While I'm pretty sure that this experiment will die horribly and there are already several spoofs up (I plan to add one soon too) I think we should consider if the style of discussion works.
All the time while I was in the hallowed halls of academia we would have discussions. In some of them we would start from the standpoint of "assuming A is true, what follows". I wish they were not called faith-based. I suggest they be called presupposition-threads so that everyone can use them to focus on a specific item of interest with certain conclusions assumed to have been made. If the item is of no interest to anyone else, the thread will die. If you can't agree with the suppositions don't post there and instead post a thread about the suppositions.
Thoughts?
Faith-Based Threads as an effective means of discussion
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 11832
- Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am
Faith-Based Threads as an effective means of discussion
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4004
- Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm
I agree! I don't like them being called "Faith based", either.
There are PLENTY of discussions that can be had on this board that don't necessarily deal with faith -- merely some of the beliefs those of faith have. For instance, asbestosman started a thread on Christianity and conservatism -- we could discuss THAT without the need for someone to tell us that God is not real and Christianity is false!!!
There are PLENTY of discussions that can be had on this board that don't necessarily deal with faith -- merely some of the beliefs those of faith have. For instance, asbestosman started a thread on Christianity and conservatism -- we could discuss THAT without the need for someone to tell us that God is not real and Christianity is false!!!
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4166
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 9:54 pm
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 6215
- Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm
Moniker wrote:For instance, asbestosman started a thread on Christianity and conservatism -- we could discuss THAT without the need for someone to tell us that God is not real and Christianity is false!!!
True, but for what it's worth the topic of my thread didn't depend on assuming that God is real or the Christianity is true. In my thread, we only needed to assume that Christians exist (they do) and that many are conservative (it also turns out that many are not, but that's a great on-topic discussion too).
That said, I do make threads that build on assumptions such as when I talk about Adam and Eve, or steal Tidejwe's idea about worm spirits. (By the way, Tidejwe has a new youtube video).
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 14117
- Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm
[MODERATOR NOTE: The new rule on flagging a thread as "faith-based" is hereby overturned.
Now back to your regularly-scheduled programming.]
Now back to your regularly-scheduled programming.]
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
--Louis Midgley
--Louis Midgley