@fredsbend Not that meta post. Look at the message of mine that I was replying to. I'm talking about the meta post you said I was misrepresenting.

@fredsbend A question like this might not even always be on-topic at BH. Word studies aren't allowed, it has to be tied to specific passages

@Mr.Bultitude Sorry. Mobile site doesn't show the reply arrow.

@fredsbend This chat message about this meta post.

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.

In the case of that question, I think editing is a fine option, but closing works too.

In the end, I don't think it's that important, which is why I think flimsy supports case by case addressing.

Rather than a unilateral protocol.

@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.

That's all I got to say bout that.

@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.

I think all we have here is that we agree on the guideline, but disagree on the application of it in this specific case.

No biggie. I can forgive you for being wrong ;)

@fredsbend Except that the edit you made invalidated every single answer. None of them answered the question at all. The question, per your edit, was, "What is the Biblical basis for hating homosexuals?" Every answer said, "Hating people is wrong." NAA material. Every single one.

That's a far cry from the answers being "a little off."

@Mr.Bultitude The answers are off right now. The question says clearly at the end:

> 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).

It is already a biblical basis question, it just doesn't use the jargon.

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.

Here is the relevant meta post addressing it.

In a simple phrase, these questions search for answers about Christian common practice that is probably not related to any official dogma.

Inherently, this bleeds over into the sociology of Christiandom, rather than the doctrine, which is why the community receives them roughly, but is keenly interested.

I've always been in favor of discussing Christian culture, Barna style, but the community at large seems to believe that would diminish the nature of the site.

@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.)

Clearly, the core of the question was that the OP wanted to know what the Biblical basis is. But it wasn't asked that way, and at the time the site didn't require it to be, and the answers fit the question as asked.

@fredsbend You're probably right about the "real problem." There could be a place for such questions, but they need to be asked very carefully to avoid being too broad or primarily opinion-based.

@Mr.Bultitude Yes, there's a literal difference, but like you said, the core of the question meets the spirit of "biblical basis".

That's why I originally edited when this came up a while ago.

The popularity and number of answers basically not answering the question is a different issue. People don't like being defined by a very small and radical minority of the greater whole. Voting on those answers was about popularity, not whether the question was actually being answered.

The whole page had many issues, so perhaps closing would be better anyway. We can re-ask the question appropriately and moderate answers from the start now.

@fredsbend It should just be closed I think, if not a historical lock. Better to start from scratch with an unambiguous biblical basis question with people checking that the answers remain tightly scoped.

@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.