A question

[AndyHB]

If, as is clearly the case for some here, someone doesn't believe the Bible (or anything else, for that matter) to be what it claims for itself, can anyone explain why they feel the need to bang on about this 'disbelief' on a public forum like this, especially when they then put forward - almost as if they have suddenly thought of it themselves - some theory or other that has been doing the theological rounds for centuries?  Do they seriously believe that they will change the minds of folk who, in same cases, have spent years researching and studying 'religion', and come to the conclusion that this or that faith or perhaps even denominational viewpoint is the correct one relatively late in life; or conversely, have been brainwashed (like the Phelps' children) into believing that what their parents/church leaders/school teachers say is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, even when that parent/church leader/school teacher tells them that the Bible is complete and utter rubbish?

[JJ]

Since when has it been the primary function of discussions to change anybody's mind or to persuade others?

In my mind discussions and ruminations enlarge and clarify one's own view of what one thinks, it exercises the brain, it fulfils a need to be heard, it's of interest to oneself and others, and it's a new viewpoint or a learning process for everyone as they come to it in their own explorations.  It makes for relationship and discourse, and quite often one is looking for something that excites.

[AndrewF]

The discussion can be useful in helping the person who opposes you to better understand why you take the position you do, rather than being for you  to change his mind.
There are also some of us who will take a contrary view (as a "devil's advocate") just for the sake of having a discussion...  :stirthepot:

[Boudi]

The last two posts make very good points, and I wonder why you refer to it as 'banging on', unless you are feeling a big wobbly on your own beliefs?  I don't see the bible as being entirely 'true' since I don't see it's primary purpose as being an historical record, as some seem to insist.  Some parts are obviously not meant to be taken literally, yet there are those who seem top insist that every bit is literally true.  There are those who likewise wish to pick and choose which bits are true, and which bits should be taken as allegory.  I personally prefer to take notice of those passages which speak to me, and which teach and guide me.  I don't bang on to others about what lessons they should take from it, since the bible, like all literature, speaks to us indivually.

[JJ]

And a third good post. 

[AndyHB]

Since when has it been the primary function of discussions to change anybody's mind or to persuade others?

There is at least one person here who regards anyone who holds opinions different to theirs to be pointless debating with, and only worth abusing.

Yes, forums and discussions are partly for airing opinions; but one would also hope that, if there are contentious issues, one's arguments would encourage others to rethink there opinions.  Isn't that what debates are partly for?

[AndyHB]

The last two posts make very good points, and I wonder why you refer to it as 'banging on', unless you are feeling a big wobbly on your own beliefs?

I used the term 'banging on' because over the years, certain people's arguments and abuse (and that has been from both ends of the theological and sociological spectrum) has actually strengthened my beliefs - partly because of certain people's reliance on abusive language, and partly because of others clearly illogical argumentation) - yet still the same people carry on trying to change my opinions using the same tactics.

[tranchiebabe]

I don't expect or want people to change their minds about their faith if it does the business for them, unless of course they are practising it in an abusive way.

Having been unfortunate enough to encounter fundamentalist Christianity as a child, it is not surprising I feel strongly revolted by its worst excesses.

[ecuworrier]

i got a bit lost ... there were two question marks and lots of words and puctuation and everything.... 

so what on earth was 'A question'?


GOD BLESS!

Peace and Love,

[AndrewF]

The punctuation is there to make it easier to understand Ecu! (Perhaps you had not gathered that though...)  :-)

[JJ]

I wonder if there is a 'correct' view of the ultimate religion or even denomination as AHB mentions in his first post.

I've been reading Christian Atheist - Belonging without believing by Brian Mountford (Vicar of St Mary the Great, Oxford)  in which he interviews and discusses the views of several types of churchgoers and non churchgoers in his own circle of friends and acquaintances.

Is it "correct" to finally decide late in life that democracy is better than capitalism? Or silence better than talk?