Timeline for Why can't we ask hard or divisive questions?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 21, 2014 at 6:28 | comment | added | Caleb Mod | Thanks @Andrew! For others interested my answer about voting patterns is here. | |
| Jun 21, 2014 at 5:16 | comment | added | Caleb Mod | @Andrew the question about vote patterns might be worth asking a in its own meta question. Would you mind doing that so we have more room than comments to explain? | |
| Jun 21, 2014 at 5:15 | comment | added | curiousdannii Mod | @Andrew I recommend you ask a new meta question about how to vote on doctrines you disagree with rather than taking this question further off topic. :) | |
| Jun 21, 2014 at 5:06 | comment | added | Andrew | Is there any risk of expulsion for consistently down voting answers with particular doctrinal tendencies? | |
| Jun 21, 2014 at 5:03 | comment | added | Andrew | @curiousdannii that makes sense, and is encouraging. | |
| Jun 21, 2014 at 4:59 | comment | added | Caleb Mod | @Andrew re your first comment here, the way we handle this is that someone who, per your example, did not believe in a historical incarnate Christ would only be allowed to answer questions specifically addressed to that theological persuasion. That limitation is a two way street too. For example a question about the Mormon idea of not just Christ but God having a body would not be the place to refute that doctrine, only to explain the requested perspective. | |
| Jun 21, 2014 at 4:45 | comment | added | curiousdannii Mod | @Andrew And this site allows you to refute false doctrines. Look at all of the "Biblical basis against X" questions. But just as the apostles didn't suggest that the synagogues and Roman temples be destroyed, this site won't censure other opinions. Nor can it give a formal stamp of approval to any. If this website was a church then that kind of tolerance would be a problem, but it's not. It's more like the Areopagus in Acts 17. | |
| Jun 21, 2014 at 4:06 | comment | added | Andrew | @curiousdannii the problem with accepting differences within Christianity, like you suggest, is that it allows the proliferation of false doctrines. We are commanded by the scriptures to oppose false doctrines. As such, tolerance of mutually exclusive doctrines is markedly un-Christian. | |
| Jun 21, 2014 at 3:58 | comment | added | curiousdannii Mod | I am personally against ecumenism on the basis of anything other than Biblical truth, but that doesn't mean that you can't hold debates between people you don't think you can serve God with. For example there are frequently Christian/Muslim debates, but no one thinks that means they're joining together. I think that actually healthy debates only thrive in places where differences are accepted rather than being glossed over. | |
| Jun 21, 2014 at 3:57 | comment | added | Andrew | In reply to "As long as...": If I was answering questions on the programming.SE which included code that violated the particular languages syntax or programming philosophy, would I continually be allowed to answer questions? | |
| Jun 21, 2014 at 3:53 | comment | added | Andrew | I'm concerned with modern ecumenism in modern denominations, and what the modern Christian thinks. Doctrine and ecumenism certainly have an important place in a discussion of (modern) Christianity. It was Christ's own sentiment that a house divided will not stand. | |
| Jun 21, 2014 at 3:49 | comment | added | Double U | As long as that person cites his or her answer in some way, I see no problem with it. We are not here to talk about truth; we are here to understand each other. | |
| Jun 21, 2014 at 3:36 | comment | added | Andrew | Suppose a user who self-identified as a Christian answered questions with the teaching that Christ never existed in bodily form? | |
| Jun 21, 2014 at 2:37 | history | answered | Double U | CC BY-SA 3.0 |