From time to time there might be a question that need to be put on hold because it is a duplicate or the question is not clear and too broad. But even after the person who asked the question finish reediting, it might not be made available immediately unless it has enough vote. This is a good system which in ideal situation work for good for the community. In a more realistic situation because of the sensitivity of a particular question, a group of people with different and conflicting interest might be trying to flag or even put on hold some questions for particular reasonings that might be justified.

  1. How Christians explain that Isaiah 7:14 refers to a virgin? This question is not about finding truth on that passage but about doctrinal issue on how Christians substantiate their belief in that passage.
  2. How Christians explain why Greek Septuagint of Genesis 3:43 refer to Dinah as a virgin? This question is related with the previous question in such a way that an answer to this question will help Christians to explain their doctrinal stand in Isaiah 7:14 for the virgin birth of Christ. Jewish apologetic particularly use this passage.
  3. Did the early Church Fathers believe Christ assume our fallen humanity? This question is important in order to answer one of my other question on the difference between Original Sin and Original Guilt. I've made a few questions in connection with this like Was Calvin a Nestorian. I made those questions so that later I can make an all encompassing question to ask the question I've been waiting for to ask. I even personally invited Patristic scholars to this site just to have their expertise on the subject matters because there are not enough Catholic and Orthodox on this site. I can understand how ridiculous or may be confusing my question might be. But that's because Catholic and Orthodox in comparison with Protestant think differently. Our presupposition differ. Unless this question is reopen it would be next to impossible for me to address Sinlessness of Theotokos in the Third Constantinople, Dormition of Theotokos, Perpetual Virginity of Theotokos in the Third Constantinople, Ephesian Marian Devotion, Filioque, Purgatory, and Toll Houses in Florence, Papal Infallibility in the Third Constantinople, Maximian Synergism, Palamas Deification, and Nicene Hierarchical Ecclesiology. This particular question is the corner stone to the rest of my over arching questions. If you're interested to have further interesting questions that you never have heard before please help me by voting to reopen this question. You won't regret your decision.
  4. Is there a future for ecumenism? What is the main obstacle for Christian unity? This I agree might sound opinion-based and truth question. But far from it, I want to use this question as a basis or hub if you like to connect my overarching questions. The main thing which lead me to Eastern Catholicism and not Eastern Orthodoxy is solely rested on this question. This is a fact question not truth opinion based question. I'm not asking what people might think about Ecumenism. But I want to learn what hinders such Christian unity. What doctrinal problems that have not been resolved. I want to use that knowledge to address it one by one. I give one example on the Doctrine of Justification: At Colloquy in Regensburg (except Luther who can't come) Calvin, Melanchthon, Bucer, and Bullinger all signed the document clarifying dual justification which later adopted by Jonathan Edwards' Evangelical Obedience and Richard Gaffin's eschatological Justification by works. I'm not arguing that all Protestants agree with this. But I'm going to use this question as the connector to my other ecumenical questions in order to clarify one by one the doctrinal issues which still divided us. Our differences in regard to the nature of Justification is analogous to the past Christological dispute on the nature of Christ. In 433 one nature Christology and two natures Christology are reconciled even though we know in 451 our Church was divided. But we also note that there have been resurgence among us to seek doctrinal reconciliation even with the miaphysite Copts. The Catholic view on one nature Soteriology and Protestant view on two natures Soteriology are analogous with the past disputes. If you're interested to see how I connect these dots please help me by vote and/or giving me advice on how to salvage this question so that it can be reopened to ask with a proper question that fit this site regulation.

Any vote to reopen this question or/and advice to help me improve this question is welcomed.

  • 3
    "I want to use this question as a basis or hub if you like to connect my overarching questions." That's not the purpose of this site.
    – curiousdannii Mod
    Commented Mar 15, 2015 at 5:21
  • Mr.Bultitude in one of his comment suggest (in a different context) that it's better to break my question into few smaller questions and linked them together. That might not the purpose of this site but it never forbid such approach. Theology is a complex issue. I can't approach it head on need some angle and perspectives. Commented Mar 15, 2015 at 13:43
  • If you have a lot to say and some grand plan, perhaps you should blog instead. There is a site blog, but not many contribute anymore.
    – user3961
    Commented Mar 15, 2015 at 21:06
  • Currently I don't have time to blog. I'm following Bultitude's suggestion to make brief questions and compile them together to make a point. But to do that I need to ask a lot of questions. The third question is very important to me. Without that everything that I'm going to ask will be nonsensical. I need one more vote on that one. Let me know how to improve on that one. Commented Mar 15, 2015 at 21:37
  • 1
    I think you need to start self answering. Sometimes it seems like you're trying to use the Socratic method on this site, by asking questions in order to lead people to think a certain way. But that's a very poor fit for this site. Ask simple direct questions, and answer them if you know the answer.
    – curiousdannii Mod
    Commented Mar 15, 2015 at 23:37
  • I will. The questions I've asked are direct. Having particular goal in mind is better than not. We all have our own reasoning behind our questions. One can ask random unrelated questions or one can ask consecutive questions aiming for particular goal. Both are valid approach, I prefer the second. This site is for Q&A. I'm using it mostly for my FB discussions among Miaphysites and Eastern Orthodox. I've no hidden agenda. People can read my profile and guess where I'm heading with my answers and questions. I hope my questions give people an appetite and curiosity to answer it (no pun intended). Commented Mar 15, 2015 at 23:52
  • 1
    @AdithiaKusno I would bet that the time you've spent here could have been spent on some knock out blog articles. Probably at least two articles per question you've made. If you still think this is the best route, then you need to self-answer.
    – user3961
    Commented Mar 16, 2015 at 1:58
  • @AdithiaKusno I disagree. Most of your questions are neither clear nor direct.
    – curiousdannii Mod
    Commented Mar 16, 2015 at 5:13
  • @curiousdannii it's unclear to you because we hold different presuppositions. When I was a Protestant I can't see how could St. Augustine be reconciled with Eastern Orthodox semi Pelagianism. Until I become a Catholic I start to realize things in a way I before couldn't grasp. He for example distinguish culpa from reatum. This is why babies were born guiltless but they need to be baptized because the fall of Adam is transmitted to them. Guilt is a hypostatic property not natural. I know your feeling I was there. Please ask me for clarity in case we spoke different theological language. Commented Mar 16, 2015 at 13:00

1 Answer 1


Regarding your example questions:

Your first and second examples have the same issue: they wereHermeneutics questions and belong over on the Hermeneutics site.

Your edits changed them to "What do Christians teach" attempting to change them to doctrinal questions, but the way it's been edited is no good either. They're too broad. StackExchange sites have "too broad" as a standard close reason because the intention of the site network is to focus in on focused, specific, answerable questions. The close reason verbiage reads:

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.

Any question that asks "What Christians teach" or "What Christianity teaches" is too broad by definition simply because there is so much variety of doctrine that falls under the umbrella of "Christianity" as defined by the site. See Is it valid to ask if “Christianity” teaches anything?

Your third example was edited, and the community already has four re-open votes. It's just one more vote away. The system seems to be working there. We may just need one more high-rep user to review it to get it reopened.

The fourth one is opinion based, and regardless of your motive, those need to stay closed. "Opinion based" is another variation of "Truth". I'm not going to bother going into why that's bad here. It's been covered elsewhere. I'll throw the following links at you on the subject, however. The last one is one I'd refer to if you'd like to get it re-opened. The trick for turning an opinion/Truth question int an acceptable one is simple in most cases.

On a final note, regarding this statement:

In a more realistic situation because of the sensitivity of a particular question, a group of people with different and conflicting interest might be trying to flag or even put on hold some questions for particular reasonings that might be justified.

The purpose behind all the site guidelines are to ensure that questions don't turn into debate. This isn't a discussion forum, and we spent quite a bit of time figuring out how to prevent that. The challenge for the site from day 1 was how to prevent people from differing viewpoints from using the site as a soapbox, or from ridiculing other positions. In other words, the guidelines are meant to prevent groups with differing interests taking over the site. See Christianity.SE vs. Survivor

Overall, the system works well. We're able to get problematic questions closed quickly, while avoiding accusations that "You closed my question because you have different religious views". The close reasons are understandable, and consistent with the site's purpose.

The system breaks down when we start allowing opinion-based questions, or ones that aren't focused on specific denominational teachings.

On a final note, I get where you're coming from. I certainly didn't get how the site works at first, and caused some issues with some of my early attempts to participate. You're doing a lot better than I was in the first few months. Read through those links I posted, and think about how you can re-phrase your questions to avoid the pitfalls identified in them. You'll do fine.

  • Thanks David, excellent input. I'll do my best to edit my questions and hopefully my edits will squarely fit this site criterion. I joined this site because I've seen repetition in questions from recent convert or people who're interested with Orthodoxy or Catholicism. To safe myself from repeating the same answer and instead of referring them to two years conversation on that subject (who'd read 500 conversations on FB forum?) so I decided to make my own questions and refer them to mine. There aren't enough Orthodox or Catholic on this site. But I hope someday more will join this site. Commented Mar 15, 2015 at 19:48

You must log in to answer this question.

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