I posted an answer to a question but some folks raised objection. Apparently as defined by this meta post I'm supposed to confine my answer to an official doctrinal position.
This is a bit difficult for me to do because I do not subscribe to any denomination or creed. Nor do I attend any Church. I've had some bad experiences with organized Christianity so I stay clear of it. For me Christianity means reading a good Biblical book on Sunday afternoon and killing time in the office by roaming Christian sites on the internet.
My beliefs are ideas cherry picked from a lot of different sources. For example, I side with orthodox Christianity on deity of Christ but I side with Jehovah's witnesses on mortality of soul.
In essence you could classify me as a Christian anarchist.
So you can see the problem it creates for me. I can't cite an official position because I don't have one. Sometimes I don't even know the official name for my beliefs until it's pointed out to me by someone.
This has me confused about my role on the site. I am wondering if I should confine myself to only asking questions.
Not to mention that I sense some duplicity here. I have seen several atheists contribute to this site who's opinions are well received. I'm wondering as to what denomination or official doctrine could they represent in their posts.
So my question - Should adherence to official doctrines be the only indicator of quality? Or do we need to rethink that criteria a bit?