Faith-Based Threads as an effective means of discussion

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Faith-Based Threads as an effective means of discussion

Post by _The Nehor »

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?
"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
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

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!!!
_Scottie
_Emeritus
Posts: 4166
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 9:54 pm

Post by _Scottie »

I think this is exactly what we're trying to get at.
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman

I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Post by _asbestosman »

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
_Dr. Shades
_Emeritus
Posts: 14117
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm

Post by _Dr. Shades »

[MODERATOR NOTE: The new rule on flagging a thread as "faith-based" is hereby overturned.

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
Post Reply