Refocusing Christianity.SE - 2011-10-10 (page 1 of 2)

next day → last day (82 days later) »

11:47 AM

[Edit: Re Hermeneutics] There are also a number of experts there that intentionally won't stick their head in here. One guy that would be a great contributor said he "wouldn't touch C.SE with a barge poll". I couldn't fault him :)

@Caleb I understand that. What do we need to do to improve quality here? I would not be opposed to making this "Doctrine.SE" as opposed to more Christian life and living...

@waxeagle Neither would I, but I don't think we have community support for that. We would need to do some serious educating.

as it stands we are effectively programming to BH's SO...and that is not a comparison we want to stand

I've had some interesting talks with Mark Trapp lately and I think his ideas about raising the bar on questions to CALL FOR expert answers is something we need to take seriously.

@Caleb agreed.

@Caleb vetting questions would be a good start. Our answers are often ok if the question is good, but garbage questions attract garbage answers

another option, and this might work, is that if you question isn't tagged with a denomination tag it gets closed.

or at least a larger doctrinal pool (calvinism, weslyianism, catholocism etc)

11:54 AM

@waxeagle I almost posted a meta question asking for that, but have held off. I think it would make a world of difference.

whatever we do, we need to do it soon. Its a lot easier to legislate policy at 1k questions than at 2,3 or 4

Paging @Richard for cleanup on isle 3.

12:10 PM

Alright I'm here. ;)

@Richard how do we make this a viable SE site :)

Aah. I'm caught up.

I... Ugh...

My opinion is that our quality here is crap. We let answers go that should be downvoted to insane levels and thrown into the heap.

@Richard ok, so how do we reform :)

what are our 95 thesis?

3

Yeah. This is so hard. I will give this some thought and meditation and try to come up with something. We are in a bad spot, though.

@waxeagle I totally agree with this though. If we are going to do something, we need to do it fast.

@Richard Mark and co @ prog.se are trying hard, but they have a huge job, 12k questions or so. We have an opportunity to turn this site right at the beginning rather than waiting until its late in the game...but its going to take the 5 of us working hard, and we need strong community buy in

12:18 PM

@waxeagle Yeah, they have a huge job ahead of them, for sure...

@waxeagle There's no question that we need community buy in. I think that's the most critical part. I'll go get some coffee and see what I can come up with.

OK... off for some (more) coffee.

@Richard k

I think I'll do the same :)

@waxeagle Yes. I think we should organize some of the major issues into meta posts (not piece meal as we think of it, but actually with some organization to start with). Then we spend a little bit of time drumming up support and get whoever does support us to help on a cleanup/reform effort.

@Caleb any op to shared google doc to compose?

@waxeagle Great idea.

@Caleb I totally agree with this. I'll see if I can find some examples

12:24 PM

@Richard check Prog.Se for the posse posts :)

One thought: We should (if we can) create a new tag in Meta to group all of these posts together. (Particularly since the search engine here isn't very good.)

@Richard site-cleanup would work

I love this quote from this question:

> But until then, it remains an anarchic paradise of freedom and love.

@Richard yeah shog is a hoot :)

12:46 PM

I'm having a hard time defining what's "bad" and what's "good".

Let's talk about the possibility of scoping questions to always target them against some tradition/faith/denomination.

@Richard huge challenge here :)

@Caleb I haven't seen many useful questions that aren't

we may need to look at those that aren't and see what if any are actually useful and see if we can work them in

@Caleb I think that's a slippery slope that leads back to "everyone's opinion is alright", since I can make my own religion (with its own tradition) at any point.

Theoretially what do we gain / loose with that as a requirement? If not a requirement, could it be one genre of question and we have other requirements for other genres.

1 hour later…

2:03 PM

Regarding what to do with old questions, I think that once we get community consensus about scope, we need to completely remove all the old questions that are out of scope.

Personal opinion.

But, having them around makes me nervous that we'll keep fighting that battle.

@Richard agreed with this. Just close them and let them decay

IMO. if they are not fixed in X days just delete them

That's what closing is for anyways ... a temporary zone on the way to deletion where people can step in to turn them around.

@Caleb exactly

I'm starting to get the sense that what defines a "good" answer is one that has doctrinal or biblical support.

4

Does this sound like a good definition? If so, is it one we should hang our hat on?

(fully support and require)

I think that we should run with that until/unless we can think of specific exceptions where that would not be the case. We will likely have more than one class of question calling for more than one class of answer but ones that require supported doctrine isn't a bad place to start as the de-facto. Anything different would need an agreed upon reason to be different.

2:15 PM

@Richard this. If its not believed by a "broad" swath of christianity its not much use for the broader public

@Caleb I agree. Personal exegesis would be one example that might be allowed, but there has to be biblical support for it.

@waxeagle I agree with this outside of the FLDS/Mormon/JW issue. The minority still needs to be able to answer. Even if it's not much use for the public, I think that it could be useful for the asker.

Admittedly, that shouldn't be our goal, necessarily, but we need to make sure to not forbid other viewpoints.

@Richard right. Another issue I see is just how personal are we going to allow? If I interpret a scripture one way can I express that? even if its different (or counter) to what a specific church believes?

(I guess thats personal exegesis)

@waxeagle Right. I think personal exegesis should be allowed. But I think doctrinal statements need to be backed by an excepted doctrine.

@Richard agreed

This allows us to remove all the wacko stuff that we see.

2:21 PM

@Richard right (although and I don't mean to criticize or belittle here) but how do we tell the wacko stuff from the JW/FLDS/LDS stuff?

@waxeagle LOL. I agree! As long as there is external confirmation of the doctrine, we can accept it. If someone is posting doctrinal stuff on their own authority, I think it shouldn't be allowed.

Unfortunately, that completely goes against the "expert" concept of SE, but I can't think of any other way to make that happen...

@Richard ok, then should external confirmation be required for all doctrinal statements?

I think its reasonable to suggest that (most churches have a catechism or confession that should be linkable

@waxeagle I know... that's the weakness with that argument. :\

@waxeagle Good question. But if requiring a POV becomes the norm they should be self-identifying in which case the usual voting/commenting system should help show what is real and what is posing.

@Caleb good point

also lets be clear that doctrinal self identification must be inpost. It cannot be in profile as those are A. subject to change and B. not immediately evident

2:24 PM

@waxeagle I agree. Plus, if the user deletes their account, the doctrinal basis is gone.

I think this only applies to doctrinal statements, though. If you're going to be posting answering a question with no biblical backing or in a manner that implies application of the bible, it must be identified with a denomination or linked to denominational support.

@Richard right another good reason, or if they choose to strip it out for whatever reason. (we had a similar discussion about user location in gardening. This is less likely to change, but should be in post for the same reasons we discussed there)

@waxeagle Great example!

@Richard right. exegetical statements don't needed to be backed up for the most part. However, some kind of commentary showing that its not just you who believes this would be helpful :)

@waxeagle Yeah, I think helpful, but not required. It just makes for a much more solid answer.

@Richard right, take caution when someone is making unsubstantiated exegesis :)

2:28 PM

I think of this question as an example:

4

Q: What does Revelation 21:5 mean by "everything"?

Revelation 21:5 (NIV):: He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” My pastor included this verse in his sermon today, and after reading it, he added his own emphasis, "And this means ev-ery-t...

exegesis revelation

@waxeagle I'm inclined to think that anything doing serious exegesis of a passage is going to have different needs (and probably not need to identify a tradition/doctrine). My inclination is that anything that wanders off in that direction is going to be more at home on hermeneutics anyway.

@Caleb this is true. But I feel like we should maintain that exegesis is still on topic here, especially until both sites are fully out of beta

@Caleb I agree with this. But if someone is seeking a doctrinal stance, it gets a bit more tricky. For example the question about women being silent in church that showed up on BH.SE

Note that "unsubstantiated" is different than "unidentified/unaffiliated".

@Richard Ya. I think that would belong on SE. I think exegesis is very much on-topic here. And that answers should identify the theological framework / doctrinal tradition that they claim to represent!

@waxeagle I agree exegesis is still (and always will be) on topic here, but only in so far that the exegesis is related to making a doctrinal point or doing practical theology. If it doesn't have a tie in on at least one of those points I would say it's of marginal relevance to Christianity closable as off-topic or migratable to BH.

@Caleb The reason I think that this is difficult with personal exegesis is that many of my exege..s..tu..ic.. interpretation of the Bible don't line up with my background. I'm not sure what background they line up with, though. I think that personal exegesis should be allowed if it has sound biblical support.

@Caleb Hmm... Actually, I can see where your coming from

2:34 PM

@Caleb so stuff that is more theoretical should be migrated? I like it

I believe that women should be silent in church. My church, my background, every doctrine I've studied doesn't believe this however. Would I not be allowed to answer a question about women being silent, since I don't have doctrinal support?

@Richard I actually can see this to a degree.

@Richard That's your problem not mine. Shall I find you a box that fits? (j/k)

It turns the scope of this site into a site about doctrine.

@Richard I would actually welcome this tbh

@Richard I'm starting to think that this might be the only way to really scope this site to be a valid, solid SE site

2:38 PM

@Richard I think the 3 of us probably agree on this.

it would probably help with the troll issue as well

@waxeagle Very much so.

I just had a realization with this, though: Survey answers will become more difficult, since you'll have to find the doctrine that supports the theory.

@Richard :) survey answers typically indicate a bad question in the first place :)

Maybe survey answers would be an exception since they're not trying to push any one viewpoint or application.

I keep coming back to this:

25

Q: Who were the "giants" mentioned in the Bible?

I've come across several verses in the Bible that speak of "giants". For example: Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of o...

bible exegesis nephilim

Actually... given the new scope of "doctrine", I can't see how this question would result in any doctrine.

@Richard right, but I think its off topic if we refine the scope, it finds a home at hermeneutics

That brings up an interesting question: Are Old Testament questions or questions that result in answers that no doctrine support off topic?

@waxeagle Right, still typing when you posted this.

I'm starting to agree.

2:44 PM

@Richard I have a feeling we take OT stuff off the table, except as they relate to a modern doctrinal perspective (IE messianic judaism/covenant theology/dispensations etc)

What rule can we state explicitly (or how can we word it so that it's enforceable) in order to prevent any questions that aren't doctrinally related. Particularly since the asker may not even know whether the answers would be doctrine?

@Richard good question. should be related to "personal beliefs" perhaps?

@waxeagle I think you're right about this.

Wow... Reforming. I'm not sure if this connotes the best meaning, there. :P

@Richard reformation! its the right month for it too!

Caleb has added wax eagle to the list of this room's owners.

Caleb has added Richard to the list of this room's owners.

Caleb has added El'endia Starman to the list of this room's owners.

Caleb has added Mason Wheeler to the list of this room's owners.

3:03 PM

@Richard That's pretty tongue in cheek as far as the connotations go, but I think the English meaning is relevant here :) Hopefully everybody we involve is amiable enough to catch my humor.

This is a place for those with experience or interest in helping us talk through the issues before we make a mess of things :)

2

@Caleb Yay!

(I presume that's meant for everyone invited, not just me. :P)

We have a google doc we've been doing some of our brainstorming and composing in that we'd like for you to contribute to. (@waxeagle link? Either my internet is broken or GDocs won't let me because you are the owner.)

this should work

if it doesn't I will post a different one

3:33 PM

Plans are established by seeking advice;
so if you wage war, obtain guidance.
Proverbs 20:18

1 hour later…

4:44 PM

← 114 messages moved from Christianity.SE Moderators

Alright pinging @dancek and @marktrapp. You folks care to join us for a conversation about cleaning up the mess we've started over on C.SE?

5:03 PM

Does the superping work? @@MarkTrapp@christianity.stackexchange.com

@@dancek@christianity.stackexchange.com ?

@Richard gotta use their IDs

@dancek and @marktrapp

IDs? The number?

@Richard yeah, use the @@ dialogue box

i have to do a funny click in the box while I type manuver

@waxeagle I already did the superping thing.

@Caleb gotcha...then they will come when they come :)

5:05 PM

Oh I see... "user id"

It converts them to the other format latter to display here.

El'endia Starman

Easiest way to recognize a superping is when the person being pinged normally has a capitalized name; the superping lowercases for some reason.

@ElendiaStarman Huh. That's interesting.

El'endia Starman

Yay, there you are @MarkTrapp! :D

user2334

So many pings

user2334

5:10 PM

I don't have time to chat, but figuring out where the pings were coming from was bugging me

@MarkTrapp sorry

Hehe. :) Sorry about that.

Who's Robert Harvey?

@MarkTrapp when you do have some time if you could look at the google doc we've started and give some input. We are strongly considering changing the scope of this site to something closer to doctrine.SE than christianity.se

It's not so much a topical change as a question format guildline change to help mitigate some of the low quality stuff we're drowning in.

5:53 PM

Big question:

What do we do with the Young Earth Creationist posts? Is there any doctrine that fits that?

Is that doctrine due to an established denomination or do we need to consider any substantial Christian movements as well as denominations?

I'm not sure the "rescoping" vocabulary is going to go over well. Is there another way we can describe what we want without making people think that everything is going to be off topic? The real problem I see is "not constructive" formulation of questions, not the topic matter.

@Richard honestly that stuff was only barely on topic from the outset

@Richard Yes YEC/OEC is a doctrinal issue on it's own. Doctrinal unity sometimes transcends denomination/tradition and even faith lines!

@Caleb "Redefining our guidelines"? Or maybe "Refining our guidelines"? Or maybe just "establishing guidelines".

@Richard refining may work.

5:55 PM

@Caleb OK, so it's not denominational support that we necessarily need, but doctrinal support.

@Richard its an odd one because its rarely foundational for a denomination (as far as I know) and many denominations leave it open to personal interpretation/beliefs

@Richard Yes, I think so.

Denominational ties are nice but it won't work for every question.

Right now the only thing we seem to have solidly established is the boundaries of what a "Christian" is (which is very loose). It seems that we don't really have many guidelines outside of that except for the pastoral advice issue.

@Caleb I totally agree with this.

El'endia Starman

@Caleb How about "focusing"?

@Richard agreed. partly that is due to how loosely we have defined "Christian" in this context. However, I think we can probably refine it so that we have more guidelines without being any less inclusive

5:58 PM

@ElendiaStarman Re-focusing? Maybe.

I actually like the word 'reform' but I realize that would go over like a bag of lead bricks.

@Caleb that is actually great terminology.

@waxeagle I don't know if we need to redefine it unless it helps go along with this push to improve/establish our guidelines. I can see that being useful so that someone doesn't go off and establish their own brand of Christianity just so they can say what they want to say on here.

@Caleb I was gonna say teh same thing

@Richard not redefine, just refine. and that is our guidelines not our definition of christianity. that was pretty well set in stone from day 1

@waxeagle Oh, refining our guideline? Yeah, I misread that. Sorry.

@Richard tis ok

El'endia Starman

6:02 PM

A thought about the "who is a Christian" issue: we could put in a bit about having a substantial population in whatever division of Christianity is being considered. As in, we could say that some random person declaring themselves to be in some brand-new denomination wouldn't be considered Christian because there isn't even a single church in that denomination.

This includes Mormons/JWs/the other thousands of denominations.

@ElendiaStarman I think we sort of have been doing this to an extent by asking for some kind of support for strange views. But honestly we don't want to be gatekeepers....

@ElendiaStarman I was going to say something to this effect, but then I realized that it's probably better to leave the definition as is. If there's a nice solid reason for changing it, I'm fully in support. However, it would exclude almost no one that isn't currently excluded.

Hey, @dancek! Check out the Google Doc pinned over there (in the stars)----->

Hi y'all! Should I read through the backlog, or can someone summarize?

@Richard I guess that's what I was looking for :)

user2334

Just read through the transcript and the doc: sounds pretty close to what I would've envisioned Christianity as a site on SE to be, but it's nowhere near what Christianity as a site on SE is right now. I'm cringing because Christianity is starting to mirror Programmers pretty heavily at this point: major scope/quality change halfway through initial beta, most questions don't fit the new site

user2334

Anticipating a huge amount of pushback from the people who love the free-for-all-let's-talk-Christianity-in-an-open-forum style it is today

6:11 PM

@dancek The google doc does some of the summarizing, but the chat log has some good stuff too.

@MarkTrapp Yeah, that's why we're trying to tackle this issue now (with only 1K questions). Also, it's been hard to refine our scope until BH.SE came online.

@MarkTrapp Yes we know. This is why we're ~~dragging you into it~~ asking for your sage advice.

user2334

The issue right now isn't that there are some people who shouldn't be calling themselves Christian for the purposes of this site, but that everyone who has a Bible gets to pretend they're Augustine or Thomas Aquinas: people who aren't really experts and aren't relying on prior expert research are providing answers. Why, if I'm an expert, would I want to answer a question and be placed on the same footing as someone who appears to be talking about something off the cuff?

2

Ok... I'll be happy to read through and take part in the discussion, but I'm a bit busy right now.

@MarkTrapp That is so true.

@Caleb I think the Google Doc should have a section about the new scope... errr... the new... philosophy behind the guidelines.

(That C.SE is about doctrine and exegesis and therefore all posts should have some doctrinal/biblical backing)

user2334

6:15 PM

Stack Exchange only seems to work well when answers can be verified: I don't really care what any one person thinks about an issue: if I want an opinion, I'll ask someone I know and trust. I want an answer that I can use and test. The majority of questions on Christianity aren't of that flavor (although there are some): "What should I think about X?" doesn't work unless the asker specifies under what conditions would an answer be correct e.g. "What is the Roman Catholic Church's view on X?"

user2334

/end wall of text

@Richard I'm not sure where in the doc it would fit, though.

@dancek Whenever you can. This will be ongoing for a while, it just came up that you might be helpful when it comes to thinking out how we communicate what we're thinking here back to the larger community.

user2334

Have you guys talked to anyone at SE? It was impossible to change Programmers's scope until SE came in and laid down the law

El'endia Starman

@MarkTrapp Well, how long had Programmers been around before they started trying to change their scope?

6:18 PM

@MarkTrapp Not except for a few scattered comments. But we plan to. We hoped to conceptualize what we wanted to see happen and how we planned to communicate that, then get their input for more content on that step and back us up going forward

El'endia Starman

By the way, I know Caleb knows you can chat in Google Docs, but does anyone else know?

user2334

@ElendiaStarman 17 days. We launched 9/1/2010, the first rumbling on MSO was on 9/17/2010; Good Subjective, Bad Subjective and the enforcement notice came out on 9/29/2010. We've been battling with people about the scope since then.

@ElendiaStarman Using comments? I just figured it out (by example)

If we use chat over at GoogleDocs then lets please keep it just to meta discussion about the google doc itself and the editing process. Anything conceptual about C.SE should be here in SE chat. That will make it easier when we bring SE staff and others into this discussion.

2

My user name out there is "Anonymous". :P

6:20 PM

@Richard Naw there is threaded comments but there is also chat.

El'endia Starman

@Richard Actually, there's a full chat system.

Aah, I see.

user2334

@ElendiaStarman Actually, it was earlier than that: 13 days. I made a post about the resentment on September 15th linking to an MSO post on September 13th

@Caleb yes doc chat is not logged so there is no record.

@waxeagle Also, when you refresh, you lose your own chat log. So, it's pretty useless.

WEll, relatively useless.

So... back to the personal exegesis issue:

6:31 PM

@Richard it can be handy (my wife and I use it to chat about docs we are creating) but only in that kind of context...

El'endia Starman

(brb guys)

I think we need to allow personal exegesis, but require that doctrine be supported historically. I don't know if these two things work well together.

@Richard The former at least should be identified.

@Richard well it would make some sense, if there isn't a doctrinal reason for the exegesis does it really belong here? (IE is this the line between our coexistance with BH)

At some point we might want to hit up skeptics for some of their referencing criteria.

6:34 PM

@Caleb they are a bit stronger than we probably need to go (no cites -> delete or CW your answer)

El'endia Starman

(back)

but something closer to that would be better than what we have

@waxeagle Yes I wouldn't want to copy them but we might take a few pointers.

@Caleb def

0

Q: FAQ: What makes an answer good on Skeptics.SE?

What does a good Skeptics.stackexchange.com answer look like? What are the qualities that a perfect Skeptics.SE answer would have?

here are their guidelines

@waxeagle Locked. I love it.

6:38 PM

@Caleb yeah they have a different one for comments on it...

2

Q: Discussion about requiring references for all claims

Our current policy on requiring references can be found at the following link: FAQ - Must all claims be referenced? This question contains the discussion that lead to the adoption of the current policy.

discussion references

also relevant

I struggle with the "No original research" idea. It could be useful for the exegesis and doctrinal issues. Since it would give us a sharp sword to divide good and bad answers. But sometimes it seems that personal belief doesn't always line up with doctrines. So, we'd have to research which doctrines support the belief.

(Although, really, I'm trying to decide if that's a bad thing.)

@Richard yeah original research is occasionally going to be part of this site. There are some subjective elements

Ultimately, there is nothing new under the sun. But trying to find the old would probably lead us on huge efforts when really Protestantism isn't about outside support but biblical support.

6:53 PM

@Richard I think you'd be hard pressed to find anything to belief that hasn't been believed before. Ecclesiastes 1:9 The hard part is finding the references.

@Richard This isn't Protestantism.SE. Some others that claim Christianity aren't going to fall into that line of thought.

@Caleb thats a good point. There are several traditions that don't put much emphasis at all on personal revelation.

@Caleb I totally agree that it's not Protestantism.SE, but we have a major portion of our community that believes in the priesthood of all believers. That means that biblical support and personal revelation are just as valid as historical/traditional/doctrinal ones.

And that is why I'm afraid we can't get rid of personal exegesis.

@Richard Savvy. Sorry I understood you to be making a different argument at first.

Yeah, it's somewhat of a generic argument, unfortunately.

I think it's a sound argument; in any case it's the best we have. We simply can't make a guideline against personal exegesis because that would be to force a doctrine on users, but we can give quality guidelines for how it must be presented.

3

7:10 PM

I think we could require references like Skeptics, but we should count Bible references as references, too.

@dancek right. Most answers are at least hurt, if not completely invalid if they don't have references, the question more often than not is where to draw the line. Do we require them, do we suggest them, do we say "its a good idea but not necessary?"

5

A: What lessons could we learn from sites like Judaism.SE?

I've been somewhat active on Skeptics.SE, and I quite like their style. Some of the major lessons learned/decisions made there are: Answers must always have references; if not, they will be deleted. This is more about the specific site; this wouldn't work on SO. For many questions here, at leas...

@waxeagle I think we should require them when there is no doctrinal support (externally linked)

There's a new section that I've added to the G.Doc: Exegesis and Biblical support that discusses this.

@Richard great

@waxeagle It's still in question form. :P

My opinion is that if an answer isn't going to provide external doctrinal support for the answer they are giving, then they need to provide exegetical support showing how the Bible supports the answer. (regardless whether the question is exegetical in nature or not.)

7:14 PM

@Richard I think thats fair

@waxeagle Some of our questions can't really be answered any better with references than without. I'd argue such questions are bad (but I'm totally guessing and welcome any counterexamples). If so, we could require references.

@dancek you are on the right track. If you don't need references to answer its probably not much fo an "expert" question and its probably soliciting too much opinion

I think you may be right. It reminds me of this question recently asked:

4

Q: Should the words to prayers said in private be changed to fit the company?

Why do we pray "Our Father who art in Heaven" and "Pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death". Should we instead pray My Father and "Pray for me, a sinner now and at the hour of my death"? Or is there a reason to always use the same words in those prayers? I know there is some co...

prayer communion-of-saints

It's a doctrinal question, but the top rated answer has no doctrinal support! (I know; I wrote it.)

> Wow... One of those rare posts that I simply write what I believe instead of throwing a bunch of scripture around. Huh.

immediate red flag to me :)

Yeah. In light of this whole discussion today, this post would be off topic.

Furthermore, I question if this doesn't come down to "pastoral advice" or if there is even doctrine out there to support an answer for this.

7:19 PM

@Richard yes as currently phrased, the question is "is it recoverable"

@Richard Not off topic, the question just needs to be reframed.

@Richard there may be some biblical/doctrinal support...

@waxeagle Yeah, there's probably catechism support (for or against).

This whole discussion of including doctrine/references makes the whole pastoral-advice problem an almost moot point.

2

@Caleb yup

7:21 PM

Do we require external links for doctrinal support? (Looking to expand the guidelines.)

El'endia Starman

@Richard I'd say "If possible".

@Richard perhaps references? not every resource will be available online...

El'endia Starman

I think one of the answers on one of my questions has a reference to a document that the answerer couldn't find online.

if a book ref some kind of citation (maybe even an amazon/google books link) would be good

possibly with page # to verify

@Richard Require, no. Prefer, yes.

7:23 PM

I've just seen so many low quality posts that could claim doctrinal support.

OK, I remember... we don't require doctrinal links, necessarily, but we require the doctrine or denomination posted that supports it?

("From the X perspective...")

@Richard sure. And some of that is unpreventable...but we need to see if we can cut the egregious stuff off at the knees. However more important than answers right now are questions.

(IMO)

@waxeagle I think if we are going to rain down terror, we need to attack all sides at once.

sorry, I couldn't resist the "rain down terror" line. =D

Yes, how we can reign in and regulate questions is going to be what makes or breaks this.

@Richard fair enough

emphasis needs to be on questions first. once we have that under control we can start in on answers. Its a lot easier for answers to be handled with voting than questions.

So, what do we do for questions that want multiple opinions? Not allow them? Require that at least some narrowing occurs (Catholic / Orthodox / Protestant)?

7:28 PM

@Richard Not sure. But I think comparison questions should be fair game.

I agree.

Few Christian doctrines are actually definable in a vacuum anyway, they are almost all responses to some other doctrine. Even the wording of the early creeds was often to counter heresy.

I'm also seeing that sometimes the asker doesn't really know if a question is going to have multiple opinions. If you don't have an idea of the answers, you might not know that there are divisions in doctrine among the different parts of Christiainity.

@Caleb True.

@Richard Those might be the questions that call for survey answers.

That's how I've always approached them.

@waxeagle So, what we're saying up here is that we need to establish guidelines for the questions?

7:46 PM

@waxeagle and this comment has 3 "great comment" votes! whoa!

7:59 PM

Ok from the GDoc.... Richard brings up the issue of questions about bible translations etc that are not answerable with doctrine.

What should our guidelines be on POV for these sort of things?

I was thinking of this one in particular:

7

Q: What are the major differences between NASB and ESV?

I've read both the New American Standard Bible and the English Standard Version for some time now. I frankly can't tell which one I'm reading; they're that close. Many passages are translated with the exact same words. What are the differences between the translation ideologies of the two?

bible-translation

I think that this is a great question for C.SE (or even BH.SE), although it may be a bit broad. But, how does that fit given our doctrinal requirements?

There are bunch about KJV issues. The best answers have references, but not biblical or doctrinal.

@Caleb I totally agree. Maybe that's the key: non-doctrinal questions must have references still.

Also, should questions that deal with a specific text but do NOT request how that relates to a doctrine or application be on-topic?

So, exegetical questions must have biblical support; doctrinal questions must have doctrinal or exegetical support; non-doctrinal questions must have external references.

8:02 PM

@Richard I'll go with that. But what non-doctrinal questions are on-topic? Obviously those translation ones should be.

@Caleb Can we limit questions to doctrinal questions? Wouldn't NASB-ESV differences be better suited to BH.SE (since it's about translations)?

Should we even attempt to make that division at this point?

I think overlap should be allowed and this does seem on-topic to me.

@Caleb I'm really struggling with this question...

El'endia Starman

8:38 PM

Concerning this:

> What to do with old questions that fall out of the current/new scope?

I'm of the opinion that we should close and then direct the community to shape them up.

@ElendiaStarman Yes. Just yes.

El'endia Starman

We could possibly use a new tag (like needs-fixing or something) so that community members have an easier time finding the ones that we want them to fix.

Ok, I read through the chat log and the gdoc.

next day → last day (82 days later) »

Transcript for

Oct '1110

Refocusing Christianity.SE

Meta post formulation chat by parties interested in improving ...

join this room
about this room

00:00

06:00

12:00

18:00

all times are UTC

site design / logo © 2024 Stack Exchange Inc; legal

mobile