4:29 AM
4:52 AM
Well, I think the post supports case by case, but seems to think that closing the old ones is more likely the best option rather than editing.
@fredsbend I do believe that the OP of the question should have more say than anyone else. But beyond that, whether to edit or close questions that were once on-topic and no longer are should (I think) come down to whether or not the edit would invalidate answers that are already there.
I read Flimzy's answer as saying, "It should be case-by-case. Here are the two major cases, and how I suggest we deal with them."
Each question has its own unique factors, but I don't see anything inherent in that question that would make it "fine" to edit it instead of closing.
The reason I'm pressing this even though you said it's "not that important" is because I actually think it's a guideline that is important.
Your objection seems to have been that I was treating it like a rule rather than a guideline. Is that correct? If so, it's not really the case. As I say, each question has its own unique factors -- but if you just disregard the guideline at will, without considering that the question falls squarely into a category that the guideline directly addresses, then the guideline has ceased to even be a guideline.
6:32 AM
@Mr.Bultitude Well, we can agree that we have two choices, edit or close. It's off-topic so we must address that. If answers are a bit off after an edit, as I think is the case with this particular one, I don't think it's a big deal. Clearly though, if they are way off after an edit, then closing is really the only fair and non-confusing option.
As far as this question goes, it's closed now, and I'm not going to try to get it reopened, so this specific instance is resolved in my mind.
6:52 AM
7:52 AM
> So I'm curious if there is any Biblical support for the idea that God wants us to be cruel to homosexuals (or anyone for that matter).
The issue here is that there are no or few Christians that actually advocate a hate creed. Instead, they'll preach "God is love" on Sunday, but Monday through Friday they practice hate against gays, minorities, foreigners, etc.
In my opinion, the community's real problem with this question is that it is a little to close to what I call "Christian culture", which has received only so-so in the past.
In a simple phrase, these questions search for answers about Christian common practice that is probably not related to any official dogma.
8:11 AM
@fredsbend Do you really not see the difference between asking, "Is there Biblical support?" and, "What is the Biblical support?"? (Note: I see "Biblical basis" and "Biblical support" as functionally equivalent.)
1 hour later…
9:34 AM
@Mr.Bultitude Yes, there's a literal difference, but like you said, the core of the question meets the spirit of "biblical basis".
3 hours later…
12:37 PM
4 hours later…
5:03 PM
@fredsbend So you don't think the phrasing of the question matters? If he wanted people to only answer his core question, he himself could have whittled it down to just that. Asking in the form of "what is the Biblical basis" had precedent at that point, but it was not a requirement.
@fredsbend You say the problem was that answers were "basically not answering the question." But if the question invited those answers explicitly, then it's a problem with the question, not the answers. Yeah, those answers succumbed to "popularity contest voting," but that phenomenon is exactly why the site later chose to scope questions more thoroughly. In other words, guidelines on questions changed. Including questions like this one.
« first day (1638 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (3014 days later) »
Transcript for
Feb16
Feb '1617
Feb18
The Upper Room
General discussion for Christianity.SE, pseudo-meta support, a...