10

David hinted at this (and I agree with his assessment that no we are not too quick to close these days) but I think it bears emphasising that up/down voting on posts should not correlate to close/open voting. These are two completely separate functions for a reason and the use cases for each are different. Somebody could put a ton of effort into a very good ...


9

TLDR; Yes, standards have changed. More specifically, I see two distinct things that have changed: Biblical Hermeneutics launched as a sister site. Many of the "What does verse X mean?" questions are now better suited for this site, which delves into the textual context, translation nuänces, etc, of scripture. They strictly do not address interpretation ...


9

If you feel it should be closed, vote to close it. However, "theistic evolution" is undeniably linked to Christianity, specifically. As evidence of this, a quick Bing search returns tons of links pointing to various Christian sites - apologetic and otherwise, and in the top results, I see zero results for any other religion. A Google search returns ...


8

No, I don't think people are too quick to close. right now I think it's just about right. There was a time in the past where it was the exact opposite and clearly off-topic questions remained open far too long. Like it or not, some questions that get positive votes still need to be closed, and closed quickly. There are plenty of users who ignore the ...


7

It wasn't me that unilaterally closed it, but I probably would have, had I seen it, and I may or may not have left a comment. Typically I comment heavily, explaining why I'm voting to close, down-voting, etc. specifically to be helpful as you're suggesting we should. However, if the OP has been around a while, I'll comment less because I assume he or she ...


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

First of all, +1 for raising this question at all. It's a valid concern. In general terms a question that is no broad to be reasonably answered would need to be closed as not a real question. In the case of my question you have used as an example, I think, in spite of being an overview question, it could be answered in just a few paragraphs. The one answer ...


5

It should be closed as phrased, but a very slight modification can salvage it I tend to agree that the "Unclear" doesn't fit but... It could be closed for either the "Primarily opinion-based" or "Questions asking for the truth or validity of a particular doctrine or belief (aka Truth Questions), and questions asking Is X a Sin? are not a good fit for our ...


5

I understand why some people thought it off-topic - Absent the excellent addition of saying "What methods / tools", some people may have thought this to be a truth question: "How do you know" Others may have thought this to be more about exegesis and less about doctrine. That said, while I understand, I firmly believe this question to be wholly on topic, ...


5

I don't think it's a rant. From both the text and Jon's comments it sounds like it's a question he's genuinely struggled with, making it meet the "practical answerable question you actually face" criteria in every FAQ, moreso than many other questions we get. I'll confess to bias here, I like Jon, I like both Edwards and Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,...


4

The edit history of the question will show close/open details ifany exist. If they don't register in there it must not have been closed.


3

The mods here don't close unilaterally very often either. Only when it is obvious (at least to experienced users). Caleb probably does it more often than others, but he is very consistent, meaning, there is no ambiguity in why he does what he does; he consistently upholds site policy. Now, I already answered the other question you had and gave you specific ...


3

So my perspective is that there are several levels of interpretation. It's hard to split them, up, but here is my go: Word definitions, syntax questions (ex. what does the crazy old-timey KJV syntax of this verse mean?) Identifying referents (ex. who is the king mentioned in this verse?) What is the point of this verse, or what is the basic doctrine it ...


2

All exegetical questions less than 60 days old which have no tradition specified should be flagged for a moderator requesting that they be moved to the Hermeneutics Stack Exchange if they are on-topic for the site, not too broad and not primarily opinion based. Questions older than 60 days should be closed or edited to re-scope them or bring them on topic (...


2

It looks to me like it's predominantly an hermenuetics question, which means it probably belongs on BH. If you look at the end note you'll see that the OP later posted two questions on BH that solved his problem. The one answer is got here was a massive bit of copy pasta, not an actual answer. What the OP was looking for was an answer about lingual ...


2

I voted to close it to prevent people from adding new answers. The question is excellent and the answer is great as well. Any new answers would likely not add to the quality. I would not be in favor of deleting it. What I hope would happen is that it remains closed, but is never deleted. It should be closed because it is a list question, which is generally ...


2

This was all discussed at least once already, but I think it is worthwhile to revisit it now and again as the site evolves. There may be opportunities to get better close reasons as we see more traffic and more common patterns of low quality posts. As noted here, I think that two of the close reasons are effectively duplicate and could be merged into one (...


2

I wonder sometimes where the line is between "too broad" and "Off topic because... General philosophical or sociological questions are off-topic unless clearly asking for a doctrinal answer. Often, the net effect is the same - because it's not seeking a specific doctrinal answer, it's too broad to answer. That works in reverse as well. Often a question ...


2

It may have the wrong close reason, but it's still an opinion question and should remain closed.


2

I think we're doing okay. I don't think I can remember any times when my close votes have expired on this site, unlike how they have on other sites; I don't mean when a question goes through the review process and enough people disagree with me that the questions stay open, I'm talking about when a question accumulates a few downvotes but not quickly enough ...


1

Rather than asking only for Catholic answers, it would be much better to turn it into a textual-discrepancies question. To do that you'll just need to quote from one of the verses which says that Jesus will judge.


1

Ok, so fixing the help centre as per Fredsbend's comment is part of the problem, but it is a somewhat separate issue and would (I imagine) involve quite a bit more discussion and implementation. But my preferred option for a more immediate action is to either add as an additional option (for off-topic VTCs) or just replace the existing "General philosophical ...


1

There are three problems I see with this question. The most obvious one, IMO, is that it's very broad--there are many ways in which one could find relevant scriptures. These methods range from the most obvious textual search (for instance to find all scriptures which mention the word 'money'), but could grow to include wildly speculative (When Christ said "...


1

I would suggest that it differs from most "ranty" questions we see in at least one significant way: It is directed at a specific theological tradition and is therefore answerable using concrete, verifiable references from authoritative sources. Also, uncharacteristic of rants in sheeps' clothing, it doesn't actually preload the answer in the question. Sure, ...


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