Hot answers tagged

11

This isn't really an answer, but a comment that's too long for a comment. I think the key thing to remember when discussing these tags is that we are not defining, nor defending doctrine. We are using language to talk about complex concepts about which there are many opinions. Acknowledging that there is a word "marriage" which can mean to some, "one man, ...


9

My vote goes to "No way!". If a question asks in the title: "Does the wine and wafer truly become the blood and body of Christ" and the body of the question asks, Is it true that the wine and wafer in holy Communion actually become the body of Christ? It's a Truth question. Adding "Catholicism" to the tag is absolutely not sufficient to turn it ...


9

Probably not. Branded Tags are branded by advertising agreement with the companies doing the branding. SE has not put much effort (any that I'm aware of) into monetizing any sites except for the main three sites (SO/SU/SF and maybe a bit on gaming, though it's been a while since they've even done a big promo there), largely because they are committed to ...


9

We should keep non-christian, as it is the most specific of the three, rename it to non-christians (plural), and the others should be made synonyms of it.


8

There is no problem with virgin-mary referring to the Mother of Christ, and the tag does not necessarily immediately call the doctrine of her perpetual virginity to the mind of a Protestant. Even in Protestant churches, it is common to hear "the Virgin Mary," referring to her throughout her life because of her state at the birth of Christ, regardless of her ...


8

meh - I think the existing tags got the job done for that one. And applying "church history" to modern church history is entirely legit in my view. There are actually tags already for ecumenical-council and schism believe it or not.


8

This isn't really a suggestion for action, but a survey of the current situation. A quick glance at the christian-identity questions suggests to me that the questions fall into three general categories: Questions where the tag could simply be removed without any damage to the question. Examples: Why didn't God remove the rainbow? https://christianity....


8

My test is simple: If a question is asking about a single verse with enough information to identify it, it should be allowed (but not encouraged per se). If we are going to allow "simple questions" in other areas, I don't think verse search should be an exception. At minimum, if people really don't like these, they should be closed as "too basic" or "no ...


8

I respectfully disagree with Fredsbend. There is a massive difference between what this community regards as 'a truth question' and an on-topic question regarding a denominational or doctrinal perspective on 'truth'. In my view, it is entirely legitimate to have the 'truth' tag for the purpose of the latter. Examples: What is the biblical support that the ...


8

You can find out what any of the tags means by clicking on "tags" in the top navigation bar and searching for it. None of the tags are capitalized. It's a StackExchange convention. In this case, the Acts tag refers to: The fifth book of the New Testament, giving an account of the lives of the apostles after Jesus' death and resurrection, and the ...


8

As far as I can figure, pretty much any time there would be a meaningful distinction to be made between the two it's reasonable to expect the question and answers to specifically delineate their own scope—as far as a general taxonomy of topics go I don't see a problem with them being lumped together. If there was a substantial amount of expertise that ...


8

I'm not entirely convinced this is a good idea. I upvoted the question because at first bluff I agreed that the term isn't technically quite accurate in describing the range of things that fit under it here. However I'm concerned that we'll lose out on some factors if we rename it. ‘Biblical Basis’ is a bit of a buzz-word that has momentum outside of this ...


8

According to the style guide, latter-day-saints is an acceptable reference to members of the Church. This could perhaps be used as a tag.


7

No, they should not be synonyms. I agree with your distinction: One might argue that early-church refers more to the practice and history of the early church, while church-fathers refers more to the actual men and their writings. Then you posit that "basically everything" we know about the early church is because of what the church fathers wrote. Though ...


7

The extra-biblical tag is for secular historical records. But it really only makes sense to use it for questions asking for records from roughly the same time period as the Biblical texts.


6

I agree in principle, but I think it may be a bit more difficult than it sounds. Unlike Catholicism, LDS, and Jehovah's Witnesses, many "faith traditions" do not have a single right answer. For example, it can be difficult to give a single, correct answer to "what do Baptists teach about x?" Baptists are technically not a denomination but are a group/...


6

I rise to speak in defense of the biblical-basis tag. I love those questions, and I find them to be the most valuable for me. Historically, "Scripture" has been the first of the "sources of theology," and from my evangelical background, the most important. Likewise, when I do theology, while I may find it interesting what certain denominations hold, it is ...


6

Tags are not created on their own, they are added to questions on an as needed basis. We cannot create tags except by placing them on appropriate questions. In order to add tags, a question must first be asked and then somebody with enough reputation points can add the tag. In fact with just s couple hundred points you will be able to create them yourself. ...


6

Actually both tags already existed so I'm not sure why you chose to tag your question with the variant you say here (and I agree) is not as optimal. I have retagged your question and the other two on the site that used heretic with heresy. I also merged the plural version into the main one. As long as no questions pop up using the wrong tags in a couple days ...


6

See this Meta Stack Exchange discussion While you can quote Wikipedia in tag wikis (but not excerpts) as long as you attribute it correctly, it's generally discouraged. If you're asking about making the tag wiki be little more than just a link to Wikipedia, then don't do that. They should be useful and informative by themselves.


6

I suggest christian-identification for questions regarding how some groups identify and define Christianity. I suggest christian-identity-movement for questions regarding that theology/ideology. I suggest identity-christianity as a synonym for christian-identity-movement. I approved your recent edits to the tag wikis and excerpts because they were a step ...


6

verse-identification is a cancer and should not be allowed to metastasize. Other sites have struggled with similar tags with poor results. Gaming has disallowed the similar game-id tag, and SFF routinely has arguments over their story-id tag. Here's the thing, Google is already super good at this kind of thing. You type in a few words about a topic, and it ...


6

The purpose of a tag is to provide a useful set of questions to make it easier for (potential) question askers to find the info they need and/or make it easier for experts of a specific subject to find things to answer. The general standard should be something along the line of "does the subtag refer to a specific subject that may generate questions of a ...


6

Trinitarian is generally too broad in my opinion unless the question specifically address the concept of the Trinity. If the question asks him Trinitarians address the theory of evolution, that's not properly scoped. If the question asks whether Trinitarians agree that John 1 indicates that Jesus the Son and God the Father are one and The same, that's ...


6

Tagging is to help find and sort questions - they should apply to the context of the question, questions themselves still have to have all the context in them. So, if I tag a question virgin-mary the question has to be about the Blessed Virgin Mary. That's easy. If I tag a question catholicism the question has to be about Catholicism, not just expected ...


5

I'm going to reassert the position that there's nothing wrong with "Is there a Biblical basis for believing X?" it's a completely different thing from asking "Does the Bible teach that X is true?" Take the following: Q: Is there a Biblical basis for believing that the earth is only roughly 6000 years old or so? A: Why yes, there is, if you take ...


5

I think in principle they have different meanings, though "Church history" is certainly a subset of all history. But if we can't rely on people to know the difference - it's certainly not obvious, when asking a question, that these separate options are available - then we should just merge them. Our history questions are generally about finding out what ...


5

All better now. Some rambling to reach the character limit....


5

Too broad for what? Whether or not that tag is specific enough to narrow a question down to an answerable scope is highly dependent on the content of the question. For many things, yes it is too broad. For some other things, it's quite specific enough. An analogous situation might be the Unix site. For a general question about where the kernel space vs ...


5

To give you responses to your questions yes, that's a good number. The important thing is to respect teh front page and not push stuff down that is new or recently edited. The fact that edits bump is an important part of our peer review process. This mostly depends on the volume of edited posts, if the posts you edit are getting pushed past "the fold" (the ...


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