Dave – Boyink is always right, and the aggregator is still a work in progress. Hopefully in a week we’ll have public XML files of aggregations by category that are updated in a semi-regularly.

One other small thing – just wondered whether Mr Boyink might have a good point about the aggregators being a bit hidden, particularly for the not-signed-in visitor. Could the aggregator be one of the links along the top for intance?

(a couple of them are even registered Democrats of all things!-)

Is that the voice of cultural entrapment I hear?

DK.

At some point, someone has to make a decision. I’m that someone when it comes to blogs4God. That said, I’ve invited a diverse group of moderators (a couple of them are even registered Democrats of all things!-) …

… and have always had a standing policy of being willing to discuss any decision … to the point I’ve said “well hey, guess I was wrong” and rectified it.

I mean, can you ask for anything more than that … well you probably could but I’m not buying!-)

Boy do they!

DK.

In the past, we had situations where people demanded that blogs4God post, publish and support their beliefs and/or lifestyles that are contrary to the ‘black-n-white’ issues defined by Scripture.

For example, I simply will not allow aggregation or posts by and from Fred Phelps or his Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas as these folks clearly have missed the boat on the finer points of Grace.

Yes, it is an arbitrary decision. Yes, it is arbitrarily made by me. That said, it is a big blogosphere with plenty of other places such folks can get listed, aggregated and heard.

I don’t think that’s entirely fair Joe. The employers time thing is a red herring as you know. I don’t think anyone is encouraging anyone to move in ever smaller circles. Why shouldn’t Christian blogs be linked up in some way in the same way that knitting blogs (or woodworm blogs) might do? People with common interests link up, it’s just what happens. No-one is suggesting not reading lots of other things as well.

I also don’t think this is an attempt to enforce ‘spiritual correctness’. After all, the site does include some fairly diverse viewpoints – there are lots of places the evangelicals and catholics don’t get along as they do on Blogs4God for instance.

I think there does need to be some ‘condition’ of entry, otherwise the site becomes fairly meaningless with anyone who wants a link to their site signing up. I think my view is that the bar has been set slightly too high for the reasons given in my last comment. I don’t really see why anyone who might describe themselves as a ‘Christian who blogs’ shouldn’t be allowed in without having to make sure they tick a lot of boxes about affirming various lifestyles or not.

Didn’t they have this dicussion in the Bible? I forget.

Quite why they have to use such ‘spiritual’ language to say that they ‘won’t publicise sexually titillating material’ is beyond my understanding.

Are they going to sieve blogs by their use of biblical references (Isaiah 51:3 ‘And the LORD did say – I’m off to get a custard cream’), the number of hallelujahs or something? If you pass the test you get in, otherwise you are cast into the obscurity of ‘blogs4god’ hell?

Doesn’t the very existance of such a website constitute another attempt by politicially/spiritually ‘correct’ christians to encourage other politically/spiritually ‘correct’ christians to move in ever smaller circles so even whilst wasting their precious employers work-time, they spend time on websites on the prescribed list of ‘acceptable’ ones?

Not that I do that, of course. Is this a christian website? Gosh I never even noticed. I was just here… um… looking for woodworm. Nasty stuff that internet woodworm, y’know.