The Library

8:04 PM

@MonicaCellio, I appreciate the approach you laid out in your answer. Your slight adaptation to the Wikipedia NPOV gives room for personal reflection and feelings while insisting on textual, historical, and scholarly basis/support. It is the support and methods that set this site apart; I would hate to see the site swallowed in C.SE.

Monica Cellio

@Sarah thank you. I've tried to lay that out here and there on meta before, but as previously noted, the whole answer discussion has been scattered...

Dan O'Day

Deep sigh...

0

A: Hermeneutics vs Exegesis

I think this question needs more attention. I think the site name is misleading. Hermeneutics is the branch of knowledge that deals with the interpretation of texts; it is not interpretation itself. That falls into the realm of exegesis. Allow me to make a few points and then some proposals: As...

Sarah

@MonicaCellio I have read it before and am not certain as to the source of contention on that matter.

I remember quoting a post you had made of the NPOV here and Jack said that particularly was not agreed upon.

Do you know why?

I'm sorry, it was Jon, not Jack

@JonEricson, can you share what the draw backs of this particular approach would be.

Frank Luke

This answer, as @JonEricson notes in a comment, is nothing but quotes. This message has been there for months. Should we delete the answer?

Jon Ericson

@Sarah Sure. Short answer: I don't think we should be replicating Wikipedia. Long answer is coming up in an answer to a meta-question.

Sarah

8:11 PM

@JonEricson Will wait on that then. Thanks

Jon Ericson

@FrankLuke Well, you could vote-to-delete and see what happens. ;)

Sarah

@FrankLuke Can take a crack at it before it is deleted?

Monica Cellio

@Sarah Jack doesn't agree. :-) And Jon was presumably acknowledging that.

Jon Ericson

@MonicaCellio I think @JackDouglas doesn't agree more strongly than I do. ;)

Sarah

I am reading Jack's answer and it seems to coincide goal wise with yours. Except your's seems to offer a way a method to accomplish that.

Monica Cellio

8:16 PM

@JonEricson that has been abundantly clear to me. :-)

@Sarah was that addressed to me?

Sarah

@MonicaCellio yes, sorry

Monica Cellio

@Sarah we agree on the basics (no surprise). Jack says neutral doesn't work but I don't really see much support for that in what he wrote. Mine's longer because it both lays out a position (what to do, vs. Jack's what not to do) and supports it.

Soldarnal

@DanO'Day My understanding is that SE sites are supposed to be aimed at a particular expert. I've never been a fan of the hermeneutics name, preferring just bible.stackexchange.com, because I think the field we're targeting is biblical studies.

Sarah

@MonicaCellio exactly. @JackDouglas, you obviously take exception to the total NPOV but do you take exception to the TextPOV + personal reflection

Soldarnal

I know bible.se was eschewed early on though because most thought it was attract the wrong kind of attention.

But do you feel like Biblical Studies is too broad too?

@Sarah Not sure what you're asking. The site's domain has always been hermeneutics.stackexchange.com

Biblical studies

Biblical studies is the academic application of a set of diverse disciplines to the study of the Jewish and Christian scriptures, the Bible. For its theory and methods, the field draws on disciplines ranging from archaeology, literary criticism, history, philology, and social sciences. Many secular as well as religious universities and colleges offer courses in biblical studies, usually in departments of religious studies, theology, Judaic studies, history, or comparative literature. Biblical scholars do not necessarily have a faith commitment to the texts they study, but many do. Defini...

Dan O'Day

8:22 PM

@Soldarnal even better, I think I'm going to change my answer to state that haha

Sarah

@Soldarnal Was Bible.se an existing forum or a proposed name for this forum?

Soldarnal

@Sarah Early on (during the proposal stage even perhaps?) there was some debate over the name, and bible.se was proposed as a name for this forum.

Dan O'Day

Thanks for that idea @swasheck - it has been changed

swasheck

@DanO'Day i believe that was @Soldarnal :)

Dan O'Day

@Soldarnal @swasheck ahh my apologies, much thanks @Soldarnal !! sorry for the mixup

swasheck

8:25 PM

@DanO'Day no worries --- all about proper attribution :)

Dan O'Day

@swasheck :P

Jack Douglas

@Sarah the difference is that I think we should not assign any 'quality' judgement against a POV in an answer: and answer is not worse in my view for using the term 'Jesus Christ' than an answer that just says 'Jesus'

Sarah

@Soldarnal Hermeneutics certainly reflects a more scholarly approach and may attract less opinion and more substance.

Jack Douglas

despite the doctrinal implications of assigning the term 'Christ' to Jesus

@Soldarnal I've always favoured bible.se: SE rejected it completely

TRiG

@JackDouglas I disagree, but then, I hang around a fair bit on feminist blogs discussing privilege, minority statuses, and suchlike.

Soldarnal

8:27 PM

@DanO'Day Of course, then we'd be BS.SE :)

4

Dan O'Day

@Soldarnal bahaha awesome

Sarah

@JackDouglas Agreed.

@Soldarnal LOL! definitely not good!

Jack Douglas

@Sarah but @Monica does not agree with that: here post is effectively a mandate for editing out the word 'Christ' because doing so would improve an answer.

I say it is neutral

(I mean we should consider either POV equally acceptable)

Sarah

@JackDouglas I have experienced that edit and agree that Christians should be able to answer from their point of view and claim it as their own. Jews should be able to do the same. The answer should be allowed to represent the answerer.

However,

In cases like today where emotional judgmental, even derogatory language is attached that seems unnecessary.

Monica Cellio

@DanO'Day yeah, "biblical studies" would also work I think.

Jack Douglas

8:33 PM

@Sarah we all agree on removing derogatory language, Monica is arguing for NPOV which is something else entirely

Sarah

That only ever solicits the "me too, amen" corner we seek to avoid and completely closes the hearers on the other side of the fence.

Dan O'Day

@MonicaCellio @Soldarnal @swasheck and the tagline would be: "If you want to study Scripture, go to C.SE. If you want BS, come here!" :P

2

Sarah

@DanO'Day LOL! Really not good!

Monica Cellio

@DanO'Day actually, I wouldn't change it in your option 3; it's not what we're doing now.

swasheck

@DanO'Day OT ... ever hear of Oliver Mason?

Dan O'Day

8:34 PM

@MonicaCellio it's not?

@swasheck no

Sarah

•Avoid stating opinions as facts.
•Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.
•Avoid presenting uncontested factual assertions as mere opinion.
•Prefer nonjudgmental language.

This was the list that I posted some weeks ago that was said to be a point of contention.

TRiG

@JackDouglas If an answer is having the effect of making people feel unwelcome, it's not really "neutral", is it. It may be intended as neutral, but that's not the effect it's actually having.

Dan O'Day

@Sarah yeah, Wikipedia's NPOV policy

Jack Douglas

@Sarah The question is, are we a broad site, welcoming different points of view, or are we a neutral site, where (for example) a Jewish viewpoint is unwelcome. Those are guidelines I like personally: I just don't want to impose them on Kazark

Monica Cellio

@TRiG yes, this.

Jack Douglas

8:37 PM

7

A: Ecclesiastes 4:12 A cord of three strands is not quickly broken

Metaphors are a pithy way to express truth, and as such are heavily employed in proverbs such as this one, and indeed in all of wisdom literature. This metaphor should communicate strongly to anyone familiar with rope (or, interestingly, in our own day, cable). A rope woven from two strands is so...

@Sarah ^^^^ this whould be open to editing and 'de-Christianizing' if Monica's answer is accepted by the community

Monica Cellio

@DanO'Day "studies" sounds more academic, neutral, and open than what we do today. If we don't change behavior I'd stick with either BH or BE.

Sarah

@JackDouglas I don't understand, forgive me

Jack Douglas

@Sarah sorry, edited :)

Sarah

To take out the trinity reference

Jack Douglas

This answer would be stronger without the trinity references (this is a tanakh text). A cord of one strand is weak and one of two unravels, so as you point out, three is the minimum to have a strengthening effect. — Monica Cellio Sep 9 '12 at 19:35

Monica Cellio

8:39 PM

@JackDouglas if "a Jewish viewpoint" means "we say this is true, done", then it's not welcome. If "a Jewish viewpoint" is drawing from Rashi, Maimonides, the talmud, Josephus, etc, that's not a Jewish viewpoint; it's Jewish sources. Which could be brought by, say, a Christian (it's happened here).

Dan O'Day

@MonicaCellio aha gotcha, point taken. edit made

Sarah

@JackDouglas However, she makes allowance in her post for the author's perspective.

Jack Douglas

@MonicaCellio exactly, but just using the term 'Jesus Christ' without sources to document why you use the term would be unwelcome

@Sarah where?

Monica Cellio

@JackDouglas or modification of that last paragraph to start off with a big old "to a Christian this has echos of the trinity, because...". Labeling.

Jack Douglas

"you have to label it as your opinion."

that is very exclusive and Kazark would leave if we have that rule

Monica Cellio

8:42 PM

@JackDouglas and I do still believe it would be stronger without that. But expressing a labelled opinion wouldn't get it booted.

Sarah

@JackDouglas One important difference between my proposal and Wikipedia is this: This doesn't mean that you can't express an opinion along with your answer. It just means you have to label it as your opinion.

Jack Douglas

@Sarah so you have to write 'Jesus (in my opinion Christ)'?

I don't think that is realistic

Monica Cellio

@JackDouglas if he will only participate here if he can present Christian opinion as fact, then that's unfortunate but oh well. I hope he is more flexible than he indicated in that meta post.

2

TRiG

@JackDouglas Add the title if it's actually directly relevant. Most of the time it isn't.

Soldarnal

@MonicaCellio To me, the sad irony of the debate around that answer is that Kazark does qualify his paragraph there. "I believe..." "I think..."

Jack Douglas

8:43 PM

it will bloat answers and make them hard to understand, or more realistically people will just give up and leave

Sarah

@JackDouglas LOL! not!!! But that is not my opinion. It is an historical fact attested to by witnesses. Though some chose not to believe that witness.

Monica Cellio

@JackDouglas or just say Jesus -- don't we know who you mean??? If the messianic context is important, say it once and then go on.

Jack Douglas

@Sarah @Monica does not agree ^^^^^

Sarah

@MonicaCellio, what say you?

Monica Cellio

@JackDouglas what evidence do you have for "give up and leave"? Did @Sarah leave when I de-christianized a couple of her questions?

swasheck

8:45 PM

@JackDouglas but that's a distinctly Christian perspective rooted in its theological heritage. it's not that i disagree with it, but it just seems out of bounds for the specific aim of this site. I'd upvote that portion of the answer with reckless abandon if it were on Christianity.SE

TRiG

@JackDouglas "That's very exclusive" say you. I don't get it.

Jack Douglas

-1

A: Are doctrinal answers ok?

There is an inherent tension in a site that seeks to exegete a body of texts without a common ground. The main participants at this site seem to be Jews and Christians, but an atheist or a Buddhist or a Muslim could participate here too if they were interested in hermeneutics of ancient texts. W...

@TRiG I like the rule for me. I don't want to impose it on everyone else

Monica Cellio

@Sarah what says I about what? Hard to follow the threading here.

Sarah

@MonicaCellio To call Jesus Christ is not my opinion. It is an historical fact attested to by witnesses, though some do not believe those witnesses.

Jack Douglas

@TRiG there are way more folk who will contribute here if we allow them some degree of freedom in how they express themselves than if we impose any sort of NPOV

TRiG

8:47 PM

@JackDouglas I just don't see what you actually mean by that. "You have to label your opinion as fact" doesn't strike me as an exclusive rule. It is, in fact, intended to have the effect of making this site more inclusive.

Jack Douglas

@TRiG read Kazark's answer :)

TRiG

@Sarah It is, however, your opinion.

@JackDouglas I did, and gave him a -1 for being condescending and unpleasant.

Sarah

@TRiG It is my opinion that the witness it true. And it is yours that it is not.

Jack Douglas

@TRiG he is a nice guy and a great contributor here. Not much more I can say!

@Sarah are you getting a flavour of where this could lead?

Monica Cellio

@Sarah no, sorry, it's a widely-held opinion, but an opinion nonetheless. Same as the (less-, but still) widely-held opinion that no messiah has come. And I can bring proof texts about how the one you claim doesn't qualify, but not going there here.

Sarah

8:49 PM

@MonicaCellio How do you establish fact?

The Jewish law says on the basis of two or three witnesses does it not?

TRiG

I do agree that SE is not a sausage factory: there's room for differences in style and mode of expression. But I don't think Monica's suggested rule imposes on that any more than necessary.

Monica Cellio

@JackDouglas do you understand that we are already there and I am trying to bring us back from the brink?

swasheck

my goal in engaging this whole thing (again) is that BH should necessarily move away from subjectivity. it's the difference between "The Sun is composed primarily of the chemical elements hydrogen and helium which for 74.9% and 23.8% of the mass of the Sun's photosphere. All heavier elements, called metals in astronomy, account for less than 2% of the mass. The most abundant metals are oxygen (roughly 1% of the Sun's mass), carbon (0.3%), neon (0.2%), and iron (0.2%)." and

"To me, the Sun is a source of happiness and energy. It is a source of life for most living things on the Earth."

Monica Cellio

@Sarah not for this. There are questions on Mi Yodeya that cover this; I'm not going to have this argument here now.

TRiG

> the worldview of this site is postmodern relativism

5

A: Hermeneutics vs Exegesis

I think this question needs more attention. I think the site name is misleading. Hermeneutics is the branch of knowledge that deals with the interpretation of texts; it is not interpretation itself. That falls into the realm of exegesis. Although Biblical Studies may be a much better name as well...

Monica Cellio

8:52 PM

@swasheck yes, what he said.

TRiG

> It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it.

swasheck

@TRiG nice clickbait

:D

TRiG

@swasheck The URL probably helps too.

Shog9

I know you're all very concerned about this discussion, but please try to stay back from dire apocalyptic predictions and, uh, personal commentary - it's not gonna help.

Monica Cellio

@Sarah @JackDouglas - look, if you guys are that hung up on "Jesus Christ", would a specific exception for that particular opinion get past it? Or do you have a gazillion more?

TRiG

8:55 PM

(Yes, this is my name.)

Monica Cellio

I still find it offensive, but if you think it's that hard, we can talk about it. If it's just that one.

swasheck

@Shog9 from my perspective, the future of the USA depends on us establishing this.

Shog9

the future of the USA? THE FUTURE OF THE COSMOS HANGS IN THE BALANCE HERE!

TRiG

@MonicaCellio I suspect in many cases it's simply a reflex. People just say (and type) "Jesus Christ". Many people think of the whole thing as a name, and forget that "Christ" is actually a title.

swasheck

@Shog9 i'm starring ... then flagging

Monica Cellio

8:57 PM

@TRiG and it is (only) because of that that I'm willing to write in an exception for that one case.

TRiG

And when it's pointed out to them that what they're doing perfectly naturally, just being themselves, is actually hurting people, their immediate reaction is shocked defensiveness. Perfectly natural human behaviour.

Jack Douglas

@MonicaCellio to me all these are the same: there is no reason to make specific exemptions for one group and not another. I disagree with NPOV: I think it is too narrow and the site would tend towards dry academia or wikipedia-pedantry. I like reading thoroughly Jewish perspectives! I want to understand EO thinking better. I don't want the heart edited out of an answer leaving just the brain.

Jon Ericson

@swasheck I'm starting to get the picture that you had something to do with the hubbub on the Heap the other day...

Monica Cellio

@JackDouglas where did I say that you can't have the heart, so long as you say what you're doing?

Jack Douglas

I think that is where NPOV will lead:

15 mins ago, by Jack Douglas

it will bloat answers and make them hard to understand, or more realistically people will just give up and leave

swasheck

8:59 PM

@JonEricson not really. i just laughed along the way ... and tried to determine how all of the things within the SE ecosystem actually work

i never flagged a thing

TRiG

@JackDouglas In practise, I doubt it.

Jack Douglas

@TRiG that's what has happened to Wikipedia :)

swasheck

though El'Endia did kinda frustrate folks with a dismissive "why should it ...?"

Shog9

@JackDouglas ok, that might be an exaggeration (not the "people leaving" bit - that'll probably happen regardless) - but NPOV is a royal PitA, particularly if you expect folks go around fixing every single answer posted.

Monica Cellio

@JackDouglas so you say, and I disagree.

Shog9

9:02 PM

That's not a reason not to do it - but it's a reason not to try it if you can't get everyone enthusiastic about doing it.

TRiG

@JackDouglas There's a very big difference: SE has many answers on each page, with a name beside each. And no one (no one) is saying that all individual expression is forbidden. They're merely asking for labels. (And if it's too annoying to have to label the fact that "Jesus Christ" is a Christian perspective, then you can leave out the "Christ". If it's that important to you to have it there, then it's worth taking the effort to label it.)

2

Monica Cellio

@JackDouglas wikipedia has no outlet for personal expression. We have (per my proposal) labelled personal opinion, plus comments (which are not covered by answer scope at all), plus chat, plus meta...

TRiG

@JackDouglas (h2g2 is more readable than Wikipedia for precisely this reason. The articles on h2g2 have a "Written by" name in the sidebar.)

Monica Cellio

@Shog9 as with other post-improvement efforts, it's reasonable to leave the fixing to those who care the most.

Sarah

@JackDouglas Yes Jack, I can see clearly now the point of contention and the direction the conversation is heading. Thank you.

Caleb

9:04 PM

@JackDouglas Not necessarily, but it does have to include something related to the field of hermeneutics.

TRiG

> h2g2 is a great place to get things off your chest, but for Approved Entries we're looking for balanced writing rather than subjective rants. We're looking for Entries that show both sides of the argument, especially on potentially contentious topics.

Writing Guidelines

It's subtly different to Wikipedia's NPOV stance.

Sarah

@MonicaCellio @Monica, that would be a bit unrealistic and cumbersome considering that a third of the Bible is the New testament and Christians would be labeling what they believe to be fact as an opinion. Would it be realistic if every time you made an assertion concerning God that you wrote next to it that that is your opinion? (You would have to do that since we welcome also atheists who do not believe there is a God.

swasheck

@Sarah whose Bible?

Jack Douglas

@swasheck ours

and that is not meant to be flippant

Sarah

@swasheck Thank you.

Monica Cellio

9:08 PM

@Sarah is saying "Jesus" that cumbersome? (Or allowing someone else to make that edit.)

swasheck

@JackDouglas point being if she is talking to Monica then she should set frame of reference

Jack Douglas

@swasheck good point, sorry

swasheck

@JackDouglas certainly. no need to apologize

Dan O'Day

@JackDouglas @TRiG I proposed a modified NPOV that does allow for questionable sources and statements of opinion (and even primary sources), just with qualifiers.

Also for @Shog9 's benefit ^^^^ I think a modified NPOV could work here

Monica Cellio

@swasheck yes. Frame of reference may be obvious if you're talking about Luke, but not if you're talking about Job.

TRiG

9:10 PM

> Nobody in their right minds would shake a Martini. Except James Bond, who does it as a joke. This should be reflected in any reasonably entry on Martinis. But Wikipedia doesn't try to be reasonable, just neutral.

Gnomon, h2g2.

So, is reasonableness more important than neutrality?

Jack Douglas

@DanO'Day I prefer your option (3) as you might be able to guess :) (though I'd put it a bit more positively)

Sarah

@MonicaCellio No, but Jesus as Christ is a core tenant of Christian history and fact and their Bible. Thus to label that as opinion whenever it enters the picture is unrealistic. But I ask you again, Would you be willing, upon every time you write God, to label it as your opinion?

Jack Douglas

@TRiG it is to me, what do you think?

The faq has it spot on for me:

> We welcome Jewish, Christian, Atheist and other viewpoints as long as they take seriously the process of understanding the Biblical texts.

TRiG

@JackDouglas Oh I dunno.

swasheck

@Sarah @MonicaCellio i think it's a matter of domain. there's no real soteriological ontological, or epistemological loss if we remove Christology from the "cord of three strands" question. the only thing that's hurt is our pride that we were able to recite a nice Sunday School story that others dont appreciate as much

Shog9

9:14 PM

@MonicaCellio eh... If you're gonna have rules, you have to enforce them. Not necessarily 100% of the time, but more often than when one or two people feel like it. If this isn't something that at minimum the moderators and preferably the core users are willing to pitch in on, then it's pointless - if meta says one thing and the site says another... Well, even on BH one of those gets read a lot more than the other.

Jack Douglas

all contributors should respect all the texts that are open for examination: if 'Jesus Christ' is an obvious link based on the 'Christian' part of the texts we allow, contributors shouldn't have to support it explicitly. If you are making a claim that is not supported by the 'Biblical Texts' you should perhaps have to support it in some other way.

Dan O'Day

@JackDouglas I edited #3 and removed the last line so that it is not stated negatively (judgmentally - see I already violated my own policy! haha). But I intentionally don't want people to have to pick one of the three yet, just acknowledge that those are really the only options - we need a name change if we want 2 or 3

Jack Douglas

@DanO'Day I disagree there too :) the name isn't perfect, but like dba.se we can get along with it!

Caleb

@swasheck I think I'm with you on this. The distinction between BH and religion specific sites is not the possible resulting doctrine but the process of getting there. I think we need focus things back on the process of hermeneutics. We have a rule about questions having to arise from a specific text, but I think we should require answers to likewise pick up the threads starting at that text. They may end up with some doctrinal content, but they can't start at the end and work backwards.

6

Jack Douglas

thanks for the edit though: for the record, I love the first half of your post!

Monica Cellio

9:16 PM

@Sarah in the context of a tanakh discussion it's opinion. And I've already offered to say "fine, that one's different". And I make very few assertions about God, as distinct from what the text says about God.

Dan O'Day

@JackDouglas I disagree, DBA is more due to the impressions people have from the word. Hermeneutics actually refers to a specific field of study that is distinct from exegesis

Jack Douglas

@Caleb I quite like that as a requirement if I understand it correctly. It sounds like something we'd have half a chance of implementing objectively.

Monica Cellio

@Shog9 to be clear, if there's going to be an exception for "Jesus Christ" it needs to be a documented exception, right there in the guideline. Not a nudge-nudge, wink-wink thing.

swasheck

@Caleb that's to my point of the fact that this site is about the process.

Shog9

@MonicaCellio If there isn't an exception, that needs to be documented as well.

Jack Douglas

9:18 PM

@DanO'Day yes, but the name is shorthand for 'hermeneuticsandexegisis.se' which would be too much of a mouthful

Dan O'Day

@JackDouglas hence why @Soldarnal 's proposal of 'Biblical Studies' is ideal

Jack Douglas

@Shog9 as a mod I'm committed to following the community where the community clearly expresses itself on meta (and even trying to do so when it's unclear!)

@DanO'Day I like the name but we tried loads of permutations before

Monica Cellio

@Shog9 no objection.

TRiG

@DanO'Day Especially because it allows me to make rude jokes about it .....

swasheck

@DanO'Day "biblical studies" is also open to interpretation

Jack Douglas

9:21 PM

@DanO'Day I wanted 'Biblical Texts'

or just bible.se

Shog9

@JackDouglas Of course. But your time is not infinite, and if you're spending it editing toward NPOV, then you're not spending it doing something else. This is a trade-off y'all have to take into account: a NPOV requirement (such as Dan's Option #2) might be exactly what you need, but it won't come free and if you go into it expecting it to be easy you'll just end up frustrated.

Dan O'Day

@JackDouglas i wasn't aware of this other meta post

Caleb

@JonEricson Wow. déjà vu. I'm still catching up on transcripts but that is exactly the thought that has been brewing in my head. An answer that doesn't contain any content that teaches anything about our topic should be an answer on this site.

Monica Cellio

@Shog9 @JackDouglas doesn't have to personally edit the posts; he merely has to permit those edits.

Shog9

@MonicaCellio That's not enough.

Caleb

9:26 PM

@DanO'Day It can be narrowed. This is part of why we're still in beta.

Monica Cellio

@Shog9 aren't we supposed to be sharing the burden of site improvement? Isn't that why we have trusted users? What we need is permission. And yes, mods should fix things that they come across, but not only them.

Shog9

@MonicaCellio Not only anyone

Monica Cellio

@Shog9 yeah, I don't mean "fine, Monica (and only Monica) will NPOV-ize answers", but right now, without this, I'm not permitted to try.

Other people apparently support this idea too. It wouldn't just be one person.

But it doesn't require mods, is what I'm saying.

swasheck

@MonicaCellio i'm too lazy. i just leave comments and threats to DV :)

Shog9

@MonicaCellio I don't think this is something one person should experiment with on other people's answers. If you're gonna do it, do it as a community, each person doing their part. If you can't do that, if it is just Monica editing towards NPOV with business as usual for everyone else, then you're gonna eventually find yourself a target - that's no good.

4

swasheck

9:31 PM

as an aside ... who wants to play a game?

TRiG

@swasheck Pick me! Pick me! jumps up and down waving

Caleb

@Soldarnal Nobody but mods ever see the kind of flag that the delete was in response to. Even if it was flagged incorrectly, we can still take a delete action. Sometimes I will double up with a different kind of flag of my own before taking action to leave a trace for the next mod to review why I did something, but it really doesn't break anything except the mod's brain while reviewing if the wrong flag was used, we still have all possible actions open.

swasheck

you give me a book in the New Testament ... then you give me a Greek word ... then I'll tell you significant collocates

Shog9

By the way, I don't know how many of you are active on Skeptics, but you might want to spend some time there before you discuss NPOV in earnest. They tend to be a lot more strict than most SE sites in terms of what an answer can or cannot look like - it's done well for them, thought not without some cost. You'd do well to learn from them.

TRiG

@swasheck Books I can cope with. Greek words .... okay.

Jude. Dolmas.

swasheck

9:33 PM

@TRiG small sample size

everything will be significant

but i can compare to the rest of the NT

Dan O'Day

I'm just saying that I'd like to see more answers on BH.SE like this, and no more like this.

Jon Ericson

@Shog9 I enjoy writing answers on Skeptics. But I think the cost is too high for a site as narrow in focus as ours. To add the burden of NPOV on top of every other hurdle we have for our target audience seems excessive.

swasheck

@TRiG nvm. you trolled me :)

TRiG

@DanO'Day Your second example is purely a quote, and should probably be deleted.

@swasheck ντολμάς

(I think it's known by a different name in Greece itself, but my granddad was Cypriot.)

swasheck

@TRiG right. so the point of the game is to find it for a particular word that actually occurs in the text :)

TRiG

9:38 PM

@swasheck Well, you should have clarified that.

swasheck

@TRiG touche

Jon Ericson

@DanO'Day Yeah. I think the best way to do that is to vote up the former and vote down the later. Which seems to be what has happened.

Monica Cellio

@Shog9 if it becomes what we expect then I think other people will start, except a few holdouts. New users will get the clue and then they'll help. There are functions we don't all share in now though we could; for example, I'm usually not one of the ones going in and adding quotes and links for cited passages, though I could be.

@JonEricson I'm not advocating Skeptics-style NPOV. I said modified NPOV for a reason. (Well, several reasons.) I had meant to talk about Skeptics in the answer but forgot.

Very funny, voter. I saw what you did there. :-)

Sarah

10:05 PM

@MonicaCellio Monica, You need to know that I cannot go along with NPOV as it is playing out here. It is too small a box. Unless you allow folks to speak as "fact" the things stated within the texts the forum is based upon, I foresee it as a perpetual source of frustration.

Monica Cellio

@Sarah noted. I hope you'll consider answering the question, since it sounds like you aren't happy with the current state either. So put an idea on the table?

swasheck

@Sarah is there a factual foundation for the assertion that the "cord of three strands" is necessarily trinitarian imagery?

Jon Ericson

@MonicaCellio Here's the thing: in order to maintain any type of NPOV, we all need to be vigilant to enforce it. That works for Skeptics, since their mission is to verify or refute truth claims. But it doesn't play to our skill-set in general.

Sarah

I am one hundred percent behind avoiding and editing out presumptuous phrases like, "we believe" or "our Savior" since this is not a Christian site.

I am behind editing out critical language ie, "absurd" etc. That is as far as it goes.

Monica Cellio

@JonEricson I don't think we'll wave a magic wand and all be doing it on day 1, but I think if we adopt it we will grow that skill set.

Sarah

10:09 PM

@swasheck Where are you coming from on this question?

swasheck

@Sarah i'm just trying to gain an understanding for what you're getting at with "fact"

Monica Cellio

@Sarah could you make that comment somewhere on meta, which is more durable than chat?

Sarah

@MonicaCellio I will see what I can do.

@swasheck the name along with the title ascribed to Him, "Jesus Christ" is set forth in the NT. To expect contributors to state as opinion something set forth in the Scripture is unreasonable.

swasheck

@Sarah sorry, i dont follow. i'm specifically referring to the ecclesiastes question

Sarah

@swasheck That was an example based on the discussion here of what types of things Monica proposes to edit out. IT was not in reference to that particular post at all.

swasheck

10:15 PM

@Sarah hm. ok

Sarah

@swasheck I am of a "oneness" persuasion. The doctrine of trinity neither moves me nor offends me.

swasheck

@Sarah good deal and that's fine ... i was just trying to get a feel for "fact" vs. "theory"

Sarah

@swasheck Fact stated in Scripture is not a good thing to expect folks to label as opinion.

swasheck

@Sarah some people perceive as fact that which is not stated as such. it's inference. additionally, theory is not always a hokey, "what if" scenario.

Sarah

@swasheck Is this stemming from our conversation last week on fact and theory?

swasheck

10:24 PM

@Sarah no. not really. just more trying to feel my way around the various contentions here

Sarah

@swasheck Yea, me too.

Jon Ericson

@MonicaCellio I guess I'm not sure how that's different than what we already do. Looking the list of people who are in this room at the moment, I can't identify a single one of us who doesn't regularly post answers that meet your criteria. And we all have shown some aptitude for teaching it as well. So I'm left with the idea that what's missing is some level of enforcement.

If we are really a site that embraces "postmodern relativism", we need to allow people to say what they want how the want. Our limits should be very permissive. Sure, we should strive for something more, but when people don't fall into line, we shouldn't drive them off.

Sarah

@MonicaCellio I'm not sure where something like that would be appropriately posted Monica.

Monica Cellio

@JonEricson are you talking about how we write answers, or editing? I think the people in this room are generally good at writing answers I consider appropriate. But our new users, overwhelmingly, are not. And without some guidance, we can't improve those posts in this way.

@JonEricson so you're ok with Derek-style answers? (Deliberately naming sombeody who never came back, vs. a current participant -- of which there are examples too.)

@Sarah maybe as a comment on my modified-NPOV answer? Shrug -- just didn't want it to get lost.

TRiG

@MonicaCellio Chat is actually more durable than comments, but less likely to be seen.

Monica Cellio

10:34 PM

@TRiG yeah, I didn't mean in the sense of "on disk somewhere", but "accessible".

swasheck

BEGIN TRANSACTION
COMMIT

Jon Ericson

@MonicaCellio I had to refresh my memory. It seems that nobody much liked those answers based on the votes. They just don't seem worth much effort. (And to be honest, my problem with them had very little to do with the POV.)

@MonicaCellio It seems like our new users tend to have lot's of hurdles to overcome. Skeptics has a number of advantages: among them, it's full of people who already know our system.

Monica Cellio

@JonEricson how 'bout, say, the last week's worth of flagged new-user posts?

swasheck

@JonEricson here's decision point 1 ... do we delete those? edit those? or downvote those? s/n ratio is one contention

Monica Cellio

@JonEricson by the time we get anywhere near graduation (min 2 years, I'm guessing?) we'll have that community too. Right now, we're small enough and new posts come in slowly enough that the active users can handle it.

swasheck

10:41 PM

@JonEricson they dont have lots of hurdles ... they have one. cut the sunday school stuff and actually do the process. if you need help with the process ... ask for help (somewhere).

2

Monica Cellio

@swasheck agreed, but he might have meant SE learning curve, not BH specifically. Like, this isn't a forum.

Jon Ericson

@swasheck Surely, case-by-case. -3 answers are good candidates for deletion. But I wouldn't worry too much about answers that are just blah unless they are the only answer to a question.

swasheck

@MonicaCellio ah. point taken

Caleb

@Shog9 oi

Jon Ericson

@swasheck What's "the process"? ;) I get your frustration with new users, but it doesn't help to blast them with a bunch of rules upfront.

swasheck

10:48 PM

@JonEricson hermeneutics. evaluation of the actual question at hand and not "how it applies to our lord and savior jesus christ who was hung on a tree and raised again on the third day, witnessed by over 500 people and lives again, seated at the right hand of the throne of god." just, "hey, how many days was jonah in the belly of the sea creature?"

i'm not against the resurrection narrative - in fact it plays a huge part in my worldview. but it's for another place on the network.

@JonEricson and i'm not "frustrated" at all. honestly, how are they to know? i dont mind saying the same thing to every new sunday school answerer. however, when it becomes something that's contentious like "well if i can't do theology then i guess i wont participate" then that's just silly because there's already a place for that.

or if my faith is either implicitly or explicitly questioned because i urge people to parse the text and not the sunday school lesson, that's offputting. that only happened a few times and i don't even want to go back and search for why/how/when

2

Jon Ericson

@swasheck It took me a while to find this, but I don't think it's as easy as that:

5

A: Are questions about the Old Testament from a purely Christian perspective off-topic?

I think if we start down the path Richard suggests, we will greatly limit the scope of the site and probably not get much traction as a community. The simplest defense of these sorts of questions is that they reflect a particular principle of Biblical hermeneutics: The Christo-Centric Princi...

Caleb

@JackDouglas Honestly I might bail if the community settles on full on NPOV. I haven't gotten through chat log yet much less meta, but I see that being a world of pain that I might not be the one to help guide everybody through. On the other hand as I hinted I do think we need to get back to being about the process of interpretation more than the doctrinal conclusions.

swasheck

@Caleb i think that I'm in full agreement with this and the linked chat

@JonEricson but christocentric interpretation is necessarily reading theology into the text no matter how else it's justified.

@JonEricson having said that, if it shows clear thought patterns and logic then i can overlook my negative regard toward attempts at finding jesus in everything. i just would like to see respectful dialog when i ask for justification or explanation in things.

ok all. goin' home time.

have a good evening.

Jon Ericson

@swasheck This gets us back to the question of whether interpretation is possible in vacuum. We all bring our background with us. Isn't declaring a particular hermeneutical framework out of bounds making as much of a doctrinal commitment as asserting it?

@swasheck Yes. Part of the problem is that we've only ever seen poor christocentric answers. There is potential for really expert answers, but only if we don't cut them off at the pass.

Caleb

11:21 PM

I would contend that it is not possible to entirely separate the process of interpretation from certain doctrinal presuppositions. If we cannot bring our background with us (including sometimes making unqualified assertions) then I don't think we are honestly even standing on our own beliefs and we won't get very far interacting with others.
(See The Ball and the Cross if I'm not making myself clear on that point.)
If we can't allow Kazark the leeway to make an unhedged statement required by his world view, he can't truly say what we do in our FAQ about welcoming different viewpoints as lon…

That's quite different than allowing answers that just jump straight to a raw doctrinal assertion with no exegesis getting there. Those I don't think we should be a accepting. There is a world of difference between NPOV and focusing on the process of interpretation rather than the doctrinal conclusions.

Jon Ericson

11:35 PM

@Caleb I really need to read The Ball and the Cross, but I think you are perfectly clear.

Monica Cellio

11:48 PM

Aside: first non-mod Outspoken award.

@swasheck yeah. We can downvote that kind of crap, but not enough people are willing to downvote. We could edit it to be less over-the-top, except right now we can't. We can flag, but really, what are the mods going to do about it? We need to decide what our community standards are, and it sure shouldn't be that kind of post.

@swasheck or for questions that are specifically about that.

@Caleb nobody has proposed Skeptics-style full-on NPOV. We should get back to interpretation and not doctrine, yes, but how do you propose doing that? What specifically should we be doing?

Jon Ericson

@MonicaCellio Maybe you can sketch the differences between what you propose and Skeptics since I count three of us who interpreted the proposal that way.

Monica Cellio

@JonEricson I benchmarked against Wikipedia in my answer. I don't really know Skeptics that well (don't hang out there). I feel like people are standing up a bogeyman of Skeptics when, AFAIK, nobody here is actually experienced with what they do -- we've just heard the horror stories. Can we talk about us and Wikipedia and leave Skeptics out of it?

@JonEricson so nobody here writes those? Is anybody here capable of doing so, to show us how it's done? And we need a way, within our rules and our users' willingness to act, to deal with the poor ones.

Transcript for