Richard

general recent conversations

Discussion on question by Hauser: Suf…

Imported from a comment discussion on spanish.stackexchange.co...

Richard

Jul 29, 2019 11:07

If you are interested in applying a specific rule, you should ask about that rule. If you are asking for an entire list of rules, it's not really a good question for the StackExchange format. The reason is that this becomes much too large of a question and moves out of the scope of a Question-and-Answer format into the format of a tutorial or Spanish lesson. Unfortunately, I believe that this question, as worded, isn't quite suitable for this site.

The Library

General discussion for hermeneutics.stackexchange.com

Richard

Jun 6, 2013 19:41

@JackDouglas Only a little bit. I got a new job, so no more video games (which pushes me back to the SE sites). ;)

Richard

Dec 15, 2011 15:39

We ran up against this issue over at C.SE, too, which is why I was immediately familiar with why this question was a problem.

Richard

Dec 15, 2011 15:36

A question "about the Bible", but really a doctrinal question masquerading as a Bible question.

Richard

Dec 15, 2011 15:35

-2

Q: The 7 days of creation: Did God create the world in 6 Earth days?

I know this is quite the question and could entice someone to write a whole article or two.. However, I think it is an important question that the world needs legitimate answers to. The two main stands are: 1) That God literally created the heavens and the earth in 6 24-hourish (Earth) days, lea...

Richard

Dec 15, 2011 15:35

Looks like we're finally testing the limits of doctrinal interpretation.

Refocusing Christianity.SE

Meta post formulation chat by parties interested in improving ...

Richard

Dec 16, 2011 13:52

Yeah, I agree.

Richard

Dec 16, 2011 13:50

I considered it, but I'm somewhat predisposed to not help rpeg.

Richard

Dec 16, 2011 13:50

Yeah, it should probably be edited to be... less offensive maybe.

Richard

Dec 16, 2011 13:47

@waxeagle Nice. Yeah, it's an interesting, philosophical question, but somewhat offensive.

Richard

Dec 16, 2011 13:44

@Richard The more that I think about it, though, the more strongly I feel about that proposal.

Richard

Dec 16, 2011 13:42

@waxeagle Yeah, I agree. I think we can't separate them out. It's just a matter of which one is our criteria.

Richard

Dec 16, 2011 13:39

Non-constructive questions, don't really have answers.

Richard

Dec 16, 2011 13:38

It seems that the problem with doctrinal questions that don't specify a doctrine is that they are not constructive: They don't have an answer.

Richard

Dec 16, 2011 13:38

@Waggers What I'm starting to see is that it's not about being focused but about being constructive.

Richard

Dec 16, 2011 13:37

@Waggers I actually don't have a problem with the question. It's actually a doctrinal question (being that angels aren't physical beings that have been studied by science). However, it's not something that's divisive between doctrines. That's why I left it open.

Richard

Dec 15, 2011 21:45

While there are some who worship angels, this notion would still be universal.

Richard

Dec 15, 2011 21:44

Q: Where did angels get their wings?

The Bible does not record angels having wings at any point, but this is a popular depiction of angels. Do any Christian groups teach that angels do have wings, in extra-biblical materials? Where does the idea come from?

angels

Richard

Dec 15, 2011 21:44

Another example of a question that is doctrinal interpretation but does not cause division among the doctrines:

Richard

Dec 15, 2011 15:01

(They time your bathroom breaks. TIME THEM!! You're only allowed a certain amount of break time per day. Granted, that's for the call center, but still...)

Richard

Dec 15, 2011 15:00

Yeah, you're probably right.

Richard

Dec 15, 2011 14:59

I hear they're a horrible employer, though. (not to get too off topic.)

Richard

Dec 15, 2011 14:59

Yeah, Unity Church is a strange one. Nice people, though.

Richard

Dec 15, 2011 14:57

Unity Church (not Unitarians) are another compass point. They believe that the Bible is a good moral book and that Jesus was a good moral teacher. Period.

Richard

Dec 15, 2011 14:42

@waxeagle That's kind of where I'm at. I don't know if we should "make that law", but maybe that would be good guidance for moderators...

Richard

Dec 15, 2011 14:40

I think that questions along those lines should be allowed to "run wild".

Richard

Dec 15, 2011 14:39

Pretty much, yeah.

The Whiteboard

General Discussion for softwareengineering.stackexchange.com P...

Richard

Dec 16, 2011 13:35

I answered it, but then, hours later, wondered if I should've flagged it.

Richard

Dec 16, 2011 13:35

Does it fall into the "Which language should I learn next?" or "Which language is best for X?" trap (from the faq)

Richard

Dec 16, 2011 13:34

Q: Programming language with native concurrency support for large graphs?

I'm currently looking for a new programming language to learn (currently working through some C++, know some C and Python), specifically one that has built-in concurrency support? I want to try to build a large graph library that can do processing across clusters or multiple cores.. I know C++'s ...

scala concurrency clojure graph

Richard

Dec 16, 2011 13:34

@MarkTrapp This question:

Richard

Dec 16, 2011 13:34

@WorldEngineer I agree that the debates that most Christians could support wouldn't hold a candle to any divinity school. But then again, would the debates that most programmers could support really stand a chance in doctorate level CS academia?

Richard

Dec 15, 2011 19:33

@surfasb like a giant computer network. no webpages.

Richard

Dec 15, 2011 19:27

@MarkTrapp Thanks again for the conversation.

Richard

Dec 15, 2011 19:27

Speaking of programming... I'd better get back to work.

Richard

Dec 15, 2011 19:26

@surfasb Great point.

Richard

Dec 15, 2011 19:26

Yeah, pretty much all of the Christianity.SE folk are programmers.

Richard

Dec 15, 2011 19:26

Hehe. ;)

Richard

Dec 15, 2011 19:25

@surfasb Yeah, that's why Christianity.Se requires a doctrinal stance in order to answer questions. Some denominations cherry pick this or that and you have to know which denomination to use as a source in order to.... bleh, it's all off topic.

Richard

Dec 15, 2011 19:24

@MarkTrapp Oh trust me, I've seen that. That's actually why I'm here. To understand how this site works.

Richard

Dec 15, 2011 19:19

I don't think that either of them have a chance of launching soon, so I'm not too worried about having time to "fix" them.

Richard

Dec 15, 2011 19:18

I actually think C.SE is doing alright in expertise. I'm actually wondering if BH.SE is broke because it's too academic. Well, this is all off topic and I'm still trying to understand how things should work on a perfect ideal site for Christianity/Biblical Hermeneutics.

Richard

Dec 15, 2011 19:15

@MarkTrapp What you're saying makes some sense. I'm going to try to keep this in mind and see if I can try to reconcile this with everything I've been seeing. Thanks for your help and patience with all of this.

Richard

Dec 15, 2011 19:14

I agree that it should work the same way, which is why I'm here--trying to understand what I consider the "other end of the scale" (which is how C.SE should also work).

Richard

Dec 15, 2011 19:12

Hehe. ;)

Richard

Dec 15, 2011 19:10

@MarkTrapp Maybe that's the problem I'm having. I'll think on that for a while and see if I can really get it all.

Richard

Dec 15, 2011 19:06

Granted, I never really got into SO much.

Richard

Dec 15, 2011 19:06

@MarkTrapp I guess my problem is that I've only participated on DBA, Christianity and Hermeneutics (and, to a much lesser degree, SO). All of which are strongly fact-based. The difficulty is in understanding how the subjective nature of all of this comes into play.

Richard

Dec 15, 2011 15:04

@YannisRizos hehe. ;) I read the entire wikipedia introduction before I realized that you were referring to the gopher stuff from above.

Richard

Dec 15, 2011 14:58

@surfasb I think Yannis's comment was meant for you. :P