I recently post four questions:

  1. Was Emperor St. Justinian an Aphthartodocetist? This question is not made to defame a holy and pious saint venerated by both Catholic and Orthodox. I ask this question to study a historical event in the Church history.
  2. What caused division and persecution in the history of Eastern Orthodox Church? brilliant posted a good answer but because my question was closed he put it on comments, please open my question so that people can answer it. Thank you.
  3. Was Calvin a Nestorian? If you're a Calvinist you might want to check this one.
  4. Which religious group believes in the Great Apostasy belief? I've simplified my question. Please open my question. Let me know how to improve it.

Is there a good advice on how to improve my questions so that I can address my question with clarity, objectivity, and generate interest for many people to answer it? I've tried to provide enough information without burdening my question with pages of redundant and non-essential references to my question. I've tried to avoid inflammatory and sensitive comment in my question. I won't mind if people down voted those questions and ask if my question not specific enough or contain too many detailed informations that might be not essential to my question. But I noticed someone down voted my question without trying to give an answer to my question as if they want to burry my question so that no one will notice it? Shouldn't questions get down voted based on their quality and not over theological disagreement?. I understand that my questions indeed are sensitive, but I tried my best to ask questions objectively not to accuse or defame certain groups of people or their beliefs. I simply want to learn and that's why I ask question for people to answer. I'm still a newbie. Please help me to improve the quality of my questions. Thanks.

  • Well, you've got two comments to explain one of the downvotes... Commented Feb 16, 2015 at 4:14
  • @Ward is the link to a video documentary is not considered as a reference? I've provided further detail such as naming the Eastern Protestant movements. Let me know if there is something else lacking from my questions. In regards to question number 1 no one has commented yet. Commented Feb 16, 2015 at 4:20
  • 5
    This is primarily a text medium... I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't think it should be necessary to watch a whole documentary in order to understand what a question really means. Commented Feb 16, 2015 at 4:39
  • I see your point. I'll edit my post with more clarification. How about question number 1? Commented Feb 16, 2015 at 4:49
  • 4
    @AdithiaKusno I'd like to commend you for attempting to improve your questions and overall productivity on the site. I'd like to see you be a regular and appreciated user and I'm glad you are willing to hear feedback.
    – user3961
    Commented Feb 17, 2015 at 19:54

2 Answers 2


Regarding question 2.

  1. Split it into two questions. One for Inquisitions, the other for "Protestants."

  2. Don't use the term Protestant. Yes, it's derived from the word protest, but that doesn't mean all Christian groups that split from another are properly referred to by that name. Protestant has come to refer to a specific movement in history. Are FLDS churchgoers Protestants because they're protesting the LDS Church? Of course not. You can call those Russian groups schismatics or whatever you want, but Protestant doesn't fit the bill.

  3. Clarify your premises. When did this "rise" of division start? Are you sure this period had more division than other periods? What sorts of factors are you looking for? Cultural? Political? Other ones?

  • These groups and and inquisition are related they are persecuted I think grouping them together is better. I changed it to sectarians. You're right this is very difficult to pin point. I can for example refer to Emperor St. Justinian with 40000 massacre. But my aim on that post is solely after East and West split. So Justinian is in the past. My question is narrowed to a specific period after Constantinople was occupied by Turks in 1453 onwards. Persecution of catacomb believers in Russia during Patriarch Sergius under Soviet is included. Commented Feb 21, 2015 at 6:33
  • @AdithiaKusno Your question is too broad. You've admitted it's covering centuries of time, asking about half a dozen different groups, with nothing more than "corrupt clergy" in common.
    – curiousdannii Mod
    Commented Feb 21, 2015 at 8:22
  • @curiousdannii my question is not about each and specific groups. But the common reason that caused their traditionalism in opposition to changes. Commented Feb 21, 2015 at 15:31
  • 1
    @AdithiaKusno - One of the standard close reasons is "too broad" with this description: There are either too many possible answers, or good answers would be too long for this format. Please add details to narrow the answer set or to isolate an issue that can be answered in a few paragraphs. By definition, questions asking for that much are too broad for this site's format. I'm pretty sure curiousdannii was merely attempting to explain how your question meets that standard. You're asking for something that simply is too large a topic for a Q and A format. Commented Feb 21, 2015 at 22:45
  • @DavidStratton is asking the common cause for such movements too broad? I've narrowed down my question to focus only on main reasoning and this has been answered correctly by a user name brilliant. You can read his answers on the comments which moved to chat. Commented Feb 22, 2015 at 0:43
  • @AdithiaKusno Hi Adithia. The structure they have defined here allows for specific denominational answers. Throughout our search for the truth, it is important that each block of truth is solid for the building of other peoples understanding. Even I wish I could see the entire picture at times. However learning to see the wall from the smaller better defined blocks is a skill you'll learn here. In general question concerning reasoning, especially non-denominational question, I have found work better on hermeneutics. Hope you like it here, and have a great day ^^,
    – Decrypted
    Commented Feb 22, 2015 at 1:57
  • It's a historical question not aimed to attack EO church. Both East and West persecuted people, including St. Joan of Arc. Sadly not many people aware that in the East persecution was not less severe. It's an objective question which demands an objective answer. You can check an answer from a user brilliant in the chat. The main reason? Corruption in the clergy. Commented Feb 22, 2015 at 2:10

Question 1: This isn't bad and I wouldn't downvote it, but neither is it very interesting. Long quotes, especially from poor literalish translations, are generally unengaging. I would start by explaining what 'Aphthartodocetism' means. I'd then write half a sentence explaining that Justinian wrote against it. I'd then find a very short quote from someone claiming that at the end of his life he had turned into a believer.

Question 2: You need to provide sufficient context in the question itself for the question to be understood. Don't expect us to read other pages. Never expect us to watch a video! Your last edit improved it by adding names and links to the groups you're talking about. But now it's too broad: it's asking about groups originating over hundreds of years. The European Protestant reformation occured in a shorter time period, and there were much closer ties among the reformers. And even after the edit I still don't understand what any of it has to do with inquisitions.

  • Thanks, I get your point. During 14th to 16th centuries Russian Orthodox Church hunted down and executed these various Protestant groups. Not many people discuss this Russian Inquisition. That's why I ask in order to learn more about it. Commented Feb 16, 2015 at 13:53
  • Why would you recommend against the use of technical terminology? I understand keeping things readable and engaging, but if people don't even know the terms for the things they are discussing are they really the experts we want to cater too? It seems to me we should encourage the use of correct labels for things where they exist and the burden should no fall on askers to explain what terms mean.
    – Caleb
    Commented Feb 16, 2015 at 14:29
  • @Caleb Jargon is useful when there's no common alternative. But why say 'hagiography' when you can say 'biography'? Although in this specific case it might actually be the name of a document, in which case putting it in quotes or italics would help.
    – curiousdannii Mod
    Commented Feb 16, 2015 at 14:34
  • 1
    @curiousdannii I think "hagiography" can add useful information that "biography" doesn't; and it does seem to be a common descriptor, though not necessarily part of a work title. Commented Feb 16, 2015 at 17:48
  • @MattGutting I removed that comment. Still, the OP would be wise to consider how much jargon they use and whether they could use less, because on the whole they use a lot!
    – curiousdannii Mod
    Commented Feb 17, 2015 at 7:42
  • 1
    @curiousdannii I understand your concern about theological terminologies that I used in my questions. I'll explain them so that people will understand the meaning. As regards to hagiography, that is a specific designation we Catholic and Orthodox use to distinguish it from ordinarily sense of biography. But I agree, I'll explain the terms I use so that people won't be confused. Thank you for your comment. Commented Feb 17, 2015 at 20:28
  • @curiousdannii St. Justinian never discussed aphthartodocetism none that I'm aware. I've provided a link to wikipedia explaining its meaning and give a brief description to it. About my second question would quotation about persecution during Old Believer movement improve my question in a better way? Thanks for your input. I appreciate it. Commented Feb 20, 2015 at 1:14

You must log in to answer this question.

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