As the one having raised the concerns leading to this question, I think I should explain myself a little bit more than I could in the comments:
My problem with the original question (the current one is fine, see below) was that it was about some of the mechanisms of religions in general. As such, truthfully answering it would require me to make some general, negative observations about real religions, which at least apply to a relevant subgroup of religions and thus might upset people. Moreover, to back-up these observations, I would need real-life examples, which are in a clear danger of upsetting adherents of the respective religions. I will leave it at that, because going into more details might already be offending.
Of course, I could actively censor myself and not use any examples (except for dead religions) and refrain from making general observations. Censoring myself is pretty bad on its own and it would also mean that I could not answer the question to my best abilities.
If I wouldn’t censor myself, I would expect my answer to gather offensive flags or cause heavy discussions that we probably do not want here.
Now, some of you argue that potentially offensive content is everyday business on the religion sites or Politics. That’s correct, but all this is in places you have to expect it: If I visit Christianity, e.g., I have to expect to be exposed to Christian opinions. On Worldbuilding and many other sites, this is not the case. On the other hand, on religion sites, answers are expected to come from the point of view of the respective religion (if I am not mistaken). If I would answer certain questions on such a site freely (and thus from another point of view), they would probably be deleted. Moreover, I do not think that on any other site some question on religious mechanisms would be asked, so this could really go further than existing content.
There is an unwritten rule for conversations in groups for which religious heterogeneity is to be expected (and which are not expected to be open for such questions), not to raise the topic of religion, because otherwise quarrel could ensue. In my opinion, there are further reasons to follow this rule, which I cannot explain here, however, without braking this rule. And that’s despite me usually being the one who is annoyed of hypersensitivity. On the other hand, if somebody does address the topic of religion, they have to expect that I freely speak my mind and if they are offended, it was them who raised the topic.
All that being said, the updated question is fine in my opinion as it is now about a specific fictional religion and not about religions in general.
As a sidenote, I find it acceptable to close or avoid a question based on the answers it might receive, as long as they are actually answering the question.