Introducing this Section

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Let me put it another way, the interaction between the faith-based and academic-based approaches is one of the main things I enjoy about CG. Why on earth would we want to separate that?

Okay, I see your point. I'm not certain how to moderate the concern where the civility is maintained.

So you want a third sector for death matches with Tex to continue?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Okay, I see your point. I'm not certain how to moderate the concern where the civility is maintained.

Well, this approach is akin to teaching your children to stop arguing by forcing them to live in separate homes. Gross overreaction.

[bluegoose]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Let me put it another way, the interaction between the faith-based and academic-based approaches is one of the main things I enjoy about CG. Why on earth would we want to separate that?

I'm with Lebowski on this one.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by bluegoose

I'm with Lebowski on this one.

As am I. I understand what Mike is attempting to do here, but I hope it doesn't change what I think was one of the best parts of CG. If people can truly refrain from attacking each other in the other section then perhaps it will have been worthwhile, but after day 1 it doesn't look likely.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Could be.

My problem is that I think any attempt to dictate what types of religious viewpoints are kosher in either forum will be arbitrary and unfair. Categorizing religious discussions into fully faith-based and academic-based groupings turns my stomach. Where do you draw the line? What the hell is wrong with both types of viewpoints in a single thread? I think both viewpoints are valid and worthwhile.

I could be wrong, but I think this is a bad idea.

You are not wrong. It is a bad idea. Whenever I see the term "academic approach" I cringe. Out of curiosity, how do we differentiate between the academic approach and the pretentious approach?

[MikeWaters]

I understood the split as this:

1) personal experience
2) non-personal experience discussion

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I understood the split as this:

1) personal experience
2) non-personal experience discussion

A good distinction.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

You are not wrong. It is a bad idea. Whenever I see the term "academic approach" I cringe. Out of curiosity, how do we differentiate between the academic approach and the pretentious approach?

With "intellectuals" both approaches are often intertwined.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

With "intellectuals" both approaches are often intertwined.

Pretention is an omnipresent bane to any field or method of learning.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by All-American

Pretention is an omnipresent bane to any field or method of learning.

Which of course is mostly displayed by "intellectuals" like I've already stated.