text:
Intelligent Design should be off-topic unless it is specifically related to Christianity in the question
Intelligent Design is a philosophy that comments on the origins of species. It is often pitted against a naturalistic Theory of Evolution, and is even more often conflated with Christian Creationism. And if Intelligent Design may actually be Christian (it's not), ID proponents do not call their philosophy inherently Christian, therefore, their views are off-topic here.
We have the intelligent-design tag, and four questions tagged with it. The newest one certainly seems like general philosophy to me. Two others also seem that way as well. I've voted to close all three. The fourth was already closed as "not constructive" in 2011.
The only exception here should be Christian perspectives on Intelligent Design. Questions like "What has noted theologian said about it?" or "What has Christian denomination said about it?" would be on-topic.
This seems obvious to me, but it has not yet been discussed in meta. Comments?

The closest meta discussion I can find is this: Are questions on a Creationist explanation for scientific observation on topic here? This meta policy mandates that science is off-topic, but Christian use, discussion, and perspectives on any science is on-topic. How this relates to ID is that questions on the validity of any science the movement espouses is strictly off-topic, but descriptive questions about ID science that *self-identified, notable Christians proclaim is on-topic.

The thing I'm struggling with is that while these guys are associated with ID, they may also be associated with Creationism.  So, Dembski, for example,  may be on topic if he is a prominent Christian creationist.

@Nathaniel That's the conflation issues I mentioned. Dembski may be a creationist, but ID proponents are not necessarily creationists.

It's the same with deism: it's not enough to believe in a creator god, there had to be some acceptance of Jesus as the Christ to be in scope here.

@curiousdannii Last I checked there were quite a number of sects and cults that are in scope here that don't accept Jesus as  the Christ. Rather self identification as ‘Christian’, whatever that means to them, is what determines if they are in scope or not. I think the question becomes whether the holder of the views being asked about equate them with their ‘Christianity’ or not.

@Caleb People disagree a lot about what it being the 'Christ' means, but I don't think there are any self-identifying followers of Jesus Christ who reject that Jesus is the Christ! Who are these Christians who think that?

So, let's take something obviously outside of Christianity, like politics.  If I ask, "How does X reconcile his political belief Y with his Christian theology?" where X = the Pope, John Calvin, or Mitt Romney, do we accept the question for all three X's?

@Nathaniel I would for the Pope and John Calvin, but not Mitt Romney. Romney may profess Mormonism, a self-identified form of Christianity, but he is not a theologian of any kind. Instead, a question about Romney's politics should be directed at a theologian of his particular beliefs. Or generically at the LDS church, because they are organized enough to have generic statements about things.

@curiousdannii For any group to be on-topic, they must self-identify as Christian. That's been the rule since before either of us were regulars. I think you know this. Are you trying to make some other point?

@fredsbend I'm not really trying to make any point, just saying that self-identifying as Christian and calling Jesus the Christ are surely essentially synonymous. Sure technically it would be conceivable that a self-identified Christian would reject Jesus is the Christ, but no established group I've ever heard of does.

@Nathaniel I think the question about political beliefs would be in scope here if X explicitly says those beliefs are grounded in X's Christian theology. If X doesn't personally make the connection between their faith and their politics, this probably isn't the place for discussing it.

@BruceAlderman I agree. X must say their political idea is connected with their faith. We don't get many politics questions though, and this post is about ID, but a new meta post saying exactly that would get my upvote.

So, then, if A and B are true, where A = Dembski is not a Christian theologian and B = Dembski does not connect ID with his Christianity, then questions about Dembski's ID beliefs are off topic here.  I'm OK with that, but "A" seems hard to define and "B" may not actually be true.

@Nathaniel Also, Bruce found that Dembski's site exists for the purpose of forwarding Christendom. Bruce's Comment This is less obvious to me now. However, the validity of the science is still off-topic.

Although it's true that ID proponents don't use Christian terminology in their scientific work, there should be little doubt that ID is a form of Christian creationism.
1) Every leading ID proponent is a fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (formerly the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture). Although the Discovery Institute promotes itself as a "secular think tank", its mission statement indicates that its goal is to promote "the Judeo-Christian culture" over "the contemporary materialistic worldview".
2) The Discovery Institute's 1998 Wedge Document (pdf) explicitly states, "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
3) Following the 1987 Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard which prohibited the teaching of creationism in public schools, the creationist textbook Of Pandas and People was modified to replace the word "creationists" with "design proponents". In one place, a sloppy cut-and-paste job resulted in the phrase "cdesign proponentsists".
4) Several leading ID proponents are also active in the "theistic science" movement, which aims to replace methodological naturalism as a tool of scientific invstigation. Discovery Institute fellow J.P. Moreland has written, "Theistic science is rooted in the idea that Christians ought to consult all they know — including theological beliefs — in forming and testing hypotheses, in explaining things in science, and in evaluating the plausibility of scientific theories.
More specifically, theistic science expresses a commitment to the belief that God, conceived of as a personal agent with great power and intelligence, has through direct, primary causation and indirect, secondary causation created and designed the world for a purpose."

Thank you for illuminating some things. This helps a lot.


text:
Why do smart quotes not appear as smart quotes in Christianity.SE, but they do in BH.SE?
Does anyone have an idea why smart quotes do not appear when typed in Christianity.SE, but they do appear when typed in Biblical Hermeneutics (BH).SE?
For example, I am typing beginning and end smart quotes in the post creation/editing box by using Alt+0147 and Alt+0148, as follows: “ ” On the other hand, these are beginning and end dumb (straight) quotes: " "
While the smart quotes do in fact appear as smart quotes in the post creation/editing field, when I actually submit the post and view them, they appear to be dumb (straight) quotes. Yet, if I do this exact thing on BH.SE, they both appear as smart quotes here while I type in the post creation/editing box and also after I submit the post.
What could explain that?
Here is a screenshot of what I type while editing a post, versus what appears when I post:
What I type before posting:

What appears after posting:

Even though the current default font doesn't have glyphs for proper quotes, don't give up using them! They do show up in the mobile apps, when reading posts through a feed reader, when syndicating the content in other places, and we can hope someday SE uses a font without so many shortcomings (this isn't the only issue with it).

The primary font used to display text on this site is Lusitana.  This is different from the one used on BH.SE (Helvetica Neue) because that site uses the standard Beta design (see this and this; you can also confirm by looking at the actual CSS for BH.SE and for C.SE).
Helvetica Neue supports curly quotes, but according to Google Fonts, Lusitana does not:

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Default specificity for questions?
It seems that a lot of energy is put into commenting on questions from new users that their question is too broad, that it should specify some reference to some specific doctrine, etc.   The pattern I have seen has been 1-3 days of comments, and then the question is either revised or closed.
Wouldn't it save a lot of time and effort to simply rule that if one does not specify a specific context, then it is understood that one is asking about how one would answer in the context of his or her domination?

Then your just asking for their denomination. Still asking questions.

First of all, we frequently do not know the OP's denomination. Second, the OP may know the teaching of his or her denomination but be curious as to what other denominations teach. Finally, the OP may be looking for an answer that covers Christianity generally, and it is these that are deemed too broad.
On the other hand, if the answerer(s) answers in the context of his or her denomination, we can not assume that is the answer(s) the OP was looking for. This would just encourage answers to questions that, because of their broad scope, ought not be answered.

And of course many questions are from non-Christians who don't know about the many denominations or that so many issues are debated within Christianity.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Is it a form of discrimination to make someone ask numerous questions?
Is it a form of discrimination to make someone ask numerous questions before they can reply to a question they are most able to reply to? Yes.
Is it a form of duplicity to make someone hungry to join only then to blockade them with a ridiculous "reputation points" embargo, when such an embargo is not made explicit? Yes.
Please cancel my registration here.

Protected questions clearly say "Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site" - I don't see how you could think that it's not explicit.

Maybe if you knew how much spam this site has to deal with then maybe you would understand.

The moderators can't delete your account for you.  You need to request it here

You only need ten points to answer protected questions. That's two up votes on a question and only one on an answer. "Numerous" is not the word I'd use; it's a pretty low bar, and only on questions that have a history of attracting non constructive attention.

Is it a form of discrimination to make someone ask numerous questions before they can reply to a question they are most able to reply to? Yes.

Yes, of course it's discrimination. And it's completely appropriate.
It discriminates against people with little knowledge of our system, who are more likely to create low-quality posts, which ultimately end up being deleted.
This sort of discrimination is entirely appropriate here, and everywhere.


text:
What are the guidelines spelling out when a 3rd party can edit a question?
Someone edited one of my questions with no explanation.  They were fairly simple edits, but the person who edited is not listed as a moderator and I would have preferred to leave my question as is.
Where are the guidelines for what 3rd parties are and are not allowed to edit on a question and who is and is not allowed to edit?  I searched through the answers and questions here, but couldn't find anything.

Who can edit?
The content of this site is user generated. As such, anyone can edit it, even anonymous passerby surfers that don't even create an account.
Before you have an aneurysm at the thought that any yahoo with a keyboard can ruin your posts, understand that there's effective checks on all edits.
First, if anyone under 2000 rep makes any edit it is put through the edit review queue and not immediately made public. Users with over 2000 rep may mark it as valid or invalid. Second, users over 2000 rep generally understand the site and have proven commitment to its quality, so they may edit at will. All completed edits bump the page to the top of the active list. Everyone will see what's been edited and by who. There's no secret editing feature, sorry.
Guidelines for when edits should be made
Edits that are acceptable on all posts, whether yours or another's

Grammar - Always acceptable.
Spelling - Always acceptable.
Formatting - Always acceptable if it helps break content into a more readable form.
Tags - Always acceptable if the question is well categorized into tags you are adding in, or doesn't fit well in tags that were added by the previous revision or original post.

These are what you might call administrative edits. There's a 6-character minimum on edits, so if the only issue with a post is a missing period, you'll have you ignore it and get proper treatment for your OCD, or 'cheat' and change a word or something.
Edits on others' posts that are acceptable with the right context

Clarity - A bit subjective, but almost always acceptable. Things like using the correct names for things, shorten complex sentences but keeping the context and meaning, etc.
Title doesn't match the body - Sometimes it obvious which one the asker is really asking about or it's been clarified in comments. If you don't know, comment instead.
Factual inconsistencies - Acceptable if the question does not depend on it. If the question is based on it and it is a common mistake, let an answer address it.
Bulk removal - Some people give way too much detail in their questions. It's usually acceptable to remove it and condense the question into its main parts.
Remove personal information or details - As you may know, pastoral advice is strictly disallowed. So if someone leaves their name, email, whatever, remove it. Also, sometimes pastoral advice can be edited to remove the personal nature of it, and be generalized into something the asker may still be interested in.
Comments make clear what should be edited - If the asker is new to Stack Exchange and clarified in comments what he's asking, then you can make the edit yourself. It's a good idea to inform them of it comments and suggest a rollback if they don't like it.
Get a closed question reopened - An attempt to bring a closed question to within site guidelines is an admirable cause. Make sure that the change doesn't completely break current answers. Know when this is not worth your effort; not every question needs to be resuscitated and brought back to life. This is something you will have to learn through experience.

Edits on your posts
Do whatever you want. It's your post. Just kidding. You wrote it, but it's the community's post, and the community expects you to treat it accordingly.
All edits in the previous sections are fine if its your post. You understand what you want to say better than anyone. Clear up confusion, add a point or two, fix your spelling errors, adjust the title, remove some bulk, and so on. If its a question, be very cautious of changing it in such a way that existing answers no longer answer it. That's bad. Ask a new question if it's unavoidable.
Guidelines for when edits should not be made

Trivial changes - Things like changing words to synonyms of that word because you like that word better, or generalized pronouns changed to the other gender, etc. If it doesn't improve the post in any way, it is trivial.
You want to change the question into something else - Even if it's your question, don't do it. Make a new question instead. Exception: the question is only a few hours old, and it's not answered yet.
Site guidelines are laid out on this meta site, so if you are not familiar with them, don't try to fix bad questions, unless it's your own and you're learning.
You want to bump the page to the top of the list, you dirty rep monger. But seriously, if you make the post better, then earning a few ups is just cherries.
The question is offensive - Even if it contains hate speech or foul language, do not edit it. It's counter-intuitive, but you should downvote and flag instead. "Offensive" flags have an auto script that will remove the content if the flag count is high enough. Editing resets the flag count. Let the community work the way it should; they don't need you to protect them from swear words or hate speech.
The question's content has become a point of contention - Take the issue to meta or just drop it and move on. You always have downvotes and comments too.

That last bullet is important especially for your context here. You are the post author, and as such you have a special insight into its intention. If an edit violates the intention of your question, change it back via the rollback feature. But if it starts to become an issue, where you and one or more people are editing back and forth, it needs to stop immediately and you all can take it to meta or just drop the issue. This is called an "edit war" and like real war, it may be important to the participants, but the rest of the community is rather aggravated by it.
The spirit of editing guidelines
The point of all editing guidelines is to help you make posts objectively better. Whenever editing, ask yourself "does this improve the post, the page, and the site?" All three must be "yes" before you try to edit. Grammar, spelling, etc accuracy are self-evidently good.  Bringing posts within site guidelines is good as those guidelines have been tested and laid out on this meta site and proven to nearly always keep content at a certain level.
The rule of editing efficiency
If you decide to edit a post, edit all of its problems in one go. Search for other problems other than the one that made you decide to edit, then fix everything you catch.

Completely off topic, but your description of real war made me chuckle. On topic: where does removing unnecessary restrictions or framing (which narrow the possible answers to just one: the one the OP wants) land? Bulk removal? Or don't edit and just DV?

@Joshua With too many restrictions on the frame of the question, I would comment asking why they are all important to the asker. I have trouble imagining a question like this that's not pastoral advice. Do you have an example, real or otherwise?

http://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/23157/24841 An answer to another question is not simply referenced, but stated as it should be assumed true. I've commented with no response, though it's an older question. But I'm not even sure the assumption is necessary. Surely it can be clarified independent of an answer to another question? Should an edit even be attempted if the OP does not respond? I may end up answering but with a starting disclaimer that my answer will technically not be abiding by the question's requirements.

@Joshua It seems to me that the assumption is basically "assume it to be true that at Christ's death, he was separated from the father" You could change it to that, but I don't think it's terribly necessary. It's certainly more concise than what's there now.

Possibly reference that answer in a <sub> link

Overall, I don't feel like there's too many restrictions on the question. Basically just the one, and a note that modalism should have a special consideration.

I love "...and get proper treatment for your OCD..." - as someone else has said in another context (Lee?): I resemble that remark.

Editing privilege is earned at 2000 reputation.  See the help center.
At lower reputation levels, users can edit posts but the edits need to be reviewed and approved.


text:
Question "Martin Luther and the Bible" should not have been closed
@YOONJI's question Martin Luther and the Bible was marked my community vote as a duplicate of Why was Martin Luther attempting to change the canon. I don't believe this should be the case.
Richard's 2011 question was threefold:

What was Martin Luther's purpose in removing Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation from the Bible?
Was Martin Luther's removing these books a doctrinal stance against these four books?
Do these four books contain doctrine that we should, per Martin Luther, not believe?

On the other hand, YOONJ's question was whether "any of the changes implemented by Martin Luther affects [sic] our current modern Bibles in any way".
This is a completely different question and is broader than what was asked by @Richard and has a different answer.  Luther, for example, eliminated all of the Deuterocanonical books from the Bible that was recognized by the Roman Catholic Church whence Luther came, and were included in the Old Testament canon by multiple first-millennial Church councils. Neither of the existing answers address this.  The answer to YOONJ's question is almost certainly yes, Luther's changes did affect our current modern Bibles, since most Protestant Bibles exclude the Deuterocanonical books, whereas Catholic and Orthodox Christian Bibles included them before Luther and continue to do so.
I suggest unmarking YOONJ's question as a duplicate.  It is not a duplicate and it is not answered by the answers to the other question.

The question has been edited to clarify. Unfortunately, it now includes questions that are primarily opinion based and truth questions about why Luther did it and whether he was right to do so. That's why I voted not to reopen it.

@LeeWoofenden I've further edited it to more clearly distinguish it from the other question (particularly the title) and remove the opinion-based part.

YOONJ's original question was so unspecific it could've been closed for being unclear. It's now clearer, but it also has no references and is factually wrong. So sure, let's reopen it, but I hope to see lots of downvotes on it too.

[status-completed]


text:
Askers that show possible medical issues should be referred to doctors first, not only pastors
With our "No pastoral advice" policy, we usually see these kinds of questions quickly, close them, and urge the user to find help in the real world from a real and trusted spiritual adviser. I greatly applaud our steadfast holding to this policy.
Not wanting to tromp on this wise and sound policy, I have a concern.
Recently, we've received a few questions that may indicate the asker is suffering from a medical condition. In this particular example, the asker claims to see and hear dead people and is not necessarily concerned with the fact that they may be hallucinations and not real, and much more so concerned with whether this is okay for a Christian to engage in. Hence, they asked a pastoral advice question. But I shudder at the suggestion that we'd send them to a pastor when they may very well need a doctor!
In light of obvious medical implications, I believe we should strongly urge the asker to see a doctor first, then a spiritual adviser. The possibility of real medical conditions seem to me to be a far more immediate issue for the safety and health of the asker.
And of course, we are not doctors! Therefore, the advice ends with "Go see a doctor."

Part of me agrees with you.  But part of me says that recommending a doctor, particularly to only some of the people asking for advice, is saying one thing.  Are we equipped to make that determination?  Wouldn't a spiritual adviser, meeting in person, be more equipped to judge if medical help is necessary?

@Nathaniel I think it's obvious that you should consult a doctor if you see and hear things that others can't. We know as a scientific fact that hallucinations exist; it's common knowledge. If they said they were seeing purple unicorns and waffle houses instead of something religious, you'd quickly agree, I think. In the least, it will rule out a medical cause. In the worst, they hurt themselves or someone else because whatever it is, it went untreated. This is one thing that we cause little harm by saying, but can cause much harm by not saying.

That's fair.  I imagine that a good answer to this question will have to deal with the inevitable difficulty of who needs to be told that they should see a doctor.  Just people who apparently see hallucinations?  Or everyone, including a spouse asking for marriage advice?

@Nathaniel I feel like it will be obvious when those occasions arise. Need for marriage advise doesn't usually imply someone may have a medical condition.

@Nathaniel On marriage advice, I don't really forsee suggesting a doctor in any circumstance. Maybe things like "uncontrollably violent", or "can't remember anything" indicate uses, but the context of the question tells us, not individual phrases. I'm just trying to point out that legitimate medical issues are more immediate concerns than spiritual ones. We should embrace this fact and suggest doctors when warranted.

I agree that medical advice in such situations is normally unecessary..  My concern echos that of those answering – when is it "warranted," and who decides?  You may believe alcoholism is a disease, while someone else doesn't.  Or that some particular mental issue is a disease, while someone else thinks it's a demon.  I'm concerned that there's no clear line when to recommend a doctor and when not to.

I believe the situations are self evident, as it was with the seeing dead people question. I'm advocating we say "You should see a doctor to rule out any medical conditions, then see a pastor." The reason we have the no pastoral advice policy is to prevent harm (unintentionally giving harmful advice). Suggesting a doctor surely will cause no harm, but neglecting it may.

I don't even agree that "seeing things that others don't see" is a clear sign of a medical problem, as opposed to a spiritual problem. The Bible is full of stories of people who saw things that others didn't see. Jesus' biological mother and adopted father come to mind as prime examples. So I don't agree with your criteria--but even if I did, there are others who don't, which means this proposal is based on a premise which violates the site's own definition of "Truth".

If, for example, a Catholic claims in a question on this website to be seeing Marian apparitions, they might be hallucinating or they might be seeing visions. I'm not willing to assign a probability to either without in person evidence. Referral to a doctor will almost certainly deal with only the first possibility, whereas referral to a Catholic priest would evaluate both.

@Flimzy We know hallucinations exist as a scientific fact. We also know they can be extremely dangerous. Seeing things others can't is an hallucination whether occurring entirely in the brain or actually being external. I never denied spiritual implications as a reality. I denied that those concerns are more immediate than health concerns. Even Elijah was offered bread and water multiple times before God would speak to him.

@Matt I'm not suggesting either-or. I'm suggesting both.

And I'm suggesting that we can't say both without saying both in all pastoral advice situations, including "should I marry someone of denomination X?" I don't think that the cases in which medical attention is not required are at all clear.

@Matt If that's what it'll take for you all to be on board with this, the pastoral advice meta past should include a section on medical concerns.

That's not unreasonable. Sure. I don't know how is come up with a good section though.

http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/52025/did-god-create-jobs-children-to-allow-them-to-perish     This new question for  example the op should be directed to a doctor for depression

@Kris I don't know about that one, but really, what would be the harm? And if there is clinical depression is found it will now be getting treated. I think the no advice policy needs to include a medical section. While we're there, maybe a legal section too.

I'm going to disagree with this — not because I think you are wrong about many problems needing medical attention but because I think it's better to grab the stick from the side the people with the issue think their problem is on and redirect from there than it is to try to diagnose issues online.
People that end up on this site that clearly need personal help at least think their issues are spiritual. That's why they asked a question here in the first place and not on Health.SE.  I have years of experience as both a pastor and an EMT (including at the same time) and have seen my fair share of people with assorted issues. I would say more often than not people don't fall neatly into one box or the other and need help from both directions. I've also seen a few cases where people start at what is clearly the wrong end of the stick. I've dealt with people who showed up at church bleeding from an accident or having ingested poison—these people need to be punted to medical attention immediately. I've also seen people with purely spiritual issues trying to seek help in the medical system.
Given the two scenarios, if there is any doubt what the issue is, I think people are more likely to end up with the right help in the long run if they start with a local church than they are a doctor. A good qualified pastor is more likely to know when to get somebody medical attention —and more likely to walk with them through the process— than a doctor is going to refer somebody to qualified spiritual help and walk them through their struggles.
Exceptions exist. Thankfully some doctors are wise enough to point people to the real source of their problems instead of just discharging them and sadly many pastors refuse to acknowledge physical ailments or that medical attention can in some cases set people up for healthier spiritual lives. But on the whole —and remembering what the subject matter is that brought people to this site in the first place— I think the best place to direct people is a trustworthy pastor who can be hands-on through the process of getting people the help they need. Unless the question is "I cut my hand off and am bleeding out, what should I do?", I think our go-to response should be in the direction of local churches.

I honestly believe that most pastors won't refer them to a doctor, assuming the situation is entirely spiritual. They will wait until something bad happens. I think we should at least seed the idea in their head that it may be a medical issue.

I strongly disagree that this is Less likely to happen with pastors than with doctors.

@Matt What are you saying exactly? Are you saying that you disagree with Caleb or me?

Of the pastors I've known, they'd suggest all kinds of stuff not medical, very likely delaying medical checkup. If medicine is mentioned, it's like an afterthought. It's already an afterthought to the asker, so why should we neglect this suggestion based on the assumption that a hypothetical pastor will act appropriately, and the assumption the asker will even seek them out in the first place? Truly, what is the harm here?

@fredsbend You are claiming a pastor will reject nonspiritual causes or solutions and that this is a bad thing, resulting in further physical injury. One could also argue that a doctor will reject spiritual causes or solutions, leading to causing physical problems that weren't there ( trying to medicate a spiritual problem). I think a balance between the two is best and most pastors I know would agree, as well as most Christian counseling material I've read. So Caleb's solution of starting where the person thinks their problem is (spiritual) seems best.

@fredsbend would you be equally worried about referring people posting about being unhappy and having feelings of guilt to a doctor rather than a pastor on a medical SE? Your answer to that may reveal some foundational suppositions that no one here is qualified to judge between. So let's stick to our own SE's realm.

@Joshua I never once suggested either/or. It's everyone else here insisting that we don't even mention the possibility to the asker that they might need a doctor. I suggested we do both.

@fredsbend You said "In light of obvious medical implications, I believe we should strongly urge the asker to see a doctor first, then a spiritual adviser." That is clearly placing one before the other. How and who decides what is obvious is the problem. If you simply want "doctor" to be included in the list of professionals as a truly equal possible "or" then I am confused by the purpose of your question since it already is in the accepted answer to the main meta on this topic.

@Joshua I only think doctors should be stressed when a possible medical condition is a dangerous one. Hallucinations are extremely dangerous. People have harmed themselves and others because of hallucinations.

This is beating a dead horse. No one here agrees with me even in the slightest, so I think we can just call this a dead proposal. I'm ready to move on.

@Joshua that's interesting that the post already says refer them to doctors Etc. In that case I'll just keep doing what I've always done. On the last question I just commented and strongly urged them to see a doctor. But in light of the response here everyone seems to think that was wrong. Well they can just delete my comment, then at least my conscience would be clear.

I think referring people to pastors is better.
Here's why:

If we trust a random "local, trusted pastor" to help a person with spiritual problems, we should just as well trust the same pastor to refer the person to a doctor.
Suggesting to someone on the Internet that their problem is medical or psychological, rather than spiritual (which they believe) is a good way to turn them off entirely from listening to you.  If what we really want is them to seek help, the best way is to get someone they trust to recommend medical/psychological help.  This leads back to suggesting they seek out a trusted pastor or counselor.

I honestly believe that most pastors won't refer them to a doctor, assuming the situation is entirely spiritual. They will wait until something bad happens. I think we should at least seed the idea in their head that it may be a medical issue.

If we have such a low opinion of pastors, neither should we refer people with spiritual issues to pastors.

Incidentally, I've honestly never had or met a pastor as incompetent as you suggest most are. I'm sure such incompetence does exist, but in my experience, it's not as rampant as you suggest.

Perhaps most important, why do you think a trained pastor would be less able to refer someone to a doctor, after a personal interview, than random strangers on the Internet? Forget pastors... Any random idiot in person is better qualified than we random strangers on the Internet, to make the proper referral.

It's not that I think pastors are morons. I just think they have a serious confirmation bias. They'll want to see spiritual implications before medical implications. They'll want to search that out first before ruling out medical issues. And during that time, the person may be going untreated for what is sometimes a dangerous condition.

Likewise, doctors have a confirmation bias to see medical issues, but the threat to self and others if you are hallucinating is more immediate than any spiritual issues you may be having. Therefore, I suggest doctor first, then pastor.

And of course, the ethos of the "No advice policy" is to prevent harm. Bad advice can be detrimentally harmful. So, to convince me, you'd have to argue there's more chance at detrimental harm by suggesting a doctor, than there is by not suggesting a doctor.

You'd have to convince me that suggesting a doctor first, then a pastor is "bad advice".

@fredsbend: If you think pastors have confirmation bias, wait until you meet a doctor. There's a much higher percentage of atheist doctors, who would never refer a patient to a spiritual adviser, than there are pastors who think everything is caused by a spiritual ailment.  I really fail to even begin to understand our reasoning.

Do you have enough evidence to allow an unbiased judgment on the relative occurrence of confirmation bias in pastors vs that in medical professionals? My feeling is that, unless the asker is already inclined to consider their problem at least partly medical in origin, referring them to a doctor as well, or instead, is making something closer to a medical diagnosis than I feel comfortable with doing on line.

@MattGutting: If we want to include 'doctors' in our referral statements, we need to include them in every referral statement. If someone asks "Should I marry someone of another faith?" should we refer them to a doctor? I'd say clearly not. Therefore, we should not include it ever, otherwise it violates the can I say one thing principle.

@Flimzy UNLESS we referred them only to "a local caring professional" or used similar words and left it up to them to decide where to go. But if we did that, my guess is that the odds are low indeed that someone needing medical help, so hadn't sought it right away, would be inclined, or inspired, to go for it.

@MattGutting: Indeed. If we leave it up to the asker to determine which type of help to seek, they will seek spiritual help, since that is what they're seeking here.

I already said doctors have a confirmation bias. I never suggested that we hope doctors refer legitimate spiritual issues to pastors (whatever it is that quantifies spiritual issues anyway). I suggested that in a very few cases, it seems obvious to me that suggesting a doctor is just as prudent as suggesting a pastor, so we should indeed suggest both. And what does it matter what the asker thinks the problem is? They are the most confused; that's why they're asking questions here.

And what kind of logic is it that all referrals are equal? All referrals must be identical? Is this because all questions are so similar? Or because all people are basically the same? Or that context is not really a thing?

@Matt Suggesting a doctor when the issue could very likely be medical is exactly not the practice of diagnosis. It's recognizing that a particular professional should be consulted.

This is so common sense, I can't believe this friction.

@fredsbend perhaps it's less common sense than you might think.

@Matt I don't think so. The only objections have been that it's against the "say one thing" policy. No one's yet said that it's bad or could cause harm. It's clear that it won't cause any harm, and not suggesting a doctor when needed could very well cause harm.

To me, the common sense obvious answer is "Don't give medical advice over the Internet." And the proposal here amounts to doing just that.

@fredsbend: I've heard the suggestion that it could cause harm from at least two people (myself and Caleb). If you need it spelled out more clearly: Referring those who need medical help to pastors will still get their medical needs met in the vast majority of cases, as most pastors will refer them appropriately. Referring those who need spiritual help to doctors will not get their needs met in the vast majority of cases. That's called harm.

@Flimzy I never suggested doctors over pastors. I suggested doctors, then pastors. This covers both bases. You and Caleb are suggesting pastors only, yet my suggestion causes harm? Come on, answer the question: does suggesting a doctor, then a pastor, cause harm?

If suggesting that someone should consult a doctor for what is commonly a medical issue (i.e. hallucinations) is giving medical advice, then so is suggesting the pastor for spiritual advice. Neither suggestion is advice any more than the other and to insist otherwise is asinine.

@fredsbend: If someone came to Health.SE to ask about a spiritual issue, and they were directed to a pastor, that would count as spiritual advice. The fact that they came here seeking spiritual advice, and we refer them to a spiritual advisor, is not providing spiritual advice. It's saying "I'm not qualified, talk to someone who is."

If the person had a trusted pastor they likley would not be scouring the web looking for advice. The "voices in the head" symptom is too be taken very seriously. So standard reply should perhaps encourage both medical and pastoral help for such a problem

@Kris Finally, someone sees the reason in this.

@Kris: That's rather irrelevant and beside the point.

@flimzy that's rather arrogant and dismissive.

@Flimzy I don't see how it's any less relevant that your assumption that pastors will direct them to doctors.

@Flimzy That's why when a question shows up on Health.SE that's along the line "My marriage is having trouble", they direct them to a medical doctor. Oh, wait. No, that's what you would have them do if the situation over there were analogous to the situation here. If they had any sense, as seems to be in short supply here, they would suggest that problems in your marriage are likely not a health issue, so you should consider a counselor of some kind.

Likewise, a guy comes here saying he sees and hears things, we should tell him that a medical checkup is a good idea because seeing and hearing things, irrespective of what they are, are often a medical issue that can cause you or others serious harm. And after you schedule an appointment with a doctor, go find a pastor in case it really is legitimate.

This is not giving advice, as you would insist. This is telling them that they need to see a particular kind of professional, specifically, one that specializes in mental pathology, because we are not capable to help in this regard.

@fredsbend: "This is telling them that they need to see a particular kind of professional" -- sure sounds like advice to me.

@Flimzy Then telling them to see a pastor is too. We should just tell them "we can't help, sorry" because anything else is advice.

@fredsbend: As I've said before, when people here ask for advice, referring them instead to a professional pastor, is the same as when someone goes to Health.SE, and are referred to a doctor. Us saying "seek a pastor" isn't offering advice. It's simply saying "seek someone qualified." If you would be more comfortable changing our stock message to "Seek help from a qualified individual in person" I wouldn't be offended by that.  But at this point I am offended by the length of this conversation. It's gone on far too long, with no progress.

@Flimzy I care little about your offense in this discussion. You're at your own whim to reply or not. I'm flabbergasted that you and many others here would rather we not send people to a medical doctor when it is very clearly and likely that they would need one. In the least, I would be content with the "no pastoral advice" meta post containing also a small section that a medical checkup may be warranted for a small number of issues.

I would not view "Seek help from a qualified individual in person" as a reasonable compromise.

I'm flabbergasted that you think identifying medical and/or psychological conditions by Internet is a good idea. In any case, you're in a clear minority here, so I don't need to convince you.  If you can find some new evidence or reasoning to convince me and others, I, for one, will gladly listen. Until then, I will follow your advice and stop replying here.

Since you're fond of the dictionary see hallucination. Some things are what they are. In any case, I've never said "go get help because you're hallucinating". I've always said "You should see a doctor to make sure you're not hallucinating". I'm done responding as well. Apparently, everyone's wishful thinking here is stifling their reason, and unfortunately, the only people who will suffer are the one's who came here for help.

By the time someone appears on our site asking a question like this it is very likely that their friends and family have already expressed concern and told them to get medical help. If the OP won't listen to them then they certainly won't listen to us, but there is the slightest chance they might listen to a spiritual adviser they trust.
Yes they might turn to a spiritual adviser who does not help, but I think that chance is outweighed by the chance of them seeking some help rather than no help at all.

"By the time someone appears on our site asking a question like this it is very likely that their friends and family have already expressed concern and told them to get medical help." I don't think that's a valid assumption. In fact, the fact they're turning to the internet is evidence that they aren't receiving help in real life at all, or at least haven't begun to seek it out yet.

"Yes they might turn to a spiritual adviser who does not help, but I think that chance is outweighed by the chance of them seeking some help rather than no help at all." That's an interesting point, but is it hinged on your previous (possibly erroneous) assumption?


text:
Is summarizing remarks for/against Christianity in books for sale on topic?
This question and answer by the same person is designed to simply list the opinions of a group of people about the validity of claims made by core Christian cannon. Are such posts on topic? I see no difference between this post and simply writing Q&A's summarizing any literature where individuals or minority groups have made remarks about Christianity, for good or bad. Might as well be a summary of the claims of "The God Delusion", or "God is not great".
Moreover, the end result of these "studies" done by this small group of like minded individuals are conveniently packaged into nice books for sale. I feel that such posts are:

Advertisements in the capitalistic sense.
Advertisements of the opinions of the extreme minority, be it for or against (in this case 200-ish people's opinions against some 3+ billion alive today).

FWIW the answer is at least temporarily deleted for plagiarism as it was at least half a copy and paste of content with no indication of being a citation. If the author fixes that it will be back, so working out the answer to this meta post is still relevant.

@Caleb thanks for the update.

The God Delusion is largely a philosophical book, not an irreligious one specific to Christianity. I would close such a question as "General philosophy."

This is an obvious attempt to silence an opinion @TechnikEmpire does not like.  The claim that Dick's inquiry is about a commercial book is false -- the results of the Acts Seminar are reported in free pdfs online.  The 'update' is just an ad hominem attack on the Seminar, not a constructive argument about the appropriateness of Dick's post to this site.  I find the whole question disingenuous, a veiled attempt at theological censorship.

@Schuh It's not, it's an attempt to keep the rhetoric of blatantly anti-Christian groups out of a site for Christianity. I think you're sore that I dug up their original 1980's report which shows in their own words that they claim to have refuted every core belief of nearly every Christian denomination.

Plus, if you read the bio's of the chief people involved, they do not claim to be of any Christian denomination. Plus, these claims are not given in the context of any denomination. PLUS these are "Truth" claims, and they're not even put in the context of a specific denomination.

You can't call it theological censorship when the claims being presented self declare that they do not believe any God is involved in the topic at hand at all. This is site about people subscribing to the theological claims of Christianity. This material is from a group that claims there's nothing theological about Christianity. It's off topic.

@Schuh Also re: your comment about sales, you either didn't look at their site or you're intentionally misrepresenting the facts. I updated my question to refute your claim about it not actually being a commercial advertisement.

@Caleb What do I have to do to have my account deleted again? Just put my wishes in my profile and ask?

@TechnikEmpire You can apply for account deletion following the directions in the help center. I have to say though even though I agree with you this was a poor question and answer, you parachuting in with an agenda to guard a specific point of view (orthodox or otherwise) was not very helpful. I've made this meta post into exactly what you were complaining of in the first place. This is a poster child for why we don't do "truth questions" at all and why this site isn't and cannot be a bastion of sound doctrine.

@Caleb my agenda was simply to object to the concept of anti-Christian material being posted on a site called "Christianity". Being a Christian it's obvious that I'm disgusted by such material. However, I had forgotten that this site is not about Christianity, and as Dick even points out it's right in the site guide "we are not Christians". I'd love to see the Islam or Jewish SE sites force you to denounce your Faith in the site terms. Do they? Hardly. I'll go ahead and get the deletion process underway ASAP.

Before I go I think I'll suggest a site name change, perhaps something like "Hellbound" or "AntiChrist.SE". The latter has a ring to it. In the meantime I'll drive by the related Jewish and Muslim faith sites and start posting material directly against them and see how that blows over.

@TechnikEmpire Nobody requires you to denounce your faith to participate here. The suggestion that we do is is preposterous.  Granting others a space to document their beliefs inside the confines of clearly scoped question is not even remotely related to you denouncing your faith. We don't even require you to consider those views Christian, only to recognize that some other people do. There is plenty of room here for open disagreement, but that's also why we insist on each question defining it's own scope.

Since the OP is gone now can we roll it back to when it was just about reviewing books and not about if they are for or against (very subjective) Christianity?

@Joshua That sounds like a good idea. The latter issue has a pretty well established answer already, the only interesting part of this question that could use community consensus is what to do with the liturature summary / review type questions. I've rolled this back, but I'm wondering if a different meta post might be in order with a more focused issue. This one is a mess.

To me, this sort of thing is generally on-topic.  Asking questions about the writings of a group, especially where they touch on Christianity, is a major focus of this site – it would be rather inconsistent to restrict ourselves to only historical works, or not allow overviews/summaries of particular works.
That said, here are a few things to watch out for:

Asking for a review of an entire work can be too broad.  Asking for a review of the theology of the Pilgrim's Progress would be huge, but asking if it supports predestination is much more reasonable.  Closing as too broad can thus be appropriate.
Just because something is on-topic doesn't mean that it's a great question:

If the material is already easily accessible elsewhere, like Wikipedia, downvote it for lack of research.
If the question is simply uninteresting to you, or you don't think it's useful, downvote it.

In summary: there's nothing inherently off-topic about a question like this.  But such questions may be too broad, and they are certainly open to the community's downvotes.

I think my problem with it is that it's just some random group of people, a very small group of people at that. It's not like we're talking about a meeting or study held by officials where the outcome officially fundamentally reflects cannon or something. It's just some guys who are not anymore distinguished from Joe off the street, unless worshiping titles bought and paid for from private for-profit businesses is your thing of course. If this is acceptable then frankly I think the next logical step is that all Q&A here is purely subjective. Everyone's opinion counts as both a Q and an A.

It's personal perception of Scripture at the end of the day. Last time I was schooled on the format of this site, putting down "this is what I believe" and especially "this is Truth" kind of stuff was a no-no. This is both of those things. "This is Truth and that is not, because that's what I think. What I think is Truth because [insert list of lofty titles purchased].

@TechnikEmpire There are a number of small groups with practically no credibility that are "on-topic" here (like the Westboro Baptist Church), so that in itself isn't sufficient to make something off-topic.  There's also a distinct difference between asking "What are the findings?" and "Are the findings true?" – the latter is clearly off-topic, but the former is on-topic in many cases.  Many of our users have non-mainstream views, and they can express them by properly framing a question (What does X tradition think about Y?).

That said, the big question in this case is whether this group can be considered a "Christian" group (do they claim that they are?) and if not, if we want to document explicitly non-Christian beliefs here.  I'm not opposed to it from an off-topic/on-topic perspective, since I think it can be done well, and if it isn't, it can be downvoted.

@Nathaniel But I think there is a difference between asking what the findings are and how those findings relate to Christianity. Right now it is only asking the former which is hermeneutics and textual criticism and dating. If it is changed to relate the results to Christianity I could see it fitting here even if it's on that overlap between CSE and BHSE. But right now it's on the other side of that line to me because the findings by themselves are hermeneutical.

There were a few things that were about Christianity. Such as it not starting in Jerusalem, but then it becomes, as you said, far too broad. I could see several questions dealing with the book's conclusions and how they relate to specific areas of Christianity and Christian history that would all be on topic here.

@Joshua I'm not willing to give BHSE a monopoly on dating/textual criticism questions =).  To me they seem quite relevant here, and typically just because something is on-topic on one SE site doesn't automatically make it off-topic on another.

I've updated the question to shed more light on the situation.

IMO @DickHarfield did not ask a hermeneutical question about a text: he asked about a particular Christian-identified group's opinion about a text.   Their work touches on BH, but Dick's question is about a Christian institution, not the Bible itself.

Also, suggesting Westar is not a 'Christian' institution -- and therefore inappropriate for discussion here --  reflects parochial bias unbecoming of genuine Christian scholarship.  Let us err on the side of open-minded inquiry rather than censorship.

@Schuh What's more important is that it's an anti-Christian institution as I've clearly outlined in the question.

@Schuh This site has a broad definition of "Christian" (basically, if you claim to be a Christian, you are one, for this site's purposes), but it's not clear to me that Westar makes that claim (does it call itself "Christian"?).

@Nathaniel, what is a Christian institution for these purposes?  Westar is "dedicated to fostering and communicating the results of cutting-edge scholarship on the history and evolution of the Christian tradition ..."  Its areas of focus are the historical Jesus, Paul, early Christian literature, and the origins of Christianity.  Its fellows are PhD-level critical scholars representing a "wide spectrum of religious belief," including Catholic and Protestant Christianity and Judaism.  Many are pastors.  Some are the leading scholars of their denomination.  Yes, I'd say they're 'Christian'.

@Schuh Considering that historically, their published work involves dismissing the divinity of Jesus, all miracles of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, and claim the resurrection (you know, the general topic of the new testament) was a lie crafted and perpetuated by the Apostles, I think we need to not only dismiss the nonsensical assertion that they're a "Christian" organization, but also recognize that they at best are responsible for publishing anti-Christian material.

Also lets not drop titles, they're meaningless. It's like arguing that Stalin was a PhD or not, it has no bearing on anything.

@TechnikEmpire For the purposes of this site, even Christian atheists are Christians.  It's a very broad definition, but it's the one that has worked for us.

@Nathaniel Well, rules are the rules. I was aware of this, which is why my participation stopped almost immediately after I signed up, but didn't realize the degree of absurdity it extended to. Oh well, I've raised the point, I'll move on now.

@TechnikEmpire In this case, I don't know that Westar would be considered Christian, since their website doesn't seem to make that claim.  But the question still may be on topic because its writings are at least about Christianity, even if they are primarily attacks on traditional Christian beliefs.

@Schuh There are many professed Christians in many of the most secular universities' religious studies departments. Does this make them Christian institutions? No. Please stop insisting Weststar is a Christian Institute. It is not. No I am not concluding from that that we cannot ask valid questions about how their research relates to Christianity. But it seems to me you are going one step too far in one direction just as you accuse, and I agree, Technik goes too far in calling it advertisement. Let's all take a breath and take a step back to the middle of the room.

I understand it cannot be migrated to BHSE as it is, but I believe the question should be closed with the suggestion it be reworded specifically for BHSE or Christianity SE. However, in it's current form it is really not perfect for either site but is closer to falling within BHSE standards.
Let's review the tours for the two SE sites and what Westar and the seminar and the topic question all say:
Christianity Stack Exchange Tour:
Ask about...

the history of denominations (such as Roman Catholic, Anglican, Church of Christ, or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) and movements (such as Pentecostalism, Creationism, Calvinism)
understanding the Bible from the perspective of a specific viewpoint (like those listed above)
explanations of the beliefs and practices of a denomination or movement
the Biblical basis for a belief or practice

From the Westar website:
https://www.westarinstitute.org/about/

Westar is not affiliated with any religious institution or denomination and does not advocate a particular theological point of view.

Don't ask about...

a survey of all Christian views on a particular subject
what the Bible says about a subject (unless you specify a doctrine/tradition)
advice on how to handle certain situations (pastoral advice questions)
is "X" a sin questions that ask whether a certain action or belief is sinful
"Truth" questions that do not focus on what a specific group of people teaches
whether some group or person is "Christian"

From the summary of the Seminar on the Acts of the Apostles:

The Seminar on the Acts of the Apostles began deliberations in 2001, with the task of going through the canonical Acts of the Apostles from beginning to end and evaluating it for historical accuracy.

Biblical hermeneutics Stack Exchange Tour:
If your question is about...

interpretation of a specific Bible passage
hermeneutical approaches
translation of Biblical texts
historical context (with regards to a particular text)
source criticism

... then this is the right place to ask.

The question at hand says:

The Seminar on Acts of the Apostles sat for ten years until 2011, examining the Acts of the Apostles. What were its main findings and how were they arrived at?

An answer that has a description of how they were arrived at would be a purely hermeneutical exercise (unless they did come out of a specific Tradition).
What their findings are is a very agnostic question. It fails to connect to Christianity in any specific way. At best it is too broad. Their findings may involve or impact Christian history or doctrine but the result is broad and/or vague.
Suggestion for editing for C.SE
I would suggest a series of questions that specifically target a review of the Seminar and it's influence, disagreement or similarity, or doctrinal impact if true on a specific scope/denomination/tradition. Or questions clarifying its conclusions within Christian history.

If Christianity did not begin primarily in Jerusalem, where did it? (According to the Seminar on Acts)

Or

If true, how would adherents of biblical inerrancy reconcile character names in Acts being fictional?

Conclusion
Specifically in this case:
Being neither a focused question about Christianity nor a question solely about the Seminar's approach and evidence, the question should be modified to be tailored for one specific site, or two, with one version for each, even.
In general as policy:
Questions simply asking for a review of the content of a book should not be allowed on Christianity SE. Questions on books or any published material (research papers, journal articles, recordings, videos, etc) should have to engage with a particular part of Christianity: it's doctrine, denominations or history. Asking for a book reviews is not a good question.
Does it have to be "Christian"?
I'll add that a benefit of this approach will be that we as a community do not need to sit in judgment on the source. Whether or not the source that is engaged with a part of Christianity is Christian itself is irrelevant. In fact, just as the site guidelines say, it's not really our place to ask if a group or person is Christian.
If we both require sources to be Christian and allow questions summarizing sources then part of such questions will be to decide if they are Christian, necessarily violating our own guidelines.
Instead, we should be ensuring that all questions are about Christianity in some way. Even secular sources can now engage or be engaged by a point of Christianity.

Appendix
Some of my Reasoning
One may also think of it this way, a Formula:
Consider how we have concluded that "What does the Bible say about X?" questions are off-topic. Same with "What did Martin Luther (Y) believe?
The proper way to ask such questions is "What does the Bible have to say about X according to Y?" And "What did Martin Luther (Y) believe about X?"
X is the part of Christianity that is being discussed. Y is the part that is engaging with or being engaged by X in some way. But a question needs both factors X and Y to be complete, focused and on-topic. A question with only one factor tends to either be too broad (Y with no X) or primarily opinion based (X with no Y)
A question asking for a review or summary of a source (book, recording, video, article, any published material) is just like asking about the Y but not telling us where or what X is. It is just asking:
"What does Y say?" This never an acceptable question in any other case, why would it be now?
Some books will certainly engage with Christianity by their nature and topic, but in what and in how many ways? At best, it is still too broad. I highly doubt that C.SE wants to open the "Pandora's Box" that would be allowing book reviews simply summarizing a source's content.
Compare:

"What does Augustine's City of God say?" vs "What does Augustine's City of God say about original sin?"
"What does Dawkins' The God Delusion say?" vs "How have Reformed theologians responded to what Dawkins' The God Delusion says regarding Original Sin?"

The latter still allows even secular sources to engage with Christianity though you may notice it is reversed to be how Christianity has engaged with Dawkins.
Examples
Examples of relevant precedents from these two sites:
Questions on Christianity SE that involve books but connect to Christianity specifically:
How does mainstream Christianity view "Heaven is for Real"?
Notice it is not "What is the book "Heaven is for Real" about?" That would be invalid.
Have any major Christian intellectuals responded to Stephen Hawking's "The Grand Design"?
This is not asking for a summary of The Grand Design but it is looking for a response from Christianity.
On BHSE
Involving multiple biblical books and a particular model at BHSE:
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/4401/what-is-the-relationship-between-the-synoptics-and-the-gospel-of-thomas
Not out of one text but only directed to particular texts identified as Q by particular criticism model:
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/4402/what-signs-does-q-show-of-stages-of-composition

So you don't think any kind of book review should be on topic on C.SE?  What about a review of an obscure book written by a clearly Christian author?

@Nathaniel I'm short on time now. But I will add to the appendix some more hypothetical examples to flesh out the subtle differences and what I'm saying. To quickly respond though, I don't think simply labeling an author or material as "Christian" is up to us or a valid criteria for being on topic. The question must engage Christianity with the material or author. The existing example is how has Heaven is for Real been received? That is valid. But simply asking what is Heaven Is for Real about? Is not valid. More to come this evening.

@Caleb Joshua suggests BH.SE for this Q. As stated by another person in this meta, I was prompted to ask/answer this question because I felt an answer I gave in BH.SE needed more info, but that this was too much for the question put. I posted on CH.SE because I felt it was the better site, but would be equally happy to migrate it to BH, if someone could suggest changes that make it  more ideal for that site.

I agree the question doesn't really belong on this site, but I'd stop short of calling it advertising. It is related to Christianity, but if we keep to our site mission of documenting the beliefs and practices of Christian groups, then it's not quite there. (Unless it could be established that the vast majority of the seminar participants are self-identified Christians.)
It should be migrated to the Hermeneutics site.

I was thinking the same thing in terms of migration. +1

The question doesn't start from a text. I don't see how I could justify a migration to BH.SE in its current form.

@Caleb I'd justify its migration by saying that it's a question about higher criticism of a Biblical text seeking an overview of how that (large) text is seen by a perspective. If questions like the following are allowed I think this question could be too: 1, 2, 3, 4

I see your point, @curious, but I think all of those examples start from an issue arising from (or at least related to criticism of) the text, even if "the text" is  large. This one starts from a seminar. (It is not, "what arguments have been offered against the authenticity of Acts?" which would be on topic, although maybe too broad.)

Would you extend this argument to say that asking for an overview of arguments made in an anti-Christianity book, written by an atheist author, would be off-topic?

@Nathaniel For which site?

@curiousdannii C.SE.

@Nathaniel Yeah I don't think that would be on-topic.

@Caleb it most certainly does start in a text. It's just that in this case the text is the entire book of Acts. Which could certainly mean it's too broad as Nathaniel points out. However questions of Canon criticism, dating and authorship are all purely BHSE purview, even when it's an entire book.

I've updated the question to shed more light on the situation.

I'll let others defend my question, but I would like to address three points made by Technik Empire:
The first is that this is a site "a site for Christianity"; and " This is site about people subscribing to the theological claims of Christianity."  It is not. It is a site about Christianity, and defined as a secular site: Brothers, we are not Christians‼  The difference means that relevant source material can be used in either a question or an answer, even if we consider that material to be secular. I will add a personal comment to exclude an anti-Christian rant, but I wrote this question and (so far) the only answer, and assert that neither  the question nor the answer consists of a rant.
The second is that the Seminar was all about "nice books for sale".  There is nothing in my question to do with selling books. There is nothing in my answer to do with selling books. One could read all the online reports produced by the Seminar and be only peripherally aware that there is a (low cost) report available for purchase.  It happens that I am adding a copy to my library, and in reply to a comment request, I undertook to answer fair-dealing questions regarding the contents - so by chance this already eliminates the impetus for most of us here to buy the book. Finally, for what its worth, Westar is a non-profit institute, so presumably it does not tout its reports to earn a profit for shareholders "in the capitalistic sense.".
My third response concerns "the end result of these "studies" done by this small group of like minded individuals"; "it's just some random group of people, a very small group of people at that. It's not like we're talking about a meeting or study held by officials where the outcome officially fundamentally reflects cannon or something. It's just some guys who are not anymore distinguished from Joe off the street"; "worshiping titles bought and paid for from private for-profit businesses [presumably a reference to the qualifications and honorifics of the Fellows attending the Seminar]."  Some of this is clearly insulting, so I will deal with it carefully.
Based on voting figures, there appear to have been around 100 Fellows attending and voting. At this stage, I do not have access to their names and credentials, other than the contributing authors of the final report. The Institute claims that over 200 "scholars of religion" called Fellows have participated in the various Seminars held to date. Given their credentials and speciality, this is a sufficiently large group as not to constitute "a very small group of people." Membership as a Westar Fellow is open to:

Scholars with advanced academic degrees (Ph.D. or equivalent) in
  religious studies or related disciplines from accredited universities
  worldwide.
Published authors who are recognized authorities in the field of
  religion (by special invitation only).

The requirement to have a PhD or equivalent, or to be a published author who is a recognised authority in the field of religion, seems to exclude from Fellowship "guys who are not anymore distinguished from Joe off the street".
Not only do the Institute's Fellows not merely hold titles bought and paid for from private for-profit businesses, but the report's contributors, at least, hold very senior academic positions that set them apart and give cause to listen to their findings:

Dennis E. Smith, Ladonna Kramer Meinders Professor of New Testament at Phillips Theological Seminary in Tulsa, Oklahoma
Joseph B. Tyson is Professor emeritus of Religious Studies at Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas.
Rubén Dupertuis, Associate Professor of Religion, Trinity University, San Antonio, Texas
Perry V. Kea, Associate Professor of Biblical Studies, University of Indianapolis, Indiana
Nina E. Livesey, Assistant Professor of Religious Studies, University of Oklahoma at Norman
Dennis R. MacDonald, Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins, Claremont School of Theology, California
Shelly Matthews, Associate Professor of New Testament, Brite Divinity School, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth
Milton Moreland, Associate Professor of Religious Studies, Rhodes College, Memphis, Tennessee
Richard I. Pervo, retired, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Thomas E. Phillips, Dean of Library and Information Services, Claremont School of Theology, Claremont, California
Christine R. Shea, Professor of Classics, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana
William O. Walker, Jr., Jennie Farris Railey King Professor Emeritus of Religion, Trinity University, San Antonio, Texas

In summary, I feel I have to agree with the opinion expressed above, that this is an obvious attempt to silence an opinion @TechnikEmpire does not like.

Dick, to start, you probably know I disagree with "that opinion" but I also hope you know I can be objective and am not trying to silence you.My objective is this: "What were its main findings and how were they arrived at?" That question has nothing to do necessarily with Christianity. This could be a research on ancient Greek documents for all we knew. You ask "what" and "how". The "how" was clearly arrived at through scholarly hermeneutics and textual criticism. If you can relate the question directly to a focused part of Christianity I would have no issue.

Questions that start with a biblical book or text are immediately assumed as being about Christianity because it's from a Christian book. So a question asking when was Acts written may get answers that include the seminar on Acts. But you are asking what the seminar to say about the book of Acts. To me this is why we have BHSE, to remove such questions from a religious or theological context and to free it from any particular denominational restriction. I understand it would not be perfect in its current form for BHSE either but it would be a step in the right direction.

I don't see anything wrong with the question. It's asking about a specific decision, made by a council of men who voted to determine their interpretation of certain biblical texts. Isn't this the same as asking "What exactly was the purpose of the Council of Nicea, and what methods were used for their decision"? The OP only asked for the conclusion of this council, and for a few examples of how they came to that decision. The question  seems to be on-topic, and his answer definitely addressed his specific questions.

No, your comparison one of apples vs. rabbits. The Council of Nicea was composed of church leaders directly responsible for guarding the theology of their congregations and the results were binding for many congregations. The Westar Institute is nothing like that. In fact on their very own  site they claim «Westar is not affiliated with any religious institution or denomination and does not advocate a particular theological point of view.» As far as their relationship to extant branches of Christianity (and hence the scope of this site), they are a world apart from an actual church council.

Oh I see. Thanks @Caleb. I was just trying to help Dick out. I'm pretty sure he asked this question in response to one of my answers at biblical hermeneutics, so I thought it should be available for those that wish to question the validity of Acts.  Dick is respected around here, and I assure you he had very good intentions for posting this.

The Christianity: Stack Exchange tour page includes the following relevant points:

Christianity - Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for
  committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in
  learning more. ...
Ask about ....

understanding the Bible from the perspective of a specific viewpoint,
explanations of the beliefs and practices of a denomination or movement. ....

Don’t ask about ...

whether some group or person is “Christian.”

By these measures @DickHarfield’s question is appropriate to this site.  Dick himself is obviously part of the target community as described here, and his question fits the requirements of the site, namely, "understanding of the Bible [the Acts of the Apostles] from the perspective of a specific viewpoint [Acts Seminar].”  Westar Institute and its academic publishing arm, Polebridge Press, certainly contribute to critical biblical scholarship, which is certainly a movement within Christianity.  The tour page does not restrict questions only to denominational institutions or those who self-identify as 'Christian', as some have suggested.

This is an over simplification that misses the point. Our site summary is terse and does not cover all possibilities. Yes "understanding the Bible from the perspective of a specific viewpoint" can be on topic, but per our site guidelines only viewpoints of established groups that claim Christianity as their own identity are on topic. The Bible from the perspective of Kundalini is not on topic. This Westar Institite has relates itself to Christianity as a topic of interest but not as its own identity—in fact they explicitly deny any affiliation with it ecclesiastically or theologically.

Westar does not identify with a particular denomination or brand of theology, but it's ludicrous to claim that a very well-known and respected scholarly institution whose sole focus is Christianity is off-topic here.  Questioning whether Westar is Christian or not is itself off-topic and inappropriate to this site, per the quoted rules.

I didn't claim it was off topic. All I'm pointing out is that this particular line of defense the way you have presented it is not valid. A group's focus being Christianity is different than their claimed identity being Christian, and the latter is our measure of topicality not the former. I know several (real, not hypothetical) Islamic groups whose entire focus is anti-Christian apologetics. Their sole focus on Christian doctrine doesn't make their views a valid scope for questions on this site. You haven't identified what's different about this case from that example.

@Caleb, where is the "claimed Christian identity" rule defined?  By your measure, all nonsectarian organizations  -- including divinity schools, professional scholarly associations, and questions about Bible translations (e.g. http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5532/non-christian-secular-translation-of-the-bible/5535#5535) would be out-of-bounds.


text:
Why was my answer to "Is there a Christian position on cadaveric organ donation?" deleted?
My answer to the above question (which is now on hold) was deleted with the comment:

Please don't answer broad qusetions from a single perspective. If they
  are answerable at all on this site they need to be covered as an
  overview from all available views. Otherwise the questions themselves
  need to be refocused until they are answerable. Answering from
  "viewpoint X" on a question that could just as well be answered from
  "viewpoint Y" ruins the Q&A format by encouraging vote contents
  between viewpoints rather than sorting answers by quality of answer
  representing the same information.

Firstly, my answer was not from a single perspective:  It contained references from both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic sources.
Secondly, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox together comprise around 60% of Christians worldwide, so one could argue that the points I cited represent the views of the majority of Christians.
Is there any kind of a review process for when one member decides to delete another member's answer?

A couple notes: Caleb is a moderator, as indicated by the diamond next to his name, so he's one of only a few trusted users with broad deletion capabilities.  And this, the meta site, is indeed the correct place to ask for a review.

The real problem here was the question. It's a classic "Truth" question looking for  what the Christian position is. This is a question format we actively avoid because they turn into vote contests between theological positions. As an answerer you should be on the lookout for questions like these and flag them for closure rather than answering them.
I deleted your answer because the question was closed as it isn't fair to leave answers that will be controversial under closed truth question. Inevitably somebody comes along and whines about not being able to answer with their version of the truth or start a debate thread in comments.
If a question comes along that fits the site guidelines and is properly scoped I would encourage you to put your answer under than question, but as long as the question itself is so completely contrary to our site guidelines and remains closed, allowing some answers under it is just too problematic.


text:
Attention needed to question "What views are there about the necessity of Christ's murder?"
The question What views are there about the necessity of Christ's murder? asked:

I would now like an overview of what different denominations teach
  about the subject. (That is, what are the main distinctive opinions?)

This could either mean that the questioner (a) would like representatives from different denominations to present an overview of their denomination's teaching on the subject; or (b) would like a single person to give an overview of the teachings of all Christian denominations.
Interpretation (b) seems ludicrous to me, since there are thousands of Christian denominations worldwide.  This interpretation of the question didn't even occur to me and I attempted to present an overview of Eastern Orthodox Christian teaching.  Furthermore, the site guidelines for questions specifies that surveys of all Christian views on a particular subject are not constructive and will be closed.
It seems, however, that @Caleb and @bruised reed took the question to mean what Interpretation (b) implies.  @Caleb deleted my answer and @bruised reed left the comment:

The question requests for an overview of the views of different
  denominations, focusing purely on an Orthodox view is not a valid
  answer to this particular question according to site guidelines.

If I have, in fact, misinterpreted the question as implied and the question really is asking for an overview of the various teachings of thousands of Christian denominations, then I would submit that site guidelines - at least as I understand them - would require the question to be put on hold for being much too broad.

Do note that the term "Denomination" is used quite vaguely on this site. It does not necessarily refer to a specific organization but can just be a catchall term for different groups at different levels (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox on one level are different denominations, but there are many smaller subgroups called denominations in Protestantism and then, technically, there are even smaller groups below that (Overall Presbyterian vs the several different specific Presbyterian conferences.) I agree the question needs scoping to identify which denominations or at least on what level.

Overview questions are more difficult to answer, but they do indeed require covering, in a single answer, multiple views held by a particular group.  So:

What is an overview of interpretations of “all Israel will be saved” in Romans 11:26?
How do Protestants understand the “unforgivable” sin?

Both of these are fine as overview questions, and answers must at least show an attempt to cover the primary views of the groups mentioned.
Consider reading this answer of mine on a similar question, and the subsequent comments; they may be helpful.  Caleb's explanation here is also valuable for understanding this long-standing practice.
Also relevant:

Can part of a question be answered for overview questions?

While the current site guidelines do allow for overview questions, not all questions posed as such will be answerable and on-topic. Here is a link to relevant posts on Meta discussing this issue. A general principle to bear in mind, is that you don't need to elaborate a position for every single Tradition, denomination or sect that identifies itself as being Christian; but what is expected is a sense of the range of major positions on the issue at hand and ideally, an indication of who believes what.
eg. On this issue, Catholics hold position A1 (described) similarly Orthodox hold position A2 (describe subtle difference between A1 & A2); Protestants are divided between positions C (described), D (described) and those who take no position on this issue.
For this particular question, I may be wrong, but I don't believe there is a significant divergence amongst the major representative strands of Christianity: 95%+ believe in the absolute necessity of Christ's substitionary atonement in order for sinners to be reconciled to a Holy God. For extra credit, listing minority views such as Unitarians or Swedenborgians whose view of what was accomplished by the Crucifixion may have some particular distinctives.

The site guidelines are quite clear to me: "There are questions not constructive to for the format of this site.  These include questions asking for "... a survey of all Christian views on a particular subject."  The question question posted asked for an "overview of different denominations".  Protestantism is not a denomination, but rather a group of denominations.  You are presuming based on your personal understanding that the question can be answered succinctly for all denominations, which may or may not be true.  Regardless, the question does not conform to site guidelines.

There are the site guidelines, and then there is the communities interpretation of the guidelines. If you think it's clear already, then you should just raise the appropriate  vote-to-close flag. You can then see if the established community (3k+ rep users) agree - ie by the required quorum of them (5) agreeing with you and voting to close the question.

Ok, understood.  Truth by applause meter.  Sigh.

This question is really a duplicate of this other question:
https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/16485/24841
That question was closed as primarily opinion based.
The question at hand is at least too broad or unclear and is no better than the closed question in terms of clarity.
It should at least be required to identify the referenced major denominations it wishes to get an overview from. Until the scope is identified it is uncertain and any answer could be claimed to not be an overview that was asked for.
It is best not to even attempt am answer to such questions until clarified. Unfortunately, sometimes answers to questions that are posted before necessary edits and clarification can sometimes no longer answer the newly stated question.
I would ask for clarification. Flag it in the meantime if you feel it is necessary to get the OPs attention, and await a resolution one way or the other before answering.
No matter how it appeared, this is common practice and applies to everyone of all traditions and should not be taken as a statement on your answer itself, but simply as necessary site procedure and moderation.

Thank you for your thoughts on this, Joshua.  One member flagged the post at around midnight my time and the moderator deleted it an hour later.  I don't think the question was a duplicate.  The new question was asking what specific denominations believe, whereas the old question was open-ended.

@Dialogist I understand the other one is not even trying to scope itself, but until this one identifies which denominations, or at least what level, it wants overviewed, it's just as bad as no scope. It can be an overview if it identifies who, but until then it is just "everyone" which is too broad, as I said.


text:
Don't delete my account
Thank you for the encouragement.  I'm sorry for taking up everyone's time.  I'll try to deal with the system.

After a recent answer of mine was deleted, I went back and
  found several other past answers of mine have been deleted.
I have been an active member on this site and have put a great deal of
  thought and effort into many of these answers, many of which were also
  upvoted.
I am struggling to understand the motivation for my past work to have
  been deleted by the moderator (it seems that a single moderator is
  deleting my work).
I am sure the moderator and users who flagged me can provide adequate
  justification.  I can't help feeling, however, that I am being singled
  out because my answers usually reflect Orthodox Christian teaching or
  understanding, whereas the vast majority of users here and four of the
  five moderators seem to have Protestant backgrounds.
In any case, please delete my account as soon as possible.
Thank you

I've enjoyed a number of your posts and, as a protestant, can say I never even identified you as any particular denomination. I sympathize with your frustration (I've been the minority in other situations) and hope it can be resolved without such drastic action. That said, you should really just make a meta about the deleted answer so it can be dealt with, for everyone's benefit. Can you link to the question? Account deletion is done through a different method, however. I suggest just taking a break and come back when some particular question or answer really interests you.

Hi, Joshua - I had posted something and I think you commented on it after commenting here.  Maybe some kind of intellectual martyrdom is called for here.  The moderators have absolutely draconian privileges here.  I am trying not to think that there are users trolling for answers they don't like and flagging them to get them removed.

I, too, would be sorry to see you go. Of the three major branches of Christianity, I know the least about Orthodox Christianity, and also, from what I know so far, find that it conflicts with my own theology the least of those three major branches. So I am always happy to see questions about Orthodox theology and practice, and good, solid answers to those questions. Unfortunately, it is also the least well-represented here of the major branches, and there simply aren't as many questions or answers as there are for Catholicism and Protestantism.

Incidentally, there are even fewer questions about my own denomination: Swedenborgian. So I have even fewer opportunities to answer questions. I'm sort of annoyed that I missed the last one! But happy that someone else stepped in and gave a good answer. :-)

I'm glad to see your update!  If you'd like to interact more informally with many of our regular users, feel free to join our chat room.  Meta is the "official" place for support and discussion, but you can also get direction and discuss things in chat.

Without your input, my understanding of our cousins in faith, as it were, is less.  With it, greater.  Please stick around.

I'm really sorry you feel this way, and I hope you'll reconsider.  I have personally greatly benefited from many of your answers, and I'm sure many others have as well.
The difficulty many of us face on this site is that certain questions preclude us from answering with what we think is the "correct" answer.  I would like to answer every question from a Calvinist perspective.  Lee would like to answer every question from a Swedenborgian perspective.  Geremia would like to answer every question from a Catholic perspective.  BYE would like to answer every question from a baptist/evangelical perspective.
Many of us, regardless of our theological persuasions, have had our carefully written answers deleted because we attempted to answer based on our convictions rather than with what the question asked.  The reason you don't see these answers is because you don't yet have enough reputation to see deleted posts, but I can assure you that they are there, and many of them are written by Protestants.
This site has long been deficient in Orthodox users, so I sincerely hope you decide to stay and refocus your efforts on answering questions according to the scope requested in the question (if Orthodox, then Orthodox; if Protestant, then Protestant; if "overview," then "overview), and skipping over those you don't feel qualified to answer within the requested scope.  You can even share your knowledge by asking and answering your own questions, as I often do.
But if you still want to leave us, here are the instructions.  You'll have to scroll to the very bottom and use the "contact" link.

In my opinion, this site is much too tightly moderated, especially given the diversity of opinions you correctly cite.  20% of the last 50 questions here have been shut down.   By comparison, stackoverflow - which has 12 million active questions compared to the Christianity's 8,000 -  has not shut down a single one of their last 50 questions.  Despite having  1,500 times more active questions, stackoverflow only has 4 times the number of moderators that Christianity does, despite sharing the same Theory of Moderation (http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/05/a-theory-of-moderation/)

@Dialogist However, StackOverflow is a programming site, whereas this is a site related to religious belief. Nobody's going to hell because they programmed something wrongly or shoddily. But many religious people believe you and I will go to hell if we believe the wrong thing. And that leads to endless flame wars. That's why this site has had to adopt a tight moderation policy, and insist that questions be objectively answerable within the scope of a particular denomination or group of denominations, rather than leaving it open to anyone's view on any question.

@Lee Woofenden - Are you essentially saying that moderation has to be tight here because people could end up going to hell otherwise?  I'm not trying to be facetious, but that's the argument that seems to fall into place from your comment.

@Dialogist Not that people will go to hell if the moderation isn't tight, but rather that people will have flame wars about who's going to hell if the moderation isn't tight.

-----    I understand

@Dialogist Compared to most religion-related sites that allow general user input, this site is remarkably free of flame wars. And that's one of the reasons I continue to use it. Though the site policies can be annoying when you're itching to answer a question that isn't asking for your particular perspective, I appreciate those policies precisely because they require people to provide solid information on the questions asked, from the perspective asked for, which avoids all the bickering and open warfare that plagues so many sites that provide forums on religious topics.

Lee Woofenden hit it on the head in the comments here. If you go to the original Area51 proposal for this site, there was a concern at the beginning whether it was even possible to have a site about Christianity that could fit the StackExchange model for objectively answerable questions and avoiding endless debate. The fact that we even graduated much less avoided that issue pretty much completely is impressive, and is due to tight moderation, not just from the moderators but from the community as a whole.

@Dialogist If you are going to compare SO with CSE, then you need to use like numbers. Yes, 20% of the last 50 questions on CSE were closed, but you can't only look at the last 50 questions on SO, as there have been approximately 89,000 more questions asked in the same time period. Also, see SO's never shrinking close review queue, with over 9,000 questions waiting to be reviewed for close votes. Essentially, they aren't comparable sites.

@LeeWoofenden Well, maybe some coders should go to hell for their coding practices ...

@fredsbend Heh. I was wondering when someone would say that!

I'm not sure, but I would bet any answers of yours that were deleted because they did not match the frame of the question. Answers must match the frame of the question. This means, for example, that if you answer a question coming from some kind of Protestant angle with an Orthodox perspective, it will be deleted, no matter how interesting, correct, well written, or provocative it might be. The quality of such an answer is irrelevant. It is effectively not an answer to the question because it does not match the question's frame.
One thing I can guarantee you: Our mods here are extremely fair. They are not picking on you.
Please see:

What should we do about matching the viewpoints of askers and answerers?
What are guidelines for "Good Subjective" answers on this site?
What makes a good supported answer?