Please clarify "It's not a Christian website either, it's a secular website about Christianity"

Question

From a comment by Peter Turner on another question:

"It's not a Christian website either, it's a secular website about Christianity"

I have read a few Question/Answer/Comments about this topic on this site, and am finally coming around a bit. However, I still have what I feel are valid issues:

The Name

If I, as a Christian, wanted to explore Islam, I would want to check out the islam.stackexchange site and be grateful for objective knowledge about the topic from the perspective of adherents AND academics, with no intention of becoming an adherent. But as a Christian, I would NOT want to explore the christianity.stackexchange site and be told it is only for academics and the adherents need to disguise themselves as academics, which is how I feel I am treated. In "Should we say we are a 'secular website'?" I do like Lee Woofenden's suggestion that the site would serve potential members better with a clear reference to "about" before christianity, which would suggest it is not "for" christianity. I agree with DJClayworth's assessment that "secular" is a loaded trigger word for many people, and is off-putting to at least some of the Christians using the site. The academics should not be able to decree that it is a good and proper use of the word here as some have done in other comments.

The concept

The debate about "secular" or "christian" views seems to describe two different goals for using the site. The first and foremost user is the person exploring the topic as a religious studies class, keeping the material at arm's length, with no interest other than intellectual curiosity. The second user may or may not be an adherent, but is interested in learning if this topic could possibly become a belief system to live by. Both should be equally respected and understood as having different approaches to Q&As (although I agree all discussions should apply in a public way, not to address a person's unique life issue).

My concerns

In the comments to my first and so far only question "Does Predestination apply to all people or just the major characters God needed for His plans for us to unfold?":

1. Ray Butterworth told me the site is not religious, it is about religion, and went on to say

   "Ideally good answers will be the same regardless of one's personal beliefs Q&As should be about what is objectively true for people of all faiths".

   But this makes no sense to me, because part A would restrict discussion to an extremely limited range of ideas that have no room for interpretation, and for part B there will be almost no Q&As that would be considered true in more than a few common faiths, if that. Otherwise, why so many different faiths?

2. curiousdannii told me that my question was moot because

   "most Christians from most denominations are compatibilist - upholding both the sovereignty of God, and humans having real wills".

   But this seems like a cop-out, because the question is trying to determine when does God gets to decide versus when do people get to decide. Saying that God and people both get to decide will obviously create conflict between people and God when they both think they can decide.

3. NigelJ said

   "The question appears not to be seeking what God has revealed of Himself (in his own word). Therefore it becomes a philosophical enquiry, inviting philosophical debate, in order to come to a human concensus of opinion, all of which are off-topic on this site".

   But my question referred to many Bible verses, and asked for help with clarification. The only person that answered it (so far) used many Bible verses in his answer, and I commended him for using source material and referred to some of it in my reply to him. I was not trying to get "consensus of opinion" or invite "philosophical debate", and I carefully restricted the question to what God HAS revealed about himself in His Book.

A mildly ironic observation made with respect: The word "philosophy" is Greek for "love of wisdom", the Google definition (from Oxford Languages) is "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline". An adherent to Christianity understands this refers to the type of wisdom gained from the study of human-derived knowledge, as in academia. This seems to pretty accurately describe the primary "keep it at an arm's length" type of site user I described above, but NigelJ says such usage of the site is off topic...

Answer 1

The website is secular because it is hosted by a corporation that is entirely worldly. Islam.se (not to mention the Hindu, Jewish and Buddhist sites) should be a secular site for the same reason. I'm not sure how they were able to avoid being told to come up with a framework to deal with sectarian conflicts.

The answer, originally, was that we called these questions that only God could answer "Truth Questions" and closed them accordingly. At some point, a few years ago now, I merged the "Truth Question" (which really confused new users) with "Philosophical/Sociological" which only minorly confused new users.

But the gist of it is the same:

• if the question can only be answered by God,
• and the question is not an appeal to a religious authority

then the question is off topic.

If I were mod on Islam.SE, for instance, I would close all these questions

Answer 2

About the site

You're almost there in figuring out the purpose of C.SE. Yes, it is a religious studies site about Christianity, but apart from the topic there's one more requirement: ability to be answered objectively, which has 2 consequences:

1. Where one Christian group potentially has a different answer, then the Q has to specify which group the question is seeking (unless it's an overview question).

2. If no Christian group has a "correct" answer (i.e. there are multiple opinions) then the Q cannot be asked in this site, even though the Question is spiritually significant (such as "What is the meaning of life", "How do I discern God's plan for my life", "What are the principles I can follow to find my future spouse", "Why a good God allows an innocent baby to be murdered", etc.). These would typically be questions you would ask your pastor. See also We can't handle the truth.

About your specific concerns

1. But this makes no sense to me, because part A would restrict discussion to an extremely limited range of ideas that have no room for interpretation, and for part B there will be almost no Q&As that would be considered true in more than a few common faiths, if that. Otherwise, why so many different faiths?

   This is not a site to discuss the relative merit of the view of different Christian groups. Rather, it's a site to help us learn where a particular Christian group stands for a particular issue. If you read the entirety of Ray Butterworth's comment "true for people of all faiths" does not mean an answer that is satisfactory for all faiths, but an answer by a specific group phrased in an objective manner so it can be understood without confusion by all faiths. For example, a question asking the nature of the Eucharist according to Catholicism can be answered in a way that all denominations agree that it IS a Catholic answer (i.e. not misrepresenting Catholicism).

2. But this seems like a cop-out, because the question is trying to determine when does God gets to decide versus when do people get to decide. Saying that God and people both get to decide will obviously create conflict between people and God when they both think they can decide.

   Conflict is not necessarily the case here. Jesus (as paradigmatic, exemplary, and ideal representative of a human person) was able to unite his will with the Father's will. As brother/sister of Jesus, we can do this too, with the grace of the Holy Spirit. This type of "unified will in love" preserves both human free will and God's providence. Different Christian groups simply have different models of how this interaction plays out within God's Eternal Now (where all times are present to Him). A few short videos that helped me a lot:

   • What is God's Eternity
   • Does God Know the Future?
   • If God knows the future, what is free will?
   • How Does God Relate to Time?
   • Is God Simple?
   • Is God Temporal or Timeless?

3. But my question referred to many Bible verses, and asked for help with clarification. The only person that answered it (so far) used many Bible verses in his answer, and I commended him for using source material and referred to some of it in my reply to him. I was not trying to get "consensus of opinion" or invite "philosophical debate", and I carefully restricted the question to what God HAS revealed about himself in His Book.

   It's the sad truth that Biblical revelation is incomplete and ambiguous on some relatively unimportant issues. It's God's choice and we have to deal with insufficient information. This of course leads to multiple interpretations of what the Bible say (since one has to fill in the blanks or has to reconcile seemingly contradictory statements in different ways). What's the consequence for this site? Since this site's goal is objective answer, this requires the question to be scoped accordingly (see first section above).

Conclusion

But aren't we supposed to gain wisdom by studying the Bible and obtain God's truths for us to follow? YES, OF COURSE. How does a Christian gain any value from this site? Answer: by studying the clear objectively described Biblical interpretive choices before him/her in this "marketplace of Christian groups", and by prayerfully decide subjectively which choice to adopt personally.

I hope this answer helps. If not, please comment and I'll try to improve this meta answer further.

Answer 3

"Ideally good answers will be the same regardless of one's personal beliefs Q&As should be about what is objectively true for people of all faiths".

But this makes no sense to me, because part A would restrict discussion to an extremely limited range of ideas that have no room for interpretation

Surprisingly, no. I, as an atheist, have answered questions about what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. What I believe wasn't the subject of the question, and therefore wasn't really mentioned in the answer.

I've asked questions about Catholic doctrine. I didn't really mind who provided the answer, but I wanted an answer about Catholic doctrine, not the personal beliefs of whoever felt like providing them.

This is why questions should be scoped. You shouldn't ask the world at large for their personal beliefs on a topic. (Though by all means do so in chat, which is rather different.) Instead, ask a specific question of a specific group. It's most likely that a member of that group will answer, and their answers will probably be better informed and better quality, but in principle anyone can answer.

And anyone providing their own personal beliefs instead is simply not answering the question asked, and their contributions are therefore unwelcome and can be deleted.

So we can still discuss all kinds of complex (and controversial) topics. We just need to scope the questions carefully.