@PeterTurner I was surprised close votes were invalidated. @curiousdannii is wise in removing it from hot network questions. This is an example of your Sunday School question, where there is a simple answer to answer the simply worded question, but the full details are complex due to the fundamental nature of the concept of "God's will" and the variety of its applicability in creation and in the human sphere.
The problem of requiring the question to add more details / scope will be a dilemma: 1) if left without scope and general there is an answer most denominations will agree but the details will vary due to different emphases of most denominations in unpacking the concept of God's will;
2) if we require adding scope you lose the simplicity of the Sunday school question and you run into the problem that there is no clear doctrine within some denominations that the answer can appeal to, hence the answer will be opinion-based even within a denomination scope, unless the scope chosen is something like Catholicism that in her theological tradition spells out the concept of God's will more clearly in CCC.
3) if the question is left closed / deleted you risk alienating the audience for Sunday school questions or risk leaving unaddressed important questions like this (especially important for evangelicals who makes the concept of God's will very real in even the beginning level of discipleship).
@GratefulDisciple I wouldn't mind not getting any more incredibly bad questions like that again. Obviously God's will is not equivalent to the 10 commandments. I don't understand how that's even a question. It's not a sensible Sunday school question.
The question title and the question body had nothing to do with each other either. I should've closed it yesterday...
@GratefulDisciple I don't know how a close vote would be invalidated either.
Hmm, looking at Meta.SE I suspect it means Nigel cancelled his vote
The Upper Room
The Upper Room