Timeline for Is summarizing remarks for/against Christianity in books for sale on topic?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:56 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://christianity.stackexchange.com/ with https://christianity.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Aug 16, 2016 at 11:28 | comment | added | Joshua | @Schuh There are many professed Christians in many of the most secular universities' religious studies departments. Does this make them Christian institutions? No. Please stop insisting Weststar is a Christian Institute. It is not. No I am not concluding from that that we cannot ask valid questions about how their research relates to Christianity. But it seems to me you are going one step too far in one direction just as you accuse, and I agree, Technik goes too far in calling it advertisement. Let's all take a breath and take a step back to the middle of the room. | |
| Aug 16, 2016 at 0:37 | comment | added | Nathaniel is protesting | @TechnikEmpire In this case, I don't know that Westar would be considered Christian, since their website doesn't seem to make that claim. But the question still may be on topic because its writings are at least about Christianity, even if they are primarily attacks on traditional Christian beliefs. | |
| Aug 16, 2016 at 0:28 | comment | added | user20766 | @Nathaniel Well, rules are the rules. I was aware of this, which is why my participation stopped almost immediately after I signed up, but didn't realize the degree of absurdity it extended to. Oh well, I've raised the point, I'll move on now. | |
| Aug 16, 2016 at 0:22 | comment | added | Nathaniel is protesting | @TechnikEmpire For the purposes of this site, even Christian atheists are Christians. It's a very broad definition, but it's the one that has worked for us. | |
| Aug 16, 2016 at 0:03 | comment | added | user20766 | Also lets not drop titles, they're meaningless. It's like arguing that Stalin was a PhD or not, it has no bearing on anything. | |
| Aug 16, 2016 at 0:02 | comment | added | user20766 | @Schuh Considering that historically, their published work involves dismissing the divinity of Jesus, all miracles of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, and claim the resurrection (you know, the general topic of the new testament) was a lie crafted and perpetuated by the Apostles, I think we need to not only dismiss the nonsensical assertion that they're a "Christian" organization, but also recognize that they at best are responsible for publishing anti-Christian material. | |
| Aug 15, 2016 at 23:35 | comment | added | Schuh | @Nathaniel, what is a Christian institution for these purposes? Westar is "dedicated to fostering and communicating the results of cutting-edge scholarship on the history and evolution of the Christian tradition ..." Its areas of focus are the historical Jesus, Paul, early Christian literature, and the origins of Christianity. Its fellows are PhD-level critical scholars representing a "wide spectrum of religious belief," including Catholic and Protestant Christianity and Judaism. Many are pastors. Some are the leading scholars of their denomination. Yes, I'd say they're 'Christian'. | |
| Aug 15, 2016 at 22:59 | comment | added | Nathaniel is protesting | @Schuh This site has a broad definition of "Christian" (basically, if you claim to be a Christian, you are one, for this site's purposes), but it's not clear to me that Westar makes that claim (does it call itself "Christian"?). | |
| Aug 15, 2016 at 22:51 | comment | added | user20766 | @Schuh What's more important is that it's an anti-Christian institution as I've clearly outlined in the question. | |
| Aug 15, 2016 at 22:35 | comment | added | Schuh | Also, suggesting Westar is not a 'Christian' institution -- and therefore inappropriate for discussion here -- reflects parochial bias unbecoming of genuine Christian scholarship. Let us err on the side of open-minded inquiry rather than censorship. | |
| Aug 15, 2016 at 22:34 | comment | added | Schuh | IMO @DickHarfield did not ask a hermeneutical question about a text: he asked about a particular Christian-identified group's opinion about a text. Their work touches on BH, but Dick's question is about a Christian institution, not the Bible itself. | |
| Aug 15, 2016 at 21:19 | comment | added | user20766 | I've updated the question to shed more light on the situation. | |
| Aug 15, 2016 at 20:15 | comment | added | Nathaniel is protesting | @Joshua I'm not willing to give BHSE a monopoly on dating/textual criticism questions =). To me they seem quite relevant here, and typically just because something is on-topic on one SE site doesn't automatically make it off-topic on another. | |
| Aug 15, 2016 at 20:13 | comment | added | Joshua | There were a few things that were about Christianity. Such as it not starting in Jerusalem, but then it becomes, as you said, far too broad. I could see several questions dealing with the book's conclusions and how they relate to specific areas of Christianity and Christian history that would all be on topic here. | |
| Aug 15, 2016 at 20:10 | comment | added | Joshua | @Nathaniel But I think there is a difference between asking what the findings are and how those findings relate to Christianity. Right now it is only asking the former which is hermeneutics and textual criticism and dating. If it is changed to relate the results to Christianity I could see it fitting here even if it's on that overlap between CSE and BHSE. But right now it's on the other side of that line to me because the findings by themselves are hermeneutical. | |
| Aug 15, 2016 at 13:46 | comment | added | Nathaniel is protesting | That said, the big question in this case is whether this group can be considered a "Christian" group (do they claim that they are?) and if not, if we want to document explicitly non-Christian beliefs here. I'm not opposed to it from an off-topic/on-topic perspective, since I think it can be done well, and if it isn't, it can be downvoted. | |
| Aug 15, 2016 at 13:43 | comment | added | Nathaniel is protesting | @TechnikEmpire There are a number of small groups with practically no credibility that are "on-topic" here (like the Westboro Baptist Church), so that in itself isn't sufficient to make something off-topic. There's also a distinct difference between asking "What are the findings?" and "Are the findings true?" – the latter is clearly off-topic, but the former is on-topic in many cases. Many of our users have non-mainstream views, and they can express them by properly framing a question (What does X tradition think about Y?). | |
| Aug 15, 2016 at 12:19 | comment | added | user20766 | It's personal perception of Scripture at the end of the day. Last time I was schooled on the format of this site, putting down "this is what I believe" and especially "this is Truth" kind of stuff was a no-no. This is both of those things. "This is Truth and that is not, because that's what I think. What I think is Truth because [insert list of lofty titles purchased]. | |
| Aug 15, 2016 at 12:16 | comment | added | user20766 | I think my problem with it is that it's just some random group of people, a very small group of people at that. It's not like we're talking about a meeting or study held by officials where the outcome officially fundamentally reflects cannon or something. It's just some guys who are not anymore distinguished from Joe off the street, unless worshiping titles bought and paid for from private for-profit businesses is your thing of course. If this is acceptable then frankly I think the next logical step is that all Q&A here is purely subjective. Everyone's opinion counts as both a Q and an A. | |
| Aug 15, 2016 at 12:07 | history | answered | Nathaniel is protesting | CC BY-SA 3.0 |