8

It is always acceptable to tackle and show the error in false assumptions. In you example, the false assumption is that Baptists must obey the Levitical law. Your answer corrects that. However, questions with seriously obvious false assumptions tend to get closed on this site anyway. You example question, for example, is, well, a dumb question. I would vote ...


8

Scientific evidence is of course allowed where it is appropriate. For example, it's reasonable in answer to a question about wine in the Bible to point out that wine is preserved better than grape juice. However it's worth restating that the site is about Christianity. It assumes a Christian viewpoint. If you start answering questions with 'science says ...


7

Answers claiming to represent group X should prove it Everybody1 considers Scripture to be Truth2. But nobody agrees on what that Truth is. With regards to that specific example, Catholics absolutely hold Scripture to be a source of truth that satisfactorily answers the given question. However, the current answers at the time of writing have made no effort ...


6

There is no reason to exclude it provided that it's relevant to a well supported answer. However, most denominations do not hold science to the same standard to which they hold scripture and their own confessions and so it should probably not be a primary source as science is rarely a source of doctrine or dogma.


6

There is strong precedent on Stack Exchange sites for removing material that does not directly deal with the question. One specific subset of such material is addressed on Meta Stack Exchange: Should 'Hi', 'thanks', taglines, and salutations be removed from posts? Similar rationale applies here. In short, by focusing on answers, and not ...


4

I'm wary of a sweeping site policy that encourages users and mods to remove large portions of answers, despite how off-topic they are. This happens a lot on Skeptics and it really quite irks me. To be fair, it's a very different topic with different site rules, but the hard line rules they do have lead to heavy deletion, of which this line-item deletion ...


4

Neither of these are great answers per-se but neither are they flagrantly out of place. Neither of them exhibit the classic NAA symptoms we deal with a lot around here and neither one seems to be in need of moderator intervention. While the question mentions Catholicism it actually covers a lot of topical ground common to Trinitarians. While the answer only ...


3

Answers don't have to provide references or quotes to authoritative sources if they think it's common knowledge that denomination X teaches doctrine Y, but authors should be ready to provide them if ever challenged. There is a big difference between saying "Catholics/Presbyterians/Creationists believe..." even without providing proof, and saying "The Bible ...


3

Assumptions of Biblical Basis questions "What is the Biblical basis for ...?" is to be understood, in my view of the answer, as really meaning "What might some Christians (somewhere) believe to be the Biblical basis for ...?" This is not literally what is being asked. Someone asking "What is the Biblical basis for ...?" may, in fact, mean this, but it is ...


3

Personally the examples I remember seeing almost always include some other major problem and I usually approach these posts from the more defined other problem than the somewhat vague issue of the rhetorical device used. Yes I think answers that lean on rhetorical questions tend to be much less useful than ones that present the answers to those questions, ...


3

The question was asked many years ago, and since then we have clarified our community conventions for Biblical basis questions. The current conventions are that answers must almost always be in support with the basis asked for. Those who think a doctrine has no Biblical support are asked to refrain from answering it. Occasionally it is appropriate to ...


2

Certainly there's a mess to clean up due to more stringent standards on the site now than when it was new. Retrofitting old questions to new standards clearly creates problems of its own due to answers that were based on the earlier form of the question. Over on the Judaism StackExchange, I edited a question I had asked when an answer pointed out a major ...


2

Well, here's an idea that came to me while I was replying above. I don't like to see good questions left completely without answers, even if I can only give an opinion-based answer. In those cases, I will leave a comment. So perhaps the solution is to convert the accepted and upvoted answers into comments. I've had an answer converted to a comment before, so ...


1

A standard of question which inherently rejects this core fact about Catholic epistemology cannot be considered valid, therefore: we must allow for questions not to specify specifically a dogmatic or official statement of the Church, for her teachings are not all officially declared, and those that are, are but a subset thereof. Questions about Scripture ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible