-5

Is there a close reason, for: "Appeals to Modernistic Doctrine"?

Specifically, when a question is requesting a particular doctrinal explanation, or exegesis, of a passage that conforms to a particular doctrinal belief :

Possible Example : What is the significance of Ezekiel's description of God's heavenly chariot in chapter 1?

Perhaps this question (as originally worded) is not explicitly asking for an answer based on Maimonides. But, it seems dependent on researching his opinion - rather than citing a very specific point of his.

Or perhaps, clarify that "Opinion Based" includes : "Solicits opinions or modernistic doctrinal views - instead of answers that are based on contemporaneous historical interpretations; or, textual, linguistic, and cultural evidences".

  • How did Maimonides interpret this passage? (Better on Judaism.SE)

  • How did the Post-Nicene fathers interpret this passage? (Better on Christianity.SE)

4
  • 1
    In general, previously discussed here: "Revising Off-Topic Close option addressing “systematic theology”"
    – Dɑvïd
    Apr 21 '17 at 12:11
  • 1
    Besides my more rigorously reasoned answer, given that the term "Modernistic Doctrine" is means almost nothing to anybody (it's only seen by Google in 215 places on the entire internet and means different things in almost every instance), no we will not have a close reason citing that wording. Honestly I'm not even sure what you mean by it here.
    – Caleb
    Apr 21 '17 at 13:51
  • @caleb - Yes, I tried picking a more concise phrase, for : "solicits answers that are based on doctrinal views or opinions that are not contemporaneous with the text in question." Apr 21 '17 at 20:04
  • @David - A.) Exegetical questions that don't start from the text, but rather from a preconceived idea or framework, are off topic. - this is very close to what I am asking for. B.) But, some questions like this do start from a text - and are super borderline : hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/487/… C.) Perhaps this question is not asking for an answer based on Maimonides - But it seems dependent on researching his opinion - rather than citing a very specific point of his. Apr 21 '17 at 20:11
5

I don't see any need for this.

First of all, "appeals to doctrine" is a more common problem for answers than it is for questions. Close reasons apply to questions, they are not for handling answers.

Second, we already have appropriate messages covering off topic reasons when questions are not about a specific text.

Third, I would argue that several of your given examples are not actually representative of this sites guidelines.

  • Asking "how should X be subject be understood in passage Y" is squarely on topic and does not need to be framed in the context of some group of theological tradition. In fact your "improper" example is actually proper here and the "corrected" version would be "improper" here and much more suited to Christianity.SE.

  • Same story. If anything this question has a problem with being opinion based, but the correction makes it off topic. A better fix would be to ask for an analysis of a whatever specific hermeneutic was used to arrive at whatever view is in question.

  • Again the origin question is a better match for this site and the modified historical question is a better fit for C.SE

  • Sans a specific passage, neither iteration of this question fits here at all.

2
  • 2
    @elikakohen This site is not restricted to historical interpretations. It's actually not limited to any interpretational technique. Answers are free to present the hermeneutical approach they think is most useful. The only real requirements are that it start from the text and that it shows its work connecting the dots between the specific text and the final answer.
    – Caleb
    Apr 21 '17 at 17:12
  • To be clear, this question has nothing to do with the quality of "answers". I have revised the question to make this clearer, and more concise. I hope it helps. Apr 21 '17 at 19:59

You must log in to answer this question.

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