Originally posted by Starrman
Which is why there should be some initiation of debate or something don't you think? Not everyone will be aware of the content of all cultural entities which might be posted there, we need to share ideas and knowledge. Perhaps I was a bit hasty in alerting, we'll see if it is reinstated.

Originally posted by vistesd
Anybody remember this kind of discussion back right after Spirituality was created and separated from debates? Anybody notice that almost all philosophical discussion takes place on Spirituality? (If I want LJ or Starrman to sort me out on the correspondence theory of truth, or get Dr. Scribbles to sort me out on logic, where will I post my question if I w ...[text shortened]... ure—as long as the post is composed in iambic pentameter... (Do I need to say, “Just kidding”?)

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
Why should debate be added to a piece of litrerary work for it to be legitimate ? To appease the dumb?

A piece of work should be able to stand alone, and be enjoyed by those who wish to enjoy it. It should not have to be turned into a debate.

I mean no insult by my response, just saying it as best as my own limited vocabulary can.

Originally posted by Starrman
Okay, I'm not really up for the debate any more, but you surely realise the difference between writing a literary work and posting a thread about another literary work? The original work does stand alone, your post however might require some context or opinion, these are discussion boards, not art galleries.

Either way, I'm too sleepy, if you feel like starting a thread about the poem again or whatever, I'll take part tomorrow.

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
I just don't think your opinion alone is worthy reason for moving it.

A bad decision in my opinion.

Good night.

Originally posted by Starrman
I'm guessing the mods also had an opinion on it, and if you'd spent the energy you did on this thread convincing them otherwise, it probably would have been reinstated hours ago...

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
I think this public debate served a purpose, and don't think it was a bad thing.

Originally posted by Starrman
Nonsense, institutions thrive on the lack of current dependence, they operate through tradition, not through application to the present.

I have no idea what you mean by 'a thought can carry out'.

Originally posted by Palynka
Christianity is a set of beliefs, therefore a set of thoughts. If Christianity can "carry out" anything, so can any thought. Else you stumble into inconsistency.

i. All spirituality isn't religion
ii. All religion isn't institutional.

This debate's confusing. The first statement must be true; just consider atheistic philosophers concerned with the soul. eg. Hume

The second statement, although probably true (people talk of personal religion as opposed to institutional), has little to do with the first.

Originally posted by Starrman
That balloon means nothing, all safety law beliefs of all tyre types are thoughts. Your post makes me want to drown myself in cream cheese for fear of the cracker people.

Originally posted by pootstick
i. All spirituality isn't religion
ii. All religion isn't institutional.

This debate's confusing. The first statement must be true; just consider atheistic philosophers concerned with the soul. eg. Hume

The second statement, although probably true (people talk of personal religion as opposed to institutional), has little to do with the first.

So should all philosophy be religion ? Seems spirituality is where philosophy and religion meet. The answer of the unkown question seem to be the main topic for both disciplines, as is moral conduct.

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
So should all philosophy be religion ? Seems spirituality is where philosophy and religion meet. The answer of the unkown question seem to be the main topic for both disciplines, as is moral conduct.

Originally posted by Palynka
I hereby provide huck's disagreement with me as further evidence for my claim.