What would it take to change your mind?

[CoxRox]

Of course there are many people who see it in different ways. Both uneducated fundamentalists - and also 'sophisticated' theologians do disagree on things too.

This is what I mean by the Cherry Picking. You can read stuff literally and metaphorically. And I don't think its always that clear - I think a lot of cherry picking is going on.
You are right. There are things that are unclear, and even the stuff that is 'clear' is still cherry picked.

After all there are some parts in the bible that just can't be taken metaphorically - they are clearly literal. But they are cherry-picked because, as a believer, if you don't do so your basically just another fundamentalist - unless there's some way around that or something? Although that would sound like probably just another way of cherry-picking again but perhaps more disguised.
I see why it seems that way, but two examples I offer that are not 'cherry picking' but 'interpretation' issues are the creation and the flood. Now many 'believers' take the creation accounts in Genesis to be very simplistic accounts that aren't meant to be taken literally. You may say we're 'twisting' the understanding to fit science and maybe that is the case. Many christians believe the flood was local- this eliminates all those 'horrible' problems.

The thing is - about theologians - if they all agreed with each other - would there be much point in theology?


Although I of course don't think there's a point anyway. But I mean would even the religious see there to be a point in 'theology' if they just all agreed on the subject? Wouldn't be much of an 'ology' is that what the case (hypothetically speaking) would it?
Surely agreeing on something is preferable to contentions but it's easier said than done. Look at politics.
Everyone disagrees on the bible apart from when its obvious, it at least, seems to me. And when its not obvious - how do you get away from the cherry picking? How could anyone say their own personal vague interpretation as above the others?
I don't know if my interpretation is right. I cannot be sure. There is enough that I can be relatively sure of.

The fundamentalists are the dangerous ones and take it the most literally. Although they don't cherry-pick and try and have it both ways so much one could perhaps say. Although of course I'm glad the moderates don't wish to take the books literally.

But its not really a question of wish. Why believe certain parts a certain way, personally? Its not mutual. If everyone sees it so differently and its all subjective how can it then simultaneously also support an objective truth about the universe?

If its all subjective and vague then that's not evidence and it might as well be the FSM.
Hence why I don't attend any church. I am not convinced enough that any of them are 'true' or indeed that Christianity is true.
If its objective but the evidence is the bible itself to be taken (more) literally and less vaguely - then that evidence is also no evidence at all, at once again, it might as well be the FSM.

So it seems either the more vague and misleading moderates or the more literal, straight to the point, but more worrying (to say the least) fanatical fundamentalists - that won't change their mind no matter how delusion their claims are and how sane the alternative is (rejecting strong claimed bullshit that isn't based on any evidence). And how strong the contrary evidence is. - Either way, it seems both fail for slightly different reasons. But the reason they have in common (the big one) is - no evidence.
I agree there is no physical proof for Jesus or the God of the bible, but I believe there is indirect evidence of a 'designer', but I know my reasoning may be misleading me to see it that way and so it could be a load of bullshit.
Thoughts?
Evf