Talk:Guide to the Bible

"This guide is meant to be accurate and cited, but will still contain extreme anti-Christian commentary...". So we can expect this to be another bigoted diatripe? Yeah, sure am looking forward to that. -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 16:46, 11 November 2007 (EST)
 * Well, like... my original idea was that it be an accurate guide with summaries, commentary, and analysis, that provides a quick look at any book for those that haven't read it. But it definitely won't be totally nice and neutral, it will be critical of perceived problems or inconsistencies in that book. I dunno, I just started it... this is a mobocracy, so write however you like. -- Ζωροάστρης  16:52, 11 November 2007 (EST)
 * Anti-fundamentalist is definately the better way to go. --Edgerunner  76 13:38, 12 November 2007 (EST)
 * Yeah, makes more sense. So, anyway, AK, was "diatripe" a typo or in intentionalarious neologism? human  14:15, 12 November 2007 (EST)
 * Oh, definitely the latter. A "diatripe" is much like a "diatribe", only more diatripish. -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 14:28, 12 November 2007 (EST)
 * To be fair we should do the Qur'an afterwards.--Bobbing up 14:20, 12 November 2007 (EST)
 * See Template:QuranGuide. -- Ζωροάστρης  17:19, 12 November 2007 (EST)
 * Ah, cool. So a snartikle might be full of diatripe? human  14:41, 12 November 2007 (EST)

I have to concur with AK that an intolerant diatribe might not be the optimal work, so I would recommend trying to keep down any anti-Christian (not anti-insert-blatant-idocy-here) bias. --Linus (plot evil tech) 15:10, 12 November 2007 (EST)
 * Perhaps before we start in on this in any meaningful way we should ought hash this out.
 * It is my perspective that Christians the world over do not know what their own religion teaches them, this is especially true for American Christians of the evangelical stripe; and most extra-specially true for that subset: the fundamentalists.
 * Perhaps we should define who we're writing this FOR? CЯacke ® 15:46, 12 November 2007 (EST)
 * Thanks, AK, for pointing out a problem early on which probably would have wreaked havoc on this Guide if left unchecked. -- Ζωροάστρης  17:06, 12 November 2007 (EST)
 * Just doing my job. :nods: -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 18:08, 12 November 2007 (EST)

titling scheme
I wonder if the books should simply be their own article titles (ie, Genesis, not Guide to Genesis), as they will be more likely to be linked to? I know it's a bit of work to redo the article and the template, but at least doing it now saves moving all the articles once it's finished... thoughts? human  13:26, 12 November 2007 (EST)
 * If it's guide then we can inject all sorts of lulz definitions and opinions, if it's simply "Genesis", "Exodus", etc then we should oughta try for more scholarly series. Doing the highlights real nice, basic interpretations of the allegories and analogies but very little in the way of commentary, a "real" guide. MOOCЯacke ®
 * Ah, ok, that makes sense. We need to make sure to cross-link the articles and snartikles heavily, of course. human  15:39, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Don't put stuff in you think the subject 'sucks'
Whoever did that edit, perhaps if you think they suck and you're going to lump them together, bear in my mind that is very um, 'rational'.
 * These books suck. We'll lump them together.

I listed what the books are because rational means showing. So I did. The previous piss-poor editor who had that list didn't think rationally. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Daniel.bright / talk / contribs 15:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)