@Shog9 precisely, I'd be happy to see that kind of tone here.

@Shog9 the issue is in the many ways people do it without realizing it, and we're trying to help others become aware of it on meta. For instance, calling the Hebrew Bible sends a message to Jewish participants that this is a Christian site, and it also subtly communicates that their scriptures are deprecated/old/no longer as important/whatever

Hence why we retagged all those questions as 'Hebrew Bible'

@Dan I assume you meant, "Calling the Hebrew Bible the 'Old Testament'..."

and yeah; a big part of it is just educating people as to the differences and beliefs of others. Not so that they can avoid calling them out, or pretend that they're all equivalent - but so that it is possible to communicate one's own beliefs without sounding ignorant or offensive to those who might otherwise benefit from the knowledge.

@Shog9 Thank you. I had come to a similar conclusion.

@Shog9 yes sorry

@Shog9 precisely!

> 19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. [...] I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

If your goal is to share knowledge with someone from a different background with different beliefs, it benefits no one to be stubbornly ignorant of what that background and those beliefs are.

(donno what sparked this conversation, but I caught my name in the backscroll & wanted to clarify what I consider "nice" and why)

@Shog9 indeed, but the question isn't how the regulars here, me, Dan, Frank and so on behave, it's how we treat newcomers who don't immediately get that…

@MonicaCellio I didn't and don't say it is off topic either, what I said is that they are not actually interested in the topic at hand.

@Shog9 I don't know what those guys believe and I not sure it becomes us as a community to drive them off before we even find out just because they unintentionally step on a few toes

@JackDouglas Like Paul, you work to convince them of the value of showing knowledge and respect in your writing - even when expressing disagreement. You set a good example, and encourage them to follow.

@FrankLuke I'm well aware of this.

@Shog9 I agree, and that is what I want all of us to do

My personal view is that would not include editing their posts to neuter their perspective

I am convinced that the success or failure of a community here depends primarily on the ability of its core to lead by example; the software we use, the rules and guidelines we create, all exist to support and encourage this - but cannot create it where it does not exist.

@FrankLuke At most they believe the extant texts may contain fragments of the theoretical text they believe to have been inspired.

@JackDouglas I know I've said this somewhere before, but... The extent to which you can respectfully edit someone else's post - and all edits must be respectful - depends heavily on your ability to understand what they meant - and not just the literal meaning, but their goals in writing it. Not everyone can edit every post.

@Shog9 I should have mentioned I also don't want anyone to feel they shouldn't edit a post if they can improve it: that's what we are all about

@JackDouglas The litmus test here is: does the author accept your edit? You can edit with the best of intentions and still see it rejected because he feels slighted by it; this isn't something you should become frustrated at - editing is a form of communication, and sometimes it is very difficult for two people to communicate.

By the same token, it's important to reassure authors that they have the final say on the posts which bear their names - if they disagree with an edit, they can rollback or re-edit.

@Shog9 yes

My personal feeling is that everyone with the privilege to do so should feel encouraged to edit whenever they see a problem - but not to become so in love with themselves or their work that they react badly when an edit is rejected.

Others disagree, and recommend a bit of caution when deciding whether to edit, particularly for answers. I understand where this comes from, but disagree with it as a matter of policy.

@Shog9 I'm more inclined to edit questions than answers. Although when I do edit answers, it's usually to remove completely unnecessary and unhelpful tangents or to add sources or help them understand what we're looking for in an answer. Or to clean up grammar/spelling/formatting. In fact, the latter is the most common reason I edit :P

As with all participation on these sites, you would expect folks to get better over time. The person who posts a comment as an answer on his first day here can be excused for doing so; likewise, an inadvertently disrespectful edit from someone without a long history of edits can be chalked up to a learning experience - but learning should actually occur.

@Dan And editing for grammar/spelling/formatting is a pretty good way to introduce new folks to the concept - if they can't accept those edits to their posts, they're gonna have a pretty rough time of it.

@JackDouglas you around? Commenting on multiple posts is making me cross-eyed :P

@Dan I'm 50% here :)

This looks like a good question that could use little cleanup to help it ask about meaning not about whether or not it supports specific doctrines

I commented to gauge the user

Will edit if given permission or if I hear nothing soon

Actually I guess from what I'm gathering here I should just edit and then make it clear if he doesn't like it he can change it

@Dan it's up to you

Do you feel you know the OPs intent?

@JackDouglas the intent is off topic I think, I'm helping him change that somewhat and yet still ask about doctrines

It's possible the best thing would be to close the question. It's possible that with guidance the OP might change their intent once they understand what can be asked here. An edit now might be best either way: if he reacts against it, it'll probably be closed

If he likes it, that is good

@Dan I think the question likely springs form the text, so I think it is probably on-topic, but that does not mean it cant be improved

@JackDouglas how did I do?

@Dan Ok, it's definitely an improvement, and there are various things I would have done differently (but that is not necessarily a bad thing). One thing for sure is that it would benefit from an NIV linked quote, don't you think?

I feel that my edit opens the question up to any interpretation of Jesus' phrase, yet also makes it clear that the OP has some specific doctrinal questions about the text

@JackDouglas Sort of, but not quite. The issue with the Pentateuch and Psalms is actually a bit more nuanced. If you are looking for common ground to talk from there is actually much more of it to be had there; but if you are looking to get to the bottom of why they understand the text differently it's easier to get the NT stuff out of the way first. If you can't get past the word games on the easy/obvious issues, discussing the inspired or not inspired nature of the OT will be a hopeless tangle.

@JackDouglas I did link to the NIV in both scriptures

@Caleb I thought you were. My goal was to get him to admit it flat out.

@Dan sorry I meant using quote markdown >

@JackDouglas ahh ok

@FrankLuke Been there done that. And if you press hard in all the right places he has to. But the next day/week/in another room he goes right on spouting the same deliberate misunderstandings. That's why I was so blunt out of the gate today: we've had this conversation before (on his terms in his own religion's chat room no less) and even after admitting several points, he comes back around as if he'd never had the error in his understanding pointed out.

@JackDouglas better?

@JackDouglas I still think he should ask the second paragraph on C.SE and only the first part here

But I know that if I removed that my edit would not be acceptable

@JackDouglas because the answer differs depending on the OP's Christian background. If he's Catholic, he doesn't want the same answer as someone who is evangelical. And if that is an issue, it should be asked on C.SE, not here.

thoughts (anyone)?

@Dan removing that last bit might help, or perhaps adding more clues to his intention. That might need the OP to chip in as we probably can't guess his background at this stage?

@JackDouglas true, so VTC for which reason (with intent to hold until OP clarifies)

?

The problem as I see it is not the 'doctrine' bit, but the total lack of connection of the doctrine bit from the textual question: the dots need to be connected in the question too

it's unclear as it stands I think

this is the whole 'lends itself to answers building up from the text and the question thing I had in mind

It's be good to know what others think…

@JackDouglas ok and I'm not totally getting what you mean so this may be a great opportunity to help me understand

@Dan well if a question contains doctrinal statements that in the OPs mind are linked to the text, we need to know how they are linked. It looks to me like "text"->"huge leap"->"second huge leap" at the moment

those "huge leaps", if they are even necessary, need to be a series of smaller steps

Do you think the question is good without the last section?

@JackDouglas same here, but I'd just as quickly just make all the doctrine off topic even if not leaped to them

If so, I'd be inclined to delete it and explain to the OP that they can make their intention more clear but they'd need to connect the dots from the text if they want to do so

@JackDouglas I think if we remove everything below the line (I added a line) it is fine

@Dan yes, I know, but it's good to understand each other :P

@JackDouglas indeed

@Dan Basically I think we'd both do this, for different reasons, so we need to find some other examples to see clear water between us!

So to clarify, you'd be OK with the doctrine if it was clearly reasoned how the OP arrived there from the text?

Wouldn't that be the beginnings of an answer, though?

@Dan yes, that's well put

in some cases yes, but a good answer would build on whatever scaffold is already laid down, or go right back to the text to refute the OPs reasoning

@Dan that depends what the question is :)

so should we remove it or close it? Now there is already an answer

@Dan wow, on this site, that is amazing

I'd prefer an edit to a closure if your edit results in a good question

ok great

(which it will)

It may be good to review how any change will impact the answer now though :|

(comment on or even editing the answer may be called for!)

I will also comment on the answer

@JackDouglas the answer pretty much only responded to the doctrinal points, so it significantly impacted it (i.e. rendered it NAA)

@Caleb I debated a Muslim a few times back on apologetics.org (not .com). Ali M there was similar in his tactics. I know Islam was being misleading with his answers (and suspected it to be intentional), that's why I tried to keep us on topic and kept pressing for specifics.

@JackDouglas it went well!