« first day (51 days earlier)      last day (3659 days later) » 

12:17 AM
I went ahead and asked it here... before the new guidelines are in effect
I hope it meets the new guidelines, but if it doesn't, at least I know I have some breathing room... hehe
1:11 AM
Q: Are there any ChristianitySE community statistics?

deps_statsMy question is mainly devoted to know the composition of the ChristinaitySE community. My question is two-fold: If there are any statistics out there, I would like to know where to find them. If there are no statistics regarding the composition of the community, I would like to propose a study ...

1:35 AM
Q: Why did this question suddenly become "non-constructive"?

The PreacherWhy, or how, did the question Why do many christians object to same sex civil marriage? suddenly become "non-constructive"? It was there for weeks and I doubt it was simply overlooked (it already had moderator intervention prior to my answer edit). I think before I revised my answer the views wer...

1 hour later…
2:41 AM
Q: Should we edit/retag closed questions?

FlimzyClearly editing a closed question with the intention of making it re-openable is an honorable activity. I'm wondering more trolling-type questions (which we get a lot of!) Things like: Why would the God of Judaism require many rituals? Why did Jesus give Simon Peter a greek name if they spoke...

6 hours later…
9:15 AM
@Flimzy I think this is an example of the cross over zone where the question (maybe with small tweaks either way) be on topic on either site. However the kinds of answers you should expect to get are quite different. On C.SE you might have a harder time getting quality answers (case in point, the one answer so far). On BH I would expect you get a better study study including an overview of the different views on inspiration and how they affect the writings of OT prophets.
But either way you SHOULD get an explanation that includes some of the interpretations of that passage.
9:52 AM
Q: How focussed does a question need to be?

TRiGMy question about same-sex civil marriage was closed for not being focussed enough. Now, I could refocuss it by asking twenty new questions: Why do Roman Catholics object to same-sex civil marriage? Why do Southern Baptists object to same-sex civil marriage (even though the entire point of the Ba...

3 hours later…
12:48 PM
@TRiG if you are around I have a couple of suggestions on how to focus your question.
1:25 PM
@waxeagle Not really. In work now.
You could suggest here anyway, and I'll read it later.
2 hours later…
3:54 PM
And I won't be logging in from home, either, because I've just picked up Snuff. </Pratchett fan squee>
2 hours later…
5:43 PM
@TRiG ok, my suggestions are 2 sides of the same coin. Basically Ask "Why do people who believe homosexuality is a sin want to prevent same sex civil unions" (asking a question of those who believe in the doctrine that homosexuality is a sin) OR Ask the question in the terms of Dominion theology basically -> "Why do people who believe in Dominion Theology oppose same sex civil unions?" If either of those are palatable to you then that would be the way to go.
@TRiG ooh fun, did it just come out? I might have to start reading some of those again when I finish my current books...
2 hours later…
7:39 PM
@waxeagle Yep, it's newly published. (I'm online very briefly. Your suggestions make sense, but I won't be doing any question editing for a couple of days. I'll be away most of this weekend anyway. And tonight I'm reading.)
@TRiG thats fine. i don't think we are due for a closed question deletion spree any time soon anyways. If I have some time over the weekend (And with your permission) I might take a crack at it...
@waxeagle Sure, go ahead if you want to.
@TRiG we will see how bored I manage to get this weekend :)
3 hours later…
10:59 PM
Q: Is this hate speech?

FlimzyThe accusation has been made that this answer contains "hate speech": Why do many Christians object to same-sex civil marriage? I don't actually see the answer as hateful at all, but I do see how some could draw the conclusion that it is--based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Christianity, ...

11:26 PM
I'm not quite believing that anyone needs it explained to them that yes, this is hate speech.
Put it this way: Do I want to participate in a community where my very humanity is under question? Do I want to participate in a community where it is considered acceptable behaviour to use offensive language such as "sodomites" and to say that we should be "got rid of"?
Do I want to participate in a community where it is considered acceptable behaviour to say that my political voice should be suppressed? To say that advocacy on behalf of vulnerable kids is a bad thing?
Further, let's consider the cultural context. The person saying this is not from a disenfranchised minority. He's a Christian. Christians have power, and cultural clout. The vast majority of politicians are Christian, and there are organised Christian voting blocs.
And he thinks that we should be "got rid of". How exactly does he propose to do that?
This stuff matters. It matters here, in the real world.
Speech like that isn't just "offensive". It's harmful.
It kills people.
You are drawing completely illogical and emotional conclusions from what he said.
@Flimzy Ah shut up tactic number 1. Any more?
Comparing homosexual behavior to murder is not calling into question the humanity of either group.
@Flimzy I flagged his post as offensive before that charming addition.
Well, I think there was even less objectionable material in the question before then.
As before then, it was mostly just quoting scripture.
11:37 PM
And, excuse me for pressing the issue, but what on earth makes you think you're the arbiter of what's offensive?
Did you read a word I said above?
I didn't say it wasn't offensive.
Do I need to do a line-by-line deconstruction?
In fact quite the opposite... I said it is offensive.
It's offensive. Yes. So what? I can cope with offensiveness.
but offensive != hate speech
11:39 PM
It's harmful.
So why are you asking me if I think I'm the arbiter of what's offensive?
@Flimzy Okay. Are you the arbiter of what's objectionable? Because that's objectionable.
It needs to be read in its cultural context.
A context of hate crimes.
In that context, speech like this isn't just "offensive", it's downright dangerous.
I am not in a good mood.
I believe you're attempting to apply an inappropriate context to the answer. As far as I know, and I suspect as far as you know, the OP has never been party to any hate crimes.
So what?
If he is a perpetrator of such crimes, that would certainly change the context of his question in a meaningful way.
11:42 PM
I think you don't have any clue what you're talking about.
So what? so your alleging that context makes it hate speech is simply incorrect.
If anything, the context makes it not hate speech.
Anyway, I don't see much point in continuing to discuss this... we're neither one going to change the opinion of the other.
Oh for fuck's sake. Can we not worry about definitions of "hate speech". That's distracting. I don't think he said anything that should get him arrested. I do think he said things which contribute to a cultural atmosphere that makes my life more dangerous. And I don't think SE should be contributing to that atmosphere. Got it?
I think he provided a fair explanation of a specific doctrine. If that doctrine makes your life less safe, that is unfortunate, but that does not mean the doctrine should not be discussed.
Many doctrines make many people's lives less safe. That does not make them off topic on this site.
It may make them bad doctrines.
Hang on. This man said I should be "got rid of". Do you not think it's worth digging into what he meant by that?
Does that not concern you, even a little, in a climate where gay (and, even more so, trans) people are killed every year?
That may be worth investigating, as a separate question. "What does 1Kings 15:11,12 mean when it says 'he took away the sodomites from the land'?"
Whether I am concerned by the state of homosexual affairs is irrelevant to whether or not he portrays the doctrine accurately.
I don't care, at the moment, about what 1 Kings may mean. I care what this pratt means.
When he says I should be "got rid of", what does he mean?
Well, he quoted 1 Kings as his justification... so I think it matters a great deal what it means...
Since that's what he's quoting when he talks about "getting rid of" people.
No. It doesn't matter what it means. It may matter, perhaps, what it means to him.
Unless he comes out with a specific definition of "get rid of", then I think we must assume he means to "Get rid of" in the same way that verse meant it.
11:50 PM
Ah. Killing.
Matthew Shephard was tortured to death twelve years ago this week. Is that the sort of thing you had in mind?
I also note that he doesn't actually advocate "getting rid of," but rather "suppressing influence"
He'd prefer to get rid of if he could get away with it.
Although it's possible that his words mean he would advocate "getting rid of" if it were (legally? morally? ethically? politically? ) possible
And he quite clearly doesn't see gay people as real human beings.
that's one possible interpretation. It could also jsut be an idomatic expression (in which case a different word choice would be better)
I don't think that's clear at all.
I don't see any indication of that at all, actually.
11:53 PM
Listen. If you don't delete that post, it'll blow up in your face. Having something that disgustingly bigoted and dripping with hatred on your site will not attract the audience you want.
I don't have the power to delete it, even if I wanted to.
I'm coming in a bit late on this
But I also disagree with your assessment of the post.
Is it possible for me to read that and not come away with the conclusion, This guy hates me?
I find his speech offensive and not reflecting a Christian attitude
11:54 PM
Yes, it is possible.
however, I also don't find it appropriate to suppress his interpretation of the passage
@Ray: Well said.
SE has a voting system, which is the appropriate recourse
@Ray He can interpret the passage in a less venomous way.
@TRiG: Asking someone to change their interpretation of a scripture is like asking you to become a JW again.
@TRiG: You can dialog with them about their interpretation, and you might change their mind, but you cannot force anyone to change their interpretation.
11:57 PM
I definitely agree... he is doing it in an offensive way, and, in my opinion, drawing some conclusions beyond what I would draw
@Flimzy Do I need to repeat myself? I don't care fuck about his "interpretation of scripture". I care about his dehumanising language. And I care about his blatant hatred, which would be disallowed if it were directed against racial minorities.. And I care about the double standard of this site.
But I want to be free to speak, and I want you to be free to speak. Having jerks be allowed to speak goes with the territory if we want to all have voices
@TRiG: If his post were about racial minorities, I fully suspect it would be allowed to stand. There are, in fact, many doctrines that are very harsh against racial minorities, and discussing those on this site is well on-topic.
And as @Ray points out, the proper way to address a post about racial minorities, is with the voting system.
I mean, the "curse of Canaan" was part of Christian doctrine for decades, and I'm sure some people still hold that belief, and should be allowed to express it here. But not using racist language, and not while dripping venom. There is no way to express that belief without being offensive, but there are ways to do so without being hateful.

« first day (51 days earlier)      last day (3659 days later) »