Introducing this Section

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

My guess is that both forums will look virtually identical in a very short period of time.

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.

[Archaea]

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.

An important perspective. What happened though is both perspectives used the one perspective to beat down the other.

It will be interesting to watch.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

An important perspective. What happened though is both perspectives used the one perspective to beat down the other.

It will be interesting to watch.

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?

[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.

[jay santos]

This is a dumb idea. If I had more time I'd throw in a reference from an ancient philospher to satisfy the requirements for the forum.

[YOhio]

To all you critics of this new forum, stop it! WHEN MIKE WATERS SPEAKS THE THINKING ENDS!!!!

[Cali Coug]

Gotta agree with Lebowski. We now have a new forum and three pages of posts debating about whether a link to a DNA study is appropriate for inclusion.

This is a message board. It isn't relief society. Some people will say mean things, some things will be misinterpreted and taken out of context, some people will be insensitive, others will staunchly defend any and everything, and those who are interested will read and those who are not won't.

[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