« first day (68 days earlier)      last day (4552 days later) » 

7:42 AM
sigh This Jim Thio character is something else
2 hours later…
9:41 AM
@jimthio Re: The personal rant in say version 3 of your history question ... I think you're coming at the whole thing from the wrong end of the stick starting with peripherals and conclusions and comparing them to your world view rather than examining premises and the core to figure out of they are true.
If you want to chat about that feel free to ping me in here sometime.
It's off topic for the QnA format but on a personal level but we could talk about it on a personal level here.
2 hours later…
12:00 PM
Sorry. As you see I am a christian moving away to atheism or judaism. Too many questions
Too many thing I am suspicious
I prayed when I am poor and God (or my self through suggestion) have made me rich again. If God is real I want to know.
I think even if God is real, too much religious doctrines are well, just political trick. Either case it's worth learning. After all, christian doctrines change all the time. 300 years ago we put people with different beliefs on the wheel. I guess it's not far fetch to say that most of our doctrines are not true.
@JimThio I would say it's ridiculously far fetched, but we're comparing apples and oranges. In my head I have some of the core teachings of Christianity that have not only not changed in the last 2k years but they can even be dated before that. I think you're thinking of a thousand peripheral things about how people who claim to be Christian live out or apply what they claim to believe which of course varies wildly.
Also a heads up ... bad language is off limits in this chat, so is name calling. You can express all kinds of dissenting opinions but you have to do it with clean language.
I never use bad languange. Hence the ** :)
The reason I asked about that marriage thingy is because of evolutionary psychology.
@JimThio Staring it out doesn't mean you didn't use it.
Evolution theory predicts humans behavior including religious doctrines
What do you mean by "evolutionary psychology"?
12:08 PM
What word I should use than instead of the BS word. What's the more polite word?
@JimThio Hm, ok yes... except the things it predicts about religion don't match up with what's at the core of Christianity. It matches a lot of what people end up doing with it, but not the teachings themselves.
It end up predicting what most people would think is God's word, namely their own political agenda
That's just the tip of the iceberg
@JimThio I think you might have linked the wrong article, that one doesn't seem to have anything to do with the topic.
Oh that's introductory to evolutionary psychology
Look I got to go. I think I cleaned up the question. It seems that the answer is yes. Most christians would think that God want us to get married even though marriage contain unfair and pretty silly terms that not biblical anyway. That seems to be the answer isn't it?
We can continue whenever we're both around.
@JimThio I think it's way more complicated than that. "Not Biblical" cannot be defined as "anything the Bible doesn't specifically spell out", so none of the things you are saying as "not biblical" ... what is Biblical is submission to authorities. Not Biblical would be not submitting to authorities.
Yes, we have to comply to the law even when it's silly or unfair, up to the point where it crosses a moral line that makes us sin / act non-Biblically (as defined as contrary to God's law, not just not mentioned), then we have to be objectors.
But even in our objection we have to submit to the consequences of our actions.
12:24 PM
Authorities do not demand us to get married. Marriage is being destroyed as we know. Soon it'll be impractical. Most people are not marrying anyway.
In your hypothetical situation, becoming a celebate monk starts being the most Christian option.
C'mon Caleb
Actually the fact that most christians would still want people to get married is also predicted by evolutionary psychology.
In fact, not only christians, most religious group would encourage marriage somehow.
Marital laws alter sexual selection in favor of those who are in power.
In fact, if God really want us not to have sex outside marriage why doesn't he just say so?
@JimThio That's not why Christians favor upholding the idea of covenant marriage.
Nothing in the bible says, Thou shall not have sex outside marriage
If you want to examine Christian marriage figure out what we mean by covenant and how that is different than contract and how the Christian idea of marriage has more to do with representing how Christ deals with the church than it does any agreement between mutually consenting parties.
@JimThio It also doesn't say "thou shalt not scalp your neighbor if they intrude on your property", but we pretty generally understand it to mean that would be bad behavior.
It says plenty about sex and marriage in general to paint a picture, and sex outside of marriage is outside the frame of the canvas it paints on.
12:31 PM
Scalping your neighbor is not victimless
sex outside marriage, is interesting :)
@JimThio True. Neither is sex outside of marriage. People don't belong to themselves, they are created beings and by right belong to their maker. When they take it upon themselves to act outside of his design to please themselves rather than please the one they are by rights subject to, you introduce a victim. Somebodies rights are violated. Somebody is sinned against. That's what makes it a sinful act.
And who is that somebody who are victim of sex outside marriage?
Actually evolutionary psychology has a totally shocking but far more natural explanation. As I observe, christians are more devoted against sex outside marriage than against far more serious sin against God, like making false prophecy (like Benny Hinn). Exactly as predicted by EP.
@JimThio I just answered that. God is. By trying to play outside of his rules you violate his rights as sovereign, creator and Lord.
@JimThio I'm glad you recognize that as false prophecy, but don't neglect the fact that there are Christians who make a big deal about that on exactly the same grounds that they object to illicit sex -- because it falls outside the boundaries given by God. For action or for teaching. And it's not for you to judge what is a 'more serious' sin, that's up to God to say and an awful lot about how much he detests both sexual sin and false teaching.
Got to go. Good bye Caleb. Thanks for the time. Anyway, you may want to consider that EP says that the victim of sex outside marriage is competitors (not God). If that's true, then it would naturally explain why there are more religious people that oppose sex outside marriage than those opposing false prophecy. They're not victim of false prophecy. They're victim of competition if people have sex outside marriage.
12:49 PM
@JimThio See you around.
1 hour later…
2:12 PM
@Richard I'd like your opinion on my question, seeing as your meta answer is the top-voted one regarding science on †.SE
Q: Where did viruses come from, according to Young Earth Creationists?

dancekViruses are quite nasty germs. They are basically raw bits of genetic information (DNA/RNA) with a protein coating. The way viruses work is that when they somehow end up inside a suitable living cell, the cell starts duplicating the virus until it dies. Whereas bacteria serve many useful purpose...

2:29 PM
Personally, I think it's fine. It's not asking about what science says, but about what YEC beliefs say. I'll leave a comment about that, since Mark is disagreeing.
@Richard Sure it does. It's asking what scientific theory YEC's subscribe to. The answer provided gives a scientific answer. It's no different than the questions about what YECs think of the existence of a historical flood.
What Christians think of scientific theories isn't doctrinal or exegetical
I think that what YEC thinks of scientific theories is doctrinal since they claim a doctrinal stance on science. All other doctrines tend to steer clear of science, it seems.
The historical flood question:
Q: What is the physical evidence for a global flood?

KramiiI would imagine that a geological event on the scale of a global flood would leave extensive evidence in its wake. To what extent can phsyical data be interpreted as consistent with the idea of a global flood?

It doesn't seem to be asking about the YEC view of things. Simply the evidence.
I guess the difference that I see is that an answer to a scientific question could be argued on a scientific basis. An answer to a doctrinal question, such as the views of virus per YEC, wouldn't be as argumentative because all comments would be "Well, that's what they believe".
I agree that the answer isn't on-topic for the question, though.
And maybe not on-topic for C.SE as it seems to be a more scientific answer...
... The more that I think about it, the more I see this as a borderline case, because of the answers that it will draw.
@Richard I think the question needs to be substantially revised to make it clear it's looking for the doctrinal/Biblical basis for the belief (or lack thereof) of Viruses. Setting it up based on current scientific theories invites people to argue against them. Christianity.SE is not the place to argue against science.
Yeah, I can see that. If we remove the current scientific view entirely from the question, the question still stands and yet removes some of the potential scientific controversy.
2:44 PM
@MarkTrapp Agreed, should be edited to be looking for doctrinal basis. Possibly with a mod note that scientific question are on topic and answers should be limited to doctrinal basis rather than scientific ones.
@dancek Would you be willing to drop all the current science stuff from there? Basically, your last two paragraphs would be good for the quesiton in general.
(With wording changes to drop the context of the previous stuff...)
@Richard I was just doing this. See the new version.
@MarkTrapp @waxeagle Do you think that looks better? The first two paragraphs make me wonder, but they do set a context for the question.
The theological significance of God creating evil / Satan creating stuff could perhaps be mentioned, but I can't think of a good way that doesn't seem biased against *EC.
Yeah, I think leaving it an open question like that is better in many situations.
2:47 PM
@Richard I think it looks better...would love a custom mod note...
@Richard I think that's relevant for my point that viruses seem to be bad, and bad only. But that could be removed.
@dancek Right, that's what I mean about setting context. Dropping that would make the question less... supported(?) solid(?)
The first two paragraphs leave open the validity of the answer provided: instead of answering to the doctrinal belief of YECs, it answers to the premise that viruses are bad with pseudoscientific backing
@MarkTrapp I now agree that mentioning the scientific hypotheses was a bad ide. I actually had forgot about the science meta discussion, so it's good you brought it up.
@MarkTrapp I still wonder whether there's a more doctrinal YEC answer to this. If that's the only possible answer, then it is. The question is irrelevant if viruses have a good, godly purpose.
...and of course, if that's the only possible answer, neither the question nor the answer fits well on the site :/
@dancek I think the question could still be relevant. Consider that the Bible doesn't talk (to my knowledge) specifically about things that are microscopic. So, asking about YEC doctrines regarding all things microscopic is still interesting and on-topic.
2:53 PM
@dancek What about replacing the opening paragraphs with something like, "I'm wondering what role viruses have in the world according to YECs. They seem to be wholly bad, but do YECs consider them to be good?"
@MarkTrapp I'll do that!
@MarkTrapp excellent
The really screwy thing about YEC and OEC (from a C.SE view, at least) is that it takes science and doctrine and mixes them all up into this jumble of a mess. YEC doctrines seem to be practically scientific theory. That confuses these issues of on-topic and off-topic entirely.
@Richard agreed. puts them in the blender and presses liquidate...what comes out is a frothy mess of sciency doctrine that doesn't taste very good
@waxeagle LOL. Yup. That's why I personally avoid putting any thought into creation at all: I just know about the past 4k years or so and leave it at that.
2:56 PM
@Richard there should be a *EC.SE! (or perhaps not)
@Richard I think as long as questions like this are kept in the framework of "What is the doctrinal/Biblical basis for YEC's belief about X?" or "What is YEC doctrine for X?" they should be fine. Without that, I think you get into YEC's version of proselytizing
@Richard I've put some thought into it, and I was raised strongly YEC and could honestly say I believed it for a long time, I've come to the realization that 1. it matters very little in the long run 2. its mostly used a point of separation and contention and 3. I don't understand enough of the science or doctrine to make actual conclusions so I'll read up on it when its relevant, but it doesnt' affect my life day to day so its not important
@waxeagle Yeah, exactly! Is YEC the truth? Maybe. Is OEC the truth? Maybe. I know that Creationism is the truth, but beyond that, it doesn't impact my life.
This is pretty much the view I hold on all the end-times stuff. (Millinialism -vs- amillenialism, the rapture, etc.)
I rewrote the opening paragraph.
@Richard I heard a great quote about millenialism.....basically take all the best things about them, apply them to your life and ignore the rest...
I wish I had the exact quote, because it was awesome
3:02 PM
@MarkTrapp @Richard thanks once again for helping me out with my posts!
@dancek Looks good to me. Thanks!
@waxeagle anything that makes us more concerned about the past or the future rather than the present, seems to be bad for us spiritually!
@dancek yeah, I remember one of the things was whatever your belief applying the urgency of (pre?)millennialism to your interactions with people and the poor. It was sort of a live in the now with all the best things from the different view points
3:21 PM
Q: Criterias for judging answers and which answer to mark as accepted

ShathurI'm getting a little confused by the following statement in the FAQ: Answers are to be judged based on how well they represent the view or tradition they claim to speak for, not whether or not you agree with that position. It is marked with bold text, thus it should be considered as importa...

2 hours later…
5:01 PM
BYU created a three-part series about the creation of the King James Bible to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the KJV. It was very well done. I highly recommend it.
3 hours later…
7:53 PM
Q: Shouldn't the user list be sorted ascending, based on Luke 13:30?

Mulmoth And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last. Luke 13:30 In addition, a user could have the possibility to downvote himselfe, as an example of humility.

1 hour later…
8:53 PM
I've started a site proposal for a Question and Answer site about Logic for anybody that has had to explain what a logical fallacy is in comments to answers (or more commonly around these parts: questions). It's a discipline exercised across many fields (and SE sites like here, Hermeneutics, Philosophy, Skeptics, etc) but there isn't a place to actually ask or answer questions about logic itself right now.
Interesting concept.
I wonder if there's enough content to keep a site like that running, though.
9:11 PM
@Flimzy I don't know, it's just a thought because I'd rather link to an SE site than waste my breath explaining for the tenth time in a day what a presupposition is. It's actually a pretty big field because it used as the basis for literally dozens of other formalized fields and informally in all sorts of places. There might be some interesting crossover between linguistics and logic that could be on-topic.
I'm not sure this would be productive, but you could spend years doing analysis of "is this logical or not" on people's stuff. Sort of like code-review. Not sure that's a good idea actually, but it's a thought.
Yeah, if you include "logic review" within the site's scope, I can see it being useful for a long time.
Anyway, I'm following your proposal now. I can't say I'll commit... it will depend on what other things I'm committed to a the time it goes into commitment phase :)
The Spanish-Language Stackexchange just went into commitment today... so my commitment slots are all full at the moment
If I could think of 7 more questions to ask on Audio & Video production, I could free up one more commitment slot :)
@Flimzy It will be a while yet, I just thought of the idea today and was surprised to not find an already active proposal.
@Flimzy It's been almost a year! Answers would work too you know.
To fulfill a commitment, I believe you have to ask 8 questions, and answer 2.
I've asked 1 and answered 4.
It hasn't been a year, actually... because I committed to the 'video' proposal, which was merged into the live-beta 'audio' proposal
@Flimzy Last I heard I think the total is ten and they are flexible on the balance, but I think the exact recipe was kind of kept secret for a while if it isn't still.
But my real problem is it's hard to come up with questions when I'm not trying to do any real a/v production... which is limited by my budget, and living in Mexico (where tech costs even mroe)
9:19 PM
@Flimzy Aaaaa.
When I move back to the U.S. in 2-3 months, I'll probably start dabbling with that more
which says "you've asked eight questions and answered two—which yes, should fulfill your commitment."
I remembered that as the recipe, but it doesn't actually say that.
Okay, I'll answer more on A/V :)
A: What is the new formula for fulfilling a commitment?

DoriThe 200 rep barrier was just coincidental. You fulfilled your commitment when you posted your tenth answer; it's just that it can take up to 24 hours for it to get recorded.


« first day (68 days earlier)      last day (4552 days later) »