I often have posts that follow a theme. This one was the next place my mind took me after I'd had some time for my post I wrote a little while ago to sink in a little more.
I love discussions. I am however, very much against pushing religion on other people. I view everyone I speak to as a fellow human. I therefore ASSUME they have the same make up as other humans. This means I do not believe one of us is super human and omniscient and knows everything. I prefer discussions over having someone preach to me.
What is the difference?
A discussion is a two sided thing. Both sides can learn. Both sides can be right about some things, and wrong about others. In some cases both sides can be totally wrong, and in other cases they can both be right but just were coming at it from different perspectives and didn't realize it until they had a nice civil discussion. This later type where both are right often occurs when people were operating under different definitions for some words. There are some pretty heated topics that have labels that people will have very different interpretations of the definition. So often it is simply realizing what each others interpretation of the definition was that can lead to understanding.
I don't EVER (absolute) go into an argument expecting to WIN as I've recently been accused. To me that can actually be losing. The ideal argument/discussion/debate is one where both sides learn things. To me that is winning. I have zero interest in preaching to anyone. I have zero interest in saying "this is how it is" and expecting people to blindly agree with me and offer me no challenge. That is losing as far as I am concerned.
Yet, that also means I am very against people approaching me as though they are the CHOSEN ONE that has the answers and I should listen to them, hear them, and have my mind masterfully CORRECTED.
If you speak to people with the mental mind set that you will not change your mind then how is that actually different from delivering a sermon or preaching to them? You are speaking, you are not listening. It is no longer a two (or more) way conversation at that point.
What is the point?
I've never met anyone I'd consider actually worthy of being treated as though they KNOW the answers and I should unquestionably agree with them and never question. I also do not expect the same from those I interact with.
If someone presents me with evidence I can go analyze that is one thing. If someone does not present me with evidence and is treating opinion as fact, that is another thing. The later I'm not going to respond to without challenge.
If my challenge is then met with "you'll not change my mind" or something similar then at that point I have to wonder, was I just being subjected to a sermon? If I cannot have even the potential of changing a mind then that would imply the person is not truly listening... they only are speaking. What is the value in that?
