@curiousdannii The Catechism if top layer authoritative, in that it is a collection of teachings of the church. All of it is sourced by the deeper layers of the Faith: Scripture, Holy Tradition, Church Fathers, Results of Ecumenical councils, Saints, Papal utterances and bulls, theologians, Doctors of the Church, etc. It's purpose is as a teaching tool for the faithful

@curiousdannii I often cite it since it summarizes a lot of what has gone before, which makes it accessible for a modern audience. Geremia's points on using "more authoritative sources" by going direct to what the Catechism is based on is a strong approach here since we try to keep it at a high level. For some folks, the high level makes the message inaccessible.

@KorvinStarmast Even if you summarise rather than directly quote the catechism, it's a great source of Bible verses

@curiousdannii Oh, yes, it helps to point to scriptural support for a given teaching. But, as I find out from comments, it doesn't give you all the arguments that got them from a to b.

It's questions like this - christianity.stackexchange.com/q/54845/24204 - that do call for a quick trigger.

@curiousdannii there's also this "Companion to the Catechism" which has all the references explicitly laid out. Owning that would be uber useful to answering Catholic questions on the site. But I've found the Concordance to be pretty dang useful too!

ignatius.com/Products/CCCC-P/…

tanbooks.com/index.php/…

@DickHarfield Meta question that you may wish to offer an answer to. meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/q/6208/24204

@Nathaniel and @curiousdannii Regarding biblical basis question types:

> It is vital to note that a good answer to this kind of question mandates that you provide the verses and arguments used by proponents of the view in question. Whether the verses are being interpreted correctly or not by proponents of that view is irrelevant to this site. Types of questions that are within community guidelines

@PeterTurner

I've always advocated that biblical basis, unless a very common interpretation (i.e. practically common knowledge to pastors/priests and the like), link to at least one person who interprets that way.

Something as simple as a blog post (assuming well thought out and articulate, not crappy nonsense) is usually fine. For more rare interpretations, like JW stuff, official JW sources are probably best.

I don't support a hard line policy to require sources on these answers, but I do support that if you are met with resistance, you should then provide sources.

And I strongly support down votes if the OP will not do that.

My impression is that really only fly-by users just give their personal interpretation. That's going to happen no matter what policies we have.

@KorvinStarmast Thank you for the heads-up. I have posted an answer on meta

@DickHarfield Thanks for the answer.

@KorvinStarmast If you don't mind, let's discuss this question here, so we don't scare the new user more than necessary.

There are a few problems with this post. First, it tackles a lot of issues. It reads like a stream of consciousness / discussion starter, "what do you think" type question. Not good for this format.

Second, and this is what I focused on, if you do narrow it to just the final question, "has anyone found a undisputable way to discern truth or is it all a leap of faith based off our own understanding?" you're still left with an opinion-based question. Catholics will say one thing, Pentecostals will say another, and Mormons will say another.

An overview could barely scratch the surface of the views for that question.

Generally speaking, I don't think that "overviews" work well as a solution to truth questions or questions asking "what does Christianity think about X?" If there are truly only a few views throughout all of christendom, then it can work. But most of the time, there are more than a few.

If there are more than a few, then someone can answer with the Catholic and a major Protestant view, and say, "this is an overview," even though he's neglected several other Protestant/Eastern Orthodox views and even more views held by non-trinitarians

Then someone else comes along and gives the Mormon and SDA view, says that's an "overview," and we're back to where we started – the popular denominations getting upvoted, the unpopular ones getting downvoted.

@Nathaniel The new user has already scared himself. I have edited the question to break out the many questions in it and asked the user to pick one, and then ask others in serial. As it was, all we had to work with was a wall of incoherent text and confusion. I also guided him to the "truth" question meta so that he understands what you meant. I withdrew my suggestion for overview after the edit as I realized what a mess it was.

IF this person is actually going to college, I weep for higher education.

Heh, no kidding.

@Nathaniel Yep, "overview" isn't a magical word which will fix any question

@Nathaniel closed as general philosophy.

@Nathaniel an overview won't work because there's too many topics. Overviews are meant to cover one topic, several perspectives, broadly.

Yep, I think that's the one I picked when VTC.

@Nathaniel a good overview answer first covers what is in common with almost everybody, making sure to name the ones he's describing. Then it notes the major differences, again naming names. Finally, if it's a good answer, it will note nuanced differences and few fringe ideas. Overview questions are easy to ask but hard to answer.

@Nathaniel I think to some extent that's fine. People belonging to small fringe groups should know by now that mainstream believers are not very receptive to what they have to say. Besides, if it's a good answer like I said just above, it first covers the major commonalities because that's what most people are probably interested in when they ask "what does Christianity believe?".

@KorvinStarmast see my comment above. I don't think we're seeing a lack of intelligence here but instead a crisis of faith. And as they said at the beginning they're scared of Hell's fire.

Actually I'd say a crisis of faith is a sign of intelligence.

"Everything I ever believed is now being challenged. What am I supposed to do?!"

@fredsbend The difficulty is more in the other guy's answer. We won't delete an answer if it attempts to be an overview, so we won't delete an overview if it cites 2–3 views but no fringe groups. Thus it's a backdoor to marginalizing non-Nicene Christianity.

And when a supplemental overview is provided that emphasizes the views of the fringe groups, it's also technically an "answer" but won't be treated the same way because of the views it expresses.

@fredsbend fred, I don't doubt the intelligence, but I weep for the utter lack of coherence; the inability to organize a series of thoughts in writing a paragraph or two. The ability to do that is an entrance requirement into college. My edit to break it down to just what this person is trying to ask about informs my disappointment.

@KorvinStarmast College educated or not, I find people cannot write a concise and precise piece in general. Do you get emails for work? Case in point, I'm sure.

@Nathaniel We can make this a hardline policy. "Overview answers must have these three parts: 1) What do most denominations share 2) How do they differ 3) a few examples of fringe ideas."

I'm not sure I want to delete an answer that does 1 and 2 very well, but is missing three.

Perhaps one of those banners "This answer doesn't met site standards ..."

If it does just 3, I think I favor a deletion in many circumstances.

@fredsbend In many cases I think a policy like that would end up being functionally equivalent to "If the question doesn't specify a tradition, assume Nicene Christianity"

A post notice would help. But I'd still prefer to simply not attempt to convert "What does Christianity think" into "What is an overview of what Christianity thinks".

Such overviews aren't likely to be helpful to the person asking anyway, since, whether they know it or not, they belong to a particular tradition.

@fredsbend This is why overview questions in general are a mess, in my view. I don't think it's a fixable mess. Just one we have to live with if we want to allow that sort of question here. And though I don't much like overview questions, I'm not inclined to campaign against them anymore. We already have enough restrictions on what people can ask here.

Speaking more generally, I wouldn't be opposed to fine-tuning what we mean by "overview answer" and what is acceptable. The main difficulty there is that if we raise the standards further, they are more difficult to judge, because few people have the expertise to know if most of the views are represented.

@fredsbend As a "fringe" Christian, I do object to saying, "An overview is good if it covers what the big, popular denominations believe and omits the smaller denominations' views, but bad if it covers the smaller denominations' views and not the big guys." That flies in the face of our general definition of a Christian group as one that defines itself as Christian. I don't believe that leaves room for preferential treatment of big denominations over small ones.

@fredsbend Following up on an earlier (and entirely different) discussion, speaking of Dawkins, here's an interesting critique of his worldview: Deconstructing Dawkins: Richard Dawkins and the Fallacies of Mechanistic Science.

Have you guys had the discussion about overview being a meta tag?

@PeterTurner See this. I'm not sure if it's been discussed anywhere else.

@Nathaniel The only real problem I find with overview questions is they beg for only one complete answer. I find the concept of a supplemental answer enticing and useful. Many questions end up with supplemental answers under the main one that are just as useful.

@Nathaniel I think an "assume nicene" would be more disenfranchising than the way things are now. Not to mention, "nicene" I don't find a very meaningful nor narrow category.

@Nathaniel When a users asks "What does christianity?", it is an indication of their total lack of appreciation for the massive swath of christian beliefs.

It's a strong indication they belong to a major tradition and likely live in a relatively homogeneous area. To them, christians literally are all the same.

Being eager to educate, I like the idea of changing those questions into an overview to show them that they truly are ignorant of their own religion.

"What does christianity say about X" almost formulaically converts into "What is an overview of the beliefs regarding X". This is assuming X is not too localized or totally off the wall, or traditionally not considered a religious thing.

@Nathaniel I prefer to attempt to educate, rather than leave them frustrated and still believing there's only a handful of beliefs.

@Nathaniel For me, down votes would be linked to the OP's receptiveness to improve their answer. If challenged "Hey, what about orthodox?!" then they need to mention it.

I like my three part requirement above: 1) what most of them share, 2) major differences (bonus points for hitting nuanced differences, 3) brief discussion of fringe ideas.

@fredsbend That's understandable. I personally think it's better to attempt to do that in the comments, as it's much easier than actually writing a true overview, particularly an overview answer that successfully hits all your requirements.

@LeeWoofenden If you belong to a small group, you're probably the most capable to answer an overview. You're familiar with both your lesser known ideas and probably have a rough idea how it is different than the big guys.

So you have less excuse for missing an elephant. While belonging to a big group and missing a mouse is less of an offense.

@fredsbend Those requirements would make it easier to lower the bar for questions, and thus not frustrate new people asking questions, but they would significantly raise the bar for answers, and thus frustrate new people answering questions.

@PeterTurner It's not quite a meta tag. More like nomenclature. It's an effort to organize common question types. Sounds like a good use of tags to me.

@Nathaniel It should be easy to ask. Answering shouldn't always be easy, or even something to strive for.

Besides, there's never been any illusion that overviews are easy to answer. That's a straw man.

Um, what? Your requirements are stricter than current requirements. So overviews with your requirements are harder to write than with current requirements. Thus new users attempting to write one will have a more difficult time, and will be more likely to be frustrated. Not sure how that can be considered a straw man.

And to reiterate, I'm only talking about "requirements" in the sense of when stuff gets deleted. Of course I think your three elements are important parts of a good overview.

@Nathaniel I only favor a deletion when just post fringe without any comparison to main. If a question says "Overview of this" and all someone posts is "obscure group believes this" without regard to larger and more applicable beliefs, they aren't writing a good answer. They are intentionally neglecting the main part of it.

People asking for an overview probably have an expectation that the majority of views will be represented in an answer.

@Nathaniel There are no current requirements on overview answers.

The straw man was making it seem like we need to make it easy for newbies to answer.

Some questions and question types will be hard to answer. I'm afraid that's just part of the game.

I wouldn't even want to make it a requirement anyway. Just a strong suggestion that overviews contain at least those three parts.

@fredsbend This seems most relevant: Can part of a question be answered for overview questions? The idea of an attempt seems to be what divides those that get deleted from those that don't.

Missing the third part is not as egregious an offense as skipping the first two.

@Nathaniel Right. "Attempt" is a bit subjective. I'm offering the three parts as a metric for an "attempt". If you don't have that, it doesn't look like an attempt to me.

If you only have part 3, you're skipping a vast chunk of christianity that you can probably easily find information on if you don't already know.

Perhaps a new answer on that question would be a good idea then? Or a new meta question?

@Nathaniel Well, your answer is good. But also, we should consider that if these main groups (e.g. methodist, baptist, pentecostal), contrasted with the broader primary groups (catholic, orthodox, protestant), have such different views that a different answer might be made for many of them, then the overview question type will not work for the topic. It's too narrow for a question type that literally means "broad look".

When I look at a list like this: subjective, best-practices, homework, overview, fun I don't see overview being unlike the others.

Boy, I honestly don't remember having this conversation back in 2012. meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/870/… I'd think I'd have had a contrary opinion back then.

Without context, the word means nothing, yes. In context, the question must ask for it, and the tag is just a useful tool too organize questions.

I personally would find well written overview questions appealing. It's a great way to get an introduction to ideas you've never heard of.

And finding them all in one place, ie when you click the tag, would be a nice convenience.

@DickHarfield I am not convinced that the question about numbers can't be answered. christianity.stackexchange.com/q/54856/24204 An answer can be based on OT laws and customs, which is within the remit of this SE as it is in the bible, but one would have to be careful on declaring how that applies (or if it applies) to a given Christian denomination. I do agree that some of the folks at BH can easily handle it.

@LeeWoofenden If I may sing out in support of Lee here ... And though I don't much like overview questions, I'm not inclined to campaign against them anymore. We already have enough restrictions on what people can ask here -- make it two votes for that sentiment.

@fredsbend fred, I've had my share of college graduates work for me over the last 30+ years. When it comes to communication skills, I weep for college education. On the technical side, I've seen some pretty nice results.

@KorvinStarmast Some "Christians" will say that it's because the OT God was evil and harsh (but he's much nicer now), and others will give the explanation the OP mentioned.

And there are probably a few other approaches. BH might indeed be a good option.

@fredsbend Unfortunately, I don't have all that much interest in the elephants, since in my view, they're all lumbering off in various wrong directions. I suspect adherents of most small "fringe" Christian groups feel the same way.

My main interest in "Nicene Christianity" is being able to effectively refute it for those who wash up on my shores (such as on my blog) having had their lives messed up in one way or another by one of those Nicene Christian denominations and their teachings.

I've been taking in refugees from Nicene Christianity for over two decades now. Understanding what particular wrong teachings from their old denominations have messed up people's lives does help somewhat in dealing with those refugees.

@LeeWoofenden Lee, following that thought, is it correct or incorrect to call the Swedenborg Christians "restorationist" ... I am not sure if I understand that term well enough.

@KorvinStarmast I believe that Swedenborg both went back to something closer to early ("primitive") Christianity and built a new superstructure on that foundation.

As I understand the Restorationist movement, they are trying to restore the early church feel and practice. Is Restorationist too broad of a brush for Swedenborg?

Of the three major branches of Christianity, only Orthodox Christianity still retains the soteriology that existed for the first thousand years of Christianity. Catholic soteriology originated with Anselm and Aquinas, and Protestant soteriology originated with Luther's and Calvin's variation on Anselm and Aquinas.

Hmmm, neither Catholic nor Protestant started ex nihilo, though, they started at the same place as the Greek Orthodox did .... before the schism.

@KorvinStarmast We're not really trying to be like the early Christians culturally, nor in our theological understanding of Christ. But we do look back to them for their emphasis on living a Christian life vs. believing the "correct" thing, which is where most of the major Christian denominations have now gone.

Lee, I hate to break it to you, but the current Catholic teaching that I am exposed to does much the same thing. Emphasize the living of a Christian life. A significant catalyst to that was Vatican II.

@KorvinStarmast Yes, but Catholicism changed its soteriology starting in the 11th century, and Protestantism went even farther along the same trajectory. A little more specifically, Catholicism largely abandoned Christus Victor and Ransom theology, and went for a satisfaction / substitution theory, which Protestants then built upon.

Ah, I see, understood.

@KorvinStarmast Yes. Catholicism never got as far away from living a good life as a requirement for salvation as Protestantism did.

Swedenborg reserved his greatest wrath for Protestant solfidian doctrine.

Regardless of confession, "walking the walk" isn't easy. That "pick up your cross and follow me" was a serious challenge. He was telling them "this is gonna be hard."

Not that he was easy on Catholicism either. But his beef with Catholicism was different, having to do with the church becoming a worldly power, and being corrupted by that power and the wealth that accompanied it. Probably somewhat similar to the objections of many of the Protestant reformers.

@KorvinStarmast Right. But if you're not going to walk the walk, you might as well not even bother talking the talk.

From our perspective, believing the "correct" thing is worse than useless if it doesn't lead you to repent of your wrong ways of living and adopt right ways of living instead.

And Swedenborg did give props to Catholics for the practice of confession, which he said made it easier for Catholics than for Protestants to repent of their sins and live a good life.

Swedenborg once summed up the entirety of religion by saying, "All religion relates to life, and the life of religion is to do good."

A fair position. Jesus was tough on hypocrites. IMO after Vatican I/Italian unification, when the Pope was no longer "another prince of Europe" the Church had (as I see it) to return to a more spiritually based leadership position in order to fulfill the great commission.

@KorvinStarmast Yes, I do think that the loss of worldly power has led to much improvement in the Catholic Church.

And not coincidentally, I think that the beginning of the downfall of Catholicism and Christianity generally was in the aftermath of the Council of Nicaea when the church began to become a worldly, political power.

Swedenborg ties the corruption of Christianity pretty solidly to the Council of Nicaea. But he was looking at it primarily doctrinally, in that that's when the heresy (from our point of view) of the Trinity of Persons began to take over in the church. But it can equally be seen from a political perspective as the time when the church moved from being primarily a spiritual institution to being a highly political institution.

Though some Christians bemoan the loss of that political power, and some are still fighting a rearguard battle to try to regain it, I think that the loss of political power was one of the best things to happen to Christianity in 2,000 years.

Well, the role of the Emperors in the Church (to include the Greek based Emperors for some centuries after Constantine) fused Church and state in a symbiotic role that lasted for over a millennium. That the West performed another fusion with the HRE may have prevented a different line of growth in the West. On the other hand, I'm sorta glad there was some fusion, or there'd have been no Papal league to organize the victory at Lepanto. (1571) It's all sorta complicated.

I must say that I feel fortunate to live in an era and a country where the Church and State are basically two separate domains.

@KorvinStarmast That gets into some medieval history that I'm not especially familiar with. Still, Christianity went in a rather dark direction. I would not want to return to any of the centuries in which the Catholic Church was the dominant political power in Europe, nor to the time when Catholicism and Protestantism were duking it out for political control over the various segments of Europe.

Basically, Swedenborg said that although it was necessary for Christ to come at the time he did, the world was not yet ready for true, full-blown Christianity at that time. Hence Jesus' statement, "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now" (John 16:12).

@LeeWoofenden Have you read any of Hillare Belloc works? Like Europe and the Faith for instance?

It was probably inevitable that Christianity went in the direction it did. The Trinity of Persons was the least damaging of the heresies that were vying for intellectual control of the church, in that unlike most of the others, it retained a belief in the full divinity of Christ. But it was a place-holder until humanity was ready for true Christianity.

@PeterTurner I know a little of Hillaire Belloc, but can't say I've read any of his works.

@LeeWoofenden He's one of those guys who was always arguing the exact opposite of that, that Medieval times were much jollier because they were more Catholic.

@PeterTurner Well, he can have all the medieval jollity he wants. I'll take our century over any earlier century any day. :-)

I don't think any secular historian would have such a rosy picture of medieval times.

Not that it was all bad. But we could have progressed a lot faster without the church suppressing anything that went counter to church doctrine, including any new science that went contrary to church doctrine.

The human mind was shackled by church dogma, which slowed human progress, even if progress was still being made.

@LeeWoofenden reductio ad Galileo?, I'll have to put another tuppence on Chesterton's grave, if I ever get over there to visit.

@PeterTurner Galileo was not the only "heretic" that the Catholic Church suppressed.

Just the most famous one.

@KorvinStarmast @KorvinStarmast It may indeed be answerable along the lines of "What is the biblical basis for ...?" but since the question starts with a biblical basis, that would seem incredibly circular. On the other hand, the principal purpose of BH.SE is to answer questions about the meaning or purpose of biblical texts. IMO, the OP would get a good answer on BH.

@LeeWoofenden one might equally say, Galileo was not the only insufferable jerk the Catholic Church suppressed. Reminds me of myself on this site!

@PeterTurner The Catholic Church didn't suppress Galileo for being an insufferable jerk. They suppressed him for saying things that were contrary to Catholic doctrine.

@LeeWoofenden It wasn't either or, it was both. But I am going counterfactual, so I'll stop there. @DickHarfield No question that a good answer can be had at BH. Should we suggest it be migrated?

@KorvinStarmast I'm aware that many good Catholic intellectuals were saying many things contrary to church doctrine but getting away with it because they knew the system and made nice with the authorities. And because they didn't publish it to the masses. But the church simply shouldn't have the power to suppress ideas, period.

The, "Well, Galileo was a jerk anyway" excuse will cut no ice with me. And it shouldn't cut any ice with anyone. It's a weak-kneed attempt to defend the indefensible. "They were jerks anyway. We had to kill them!" Nah. Doesn't work.

The very fact that the Catholic Church continues to defend some of its indefensible actions is why it can never be trusted with political power again, even if it ever should have had political power in the first place.

@KorvinStarmast Yes - perhaps you could do this. I think I flagged the Q for migration, but perhaps I did not get it quite right. If the OP is after a good answer then the Q should be migrated to where it will get the best answer.

@fredsbend I thought we didn't want more rules? ;)

though rules which result in post notices being applied rather than deletion are definitely softer on new users