Colibri, got a minute please...

[AHunter3]

I would assume that when folks discuss a factual question about one of the Star Trek movies, and someone posts that “Kirk could have done that but not without violating the prime directive”, they are not indicating by that that they believe there really is a Federation of Planets, that there really is a Captain Kirk, and that there really is a prime directive.

In context, I read “God carved these words in stone” to convey the same meaning as “in the chronology of the Bible, God was depicted as having carved these words in stone”.

If this were an environment where the worldview and considerations of non-Bible-believing people were perpetually disregarded, I could see a reason to be exactingly intolerant of anything that was open to interpretation as witnessing, but it’s not.

[Morgenstern]

@Leo_Bloom

The (a) question is, and is asked and batted around in the Talmud, is if Moses came down from Sinai with those [del]15[/del] 10 Commandments, what about the rest of the Torah?

…

[del]You know the problem with writing in stone? Mistakes, you can’t make mistakes.[/del]

n/m don’t want to “witness” again. And I lack archaeological evidence proving mistakes occurred in those days.

[Drunky_Smurf]

@AHunter3

I would assume that when folks discuss a factual question about one of the Star Trek movies, and someone posts that “Kirk could have done that but not without violating the prime directive”, they are not indicating by that that they believe there really is a Federation of Planets, that there really is a Captain Kirk, and that there really is a prime directive.

That seems to be exactly what Colibri is saying in this post:

@Colibri

Please answer directly. Do you, personally, believe that God burned the tablets in stone?

[Barkis_is_Willin]

What the hell difference would it make even if someone did believe Capt. Kirk is a real person? If they know the subject material, they can answer questions when someone asks for information about the Federation of Planets.

[Morgenstern]

@Drunky_Smurf

That seems to be exactly what Colibri is saying in this post:

Not at all, Colibri is asking a personal question, about a matter that’s really none of his, or the board’s business.

Colibri probably forgot about this little gem from the registration agreement…

Please remember that postings on this board are visible to anyone with access to the Internet, and are retained in a database indefinitely. In addition, the SDMB is open to third-party search engines (“spiders”). Please do not post personal revelations or other information that may come back to haunt you. In particular, do not post your telephone number or address.

[BigT]

I think the archaeological evidence issue is a red herring. The question as actually asked didn’t belong in GQ because the answer was open to interpretation, and thus was not factual.

Yes, Morgenstern’s statement was a perfectly valid literary argument, just as much as the previous literary arguments made in that thread. But it was not a fact, and even finding archaeological evidence would not have made it one. He made the assumption that certain laws were more important because they were written in stone. And he made the assumption that the less important stuff didn’t matter to the OP’s question–a view already challenged in the thread.

The fact that nearly ever post was a literary interpretation or argument is why I suggested the thread didn’t belong in GQ. In fact, I at first thought it was a GD thread, and was confused why Colibri was moderating so much.

If Morgenstern was witnessing, so were quite a number of other people.

[BigT]

@AHunter3

I would assume that when folks discuss a factual question about one of the Star Trek movies, and someone posts that “Kirk could have done that but not without violating the prime directive”, they are not indicating by that that they believe there really is a Federation of Planets, that there really is a Captain Kirk, and that there really is a prime directive.

Yes, but since they’d be discussing the work and not the facts, I would argue such a statement isn’t really a GQ statement.

Of course, once a question is answered, GQ becomes a lot less strict. But if that statement is relevant to answer the OP’s question, then OP’s question should have been in Cafe Society.

This witnessing thing is just as much a red herring as the archaeological argument.

Basically, it seems to me that Colibri made the right call for the wrong reasons. He was still hopelessly trying to force the thread into one appropriate for GQ, and that led him to invalid arguments archaeology and witnessing. The premise “this thread belongs in GQ” was faulty, so reasoning based on that was also faulty.

[DrDeth]

@BigT

I think the archaeological evidence issue is a red herring. The question as actually asked didn’t belong in GQ because the answer was open to interpretation, and thus was not factual.

Yes, Morgenstern’s statement was a perfectly valid literary argument, just as much as the previous literary arguments made in that thread. But it was not a fact, and even finding archaeological evidence would not have made it one. He made the assumption that certain laws were more important because they were written in stone. And he made the assumption that the less important stuff didn’t matter to the OP’s question–a view already challenged in the thread.

The fact that nearly ever post was a literary interpretation or argument is why I suggested the thread didn’t belong in GQ. In fact, I at first thought it was a GD thread, and was confused why Colibri was moderating so much.

If Morgenstern was witnessing, so were quite a number of other people.

I agree. It is hard to tell where this thread should be- GD? CS?

But Morgenstern was right and Colibri made a bad call.

[Trinopus]

@DrDeth

I agree. It is hard to tell where this thread should be- GD? CS?

But Morgenstern was right and Colibri made a bad call.

Long as we’re voting, no, Morgenstern choked, and Colibri was right on target…until the point in this thread where he asked what Morgenstern’s actual belief is. That isn’t relevant. But Morgenstern’s rotten phrasing in the Bible thread was completely valid cause for the mod warning.

When it’s totally unclear whether or not you’ve broken the rules, it’s valid for a mod to give a warning.

If I call someone a “Doik,” a mod can say, “No insults.” For me, later, to say, “Oh, it’s a really obscure term of praise” doesn’t mean the mod erred. (It’s an insult.)

[John_Mace]

This is a good example of something religious that does not belong in GQ. There is no factual answer to it.

[Colibri]

@Trinopus

When it’s totally unclear whether or not you’ve broken the rules, it’s valid for a mod to give a warning.

If I call someone a “Doik,” a mod can say, “No insults.” For me, later, to say, “Oh, it’s a really obscure term of praise” doesn’t mean the mod erred. (It’s an insult.)

For the record, no warning was given in the thread, only mod notes.

@John_Mace

This is a good example of something religious that does not belong in GQ. There is no factual answer to it.

I agree with that one. But no one has reported it as yet.

[John_Mace]

@Colibri

I agree with that one. But no one has reported it as yet.

Sure I did.

[Colibri]

@John_Mace

Sure I did.

I should have said I haven’t received a report yet. There’s often a lag in reports getting through. I’ve moved it.

[John_Mace]

@Colibri

I should have said I haven’t received a report yet. There’s often a lag in reports getting through. I’ve moved it.

I didn’t officially report it, but posting here produced an equivalent effect.

[Trinopus]

@Colibri

For the record, no warning was given in the thread, only mod notes. . . .

Oops. But that’s cool, because a note is the right answer for an ambiguous post. FWIW, I sure took it as “God’s word was engraved on stone” and not “If God’s word had been engraved on stone…” or “The book says the word was engraved on stone…” or whatevs.

[Irishman]

Colibri, I appreciate your attempt to rescue a GQ thread rather than just move the thread. It’s a trap that whatever mods do in that regard they lose. Move it: "why move a thread, jusrv enforce the rules. " Enforce the rules: “That thread doesn’t belong in GQ, it should have been moved.”

The thing is, that thread diverged almost immediately from the GQ OP. The OP was “are there any bible verses to support the claim?” (Paraphrased). The answer to that is “yes, these here support that claim.”

But quickly the debate shifted to a different but related topic, “Does the Bible or God allow/condone this claim?”

That’s a different question, not suited to GQ. Typically that should go in GD, because the inherent nature of the question requires opinion, and that’s going to lead to witnessing.

It seems to me that any argument of “those verses don’t count” is a hijack to the second question. The topic immediately shifted to the debate the OP should be having with his opponent rather than the mere question of If there are Bible verses that can be used to make that argument.

The thing is, a fair answer should be “no”, but that is going to immediately lead to opinions about why the verses that some people say do suppory it don’t count. But how is that a GQ topic?

So either the thread should have been limited to supplying verses, or it should have been moved to allow debate over opinions of what the text means.

Your asking Morgenstern what his belief actually is is inappropriate. Asking him to clarify what he meant is ok, which I believe he has. His statement was as I interpreted it, an in-universe claim of what the Bible says and means.

I realize you only have a mod note. it still seems to me you misinterpreted his remark, and in this thread have gotten stuck chasing that rather than just admit it was a possible misread on your part.

If his comment wasn’t appropriate, then just about anything but listing verses wasn’t appropriate.

[Alan_Smithee]

@Trinopus

Long as we’re voting, no, Morgenstern choked, and Colibri was right on target…until the point in this thread where he asked what Morgenstern’s actual belief is. That isn’t relevant. But Morgenstern’s rotten phrasing in the Bible thread was completely valid cause for the mod warning.

When it’s totally unclear whether or not you’ve broken the rules, it’s valid for a mod to give a warning.

If I call someone a “Doik,” a mod can say, “No insults.” For me, later, to say, “Oh, it’s a really obscure term of praise” doesn’t mean the mod erred. (It’s an insult.)

There was nothing unclear or ambiguous about it whatsoever. Morgenstern reported factually on what the Bible says in response to a question in the OP about what the Bible says. The only issue is that he failed to make it clear that he doesn’t believe it actually happened, which he shouldn’t have to do. As I said, I don’t believe any of the Old Testament (OK, the dates for Nebuchadnezzer might be right) and I would likely have phrased it the same way because the historical accuracy of the story wasn’t relevant to the thread.

[wonky]

@Alan_Smithee

The only issue is that he failed to make it clear that he doesn’t believe it actually happened, which he shouldn’t have to do.

No, the issue to me is that he failed to make it clear that what he was saying did not depend on the listener’s belief. I read what he said and thought he was trying to make the argument “we know this is true because it’s what the Bible said” not “we know this is what the Bible said and it’s phrased this way therefore we know it was considered to be of utmost importance.”

[Morgenstern]

@jsgoddess

No, the issue to me is that he failed to make it clear that what he was saying did not depend on the listener’s belief. I read what he said and thought he was trying to make the argument “we know this is true because it’s what the Bible said” not “we know this is what the Bible said and it’s phrased this way therefore we know it was considered to be of utmost importance.”

Here’s what you’re missing. The OP did NOT ask if what the Bible said was true. The OP asked what the Bible said with respect to certain specific matters. Any truth asserted in my response was in respect to what the Bible “said” about those matters, not to whether those matters were true. The truth of those matters was never an issue in the framework of the OP’s question. Any evidence necessary to prove my point was therefore limited to presenting a scripture from the bible that addressed the OP’s question, not archaeological evidence that the event described in the scripture actually occurred. If stating "God said xyz (when the scripture I paraphrased was quoting God as the speaker, and doing just that) is not witnessing.
Let me further simplify if for you, jsgoddess. Assume a member asks what color Rudolph the reindeer’s nose is according to his creator, Robert L. May. I state it is red, and quote the line where May describes it as a luminous red nose. Does answering that question mean I’m stating Rudolph lived or that he led Santa’s sled one Christmas Eve? Am I witnessing for Rudolph by answering it, or is it a direct response to a specific, tightly framed OP question? Does it even matter what my personal beliefs are with respect to Rudolph?
Not in any stretch of the imagination.

Colibri missed this too. But he further compounded his error when he requested that I reveal my personal belief, and when I refused, he declaring the matter closed and that he was done participating in it. Overall I think Colibri is a very good mod, but I think he made several mistakes here.

[hajario]

I agree with Morgenstern. Either it was a religious discussion in which case it should have been moved to GD or it as a question about how it should be interpreted from the point of view of the text in which case the answer was fine. And asking someone about their personal beliefs before deciding about whether a moderating decision should be changed is fucking insane. Someone can actually have a sincere religious belief and discuss those beliefs and have it not be witnessing.