4
  1. and : these two tags get confused quite a lot. I think it would be a bit clearer if was changed to .

  2. and : should these tags be merged? There's a lot of overlap between them.

  3. : this tag gets a lot of different things in it. What about if we split it up, into for questions about past saints, and for questions about what it means to be a saint according to various denominations?

  4. : this tag really covers too many different things. I'd suggest splitting into , , . Anything else in there?

| |
  • 2-3, I agree. 4 - I would rather see a comprehensive tag of 'human relationships' myself. As for 1 - I assume there are two real categories referring, firstly, to the four 'gospels' - as they are called - and, secondly, referring to 'the gospel' as the entire doctrine of Christ. – Nigel J Jun 5 at 9:50
  • 1
    @NigelJ there is a relationships which is probably an ambiguous one. One thing with tagging is that the tag not only has to be descriptive, it also has to be something we'd expect a visitor to think to write. – Peter Turner Jun 5 at 13:07
  • I've started working on these. It will take quite some time to retag everything! – curiousdannii Jun 17 at 2:36
3

I recommend preserving both and , since although in some popular usage the terms are interchangeable, in a site like C.SE it's important enough to distinguish so we can classify questions better. I edited the so the difference is more obvious.

Reflecting academic literature in theology & philosophy, is the creation of the standard while is the application of a particular situation to that standard. In Christianity the standard is called Moral Theology or Christian Ethics.

To apply the meaning to the questions:

  • Questions which focus on application (where the standard is relatively clear, due to denominational scoping, for example) should be tagged . If the question involves conscience or the parameters of the moral act, it is an indication of application. Some recent ones are tagged appropriately already.
  • Questions which focus on standard such as changes in history, ambiguous Bible interpretation which causes different rules, comparison among denominations, influence of philosophy to moral theology, relation to virtues, comparison among thinkers, etc. should be tagged .
  • What can be confusing is popular usage of right/wrong behavior in non-religious situations such as business ethics, medical ethics, etc. In Christian theology parlance, the application actually IS morality proper, while deriving secular laws out of Christian doctrines can be called ethics (as in university course names "Business Ethics" and "Medical Ethics").

See Britannica article for further discussion on popular usage.

| |
  • How much do you think the current tags are following this distinction? – curiousdannii Jun 19 at 0:15
  • 1
    @curiousdannii Just by quick scan (without opening the question) around 90% that have "morality" should remain. Around 80% that have "ethics" should remain. A handful that have both need to have "ethics" dropped. When it's borderline (needing both standard and situation), having both tags are ok. – GratefulDisciple Jun 19 at 0:51
  • I think both tags excerpts should say both what they are, and also when to use the other tag instead. Do you want to try writing them? – curiousdannii Jun 19 at 0:53
  • @curiousdannii done. – GratefulDisciple Jun 19 at 19:26
1

I think questions like this:

Do Roman Catholics believe Saints are omnipresent?

asking about what saints do in heaven need the tag

| |
  • Why not sainthood as well, as it's about what it means to be a "saint" in Catholicism? – curiousdannii Jun 19 at 0:58
  • I thought your definition for the sainthood tag was on the requirements of a person being recognized as a saint, not the duties of the office. – Peter Turner Jun 19 at 12:56
  • I was thinking any and all of that. Though questions about requirements would probably be better tagged as canonization. – curiousdannii Jun 19 at 13:02
  • oh, then yeah, I'm OK with sainthood as a direct replacement for saint and adding tags for what the question is actually about. Do you think most Christians would have an understand of what communion-of-saints is (even if they don't agree on what it means)? I thought so since it was in the Nicene Creed that they would. – Peter Turner Jun 19 at 13:12
  • Yeah I think communion-of-saints is fine. – curiousdannii Jun 19 at 13:37
0

For I think it would be a good idea to make the main tag and have , as a synonym for it. This'd disambiguate which is a bummer nobody asks about. I looked at the tags we use that start with "the-" and I think they're all likely to get replaced by tags that don't start with "the-" (i.e. the-glory-by, the-lord-of-the-rings, the-beloved-disciple). There are tags that probably should start with "the" like ", but when used as a tag, probably ought to not have "the"

I would have thought someone would have addressed this by now; if tags should start with the word the, but I haven't found any advice on the metas. My assumption that this would be in the encyclopedia under "pearl-of-great-price, the". I don't think we're want to change papacy to "the Papacy" or "Virgin Mary" to "The Virgin Mary" or as she is in the Catholic Encyclopedia "Mary, Blessed Virgin, The"

I dunno, blame St. Isidore of Seville, or pray for his intercession.

| |
  • I just tested making a "the-gospel" tag, and the software didn't stop me. I do like "gospel-message" as another option for the main tag, more than "good-news" (though that could be a synonym). – curiousdannii Jun 6 at 0:06

You must log in to answer this question.

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