Yeah... right... looking forward to the worldwide Christian unity that flows from all these unquestionable answers.
Who writes this stuff?
How it feels ...
Yeah, my eyes usually skate past ad slogans, but this one caught my attention for much the same reason.
I agree 100%. Though like all such frustrations, they are just marketing what people want. The sad thing are the people who accept "unquestionable answers" without exploring other interpretations or arriving at them on their own. And then their best argument becomes "because ____ says so"
The ad is basically aimed at a specific, relatively small group of primarily American and largely non-liturgical Protestants, most/all of whom have never done any post-secondary studies in any related field. It may also be marketing by such people.
At any rate, I am not part of the target audience.
I like the cat one ...
In a way it’s totally Biblical. Jesus prayed for unity and Paul admonished us “to speak the same thing and to be of the same mind.” Only God knows how he will judge denominationalism, but it’d sure be nice if we all were united in doctrine, but since we aren’t, that’s why many unbelievers get discouraged because they see how divided we are and how everybody claims to have the truth while each speaking their own thing. Sad but true...
DAL
Yeah... right... looking forward to the worldwide Christian unity that flows from all these unquestionable answers. Who writes this stuff?
lol, that's bad. likely the first year bible college intern wrote that. Or John Piper
Or the Roman Catholic Church...
(Hey if we're firing shots, let's fire shots)
lol, that's bad. likely the first year bible college intern wrote that. Or John Piper Or the Roman Catholic Church... (Hey if we're firing shots, let's fire shots)
Please, let's not start being disrespectful.
I agree with PetahChristian and make the same request.
I'm good with cats. I didn't know the Logos and Verbum web apps were for cat videos, though. [;)]
Incontrovertible evidence that the original Logos post is in error. as you refer to an non-existent entity.
[quote] Please, let's not start being disrespectful.
Right so if people don't use this as an excuse to throw punches at, say, "American and largely non-liturgical Protestants" or "John Pipers" then that's fine. But if you dish it out then be prepared for other people to do the same [;)]
Doubt the "let's not be disrespectful" line would have come up had the targets remained Piper and American non-liturgical protestants.
Right so if people don't use this as an excuse to throw punches at, say, "American and largely non-liturgical Protestants" or "John Pipers" then that's fine. But if you dish it out then be prepared for other people to do the same
I can't speak for the Piper line, which I didn't write, but I wasn't taking a shot at the people I mentioned.
I was honestly (and, I believe, accurately) describing the group of people (which is not quite the group you name in referring to my post) whom that ad was targeting, or at least those who I think are most likely to be positively disposed to it. From what I can tell, the group of people I was referring to are a non-trivial subset of FL's paying customers, so the ad may well not be a failure from a marketing perspective.
You're welcome to disagree and to argue that the target market is different than what it seems to me to be. For my part, I can explain every element of my description of the target market if such is desired.
I'm good with cats. I didn't know the Logos and Verbum web apps were for cat videos, though.
I was just hinting the 'unquestionable' is this thread might relate to the questionable answers on the web (in their other ad). They may not have meant it literally.
I've said many times one of Faithlife's biggest problems as a company is their marketing people writing checks the programmers can't cash.
So far, I've been completely ignored, which is certainly fine...not my circus, not my monkeys. But IMO they are doing harm with their marketing hyperbole, whether they see it or not.
wow, hadn't really thought through how some people would be offended by that, but I can see that. I thought about having Hank Hanegraaff instead of Piper, not equating them with a first year intern but due to their generally straightforward presentation as being able to supply answer and being quite secure in not having really any gray areas. I listen to the one and have books by the other. I learn from both. But neither come across as equivocators. Anybody have evidence to the contrary and feel it would be important to enlighten me I am game. It was merely a tongue-in-cheek comment. Not an indictment.
Note: denominations mentioned are selected solely to illustrate difference in beliefs. The one and only Northern Free Will Baptist I have ever known was a warm and inviting pastor who would have brought the kids together.
Let me break it down for you. Imagine yourself as a 10 year old High Anglican accidentally sent to a Northern Free Will Baptist summer Bible camp. They use a different religious vocabulary, so in half the Bible classes you are totally lost. In worship, they omit all the gestures, postures, and responses that make church familiar to you. You try, with a ten-year-old's skills and understanding, to fit in, make friends, and have fun. You think you're succeeding when your new "friends" start making fun of those half-papist middle way folks (Anglicans and Lutherans) and saying they'll rot in hell with those Romanists. Eventually one of the older kids realizes that you are one of those "half-papist" middle way folks; they try to get the others to back off and change the topic. But the damage is done. You now know you will never be one of "them"; you know most of what they said about "half-papists" was a half- or mis- understanding ... but that they have no interest in correcting their misconceptions. In fact, they are often convinced that they know what you believe better than you do.
Think of the analogous situation of a new Logos owner who must go to the forums to learn how to use Logos. They find, to their surprise, that it isn't an ecumenical forum but that a group of members assume that everyone believes what they believe. They talk and exchange information in a way that excludes others. You see them mocking non-Trinitarians like yourself, Or, you are an Ethiopian Jew using an expanded canon and use realize that they are insulted if you refer to the larger canon as canonical. Or you refer to Pope Theodoros II and are informed that the Pope is Francis I. How often do you think that the new Logos owner will return to the forums to learn how to truly use Logos? Yes, they will return as a last resort to get what they need to minimally use Logos.
Now imagine what the Logos forums could be . . .
Thanks, MJ.
[Y]
Truth be told, this is a pluralistic and ecumenical forum and no one can deny it, not even MJ’s logic could argue other wise. There are many here calling each other “brother” but in reality they really don’t see each other as brothers because they each have their own “theological views.” Pluralistic because there are many denominations being represented here and ecumenical because there’s nothing you can do about it, so you must accept it and try to get along with everybody regardless of their denomination. Sad, but absolutely true!
Couldn’t agree more.
Ive said the same numerous times
Truth be told, this is a pluralistic and ecumenical forum and no one can deny it, not even MJ’s logic could argue other wise. There are many here calling each other “brother” but in reality they really don’t see each other as brothers because they each have their own “theological views.”
I absolutely agree, brother.
Sorry, it just called out to me. I really am only kidding.
Sad, but absolutely true!
I've never seen any sad arguers. Arguing is fun. True, when opinions ('beliefs') actually intrude, and churches have to split or, or, or, something bad will happen. A few seconds of sadness, before the fun returns.
Let me break it down for you.
Not sure why you're breaking it down for me and not the others who started using it as an excuse to go after the others I mentioned. I mean I could give the same exact explanation that SineNomine gave: I wasn't just randomly targeting Catholics because he targeted some protestants. Rather, "I was honestly (and, I believe, accurately) describing the group of people" and I'm not just trying to further mimick his defense. I would only add the word *some* to what SineNomine said.
You may say that that doesn't make my comment less insulting towards them. . . Okay, and the same goes for the protestants (and Piper) who were targeted. No one said anyone was rotting in hell. I took it as a jab at certain out-groups and pointed out how the shoe seems to fit on the other foot to me.
Again, I seriously doubt you would be giving the "break it down" speech to SineNomine or Friedrich--in other words, had the targets remained those more distant from your camp. And I don't mean to give the impression that I was deeply offended by the jabs. I took it in the humor Denise describes. But don't wag your finger at me when I jab back. [;)] (That goes to PetahChristian and John Fidel too. Consistency is all I ask.)
Sorry, couldn't resist:
Thought about doing two more, one for Catholics and then just a dude in t-shirt and jeans(?) for non-liturgical Protestants... but I probably already spent too much time in this thread [:P]
But don't wag your finger at me when I jab back. (That goes to PetahChristian and John Fidel too. Consistency is all I ask.)
I was directing my request to everyone. Sorry you took it as if it was only toward you. It was a simple request that PetahChristian made, not even a reprimand. I actually make the same request again.
Let me break it down for you. Not sure why you're breaking it down for me and not the others who started using it as an excuse to go after the others I mentioned.
Not sure why you're breaking it down for me and not the others who started using it as an excuse to go after the others I mentioned.
Let me try to explain how it looked from my perspective. I actually read Josiah's post as more negative towards the "perceived target audience" than SineNomine's post. However, I will grant you that the assumption of "never done any post-secondary studies" is a poor use of a stereotype in his attempt to describe the target audience. But I would hold that "aimed at a specific, relatively small group of primarily American and largely non-liturgical Protestants" is a (historically) accurate description of the market Faithlife targets most. As for Friedrich's post, I took it as a tongue-in-cheek post. As I know very little of John Piper (ask me instead about Josef Pieper), I simply took him as a example of an author who provides answers with a sense of certitude. I know too little to judge it as an insult or a compliment - but I will grant you that it could be taken to equate John Piper to a "first year bible college intern" which would be insulting to Mr. Piper.
You then post:
lol, that's bad. likely the first year bible college intern wrote that. Or John Piper Or the Roman Catholic Church...
Which I could take as equating the "Roman Catholic Church" with a "first year bible college intern" which I thought was an unlikely interpretation given the author. Or I could take as equating the "Roman Catholic Church" with offering "unquestionable answer to every Biblical question" which, although ludicrous, was the more charitable interpretation. My personal choice in such situations is to always select the more charitable interpretation as the intended interpretation. But this left me with two difficulties.The first was the ongoing frustration with Catholics being reduced to the "Roman Catholic Church" which results in a misunderstanding of the diversity within the Church which is already simplified in popular culture by a misunderstanding of the diversity with the Latin Rite. To this issue, I responded with gentle reminder.
It was my understated humor as a illustration that use of Logos does not lead to right answers.
But I was still bothered by the fact that the flawed posts of Josiah, SineNomine, and Friedrich, enabled you to post against a church based on your clearly flawed understanding of a church you do not even name correctly. I made the choice to assume you genuinely did not understand why your post went too far rather than assume malice on your part. Why? Because I have found that ignorance is often easily mistaken for malice.
I understand how you took certain posts as jabs where I did not. I understand why you might want clarification from the posters, which you have gotten. However, I am still looking for the verse "Do unto others as they do unto you" ... I think it's known as the brass rule. [;)]
So, allow me to challenge you: How would you describe the target market for the ad?
the targets remained those more distant from your camp.
My "camp" i.e. immediate family includes Mennonite, Church of Christ, Catholic, Quaker (Friends), Unitarian, Church of the Nazarene (I think - this person keeps changing), Community Church, Apostolic Lutheran, ELCA Lutheran, Congregational (UCC), Presbyterian, United Church of Canada, vehement atheist, semi-Spiritualist ... oops, I forgot the Jews and then foster kids added Baptist and Episcopalian... which is why I try to be even-handed - complaining about abuse of non-Trinitarians, LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses . . . as easily as Catholic and Orthodox.
Well this got off topic quickly
It did Andrew but see what bad advertising can led too?
-Dan
It did Andrew but see what bad advertising can led too? -Dan
Good one, Dan!
MJ,
I'll avoid debating the issue further, except to say that I'm tempted to quote some Catholics referring to "Roman Catholicism" as an entity. And while you may think my understanding of them is flawed, it's actually based on arguments I've heard certain Protestant-to-Catholics make and they, themselves, are getting this from Catholic apologists on the internet. And of course a John Piper fan or a non-liturgical American Protestant would want to argue that to think this fascile slogan would appeal to them is just as ludicrous etc. . . . I'll leave it at that.
(I might add that had I actually been ofended by the Piper or American non-liturgical Protestant swipes then I might have applied the Gold Rule. As I took as simply a display of the users biases I applied the 'Brass Rule'--as you put it--to bring out the bias and other side of the story. . . And I'm not ashamed of that and would do it again! And perhaps will do it again if certain groups are targeted again . . .)
Well I agree with everyone else that it's a really absurd ad. In fact I had done a double take on it about a month ago when looking at the website on mobile and I'm surprised it has take this long for the issue to come up on the forums.
I don't believe that Faithlife people were putting out the ad to target a specific mindset, in the sort of bad-faith way in which a politician might cynically offer a platitudinous policy suggestion knowing that his or her base has a lot of suckers. (I'll avoid ratcheting this thread up to an 11 with some real world, contemporary examples [:P]).
It seems most likely to me that a bad slogan just slipped through the pipeline without them giving it enough thought.
lol, that's bad. likely the first year bible college intern wrote that. Or John Piper Or the Roman Catholic Church... (Hey if we're firing shots, let's fire shots) Please, let's not start being disrespectful.
I need to own up that my humor contained within it my opposition to unquestioned certitude. It was not a shot against denominations but against rigidity. Still, on a forum like this with many involved who come from a variety of backgrounds I recognize this comment created unnecessary distance and sarcasm. Against both Piper and interns. For that I am sorry. I would still say Marketing needs to think through marketing hype first. There are likely forums for that.
Let me break it down for you. Not sure why you're breaking it down for me and not the others who started using it as an excuse to go after the others I mentioned. Let me try to explain how it looked from my perspective. I actually read Josiah's post as more negative towards the "perceived target audience" than SineNomine's post. However, I will grant you that the assumption of "never done any post-secondary studies" is a poor use of a stereotype in his attempt to describe the target audience. But I would hold that "aimed at a specific, relatively small group of primarily American and largely non-liturgical Protestants" is a (historically) accurate description of the market Faithlife targets most. As for Friedrich's post, I took it as a tongue-in-cheek post. As I know very little of John Piper (ask me instead about Josef Pieper), I simply took him as a example of an author who provides answers with a sense of certitude. I know too little to judge it as an insult or a compliment - but I will grant you that it could be taken to equate John Piper to a "first year bible college intern" which would be insulting to Mr. Piper. You then post: lol, that's bad. likely the first year bible college intern wrote that. Or John Piper Or the Roman Catholic Church... Which I could take as equating the "Roman Catholic Church" with a "first year bible college intern" which I thought was an unlikely interpretation given the author. Or I could take as equating the "Roman Catholic Church" with offering "unquestionable answer to every Biblical question" which, although ludicrous, was the more charitable interpretation. My personal choice in such situations is to always select the more charitable interpretation as the intended interpretation. But this left me with two difficulties.The first was the ongoing frustration with Catholics being reduced to the "Roman Catholic Church" which results in a misunderstanding of the diversity within the Church which is already simplified in popular culture by a misunderstanding of the diversity with the Latin Rite. To this issue, I responded with gentle reminder.Incontrovertible evidence that the original Logos post is in error. as you refer to an non-existent entity. It was my understated humor as a illustration that use of Logos does not lead to right answers. But I was still bothered by the fact that the flawed posts of Josiah, SineNomine, and Friedrich, enabled you to post against a church based on your clearly flawed understanding of a church you do not even name correctly. I made the choice to assume you genuinely did not understand why your post went too far rather than assume malice on your part. Why? Because I have found that ignorance is often easily mistaken for malice. I understand how you took certain posts as jabs where I did not. I understand why you might want clarification from the posters, which you have gotten. However, I am still looking for the verse "Do unto others as they do unto you" ... I think it's known as the brass rule. So, allow me to challenge you: How would you describe the target market for the ad?
I understand how you took certain posts as jabs where I did not. I understand why you might want clarification from the posters, which you have gotten. However, I am still looking for the verse "Do unto others as they do unto you" ... I think it's known as the brass rule.
I am willing to own and apologize for my post. Even though I intentionally avoided naming names (thus leaving the ____ blank), the tone was negative and likely due to some personal struggles that have nothing to do with Faithlife, or Logos, or anyone on these forums. I probably shouldn't have posted in the thread in the first place. I just wanted to agree I do not like the advertisement or what it suggests, whether that be perceived or real. I actually try to avoid these forums, but periodically have free time I can't figure out what to do with.
Josiah, speaking for myself, we are all good. Hopefully how we regroup and display a bit of self-reflection and humility will be a positive counter to when we pop off. But I still think your original concept is valid, it's way overstated and could be addressed far more effectively and with power by marketing.
Hopefully how we regroup and display a bit of self-reflection and humility will be a positive counter to when we pop off.
I actually read Josiah's post as more negative towards the "perceived target audience" than SineNomine's post. However, I will grant you that the assumption of "never done any post-secondary studies" is a poor use of a stereotype in his attempt to describe the target audience. But I would hold that "aimed at a specific, relatively small group of primarily American and largely non-liturgical Protestants" is a (historically) accurate description of the market Faithlife targets most.
I'm sorry. I should have omitted my "most/all of whom have never done any post-secondary studies in any related field" because, since I'm writing on the Internet and not talking in person, that aspect makes it easy to read as a jab, which I should have been more alert to, and thus that part spoiled the rest of my description and contributed to subsequent conflict, hopefully now resolved.
I don't know if you've heard of it, but just in case you haven't, try to read Christian Smith's "The Bible Made Impossible". He identifies the cause of all the differences of opinion over bible interpretation in the Church, and comes up with a very good antidote to it, which is Christologically centred. It was my "Best Read" of last year. Remarkable book.
read Christian Smith's "The Bible Made Impossible".
;p
thsnks for the recommendation
Or John Piper
