Warning Label Request:

I re-submit my request which was deleted without courtesy or due notice to the public forum as follows: ( this is not North Korea, this is a respectful and legitimate inquiry ).

[redacted]

So will there be a warning or new category [on books in the library that contain theology/doctrine Christians disagree with]?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Mathew Haferkamp

I must admit I sometimes miss these threads, they can be interesting.

Vincent Setterholm

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/457252#Comment_457252

I don’t know why your post disappeared – whether it was moderated or the result of a server glitch. That sort of thing is out of my purview.

But from time to time we get people suggesting that we slap warning labels on this or that resource to protect the unwary from whatever perils lie within. There are all sorts of reasons why we shouldn’t comply with these requests. To name a few:

For starters, it is insulting to our customers. Our customers are responsible adults (brilliant and good looking, too!) who are fully capable of reading a product description and deciding if it interests them for whatever reason. Is anyone really going to buy the Vatican II documents without knowing (or learning from the product description) that they are Catholic documents and (warning!) may contain Catholic doctrine? Are any of those customers ambivalent about why they are buying that product, whether to investigate their own faith or learn about the faith of others or for apologetic reasons? Have you ever met a 'new Christian' who ran out and bought the Vatican II documents? Even a Catholic one? It seems this desire to protect the unwary imagines a type of customer that doesn’t really exist.

We get all sorts of requests for documents completely outside any definition of Christian orthodoxy. I for one would really like a decent edition of the Hadith. But publishers have a reasonable expectation that their babies aren’t going to be disparaged by us in our marketing materials. So we can’t really go around slapping heresy labels on things that some might find offensive – that guarantees that we won’t be able to serve the people who want or need to interact with that literature. A few years back I had some interesting conversations with Mormon missionaries, and I would have loved to have their literature on my machine in a high quality edition with all the cross-references linked up and so on – and we get requests for this all the time. But that’s not going to happen if we think our more mainstream customers are so brittle that we can’t publish materials like this without commentary for fear of some sort of back-lash.

I hate to use the ‘e’ word, but we see our role as empowering our customers to work through the Bible for themselves. We don’t think it is our job to play theological police, and I don’t think you want us trying. After all, it is highly unlikely that our new Committee for Theological Purity would match your particular set of convictions like a glove.

And I’ll stop with this point: we want to meet the needs of everyone who is wants to study the Bible, regardless of their faith tradition (if any). This means we want to sell books to Catholics. Indeed, it is such a growing market for us that we’ve made separate base collections just for them (the Verbum product line) and have a team working full time to make sure we’re addressing Catholic needs. It would be very self-defeating for us to put disparaging labels on everything Catholic right as we’re starting to make headway in that market. You might disagree with this goal, but everyone benefits from a larger customer base: there’s a lot of work we could never afford to do if we only served a very narrow audience.

Mike W

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/457254#Comment_457254

It would be very self-defeating for us to put disparaging labels on everything Catholic

In the interest of fairness wouldn't you need to label every resource (warning, reformed, evangelical, dispensational, liberal, Jewish theology, etc included). I think it was M.J. who pointed out that if Logos didn't include resources that were not acceptable to some Christians we would be left with only one or two books of the bible and nothing else. While I don't agree with everything in my library I've found almost everything to be useful (Even when I strongly disagree with an author's argument I often find their research on a subject useful)

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/457287#Comment_457287

It would be very self-defeating for us to put disparaging labels on everything Catholic

In the interest of fairness wouldn't you need to label every resource (warning, reformed, evangelical, dispensational, liberal, Jewish theology, etc included). I think it was M.J. who pointed out that if Logos didn't include resources that were not acceptable to some Christians we would be left with only one or two books of the bible and nothing else. While I don't agree with everything in my library I've found almost everything to be useful (Even when I strongly disagree with an author's argument I often find their research on a subject useful)

I would agree with this and with Vincent's comment preceding. It would be nonsensical to institute a Protestant Index of Prohibited Books after the Catholic Church, if I am not mistaken, has retired that. If you really feel the need to include some warning, write a [respectful] review of the work since Logos has introduced the ability for customers to do such.

Randall Hartman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/457290#Comment_457290

I think slapping a "Warning" label on Logos materials is stunningly absurd.

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/457290#Comment_457290

I am happy with how things are done now. If we had to start warning labels, where would it stop? I know Calvinists that say arminianism is dangerous to ones faith, and vice-versa. I know people from both camps that I would consider to be true Christians.

I know at least two (and I'm not catholic, nor in a particularly catholic demographic area) Catholics who I believe (speaking as a protestant, and southern baptist) are true believers. I know at least two Catholics I wonder about, and can think of at least two southern baptists that I truly do wonder RE whether they are really saved at all.

In the end, I think the onus of responsibility is on the buyer (caveat emptor).

Do your due dilligence and you'll be fine. If not, you probably aren't interested in Logos in the first place. We tend to be slightly bookish either because of our profession, or current location in our education, or because we had that tendency any way.

Finally, I find it of benefit to study the beliefs of people I am serving. Its good for me to know what a catholic believes - even though we have more than a few areas of disagreement, when a catholic wanders into my church, its of value to me to know where they are, and why, so that I can help them (see what I believe to be the truth). I would expect the Catholic contingent on the forum might want to know about southern baptists for the same reason. If I ever wander into a catholic church, they would be in a better position to disciple me as well.

Perhaps this gives away my thinking regarding the quality of the usual Logos subscriber. Perhaps the same could be said about your position as well. Just be wary of pride, and so forth. Obviously those of us in leadership of our particular tradition are only in these positions because we believe them to be accurate. Perhaps there are things in each of our traditions that are of value. Certainly as a protestant, an interim pastor, and a seminarian, I've studied a significant amount of the writings of catholic fathers.

*shrug*

I guess the long and short of what I'm saying is people here, considering our demographics, are smart enough in terms of theology, to understand what they are buying.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/457308#Comment_457308

Perhaps this gives away my thinking regarding the quality of the usual Logos subscriber. Perhaps the same could be said about your position as well. Just be wary of pride, and so forth. Obviously those of us in leadership of our particular tradition are only in these positions because we believe them to be accurate. Perhaps there are things in each of our traditions that are of value. Certainly as a protestant, an interim pastor, and a seminarian, I've studied a significant amount of the writings of catholic fathers.

I've heard it said that there is nothing so zealous an antismoking opponent as a reformed smoker. Perhaps this is the situation here. I'm just guessing, but based on the handle "Luigi Sam" I suspect the OP was originally Catholic.

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/457317#Comment_457317

Perhaps this gives away my thinking regarding the quality of the usual Logos subscriber. Perhaps the same could be said about your position as well. Just be wary of pride, and so forth. Obviously those of us in leadership of our particular tradition are only in these positions because we believe them to be accurate. Perhaps there are things in each of our traditions that are of value. Certainly as a protestant, an interim pastor, and a seminarian, I've studied a significant amount of the writings of catholic fathers.

I've heard it said that there is nothing so zealous an antismoking opponent as a reformed smoker. Perhaps this is the situation here. I'm just guessing, but based on the handle "Luigi Sam" I suspect the OP was originally Catholic.

There were several conclusions I had come to, that being one of them... If catholic, I would suggest they were possibly from a variety that more closely resembles what exists in Europe as well. Having been (as a tourist) to catholic places of worship in both the US and Europe, there is definitely a difference, in art, in attention paid to Christ, and so forth. I'll PM you some of my experiences in Europe if you are interested. While I've since re-gained a balanced view (I think) I came back to the states with a more negative view of Catholicism than I'd left with.

Matthew C Jones

So will there be a warning or new category [on books in the library that contain theology/doctrine Christians disagree with]?

No. We don't need warning labels.

If you would like a list of "approved" books I suggest you contact your pastor, priest, or elder and ask them. Restricting your buying to such a list will surely save you money.

this is not North Korea

Not very many citizens of North Korea would be keen on warning labels, IMHO.

MJ. Smith

So will there be a warning or new category [on books in the library that contain theology/doctrine Christians disagree with]?

Vincent did a good job of answering from the business side.

I think it was M.J. who pointed out that if Logos
didn't include resources that were not acceptable to some Christians we
would be left with only one or two books of the bible and nothing else.

Quite true.

However, there is simple empirical evidence of the difficulty of implementing your proposal. The Stone-Campbell movement, in which I was raised, spawned about 27 different Church of Christ groups - all of which are sure that they are the true Christians. A Southern Baptist minister in the forums told a joke that having 4 Southern Baptists in a room meant you had 6 positions. The Catholic/Orthodox tradition to which I belong has a rich history of disagreement - in a couple of millenia there is probably no topic not argued over.

As it is impossible for humans to know the mind of God, we have to go with the definition commonly used in English-speaking culture. Therefore it is safe to say Logos does label "books in the library that contain theology/doctrine Christians disagree with" They are called Logos resources. Were Logos to go further would lead them into the sin of hubris - not something I would want to be a part of.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/457429#Comment_457429

Well, it's certainly a 'forum'. I'd assume theologically that Logos, not being 'church-y', has no ability to discern other than to each his/her own. But within the church-y world it's just the opposite. Humans do assume the responsibility (and presumably the ability). And so all the little Church of Christs in West Texas (my Dad attending ACC about the same time, and preached several).

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/457429#Comment_457429

A Southern Baptist minister in the forums told a joke that having 4 Southern Baptists in a room meant you had 6 positions.

Maybe even more [:D]

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/457435#Comment_457435

But within the church-y world it's just the opposite. Humans do assume the responsibility (and presumably the ability).

I like it that way. [:)]

But within the church-y world it's just the opposite. Humans do assume the responsibility (and presumably the ability).

I like it that way, too. That is precisely why I recommend asking one's pastor for an "approved" list of books. (If one is so inclined...)

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/457467#Comment_457467

But within the church-y world it's just the opposite. Humans do assume the responsibility (and presumably the ability).

I like it that way, too. That is precisely why I recommend asking one's pastor for an "approved" list of books. (If one is so inclined...)

My recommended list: Anything your little pea-pickin' heart chooses to read.

Michael March

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/457489#Comment_457489

It's hard to know where to begin with this thread, except that it looked to be one of those fun ones for us lurkers to follow (our name is legion) while enjoying popcorn and being amazed at just how far people will go on a forum like this. I guess its a true blessing that it never gained traction, and I suppose my even posting to it is a macabre kind of wishful for tragedy voyeurism (not unlike watching me do a children's sermon every week).

My only thought is how sad it would be to honestly believe that warning labels were required, just in case false doctrine crept in, and some poor soul failed the test and was rejected at the gates. How perfectly sad to live in such a state of fear.

There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love. 1 Jn 4:18.

Be at peace. God is love, and He is not trying to catch us in some doctrinal snare.

After all, once we get there we'll all be Reformed. (joke, joke, joke, jk!!!) [:)]

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/457517#Comment_457517

our name is legion

Come out !

Michael March

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/457521#Comment_457521

Come out !

She was afraid to come out of the locker...

she was as nervous as she could be...

[:D]

Luigi sam

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/457517#Comment_457517

My only thought is how sad it would be to honestly believe that warning labels were required, just in case false doctrine crept in, and some poor soul failed the test and was rejected at the gates. How perfectly sad to live in such a state of fear.

interesting. I understand the nicety of your observation.

However on the flip side, "faithfully contending for the faith", and "fear" are actually two subjects that are very valid. Perhaps most western cultures dim their senses like a slowly cooked lobster (me included)? Perhaps the verse summarizing "God as love" is taken too far in the sense of the seriousness of some matters.

I will post again in a minute to summarize my OP.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/457524#Comment_457524

Come out !

She was afraid to come out of the locker...

she was as nervous as she could be...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MR98gRckjmY

Mk 5.9

Luigi sam

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/457527#Comment_457527

Summary of OP

The quotes that I gave are not meant to cause unequal
conflict, nor breach the Logos forum code, however sometimes it is hard
to make a point without giving a real world quote - so that the matter
has some substance to it. As it stands my original post has no merit,
because no valid example is given.

The
two quotes which were removed from my OP (that Mary was sinless all her
life, and that Jesus was the new Adam, and Mary thought of to be the
new Eve) warrant a clear distinction to be made based on Denominational
resources.

The Proposed Solution

I believe that it would be fair to at least clearly label each resource with its Denomination. Clearly in Logos & not just on their website.

I.e Verbum. is not clear. any innocent person might use this unaware. It is ambiguous

I dont have a problem with including resources of any conflicting denominations / religions, but they should be distinguishable.
a simple column in the library with the denomination of each work will suffice.
This solution is fair to all, and does not unfairly target any denomination.

Josh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/457532#Comment_457532

The Proposed Solution

I believe that it would be fair to at least clearly label each resource with its Denomination. Clearly in Logos & not just on their website.

I.e Verbum. is not clear. any innocent person might use this unaware. It is ambiguous

I dont have a problem with including resources of any conflicting denominations / religions, but they should be distinguishable.

a simple column in the library with the denomination of each work will suffice.

This solution is fair to all, and does not unfairly target any denomination.

I believe this is not a good solution. Your desired labeling proposal would require too many labels. The list of current denominations is very extensive, continually growing, and likely incomplete. Check out the wiki. You can't just slap the label "Catholic" on a resource. Even among just the Eastern Catholic churches there are various sects and denominations:

    Armenian Catholic Church
    Belarusian Greek Catholic Church
    Coptic Catholic Church
    Byzantine Church of Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro
    Ethiopian Catholic Church
    Georgian Catholic Church
    Greek Catholic Church
    Hungarian Greek Catholic Church
    Italo-Albanian Catholic Church
    Macedonian Catholic Church
    Maronite Catholic Church
    Melkite Catholic Church
    Romanian Catholic Church
    Russian Catholic Church
    Ruthenian Catholic Church
    Slovak Greek Catholic Church
    Syriac Catholic Church
    Syro-Malabar Church
    Syro-Malankara Catholic Church
    Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church

Do you really want there to be a tab for each one?

Fr. Charles R. Matheny

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/457532#Comment_457532

Dear Luigi : They are Marked/Titled/Listed. Every resource is, one just has to look and read.

I never purchase a resource without knowing something about it. The only exception is the "bundled" offerings one get's in buying a library.

As far as Verbum is concerned, it's pretty clearly stated as a Catholic offering.

As far as the Adam reference-1 Corinthians 15:45 is a reference to Christ, no matter what denomination one is calling home.

I don't know of any Christian Bookstores that put up warning labels or section books off by denominational bent. That said, you do have sections at times for things like "Pentecostal , Prophecy, History, Prayer, Contemplation, Commentary, Lexicons/Theological Dictionaries etc".

Just in case you are not aware, most good commentaries, theological dictionaries , lexicons, lexical aids etc are written and edited by "teams" of scholars . These teams are usually made up of scholars from several disciplines/doctrinal persuasions and denominational backgrounds, including Catholic. This gives the student a much better resource.

This includes translation teams that work with original manuscripts to provide better translations for Biblical texts.

Hope this helps.

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/457532#Comment_457532

I dont have a problem with including resources of any conflicting denominations / religions, but they should be distinguishable.
a simple column in the library with the denomination of each work will suffice.
This solution is fair to all, and does not unfairly target any denomination.

I will say it again: "If you would like a list of "approved" books I suggest you contact your pastor, priest, or elder and ask them." I do not want a bunch of warning labels cluttering up my Logos. You know you can tag them yourself, don't you? That way there will be no further contention on the adequacy of the labelling. I seriously doubt you are personally at risk by not knowing what you believe. The rest of us don't need the crutch you are requesting. (This from a guy with no feet! [:O] )

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/457532#Comment_457532

I believe that it would be fair to at least clearly label each resource with its Denomination.

The difficulty with this option is that "denomination" is a relatively new concept - in older works, many " denominations" claim the same resources. For statistical purposes, denominations are divided along international boundaries as well as theological divisions. This is seen as ludicrous by the churches that have always been international but makes perfect sense to those within state churches.
Then there are prolific authors who insist on calling themselves as nondenominational but in fact are known by the name of the congregation they lead.
There are those who through their particular ministry are multidenominational, deliberately making their denominational roots unimportant.
And for those who change denominations, how do we determine when to reflect it in their publications?
Or how do we distinguish views within a denomination - high Lutheran vs. low Lutheran, high Anglican (Anglo-catholic) vs. Episcopal?
And what do we do with those whose denomination rejects their views?

So how do I know these difficulties and why it doesn't work? I have tried 3 separate times to tag my library by denomination and each time had to toss the results because I can't find a consistent set of criteria on which to classify resources. For my own purposes, I wish I believed that your suggestion could work. Unfortunately, I can't.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/457536#Comment_457536

there are various sects and denominations

Our terminology is rites and Churches. Parallel situations exist in Orthodoxy and the Church of the East and to some extent Anglicans.

Luigi Sam

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/457536#Comment_457536

ou can't just slap the label "Catholic" on a resource. Even among just the Eastern Catholic churches there are various sects and denominations:

    Armenian Catholic Church
    Belarusian Greek Catholic Church
    Coptic Catholic Church
    Byzantine Church of Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro
    Ethiopian Catholic Church
    Georgian Catholic Church
    Greek Catholic Church
    Hungarian Greek Catholic Church
    Italo-Albanian Catholic Church
    Macedonian Catholic Church
    Maronite Catholic Church
    Melkite Catholic Church
    Romanian Catholic Church
    Russian Catholic Church
    Ruthenian Catholic Church
    Slovak Greek Catholic Church
    Syriac Catholic Church
    Syro-Malabar Church
    Syro-Malankara Catholic Church
    Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church

Do you really want there to be a tab for each one?

Hi Josh I sympathize with your point. However like the list of Baptist types, for the most part, "Baptists" and "Catholics" do tend to have some defining traits. Would it be generally wrong to have super and sub categories? ie i'd still like a "Catholic" Super category (as this would be more functional for my library and searches) however there could also be a sub category that lists any specifics ( comma separated) so that others can micro manage those options.

Would this please you?

Luigi Sam

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/457590#Comment_457590

I believe that it would be fair to at least clearly label each resource with its Denomination.

The difficulty with this option is that "denomination" is a relatively new concept - in older works, many " denominations" claim the same resources. For statistical purposes, denominations are divided along international boundaries as well as theological divisions. This is seen as ludicrous by the churches that have always been international but makes perfect sense to those within state churches.

Then there are prolific authors who insist on calling themselves as nondenominational but in fact are known by the name of the congregation they lead.

There are those who through their particular ministry are multidenominational, deliberately making their denominational roots unimportant.

And for those who change denominations, how do we determine when to reflect it in their publications?

Or how do we distinguish views within a denomination - high Lutheran vs. low Lutheran, high Anglican (Anglo-catholic) vs. Episcopal?

And what do we do with those whose denomination rejects their views?

So how do I know these difficulties and why it doesn't work? I have tried 3 separate times to tag my library by denomination and each time had to toss the results because I can't find a consistent set of criteria on which to classify resources. For my own purposes, I wish I believed that your suggestion could work. Unfortunately, I can't.

Hi MJ

I see your points. I think that my suggestions posted on my previous post should solve some of these provided that the sub category can include multiple denominations or misc. (pls see that post for those details)

I personally wouldn't tag them myself either, I've not tried Logos user tagging, but from my experience of any type of "user tagging" features, they tend to be sub par when compared to fully supported official categories or tags as implemented by the company.

( I observe Microsoft's NTFS file system tagging - where it is kind of a good idea, but half the tools to make "user tagging" useful are not available for the average user. It almost seems that "user tagging" is a way that companies try to get free information from users rather than user tagging actaully being 100% purpose built as a feature that is useful for a user.)

On the other hand: if Logos is hiring people for this purpose, I will put in a job application.

Luigi Sam

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/457541#Comment_457541

Hi ST.

May I ask your story on why your user name is supertramp? If it is ok with you that is. (ie I am not asking to use it against you, I'm just interested in a respectful curious way )

Anyways, in regard to your concern that my concern is because i need a guide, or that it will cause screen clutter. I didn't really mean it because I need an approved book list. I mean it for the sake of "being responsible" as a bible software product trying to fit in as much resources in as possible in a "doing it with a responsible, Christian accountability and integrity before God kind of way". also, as a user who knows what steps I will take in a study session to get answers, I submit it as a huge time saver feature. ( in the same way that I dont want general book results in my searches when I am looking at commentaries - I also dont want off topic chaff which I'd like to filter by denomination. ( ie then you could expand your results into less preferred denonimational results to see what they say ) - this is a far more functional way to present search results - and is typically the way users think ( ie what resources are worthy of my priority first that are more 'safe' or 'useful' or 'enlightening' than others).

Also, if / when I suggested to any of my Church goers to try Logos, I'd certainly like to give them a few pointers for conscience sake on filtering by denomination.

( Not that I suggest that people ignore other denomination teachings just because of denomination, but there are times that for conscience sake people do these things ) If I can guarantee Logos has active integrity in this manner to someone, It is far more likely that I'd have Logos on my mind.

This from a guy with no feet! )

respect.

tom

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/457254#Comment_457254

I for one would really like a decent edition of the Hadith.

[Y]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/457629#Comment_457629

I personally wouldn't tag them myself either, I've not tried Logos user tagging, but from my experience of any type of "user tagging" features, they tend to be sub par when compared to fully supported official categories or tags as implemented by the company.

Actually with a 40 year history in modeling theory and administrative computing and an advanced degree in religious studies out of a language department, I have the good fortune of believing I can tag them myself better than any company. [8-|] No, converting the coding structure to a tree structure does not resolve the issue, it only makes it worse. Examples:

Where do you want to place United Church of Canada - it merges Congregational, Methodist, Presbyterian, Evangelical United Brethren and Association of Local Union Churches. Generally the churches in such unions have slowly moved towards very similar theology before they merge - otherwise their differences would have blocked the merger.
How do you want to portray the difference between Catholic and Orthodox which is primarily culture and practices - with 2 to 4 theological issues separating them? Different players in the groups want to broaden the gulf between them, others want to minimize it. Eastern Rite Catholics and Orthodox are nearly indistinguishable to the point that I know immigrant children who did not know which they were baptized as.
How do you handle ecumenical issues? At the height of the ecumenical movement, Lutherans and Catholics found only one irresolvable issue. I can name Catholics who have more issues than that.
How do you handle works out of Taize or L'Arch?
What do you do with books where the author is of a particular denomination but the work is considered outside denominations? I got in trouble in the forums for labeling Spicq's Theological Lexicon of the New Testament Catholic. (see http://community.logos.com/forums/t/42330.aspx)

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/457635#Comment_457635

I submit it as a huge time saver feature. ( in the same way that I dont want general book results in my searches when I am looking at commentaries - I also dont want off topic chaff which I'd like to filter by denomination.

I find that 4-5 collections handles this quite nicely - and that denomination is too low a criteria, larger blocks work better e.g. Mainstream Protestant, Pentecostal ... For what I call scholarly Biblical studies, it is methodology not denomination that is of importance. Only for overtly theological works does denomination really matter - sometimes.

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/457635#Comment_457635

May I ask your story on why your user name is supertramp?

SuperTramp, hmmm... Could be

I view myself as a sojourner, a non-citizen treking across the landscape This world is not my home. ( WARNING ~spiritual content)
I relate to the culture of a tabibito (traveler) in the Sengoku period of Japan ( WARNING ~war content)
I fancy myself a "Super Tramp" after William H. Davies' Autobiography of a Supertramp ( WARNING ~sociological content)
I live on the fringe of societal norms (have 13 kids, schooled them at home, etc.) ( WARNING ~just plain weird content)
I relate to the music of Supertramp ( WARNING ~political content)
I attempt the impossible, and fail (like Alexander Supertramp) ( WARNING ~sad ending)

But it is most likely a collage of all of the above. [;)]

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/457845#Comment_457845

SuperTramp, hmmm... Could be

I view myself as a sojourner, a non-citizen treking across the landscape This world is not my home.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqRpyG0W96k

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/457857#Comment_457857

SuperTramp, hmmm... Could be

I view myself as a sojourner, a non-citizen treking across the landscape This world is not my home.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqRpyG0W96k

Having heard them in concert I prefer the king's heralds http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKjjcWdiKGM

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/457859#Comment_457859

Having heard them in concert I prefer the king's heralds http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKjjcWdiKGM

The one I picked was just the first in the list—no selection involved.

Luigi Sam

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/457801#Comment_457801

I submit it as a huge time saver feature. ( in the same way that I dont want general book results in my searches when I am looking at commentaries - I also dont want off topic chaff which I'd like to filter by denomination.

I find that 4-5 collections handles this quite nicely - and that denomination is too low a criteria, larger blocks work better e.g. Mainstream Protestant, Pentecostal ... For what I call scholarly Biblical studies, it is methodology not denomination that is of importance. Only for overtly theological works does denomination really matter - sometimes.

Hi MJ,

I suppose that I can just reply to this reply since it kind of continues the one before.

I agree that larger grouped blocks of similar denominations is clearest. I did suggest this too. And as I said, sub tags for miro managing where it can be tagged between particular denominations, or just Misc if it is too broad.

In regards to methodology not denomination for scholarly Biblical studies, I mostly agree that this is the main issue. The method has to be impartial and the person has to submit their intelligence and integrity to be impartial too.

The flip side is that sometimes published works aren't, and I think it will aid the users to quickly eliminate some books based on 'groups of denominations' at times. Kind of like asking: 1. what is the opinion of people in my denomination, then 2. well what do other groups of denominations have to say. Each group of denominations will have their fair share of methodical and impartial works, and some that are baseless. But the benefit is that it will immediately round it down to at least that much so that the opinions of many can be orderly studied

EDIT: (also i get an Access Denied message when I click on the link you gave

Room4more

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/457876#Comment_457876

Well, sorry to say this will never happen, YET, if you chose BW the same scenario would be there as well, the same can be said for Wordsearch, Olive tree, etc., etc.

They appeal to the masses, which divy up to individuals, each having their own theological differences. Yet we co-exist.

have said that - lets dance......

[img]http://www.websmileys.com/sm/animal/460.gif[/img]

Luigi Sam

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/457845#Comment_457845

May I ask your story on why your user name is supertramp?

SuperTramp, hmmm... Could be

I view myself as a sojourner, a non-citizen treking across the landscape This world is not my home.  ( WARNING ~spiritual content)

I relate to the culture of a tabibito (traveler) in the Sengoku period of Japan   ( WARNING ~war content)

I fancy myself a "Super Tramp" after William H. Davies' Autobiography of a Supertramp   ( WARNING ~sociological content)

I live on the fringe of societal norms (have 13 kids, schooled them at home, etc.)    ( WARNING ~just plain weird content)

I relate to the music of Supertramp ( WARNING ~political content)

I attempt the impossible, and fail (like Alexander Supertramp)   ( WARNING ~sad ending)

But it is most likely a collage of all of the above.

thanks supertramp.

I like the Alexander Supertramp reference. I watched the youtube clip. He makes a a very reflective, thoughtful and insightful point on life.

interesting music, I think i heard at least one of their tracks before which like thought was a nice song (I clicked top hits link in youtube).
im partial to Reach Records like Lecrae etc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCdSWc6BBTQ ( reflective )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgcrLcTa8VE ( reflective )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXkY40XYQEk ( reflective )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjdndrY78t4 ( lively )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv9Qfn9Vrpk ( lively )

but i like music from most genres.(I thought i'd just share a little too.)

anyways... feel free to continue on giving your two bits on this post.

thanks again.

Luigi Sam

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/457857#Comment_457857

SuperTramp, hmmm... Could be

I view myself as a sojourner, a non-citizen treking across the landscape This world is not my home.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqRpyG0W96k

wow nice. Tingles.

check also.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZkjYrSHEZw

Luigi Sam

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/457878#Comment_457878

Well, sorry to say this will never happen, YET, if you chose BW the same scenario would be there as well, the same can be said for Wordsearch, Olive tree, etc., etc.

They appeal to the masses, which divy up to individuals, each having their own theological differences. Yet we co-exist.

have said that - lets dance......

Hi, you say we co-exist, but shockingly the Catholics aren't happy with this ( ie they now have Verbum ) http://www.logos.com/catholic#compare

which is Logos rebadged, for Catholics.

This is not co-existing. This is separation.

No other mainstream bible software has a Catholic rebadged version of thier software to suit one denomination except Logos with Verbum.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/457876#Comment_457876

EDIT: (also i get an Access Denied message when I click on the link you gave

Interesting - I do as well

An excerpt of the discussion:

For those looking for Catholic resources, the author is Dominican.

I find this post to be quite curious. How does Spicq's theological bias show up in this work?

How could it not? This is true of all of us I would of thought.

A very good resource!

I see lexicons basically as commentaries on words, especially the
TLNT. The few screenshots I saw of this resource were quite interesting.
However, I wonder if anyone would be able to use this resource without
even noticing it has a Catholic flavor. I ask this only because this
seems to be a popular resource even among Protestants.

As for the rest, I don't believe I can convince you why it does not work. The one way I believe would convince you is to take the top 200 denominations in America. Study any statements of faith, creeds, distinctives, positions papers etc. associated with them. Now read the top selling 500 theological books from 1960. Assign them to the most likely denominational category. Then I think you will understand what I am trying to say.

To put it more concretely, I find it more useful to know that someone was a member of the Jesus Seminar or Renovare than to know their denomination. The foundational studies in liturgical theology require the reading of Anglican, Lutheran, Russian Orthodox, Byzantine Catholic and German Catholic sources (Dix, Ranshaw, Schmemann, name escapes me, Jungmann). One of my all-time favorites on the Desert Fathers is somewhere in the mainstream Protestant tradition (Bondi). One of the best Catholic narrative theologians isn't Catholic (Hauerwas). The best introductions to spiritual discipline and prayer are written by a Quaker (Foster).

Luigi Sam

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/457894#Comment_457894

As for the rest, I don't believe I can convince you why it does not work. The one way I believe would convince you is to take the top 200 denominations in America. Study any statements of faith, creeds, distinctives, positions papers etc. associated with them. Now read the top selling 500 theological books from 1960. Assign them to the most likely denominational category. Then I think you will understand what I am trying to say.

but we do agree that broad categories would be useful?

I believe you posted "I find that 4-5 collections handles this quite nicely - and that
denomination is too low a criteria, larger blocks work better e.g.
Mainstream Protestant, Pentecostal ..."

I would be happy with this at the very least.

as for the complexity of fine categories,

I respect what you are saying, and your experience. I respect your abilities, and I am not saying this is an issue.and I respect the points of conflict that make it a task that seems impractical.
I dont see it as a priority,
I think it is a time consuming, and progressive task that might require better tools to plan and implement then just using existing logos user features..

All Im saying is that it is possible provided that each conflict can have a reasonable generalization solution. Ie generalization can be used for the fine category( ie fine but not too fine , and that people appreciate that denominational categories dont necessarily mean every single church in that denomination or every singe person in that denomination believes what that resource says. In this sense I realize it is not possible to get a precise micro-fine category. of course I realize there are some works may have exceptions that require a misc or N/A or disputed, or unknown entry.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/457890#Comment_457890

Luigi Sam, you need to ask Bob P. why Verbum was created. You are speculating without foundation leading to a false conclusion.

Room4more

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/457890#Comment_457890

Hi, you say we co-exist, but shockingly the Catholics aren't happy with this ( ie they now have Verbum ) http://www.logos.com/catholic#compare

which is Logos rebadged, for Catholics.

This is not co-existing. This is separation.

No other mainstream bible software has a Catholic rebadged version of thier software to suit one denomination except Logos with Verbum.

But I am not catholic so I really don’t care. I am concerned about what takes up my hdd and if I can use it. Remember ‘junk’ and ‘clutter’….

And we do co-exist, we have for century’s;

How do you know for certain that you ARE right and that your Theology is the correct one?

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/457903#Comment_457903

ie: Logos Repackaged for Catholics (Verbum) is being advertised by Logos. ( this advertising cost is spread accross all Logos products )

to even this up Logos should spend advertising costs on a Protestant Library too.

Otherwise Protestants are paying for advertising costs of the Catholic version of Logos.

And on your other topic of Labels. Question: You are concerned on the cost of advertising – so who will pay for labeling?

Who pays for the research to select the correct label for each resource? Will some resources need more then one label?

[New resources will just see a higher price to pay for the labeling]

[BUT there are now some 20,000 resources [or so] - who pays for labeling them - they have already been paid for [sold]?]

Who pays for the programming to attach those labels?

Who pays for the programming to ask us what label set we wish to see and then assure that we only see the list we have selected?

And what will be our recourse if a resource is miss labeled?

And what do we do with a resource that 80% of Protestants like [that is buy it] and 20% see as heresy [that is burn it]? [[and I have seen situations where the members of a single church cannot agree on a given book]

Bob Pritchett

I've been asked to step in and post something here.... so:

We're not attaching warning or even denominational labels to our books. Our books are already extensively labeled: Title, description, author, publisher, etc.

Each of these labels, while never as precise as some people may want, is a useful indication of the book's content and slant. "Publisher" is going to do a good job of telling you 'what denomination/perspective will find this acceptable,' and when the publisher is too broad or unknown, you still have the author's name you can look up.

We've found that almost every book has some acceptance from people across a wide denominational perspective, and almost any book can be despised/mistrusted by people in the same denomination.

Verbum was created for practical reasons in response to feedback from both Catholic and protestant users. We may or may not segment other content based on market size and demand. But even these segments cross lines -- there are books that are included in both the Logos and Verbum base packages. And users of each who want resources sold with the other.

-- Bob

Andrew Baguley

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/458050#Comment_458050

We're not attaching warning or even denominational labels to our books. Our books are already extensively labeled: Title, description, author, publisher, etc.

Thanks for stepping in, Bob. I'm not quite sure I understand this though. Are you saying that you will not attach labels? Surely the website already attaches labels according to "Christian Group" to some resources? Personally, I like having this information and would like this information to be available in Logos.

It seems that often this kind of label can be applied non-controversially and I think that in these cases it can be helpful. I suggested something similar here: http://community.logos.com/forums/p/54491/396432.aspx#396432, including an approach that many people of different persuasions seemed to be comfortable with. I'd value your comments regarding why it would be unhelpful, remembering that I am not suggesting that all resources are labelled. My basic distinction is that authors and publishers should self-define.

Some people might use these labels to tell them what to avoid reading, or as warning labels, and this would keep them happy, but I would be more likely to be looking for an Anglican, Roman Catholic, Southern Baptist... perspective on a particular issue, or the way that a particular group uses a particular word or phrase. Logos can be really useful to find this information, but it would be even more so if we could simply say group:Mormon, for example, as part of our search. As it is, we need user-created collections and then to search those collections (see link above), which is much more cumbersome for each individual user.

Most of us do not have a detailed understanding of the background, denomination, presuppositions, etc. that publishers have, never mind authors, given the wide range of resources available in Logos, so it would be useful if Logos could help to provide that information within the program, and not just on the website.

Again, thanks for responding.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/458050#Comment_458050

I've been asked to step in and post something here.... so:

Thank you - I'll drop out now.

Michael March

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/458059#Comment_458059

We're not attaching warning or even denominational labels to our books. Our books are already extensively labeled: Title, description, author, publisher, etc.

Thanks for stepping in, Bob. I'm not quite sure I understand this though. Are you saying that you will not attach labels?

Well usually I'm too late and too uninformed to be of much help, but I got this one.

Is he saying Logos will not attach labels? Yes. That's what he's saying. He's saying that the books are already extensively labeled: Title, description, author, publisher, etc. I'm pretty sure that's what he's saying.

Room4more

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/458119#Comment_458119

We're not attaching warning or even denominational labels to our books. Our books are already extensively labeled: Title, description, author, publisher, etc.

Thanks for stepping in, Bob. I'm not quite sure I understand this though. Are you saying that you will not attach labels?

Well usually I'm too late and too uninformed to be of much help, but I got this one.

Is he saying Logos will not attach labels? Yes. That's what he's saying. He's saying that the books are already extensively labeled: Title, description, author, publisher, etc. I'm pretty sure that's what he's saying.

So, Are they or are they NOT labeled? are we talking the same definitional language here.....