This site's policy has nothing to do with whether or not there is an absolute Truth.
First point: Nobody who has defended the site's policy has ever done so based on the idea that there is no absolute truth. The idea that there is no absolute truth is based on a logical flaw in the first place. Only a fool, or someone who hasn't actually thought it through would actually believe that there is no absolute truth. It's a logical necessity.
Second point: If you actually read the statements of those who helped formulate, and later, defend the policy, the argument isn't that there is no absolute truth, it's that this isn't the place to get on a soapbox and argue about who's right and who's wrong about what that Truth is.
Key phase: This isn't the place.
Think of it like this. When discussing politics, where would it be appropriate to make the statement: "Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant that ignored States' rights." (Not that I believe that, I'm just using it as an example.)
Would it be appropriate to put that...
- On a Facebook post? Sure. People are allowed to post whatever views they want on Facebook, and it would probably generate a very interesting comment stream. It'd get liked by some, shared by others, denounced, celebrated, whatever.
- On a blog? Yep. It might generate some traffic, as well as some interesting feedback.
- In a chat room? sure.
- In an opinion piece in a Newspaper? Or a magazine? yes.
- How about in a newspaper article that's just reporting it as a news story. Hmmm. probably not. There's a difference between a news story and an opinion piece. In a news story, it would probably be appropriate to quote someone as saying that, but not to print it as truth.
- An Encyclopedia article about Abraham Lincoln? Probably not. Again, you could quote someone as saying that, but not state it as fact.
- A textbook on history? Still, probably not. Same deal as the previous two.
Similarly, there is a time, place, and medium where it's OK to spread eternal Truths.
As a Christian, I can tell you that not only do I believe very strongly in absolute Truth, and what that Truth is. I believe very strongly that as a Christian, our number one duty is to proclaim that Truth.
But this site is not the place to do that.
Third point: It's not this site's policy.
This site is not a Christian site. It's purpose is not evangelism. It was never, ever, intended to be such. This site is a StackExchange site that just happens to have Christianity as the topic of focus.
StachExchange has a very specific set of guidelines that apply to all StackExchange sites. They're covered here.
Included is this:
You wouldn't shout out a calculus question in a football stadium,
right? You'd go to the math department of a university. That's why
instead of allowing questions on any topic, we bring together
individual communities of experts on very specific topics.
We welcome questions that are clear and specific, representing real
problems that you face; Stack Exchange is not the place for
conversation, opinions, or socializing.
Also, the Area51 site, which is where new StackExchange sites (including this one) start out as proposals has very clear guidelines on what's expected on StackExchange sites.
The guidelines are also pretty clear in the Real Questions have Answers blog post by one of the creators of the StackExchange Network, and it's been backed up and enforced pretty much on every site that ever made it past the graduation period.
So, again, when you're told that this isn't the place to discuss who's right and wrong, the important part of that phrase is "this isn't the place". Take it someplace else. Not to be too blunt, but if you disagree with that, this may not be the site for you.
The flip side of that argument.
For all the people who think that this guideline should be done away with. Let's just imagine for a minute that it is done away with. What will the result be?
Simple. On Truth questions, we will get a bunch of answers, some similar, some conflicting, explaining the doctrine each person holds, and explaining why their answer is the right one.
So, a genuine seeker comes along, and what does he or she do?
They read through the answers, and decide which one makes the most sense to them.
In the meantime, they are seeing in the answers a bunch of infighting, maybe finger-pointing, and otherwise nonconstructive content. maybe that nonconstructive content is a determining factor in who they choose to believe. "That person sounds like a blowhard. why would I care what he thinks?"
How is that any better than our current guideline?
Our current guidelines allow us to ask questions about doctrinal views. Perhaps we get conflicting answers, but all of them written professionally, without the argumentative content. A seeker comes along and reads the various answers, and...
They read through the answers, and decide which one makes the most sense to them.
Either way, we are still free to post the doctrinal view we believe in. The guidelines merely prevent us like sounding like bickering children when doing so.