--- iaamoac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > At least we discuss religion here, which beats the heck out of
> > communities that pretend it doesn't exist or those that can't
> > touch on the subject without an immediate flame war.
>
> Wait, how is this different from Brin-L again?
>
> Is Brin-L different simply because I and the few other people of
> faith on this List simply choose not to respond to the myriad flames
> that great any mention of religion on this List?
>
> The very point I have been trying to make here is that intelligent
> discussion of religion is simply not occuring from many of our
> resident "atheists." Rather every mention of religion has been
> greated by flames - flames which have not been accompanied by even a
> modicum of serious content.
The way of my people is to acknoldege the futility of consideration for
emotional wrapping, to adress the meaning, and not the feeling. Granted this
is harder to do than to say to do, and only the truly wise are capable of it
most of the time. Still I beleive it to be a state worth attempting to
achieve. This does not mean to respond like a star trek vulcan devoid of
emotion. It means instead that you should look for the content of the
message.
Say your hill-billy neigbor sees you on the street and sais that "seein hows
I been up all night anyway, I'm starten to get a hankerin for a good hunt. So
I'm considerin to come over one night and lay your barky dog to rest."
What do you hear?
--I'm going to kill your dog--
--I ~want~ to kill your dog--
--I want your dog to stop barking all night--
--Could you please do something about your dog barking all night, it keeps me
up and makes it hard to sleep, so much so in fact that I am quite angree
about it--
Which one did he mean?
Maybe you are not hearing the "intelligent discussion" becouse you prefer not
to. It seems to me that their are plenty fo intelegant discussions but that
they are never being adressed. Instead the method of the discussion is being
adressed.
You could get in an arguement with your hill-billy neigbor about his
"attitude" or you could address his concern.
You can acuse athiests for flaming and claim that they are not providing
inteligent discussion, or you could address the points that they ~ARE~
makeing.
Seems to me that it is in fact you who are not ingaging in intelegant
discussion, and instead favoring a focus on emotional content.
But hay, I did just sort of flame you a few posts ago, so what do I know.
=====
_________________________________________________
Jan William Coffey
_________________________________________________
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
