THIS QUESTION was asked about the fatherhood relationship of God with His son. It was asked openly, inviting answers from anyone. I spent time on my answer, carefully referencing and documenting each point I made, with the textual references all shown below.

A short while later, after a few commenters had expressed their doctrinal disagreements, the moderator deleted the entire post with this comment:

From the tags this question is clearly asking for the Trinitarian view, which this is not. Please refrain from posting invalid answers. – curiousdannii ♦ Jul 16 at 14:00

However, that was false. None of the tags specified "Trinitarian." Perhaps realizing that this was so, and attempting to cover his/her tracks, the moderator then edited the question so as to support this claim. The timestamps on the comment versus the appearance of the added "According to Trinitarians:" heading in the OP substantiate this.

In other words, the moderator deliberately misrepresented the case in order to have a reason to delete the post. The post itself had nothing in it that would run afoul of the rules here: it was civil, on point, and carefully written.

Here is that post, in its entirety (between double horizontal rules below):

According to the Bible, God is invisible1 and no one has ever seen Him2. In fact, Jesus goes so far as to say we have never even heard His voice3.

In order for His creatures to be able to relate to Him, God manifests Himself to them via what in the Old Testament is referred to as "the angel of Yahweh"4 (translated as "the angel of the LORD" in KJV), and in the New Testament is called the Son5, or Christ6. In the New Testament, Christ is further identified as being a "son" begotten of the Father7. This "begetting" was not in all respects after the human order, via both father and mother in what we call "procreation." It was, however, the creation of a separate being from God the Father, one who was placed on an equality with Him8 and given authority with Him9. It is this Son of God who serves as the mediator for all creation between us and God10, and he is the spokesperson and representative for God.

God Himself, however, has never been seen, nor heard by anyone2, 3. As we know that Jesus was both seen and heard, according to the Bible11, this "Son of God" cannot himself have been God--which makes perfect sense because a son is never the same person, being, nor identity as his father. The Father is "the only true God12," and the Son is the one God sent to represent Himself to us13.

Jesus said his Father was both his Father and his God, just as He is to be our Father and our God14.


1 - "Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen." (1 Timothy 1:17, KJV)

2 - "No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." (John 1:18, KJV); "No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us." (1 John 4:12, KJV)

3 - "And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape." (John 5:37, KJV)

4 - "And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed." (Exodus 3:2, KJV)

5 - "Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:" (Colossians 1:12-16, KJV)

6 - "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." (2 Corinthians 4:4, KJV)

7 - "So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee." (Hebrews 5:5, KJV)

8 - "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" (Philippians 2:6, KJV)

9 - "For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. . . . And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man." (John 5:22-23, 27, KJV)

10 - "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;" (1 Timothy 2:5, KJV)

11 - "And, behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus: and when they saw him, they besought him that he would depart out of their coasts." (Matthew 8:34, KJV); "And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus' feet, and heard his word." (Luke 10:39, KJV)

12 - "These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: . . . And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (John 17:1-3, KJV)

13 - "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." (John 3:16-17, KJV)

14 - "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." (John 20:17, KJV)

Now, here are screenshots which document the inappropriate deletion, and the subsequent attempt to cover the moderator's tracks. Take note of the timestamps shown as the mouse hovered over those events.

enter image description here enter image description here enter image description here

Notice the sequence of the timestamps in each of those, and how the OP itself was edited after the fact in order to give a reason for the inappropriate deletion.

I afterward attempted to report the post as having been deleted without sufficient cause, but no response was given. That was before I had noticed that the OP had been edited to add the "According to Trinitarians:" line. I tried to report this new information as well, and the system would not allow it as there was supposedly one report pending already.

How should issues like this be handled, presuming that the same moderator against whom the complaint comes is the one handling the reports? Is there any mechanism in place on the SE network for addressing complaints with a third-party moderator? I was reticent to even post here, not wishing to be simply banned for complaining about inappropriate moderation, and I would far rather have had some recourse by which to address this complaint. However, as this is not the first time this particular moderator has removed my posts, and typically for a doctrinal disagreement, I feel I need to seek for some solution.

Thank you for any help you may offer towards a worthy resolution.

  • 4
    The question twice refers to and asks questions about, 'God, the Son'. Your answer states specifically 'this "Son of God" cannot himself have been God'. Thus your answer contradicts the question. I agree with the Moderator that the answer, for this reason, should be deleted.
    – Nigel J
    Aug 11, 2023 at 11:33
  • 1
    @NigelJ When talking about a dogma originated by the Catholics, it is expected that their own terms would be used. However, the very fact that the title of the question asks: "In what sense is God the Father a father to God the Son? And in what sense is God the Son a son?" indicates the questioner's lack of confidence in the Catholic interpretation; i.e., it is not evident that the questioner supposes that the Son is God.
    – Biblasia
    Aug 11, 2023 at 11:41
  • 2
    Trinitarian doctrine can by no means be said to have been 'originated by Catholics' unless one accepts that, by definition, everyone was a 'Catholic' (at the time of the Council of Nicaea) or, at least, was part of a spectrum which had not yet been fully segregated into denominations. Labelling mainstream Christianity (which is what Trinitarianism is) as 'Catholic' is simply misleading and inaccurate. On a site such as this one would epect more discipline in terminology. The question has asked about 'God, the Son' (displaying no 'lack of confidence' whatsoever). And you contradicted it.
    – Nigel J
    Aug 11, 2023 at 11:46
  • @NigelJ You will find ample evidence in the asker's other participation here that he does not accept the dogma. The Council of Nicaea was formative for Catholic doctrine--though Catholics themselves attempt to claim that Peter was their first pope--which, if that were true, then Nicaea should be well after their church developed. The fact that "mainstream Christianity" has accepted much of Catholic dogma, as opposed to God's Word, is prophesied in Revelation. These denominations constitute the daughters of the Catholic church--as Catholic catechisms have also attested.
    – Biblasia
    Aug 11, 2023 at 12:09
  • 1
    You have contradicted the question (which regards 'God, the Son') and your contribution is, therefore and per se, in regard to some question other than the one under examination. The site simply cannot operate in the way you are attempting. Thus, your answer was, quite properly, removed.
    – Nigel J
    Aug 11, 2023 at 16:01
  • @NigelJ The question writer has said in another place: "I'd have trouble attending a trinitarian church because I would be worshipping a different God and would be not one with them.". Now, that makes it rather clear, doesn't it, that he is not using this term "God, the Son" as one of veneration. His question is attempting to understand why people even use this term. My answer provides Biblical support for what many find confusing. If the Bible and its truths are not valued on this site, one has to wonder how much "Christianity" is really in evidence here.
    – Biblasia
    Aug 11, 2023 at 16:53
  • 1
    Biblasia yiu are correct Nigel is wrong and curious has been caught red handed
    – Kris
    Aug 19, 2023 at 1:25
  • Sadly, what you (and I) have repeatedly experienced is simply the believers of a specific dogma panicking as the time is coming for the whole confused narrative to be exposed on a grand scale. Jesus was also persecuted for speaking truth. The truth comes out in the end, but it's a bumpy ride getting there!
    – steveowen
    Jan 15 at 21:19

1 Answer 1


However, that was false. None of the tags specified "Trinitarian." Perhaps realizing that this was so, and attempting to cover his/her tracks, the moderator then edited the question so as to support this claim. The timestamps on the comment versus the appearance of the added "According to Trinitarians:" heading in the OP substantiate this.

There isn't a distinct "trinitarian" tag; the "trinity" tag is generally understood as indicating that the question is scoped to Trinitarianism ("trinitarian" is even a tag synonym of "trinity".) See this prior discussion. The only time that wouldn't be the case is if the question explicitly gives it another scoping (for example, "how do Unitarians respond to this aspect of Trinitarian doctrine?"), which this question did not. It is not "covering up" to make edits which make explicit what was originally implicit. The question asker has since made many more edits, none of which removed the sentence I added, but instead only further reinforced that they are asking for an explanation of Trinitarian theology.

If you didn't agree with the implicit scoping I saw (and then made explicit via edit #4) then you should've read the question as being inadequately scoped and not answered at all. As an experienced site user you should know by now that we do not allow unscoped questions which are a free-for-all for all denominational positions. I'm sorry you're upset, but this is how the site has operated for years, long before I became a mod.

However, as this is not the first time this particular moderator has removed my posts, and typically for a doctrinal disagreement, I feel I need to seek for some solution.

None of the mods delete posts because of personal doctrinal disagreements. If we did then we'd be deleting each others' posts all the time! We delete answers when they do not match the scope of the question. That's what happened here, and it's what happens hundreds of other times.

Is there any mechanism in place on the SE network for addressing complaints with a third-party moderator?

If you want to dispute any moderation decision with SE staff, you can do so via the "Contact" link in the site footer.

  • If it is really so that there is no "trinitarian" tag, perhaps this lack is part of the problem--especially for a site so focused on answers coming from the particular "choirs" of the respective churches. Is it really true that only Trinitarians can talk about the Trinity here--unless Unitarians are expressly invited to do so?
    – Biblasia
    Aug 11, 2023 at 7:51
  • Scratch that. I just checked and verified that "trinitarian" IS a tag here. Back to square one with your "explanations."
    – Biblasia
    Aug 11, 2023 at 7:54
  • 2
    @Biblasia Personal beliefs are never relevant - no one is ever restricted to only answer for positions they personally believe. What matters is that answers match the perspective the question asks about. If a question asks what Trinitarians believe, then a Unitarian rebuttal is off-topic. If a question asks what Unitarians believe about Trinitarian teachings, then Trinitarian answers would be deleted. You may not be able to see them, but we've deleted many Trinitarian answers that are not properly scoped, and even given suspensions to Trinitarians for inappropriately posting answers.
    – curiousdannii Mod
    Aug 11, 2023 at 7:55
  • " I just checked and verified that "trinitarian" IS a tag here. Back to square one with your "explanations."" It's a tag synonym. Read the linked discussion.
    – curiousdannii Mod
    Aug 11, 2023 at 7:55
  • I'm sorry, but "Trinity" and "Trinitarianism" are not synonyms. They have separate meanings and purposes, and there is a reason both words exist in our language.
    – Biblasia
    Aug 11, 2023 at 7:56
  • 1
    They're tag synonyms on this site. If you think they shouldn't be, well feel free to write up a proposal for the community to evaluate. I'd be up for de-synonymising them if there was a good argument to do so. But that's actually irrelevant to my main point: the intention of the question asker was pretty clearly directed towards Trinitarians, and if you disagreed, then you shouldn't have answered.
    – curiousdannii Mod
    Aug 11, 2023 at 7:58
  • The question asked about the relationship of the Father and the Son, and did so in such a manner as to question many of the assumptions commonly made. It did not indicate that only Trinitarians should answer.
    – Biblasia
    Aug 11, 2023 at 8:01
  • 3
    @Biblasia Why do you think the question included the "trinity" and "persons-of-the-trinity" tags if they just wanted a general question scoped to everyone?
    – curiousdannii Mod
    Aug 11, 2023 at 8:02
  • I understood the questioner to include those tags because the question related to those concepts. Tags are for identifying the subject matter of the question to make it easier to identify--not solely for identifying whom should answer.
    – Biblasia
    Aug 11, 2023 at 8:04
  • This is exactly the reason there should be a distinction between "trinity" and "trinitarian." The latter would be a marker of whom should answer, while the former would indicate the subject matter of the question.
    – Biblasia
    Aug 11, 2023 at 8:06
  • @Biblasia I return to what I said before: if you didn't see an adequate scoping then you shouldn't have answered.
    – curiousdannii Mod
    Aug 11, 2023 at 8:10
  • 3
    "Many questions have no scoping at all--so no one should answer them?" No one. Those questions should be closed, edited to specify a scoping, and only then reopened and answered. (Note that I'm referring to doctrine questions, not church history questions which are generally okay to be not denominationally scoped.)
    – curiousdannii Mod
    Aug 11, 2023 at 8:12
  • 1
    The "scoping" here appears enforced in favor of Catholicism in every instance. Not a surprise, I guess, when the moderators are Catholic. Perhaps this should be "Catholic.SE" and there should be a separate forum opened for "Protestant.SE"--with Protestant moderators. It would be more consistent with other divisions here, such as a separate forum for Judaism, etc.
    – Biblasia
    Aug 11, 2023 at 8:17
  • 5
    @Biblasia I'm not Catholic! And scoping is definitely not enforced in favour of Catholicism. I don't even know what would make you think that.
    – curiousdannii Mod
    Aug 11, 2023 at 8:19
  • 1
    "what would make you think that." The fact that most of my removed answers touched on the essential Catholic doctrines, Trinity at the top of the list.
    – Biblasia
    Aug 11, 2023 at 8:23

You must log in to answer this question.

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