It's an odd phenomenon, but easily explained I think
It would seem to me that the primary motive is that people don't like doing lots of reading.
Cris once posted a thread about the Crucifixion and it was an interesting one; a certain base-level nitpicking marked one side of the debate preventing substantive discussions concerning the ramifications of the issue itself. On the other hand, I enjoyed a lovely digression on docetism and other issues, one of the most challenging go-rounds I'd had in ages at the time. But that portion of the discussion was with one other poster while the flood of attention focused on nitpicking the issue into obscurity.
Or a thread I posted on Kharkovli, once, discussing Sufism. Some good issues were raised, but the majority of people didn't understand the issues enough to take part, and nothing about the topic inspired them to find out what's going on.
For instance, I write one-drafters, as I'm sure many here do. A topic I've thought about posting has to do with the fact that we're on the web. It's changed my approach to writing, and I find myself scouring the web sometimes to support with other materials what should be an obvious point. I haven't found a way to make it
not accusatory, though, as often I want to look at some posters and say, "Try Google." Of course, then I remember that the new iMacs have 56k modems in them because not everyone in the country or world can get broadband; believe me, there's no excuse for not coughing up an available citation if you've got broadband. I suppose limited time, especially among minors whose activities might be restricted or monitored by parental authority. So you see the problem I'm having making a topic out of it ....
But in the end, it's that sometimes people feel they're expected to do too much reading. Many of the more obscure, seemingly more vital issues that don't get discussed, especially in religious and political affairs, simply transcend the experience, perception, or recognition of many posters, and they're not up to doing the research.
Furthermore, many posters seem to treat this place as if it was Instant Messaging; that is, their posts are often immediate reactions in the form of short commentaries, sometimes leading to long strings of sniping, but that's actually beside the point today.
But I feel qualified to say some of these things for the simple fact that many people tell me my posts are too long or incomprehensible in their details, and while some cheerfully admit it's just too much information to deal with in a given period, some in the past have actually gotten cussing mad at me for it.
So it seems to me that the more substantive the question, the more thought, time, and possibly learning is required, and I'm not sure those are the highest priorities of all of our posters. I would also consider a possible comparison of "style and substance" in posts and responses.
And following the short bits on textual criticisms and so forth: you know, people criticize the Catholics for being too doctrinal. But one thing I'll give the Catholics is that whether or not I agree with the answer, there usually is one. People often end up criticizing Catholics for writing down what they've come to understand by attempting to resolve a crisis of faith. Certes, we might suggest they're a little too serious about it, but that is a different point for a different debate.
What I'm after is that textual criticisms and so forth also constitute attempts to understand. Without some general idea of what certain vagaries allegedly mean, without some version of consensus, we could never have debates about the Bible except for arguments pertaining to sentence structure.
In that sense, look to those who would excuse Biblical contradictions as a linguistic phenomenon; what does this say of the Bible? Yet we have
volumes of criticisms on the record trying to disseminate the Bible's meaning in the English language. Regardless of what people might say about language, it doesn't change the fact that most of us at this board who learned any portion of the Bible learned it in English first.
So if we look to textual criticisms and historical evaluations, it is because people have devoted effort to these issues, or aspects of these issues, in the past. Most, if not all of our debates at Sciforums' religious board, have taken place before. In fact the more substantive the issue, the more likely it's been covered in history.
So we come back now to the objections: once again it seems merely a matter of quantities. Considering the literary and historical criticisms, the doctrinal debates and resolutions, and the multifarious factors of the human endeavor often proves overwhelming for many who seek an answer more avidly than they do understanding.
And while that's a tough consideration, I'm trying to make myself more comfortable with it. Not everybody has broadband; not everybody wants to devote that much of their spare or free time; and if we stop to consider me, specifically, who the hell else has the established luxury of writing anywhere from four to sixteen hours a day whenever they feel like it?
One of the reasons I was considering the retirement of this identity (random Free Thoughts topic--"5199") is that it might give me a chance to rebuild a certain form of trust absent from considerations related to the history of "Tiassa". People often reject the sources, criticisms, and other citations I offer because I'm viewed as partisan; although for the record, we might note that just as many atheists distrust me as theists around here. But in the end, what I really want to convey to people is that this is the history I understand, and what it implies according to my values; if someone can clarify that history, great. In the meantime, an historical clarification often results in a one-liner like, "Catholic? No kidding...."
It's a sad thing--it seems the faithful don't want to understand their faith. But that's just the Sciforums manifestation. It's a symptomatic appearance. The actual factors that explain that result, well, I can only speculate as I have above.
:m:,
Tiassa