1

I was wondering what the comments and the answer had to do with this question, (What is the biblical support for being 'born again' in this age or life?) as they seemed to be totally irrelevant.

It turns out that this particular question has had 7 different Titles, asking 5 unrelated questions:

  • new age Christianity
  • New Age Christianity?
  • Why are the creeds still accepted as superseding scripture in this age of enlightenment, information and understanding?
  • Is there a link between God the Son and Jesus who is the logos become flesh?
  • What is the biblical support for 'God the Son' becoming Jesus?
  • What is the biblical support for 'God the Son' becoming the human Jesus?
  • What is the biblical support for being 'born again' in this age or life?

(I suspect this is the result of SE's typically vague messages, such as "ask a different question".)

In order for the answer and comments to make sense, is it appropriate to roll it back to the question that was actually answered?

3

Normally we would rollback such an edit. I don't really see a reason not to do so in this instance - this is better than deleting IMO.

I've given the author a question without answers they can edit instead. Only if someone had no such questions but they still had a question ban should they totally edit a question with answers. However even in that situation I'd prefer they'd discuss it with the mods, so that we can choose the question with the least impact. We want to help, but there are better and worse ways to go about it.

0

Probably the best solution, and the one I just did, is to delete the question entirely.

The community can cast delete votes.

If a closed question was edited by they OP to the point that it invalidated all the answers, we'd just delete the answers, since they probably shouldn't have existed in the first place (although a lot of us like to answer things that we know shouldn't)

0

The question titles should reflect the what body of the body (of the question) explains, without being a too vague or too much of a generalization, IMO.

The mods try not to close questions of their responses until their is a true need.

Question titles must not be edited too such a point that they seriously invalidate already existing answers.

He is an example of a question that was altered that I personally thought should be rollbacked and eventually was by a moderator: Why is there no archaeological evidence that Christians existed for 200 years after 70 AD? Changing the title from no evidence to so little evidence seriously invalidates existing answers.

Generally speaking I am in agreement with curiousdanni’s response to this inquiry. “Even in that situation I'd prefer they'd discuss it with the mods, so that we can choose the question with the least impact.”

The first couple of titles were definitely too vague. The title as it stands now, respects what the body of the question is explaining.

You must log in to answer this question.

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