2

I've seen several questions asking for truth or reason recently. Specifically this one today: Why did God create the great flood?

Why isn't this question closed? It does not fit the guidelines of the SE, it is not scoped / contexted in a specific doctrine. And is an example of this: What Christianity.StackExchange is (and more importantly, what it isn't)

0

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
5

When I saw the question this morning I considered whether it needed further scoping and my judgement call was that it did not. The issue is not one for which significant divisions exist in Christianity. The issue of the physical scope of the flood is perhaps a dividing line, but that isn't really relevant to "why" question either way. I couldn't think of any obvious way to focus the question without leaving the essence behind and there didn't seem to be any need to broaden it into an overview question: that's already basically what it was.

The problem with "truth" questions is that we are not the place to decide right or wrong on matters which even "Christian" groups haven't settled among themselves. This question on the other hand is fairly easily addressed from Biblical and mainstream Christian teachings in a broad fashion.

5
  • Maybe I take issue with the second part of the question which isn't needed: "He can re-create the whole universe and fix his errors of the first creation in just 6 days instead of drowning all creations in 40 days of rain. Why not just make a fresh start."
    – The Freemason
    Apr 24, 2013 at 15:06
  • The question is also antagonistic: "unborn children and babies that are probably innocent" Which if your are Christian, you would say that the babies are not "probably innocent", but are born in sin and there for sinful until accepting Jesus as their lord. While I agree that in the secular context, they are "innocent".
    – The Freemason
    Apr 24, 2013 at 15:10
  • 2
    You can "take issue" with the presuppositions of questions if you like -- by answering. Given the user is a new OP I chose to give them the benefit of the doubt on the antagonistic tone and simply laid out the differences between the authors presuppositions and established Christian doctrines that affect the issue. The author can choose to accept that and learn about Christianity, perhaps asking more educated questions as a result, or they can fight it -- in which case any future questions are more likely to take a more defensive stance that will make them harder to answer constructively.
    – Caleb
    Apr 24, 2013 at 15:19
  • 2
    Further reading of his comments suggest that maybe you should not have given him the benefit of the doubt.
    – The Freemason
    Apr 24, 2013 at 15:21
  • 2
    The wisdom of a judgement call to give the benefit of the doubt should be judged based on the original conditions, not later ones. Hindsight is 20/20, but then it isn't really a matter of doubt is it? I stand by my choice and reasoning based on what I had to work with at the time.
    – Caleb
    Apr 24, 2013 at 15:25

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .