This request is nothing new, users have weighed in over years so I will not retype what has already been written extensively elsewhere. I will merely quote existing meta posts that have been upvoted by the community.
We discuss the text, not the things to which the text applies
The majority of users have agreed that:
Questions are on topic if they are focused on the text, rather than
things to which the text may apply.... Questions that seem to be
seeking to apply the Bible are off-topic.
We do indeed "stop short of truly applying God's truth to our lives," that is a well-defined guideline for participation here:
We stop short of application when answering questions about the Bible
(which means we don't fully exegete the text in the religious sense of
the practice).... Questions about the application of the Biblical
texts are best asked on sites devoted to specific religious traditions
such as Christianity.SE or Judaism.SE. We try to avoid eisegesis as
much as possible.
This is a university, not a church/synagogue
As articulated in our (highly upvoted by the community) site distinctives under point #4:
We are interested in questions about Biblical texts and the process of
translating and interpreting them, not absolute truth(s). We want to
know how things are and have been—what they should be is your concern.
In the university, the Bible (viewed as an academic text of literature
rather than as 'scripture') is taken up as an object of philological,
moral, aesthetic, and antiquarian interest.1 The university’s goals
are "to avoid controversial ideologies, outmoded systems of thought,
dogmatism, and extreme positions on either end of the theological
Imagine being observed by a bunch of professors who know the Bible,
but don't necessarily believe it (at least not in the same way that
you do). That is your audience—even if many of us are adherents of a
religion. In a university setting (such as a rigorously academic
seminary), truth is often less important than how you arrive at it. A
quote from the movie Indiana Jones comes to mind:
"Archaeology is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're
looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall."
That is not to say that truth isn't important (indeed, those of us who
adhere to religious beliefs and practices are very concerned about
truth in our lives)—it's just secondary to scholarship in this
context. We make the Internet a better place by bringing rigorous
scholarship to bear on the real questions people have about the
Biblical texts and the process of understanding them (stopping short
of the application of these texts).
The good news is that there are other places on the web that welcome modern religious interpretations of texts that focus primarily on absolute truth—this is simply not that place. We offer something different.
Stay on target
Another meta post points out that historical, linguistic, and literary questions about the Biblical texts are primarily what we ask about here, while religious, theological/doctrinal, ethical, and liturgical questions about the text are best asked elsewhere. Questions asking about linguistic features of a text should receive linguistic responses, not theological ones, and so on. In other words, answers should stay on target.
This isn't because these other aspects of the text are unimportant, but rather because this site has chosen to focus only on specific aspects of it because there are plenty of other websites focusing on the aspects we exclude. This helps reduce to the signal-to-noise ratio, resulting in this site making the Internet a better place by providing well-researched, scholarly, and 'on-target' answers that are hard to find elsewhere.
This also makes our answers useful to a much broader audience (which is important considering that we explicitly "welcome Jewish, Christian, Atheist and other viewpoints as long as they take seriously the process of understanding the Biblical texts").
Showing work helps minimize "presuppositional baggage"
You also mention that "even the most cerebral approach to hermeneutics comes with presuppositional baggage." I fully agree with you here. We can't eliminate all bias. But we can expect some of it to be bracketed in the interest of welcoming all perspectives, and we also require that users show their work so that we can understand how someone came to various conclusions, not just what they think:
...we try to minimize unstated presuppositions in questions and
answers. For this reason, we expect good questions and answers to lay
out a logical argument beginning from the Biblical text. This is like
mathematics homework: you shouldn't give an answer without showing how
you derived it.
As also explained elsewhere,
What makes us different from those sites is that here, our focus is
primarily on the process of hermeneutical analysis, not the final
output of that process. This distinction is significant and critical
for users of this site to understand, but in practice the degrees of
implementation are often subtle.
We are different, but we're glad you're here!
I will close by quoting the final point in our site distinctives:
We are different, and sometimes it takes a little bit of a paradigm
shift to adapt. Every student who enters an academically rigorous
seminary feels that way at some point. Having your assumptions
challenged, your motives questioned, and your contributions edited is
not always pleasant. However, if you endure the initial 'poking and
prodding,' you'll quickly realize that you have found a community that
cherishes the Biblical texts and desires to understand them in a
unique way not found anywhere else on the Internet—and you'll learn a
lot and make some new friends along the way.
1 Michael C. Legaspi. The Death of Scripture and the Rise of Biblical Studies (USA: Oxford University Press, 2011), 31–32.
2 Ibid., 41.