most likely sometime around 70AD. Matthew and Luke were written m...

hi @TRiG

hi @JonEricson

how are you all

TRiG

Er, 35 average lifespan??? Yes, when you count infant mortality. The average lifespan of someone once they got to 21 was sixty-something. — Luke 20 hours ago

That, at least, is a good point.

(I'm not really qualified enough to agree or disagree with anything else said in that debate.)

TRiG

@Ali I know what I know, and I know what I don't know. I'm pretty opinionated at times, but I know which debates to back out of.

(When I don't know enough to have an informed opinion, I don't see the point of sharing my uninformed opinions. Usually. Sometimes I do anyway, but I try not to.)

3 hours later…

A: Can the new testament be a valid historical record on the real life of Jesus?

9:34 PM

Excluding the claims that Jesus was resurrected, I say that there is no reason to doubt the events detailed in the Gospels. The first thing that should be mentioned is the possibility of textual 'perversion' from the original texts. Historians commonly use a method called the bibliographical tes...

10:03 PM

@Ali That answer is largely bunk. There are several major issues with it and several standard historical research procedures are overlooked. Hopefully you get a better answer someday, but I suggest you slow down and examine what you get rather than just blinding moving forward with anything that fits your agenda.

10:35 PM

@Caleb There are now two good answers, imo. What do you think of them?

Would that question be on topic here?

With changes in the body I mean

@fredsbend Both are excellent forays into the subject. There is so much that could be said it's hard to even come up with what matters most to put in an answer.

@fredsbend Not really. It's not about Christianity.

@Caleb Yes, I agree. I personally have read at least 150 pages on that topic alone. The information and debate just goes on and one.

One could ask what Christianity's view on the matter is, but that's both obvious and useless. Vetting the topic where the experts are supposed to know how to judge history seems much more appropriate (although I was disappointed to see initial voting patterns there).

@Caleb Yeah. I see what you mean. Just wondering. On a different note you mentioned once that the C.SE site is graduating, but when?

@fredsbend 6-8 weeks.

10:39 PM

All right.

@fredsbend When Jin gets around to finishing a design for us. We have no idea when. It was going to be January...

@Caleb Skeptics really disappointed me on voting for a question and its selected answer about YEC. It seemed very partisan to naturalism, not really examining the terrible quality of the answer. History seems alright to me so far. Only been there three times though. No chat or meta.

@Caleb So they are behind? No official date?

El'endia Starman

@Caleb @fredsbend: "6-8 weeks" is an SE inside joke of sorts. It's what we/they say when there's no real expected date.