The Upper Room

fredsbend

8:13 AM

Should I flag this as not an answer: christianity.stackexchange.com/a/35238/3961

The OP was told by two others that he has not answered the question at all. In fact, he answered the opposite question.

Then his revision only reinforced his original statements.

Caleb

10:11 AM

6

A: Please help me understand why my answer was deleted?

The question is tagged protestantism and bible-interpretation by the original author. It is clearly scoped to Protestant views on the issue. Your answer (irrespective of being good, bad, right or wrong) clearly gives a Catholic interpretation. It was deleted because it is completely out of scope...

Anybody want to review both the content and tone of my answer (see new content after the break) here and make sure it's representative of community feeling on this issue? Feel free to be critical of my tone if I took it too far, or if I'm missing something in the equation:

Does Elisha speak?

10:23 AM

0

Q: Could this question be re-opened to get answer or two?

This question asks; What other major accounts there are for the origin of man than genesis of the Bible? One commentator suggested that I could take it to Meta to see if you can get it re-opened. So here it is. Could this question be re-opened to get answer or two?

bruised reed

@Caleb IMHO: It has quite a strong tone, but in view of the circumstances, mostly not unreasonably so. The only thing I find slightly discordant is the implication that FMS might be trying to taking you for a fool - from observing many of his posts, I don't believe there is any warrant for even implying that this might be a possiblity (or according to your argument, the only remaining possibility after eliminating others - I can certainly conceive of at least one other option).

Caleb

I don't think that's the case—I tend to think he just doesn't have any real understanding of traditions and is to stuck in his own bubble to abstractly understand other people's beliefs (or the workings of SE sites)—but that in itself is not a very complementary conclusion to come to and I really couldn't come up with what other alternatives are. What other option do you think I overlooked?

curiousdannii

10:56 AM

So many things wrong with both that question and that answer.

christianity.stackexchange.com/posts/35180/revisions

@Caleb Just checking if it was right to rollback this anti-duplicate argument?

Caleb

@curiousdannii I agree, the question also has issues, not the least of which is being poorly written. Er...not even written. But the meta discussion was about why the answer was deleted so I've tried to limit it to that. Bad question or not there is no excuse for defending such a blatant scope violation.

@curiousdannii Ya these is no reason to have massive meta arguments about question validity in the body of posts.

The question itself should either stand on it's own legs or not. If he wants to discuss that with the community that's what meta is for.

bruised reed

11:18 AM

@Caleb yeah I was thinking of the trapped in his own bubble option - just didn't see it as one of the options you were considering in the post - complimentary? well no, but preferable to impuging motives with no particular warrant

Caleb

@bruisedreed I didn't want to use the "bubble" language, but that's basically that is what I proposed as the other possibility. Either he is ignorant of other traditions and doesn't know his answer is wrong or he does know it's wrong and tried to pawn it off anyway, then when he argued with my deletion by saying his answer didn't identify as Catholic he was trying to hide the pawn job by expecting me to be ignorant. I suppose the first is preferable, but I presented both options for completeness.

And in fact I actually tried to still assume a third position: that he doesn't understand the site, because that's better than being so ignorant of the subject matter. For example:

> If you want to continue arguing that your answer is representative of Protestantism then I'll be forced to assume one of the other options: either you are ignorant or you think I am a fool.

But that's an "if". I still left the bulk of the conclusion for setting the record straight on the way the site works in hopes that's still the issue, not the other two possibilities.

bruised reed

@Caleb from my perspective, 'bubble' doesn't necessarily equate to ignorance per se, but that even when cognisant of the details of other perspectives, there is an inability to integrate that knowledge to the point of stepping into the other's shoes - it's basically a deficiency in empathy as opposed to knowledge

Caleb

@bruisedreed I agree, and that's a variant of Theory of Mind issues. That's also where I left the last paragraph. As somebody who can't empathize and articulate views outside their own tradition but that so persistently tries they have become quite disruptive to the site and in order to be a useful contributor they need to stick to the area of expertise they can empathize with and articulate.

bruised reed

this is something I'm somewhat familiar with in my own experience - I can know a lot about a position I don't agree with, but I still find myself wondering "How can they believe that stuff?!" the temptation to continue seeing things through your own filters can be a strong one and not easily overcome at times

Caleb

And for the record, we've deleted several dozen posts from this OP for the same reason and there are actually quite a few more with various levels of the issue that haven't been actually deleted but a case could be made to do so.

@bruisedreed Sure. I have the same issue with some viewpoints ... but I don't try to post answers that are supposed to be representative of those viewpoints.

bruised reed

11:33 AM

understood. While we're at it, I'd like to clarify something about the point you made about tags and scopes...

It seems to me that tags can be and in fact are used in at least two distinct ways...

One, to define the perspective sought, but alternatively to define the subject matter at hand

Isn't it possible for a historical question regarding a particular denomination to be answered factually according to known historical facts whether it's aligned with that denominations perspective or not?

@Caleb example: is this question necessarily restricted to answers from a Mormon perspective or could it be answered from a (not necessarily in-house) church historian perspective? - christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/35121/…

Caleb

@bruisedreed True ... which is one reason I prefer to see the scope spelled out in the body of the question not just in the tags.

But in both use cases the tags are a taxonomy that define the area of expertise needed to answer the question. In order to answer question you need to know something about BOTH the topical matter AND all the theological traditions asked about.

It doesn't really matter is some of the tags are of interest to you, if you don't have the ability to speak to ALL the tags on a [properly tagged] question you shouldn't be answering it.

@bruisedreed In my observation historical questions rarely have these sort of issues. They tend to be pretty well scoped quite naturally to whatever the historical context is.

@bruisedreed That could easily be answered by a non-Mormom as long as they had had expertise in knowing what the Mormon church historically believed.

@bruisedreed I can't imagine what a "church historian perspective" would be that would be different.

bruised reed

@Caleb a forensic examination of all sources - a denominational perspecitve can be biased to exclude sources that are antithetical to their beliefs

perhaps the example I've cited isn't as useful in illustrating that point, but what I have in mind is if there is documented (but excluded from denominational narratives) evidence that beliefs are changed over time or contradicting each other, then that should be on-topic regardless of the 'official' view

Caleb

11:49 AM

@bruisedreed Aaaa, you mean in the event of a change in position and cover up of the change. In that case that question in clearly scoped to history, not LDS belief. The question is "what was LDS belief at time X", so of course there might be disagreement on the matter (esp. if the LDS church was trying to gloss over a change) but right or wrong answers would be judged by their historical accuracy not current LDS dogman.

@bruisedreed I think I see what you're saying. In the case of confusion the question should be clearly scoped to either history OR current beliefs of group X (this can include group X's version of history).

But some of those history questions are likely to fall outside the scope of the site too.

For example "What actually happened during incident X during the Spanish Inquisition?" is neither a question for Catholics nor for this site.

bruised reed

so the actual question I had in mind that sparked this query (I wasn't able to track it down earlier) was this one: christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/35060/… - tagged history and catholicism. I admit given what you said before that my knowledge base is just not extensive enough to authoritatively argue what I think is the right answer which contradicts the official Catholic line

Caleb

But "What is the Catholic churches [current or historic] response to incident X?" might be fine

bruised reed

I guess my question boils down to - as that a reasonable approach if you actually do have the facts at your command, or is it inherantly off-topic

TRiG

@BruceAlderman How about, Was the relationship akin to marriage?

Was there ever an Elisha?

0

Q: Is a Russian priest sprinkling holy water on the central bank's servers?

Tweet by @bankableInsight (3,639 retweets, 1,662 favorites), reported by the NZ Herald: This is a Russian priest sprinkling holy water on the central bank's servers in an attempt to stop the fall of ruble. Are Russia's central bank's servers being sprinkled with holy water by a Russ...

water russia christianity

bruised reed

12:04 PM

@Caleb In short, did you delete this because a) it was marked 'Protestant Perspective' when that would never be on-topic b) it was not sufficiently well-developed to be considered a valid historical answer about Catholicism or c) the approach itself (of offering any perspective other than the Catholic one) is off-topic?

Caleb

Caleb

12:24 PM

@bruisedreed That's actually a really interesting case study because it's not clearly either a history question or a doctrine question. It uses a lot of "history" language but seems to be really asking what the Catholic church sees as the meaning there. It feels a bit like a bait and switch to me.

But I don't know enough about the issue to know if there is a conflict between history and dogma in the matter. If there is, then I would suggest the question should be re-framed to clearly ask for one or the other. If there isn't a significant difference I would suggest it just doesn't matter and it's fine the way it is.

@bruisedreed In this case I think the topic is inherently close enough related to doctrine and interpretation that it's on topic here. It's church history more than history. If it was "What date was document X first printed in Europe?" and there was a dispute between church beliefs and other history then a question asking about the history would be off topic but a question about church dogma and their view of history would be on topic. (But clear scoping would be a requirement.)

bruised reed

@Caleb thanks for your response, it's an area I'm interested in, but I might need to restrict myself to asking questions in it as opposed to trying to answer

Caleb

@bruisedreed What's the difference between Option A and Option C? I deleted it because a NAA flag brought it to my attention that a question about Catholicism had an answer claiming the Protestant view. That's the same reason I deleted FMS's answer on that Protestant question that got this discussion started.

But if the issue was that it was a history question ABOUT Catholicism rather than a question posed to Catholics then an answer that conflicts with Catholic dogma is conceivably acceptable --- if the question was clarified. But such an answer would start out saying "history has evidence of X" not "Protestants think X"

bruised reed

12:41 PM

@Caleb Option C is different to Option A because it could also include Option B (if Option B somehow diverges from a Catholic perspective), it could also include, for instance an Eastern Orthodox perspective of the issue (church history according to their sources) which might actually be relevant in this instance.

LCIII

1:38 PM

Why was this closed?

-8

Q: Was jesus muslim according to the bible?

According to the bible Jesus prayed on his forehead just like Muslims (Matthew 26:39); Jesus submitted to the will of God ( Luke 22:42, John 50:35); Jesus greeted his disciples with greeting of "peace be upon you". ( john 20:21); Jesus had a beard as a way of all prophets; Jesus fasted for f...

historical-jesus

Clearly it's an incredibly loaded question--but it's a factually answerable one, and it's a question that I'm willing to bet no small amount of Muslims have.

bruised reed

1:55 PM

@LCIII Are the points listed actually an acceptable definition (by all) of what constitutes a 'muslim'? If not, whose acceptable definition is it? (ie what is the hidden scope of the question?) - if these issues are clear to you, great! Please enlighten the rest of us...

LCIII

2:20 PM

@bruisedreed I think that's the presumption the OP makes. "The following things define a Muslim...1, 2, 3...etc...Jesus did all these things. Was Jesus a Muslim?" Obviously Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet and nothing more, and he's trying to lean us toward his view.

He's obviously done a bit of research

He think he's got us in a corner or something. One of those "Answer THIS, Christians!" type questions

And we have a chance to answer.

curiousdannii

3:09 PM

@LCIII With that many downvotes it will be eventually deleted. If you like the idea behind it then it would be much better to start from scratch.

@bruisedreed Yes, rather than that list I would've thought the five pillars of Islam would be the starting point to define when Jesus was a Moslem.

goldPseudo

5:20 PM

@LCIII The term "Muslim," as used by Muslims especially in this sort of context, conflates three very different meanings of the word. Any attempts at answering the question as phrased will basically just devolve into arguments of what "Muslim" even means.

2

1) A person who submits to the one true God. 2) The theoretical "pure" religion that was preached and followed by all prophets throughout history which was the foundation of the actual words and laws they proclaimed. 3) The particular set of teachings and laws preached by Muhammad.

1 is factually answerable, but trivial. 2 can be interesting, but it's ill-defined and really more of a Truth question.

3 is the one that's most likely to be answered in accord to, not only because that's generally how Christians define "Muslim" but because that's how the examples in the question are presented. but OP will likely keep arguing that he meant one of the first two definitions whenever someone tries.

get OP to commit to a particular meaning of "Muslim," and it might be answerable. but as phrased, yeah, it's unclear.

2

Does Elisha speak?

6:35 PM

0

Q: Why are reps removed when a user is removed?

Since reps are awarded because an active user voted for an answer, why are those votes negated when the user is removed? Have they lost their legitimacy?

discussion

Does Elisha speak?

7:28 PM

0

Q: Which edit on this question should be used?

What is the biblical argument that homosexual *attraction* is sinful (as opposed to just lust) I've had a bit of an edit war with another user. Would the community please weigh in on which edit is more appropriate. All the edits are in the revisions. There are applicable comments on the post too.

discussion specific-question editing

LCIII

8:04 PM

chat question

Matt Gutting

?

LCIII

Common scenario: A worship leader works hard and practices his set. He picks songs he thinks the congregation will respond to. He works hard at it. He throws himself out there during the set. He feels like he led the music well.

He understands 2 things: 1) he would not have any talent were it not for the grace of God and 2) he worked really hard to pull this set off

So when someone comes up to him after the set and says "Good job! You did great!" and his knee jerk response is to go "All glory to God!" is the worship leader, in some way, selling himself short, or having a false humility?

I speak from experience. Nonstop, monthly, experience

I don't know how to take a compliment

Thank you, Christianity.SE.

For hearing my question

Matt Gutting

@LCIII Hm. The similar experience I have is when we're singing a post-Communion anthem, and people applaud at the end. I'm not entirely comfortable, though I enjoy the recognition.

But it's supposed to be a prayer, people!

:-)

LCIII

Yeah

But they recognize your effort as well. They know not everyone could do what you do, and they appreciate it.

It's an incredibly tricky balancing act that I don't exactly know how to respond to.

Aside from "Thanks"

Matt Gutting

@LCIII Certainly they do; but usually the priest recognizes it - and if he wants to give a recognition (and invite applause from the congregation) outside the liturgy that's fine.

I do say thanks, and mean it heartily. And too, after the service is usually not the best place to argue theology of liturgy.

But in the end, it is for the glory of God; and we need to know that even if they don't always show their awareness of it. Perhaps they are aware of it but want to add something they feel is necessary for balance.

That's fine too.

LCIII

8:13 PM

I guess applause is their sign of appreciation. Growing up in the southern baptist church no one applauded, it was strictly "Amen!" or silence. I'm currently with a church body that applauds after everything. A kid recited a verse during youth group and they applauded after that. Congrats--you can read. Maybe it's just their way of filling the silence. I don't mind it--but even after all these years it's something everyone jokes about. Why do we clap so much.

Matt Gutting

@LCIII I'm not really happy about it - especially from a Catholic tradition; liturgy is something important, and God-centered; applause feels like an interruption. But I'm not sure what else we can offer that people would do, and feel like they're offering appropriate recognition.

Does Elisha speak?

0

Q: Should we flag posts that are obviously preaching as spam?

Sometimes we get posts that are not really trying to ask or answer a question. Instead, they intend to use the SE as a platform for preaching. Examples: Was Jesus a Muslim according to the bible? Why is it that one would live by the words of man instead of the word of God? Answer on Where in t...

discussion flagging spam

bruised reed

9:28 PM

@goldPseudo thanks for weighing in on the issue

fredsbend

I'd like to point the community to a possible great new user:

1

A: Are there any traditions or schools of thought that track Jesus' movements?

I just joined SE today, so I'll jump right in - in 2008 I was researching this very subject for a book I wrote on Jesus life. I apologize for this if it seems like I'm trying to plug my book (so I won't give you the name of it), but I spent years meticulously going through the gospels and Acts, p...

There's some newbie mistakes in the post, but she is a scholar having written a book on the subject. I would like to see more users like that.

Naturally, I can't vouch for the validity of the book, but I have no reason to believe that it is rubbish.

DIFFERENT ISSUE:

2 days ago, by fredsbend

This answer needs editing, but I'm having trouble figuring out what's a quote and what's not. Probably due to total unfamiliarity with the topic.

Got a star but no takers, huh? It's still unedited.

@curiousdannii If it's small and at the bottom of the post, I'm fine with leaving it there. Why make a whole meta post for a single comment.

Matt Gutting

@fredsbend I can take a look at it later, maybe; outside of work obligations I'm still trying to answer this and this. Busy busy busy :-)

fredsbend

But that is a four point breakdown. It's a bit too much. But it's already closed, so who cares.

Also, I've had a recent edit war with him so perhaps let's just see what happens with that first before we go rolling that this one too. See meta site for context.

@MattGutting If you get around to the first one ping me on it. I love history questions like that.

Matt Gutting

@fredsbend Yo.

fredsbend

I'd double +1 it if I could. We should be able to give a bounty for asking a great question.

-1

A: What is the basis of the LDS (Mormon) belief that the Apostle John never died?

For a month now I've been trying to find a reason that I'm not John so now what do I do? To afraid to preach ,why write ,my experiences with God are written down already

FLAG DOWNVOTE DELETE DESTROY.

lol

Sometimes when reviewing I like to pretend I'm Robocop.

Bruce Alderman

10:33 PM

@TRiG That sounds like it would work.

Transcript for