« first day (569 days earlier)      last day (4148 days later) » 
00:00 - 22:0022:00 - 00:00

10:02 PM
@DanO'Day I'm taking notes on several different pieces of reading lately that are probably going to become a series of questions about Patristic beliefs, particularly on issues where both Orthodox and Reformed folks claim the same fathers as supporting different points. So keep your finger in those books :)
They are hard questions to ask though, let alone answer!
Q: Why was this question closed?

fredsbendCan people in Heaven communicate with each other? This meta post, which is good is quoted in the comments to help the user change the question. From the answer to that post: Tip 2: Change "Is x true" to "What is the basis for believing that x is true?" I would think that the question alre...

@Caleb I won't lie, there are a lot of questions here that are begging for some historical background. I just don't have time nor the motivation to type it all up when people just need to read some big books :P
@Caleb I feel you on that. I am currently reading through Pelikan's five-volume series on the emergence of Christian doctrine and tradition, also reading general history concurrent with these eras to get a better handle on Roman society
@Caleb and I'm kidding on the big books, although it would be nice if more Christians read history. But unfortunately I admit there is a big gap in history books between someone starting out and getting into the heavy stuff. There are few good transition programs unless you just learn Greek and Latin and study philosophy
@Caleb I think a site like this is great because it makes a lot of this information accessible to people in the form of responding to practical questions and concerns
@Caleb because with a lot of history, a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. You practically need to read a crap-ton of someone's works, plus know historical context, plus know language it was written in and linguistic/philological issues, plus understand sociopolitical context and underlying worldview before you can even begin to speak authoritatively on some folks' stances on stuff
that's why you have five Ph.D.'s in history writing about Luther/Chrysostom/Aquinas' thoughts on various issues, and they all disagree :P
only one of them has actually taken the time to read everything the guy wrote, and maybe only one other guy has the background knowledge sufficient to understand what he wrote
@DanO'Day Ya we've got a lot of questions that could use some real expert attention, and a lot of ones that people love spending time on that frankly aren't worth beans. Or could be answered with reading even some small books :)
@Caleb haha I can think of some questions right now
@DanO'Day That, sir, is quite true!
But even a little bit of history can help put today's issues into perspective. It can't make you an expert on the problems of some other day, but every little bit generally helps make today's issues more clear.
10:14 PM
@Caleb but I seriously wish I had more time, but to answer questions such as these, it literally takes me 4-8 hours of research and thinking if I actually cite sources (because I need to find where I read various things) and tie it all together. I just don't have that time.
@Caleb It's much easier just to say, "You're confusing diothelitism with the hypostatic union. It's a false dichotomy and it shows you have little knowledge of these historical conflicts and the languages in which they occurred."
And that would be my answer, only I'd be much more charitable and cite a bunch of sources and whatnot :P
@DanO'Day I understand that problem.
@DanO'Day Right up until the first "and", you might be able to post that as a comment and give somebody else a jumping off point to at least know what words to lookup to find the right answers. After that might not be so helpful, even if true.
@Caleb my current comment is even less charitable, but most won't even know what I'm talking about :P
@TRiG I would not actually say any of those. I have just heard them echoed.
@Caleb I agree it's not helpful. And it's not their fault. That's why they are asking the question, because they don't know the answer. And that's great! But as I commented, I'd much rather discuss this over a beer or coffee than type out my answer haha
@DanO'Day Ha ha. Maybe that will serve as a scare-crow to ward off idle speculators.
@DanO'Day If you are ever through my parts, drop me a line and I'll treat you to either/both.
@JonEricson do you have a second?
10:30 PM
@Caleb Sure thing. What's up?
@Caleb the question is a difficult-to-phrase Christian history question
(I just saw the close come down as I was typing a response.)
This is incoming from Philosophy and I think these guys are going to need some help re-orienting to the new space. Since you know better than most of us where they are coming FROM, maybe you can do that easier than I could....
Q: The real question of the Holocaust is not ‘where was God?’, but ‘where was man?'

sebiddyFor a debate I have to argue "The real question of the Holocaust is not ‘where was God?’, but ‘where was man?'" I am arguing for the statement (not my personal view). So far the points I have got are: God gave mankind free will: it was mankind’s choice to elect Hitler and for Hitler to decide o...

one hypothetical re-phrasing is "in what way did the Holy Spirit work during the Holocaust"
@Caleb only if you promise it'll be an Efes :P
@DanO'Day As you wish.
10:34 PM
@Caleb and vice versa if you ever make it to Chicago area
They sure do type a lot over on philosophy...
@Caleb So it's basically a homework question and a cross-post. I'll see what I can suggest.
@Alypius you have to do a lot of typing to do philosophy correctly haha
@Alypius in fact you could argue that most philosophical controversies are due to confusions over language (so says Wittgenstein). If you ever want to read a fascinating article on philosophy (a critique of philosophy itself), check this out
@Caleb I upvoted your comment on the Christianity side (and asked some questions on the Philosophy side). Do we want to try to keep the question here? It sounds like the OP got tripped up by the comments suggesting the move and doesn't really care where it's asked.
Question edited. Have we gotten many questions like this before?
10:49 PM
@DanO'Day Paul Graham is an excellent writer. I don't recall reading this essay, however.
@JonEricson I don't see anything to keep -- it could spawn some questions we could keep but in itself it isn't even asking about Christianity as far as I can tell. If philosophy will keep it that seems like the best home to me.
@Alypius Um. Did you just put words in his mouth? How do you know that's what the question was?
Which part altered meaning?
Actually, I don't know if I should bother asking.
Ya @Alypius that edit is a bit problematic. And I just rolled it back. Here's why. 1) it looses information. The top bit about the debate title and how its staged is very important, and your two point version doesn't convey the same thing and 2) the bit at the bottom doesn't seem to be his question at all. This might be a risk worth trying if it actually made it a constructive question, but the new version wasn't any more likely to run here than the original.
In order for people to more accuractly judge and perhaps help the guy, I think leaving the original copy here is better.
@Alypius Probably not. I disapprove of this edit.
11:00 PM
And if you have concerns with that, opening a meta question about this question closure/edit would be the best way to do that. I'd be happy to make my case there after yours and let a wider audience judge.
@Caleb I disagree: 1) the debate question is convoluted, because it has to be phrased in the style of debate questions, and breaking it up into two opposing perspectives clarifies it, and 2) the first part is an addition but it's what's going to end up being answered here, and the second part: we don't answer "why did man fail" here, but we do answer "how did God not fail".
which is just the converse of his assertion.
So no, the edit does not add or lose any significant meaning except "did I mess up theologically", which I think is fine. I'm not looking to argue this. I'm just stating my justifications for editing.
@Alypius Like I said, if you have a problem take it to meta. I'm not going to argue it further here.
@Alypius I saw that. As it stands, I have unilaterally (not quite, as another experienced user also objected) over-ridden your justifications and reverted. If you want a community review of that action, you may have one on meta. If not, I've heard but reject your reasoning, and my rollback stands unless the OP makes a move.
@Caleb I don't think you're reading that properly. I have not in any way indicated that I do not accept your revert. I have simply stated my reasons for changing things as I did, which of course opposed yours. Just so that you are aware that I did not change things recklessly without considering how meaning should be kept.
11:20 PM
@Alypius Which is exactly why I keep suggesting meta, because here this isn't an equal match. I believe your reasons are ill-informed. Because as a moderator I am over-ridding your action, I am suggesting that if you actually disagree and care about it, the place to make your case on equal footing is on meta.
If you don't care, then justifying it to me here is also un-necessary. I never thought you had ill intent or were reckless, just ill advised on the matter of what is/isn't a constructive question.
I'm stating reasons for the record. So that when other people see that star, they don't assume that I'm arguing against your revert, because I'm not, I don't care. So chill out and back off a bit. I think I'm allowed to say "hmm, well I did it for these reasons".
00:00 - 22:0022:00 - 00:00

« first day (569 days earlier)      last day (4148 days later) »