@Jas3.1 I don't think you can directly exclude certain views and narrow the potential answers to questions by limiting the scope on this site like you can (and should) on Christianity. If you are asking for interpretations of the text it's pretty much an open playing field. That being said it is incumbent on all answerers to show their work—to detail how they arrived at an interpretation starting from the text itself.

I was kind of waiting for @Dan et all involved to have at least logged in once and thus have had the possibility of seeing the comments before I removed them as obsolete. Some of them were not replies to just you. If there is anything else to say we should probably move to meta or chat.

@Caleb OK, what I meant to ask was can you remove Dan's obsolete comments which no longer relate to the current version of the question? I already made the edit he suggested.

@Jas3.1 Removing that comment would leave the ones after it orphaned and without context that would make sense to anyone. Better to leave it all until the whole thing is obsoleted and then purge it all (which Dan can do when he sees this).

@Caleb Do you realize that your initial comment was posted after I had already made the edit? I'm not sure what Dan needs to see here or why...

@Dan I edited the question per your criticism. Can you delete your comments now that they are obsolete? Caleb wants you to do it.

Yes, I'm aware of the timeline. I'm also aware this is a "meta" issue here relevant to the site in general, not just this question, and I thought it would be useful for all parties to see the feedback before moving on.

@Caleb Wouldn't it make more sense to post something more permanent on our meta site in that case?

@Jas3.1 Sure it would. But along with making more sense that also takes more work.

@Caleb Fair enough.

@Jas3.1 Since the person in question is a moderator and can see the obsolete flag that's out there still, there isn't really any need to ping him either.

@Caleb My main concern is in having irrelevant comments attached to a question for the whole world to see... just so Dan can see what you think on a meta issue. I think that is better handled in chat, on meta, or if it's not worth the effort, not at all.

@Jas3.1 I'm not advocating leaving it there forever, but a having comments survive a few hours past edits that obsolete them is nothing to be too concerned about, esp when the feedback involved is conceptual and even the criticism was criticized. I'm leaving the flag for Dan who is around basically every day and it will get cleaned up.

@Caleb OK. I don't care about enough to argue about it anymore. If it doesn't get cleaned up soon I'll just ping you again to remind you.

@Caleb Are we good?

@Jas3.1 I'm not trying to argue, I'm trying to explain some of the machinery that is behind the scenes so you don't have to fret about it so much. You've pinged two mods and raised two flags to get one comment cleaned up, which just isn't necessary. One of the flags is still pending. As long as that's the case there is no need for further action, it will get taken care of when it gets taken care of.

It's quite usual to leave new flags that another mod was previously involved in for them to handle even if there wasn't the issue with comments being directed to them.

Sorry that's a slight exaggeration as there is more than one comment involved, but that's also the reason I didn't just nuke it all on first sight because there was more than one party involved.

@Caleb I understand your perspective. Now put yourself in my shoes. I asked a sincere question hoping for good answers. What I got instead was snarky remarks from Dan. I swallowed my pride and edited, flagged the comment obs, and now 2 days later noone can view my question without also seeing a bunch of bickering attached to it.

It's not useful to the people who are viewing my question. It's only useful as a meta discussion, which doesn't belong there.

Alright I started with the exaggeration so I might have deserved that, but don't you think that's a bit of an over-reaction given the fact that part of the comment thread was in your defense?

That's part of why I wanted the comments seen, so that anybody reviewing the post (since the edits bumped it to the home page again) would also see why it was edited and that it wasn't just for the reasons Dan first stated, which I think aren't entirely valid, as Scott pointed out.

@Jas3.1 I kind of hoped that ^^^ would be a useful reminder to people attempting to answer as well as to you about why it had to be scoped that way.

@Caleb It doesn't bother me as much that your initial comment is up there. What bothers me is that Dan's comments are still up there.

@Caleb I think everything except the comment you just posted could be (and should be) nuked.

@Jas3.1 Okay, but you deleted your comment that I was replying to, which kind of forced my hand to delete my comment to. Do you see how this goes? I can't with any fairness delete Dan's without also removing Scott's, and on the whole I think it works out in your favor that there was a solid defense made for the basis of the question.

@Caleb I think Scott's comments should be deleted as well; (A) They are also now obsolete with the edit, (B) Dan already saw them, and (C) his conclusion was actually the same as Dan's in the end, practically speaking.

(Scott knows I disagree with his formulation of "dual authorship")

@Jas3.1 Point B was the only thing I needed. I have until this moment missed that Dan had actually commented after Scott's comments (The timestamp rounding miss-lead me there). All comments deleted.

@Caleb Thanks for your patience

No need to wait if he's seen it. Although I still think you could be less impatient with a flag that's sitting in the queue waiting for the appropriate moderator to handle it.

@Caleb OK thanks. I'm going to go eat.