text:
Why should people avoid asking what 'the truth' is on C.SE?
Why should people avoid asking what 'the truth' is regarding a matter on C.SE? Is it because we are confused about what the truth really is ourselves or because we don't believe we as Christians have the truth? I am asking this question from the p.o.v. of someone who has converted to Christianity from another religion and after reading Jn. 8:32 which says:

32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

If one goes in search of the truth on the internet and stumbles upon C.SE and is told he should not ask questions like that. How do we worm our way past such a clear instruction from Jesus to know the truth in order that it may set us free from the darkness of sin? My question is especially for moderators of this site as they are the ones responsible for making and maintaining the rules here, I understand.

Moderators do not make the rules. The community as a whole does. We simply try our best to make sure they are followed.

With a huge variety of Christian denominations it become clear that apart from the simple understanding that Jesus died for the sins of the world, there are a zillion other beliefs that are not common or agreed on. Frankly, they cannot all be right. We can only find truth from God's word, not men's sometimes quite odd interpretations of it. This site and BH SE offer a reader to see which views/doctrines etc conform to the bible and which do not. +1

@steveowen Even that "simple understanding" is disputed - lots of Christians out there who deny the problem of sin (instead it's ignorance or foolishness or whatever else.)

I was trying to be diplomatic...

Thankfully, this question was answered a long time ago during beta stages of the site. The meta has many articles on why we hold these specific stances on questions. I’d encourage you to read through the meta because it has so many fantastic articles on this topic!

SE-C is a website investigating comparative religion. You can ask all you like, you can inquire of all truth, but questions have to be posed in such a way as to recognise that many identify as Christian and yet the very ways in which they identify themselves contradict, the one with the other. There is but one truth. There can only be one truth. I am the way, the Truth and the Life. But humans disagree. And the site is run by humans. (And so are many 'churches'.) But there is One who will guide us into all truth (as individuals)  : God, the Spirit.

Why should people avoid asking what 'the truth' is on C.SE?
Each denomination believes they are right and teach the truth. In reality, this is impossible for a site like our to know what the truth is. Besides that (we can't handle the truth):

These types of questions are what we refer to as Truth Questions. It may seem odd to say that a site about Christianity says it can't handle the Truth... Isn't Christianity all about The Truth, and determining The Truth?
Well, yes, Christianity is about the Truth. But we aren't. We are about Christianity.
Put another way: we don't study the Truth, we study the Christian study of the Truth.
And as there are a multitude of Christian opinions, as made apparent by the number of Christian churches and denominations, there can almost never be a single, universally accepted answer to any truth question. This is why we shy away from Truth Questions.
But don't despair! There's still hope for your question. Here are some guidelines on how you can clean up your question to make it possible to answer within the guidelines of this site. And below are some links for further reading if you desire a deeper understanding.

This is why many questions must be scoped to a particular denomination in order to stay on topic. Otherwise, there will be much debating in the comments and that is not good for a question & answer site like this one.
This is not a forum and must try to rely of facts as best as possible.
Please also keep in mind that although this site is about Christianity it remain a secular site!

It’s sad to see that the people who helped define this site are no longer with us for one reason or another. It would be great to have their continued support.

@LukeHill I totally agree!

@LukeHill But just like how the American founding fathers or the 12 apostles are no longer with us, the torch continues with the current generation.  At least we still have at least one (PeterTurner) and at least one "apostolic father" of C.SE (curiousdannii) if not more (DJClayworth's userid is 162!).  "Tradition" needs to keep being updated for today's needs.  (I just came across a good article about it.)

@GratefulDisciple excellent analogy. It seems that the fallout from SE’s new guidelines and the Monica Cellio incident nuked the moderation staff.

@LukeHill I know.  That's a very sad affair.  I was just starting to be active when that happened.

@GratefulDisciple To be honest, I really miss some of the old gang!

@KenGraham Yes, me too, although since I came later than you, I must have felt it less than you.  Especially Caleb and Nathaniel.  There are several of their questions that I can now answer and would love to know their response and to benefit from their corrections.  But I'm thankful that Peter Turner and curiousdannii are still active.

@GratefulDisciple They still pass by occasionally. I can understand why they left but I wish they were still here.

@KenGraham I hope one day they forgive SE management after seeing how the new policies and procedures have been followed in the past few years (although not being a moderator I don't know whether that's enough, only that I don't see any negative impact on C.SE as a regular participant).

If this site were RomanCatholicism.SE, or LDS.SE, or dedicated to some other very specific denomination, then “the truth” would be well defined and asking whether something is true would be appropriate, just as it is on sites like Mathematics.SE, where most topics have common agreement on what truth is.
As part of Stack Exchange, Christianity.SE must have a similar attitude toward truth, but unfortunately nominal Christianity itself has many different ideas of what the truth is.
Without a common standard definition of truth with respect to the individual topics, asking whether something is true seldom makes sense.
That's why all questions must be asked within a well-defined context.
Compare:

“Do Roman Catholics believe that Mary remained perfectly sinless as a child, or were her sins immediately forgiven?”
“Did Mary remain perfectly sinless as a child, or were her sins immediately forgiven?”

Both questions are asking for truth about the same topic.
The first one can be answered objectively, and all answers will generally agree with each other.
A perfect answer would look like an article from a secular encyclopedia.
It would contain verifiable facts; facts that people of all religions, even non-Christian or atheist, would agree with.
But the second one cannot be answered objectively.
Roman Catholics will present their truth, other Christian denominations will present completely different truths, and non-Christians and atheists will dismiss the whole thing as nonsense.
The result will be a long stream of non-productive opinion.
No one will be able to find the "truth" among all the noise.
That's why all questions on Christianity must be asked from a secular (non-religious) perspective.

There IS an absolute truth (John 8:32) ...
I would like to supplement @KenGraham's and @RayButterworth's answers by proposing how this site can work for new Christians like yourself who should be encouraged and applauded in searching for the truth.  I hate to see how this site could become a stumbling block for that search, when on the other hand this site can assist a Christian to deepen their faith.  I hope my answer below can help you.
I myself, as most of the frequent contributors here, are committed Christians coming from all sorts of denominations who all worship Christ as the Son of God, the Christ (Messiah), our Savior, our Lord and King, the Son of Man who will judge at the end of the world, etc.  This is the TRUTH that your quoted John 8:32 talks about (see GotQuestions excellent article What does it mean that “the truth will set you free), but not all kinds of truths.  The freedom which John 8:32 talks about is also rather specific: freedom from becoming slave to sin.  All denominations and most contributors here are not confused with this primary truth, which is our core identity as Christians.
... but not all truths can be known absolutely.
Unfortunately, even the briefest study of church history in the past 2000 years will uncover many theological options and consequently many doctrines espoused by different denominations.  You will see that there are legitimate variations on how the Bible is interpreted.  This is simply the fact that any new 21st century Christians have to deal with.
But all Christians agree that a serious Christian will want a local church or a denomination to guide them in conforming our life to the image of Christ.  It is a long-term decision similar to how we need to choose whether to trust an MD doctor, a DC (Doctor of Chiropactic) doctor, or a TCM (Traditional Chinese Medicine) doctor, each using a different "doctrine" of practicing medicine.  In nutrition, we are also aware of the ongoing debates between different camps of nutritionists whether vegetarian option is healthier, whether a little wine helps, etc.  But there is a growing consensus that smoking is bad for us and a growing consensus that all three different medical practice "doctrines" complement each other.  Similarly, the question of which denomination is best for my spiritual health can be answered differently by different Christians, although the truth that we need Jesus's death and resurrection is universally held by all Christians.
Will the Holy Spirit help one choose a denomination / church?
There is only One God, One Gospel.  There is also One Holy Spirit who helps us believe that

Jesus is Lord (John 16:13-14, 1 Cor 12:3), and that
We are children of God (Rom 8:14-16).

(source: John Piper's short interview How Does the Spirit Testify I'm Saved?)
Although the Holy Spirit will guide each of us individually to the "right" denomination, I don't think the Bible promises that the Holy Spirit will provide a believer with the same level assurance that denomination X is the right one as the assurance for the 2 points above.  We thus have to combine the promptings of the Holy Spirit with God-given wisdom to discern which denomination can help us best individually to grow in Christ (along with the subset members of the entire body of Christ that belong to that church / denomination).
My hope for you as you begin the journey to find your denominational "home" is that eventually the bewildering options can turn from confusion into a source of riches.  This journey is something that a Christian needs to undertake sooner or later (it was a decade-long journey for me).
What this site offers
This site can help one navigate through those options.  In today's ecumenical situation, in my opinion there are several legitimate Biblical denominations.  This site can help you investigate the various claims of a particular denomination.  Which is why, as the other answers point out, the questions and the answers may need to be scoped accordingly.  I myself have benefited greatly from this site for my personal search of the denomination I prefer.
If it helps, I wrote an answer on how to deal cognitively with various denominational options, and I welcome your follow-up questions about the difference between being a Christian and Christianity as defined by a denomination in the chat room specifically for this topic.  However, those two examples plus thousands of Q & A this site offers should not be substituted with a flesh and blood pastor that you trust!  As C.SE makes clear:

Like any library, Christianity Stack Exchange offers great information, but does not offer personalized advice, and does not take the place of seeking such advice from your pastor, priest, or other trustworthy counselor.

It is a paid pastor's duty to guide you in your Christian life and to provide you with a safe place to include personal circumstances that may not be safe to share online, similar to how there is a strict and law-protected confidentiality agreement between us and our doctor / therapist / lawyer.
Growing "head" knowledge to help grow our "heart"
Regardless of which denomination or church you finally can call "home", the Bible is clear that we cannot stay drinking milk like spiritual babies (1 Cor 3:-1-3, Heb 5:11-14).  Thus growing in knowledge of the Bible and of a denomination's Christian theology is essential for a mature Christian.  Just like in maintaining our bodily health we seek a doctor's second opinion and educate ourselves on good eating and on rudimentary medical knowledge, this site can supplement that maturing in our "head" understanding of Christian doctrines and Bible knowledge, which in turn we use as a "map" to grow spiritually (our "heart").

For what it's worth, to add some context to the other excellent answers, we removed the "Truth Question" close reason in favor of just one general philosophical close reason.  I didn't think it was being used very well and for the reasons you outline, we do ask questions about the Truth and we just because we're on a secular site, doesn't mean we all have to be relativists.
The fact of the matter, when this site started and I posted Catholic answers to generic questions about Christianity, I (and others) wound up getting in utterly unnecessary arguments.  The problem wasn't the answers, the problem was the questions.
We whined quite a bit about this and Caleb (old mod) wrote a pretty excellent meta post called Brothers, we are not Christians‼ and the prohibition of "Truth Questions" began.

I miss Caleb. I wasn’t around when he was here but he contributed a lot

@LukeHill I miss the times Caleb gave me what for. He was totally on point too.


text:
How does the community 'make the rules' on C.SE?
In a recent answer to another question O posted, I was told that the community, not the moderators, are the ones making the rules on C.SE and H.SE. This came as an epiphany of sorts since the impression I got from day one was that it was the moderators' responsibility. Upon learning this I wondered how the community 'makes the rules' since the community seems to differe so much in their opinions and views about the only thing they do have in common - Christianity.

These community guidelines were established prior to CSE’s conception. Stack exchange - beginning with stack overflow, decided that opinion based questions should not be allowed to keep an academic standard on the site. Again I implore you to view the sites meta for more information.

I suspect that "the rules" made by the community are those that define what is considered "on-topic" for each specific site.  E.g. asking about the Crucifixion is okay on Christianity.SE, but asking about exothermic reactions isn't, and would result in a suggestion to post it on Chemistry.SE.
Similarly asking about translation of Hebrew is on-topic on Biblical Hermeneutics.SE, while asking about doctrines isn't, but it would be okay on Christianity.SE.
A general rule on all Stack Exchange sites is that questions that generate opinionated responses are not allowed.
E.g. "Which is the best ice cream, rocky road or cherry garcia?" is asking for an opinion.
Asking which has more calories, or which is preferred by John Travolta, is asking for a fact.
Ideally, each question should have exactly one correct answer, where "correct" is objectively recognized by all people regardless of their personal beliefs.
On Biblical Hermeneutics, only questions that are about specific scriptures are considered "on-topic".
And they should be asked in a way that could be correctly answered by an atheist.
Asking "Does [scripture] mean that …" could generate different answers from people with different personal beliefs.
Asking "Could [scripture] mean that …" will generate much more objective answers.
Similarly on Christianity.SE, one can objectively answer questions about what specific denominations believe, but no one can objectively answer questions about whether a specific doctrine is true.
If the question can't be answered by an atheist, it wasn't asked correctly.
"Which denominations believe that the biblical sabbath is still binding on Christians?" is an appropriate question.
Some answers might include denominations that others have missed, but there shouldn't be any contradictions between the answers.
This makes it much easier to objectively rate the individual answers, and to combine them to arrive at an even better answer.
"Is the biblical sabbath still binding on Christians?" is not an appropriate question.
Seventh Day Adventists would reply "Yes".
Catholics would reply "No, because the Pope had the authority to declare Sunday as the special day.".
Protestants would say "No, but not because of anything the Pope decided.".
Atheists would reply "Of course not, it's just silly superstition.".
The result would be confusion, and the person that asked the question would have no idea what the "right" answer is.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
Respectfully Asking Questions as an Anti-Theist
Introduction
Hello,
This may be the incorrect community to talk about this. However, it is the first community that came to mind. If this question is inappropriate or offensive I will remove it. My question is, as someone who is anti-theist how can I respectfully navigate conversations of faith? For example, I am the only atheist in my workplace. My coworkers (all Christian) in some cases have taken time to pray and ask god for guidance on decisions that may impact major components of our projects. We've frequently had discussions about faith as it guided some of the companies earliest projects and some of our colleagues work for companies that create Christian content. In many cases I feel the need to hesitate on the extent of my beliefs (outlined below) when it is my turn to discuss.
Note: I don't find these discussions of faith offensive as I enjoy when people talk of their own faith. To peer into the mind of someone who's fundamental perspective of life is different allows me re-evaluate my own perspectives. If I must continue to withold certain elements of my beliefs to experience these conversations I gladly will.
Anti-theist?
Let me get a few things out of the way before I begin:

I don't hate people who believe in god
I respect people's right to practice religion
I don't think I'm better than those who practice religion

As an anti-theist I simply believe that the world would be better without organized religion, that we should actively move towards a secular lifestyle. Even if this secular lifestyle includes the belief of intelligent design, expression through religion (art, music, literature, etc.), or cerimonial tradition. I actively have "faith" that the deconstruction of religion as an institution would make the world better. Perhaps, giving religion a new opportunity to flourish as people begin reassessing what intelligent design could mean to them.
Edit: I now know this is not the term I was looking for.
More Context
I was raised in a sort-of Christian household. I was baptised, I had my first communion, went to Catholic school, but never did my confirmation. I understand the traditions and beliefs on a basic level but was never aware of how intense/dogmatic some people can be when it comes to Christianity (or religion in general) until recently. Growing up, even in Christian households there would rarely be praying for food, reading scripture, or much acknowledgement of any sort of higher-power. People did what they did without much of their identity tied to their beliefs. As I started working more internationally, I've met people who would never act outside the laws of their religion and firmly identify as Christian (or Jew, Muslim, Sikh, etc. but this is a Christian forum).
When someone's identity is tied to their religion and they wish to discuss faith (as a rule I don't start conversations of faith) how can I discuss that I actively wish to discourage that type of thinking? I feel the dogma of religion doesn't need to be so intense or rigid. I don't dislike the person I'm talking to, I don't think they're dumb, I may even admire their courage to believe. I simply wish to respectfully state that one's religion can be more than the institution its become. That one could still learn from the stories but not take the rules at face value.

Open my eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of your law. Psalm 119:18

How could I let someone see my law without them feeling persecuted?
Edit: The more I read your responses, the more clarity I have in what I was originally trying to express and how I can move forward in the future. I should not define myself as an anti-theist but rather continue to define myself as an atheist. Going forward in these conversations I want to make it more clear that I respect and admire religion as a driving cultural force, but not without criticism. In my future conversations that critisism will not be used as a method of persuasion but rather an outside perspective from someone with fundamentally different ideology. It is my hope, that by going into conversations of faith with this mindset, I can respectuflly and calmly start dialogues about someone's intrisic motivations to follow their faith/religion. I hope that one day I can empathize with someone who has the opposite views as myself (just as you have done for me today) and vice-versa.

This would probably be an "opinion" question on the main site, but since it's "about asking questions", I think it's entirely appropriate on meta

You 'actively wish' to 'discourage' . . .  'faith' 'thinking'. And you appear to have a 'law' of your own whereby you wish to achieve that aim. Yet you do not wish anyone to feel 'persecuted'. To myself, as a thinking individual, that all seems rather sinister, to be honest.

@NigelJ For example, some Christians may find homosexuality offensive. By the morality of my beliefs, I do not. This can create a barrier between myself and the person I'm trying to communicate with. Just as a missionary will aim to achieve making someone Christian. I aim to make someone open their opinions beyond the word-for-word rules of scripture.

However, unlike some communication you'll see online. I don't like saying: "Whelp, you're wrong because religion is dumb". I personally, see religion to be a rewarding experience I learned a lot from my time in Catholic school. Confession for example, is a great form of self-assessment that forces you to be honest with yourself, if you won't do it for a god. That skill would otherwise not be taught as broadly if not for religion.

@breaking that's a good point on confession - our company had some self-help book writer who did a science project on essentially getting people to confess (without saying confession) but I wouldn't confess my sins if it weren't to have them actually forgiven.  I do the assessment nightly, but the confession monthly (or sooner when in actual mortal sin).  Believing your immortal soul is in peril is different journey than a clinical self-assessment.

@PeterTurner I'm curious about that element of Christianity. I remember that fear as a child, but cannot fathom it as an adult. Do we need fear to tell us what we ought to do? If I do wrong, I should own up to it. Not out of fear, but respect and love for those around me. These are perspectives that I cannot share, which make it difficult in coversation where I may not have as much time to think it over. I cannot relate with the person I'm talking to and they cannot relate to me, until we both leave more entrenched in our own opinions than ever.

I should note, these comments are very helpful. As I'm slowly remembering the perspective I had when I was younger which will be helpful the next time I'm asked about my beliefs.

@BreakingBeaker You might remember the "act of contrition"  - the part that goes "because I dread the loss of heaven and the fires of hell, but most of all because I have offended thee"?   Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.   I would stop trying to worry about entrenchment and opinions (a Christian will not consider them opinions - even though that is what the word dogma means - as a Catholic, I can't get Protestants to believe their interpretation of the Bible is an opinion any more than you can get me to believe the priesthood is an opinion) - just speak with love.

The danger here is that your "anti-" position will appear to be negative and antagonistic.
Compare saying "I'm a Christian. I believe that Jesus …, and that the world would be better if everyone accepted him.", against saying "I'm a Christian. I believe that Jews …, and that the world would be a better place without Judaism.".
For people that believe differently, the first statement might make them feel a little uncomfortable, or think the person saying it is a weirdo, because the statement itself is actually about the person saying it.
The second statement though isn't directly about the person saying it.
Instead, it explicitly attacks others, and that is going to upset many people.
Calling yourself an anti-theist, rather than an atheist, puts you into that second position.
You aren't saying "I personally believe that there is no God or other supernatural beings in the universe.".
Instead you're saying "I personally believe the world would be a better place if you didn't believe the nonsense that you believe.".
Most people don't want to hear negative messages, especially when directed at them.
They say "I'm a Christian. Faith in Christ helps me to ….".
You need to say something like "I'm an Atheist. Knowing that there is no God, that everything I do is my own choice and responsibility, helps me to ….".
Express your beliefs in positive terms, and keep them about yourself.
That allows other people to understand your perspective, just the same as what they say helps you to understand theirs.
They can believe you are wrong, while still respecting your right to be wrong.
As you said: "I don't find these discussions of faith offensive as I enjoy when people talk of their own faith.
To peer into the mind of someone who's fundamental perspective of life is different allows me re-evaluate my own perspectives.".
It's likely that many of them feel the same way.
But notice the key phrase there: "talk of their own faith".
Make sure you are talking positively about your own faith, and not talking negatively about theirs.

In case it's not obvious, the above advice applies to all beliefs, not only to Atheists.

This is not a question that any Christian should find offensive, and I for one appreciate your honesty in presenting your dilemma. To ensure that I have correctly understood this (otherwise I'm wasting my time with an answer), it seems that you enjoy conversations about faith in God with believers in God, but that you would like them to know that you "actively wish to discourage that type of thinking" (i.e. faith in God). Further, that “one's religion can be more than the institution its become. That one could still learn from the stories but not take the rules at face value.”
This is "about asking questions", in such a way as not to make Christians feel 'persecuted' as you explain your reasons for being (in your own words) 'Anti-Theist'.
The very way you have carefully explained this dilemma on a Christianity site should enable you to have frank but honest discussions with Christians. They will know at the outset that you are against belief in God. It's not just that you personally don't believe in God, but that you are actively wanting to dismantle their reasons for having faith. Of course, this might drastically limit the number of Christians who would be prepared to respond to you, but better to have a few willing conversationalists than garner a good number who then become angry at discovering you have 'an anti-theist agenda'.
From what you've stated, I would suggest one way of asking them questions that should avoid a lot of wasted time in ensuring discussions.
That is, don't muddle up faith in the existence of God with organised religion. You've done that in your comments: "I simply believe that the world would be better without organized religion, that we should actively move towards a secular lifestyle", further, "one's religion can be more than the institution its become."
You've put the cart before the horse. And that will get nobody anywhere. It's incredibly easy to find fault with organised religion, and there are millions of Christians today who will not defend the wrong, and the horrors, of many organised religions. Some would even point you to the last book of the Bible where God has foretold a coming day of his wrathful judgment upon corrupt religion. It's tempting to expose ungodliness in the midst of professing 'godly' people, but what has that got to do with whether God exists or not?
My suggestion is that you face up to the matter of God's existence first. Only after you accept that God exists would there be any point in discussing the very ungodly things some professed Christians are guilty of. To be anti-theist is one thing. To be anti-religionist is another thing. If you discover God is not to blame for awful things done in his name, you will understand matters better. But if you remain convinced God does not exist, then how can you be anti-somthing-you-don't-believe-exists? You can only be against an idea other people believe in, but attacking religious systems does nothing to tackle the existence of God. What's the point in dismantling someone's belief in a particular religious institution if that still leaves them with belief in God? You will not have infected them with your anti-theism, for that is a separate, distinct matter. I respectfully suggest that the atheistic system of attacking organised religion is done because there is no logical way to disprove the existence of God.
Consider how Jesus said that God sent himself - the Son of God - into the world to save it (John 17:3). He did not say God had sent a religious organisation into the world to save it. If you were to consider the person of Jesus Christ, to see if his claims about himself were valid, then you might begin to understand why followers of Jesus are Christians who believe in God (as opposed to followers of a religious system believing in the God of their religious system.)
I suggest this different approach - asking different questions at the outset - to make good headway with Christians who are followers of Jesus Christ as the risen Son of God. He leads people to God the Father, as he stated: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no-one comes to the Father, but by me." (John 14:6) Consider Christ, not organised religions.

I think you just solved my problem. Until recently, I would just define myself as atheist for the sake of simplicity. However, I knew that I was actively against acts done in the name of god and the extremes people go to in the name of god. So I simply assumed I was anti-theist. Yet, I respect peoples right to religion, I see value in the practice of religion, and I admire those who can find faith. Anti-religionist is a better term and perspective to have these conversations from, as it better describes my views.

@BreakingBeaker  I hope I've helped solve one of your problems. Sometimes the wood can hardly be seen for the trees.

First of all, you're not unique in thinking this, the great Heresiarch Arius thought that a more rational religion would break down the dogmas and leave people free to practice as they saw fit.
But, you miss the boat on the chief event of human history, which was God actually becoming a Man in Jesus.  If that happened, nothing you can possibly say or think could possibly mean anything. If it didn't then nothing a Christian can possibly say or think could is worth anything - and even St. Paul recognizes this.
And you're not unique in thinking that the organization of official religion was a bad idea.  Unless you're talking to Catholics or Orthodox (who usually aren't that given to proselytism)  you're talking to a person who agrees with you, that the institutions, and especially the buildings and the organizations, are entirely secondary to the main point - which is Faith in Jesus.
They're not entirely wrong, neither was Arius (Jesus really was a Man), but they're not entirely right either.  If you're to be saved, if any of us are to be saved, it will be through the Catholic Church, there's no other way around it; there are only several thousand ways to avoid thinking about it. It won't be through any one man or woman who is a Church Member, it will be through the invisible institution that Jesus left that will endure until the end of time.
Jesus' "law" just said "Love one another, as I have loved you" your law is apparently the first portion of that, picking apart God's law makes you no better (or worse) than the heresiarchs and reformers of the Catholic Church.  Putting on the mind of Christ, denying your own unbelief, is the the course of action that'll set your mind and heart on fire and "guide your feet into the way of peace."

I really like this perspective. I've spent so much time thinking about the hierarchical structure of religions, but less about how someone views their faith through the invisible institution. Instead of "deconstructing the institution" I can speak more to how someone can conceptualize their faith through the invisible institution. I look forward to reading more about Arius too.

I teach at a school that, although not officially atheist, has a number of secular humanist teachers who think exactly like you do. So although I’m a committed Christian, I have first-hand experience working and socialising in a secular environment. I can tell you that on a human level, secular humanists are as warm and relational as anyone else, and their caring approach to all living things is laudable.
As the first answer stated, many Christians agree wholeheartedly with you on the idea that formalised religion is potentially very destructive.
I don’t think you have to worry about offending or hurting anyone too much. It’s clear from your question detail and your responses that you are a very nice person, matter-of-fact yes - but caring, level-headed and compassionate also.
On the point of intelligent design, that’s a more modern way of talking about Jesus right there. The Bible describes him (to my knowledge) as the creator and sustainer of the universe, upholding everything by his powerful word. That would include the intelligent design that you allude to, possibly in viewing DNA, etc.?
Your objections that you raise and the arguments you present are in my opinion perfectly acceptable to bring up in conversation without offence.
On homosexuality, whilst there are many denominations and churches that decry homosexuality, there is nonetheless a spectrum of minority views, with thoughtful positions on the subject along the spectrum.
I wish you all the best on your journey of life! I concur with the first answer that Jesus and his work that he did on Earth to bring us back into relationship with the intelligent designer is at the heart of the Christian message. There is a realm beyond time, an existence beyond this universe and a glorious Designer in that realm.

I wonder what sort of belief system you would have us put in place of religion. Feyerabend's speech "How to Defend Society Against Science" is a very useful piece of philosophical literature here. Keep in mind that Feyerabend is no friend to religion, either.
I suspect that, like most anti-theists and atheists today, you would have us replace religion with science. If that is the case, I would refer you to Feyerabend. Once you have come to see that Feyerabend perceived rightly in his critique of science as an institution, we have more to talk about. I think you will be receptive to Feyerabend, since you have said this:

As an anti-theist I simply believe that the world would be better without organized religion, that we should actively move towards a secular lifestyle. Even if this secular lifestyle includes the belief of intelligent design, expression through religion (art, music, literature, etc.), or cerimonial tradition. I actively have "faith" that the deconstruction of religion as an institution would make the world better. Perhaps, giving religion a new opportunity to flourish as people begin reassessing what intelligent design could mean to them.

Feyerabend agrees with you, and sees modern science as just another religious framework. He gives all of these frameworks the title of "ideology," and says we should not teach any ideology as true, instead teaching what each ideology offers and letting people choose for themselves.
Do you see the problem with Feyerabend's way of thinking? It is that his proposal is itself an ideology. Like religion of the past and science of now, we are not allowed to question this framework of Feyerabend's which says that it is true that we must teach only what other ideologies teach, and not that any of them are true. That very belief constitutes an ideology. His view is thus self-defeating.
Rather, we should seek after what is actually true. How are we to resolve the fact that I think that earnest and rational inquiry will lead to Christian faith, while you (presumably) think it will lead to atheism? That's the next question that needs resolving. It is difficult to conceive of ways to convince modern atheists because they perceive life through a lens that says its impossible for religious views to be true. When that's your foundational axiom, no kind of reasoning can convince you it is false.

This is my problem when talking with atheists and anti-theists; the desire to replace religion. I see no need to replace systems that give people meaning, community, inspiration, hope, and happines. Where I do see problems is collectives getting entrenched in their own dogma, stomping on the wellbeing of others, from both atheists and theists. Atheists won't hesitate to point out the factual innacuracies, flaws, and mistranslations of sacred texts, at the expense of theists. While theists will stand firm in their beliefs at the expense of those who do not share in the same ideals.

I don't mean to generalize (character limit). I know many theists who let people live their life as they please, and atheists who are happy to hear of faith and intelligent design despite a lack of faith. When I see atheists trying to prove their superiority, I find it easier to find common ground with the bully and explain why attacking those who believe isn't right because I've been there, I've shared that perspective, and been that bully. It causes pain, anger, and only acts as a way to further separate the divide between theists and atheists.

I only wish to learn how to communicate that same perspective to theists entrenched in their own ideals, without being that bully. How can I put you in my shoes if only for a moment? How can I learn to embrace your shoes? I don't want to replace or remove any person's belief, but rather have individuals thinking critically about the doctrine they choose to embrace. Blind dogma of any kind whether it be based in science, faith, politics, or even philosophy can only end in the harm of others.

@BreakingBeaker I think the place to start is probably to not assume that anyone who disagrees with you is not thinking critically or following dogma blindly. Many of us have been led to our beliefs by reason and critical thinking.

As I said I don't mean to generalize, as I think many theists do make decisions of faith based on critical thinking and reasoning, like my coworkers mentioned above. I may find it odd but I know they didn't make that choice blindly, when they pray for guidance I guess they share "gut feeling" same as me. I've realized with each response, that perhaps my most recent interactions with theists such as the interactions that led me to make this post were just an unfortunate series of events that led me to believe that the larger religious community was unlike the community I grew up in.

The thoughtful and understanding responses are similar to those I would've recieved from my community as a child when I first explored atheism. There are gentle nudges in the direction of Christianity but not once an assault on my belief. When originally making this thread I was looking for just one answer with the expectation I would receive many negative answers. Yet each answer has provided me with new perspectives, new things to read and explore, and sound guidance. After today I feel much more open to speak about faith, and may even reach out to my old priest to see what he thinks.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
How is a question asking for examples of secular historians supporting a Christian argument for Jesus' resurrection off-topic?
The deleted question:
What are examples of secular historians agreeing with the four historical facts about Jesus of Nazareth that William Lane Craig bases his argument on?

Screenshot:

Moderator's feedback:

Don't cross post. Especially when it's off topic here like this.

I can understand the concern about cross-posting (see related questions on other stacks here and here), but the reason for closing according to the message displayed at the top is that the question was regarded as "philosophical or sociological without clearly asking for a doctrinal answer".
Can someone please help me out to:

understand what is meant by "philosophical or sociological without clearly asking for a doctrinal answer",
understand how this category applies to my question, and
figure out a way to reword the question so that it becomes on-topic?

Collecting lists is not what this site is about, especially not lists of secular historians.

@curiousdannii - it follows then that this question is off-topic as well, correct?

FWIW, I would argue that it is ("off-topic as well"). Possibly more so than your question, to be honest.

I try to answer your question and explain why this question (the one you pointed out) is on topic.  Being a relative newcomer, I defer to others and moderators, esp. those who also moderate other SE sites.
How does the close category philosophical or sociological without clearly asking for a doctrinal answer apply to my question and what is meant by this close category?

First, let's review the first-level choices and the second-level choices under "a community-specific reason".  I believe the list was designed to be short (5) and each reason is to be as general as possible although this leaves the name of the second level category "philosophical or sociological" rather ambiguous for specific cases.

C.SE needs to ask for a Christian answer, on topics of Christian theology, church history, and Christian practice.  Because your question is asking for secular historian it's off topic, although I can see that

it is valuable for Christian apologists who need to understand their debate partners as much as possible (like Aquinas did).
Christians need to use as much "religiously-neutral" disciplines like philosophy, psychology, history, sociology, literature, etc. as possible to build common ground with the skeptics

So while your question is certainly "on topic" for a Christian apologist, it's not necessarily so for C.SE.

What is a "Christian answer" I meant above?  For the purpose of this site, it's an answer that have one or more of these properties:

references at least one Christian-specific sources of revelation: Bible, tradition, doctrines, creeds, etc.
takes a Christian viewpoint in forming the argument
assumes a Christian worldview in that the scholarship allows for God acting in history / nature

Whether the author is Christian or not doesn't matter.  But a historian pre-committed to only a materialistic account (enshrined in the historiography he/she uses, which we then label "secular historian") will necessarily distort a Christian history, and thus is not eligible for a "Christian answer" per criteria above.  Especially in this post-modern age, the pre-commitment of a historian cannot be left out from the scholarship.
Again, the set of "Christian answer" for a Christian person is larger than the set for this site, so the larger set includes the "secular historians" giving support for the "four facts" that you asked.

We need to be aware that C.SE is just one of the dozens in the SE network.  Each site has "carved its own domain".  Cross posting is thus counter to the spirit of the whole network, where a question needs to be posted to a site that the Q best fits its "on-topic" definition.  Cross posting is a big no-no in the SE network [insert reference here, from meta.stackexchange.com].

First, I thought your Q belongs to History.SE (which covers secular historians), but when I read the close reason for your question there, it's obvious that they don't just answer all history-related questions, just like C.SE don't answer just all  Christianity-related questions.  It seems for now your question best belongs to Skeptics.SE.  If they close it, then we need to find the right home for your question.

Don't be confused by the category wording "philosophical or sociological" because the choice in practice has become a catch-all for anything that doesn't fit the other 3 choices.  I think we should either update the name of this choice, or to expand the 4th option to enable a regular user to suggest one of the dozens of other SE sites.  Currently a regular user cannot even suggest Hermeneutics.SE which makes this option rather useless.

Why is this question on-topic?  It's because:

the reference being asked doesn't necessitate a secular answer, leaving room for a Christian viewpoint & worldview defined in #3 above
canon formation is a specifically Christian topic that is critical for Christian theology, thus Christian viewpoint is automatically built-in.  But what you're asking is in essence a "secular allowance" for those 4 Christian "facts" to be realistic according to secular historiographical standard, making it not valuable in their own right for Christian theology, the main topic of this site.

Suggestion for making the question on-topic
If it ends up being closed in Skeptics.SE (thus, cross-posting becomes a non-issue), try:

removing the "secular" criteria, allowing for an answer by a Christian historian (which does not necessarily mean a partisan answer with sloppy scholarship).

instead of asking for who the historians are, ask for the argument that a historian use to regard those 4 "Facts" as historically plausible

Insightful answer. Do you think this question is off-topic?

@SpiritRealmInvestigator Personally, I would like to see that question allowed in C.SE.  But Ken Graham appealed to this meta question and used another close reason.  I also see that that question is too opinion-based, since different people have different favorites.  It's another example of good questions for a Christian, but doesn't quite fit the site.

Regarding 7. Why is this question on topic despite asking for a list of references? It's because the resources being asked is for a Christian answer, what do you mean by a "Christian answer"? The OP never said that they wanted Christian authors only. The OP is simply asking for scholarly references in general, which may include secular ones.

@SpiritRealmInvestigator Edited my answer.

@SpiritRealmInvestigator At any rate, WL Craig's article has footnotes (#1 to #4), referencing a professional historian supporting each "fact".  Why wouldn't they be sufficient for the answer you're looking for?  In addition, the article itself already spells out the historical argument.  Do you need more examples?

Do they represent the majority of secular historians? (By the way, if you know the answer, feel free to post an answer on the Skeptics.SE question.)

@SpiritRealmInvestigator Maybe next year :-).  For now, at least I'm conscious that the way I read gospels as history was very much influenced by Sunday School as a kid, so I'm more forgiving of post 20th century historians (both secular and Christians !), who are 10x more aware of how modern history is so very much different than ancient history.  They are right that the gospels are more of a document of faith than history book.  Even the non-materialistic ones may not automatically grant those 4 facts as historical happenings without other
corroborating narratives.


text:
Is asking for a specific group's strongest arguments for one of their beliefs opinion-based?
Successful previous questions:

According to Creationists, what are the strongest arguments against abiogenesis?
According to Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, what are the strongest apologetic arguments for the divine inspiration of the deuterocanonical books?
According to Protestantism, what are the strongest apologetic arguments against the doctrine of Intercession of Saints?
According to Latter-day Saints, what are the strongest apologetic arguments for the divine inspiration of the Book of Mormon?
What are the strongest apologetic arguments in defense of the veracity of the doctrine of Intercession of Saints?
What are the strongest arguments for the divine inspiration of the Bible?

Current question in dispute: According to non-inerrantist Christians, what are the strongest arguments against the inerrancy of the Protestant Bible?
Comment exchange under that question:

Luke Hill: I don’t see how failure to close those previous questions changes anything I said. Do you not think the question is Opinion based?
Me: I think it is as opinion-based as any of those other questions, so you would have to vote to close them all in order to remain consistent. I also think that determining whether a question is opinion-based is opinion-based. Feel free to continue this discussion on meta.

Question: Is asking for a specific group's strongest arguments for one of their beliefs opinion-based?

It is always going to be a matter of opinion which arguments are 'weaker' and 'stronger'. Many conclusions are based on multiple arguments which, taken as a whole, pose a compelling conclusion. The idea of 'weaker' and 'stronger' individual arguments being instrumental in the establishing of a verdict is erroneous, as any properly conducted forensic/judicial case will show. Juries are swayed by a variety of cogent arguments.

Subjective terms always leave open the possibility for the interjection of opinion and you certainly aren't going to ask for the lamest, least plausible arguments so you might as well leave off the word strongest and assume that those will be the ones lead with.