An Observation About Religious Threads....

[Lord Jim]

I don't post very often in the religious discussions; I don't feel that I am sufficiently grounded in theology to really have much of value to add...I prefer to let someone like Meade carry the ball...Generally, I tend to post about topics that are either pure opinion, (the "what do you think about this news story?" type threads,) or on topics (like politics, history, foreign affairs, economics) that I actually know something about....

(Yes, I realize preferring to post about topics I actually know something about makes me some thing of a weirdo around here....If that approach ever caught on, it would probably reduce posting here by at least 50% )

But I have an interest the topic of religion, and I have enjoyed reading many of the thoughtful debates on the subject I have seen over the years....

However....

In recent months I have noticed an unfortunate trend; nearly all the threads on this topic seem to degenerate quickly into rapid fire pissing matches....in fact some of them become pissing matched from the first or second post)

This can happen in any thread on any topic of course, but for some reason it seems to happen with topics on this subject more than any other. Maybe this can be partially explained by the fact that it's a subject that people take very personally and have very strong opinions about; but even allowing for that, there's no question that the problem has gotten significantly worse in the past six months or so....In many cases it gets so bad that it's not even worth wading through all the back and forth to try and dig up the few nuggets of actual on-topic thoughtful discussion...

I really can't believe I'm the only one who's noticed this....

Well, that's my 2 cents worth about it, anyway. You may now return to your regularly scheduled food fight, already in progress....

[Crackpot]

It's largly due to a few people making extraordinarily bad arguments which some posters can't help but rise to the bait of and others discouraging others from posting all together.

Why spend the time crafting a well thought out argument when people of an opposing view are just going to chase the low hanging fruit buy others who are perceived as being on your "side"

[Lord Jim]

It's probably a combination of factors....

I think it probably also has to do with the fact that a couple of the posters who contributed a lot of the really thought provoking content that went into these threads...Meade and Big RR....aren't around....Meade rarely posts, and Big RR not at all...when you have a couple of contributors who don't get drawn into the personal stuff, it helps too keep the dialogue more focused generally.

[loCAtek]

The ignore feature was supposed to remedy this... but some people can't practice what they preach.

[The Hen]

I agree with the man from Cracked Potts.

[dgs49]

(a) points of theology are not amenable to being resolved by discussion or debate,

(b) people with a faith-based perspective and people with a "humanist" based perspective tend to look at everything with very different basic assumptions and premises,

(c) in this small group of posters, everything that can conceivably be said has already been said, many times, therefore,

(d) frustration surfaces early in these discussions.

Not surprising at all.

[Gob]

I agree with Dave...

Now I've got to go wash my hands after typing that...

[Lord Jim]

I agree with Dave...

Well now....

You agree with Dave....

And yet you still don't believe in miracles?

[dales]

Dave is spot on.

Some other stuff he posts I take exception to.

Same with you, Jim

[Sue U]

Hey, even I agree with Dave from time to time. Which is what makes me think there may yet be hope for humanity.

[Crackpot]

Do not discount what can be learned by the free exchange of theology. If you're willing to understand why people think or belive what they do you ar far less likly to mrginalise others or be magfinalized yourself.

[loCAtek]

Very good point,

[rubato]

Most of the threads in question are not about religion but about the Church as a social institution.

A moron might be confused about the difference. Not intelligent person would be.

yrs,
rubato

[loCAtek]

Actually, that's a point, I try very hard to make in most of those threads.

[Andrew D]

It is a commonplace observation that conversations about religion and conversations about politics tend to generate more heat than light. But it does not have to be that way.

In the days of yore, there was a thread that started as "30 Questions". It evolved into a wonderful conversation. It went on through at least 842 postings, and there was very little hostility anywhere in it.

(a) points of theology are not amenable to being resolved by discussion or debate,

Actually, they are generally resolved, if they are resolved at all, in precisely that manner. That is why Christian churches have had so many councils (synods, conferences, convocations, etc.) over the centuries: Theological issues need resolution, and discussion and debate are how they are resolved.

(b) people with a faith-based perspective and people with a "humanist" based perspective tend to look at everything with very different basic assumptions and premises,

True enough. But the suggestion of monolithicity should not go unremarked.

People with faith-based perspectiveS do not all think alike, or even close. Far from it.

The Episcopalians who ordained, consecrated, and installed an openly gay, non-celibate man as a bishop were operating from a faith-based perspective. The Episcopalians who split from the US Episcopal Church -- while remaining in communion with the See of Canterbury, a balancing act whose details have yet to be worked out -- because other Episcopalians ordained, consecrated, and installed an openly gay, non-celibate man as a bishop were also operating from a faith-based perspective.

Faith-based perspective on one side, faith-based perspective on the other side, and diametrically opposite results.

(d) frustration surfaces early in these discussions.

Most of which, from what I have seen, is the result of posters' not actually responding to each other. When we pay honest attention to what other people write -- which does not, of course, requiring that we agree with them -- we can find ourselves in interesting and at least potentially fruitful conversations. When we have already decided what we are going to post in "response" to what someone else has posted before bothering to think about what someone else has posted, we will probably find ourselves mired in gratuitous ire.

Just my $0.02.