4:41 PM
@bruisedreed It's kind of boarding on NAA. He is actually attempting to answer the question, and the information is factual and tangentially related. However, it's based on the fallacy that Kant was a Christian reformer. I would just down vote, which I did.
I would repeat what Caleb said immediately after you. NAA is for when the answer doesn't match the question frame.
1 hour later…
6:01 PM
@LeeWoofenden I agree motive is not important. But being facially wrong is different from ignoring the frame of the question. I say the former is what's happening here. Down votes should be enough.
6:32 PM
@fredsbend I think it's the latter. Kant and the Freemasons are outside of the frame of the question. The question asks about "Reformation leaders" "(Luther, Calvin, Wesley, etc.)," which Kant and the Freemasons aren't.
@fredsbend I should clarify that I don't mean the answerer was intentionally ignoring the frame. Rather, whatever the answerer thought, the answer is outside the frame, and is therefore NAA.
If a question asked about the vocation of Catholic priests, and someone answered instead about the vocation of Catholic monks, not realizing that the two aren't the same (although they do overlap in some individuals), the question would still be NAA even if the answerer thought s/he was answering the question.
2
0
Through history a number of religious traditions have had officials serving in roles that required celibacy. One famous example is that of a Catholic priest. Some of these traditions, such as those of the Catholic church, also denigrate and deny homosexuality. Under such conditions the celibacy r...
4 hours later…
« first day (2105 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2531 days later) »
Transcript for
May27
May '1729
May30
The Upper Room
General discussion for Christianity.SE, pseudo-meta support, a...