Originally posted by Agerg I remember a conversation I had with you many months (maybe years) ago...I pigeon-holed you back then as a fundie and mud sticks
sorry 🙂
I've pigeon-holed you as an oil tanker. Should you ever say anything intelligent, I'll revise my opinion; I wouldn't want to come across as close-minded.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage I've pigeon-holed you as an oil tanker. Should you ever say anything intelligent, I'll revise my opinion; I wouldn't want to come across as close-minded.
Are you sure you'd understand "anything intelligent"?
🙂
Originally posted by hakima In a very strange and foreign perspective, one who argues or who creates conflict in blanket declarations of belief, might also be openminded....the willingness to debate is still an openness. It is the one who disappears who might be considered closed minded, and yet, in the disappearance leaves a void, a hole, and openness that must be filled.
I wonder ...[text shortened]... ed mindedness is even possible.
Here's to ALL open mindedness, in it's many ways and forms.
Nice perspective, I would have to agree with your views stated here,
there are those who simply do not want to hear what someone who
disagrees with them has to say. I may not agree with many of the
people here, but I do credit most of them with giving me a hearing.
Kelly
Originally posted by Agerg My reason for asking this being that it is seen as closed-mindedness on my part that I will not re-evaluate my skeptical and atheistic worldview based on the (potentially erroneous) translated, and to me childish writings contained within a book I am quite sure is false.
Do you have a problem with translated texts in general or just with the religious ones?
Originally posted by hakima [..the willingness to debate is still an openness.
Not necessarily. I find two different types of people I debate with. There are those who have no interest other than to convert me to their side or to simply win an argument at all costs, and then there are those who simply desire to know the truth at all cost.
Originally posted by Agerg I remember taking that challenge long ago...It was a waste of time.
🙂
Fantastic closing. Great form!
Tell you what -- now that you've given me such an intellectual trouncing, I'll sit back and watch you dazzle the rest of the forum with your brilliance. Maybe take a few notes from the master. Don't disappoint me!
Originally posted by Tatarana Crocodilo Do you have a problem with translated texts in general or just with the religious ones?
That depends upon the type of text and intent of the author(s)...if it is a work of fiction then so long as the prose is still gripping then I care less either way. If the text is of an informative nature then I'd be disappointed if such mis-translations were conceived in order to equivocate between two or more concepts in favour of those that fit their own agenda.
I of course have an aversion to religious texts (mis-translation or not) in some similar way that scientists are averse to crack-pottery.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage Fantastic closing. Great form!
Tell you what -- now that you've given me such an intellectual trouncing, I'll sit back and watch you dazzle the rest of the forum with your brilliance. Maybe take a few notes from the master. Don't disappoint me!
Originally posted by Agerg That depends upon the type of text and intent of the author(s)...if it is a work of fiction then so long as the prose is still gripping then I care less either way. If the text is of an informative nature then I'd be disappointed if such mis-translations were conceived in order to equivocate between two or more concepts in favour of those that fit their own ag ...[text shortened]... texts (mis-translation or not) in some similar way that scientists are averse to crack-pottery.
I fail to see your problem with the bible translation.
Do you think that anyone that want to read it should, necessarily, learn hebraic and ancient greek?
Originally posted by Agerg I think you're trolling, and you bore me.
🙂
You know what they say about opinions.
You didn't answer this question:
"This wouldn't be about the charges of dullness levelled at you because of your dogmatic insistence that eternity would necessarily be dull?"
Lord Shark made you look quite silly. You don't like that, do you?
"Well, I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand. It seems to me that whoever doesn't wonder about the truth in religion and in science might as well be dead."
What's your view? Was Mr E on the money or was he just another religious tosspot?
08 Oct '09 21:28
Closed Mindedness
Back to Top