 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6-6-2009 22:07, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> This kind of thread can cause no good.
>
> Just out of curiosity, and I ask this as an atheist asking an
> intelligent person of faith, do you think it's ever possible to have a
> useful discussion between disagreeing parties? :-)
>
> I find discussing it can be useful to me, not because it makes me change
> my mind or because I change someone else's mind, but because it lets me
> understand the other point of view better, and lets me deal with
> religion better.
>
I always say that a discussion between two parties is not aimed at any
of the participants as they will generally be convicted of their own
point, often more so after the discussion.
Discussion are aimed at the innocent bystanders, they can still be hit
by cunning arguments.
So in general I am all for discussions about faith. I haven't seen this
movie but what I heard about it seemed not to add anything to any
discussion whatsoever. It is merely the interpretation of some person
that is known for other things than a thorough understanding of the
bible. As such I would dismiss any discussion on that movie as rather
futile and therefore I did not even read alphaQ's post, also because it
is rather long. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 23:06:18 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
>I always say that a discussion between two
If Warp had not posted, there would have been at least 4 posts less.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6-6-2009 23:46, Stephen wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 23:06:18 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>
>> I always say that a discussion between two
>
> If Warp had not posted, there would have been at least 4 posts less.
>
But Warp's post was a metapost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MetaPost,
thanks Don for that) or an attempt to hijack a thread that was about
something he does not want anybody to discuss.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4a2ac6ab@news.povray.org...
[...]
> This kind of thread can cause no good. For
> people who have the same world view as you it will simply be preaching to
> the choir, and to people with the opposite view it will simply be a red
> cloth which will cause useless arguments.
I understand what you are saying, but just to be the devil's advocate,
doesn't pretty much any kind of discussion on usenet follow the same
pattern? I think the point of online discussions is to simply vent, rather
than try to convert people.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:4A2### [at] hotmailcom...
> On 6-6-2009 23:46, Stephen wrote:
> > On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 23:06:18 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:
> >> I always say that a discussion between two
> >
> > If Warp had not posted, there would have been at least 4 posts less.
> But Warp's post was a metapost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MetaPost,
> thanks Don for that) or an attempt to hijack a thread that was about
> something he does not want anybody to discuss.
Would I be correct in suggesting that yours is than a meta-metapost?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> So in general I am all for discussions about faith. I haven't seen this
> movie but what I heard about it seemed not to add anything to any
> discussion whatsoever.
My understanding of the *movie* is that it was more art than religion in
intention. E.g., it's in Aramaic so as to have a recorded body of the
language for after people forget how to pronounce it, etc. I think in a
movie like this, you're not going to convince anyone one way or another. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 16:10:35 -0600, somebody wrote:
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> news:4a2ac6ab@news.povray.org...
>
> [...]
>> This kind of thread can cause no good. For people who have the same
>> world view as you it will simply be preaching to the choir, and to
>> people with the opposite view it will simply be a red cloth which will
>> cause useless arguments.
>
> I understand what you are saying, but just to be the devil's advocate,
> doesn't pretty much any kind of discussion on usenet follow the same
> pattern? I think the point of online discussions is to simply vent,
> rather than try to convert people.
Certainly if you take the position about all topics that your mind is
made up and that you'll never ever change your mind or be convinced
otherwise. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> This kind of thread can cause no good.
>
> Just out of curiosity, and I ask this as an atheist asking an intelligent
> person of faith, do you think it's ever possible to have a useful
> discussion between disagreeing parties? :-)
>
> I find discussing it can be useful to me, not because it makes me change
> my mind or because I change someone else's mind, but because it lets me
> understand the other point of view better, and lets me deal with religion
> better.
Don't let the trolls bother you.
People that do good things are good, just like Jesus is good.
People that do bad things are evil, just like the devil who has
done bad things since the beginning.
That's why Jesus came: to destroy the devil's works.
When someone has love in his heart, he wants to do good
things, but when someone has angry hatred inside, he wants
to do evil things. That's why God sent Jesus, because he
loves us, and that love frees us from the bonds of hate and
death.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 16:13:48 -0600, "somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
>
>"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
>news:4A2### [at] hotmailcom...
>> On 6-6-2009 23:46, Stephen wrote:
>> > On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 23:06:18 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom>
>wrote:
>
>> >> I always say that a discussion between two
>> >
>> > If Warp had not posted, there would have been at least 4 posts less.
>
>> But Warp's post was a metapost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MetaPost,
>> thanks Don for that) or an attempt to hijack a thread that was about
>> something he does not want anybody to discuss.
>
>Would I be correct in suggesting that yours is than a meta-metapost?
>
Thus making yours a meta^3post whereas this is not a meta^4post as it is on the
same subject. I see it all now. There is a Grand Creator.
I'm currently reading The Science of Discworld III - Darwin's Watch.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Certainly if you take the position about all topics that your mind is
> made up and that you'll never ever change your mind or be convinced
> otherwise. ;-)
Except that on a lot of those topics, the discussion seems to get heated
regardless. I can be utterly convinced that chinese take-out is the bee's
knees, and you can think it's the most awful food around, and we won't have
anyone shouting down the other about it.
I think it's only when you're *not* utterly convinced but feel like you
*should* be that the real fights start.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
