The Library

2:05 AM

@Dan oh well done. Thank you so much, for all the research and work to assemble it, for the sound argument, and for pointing out that we already decided the doctrine question with overwhelming support.

0

A: What barriers might be hindering more quality participation from Jewish members?

I'm making this a separate answer instead of editing my current one because it goes in a different direction. I still agree with everything in my other answer. Background I came here, and stuck around, because of the promise in a site that is neutral, without a doctrinal basis. That would be ...

@Dan indeed. We really need to clean up the kitchen-junk drawer that is our meta, and fix all the problems in the about page, and make it all consistent.

Monica Cellio

2:40 AM

Out of curiosity, who was user7 (the asker of the "how do we distinguish BH from C.SE?" question)?

Jon Ericson

4:29 AM

@MonicaCellio I'm not sure I can tell you if you don't already know. However, I can say that employees often get the heads up of a new private beta and therefore often have low user numbers.

Monica Cellio

@JonEricson ah, that makes sense. And I did later notice a comment addressed to someone who otherwise doesn't appear, so that's probably the link.

Jon Ericson

@Dan As I read your post, I want to remind you that this is very much a beta site. Conversations and disagreements about site scope is to be expected. And it should not surprise us if the community changed it's mind over time. This is precisely the goal of having a beta period.

However, and this is a problem that several sites, perhaps even all mature sites, we must avoid any hint of excluding people rather than content.

Monica Cellio

@JonEricson yup, beta sites are by definition in flux. Do note, though, that the community did have consensus on the doctrine issue, and there's no clear evidence that it ever changed its mind. There's been some drift, combined with some personnel changes (you were a strong champion of keeping things pluralistic and polite), but drift != policy change. We've lost our way, and it's time to get it back.

Jon Ericson

I starred your chat item because it's important. But I strongly reject the idea that we must decide "what doctrines are always welcome vs. those that are not". I believe that doctrine relates to people and not a mere logical framework. We cannot reject doctrine because we cannot reject people.

Monica Cellio

@JonEricson we can reject doctrine as off-topic in the same way that we reject anything else as off-topic. That's nothing against the people but about scope.

Jon Ericson

4:41 AM

@MonicaCellio We can reject dogmatism (that's what our "What are we looking for in answers?" meta-question does), but that's not doctrine.

Doctrine is a cultural understanding of a text. If we reject doctrine, we are left with individual interpretations alone. You really don't want that.

2

Monica Cellio

@JonEricson when I say "doctrine" I mean "unsupported assertions of truth (in this case religious)". What do you mean by it?

No, definitely don't want individual interpretation; we already get too much of the touchy-feely "well I think it means this" stuff here.

Jon Ericson

@MonicaCellio That's dogmatism.

Monica Cellio

@JonEricson ok.

Jon Ericson

I honestly thought we could remove doctrine and we could be left with individual interpretation. But events show that's not possible. As people come to the site they bring their cultural backgrounds. (And that's good.)

What we don't want is anyone to stand up and say my culture has the truth and all others are false (even if it happens to be true).

Monica Cellio

@JonEricson agreed -- no truth assertions.

Jon Ericson

4:46 AM

(That happens in more subtle ways, however.)

@MonicaCellio Well... a pluralistic society must learn to handle those as well.

2

Monica Cellio

@JonEricson yes, things like "our lord and savior" and "his holy precious blood" and the like. We need to be able to fix those too.

Jon Ericson

@MonicaCellio Wait. Are those wrong?

Monica Cellio

@JonEricson handle != condone. We aren't a free-for-all where anybody is allowed to say anything. Readers need thick skins but posters need to be polite, or be edited.

@JonEricson yes they are, and I thought you had said as much at some point. They are presumptuous; "our" on a community where not everybody agrees is presumptuous, exclusive, and (whether intended or not) rude.

Jon Ericson

@MonicaCellio That's a dangerous game to play. There are better solutions.

Monica Cellio

But while those are problems, they aren't the biggest problems.

@JonEricson such as?

Jon Ericson

4:50 AM

@MonicaCellio That's a long way from saying that others are wrong.

@MonicaCellio Downvoting.

Monica Cellio

@JonEricson they are assertions of truth. But as I said, it's a second-order problem.

Jon Ericson

@MonicaCellio Every sentence that ends in a period is an assertion of truth.

Monica Cellio

@JonEricson I do, but people still vote their dogma enough to cancel those out.

@JonEricson it's way too late for me to have a philosophic argument with you. Let's focus on the core issues Dan raised.

Jon Ericson

That cultural problem is not solved by editing out or deleting things that you object to. Quite the opposite in fact.

2

Caleb

4:20 PM

@JackDouglas Absolutely. Even if it's not an SEO scheme of some kind, it's still blatantly promotional. I've hit it up with a spam flag.

And @MonicaCellio just because it has clear Christian ties, doesn't mean we want it on Christianity.SE. Most of the junk stuff that shows up on BH would still be junk on C.SE. If people are in it for the wrong reasons it doesn't really matter what site they wind up at and we don't want to suggest another site as a solution, they need to get their act together instead. (Unless that site is Quora maybe)

@Dan Welcome, sorry for the engine not knowing a good thing sooner, and please do go delete crazy.

Monica Cellio

4:35 PM

@Caleb I'm not sure what question you're referring to here. I don't understand C.SE's scope with respect to bible questions very well; if somebody is specifically seeking a Christian interpretation of some passage, or has some other "where does the bible support $doctrine" question, why shouldn't that be on-topic on C.SE? If you guys are deferring to BH out of politeness or something, you might want to reconsider that.

Caleb

4:45 PM

@MonicaCellio That was in regard to this steaming (and now very deleted) mess.

Monica Cellio

@Caleb ah, ok. Yeah, at the time I made that comment I didn't realize it was bogus; I just assumed it was something real that I hadn't heard of before. Since it was asking "where does the bible support..." rather than "what does this text mean" it's clearly OT for us even if it isn't spam, hence my suggestion to try C.SE. If I'd realized, I'd've flagged/voted instead of commenting.

Caleb

@MonicaCellio And we are actively working to discourage "where can I find X in the Bible" questions because they stink and aren't generally answerable inside our other quality guidelines. Also we refused "Christian interpretation" questions because we don't have a working definition for "Christian", one must pick a specific doctrinal or traditional framework to ask about. Basically anything anybody would think to ask on BH is probably not a good question on C.SE.

2

@MonicaCellio No worries. I just wanted to follow up your comment there.

Monica Cellio

@Caleb thanks for clarifying. I hadn't realized you considered those bad questions too.

I would have thought that "where does the bible say this thing I heard preached last Sunday" would be ok, sort of like the "where do we learn such-and-such halacha" questions on Mi Yodeya (which are quite welcome).

Caleb

@MonicaCellio Yes we have a few of them around cluttering the place up because people like asking them, but they are bottom-of-the-barrel stuff and our "official" guidelines preclude them.

@MonicaCellio Those only work if people can clearly identify the thing that was taught. And we tolerate those but don't like 'em. Personally I'm on a long term campain to get the [biblical-basis] tag banned altogether because 95% of them are lame attempts to get around the no-truth-questions guideline, but that's another story.

@MonicaCellio I don't blame you in the slightest for being confused. It takes our local Christian background participants till about the 5k level before they finally start "getting" why those aren't the best questions.

Monica Cellio

@Caleb it sounds like there's a pretty significant difference in approaches between our two traditions, too. If a rabbi asserts some fact in, e.g., a sermon, then it's taken as given that he can support that claim and it's ok to ask him. Except nobody would do that in the middle of services, so if you didn't get a chance and later wanted to know, you would ask other knowledgable folks. This kind of pursuit of knowledge is good.

But we don't just limit sources to the bible; there's a whole body of oral law, interpretations, responsa, etc. So the question is "where do we learn X", not "where does the bible say X". And maybe that's the problem with your biblical-basis tag; presumably y'all have similar bodies of rulings derived from, but not in the bible, and that's what people should be asking about.

Monica Cellio

5:30 PM

(Aside: when I write my sermons I sometimes end up footnoting them, even if I don't name those sources when speaking. :-) )

Caleb

5:52 PM

@MonicaCellio Oh I agree that kind of pursuit of knowledge is good. And I personally encourage the practice even when I'm the one preaching. It's just that most of the time those sort of questions when they show up on SE aren't a good implementation of that pursuit.

Dan

7:58 PM

@JonEricson thanks for those reminders. I needed them

@JonEricson (a good illustration of why we need definitions of terms)

@JonEricson this sort of makes me think ScottS might have been right, though

Monica Cellio

@Dan which part? He seems to be saying that it can only work as a religion-based site (his #1), but I don't think you think that.

Dan

@MonicaCellio I'm still reading your epiphany post, let me finish that then get back to you on this

(I'm a little overwhelmed by how many notifications I currently have)

Monica Cellio

@Dan how many, just out of curiosity?

Dan

@MonicaCellio only 9 - but several require me to read and follow things and respond

Monica Cellio

@Dan yup, gotcha. No worries; take your time.

Dan

8:15 PM

I've joined the outspoken club ;)

@MonicaCellio ok now to respond to this

I am beginning to think (as I believe @JackDouglas has been continually asserting) that in order for this type of site to work there must be a stated religious perspective

My argument is that here it ought to be religious pluralism but with some restrictions

Monica Cellio

@Dan oh dear. How do you see that fitting with your Biblical Studies post?

oh sorry - go on.

Dan

I think we're chasing a pipe dream by encouraging all perspectives with no restrictions beyond being able to apply their doctrines (we still let people assert them)

This is a difficult conversation to have because I know that everything I say will be misunderstood because none of us agree on the meaning of bible, doctrine, dogma, assert, truth, pluralism, and much more

as I've been reading about Biblical Studies in scholarly literature, I'm coming to the conclusion that the field itself is inherently Christian

This is not to say that those who practice it would consider themselves to be Christians nor that other Christians would recognize them as such, just that the terms used are from a Christian heritage

I am hoping that BH.SE actually moves in a unique direction

But we don't even agree on our site's name - so I can't really argue for Biblical Studies over and against other fields

Because hermeneutics are doctrinal/theological

In some ways we have to define a religious/philosophical perspective AND valid hermeneutical principles to make this site viable

And I don't see that happening

I think the point @JackDouglas has been making is that arguing for NPOV and pluralism is indeed also just as doctrinal as arguing for Christianity or Judaism or whatever - and I have come to see that he is absolutely right

But we already have a site for Judaism and for Christianity

So far I've been arguing for an ideological fantasy - the modernist pipe dream of pure objectivity

it doesn't exist

So I'm acknowledging this, and being intentional about where I'd like to see this site go:

I'm advocating a specific religious perspective (pluralism) and would like to go about defining specific hermeneutical principles that should be followed here (to the exclusion of others)

The positive part of this is that someone could learn about a text as a piece of literature rather than as a religious document

'But this requires significant self reflection on the part of the author of a post - and I believe many do not wish to do this

But even then we won't present views free from bias, etc.

That is impossible

Rather, we would have a specific scope and definition

Otherwise, I might as well just ask my questions on C.SE or MY.SE

Monica Cellio

Could you explain what you mean by pluralism, as a religious perspective for this site?

Dan

8:31 PM

@MonicaCellio I've tried, but can't really do so successfully until we define terms

You see, on C.SE they are smart enough to recognize that you must specify the perspective you wish to hear from or the answers will create chaos

But here we seem to think that we can allow that chaos, just put some minor restrictions on how far you can go, and all will be well

I think we must also define the perspective we wish to hear from

And the only perspective that would make us distinct from C.SE and MY.SE would be one that precludes both approaches to the text

(there are options other than Judeo-Christian pluralism, such as atheist skepticism, etc., but I'd like to see the former)

In fact we could state Judeo-Christian pluralism as this would exclude Islamic and other answers

I think this actually fits best for the texts we allow

But then in reality we cease to be what we ideologically pursue, and we merely become "Judeo-Christian Pluralists.SE"

so religious pluralism is actually the best option in my opinion

But I am not sure some of the folks involved in this argument actually grasp all the nuances nor care to (and I am not referring to @JackDouglas, @JonEricson, @MonicaCellio, @Caleb - for the record).

I think all of the folks I just listed do get this - but we differ in how we'd like to see it resolved

(which is ok)

If I move forward, my next steps would be to define terms and which texts we consider on topic

But this leads me back to viability

This is very time consuming

Monica Cellio

@Dan, could you give me some examples (in summary form, I mean) of questions that you would ask here under that site definition?

Dan

I don't want to see all my work die because this site doesn't make it

Monica Cellio

Because I'm not sure that's viable; Christians can ask on C.SE, Jews on Mi Yodeya, and nobody else has critical mass.

@Dan yeah, me too -- and mine would; there's no other appropriate home for it.

Dan

But if it makes it by merely being a crypto-Christian Biblical Studies site, I don't think I'd be very happy with that. Even though my needs would be met - we would never get those who don't come from a Christian background to participate

Monica Cellio

(Which is part of why I'm looking for a download solution, at least.)

@Dan yes, if this becomes a crypto-Christian -- or overt-Christian, for that matter -- site, then, CC-SA or not, I really need to pursue having most of my content removed as off topic. Failing that, clearly labeled as having dated from a different time/context.

Jack Douglas

8:41 PM

@Dan Worth noting that on C.SE it's not enough for a question just to be overtly 'Christian', indeed "basically anything anybody would think to ask on BH is probably not a good question on C.SE"

Monica Cellio

And what could you get on that kind of site that you can't get on C.SE?

@JackDouglas right, but if BH folds or massively morphs then C.SE might decide to re-evaluate its options.

Jack Douglas

@MonicaCellio I don't have any reason to think they would: they have found their niche and they need to keep mining it I think. @Caleb would be better qualified to answer that though.

Dan

@JackDouglas yes but in many ways when I ask questions I am after things that this site can't fully address

Jack Douglas

Also BH is doing awesomely well in terms of traffic (yes I know that doesn't need to be our metric for success, but it matters to SE I'd wager)

Dan

I consider this a good starting point

Jack Douglas

8:43 PM

@Dan you can start here then follow through on C.SE?

Dan

@JackDouglas so here's my theory

This site is an illustration of why neither modernism nor postmodernism is a viable philosophical worldview

And the reasons this site doesn't work is a a microcosm of this problem

But that's a little too big to chew :P

The site can only work in the way that government works - by ignoring the elephants in the room

We can only exist in a state of cognitive dissonance

Despite this, I'm willing to play the game

But I think we can alleviate a lot by actually defining a religious perspective and consequent hermeneutics

(the game here being interpretation of biblical texts, hermeneutics being the rules of the game, and pluralism being the overarching perspective governing the play)

We can still allow Christian, Jewish, atheist, et.c perspectives, so long as they take seriously understanding Biblical Texts and adopt a pluralist approach

The latter is where we'd disagree

Monica Cellio

We were doing reasonably well on the cognitive-dissonance/pluralism/alternate-truths/etc thing for a while. Then Jon's twins came along and, for perfectly understandable reasons, he dropped his activity level here -- and only now am I realizing that he provided a lot of the gentle guidance, role-modeling, and polite redirection here. [cont]

Dan

And @JonEricson is right that this excludes people, but so does every SE network. SO excludes non-tech folks and most low-skill programmers who haven't mastered the basics of various programming languages

Monica Cellio

I don't know what goes on in the secret mod room, but I've come to suspect that he's the only one who ever bought that approach and when he started dropping away, the others who never bought into it in the first place went with their instincts rather than what we actually say.

Dan

@MonicaCellio I think that's actually right on

Jack Douglas

8:49 PM

@Dan Can I ask, are you assuming from the start that we want contributions from Christian, Jewish, Atheist etc folk when you say "the site doesn't work"? The reason I ask is that there is a world of difference between 'permitting' and 'needing'. I'm happy for the site to attract whoever is willing to participate (under our ground rules), and if certain groups aren't represented (eg JWs who just don't seem comfortable with the format), then I would not regard that as 'failure' in any sense.

Dan

I think @JonEricson was a vital epoxy here

Monica Cellio

@Dan so from my perspective, 2013 has sucked, and it's largely been at Jack's hands, not because Jack meant any ill will but because he was the one mod minding the shop for a while and everybody is driven in part by his own opinions. And everybody forgot the clear meta statement that we don't want this stuff, and now people have changed the facts on the ground, which I regard as cheating.

Dan

But don't get me wrong, @Caleb does a great job also and @JackDouglas has a gift for shielding new users from some of us who do tend to be a bit pedantic

Monica Cellio

I'm not willing to answer questions on a Christian site. I don't know any Jew who is.

Dan

@JackDouglas I don't think we've failed, I fear we might

Monica Cellio

8:52 PM

@Dan Caleb does a good job a lot of the time. When things started to go really wrong he was also often away.

If you try to define a religious perspective, the elephant in the room is Jesus.

Dan

@MonicaCellio true

and that's really where I'm going

I might as well just ask my questions on C.SE in some ways

Once Greek.SE opens, there will probably be a new-testament tag (if classical Greek is on topic), and I can get those types of questions answered there

actually I just realized it was closed as not viable

Monica Cellio

Right. So if we implement your pluralism idea (which I don't quite understand, but never mind), then what questions would you ask here?

Dan

@MonicaCellio many of the same questions

I'm thinking out loud here - so feel free to challenge/question/etc.

I'm certainly not infallible

@MonicaCellio but implementing pluralism without also requiring NPOV is almost just an invitation to only allow liberal scholarship. You could actually end up with just as many doctrinal answers only they'd be more related to social issues and liberal ideologies

so in some ways not even that totally solves the issue

Monica Cellio

@Dan looking at your questions, I see text history, herm methods, translation, text interpretation, conflicts among sources, and language (including language history). Sound about right?

@Dan yeah, NPOV was shouted down, though I'm not actually sure how many people were doing the shouting.

And I agree you'd need that in the kind of site you're proposing, if I understand you correctly.

Dan

@MonicaCellio yeah but I asked some of those before I felt this way (I used to preface my answers here by saying that I believe all texts point to Jesus - and I was never challenged on it)

Monica Cellio

9:03 PM

@Dan I only looked at the list on your profile, not the questions themselves.

Dan

@MonicaCellio I would probably close some of my own answers these days had a new user posted them

Monica Cellio

@Dan answers? Did you mean questions?

Dan

@MonicaCellio both actually

Monica Cellio

I think after a change like you're proposing, a lot of answers would have to be removed.

Dan

@MonicaCellio in fact I still think this should be closed and I VTC'd it awhile back

@MonicaCellio or just heavily edited

@MonicaCellio but again - I don't know if even my idea is viable

in some ways it may even be less viable

Monica Cellio

9:07 PM

@Dan hmm, I see what you mean -- asking for speculation about an author's purpose does seem iffy.

Dan

@MonicaCellio I can always just delete it

Monica Cellio

@Dan I like your meta idea better than what you've been talking about in here.

@Dan no you can't; it has upvoted answers.

Dan

@MonicaCellio they are one and the same - I'm just addressing the underlying ideological issues here

Monica Cellio

But if you want it to be closed, we can probably muster the votes.

Dan

@MonicaCellio I see

@MonicaCellio as it stands it doesn't really violate site policy so leave it

But it would if we did things the way I suggest

Monica Cellio

9:09 PM

@Dan then maybe I don't understand what you mean by this:

> embraces pluralism. It therefore avoids controversial, extreme, and dogmatic theological positions. It should be kept in mind that Biblical Studies is not specific to any religion, thus assertions that are authoritative, established, and/or non-controversial in one religious tradition may not be so in another.

It's the "avoids controversial, extreme, and dogmatic theological positions" part where we've been falling down, and as you point out later, we have policy and we're inconsistent with it.

Dan

@MonicaCellio I fully agree with that statement - but I'm sure @JackDouglas would argue that this is actually taking a religious stance and stating controversial and extreme dogma (and he would be right)

I'm just acknowledging that fact

I'm splitting hairs here

It's a self-defeating philosophical conundrum

I'm merely acknowledging it so that we can move on

In other words, a Christian would consider the notion of having to suppress his belief that a Tanakh passage points to Christ to be a controversial and extreme dogmatic position

I'm agreeing and saying he'd have to learn to deal with it or just ask on C.SE

Monica Cellio

@Dan if he deals with it by acknowledging its subjectivity, we can work with that. If he insists on asserting truth, that'll never work.

Dan

some christians would go so far as to say that their participation within this framework would actually be wrong/sinful and would thus not be able to participate

Monica Cellio

Well, won't work until the site descends to being a Christian site, where everyone agrees with the assertion.

@Dan Kazark said (somewhere on meta) that if he can't use this site to preach his faith, he's not interested. He sees it as a neutering of his own religion or something. But if you accommodate him, you chase away other people.

Dan

But I'm open to allowing him to go that direction if the OP asks for it (obviously its fine for NT questions), but it would need to be stated subjunctively / via NPOV

Monica Cellio

9:15 PM

@Dan yes.

Dan

@MonicaCellio exactly

Monica Cellio

@Dan and since we never said that was ok, then sadly I would say to Kazark "so sorry you can't participate here; I hope you can see your way clear to participating with a little linguistic couching, but if not I understand and farewell". We didn't change the rules on him. If you go over to a Christian baseline, you're changing the rules on me and mine.

Jack Douglas

@Dan I think a much higher percentage would simply be unable to bend themselves into that alien framework even were they willing to do so. In one sense I'm fully sympathetic to your aim: we really do want to be expert/exclusive and your proposal would make us considerably more exclusive. I just think the niche we've already found is the 'Goldilocks' level of exclusivity if that makes sense.

Dan

@MonicaCellio I disagree with you here. Kazark and Jack are right: we actually are asking him to do more than add some linguistic couching. We are actually asking him to present from a pluralist religious worldview

I'm acknowledging this and I'm fine with it

Monica Cellio

So, as I once proposed on meta, askers can opt in to particular doctrines and then those answers are welcome, but it should not be the default.

Dan

9:18 PM

@JackDouglas Goldilocks level? An iidiom?

Monica Cellio

@Dan ok.

Dan

@MonicaCellio but at that point it mimics C.SE

Jack Douglas

@Dan hmm, "just right" (not too hot or too cold. Goldilocks and the 3 bears?)

Dan

@JackDouglas I was the weird child who was reading history books in first grade, sorry :P

Monica Cellio

@Dan yeah, true. (Though it seems to be working for them, so hmm.) I was thinking primarily here of Tanakh questions; I hold that the default is to interpret Tanakh in the context of Tanakh, and if you want to bring Jesus into it you need an explicit invitation from the asker.

Jack Douglas

9:20 PM

That explains a lot :)

Dan

@JackDouglas true :P

@MonicaCellio and that is a policy we could reasonably adopt that would help

@MonicaCellio BUT. I would argue that at that point you are basically just asking for a Christian doctrinal response

That may not benefit the person who googled the passage who did not want this perspective

Monica Cellio

-2

A: Friends, we are not Christian!

One site policy that makes the site "look Christian" to me is our handling of doctrine in answers. Doctrine-based questions are not permitted, but the policy our mods are currently following is that doctrine in answers is ok (and according to some, unavoidable). Answers constitute the majority ...

Dan

(I am Googling Goldilocks and the 3 bears) @JackDouglas (I want to hear this story)

Monica Cellio

@JackDouglas, you assert one thing, I assert another; what data can we look at? We don't have strict definitions of "offensive", "chatty", "off-topic", or sometimes even "duplicate" either, but somehow the site gets along anyway. Let's trust in the good will of all participants in combination with revision history. I believe the right things will fall out over time. This site isn't done evolving yet and that's what beta is all about. — Monica Cellio Jan 30 at 14:06

Dan

@JackDouglas I just watched this, I suppose I am now enlightened :)

although I don't get the story, I suppose I understand your reference to 'just right'

Jack Douglas

9:30 PM

@Dan that's the story!

little thief gets away with murder :p

Dan

@JackDouglas I never got into children's stories as a child

I probably should have

Jack Douglas

monologues.co.uk/Childrens_Favourites/Goldilocks.htm

2

the version I preferred as a child :)

Dan

@JackDouglas haha awesome!

One of my favorite childhood (age 8-10) books was amazon.com/Bay-Pigs-The-Untold-Story/dp/0671240064

but in some ways I think this was overcompensation by my mom, not necessarily bad

Jack Douglas

@Dan just so you know, I am planning to post and 'answer' on your awesome meta question. I may just have to do several years of reading and research before I do so though so please don't start holding your breath yet…

Dan

@JackDouglas haha

@JackDouglas in some ways, it might be best to take a short moratorium before answering anyways. I think we could all use a little 'Goldilocks and the 3 bears' time to remind one another that while this argument may be over ideological issues, it affects real people with real desires to understand Biblical texts

Jack Douglas

9:48 PM

@Dan yes

Dan

and it doesn't hurt to know that some of this is also just my personality: many (including my wife) would describe my thought processes as 'exhausting' and 'too analytical'

I'm quick to have a contention with ideological dissonance that most are content to ignore

Jack Douglas

actually I am finding the quest to the root of these issues very useful and refreshing

no idea if we'll end up agreeing: in some ways that's beside the point

Dan

@JackDouglas me too

Jack Douglas

(and I'm guessing we both mean in the wider sense than just how it applies to BH.SE?)

Dan

I didn't list this in my distinctives for Biblical Studies on my meta post, but it is worth nothing that deconstruction (in the sense of semiotic analysis) and structuralism are core underlying worldviews of the field of Biblical Studies in which I'm well read

So I bring that background to the table

But many Christian theologians reject postmodern thought as 'liberal' without more than an elementary grasp of what it is (and isn't)

This site is a byproduct of postmodernism, like it or not

But in philosophy, terms are meticulously defined to create binary opposition so that meaningful discussion can occur. We're trying to have meaningful discussion without doing this, which is like trying to swim without arms

you might be able to kick enough to keep your head above water - but you'll never go anywhere

Jack Douglas

9:57 PM

and yet, many answers here that I don't agree with, I do find helpful

because I appropriate (and in some cases assimilate) some of their content back into my own framework

Dan

@JackDouglas same here

Jack Douglas

of course in the process my framework is changed: that is inevitable

Dan

@JackDouglas I've converted from Lutheran to Eastern Orthodox since participating here

in some ways this site and C.SE made the problems with sola scriptura clear to me

Jack Douglas

very interesting

it is a melting-pot of ideas, sometimes very challenging ones

Dan

@JackDouglas but I'm ever evolving, although the only place I could really end up from here is some form of Anglican or something outside of Christianity

and Anglican would not be a conversion as much as a surrender of trying to ever find a coherent system. Moreso coming to a place of 'nothing is coherent, but at least this place won't discipline me for saying so'

:P

but no, I think I will remain Orthodox if I remain Christian

and I highly doubt I would leave Christianity

Jack Douglas

10:03 PM

@Dan I relate to that: my 'Christianity' has been shaken by the experience too. Though curiously not my attachment to Christ.

I've become much more aware of the weight of tradition in the churches I've attended

(especially those which eschew tradition!)

@Dan 'Anglican' is like 'doctrine': no-one can quite define it :P

Dan

@JackDouglas I've come to think that it really is all we have. The scriptures themselves are part of this tradition

@JackDouglas EXACTLY :P

Jack Douglas

In my tradition it is traditional to say that 'scripture' trumps 'reason'/'rationality' with a straight face :)

Dan

@JackDouglas every tradition has these sorts of self-defeating statements

@JackDouglas inconsistencies and contradictory/ideologically impossible worldviews

@JackDouglas Orthodoxy was the first place I've found that acknowledges and embraces this

@JackDouglas in fact, they might even argue that human nature requires it

We are grasping at something outside of space and time, something unobservable - yet he enters space and time (Incarnation/theophanies) and asks us to observe him

Transcript for