Timeline for What policies do or could make a site like this "successful"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
27 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:56 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://christianity.stackexchange.com/ with https://christianity.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 16:39 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/ with https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Dec 17, 2015 at 6:37 | comment | added | Caleb Mod | This is a really low bar but it is actually pretty effective to keep the noise down. It works. But besides that, I think you (@Jay) are confusing two issues: the absurdity or inaccuracy of any given belief in it's own right does not translate to absurdity for inclusion on this site. The decision to not be a bastion of truth—in fact to not dispute absolute truth at all—is not as crazy a basis for the scope of a site as it would be if your personal faith took the same attitude. | |
| Dec 17, 2015 at 6:31 | comment | added | Caleb Mod | @fredsbend Somebody with a little more knowledge than Ali could easily 'get around' that because there really is a whole movement of folks that considers themselves both Christian and Muslim. They would be on topic here, but I wasn't going to point him in their direction either. Which brings me to your point Jay—our minimum requirement for a "group" is very low: one person besides yourself posting something not on this site that you claim to also adhere to makes a group. So it takes two kooks and one private blog, and the blog has to be the other person's, not yours. | |
| Dec 17, 2015 at 0:45 | comment | added | curiousdannii Mod | Personally, my standards for 'notability' would be if someone has published a book about a position. By that criteria we sometimes do address questions about specific individuals, but it's a step up from crazy uncle Bob's blog. | |
| Dec 16, 2015 at 22:11 | comment | added | ThaddeusB | @Jay Asking how a position is supported by those who believe it is quite a bit different than asking if it is true. Honestly, I'm not sure how anyone could equate the two. | |
| Dec 16, 2015 at 21:37 | comment | added | Matt Gutting | One more thing - given that the site requires objectively correct (and therefore checkable) answers, it's necessary that a given group of people calling themselves Christian have some set of doctrinal beliefs which they publicize in such a way that it's reasonable for others to be able to find them. If nobody can verify that a group calls themselves Christian, we can't accept them as calling themselves Christian; similarly, if nobody can verify that they do or don't hold a belief, we can't state that they do (or don't). | |
| Dec 16, 2015 at 21:35 | comment | added | user3961 | @Jay "Arguments against x?" are indeed allowed. Most of them ask for biblical arguments (how is the Bible used to argue against this doctrine), but other forms include "Why does this denomination/person teach against it?" The focus is on what Christians believe and preach, not on what is exactly true. That is the difference between an on-topic question and an off-topic Truth question. "Are JW's wrong?": off-topic. "What are the primary arguments against this JW belief?": on-topic. | |
| Dec 16, 2015 at 21:30 | comment | added | user3961 | @Jay Re: Muslims claiming to be Christian. Allow me to introduce you to Ali. He tried multiple times to convince us to allow him to quote the Quran and for us to consider Muslim views as Christian, despite his insistence/agreement that Muslims do not consider themselves Christians. If he couldn't get around it, then I don't think anyone can. Muslims simply do not consider themselves Christian. | |
| Dec 16, 2015 at 21:25 | comment | added | Jay | @fredsbend "What is support against doctrine X?" Excuse me, I thought the more recent site policies explicitly disallowed such questions. That is a "truth" question, isn't it? | |
| Dec 16, 2015 at 21:25 | comment | added | user3961 | @Jay Yes. And questions regarding those views as they relate to the practice and beliefs of Christianity are on-topic. But again, answers with those positions would be out of place on questions asking about the Trinity, for example. | |
| Dec 16, 2015 at 21:23 | comment | added | Jay | @fredsbend So if I can name two people who do not believe the Bible and who say that Jesus was an ordinary man, and who call themselves Christians, then this site will accept that position as "Christian"? Okay, easy enough: Thomas Jefferson and Anders Breivik. | |
| Dec 16, 2015 at 21:22 | comment | added | user3961 | @Jay Re: inclusion vs. exclusion. The positions that say "Actually, you're wrong" are not disallowed. They just must be in the right place. "What is the support for doctrine x?" cannot be answered "There is no good support because it's wrong." Instead, that answer belongs on "What is the support against doctrine x?" This dichotomous approach to topics has been going on for at least three years now. | |
| Dec 16, 2015 at 21:20 | comment | added | user3961 | @Jay We've encountered some strange beliefs before, and when none of us have heard of it, we ask the poster to prove that more than himself believes it. That's not unreasonable. So the answer is two. Two persons or more must have publicly expressed it. | |
| Dec 16, 2015 at 21:20 | comment | added | Jay | @TheFreemason I'm sorry if I was unclear. I didn't say that I thought that people I disagree with should not be allowed to post here or that their opinions should be dismissed. That's the position that I'm AGAINST. I'm saying that I should be allowed to say, "I think you are wrong because ..." The moderators are saying that that is not allowed, and that posts claiming that there is such a thing as truth and error will be deleted. I am for INCLUSION, while site policies call for EXCLUSION. | |
| Dec 16, 2015 at 21:15 | comment | added | Jay | @LeeWoofenden Hmm, sounds like special pleading to me. How many people have to believe a certain way to constitute a "group or denomination"? Ok, one isn't enough. Ten? A hundred? What if they have a web site and a checking account? If someone said, "I don't think that Foobarists are really Christians, and so their beliefs should not be considered here", that would be out of bounds. But if someone said, "I don't think there are enough Foobarists to constitute a 'group', and so their beliefs should not be considered here", that's legitimate? | |
| Dec 16, 2015 at 18:17 | comment | added | Lee Woofenden | @Jay What individual Christians believe is off-topic here. If there were a group or denomination of people who held the beliefs (or unbeliefs) that you mention while proclaiming themselves Christians, then ridiculous as it may sound to most Christians, its beliefs would be on-topic here. But practically speaking, most non-Christian groups and denominations consider themselves to be . . . non-Christian. | |
| Dec 16, 2015 at 18:14 | comment | added | The Freemason | and THIS | |
| Dec 16, 2015 at 18:08 | comment | added | The Freemason | @Jay Now how does this relate to the site? Well, we don't declare who is Christian or not. If your Rosicrucian, LDS, Unity, JW, Catholic, or Protestant (or anything in between), you should flag your questions to that denomination where it will be answered by those who understand them in that context. To say that we're not going to allow question from fringe Christian groups would open a Pandora's box - where would it stop? Even within denominations, people don't agree. SEE THIS | |
| Dec 16, 2015 at 18:06 | comment | added | The Freemason | @Jay the relationship between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (in chronological order) is a bit of a sticky situation as each proclaim to be extending the previous. While Islam would not consider itself Christian, they do believe in Jesus and many of the traditions which Christians subscribe (born of a virgin, healed the sick, etc). Christians believe they extend Judaism in that the Jews didn't even realize that their messiah came and he was Jesus. However many Jewish followers believe that Islam and NOT Christianity is more compatible with Judaism. | |
| Dec 16, 2015 at 15:11 | comment | added | Jay | "Muslims don't identify themselves as Christians." That's begging the question. I'm presenting a hypothetical: Suppose a Muslim did. Suppose someone said that he doesn't believe there's a God, he doesn't believe Jesus ever lived, he doesn't believe the Bible, but he calls himself a Christian because he agrees with Christianity's moral teachings. By the standards of this site, you'd have to accept that he is a Christian because he said so. That seems to me to be patently absurd. | |
| Dec 16, 2015 at 15:06 | comment | added | Jay | OF COURSE if someone asked "Does the Catholic Church believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary?", the correct answer is "yes". To say, "no, because it was not necessary for Mary to be conceived sinless in order to accomplish God's purposes" or some such would simply be wrong. Whether one agrees with the part coming after the "because" or not is irrelevant to the question of what the Catholic Church teaches. But I think it would be highly relevant if someone knowledgeable about the Catholic position said "yes, because ..." and explained the justification for the doctrine. | |
| Dec 16, 2015 at 11:55 | comment | added | Caleb Mod | @user27239 The distinction between a Christian site and a secular site where Christians answer questions topically related to Christianity is important and something we actually hashed out pretty early in this site's history—even before we figured out what question formulations were constructive or not in this format. See for example Brothers, we are not Christians‼ | |
| Dec 16, 2015 at 2:15 | comment | added | user3961 | @user27239 Allow this wikipedia article to correct your thinking. A site moderated by Christians is not necessarily Christian. | |
| Dec 16, 2015 at 1:38 | comment | added | user13599 | "This is a site about Christianity, not a Christian site." I call foul. This is a Christian site and certainly not a site about Christianity. Lee, you are an ordained minister and just check the profile of the other mods! What self deceiving nonsense. | |
| Dec 15, 2015 at 22:55 | comment | added | user3961 | Yes, chat is where opinions fly free. "You always do this to me. I say something, you disagree, then later you seemingly agreed all along." - chat message | |
| Dec 15, 2015 at 22:40 | history | answered | Lee Woofenden | CC BY-SA 3.0 |