Still Stace: My Gay Christian Coming-of-Age Story
Comments
-
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:
Exposing is interesting. 'At the time', they had hidden sins, and public ones. Modern day, only public ones ... this thread's thrill (see view count).
0 -
Joseph Turner said:
No, you’ve both made my point. I was not attempting to present moral equivalency between the two, and if you were to ask answers in genesis, then they would say that denying the historicity of the original 11 chapters of Genesis goes against the Gospel. If you held that view, which you obviously don’t by your answer, then you might believe that the subversive questioning of scripture/gospel by science is much more dangerous than the overt nature of other sins.
I agree. I know offensive to the good folks at Bellingham, but I view the rack-and-stack world of Logos Marketing as far more detrimental to the Gospel, than the peanuty hot sins trotted out to get people in the doors. Where's the excitement over greed? Over (guy) lust (not the ladies, of course). Everyday issues that used to be the bread and butter of 'sin'.
0 -
MWW said:
I think that a Christian company that is guided by Christian convictions and ethics, and offers it products and services accordingly, will serve their almost exclusively Christian customer base far better, than a company who yields to the degenerative moral relativism that is increasingly defining our culture and society.
And therein lies the rub. What exactly does "serving the Christian base" entail? Sounds like you want it to mean creating a bubble in which the fact that we live in a world wracked with sin and sinners is hidden away so that delicate sensibilities are not tarnished with unseemly thoughts. Pretty sure that is exactly the opposite of what the call is. Sin is not something YHWH shrinks from in terror. It's something He confronts directly. Hiding it away and pretending it doesn't exist is simply burying one's head in the sand. You, others, and FL are playing the three monkeys...see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil...leaving evil to linger unmolested. Hiding from the problem is not coping with the problem...it's denying the problem exists and/or refusing to withstand it. Banning this book solves no legitimate problem; it is the problem and denies a crucial one.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:
Banning this book solves no legitimate problem; it is the problem and denies a crucial one
You seemed to have skipped over the “have no part” which began the Ephesian verses I suggested. From past posts it is clear that you are very conversant with the OT, and therefore aware of the biblical principle of separation. This is also a NT principle. 2 Corinthians 6:17 states it concisely. But there are other phrases found in the NT which deal with this, such as... "avoid them", “touch not”, “put away from yourselves”, “a little leaven...”, etc.
This principle is especially relevant and necessary regarding those who as professing believers continue unrepentantly in sexual sin. The whole of chapter 5 of 1 Corinthians, deals with this clearly, and instructs to remove this influence. So for that reason, I and many others are happy that FL removed this title from the library.
0 -
MWW said:
You seemed to have skipped over the “have no part” which began the Ephesian verses I suggested.
Are you queer? Neither am I, so we can set this concern aside, as neither of us "have a part" in the issue at hand. Just for the sake of clarity, FL having that book in its offerings doesn't and can't make us queer, so this particular issue really ceases being a consideration.
MWW said:From past posts it is clear that you are very conversant with the OT, and therefore aware of the biblical principle of separation. This is also a NT principle. 2 Corinthians 6:17 states it concisely. But there are other phrases found in the NT which deal with this, such as... "avoid them", “touch not”, “put away from yourselves”, “a little leaven...”, etc.
The problem with your understanding, or lack thereof, of these "separation" principles is that Yeishuua` ALLOWED a woman He verbally described as a sinner to come and wash His feet with her hair and tears. Just for the sake of clarity, "feet" are a frequent euphemism for genitals in Scripture, and anciently a woman's hair was essentially considered a sexual organ. This is why virtually all women from all strata of society (with the exception of harlots, who wore their hair down--it was their trademark) had their hair bound up and/or covered. This is precisely why the woman accused in the Num. 5 "ordeal of jealousy", who was being accused of sexual impurity, was commanded to "let her hair go loose" before drinking the dusty water. I was just reading in the book Denise posted a link to on Amazon earlier in this thread, entitled Sinners, and the very first chapter is titled "How Do You Know She's a (Sinner)?" The answer in the case of the woman washing Yeishuua`'s feet (the very woman the question addresses) is that she had her hair down, allowing her to wipe and dry His feet. [I'm not sure if the book actually answers the question it asks, but that is a answer.] Absolutely strict righteousness of "separation preserving holiness" of the Eccl. 7:16 sort you are promoting would have utterly prevented the whore's contact with the Son of God...and yet Lk. 7:37. So there's all that. There's also the case of the woman with the issue of blood, which according to Tohraah made her unclean and required her separation from others due to concerns of purity. To be clear, those concerns are YHWH's own real and legitimate concern's, and yet what "ought" to have made Yeishuua` unclean actually made the woman both clean and whole.
And that really is the point. Yes, the issue of separation from sin is real; it is legit; it is not to be ignored or trifled with; but it is a principle that has been made to confront and concede to an even greater principle, which is that in Yeishuua` (and remember, we are supposed to be His body), sin is no longer (at least it ought not be) the aggressor that forces us to flee with our tails between our legs. Rather, we confront it directly and emasculate its power by addressing it directly with Truth. We are not on defense. But banning this book is a classically-Christian defense tactic that postures as being offensive. It is offensive, all right, but not in the way some think. Banning the book is refusing to engage the problem. That is literally what Heb. 10:38, 39 is addressing when it speaks about "drawing back". One of many differences between Daawidh and Shaa'uul is that David "ran to the battle line" while Saul sulked in his tent, wishing the nasty problem would just go away. Saul could have explained his reluctance to engage as "wanting to keep himself free of pagan Philistine tarnishing", but that dodge would never assuage YHWH's ire. What ire, exactly? Look at Heb. 10:39 again. Banning this book is "pulling a Saul".
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:
Banning this book is "pulling a Saul"
Banning a book is more pulling a Paul than a Saul: Acts 19:19-20.
Sorry, I have to say that I disagree with your analysis and perspective, which further discussion is beyond the purpose of this forum.
Peace and out.
0 -
David Paul said:
while rejecting literalism is a sin against ':Elohhiym directly.
I didn't see this earlier.
And I agree (even if it sounds literally extreme). If indeed one thinks the Writings are from the Spirit, what is the basis for re-interpreting them (with thousands of churchmen arguing with each other ... at a time).
0 -
MWW said:
Banning a book is more pulling a Paul than a Saul: Acts 19:19-20.
From one Benjamite to another...oh, if you only knew how right you are.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:
From one Benjamite to another
Don't think so ... all the Benjamite ladies were slaughtered.
0 -
While entertaining and polite, I have reported this thread as having gone far afield from the guidelines as it is no longer actually discussing a FL resource. I am pleased it has remained polite even in ridged minority dogmatic posts and in blatantly theological ones and that those making points humorously have been recognized as such. And I applaud the one person who actually read the resource and tried to bring reality/truth/facts into the discussion.
However, I cannot resist making a logical point myself. There is no such thing as a Christian company. No matter how much I add to the NT I can find nothing on the conversion of a business, the salvation of a business, a business subject to damnation . . . A business may be run by Christians following Christian principles, but the business remains just that, a business.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Do you think that 16GB will be enough RAM for Logos 10 on an M1 MacBook Pro?
I can't wait for the next software updates, where developers have been able to focus on software, its features, and how we can use them.
preachertony.com — appletech.tips — facebook.com/tonywalker23 — twitter.com/tonywalker23 — youtube.com/tonywalker23
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
However, I cannot resist making a logical point myself. There is no such thing as a Christian company.
It is a very NT principle for believers to bring their Christianity into their work place. Should we consider it strange that those who manage those work places, i.e. owners, administrators, supervisors, and the like... that they wouldn't also employ Christian convictions in their business decisions?
0 -
MWW said:
Should we consider it strange that those who manage those work places, i.e. owners, administrators, supervisors, and the like... that they wouldn't also employ Christian convictions in their business decisions?
Sorry given my point, I am missing the path to your point ...
MJ. Smith said:A business may be run by Christians following Christian principles, but the business remains just that, a business.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Tony Walker said:
Do you think that 16GB will be enough RAM for Logos 10 on an M1 MacBook Pro?
I hope 8 is enough... that is all I have!
Tony Walker said:I can't wait for the next software updates, where developers have been able to focus on software, its features, and how we can use them.
[Y] [:)]
macOS, iOS & iPadOS |Logs| Install
Choose Truth Over Tribe | Become a Joyful Outsider!0 -
JT (alabama24) said:
I hope 8 is enough... that is all I have!
Tony Walker said:I can't wait for the next software updates, where developers have been able to focus on software, its features, and how we can use them.
I know little about the MBP, except it's pretty much even-steven running my Logos layout, relative to my 2010 PC. I'm hoping 'native' will pick things up. A highlight merits a rainbow-circle every time.
0 -
Tony Walker said:
Do you think that 16GB will be enough RAM for Logos 10 on an M1 MacBook Pro?
16GB will be more than enough for Logos 10... I'm not sure about Logos 12 or 13 when it comes.
0 -
DMB said:David Paul said:
while rejecting literalism is a sin against ':Elohhiym directly.
I didn't see this earlier.
And I agree (even if it sounds literally extreme). If indeed one thinks the Writings are from the Spirit, what is the basis for re-interpreting them (with thousands of churchmen arguing with each other ... at a time).
My phraseology, though accurate enough, may have nonetheless contributed to a possible misunderstanding. First, let me pin my previous statement.
David Paul said:For some, being queer is a sin against the body, while rejecting literalism is a sin against ':Elohhiym directly.
In concurrence with Joseph's point, I was pointing out that some folks believe both of these things. My use of the semi-adversative "while" may have given the impression that I was transferring from one belief that others hold to a different belief that I hold. I personally do not have a strict "literalist" perspective akin to that of strong fundamentalism. My prophecy-above-all POV is too embroiled in prophetic figurative thematicism to countenance the literalism of diachrony-bound historicalism and all of the unsupported assumptions that entails.
Also, this unavoidably brings up my beef with the way the word "literal" is nearly univerally misused and misapplied. The words "literal" and "figurative" are near synonyms, not antonyms. Both refer to a sort of abstraction. The word "literal" literally means "letter-based", and so it is a kind of synonym for words themselves, regardless of how they are employed. Thus "literature" essentially means "letter- and/or word-based stuff". That said, while it is in essence a universal term for written matter, "literature" most commonly is used for fictional material. Even though there is "medical literature", etc., a person who studies Literature is nearly always seen to be studying fictional and figurative works: novels, stories, poetry, etc. The point is, there is nothing about the word "literal" that literally means "accurate", "true", "real", "authentic", "factual", and it certainly does not mean "non-figurative" or "non-fictional". Tons of literal things are absolutely figurative.
Prophecy is extremely literal and extremely figurative at the same time, again because these two concepts are not remotely antithetical, regardless of a long history of people using them as though they are. But because of the long history of misuse, I occasionally relent and use the term as others do. My point above, based on Joseph's statements and his chosen illustration of the issue, is that there are some people who would consider sexual sins to be "sins against humans", whereas for these same folks, not emphatically asserting a "literal" seven-day creation is seen as emphatically rejecting YHWH's revelation and is thus a "sin against God". Joseph's point, as I understand it, is that in the sight of some Christians (the AiG types), those in this thread who soft-peddled the issue of creation's "how", while harping on the sin of queerness, could be and ought to be held guilty of an even greater sin than homosexuality, that of doubting and thus blaspheming God.
Again, for clarity, while being absolutely certain that YHWH's view of His word is fundamentallly prophetic (prophecy is the language of ':Elohhiym), and is thus inherently literal, figurative, and thematic, when I think about Genesis 1, I think about it as being a seven-day process. That's how it is described...but, unlike the Answers in Genesis crowd, I assiduously avoid insisting that any number of assumptions one could infer from that description MUST BE TRUE because I believe that God HAS TO BE "literal", based on an assumption that anything other than being literal (i.e. "accurate", "true", "real", "authentic", "factual" according to their warped definition) would paint God as a disengenuous liar and deceiver. That absurdity is actually what many people believe. These people's mind's are so rigid that they can't comprehend that figurative language, and even fiction (Yeishuua`'s parables, for example), can be true because it describes truth. To them, God and how He does things can only "be" according to how and what their limited perception permits as possible. Ironically, THAT is idolatry, the worst blasphemy of all.
Again, I only went into all this because I was concerned you misunderstood what I was trying to convey.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:
Also, this unavoidably brings up my beef with the way the word "literal" is nearly univerally misused and misapplied. The words "literal" and "figurative" are near synonyms, not antonyms. Both refer to a sort of abstraction. The word "literal" literally means "letter-based", and so it is a kind of synonym for words themselves, regardless of how they are employed.
Yes, I knew (a) that you'd by necessity have to expound on 'literal', but (b) literal in the sense of 'as meant' (and within your concept of prophecy).
And agree on your other points.
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
I have reported this thread as having gone far afield from the guidelines as it is no longer actually discussing a FL resource.
What's done is done, I suppose, but I disagree (Tony's humorous and dogged attempts to distract the conversation not withstanding). All of this stuff is fundamentally germane to the issue of when, how, and why a resource should be culled from the herd based on content. I know what the guidelines say, and I mostly agree with them, but I also said around the time they were first posted that it is absurd to think that the juice from the grapes that make up the Logos product line will never get on the bright, clean uniforms of those handling the product in the forum. It is literally impossible. I'm fine with you rapping my knuckles and others when you see fit, but this issue can't be coherently resolved without addressing the issue.
In the end, as always, the decision is FL's to make, regarding this particular book, this thread, as well as how the overall issue of banning/culling is to be handled. It's Bob's and FL's ball, game, and rules. But the "easy out" of removing that which is uncomfortable is not ultimately helpful, because out of sight, out of mind is not a solution to the underlying problem, which both the company and its customers are supposed to be rolling up our sleeves and dealing with. Occasionally, no resolution will be forthcoming, but we are put "in the world" to deal with the world, not to hide from it. Yes, obviously, we must not be "of the world" and keep ourselves "unspotted" by it, but like Yeishuua` demonstrated in His own life, that doesn't mean running and hiding from, banishing, or ignoring the problems.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
After going back today and reading the details from Mark Ward's article on the typography choices that go into Logos, I wonder if the computers used to remove the 30,000 white/blank f's that the publisher put in the superscript of their translation were removed using machines with 8gb or 16gb; and I wonder if the 8gb models suffered from slow swap speeds going from RAM to the VM on the SSD
" (Tony's humorous and dogged attempts to distract the conversation not withstanding)."
preachertony.com — appletech.tips — facebook.com/tonywalker23 — twitter.com/tonywalker23 — youtube.com/tonywalker23
0 -
Tony Walker said:
After going back today and reading the details from Mark Ward's article on the typography choices that go into Logos, I wonder if the computers used to remove the 30,000 white/blank f's that the publisher put in the superscript of their translation were removed using machines with 8gb or 16gb; and I wonder if the 8gb models suffered from slow swap speeds going from RAM to the VM on the SSD
My guess, since streaming the text (and system-used filtering), it's a minor issue on even a very basic computer. 30,000 detected is not a lot. But that's only if it's dogged!
0 -
Steve Clevenger said:
Please, Faithlife/Logos do not go down this road. The result will be a massive exodus of faithful pastors.
Still Stace: My Gay Christian Coming-of-Age Story
Faithlife heard your plea and acted quickly to comply. The exodus of the like-minded was averted.
I had assumed that the vast majority of Faithlife customers were adults capable of making purchasing decisions for themselves.
For those that approve of this decision by Faithlife, I encourage you to demonstrate your appreciation by increasing your purchasing to offset the approximately $15- 20 K I've been spending annually here for years. My exodus now begins.
0 -
RRD said:
... offset the approximately $15- 20 K I've been spending annually here for years. My exodus now begins.
Now, RRD. Get your CC back out. FL's between a rock and hard place. Else, they'd closed this thread at page 3 (their usual).
To illustrate, I'm slowly catching up on my reading and I started a Logos-promoted Old Testament Intro from Fortress. It pretty much slammed Elohim (from El), YHWH (from Midian), and many OT writers as clearly not monotheistic. Pretty much took out the whole evangel cosmos getting started. Apparently a textbook ... teaching the young! But not a problem. Instead, folks have their pitchforks out. But FL's a business ... needs cash for payroll.
You need to stick around ... your comments are appreciated. Plus FL needs the cash. More OT books for those youthful students. Tongue-in-cheek.
0 -
As for me, I would never support the concept simply because I don't believe the Bible does. Either one is "transformed" into the lifestyle Jesus wants us to live or they are "conformed" to the world... it is as simple as that.
I also appreciate the hast of FL in taking it down.
xn = Christan man=man -- Acts 11:26 "....and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch".
Barney Fife is my hero! He only uses an abacus with 14 rows!
0 -
Darkness is not light- Scripture is plain.
0 -
In the interest of transparency - and if any exist - should FL maintain a current and accessible list of the theological points of view that it will not permit in the resources it makes available to its Logos platform, even if their proponents believe those points of view are Christian? In many cases, such a list could limit the controversies around its publishing decisions. "We don't permit advocacy for that point of view in Logos," FL could say. "Check the list."
In the case of the book at the center of this thread, sadly, such a list would not have been helpful since the book's underlying theology would have made it to the list only after FL's initial decision to publish it.
Still, I think transparency is a good thing and could reduce the temperature of controversies such as this one.
0 -
Bill Coley said:
In the case of the book at the center of this thread, sadly, such a list would not have been helpful since the book's underlying theology would have made it to the list only after FL's initial decision to publish it.
There could be a blanket policy about books on sexuality marketed toward children, assuming this one was marketed toward children as it seemed. That would cover any sexuality. I think that's what garnered such a strong reaction from many. I just don't know that Faithlife has a market of people looking for books on any theme concerning sexuality for children, so maybe this whole thing could be handled by such a policy and go no further.
Disclaimer: I hate using messaging, texting, and email for real communication. If anything that I type to you seems like anything other than humble and respectful, then I have not done a good job typing my thoughts.
0 -
Joseph Turner said:MWW said:Gary Osborne said:
I think you'd need to find a better example. The issue of Gen 1-11 being literally vs allegory, while serious, is not a blatant NT moral sin. Homosexuality, embraced and practiced, is.
There's a huge difference between offering resources on biblical interpretation differences and offering resources promoting outright immorality.
Agreed
No, you’ve both made my point. I was not attempting to present moral equivalency between the two, and if you were to ask answers in genesis, then they would say that denying the historicity of the original 11 chapters of Genesis goes against the Gospel. If you held that view, which you obviously don’t by your answer, then you might believe that the subversive questioning of scripture/gospel by science is much more dangerous than the overt nature of other sins.
You’ve both made a judgement that the two aren’t comparable, but others might. Do we listen to you or the others? That’s my point.
Interestingly, while searching for another thread I found the following:
Rodney Gynther said:I was reading one of my “Bible Study” magazines and came across a book review of “The Lost World of Adam and Eve”. It beggars belief that this book would even be mentioned in an evangelical magazine. There is absolutely no room for extra-biblical interpretations of Genesis. I am disgusted about this. Why don’t you have books from people who have studied Genesis all their lives – Creation Ministries International – they have many PhD science professors who can attest that Genesis is literally true. I get so angry when Christians side with the world on origins – don’t they realise how damaging this is to evangelism?!
Why are most of our young people leaving the church and becoming atheists? It is because the church has a foot in both camps when it comes to the authority of the Bible.
Please, please get some good books on Creation. Here’s one: The Genesis Account by Jonathan Sarfati. A 700 page commentary on the first 11 chapters of Genesis. I challenge you to read it. You will have no doubt about the Biblical account of creation being 6 literal days. “There was evening and there was morning, day one.”
Instead, I find my Gold Logos populated with dubious characters such as N.T. Wright. Why?
There is no Dallas Willard, no John Ortberg, no books on mission, no missionary biographies. I could go on.
Disclaimer: I hate using messaging, texting, and email for real communication. If anything that I type to you seems like anything other than humble and respectful, then I have not done a good job typing my thoughts.
0 -
Joseph Turner said:Joseph Turner said:MWW said:Gary Osborne said:
I think you'd need to find a better example. The issue of Gen 1-11 being literally vs allegory, while serious, is not a blatant NT moral sin. Homosexuality, embraced and practiced, is.
There's a huge difference between offering resources on biblical interpretation differences and offering resources promoting outright immorality.
Agreed
No, you’ve both made my point. I was not attempting to present moral equivalency between the two, and if you were to ask answers in genesis, then they would say that denying the historicity of the original 11 chapters of Genesis goes against the Gospel. If you held that view, which you obviously don’t by your answer, then you might believe that the subversive questioning of scripture/gospel by science is much more dangerous than the overt nature of other sins.
You’ve both made a judgement that the two aren’t comparable, but others might. Do we listen to you or the others? That’s my point.
Interestingly, while searching for another thread I found the following:
Rodney Gynther said:I was reading one of my “Bible Study” magazines and came across a book review of “The Lost World of Adam and Eve”. It beggars belief that this book would even be mentioned in an evangelical magazine. There is absolutely no room for extra-biblical interpretations of Genesis. I am disgusted about this. Why don’t you have books from people who have studied Genesis all their lives – Creation Ministries International – they have many PhD science professors who can attest that Genesis is literally true. I get so angry when Christians side with the world on origins – don’t they realise how damaging this is to evangelism?!
Why are most of our young people leaving the church and becoming atheists? It is because the church has a foot in both camps when it comes to the authority of the Bible.
Please, please get some good books on Creation. Here’s one: The Genesis Account by Jonathan Sarfati. A 700 page commentary on the first 11 chapters of Genesis. I challenge you to read it. You will have no doubt about the Biblical account of creation being 6 literal days. “There was evening and there was morning, day one.”
Instead, I find my Gold Logos populated with dubious characters such as N.T. Wright. Why?
There is no Dallas Willard, no John Ortberg, no books on mission, no missionary biographies. I could go on.
I think using this as an example would be the fallacy of false analogy. The issue of Creation in Genesis involves debate about how the text was intended to be understood: symbolically or literally. The issue of homosexual acts being mentioned in the Bible involves a behavior being condemned. The differences (what the disputes are about) outweigh the similarities (That disputes exist).
FL can and does provide denominational packages when these denominations hold conflicting views, for which I’m grateful. But the issue being debated here is more of a contemporary American/Western European view within some denominations that is causing offense and risk of schism to members of the denominations outside of America/Western Europe.
I do have strong views on the subject. But this is about as far as I can go without breaking forum rules.
WIN 11 i7 9750H, RTX 2060, 16GB RAM, 1TB SSD | iPad Air 3
Verbum Max0 -
I wonder if you purchased every "Live" title that is "available to you" in the store:
1: how much it would cost
2: how much storage it would require
3: how long it would take to index
preachertony.com — appletech.tips — facebook.com/tonywalker23 — twitter.com/tonywalker23 — youtube.com/tonywalker23
0 -
David Wanat said:
But the issue being debated here is more of a contemporary American/Western European view within some denominations
I don't doubt, you're right ... certainly the excitement. But your 'fallacy' is perceptual ... it presumes a dimension, to which Joseph's examples indeed don't compare.
But some of us live in another dimension, where the hot-sin issues are just diversions ... that salvation and the Deity are the criticalities. And denying the creation is denying the Deity (blasphemous). It's not just a discussion. Very similar to 2nd Century Marcion and Valentinius (sp).
Do folks get hugely excited over 'greed' ... behavioral? Which I suspect is going to doom a lot of Christians in the near future? It won't be pretty.
0 -
Tony Walker said:
1: how much it would cost
Tony, I like your new avatar. I'm wondering if that's your own book library?
Regarding your diversionary question, I think one of the forumites has done just that?
0 -
DMB said:Tony Walker said:
1: how much it would cost
Tony, I like your new avatar. I'm wondering if that's your own book library?
Regarding your diversionary question, I think one of the forumites has done just that?
Thanks. yes, my office. (larger pic: http://preachertony.com/stuff/IMG_1851.jpeg ) only few hundred hardback books, a lot more in Logos, but ashamed to admit how many (few) I've read. but like many tools: used when needed more than gone through front to back.
If someone added all that to their cart, I wonder how much mouse clicking it took to empty the entire cart since I don’t know of a way to do that other than a whole bunch of remove/saveforlater clicks.
preachertony.com — appletech.tips — facebook.com/tonywalker23 — twitter.com/tonywalker23 — youtube.com/tonywalker23
0 -
David Wanat said:
I think using this as an example would be the fallacy of false analogy.
Again, as I stated above to other posters, the issue is about how Faithlife weighs complaints about resources. For you the two aren't comparable, but I posted an example literally above your post where someone would want to pull resources that do not present a literal 6 day creation. Some of those who hold that view believe that it goes against the Bible and calls it into question.
My question is simply, where does Faithlife draw the line at forum complaints and pulling resources? I just want to make sure that we never get to a point where John Walton gets pulled because of his works concerning the first eleven chapters of Genesis, and though I don't see that happening any time soon, without a clear policy, what would prevent it from happening in the future if there were to be a vocal minority?
I just think it's a good exercise to develop a policy if there isn't one already.
Disclaimer: I hate using messaging, texting, and email for real communication. If anything that I type to you seems like anything other than humble and respectful, then I have not done a good job typing my thoughts.
0 -
Joseph Turner said:David Wanat said:
I think using this as an example would be the fallacy of false analogy.
Again, as I stated above to other posters, the issue is about how Faithlife weighs complaints about resources. For you the two aren't comparable, but I posted an example literally above your post where someone would want to pull resources that do not present a literal 6 day creation. Some of those who hold that view believe that it goes against the Bible and calls it into question.
My question is simply, where does Faithlife draw the line at forum complaints and pulling resources? I just want to make sure that we never get to a point where John Walton gets pulled because of his works concerning the first eleven chapters of Genesis, and though I don't see that happening any time soon, without a clear policy, what would prevent it from happening in the future if there were to be a vocal minority?
I just think it's a good exercise to develop a policy if there isn't one already.
Assuming I didn’t miss the point, this was a FLEB that was autogenerated, I’d think the first policy should be to make sure that a human has the final decision on whether to publish it here.
WIN 11 i7 9750H, RTX 2060, 16GB RAM, 1TB SSD | iPad Air 3
Verbum Max0 -
David Wanat said:
Assuming I didn’t miss the point, this was a FLEB that was autogenerated, I’d think the first policy should be to make sure that a human has the final decision on whether to publish it here.
Absolutely, and I think that is the policy. This one seems to have simply slipped through. The problem is that when one does slip through, it becomes very public whether it is kept or pulled, upsetting one group or the other.
Disclaimer: I hate using messaging, texting, and email for real communication. If anything that I type to you seems like anything other than humble and respectful, then I have not done a good job typing my thoughts.
0 -
DMB said:David Paul said:
From one Benjamite to another
Don't think so ... all the Benjamite ladies were slaughtered.
No, don't you remember, they felt sorry for the Benjamites so they told them to go and abduct new wives for themselves (Judges 21:20–23).
0 -
Kiyah said:
No, don't you remember, they felt sorry for the Benjamites so they told them to go and abduct new wives for themselves (Judges 21:20–23).
Virgins, of course. But I was thinking mitochondria DNA?
I know I'm slow on the uptake, but reading Gale Yee's commentary on Ruth, King David's mitochondrial DNA was Moabite. Targums said royal Moabite.
0 -
DMB said:
Virgins, of course.
Of course, can't have people abducting married women. Only virgins are appropriate for abduction and forced marriage.
DMB said:I know I'm slow on the uptake, but reading Gale Yee's commentary on Ruth, King David's mitochondrial DNA was Moabite. Targums said royal Moabite.
Modern Israel does say that you're only Jewish if your mom's Jewish so you may have a point.
0 -
David Wanat said:
Assuming I didn’t miss the point, this was a FLEB that was autogenerated, I’d think the first policy should be to make sure that a human has the final decision on whether to publish it here.
The policy was generated when Bob asked, "Do you want everything or nothing?" Those were the choices. He said clearly that he wasn't going to have people wading through the ocean of titles making random decisions. A large majority of people said "everything".
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
I couldn't find the Bob 'everything' quote, though sort of implied. But the classics:
https://community.logos.com/forums/t/105177.aspx?PageIndex=1
https://community.logos.com/forums/t/83477.aspx?PageIndex=1
and
https://www.logos.com/about/publishing-philosophy
This thread is just in its infancy, by comparison. BTW, Milford departed about 2 months later, in the Batman/Dracula thread ... I don't know if he made 78.
0 -
JT (alabama24) said:
I'm not stepping in this one, but for the record: Much of FLEB is automated.
This issue of questionable books entering the Logos library was raised by Bob Pritchett in 2015
0
