« first day (714 days earlier)      last day (2494 days later) » 

12:02 AM
Yea, one answer to my question!
@Anonymous hard T generally
@JonEricson I found an interesting article on this subject! ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12188462
@Anonymous Wow. That's an interesting study.
> Intending to become pregnant and stopping contraception were not sufficient criteria, in themselves, to apply the term; partner agreement and reaching the right time in terms of lifestyle/life stage were also necessary.
@JonEricson Yeah, with science and the Internet, knowledge rules!
That pretty nearly nails it, I'd say.
12:14 AM
@JonEricson I'm still with you on the "your wife will let you know if it was planned or not" line of thinking though :)
@waxeagle He said 'spouse', not 'wife'.
true, in my case spouse = wife
@Anonymous ;-) I'm trying not to assume anyone's gender. But realistically, "wife".
From the full-text version of the article: "Previous studies have also found that it is not always possible to fit women’s pregnancies into the dichotomous categories of‘ 'planned' and 'unplanned'."
"Previous studies" would probably mean prior to 2002, because the article is published on 2002.
12:56 AM
It looks complicated.
I wonder if "too busy to engage in coitus" would count as "deliberately not using contraception".
evening @TRiG
1:16 AM
@waxeagle May I know what was so offensive in my comments that it was removed?
@Ali honestly, they showed no understanding of the context of the original quote, and I read them as a deliberate attempt to incite a reaction.
@waxeagle I explained the quote to him , how atleast with the absolute anecdotal evidence it is the truth
Flags? Who isn't behaving?
1:26 AM
I have friends... powerful friends... they will make all you troublemakers disappear!
I think our validations have already done their work.
Although on second thought I'm not sure it is best to suspend someone over a misguided factual claim.
Excellent work everyone
Instead of challenging it.
@Krazer THX!
@Cerberus Claiming that being gay is a side effect of child abuse isn't a claim, it's offensive and homophobic.
1:28 AM
@Wipqozn Why isn't it a claim?
@Wipqozn I would call it "stupid" buy, hey
It is most probably homophobic, yes.
And stupid.
@Cerberus Fine, it's a claim, b ut it's still offensive. Just like if I said "all black people are criminals" or "women shouldn't leave the kitchen"
@Wipqozn They shouldn't!!!!! WTF?!
1:29 AM
Who are you people?
@Wipqozn The former is a claim. But I'm not sure I would rather suspend the user than challenge the claim...
Q: Does sexual abuse lead to homosexuality?

Mark RogersAn article on the website for the organization Heterosexuals Organized for a Moral Environment (H.O.M.E.) claims that sexual abuse has been shown to lead to Homosexuality: It is a well-documented fact that many many homosexuals were sexually abused when young... In other words, there...

I'm sorry, bye
@Anonymous The people who came into the room to see what was going on. You This room got about 6 flags.
That's why ali has several deleted messages and was suspended for 2 hours.
@Wipqozn more like 8 I think
1:30 AM
@Krazer Yeah, there was a lot.
It went up to 11...
@MichaelHampton I've never seen the counter go into double digits before.
@Wipqozn I got six flags? Huh?
@Anonymous err, I meant the room did! My mistake.
Sorry for the confusing wording.
Hm, going to six flags sounds like a great idea!
1:31 AM
@MichaelHampton You can be like that old man. The one that dances.
anyways, I was just coming in to see the context of what was going on before acting on the flag... but they all got deleted before that so I'm off.
Toodles ladies and gentlemen.
@Wipqozn tortoise swoosh pls
Yeah I was only able to read the flags out of context.
Although the context is pretty clear here even with the lines deleted.
@Krazer Okay, but only because you're so gosh darn adorable!
I like the cloudy background down here, by the way. Sublime irony.
That was fast.
1:37 AM
@Wipqozn (≧∇≦)/
It's like I pressed 911.
Man, the topic of homosexuality is such a touchy subject.
Now, I know why.
To be honest, I confess that I used to have homophobic ideas, such as "homosexuals are strange" or "homosexuals are not normal".
Strange and not normal are not really homophobic?
Just homo-curious, hehe.
To someone with sensitive sensibilities, those things can easily be interpreted as homophobic.
1:43 AM
Yes, that is possible.
Sadly, I had to learn the hard way about how to deal with homosexuality-related topics; at best, avoid them. They almost always run into misunderstandings and hurt. Some people don't mean to be homophobic, but what they say are perceived to be such.
There are several complicated issues going on with respect to homosexuality.
I'm not a fan of PCness, but there are limits.
In a civilised environment, I more often feel that people are too PC rather than too insensitive.
man I step out for 10 minutes to go have some cookies with the missus and the descent happens...
Oh, I thought you had seen it!
It was in response to your line.
Hiya, @Cerberus. What's a Hellhound like you doing in a Christian chat room? ;)
1:49 AM
Shhh I am incognito!
You missed where Ali was suspended.
For saying something like "homosexuality goes hand in hand with child molestation".
@Cerberus Yup. Just caught up on that backlog. Didn't see what he actually said, but I can guess the gist of it.
@Cerberus Ah. Charming. And rather worse than I'd guessed.
Innit, though?
I'm not sure I should have validated the flag, though.
Does he not deserve to propose a factual claim, even if it's wrong?
Or is it too personally insulting?
@Cerberus I know you have a commitment to unfettered free speech, which is a nice idea in theory, but there's a time and a place.
We could have challenge the claim instead of suspending the user.
Not unfettered.
@Cerberus eh, I'm not interested in having that debate here
1:51 AM
@Cerberus ie, this isn't the venue for it
@Cerberus In the case of this particular user, debate doesn't really happen anyway. Ali doesn't do debate.
I think personal insults and inciting violence should be grounds for a suspension without question. Not sure what this was.
@TRiG Right, history also matters.
@waxeagle How do you mean?
@waxeagle "This" = SE, or "this" = The Upper Room?
@TRiG this = the upper room. elsewhere on SE would be fine. It's even technically on topic elsewhere
(skeptics, mind if/when it eventually goes to beta)
though it likely would be sensitive enough to merit it's own room
1:54 AM
I don't think we were discussing the claim itself.
@Cerberus what I'm saying though is that coming to a room and trying to stir up a debate no one is interested in having isn't really welcome...
@Anonymous I live in northern Idaho. Low population. Mostly white Christians. Very little diversity.
What the heck are you talking about?
What debate am I trying to "stir up"?
@Cerberus you're not
the user in question was
@fredsbend How far are you from the capital, Boise?
1:56 AM
Well, sure, that was not a debate I would have been interested in, or many other people here...
This is after all the Upper Room, General Discussion for the Christianity.SE. I think what makes Christianity attractive is the behavior of Jesus in how he deals with sinners.
Hmm this must be the first room I have ever seen on SE where people actually stay on topic most of the time! I am impressed.
@Anonymous Forgiveness?
Or what does he do?
What I sometimes find confusing about certain Christian sects is that, on the one hand, something like lying is a sin and a violation of divine law, and yet, on the other hand, it is perhaps not so bad if you lie occasionally; that is, it can be forgiven, and it doesn't mean you will be punished forever.
The latter implies that perhaps a sin is not so terrible, and divine law not so strict.
In my country, this view seems to square with Catholic traditions more than with Calvinist traditions, though.
@Cerberus nah, we don't stay on topic all the time but the topic is encompassing enough that it's easy to bring back :)
More so than in the Cooking room!
2:15 AM
@Cerberus My understanding tells me that Christianity provides a good way to channel your deepest guilts about the sins you committed in the past. Sometimes, it's not so easy to pay back for what you did wrong, and the person that you wronged might want more than what was being damaged, or even promote the "the eye for an eye" mindset. In Christianity, people can confess their sins to God directly or through a priest, giving them a nice peace of mind and having the intention to walk righteously.
@Cerberus I do not think forgiveness of sin is the same thing as excuse for sin.
@Anonymous Right, true.
@Anonymous Not an excuse, but it makes it less...serious-sounding, a sin.
2:41 AM
hi @Annie
4 hours later…
6:19 AM
Q: How to improve this question?

MawiaI asked this question, expecting that the answer could be as simple as a YES or a NO followed by a brief history of what are the new things introduced in the Roman Catholic Church which originally were not there in the early Christianity period, 200-300 AD. I removed some of my presumptions whi...

2 hours later…
8:27 AM
Interesting book:
The following book answers many of the questions in the above book, in a very unbiased study:amazon.com/Zealot-Life-Times-Jesus-Nazareth/dp/…
The above book answers about the historical Jesus , It is a very recent release (July 16)
4 hours later…
12:51 PM
@JonEricson Actually, it is important for the man and the woman to plan the pregnancy together. Men have as much of an important and responsible role in ensuring the health of the developing baby as women, as this article suggests: americanpregnancy.org/gettingpregnant/menpreconception.htm
Therefore, it is assumed that, if a pregnancy is planned and goes well, then both partners will know and do not really have to tell each other whether or not the pregnancy is planned.
Given the amount of effort, time, and care that go into planned pregnancies, I wonder if planned pregnancies would ever occur outside the context of marriage.
@Anonymous they can and do, but I'd guess it's much rarer
The only example I can think of is a same-sex marriage. A same-sex married couple wants a child. They arrange an appointment with a surrogate mother. The surrogate mother carries the child and provides the egg. The baby is born.
On second thought, it might be easier for a same-sex couple to adopt children than to have a child through surrogacy.
Another option would probably be "praying for a miracle". That is, if the same-sex couple is Christian, then they may pray for a miraculous birth. In reality, they'd probably just adopt children and call the children a "blessing".
3 hours later…
4:05 PM
Someone is making me popular around here. :P
2 hours later…
5:38 PM
@Anonymous You'd think so, wouldn't you? As a general rule, though, this is not the case.
@Anonymous Hey. Christians aren't the only ones who pray for miracles.
> I'm gonna pray, man. Know any good religions?
@TRiG There is a natural desire to have a biological attachment to your child. I definitely get that.
@waxeagle I don't, actually. I'm aware that the desire exists and is very important for many people, but I don't "get" it, since I definitely don't have that desire myself. However, I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the comparative amounts of red tape involved in adoption vs surrogacy. One might expect adoption to be more straightforward; one would generally be wrong.
@TRiG ah interesting. I'm aware of the amount of work an adoption requires (in a general sense), I have no comprehension of this for surrogacy, but I'd imagine the legal wranglings are less complex because there is already a claim to paternity
@waxeagle Yeah. But it is in everyone's interests to streamline the adoption process, you'd think. Checks are, of course, necessary, but it shouldn't take years.
NOTE: All my information about this is very very general. I have no personal experience with either system, and nor, so far as I know, do any of my close friends.
@TRiG I think so. It's a weird situation because it seems like there is both plenty of supply and plenty of demand you'd think that there would be work to make the transfer smoother
1 hour later…
7:06 PM
@waxeagle Abraham and Sarah were childless before Sarah conceived and begat Isaac. During that time, Sarah wanted to have a child through Hagar, her maidservant, and Hagar begat Ishmael.
@Anonymous how'd that work out?
@waxeagle God?
@Anonymous ? burninated and blacklisted
In a modern-day context of a same-sex marriage, the two partners enter a union where they know that they cannot reproduce any children. Apparently, the definition of marriage has changed.
@waxeagle Huh?
@Anonymous the tag, I was making a funny
7:13 PM
@waxeagle Huh?
@Anonymous our ongoing war with the god tag. It was removed late last year, and then it started coming back, I had it removed and blacklisted today
I've removed the god tag, and carefully avoided any blasphemous jokes in announcing this. If it returns, it can be blacklisted. jesus I think needs further consideration; I'm not convinced christology is an effective replacement, though it may work as a synonym. — Shog9 Dec 17 '12 at 19:20
@Anonymous Of course it has. Many times.
@TRiG which reminds me I should check up on again
sigh added to a bunch of stuff it doesn't belong on
@waxeagle Heh. That's an odd one. Do people just grab tags at random?
bible jesus history adam-and-eve. The last two make some sort of sense. is probably a bit too generic to be useful.
@TRiG to some degree...in another sense it's the old "Sunday school answer" of "Jesus, God or the Bible" (see apocraphyl story of the little boy who's shown a picture in sunday school and the teacher asks what it is, he looks at it puzzled and says "I know the answer's Jesus, but that sure as heck looks like a squirrel")
@TRiG yeah, my guess is is my next burnination target
7:20 PM
@waxeagle Toss it to the flames!
@TRiG Fahrenheit 451, man!
1 hour later…
8:39 PM
@TRiG Oh man, don't take my Bible tag. I've got silver! And, I got jesus! I want that "guru" badge when it finally becomes available. Being a guru about God, Jesus, and the Bible - now that's something I could get all worked up over :)
@TRiG Double congrats on the Gold Bling for editing posts, btw. Its important work. I know whom you needs the edit most :)
And who knows, maybe all that reading will pay off some day :)
8:53 PM
What is wrong with the or the ? They look harmless to me.
9:12 PM
@AffableGeek Eh? I have no gold badges yet, as far as I can tell. I do do a lot of editing, mind you, so perhaps one is coming. (I've never bothered memorising the badge requirements.)
@Anonymous Tags are for categorising information. Any tag which could be applied to the vast majority of posts on a site isn't really useful as a categorisation tool. Getting rid of it encourages people to choose better, more specific, tags.
Not entirely happy with the star on this, btw.
@AffableGeek I think I've worked out at least part of the answer about why I spend so much time on religious sites: ye amuse me.
9:49 PM
I shudder to think what a spark-run "designer pet shop" would look like, @El'endiaStarman.
10:06 PM
@TRiG Fine. Then, would probably be "tossed into the flames of hell" in that case.
@TRiG ...[shudders]...yeah, me too.
Okay. What joker starred this?
@TRiG Not I.
Q: Why is it not a sin to marry an infertile woman?

kyle kOften those who oppose same-sex marriage will say that there relationship is unnatural because they can't produce a child. But why is it not seen as a sin to marry an infertile woman? there relationship can't produce a child. What are some of the counter arguments to this issue?

I think this question has some serious issues.
1. It does not really explain who says what is a sin. 2. It is asking for personal opinion rather than official doctrine or church position. 3. It is too broad. 4. The question seems to be related to any "homosexuality is a sin" question.
@Anonymous Yeah, it would need a lot of work to be acceptable. I think, however, that the core question can be asked constructively.
10:24 PM
@El'endiaStarman Question Revision Proposal: "According to the Roman Catholic Church position on marriage, can a man and a woman marry legitimately while both partners in the union know that the woman cannot bear children?"
How about now?
@Anonymous I think that would be a good question. I would, however, advise that you 1) wait to see what someone else thinks, and 2) ask it yourself. Generally, we try to encourage users to edit their question to ask for what they actually want to know.
Oh. Okay. I give up.
(I suppose I could link back again, just for the sake of picking up more chat stars for the fun of it. *considers this* No.)
@TRiG what stars?
10:46 PM
@waxeagle Thanks. I wasn't really upset by that first one, but it did make me uncomfortable. And I was uncertain whether to be amused or annoyed by the later ones.
@TRiG I confess that I starred your "Not entirely happy" message, because I agreed that the starring of the "dark secret" quote was creepy. No other stars are from me, though. I am sorry for the annoyance.
@JamesT Ah. That actually makes sense, now. It never actually occurred to me that someone might star that post because they agreed with it; I just assumed it was a joke, and wasn't sure what to think of it.
@TRiG I'm...almost sure that other post got starred because someone did agree with it...but I have no proof cuz I didn't notice when it got starred
@TRiG I should have posted something to clarify. The star mechanism is the ultimate in low bandwidth communication.
11:57 PM
@El'endiaStarman I think one thing we have to keep in mind is the situation in which that type of scenario has not been discussed by the Roman Catholic Church.

« first day (714 days earlier)      last day (2494 days later) »