An open bible is better than an open mind (1 Viewer)

[trogg78]

Sign at church by my house " you can't stop, drop, and roll in hell."

They wouldnt know if the hadn't been there.

 

[CrossEyed]

No way you actually saw that.

I'll try to snap a picture on my way home tomorrow.

My link

Spellcheck is your friend...well, it's not your friend, apparently, but it could be.

 

[Fennis]

No way you actually saw that.

I'll try to snap a picture on my way home tomorrow.

My link

Spellcheck is your friend...well, it's not your friend, apparently, but it could be.

I can send you the church's email.

 

[CrossEyed]

No way you actually saw that.

I'll try to snap a picture on my way home tomorrow.

My link

Spellcheck is your friend...well, it's not your friend, apparently, but it could be.

I can send you the church's email.

That would be great...if that was actually a church sign.

 

[Chadstroma]

So what if we changed it a bit....An open science book is better than an open mind. Do we still have the same reactions?

meaning is that a stupid statement?yes

Meaning... does it invoke the same reactions.

where would one see a sign like that?if you are reading anything to learn, presumably true of a bilbe and a science book, and you do not have an open mind, the experience is hindered or uselessi would think that should be something the hardest core bible thumpers and the ghost of darwin would agree onjust because a church posted it on a sign does not have to mean it needs defended, and just because a church posted it on a sign does not mean all churches are dumbsomeone thought it was clever, most think it is dumb

Who exactly is defending it?

 

[SacramentoBob]

No way you actually saw that.

I'll try to snap a picture on my way home tomorrow.

I forgot.

 

[SacramentoBob]

No way you actually saw that.

I'll try to snap a picture on my way home tomorrow.

I forgot.

This is the same church that had something along the lines of "Have insomnia? Try one of our late night sermons" a few months ago.

 

[Chadstroma]

No way you actually saw that.

I'll try to snap a picture on my way home tomorrow.

I forgot.

This is the same church that had something along the lines of "Have insomnia? Try one of our late night sermons" a few months ago.

 

[SacramentoBob]

No way you actually saw that.

I'll try to snap a picture on my way home tomorrow.

I forgot.

This is the same church that had something along the lines of "Have insomnia? Try one of our late night sermons" a few months ago.

New sign this week."Life stinks? We have a 'pew' for you!"

 

[Clifford]

I want both personally. But here's what I think it means.

Christians who believe the bible is the word of God feel that the information in the bible is very important. They have committed to submit to the teachings of scripture and to interpret their circumstances in light of the existence of God, the gospel, and standard Christian teaching.

So in some sense, once someone has decided to believe the bible either is or isn't the word of God, their mind has been 'closed' or rather put on a track to either listen to or not listen to its teachings.

Nonsense.What a church fears most is someone approaching the bible with the same standards of critical thought (or open mindedness) that they would anything else.

Most seminary educated pastors have read across the whole spectrum, from evangelical/catholic theology to higher biblical criticism (non-Christian scholarship viewing the bible as any other text). I know this is hard for your myopic view of Christian education to believe, but when I was studying greek, Hebrew, personally translating several books from the original languages etc we routinely consulted sources from all points of the spectrum. I honestly came to the belief that I did for a combination of historical, literary, and experiential reasons.

What historical, literary, and experiential reasons would you give for a talking burning bush?If you ran into a talking burning bush in a Dr. Seuss book would you give it the same merit? Forget Dr. Seuss - is there ANY other context you can think of where you would believe in a talking burning bush?

Why would you approach one with a different set of standards than the other?

Why do you assume he is incapable of understanding and recognizing allegory?

 

[Buck Bradcanon]

No way you actually saw that.

I'll try to snap a picture on my way home tomorrow.

I forgot.

This is the same church that had something along the lines of "Have insomnia? Try one of our late night sermons" a few months ago.

New sign this week."Life stinks? We have a 'pew' for you!"

:subscribe:

 

[Amused to Death]

Turn your brain off...

 

[Novice2]

Note that it doesn't say an open mind is bad. It just says an open bible is better. Most churches think that the bible is the word of the God who created all of us. Given that belief, it would be pretty foolish to put anything above reading the bible.

I do not disagree but it is a bad PR move for a church to say. Churches need to remember that their message is going out to the 'unchurched' and thus it is easy for the message, as innocent as it may very well be, to get twisted and turned into something very negative.

Sign broke...message inside.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Note that it doesn't say an open mind is bad. It just says an open bible is better. Most churches think that the bible is the word of the God who created all of us. Given that belief, it would be pretty foolish to put anything above reading the bible.

I do not disagree but it is a bad PR move for a church to say. Churches need to remember that their message is going out to the 'unchurched' and thus it is easy for the message, as innocent as it may very well be, to get twisted and turned into something very negative.

Sign broke...message inside.

I like that one.

 

[matuski]

I want both personally. But here's what I think it means.

Christians who believe the bible is the word of God feel that the information in the bible is very important. They have committed to submit to the teachings of scripture and to interpret their circumstances in light of the existence of God, the gospel, and standard Christian teaching.

So in some sense, once someone has decided to believe the bible either is or isn't the word of God, their mind has been 'closed' or rather put on a track to either listen to or not listen to its teachings.

Nonsense.What a church fears most is someone approaching the bible with the same standards of critical thought (or open mindedness) that they would anything else.

Most seminary educated pastors have read across the whole spectrum, from evangelical/catholic theology to higher biblical criticism (non-Christian scholarship viewing the bible as any other text). I know this is hard for your myopic view of Christian education to believe, but when I was studying greek, Hebrew, personally translating several books from the original languages etc we routinely consulted sources from all points of the spectrum. I honestly came to the belief that I did for a combination of historical, literary, and experiential reasons.

What historical, literary, and experiential reasons would you give for a talking burning bush?If you ran into a talking burning bush in a Dr. Seuss book would you give it the same merit? Forget Dr. Seuss - is there ANY other context you can think of where you would believe in a talking burning bush?

Why would you approach one with a different set of standards than the other?

Why do you assume he is incapable of understanding and recognizing allegory?

If you have the secret decoder ring that we can all go by and agree which parts of the Bible are or are not meant to be taken literally... I would very seriously love to see it.

Of course going back to my original post above, nothing else in this life of ours requires such an approach to figure out.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

They last thing organized religion and churches want... is people thinking. That sign is thusly correct, they just didn't state who it was actually better for.

Kind of funny that they are openly admitting that they want mindless sheep. I mean, people with open minds have seen this for a long time but now they're flat out advertising that fact to their flock.

This is exactly why I would be pissed off if I saw a sign like that -- it just reinforces stereotypes about Christians that make the rest of us look bad.Edit: Yeah, I responded to a post from last year. It happened.

 

[Clifford]

I want both personally. But here's what I think it means.

Christians who believe the bible is the word of God feel that the information in the bible is very important. They have committed to submit to the teachings of scripture and to interpret their circumstances in light of the existence of God, the gospel, and standard Christian teaching.

So in some sense, once someone has decided to believe the bible either is or isn't the word of God, their mind has been 'closed' or rather put on a track to either listen to or not listen to its teachings.

Nonsense.What a church fears most is someone approaching the bible with the same standards of critical thought (or open mindedness) that they would anything else.

Most seminary educated pastors have read across the whole spectrum, from evangelical/catholic theology to higher biblical criticism (non-Christian scholarship viewing the bible as any other text). I know this is hard for your myopic view of Christian education to believe, but when I was studying greek, Hebrew, personally translating several books from the original languages etc we routinely consulted sources from all points of the spectrum. I honestly came to the belief that I did for a combination of historical, literary, and experiential reasons.

What historical, literary, and experiential reasons would you give for a talking burning bush?If you ran into a talking burning bush in a Dr. Seuss book would you give it the same merit? Forget Dr. Seuss - is there ANY other context you can think of where you would believe in a talking burning bush?

Why would you approach one with a different set of standards than the other?

Why do you assume he is incapable of understanding and recognizing allegory?

If you have the secret decoder ring that we can all go by and agree which parts of the Bible are or are not meant to be taken literally... I would very seriously love to see it.

Of course going back to my original post above, nothing else in this life of ours requires such an approach to figure out.

OK, here it isassages that are meant to be taken as literal truth: none

Passages that are meant to be taken as allegorical lessons: all the rest.

HTH

 

[matuski]

I want both personally. But here's what I think it means.

Christians who believe the bible is the word of God feel that the information in the bible is very important. They have committed to submit to the teachings of scripture and to interpret their circumstances in light of the existence of God, the gospel, and standard Christian teaching.

So in some sense, once someone has decided to believe the bible either is or isn't the word of God, their mind has been 'closed' or rather put on a track to either listen to or not listen to its teachings.

Nonsense.What a church fears most is someone approaching the bible with the same standards of critical thought (or open mindedness) that they would anything else.

Most seminary educated pastors have read across the whole spectrum, from evangelical/catholic theology to higher biblical criticism (non-Christian scholarship viewing the bible as any other text). I know this is hard for your myopic view of Christian education to believe, but when I was studying greek, Hebrew, personally translating several books from the original languages etc we routinely consulted sources from all points of the spectrum. I honestly came to the belief that I did for a combination of historical, literary, and experiential reasons.

What historical, literary, and experiential reasons would you give for a talking burning bush?If you ran into a talking burning bush in a Dr. Seuss book would you give it the same merit? Forget Dr. Seuss - is there ANY other context you can think of where you would believe in a talking burning bush?

Why would you approach one with a different set of standards than the other?

Why do you assume he is incapable of understanding and recognizing allegory?

If you have the secret decoder ring that we can all go by and agree which parts of the Bible are or are not meant to be taken literally... I would very seriously love to see it.

Of course going back to my original post above, nothing else in this life of ours requires such an approach to figure out.

OK, here it isassages that are meant to be taken as literal truth: none

Passages that are meant to be taken as allegorical lessons: all the rest.

HTH

Now the hard part, find a consensus among Christians whose decoder ring matches yours. Or are you stepping forward to claim yours is THE decoder ring for all Christians?I'll let you down easy... open any religious thread here and watch religious folk debate each other over interpretation of any given piece of the book.

For giggles, which miracles should I take as literal truth while suppressing the same reasoning that tells me a talking burning bush must be allegory?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

allegorical lessons: all the rest.

Google search on that phrase shows up....Dr Seuss

Animal Farm

Parables and Fables

The Chronicles of Narnia

Of Mice and Men

The Donkey Allegory

Lord of the Flies

.... very very very fitting.

 

[SacramentoBob]

New sign!

Dial-a-prayer

Atheists call and no one answers

:shuked:

 

[Clifford]

So what if we changed it a bit.... An open science book is better than an open mind. Do we still have the same reactions?

Yep. think the problem is no matter how you try to sugarcoat the statement is ultimately coming down on open mind. It's just an unpopular stance.

 

[Clifford]

Turn your brain off...

http://www.says-it.com/churchsigns/

ETA https://imageshack.com/i/5nvt5gj

 

[Big Cat]

No. You have to believe in fairy tales to believe in the Bible.

 

[matuski]

Today outside Mason, TX.

"Where will you spend eternity.. smoking or non-smoking?"

 

[SacramentoBob]

Today outside Mason, TX.

"Where will you spend eternity.. smoking or non-smoking?"

I like this one. It's clever and doesn't suggest you should turn off your critical thinking skills.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Probably the best religious sign I ever saw: "We were called to be witnesses, not judge and jury".

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

Today outside Mason, TX.

"Where will you spend eternity.. smoking or non-smoking?"

Smokin reefers, bro

 

[DiStefano]

None of us has a totally open mind. There are things we have accepted which we believe to be true, things we have accepted because we believe them to be the best among alternatives, things we have decided to live by because they work best for us. To have a totally open mind means that we have no convictions.

 

[timschochet]

None of us has a totally open mind. There are things we have accepted which we believe to be true, things we have accepted because we believe them to be the best among alternatives, things we have decided to live by because they work best for us. To have a totally open mind means that we have no convictions.

Certainly true, but is there a specific point you are trying to make?

 

[DiStefano]

None of us has a totally open mind. There are things we have accepted which we believe to be true, things we have accepted because we believe them to be the best among alternatives, things we have decided to live by because they work best for us. To have a totally open mind means that we have no convictions.

Certainly true, but is there a specific point you are trying to make?

Yes; that almost everyone has closed his mind to some extent; in some cases it may be a specific scientific theory, in others a legal/constitutional framework to live by, and to others an ethical/religious set of beliefs which they think will cause them to live more happily (and which holds out the hope of a life beyond this one). We all have our closemindedness.

 

[jon_mx]

An open mind is an empty one.

 

[jon_mx]

None of us has a totally open mind. There are things we have accepted which we believe to be true, things we have accepted because we believe them to be the best among alternatives, things we have decided to live by because they work best for us. To have a totally open mind means that we have no convictions.

Certainly true, but is there a specific point you are trying to make?

Yes; that almost everyone has closed his mind to some extent; in some cases it may be a specific scientific theory, in others a legal/constitutional framework to live by, and to others an ethical/religious set of beliefs which they think will cause them to live more happily (and which holds out the hope of a life beyond this one). We all have our closemindedness.

Exactly.

 

[timschochet]

OK, now I see where you two are going with this. You guys are both using an absolutist definition of the phrase "open mind", suggesting that it means "empty mind", in order, apparently, to justify the original statement. Possibly because you are both religious Christians and don't want to criticize anyone who is promoting Christianity?

But this is dishonest, because both of you know, or should know, that the colloquial, accepted definition of "open mind" means a mind willing to accept new ideas, and willing to allow facts or newly found knowlege to change one's preconceived ideas or convictions.

 

[jon_mx]

OK, now I see where you two are going with this. You guys are both using an absolutist definition of the phrase "open mind", suggesting that it means "empty mind", in order, apparently, to justify the original statement. Possibly because you are both religious Christians and don't want to criticize anyone who is promoting Christianity?

But this is dishonest, because both of you know, or should know, that the colloquial, accepted definition of "open mind" means a mind willing to accept new ideas, and willing to allow facts or newly found knowlege to change one's preconceived ideas or convictions.

Tim, I am sure you consider yourself open-minded, but you are really not on a lot of topics. All you know about global warming is the 97% of scientists whose life is dependent upon global warming theory being true, believe global warming is true. No matter what argument or fact are presented, you completely ignore the merits of the argument and fall back on what the tithe-sucking experts believe.

 

[timschochet]

OK, now I see where you two are going with this. You guys are both using an absolutist definition of the phrase "open mind", suggesting that it means "empty mind", in order, apparently, to justify the original statement. Possibly because you are both religious Christians and don't want to criticize anyone who is promoting Christianity?

But this is dishonest, because both of you know, or should know, that the colloquial, accepted definition of "open mind" means a mind willing to accept new ideas, and willing to allow facts or newly found knowlege to change one's preconceived ideas or convictions.

Tim, I am sure you consider yourself open-minded, but you are really not on a lot of topics. All you know about global warming is the 97% of scientists whose life is dependent upon global warming theory being true, believe global warming is true. No matter what argument or fact are presented, you completely ignore the merits of the argument and fall back on what the tithe-sucking experts believe.

GW is a discussion I'm certainly willing to have with you, but let's do that in another thread, shall we?

As far as me being open-minded, I would say that it's a goal of mine rather than something I have achieved. But in contrast to your claim that an open mind is an empty mind, I think it's a positive goal, one that everyone should seek.

However, I don't think we need to be open minded on EVERY issue. For instance, if someone wants to deny the Holocaust to me, I'm not going to listen to him. I'm "close-minded" on that issue, and many many others. But as a general rule, I would like to be a person to which facts inform my opinions, rather than the other way around.

 

[DiStefano]

OK, now I see where you two are going with this. You guys are both using an absolutist definition of the phrase "open mind", suggesting that it means "empty mind", in order, apparently, to justify the original statement. Possibly because you are both religious Christians and don't want to criticize anyone who is promoting Christianity?

But this is dishonest, because both of you know, or should know, that the colloquial, accepted definition of "open mind" means a mind willing to accept new ideas, and willing to allow facts or newly found knowlege to change one's preconceived ideas or convictions.

Tim, I am sure you consider yourself open-minded, but you are really not on a lot of topics. All you know about global warming is the 97% of scientists whose life is dependent upon global warming theory being true, believe global warming is true. No matter what argument or fact are presented, you completely ignore the merits of the argument and fall back on what the tithe-sucking experts believe.

GW is a discussion I'm certainly willing to have with you, but let's do that in another thread, shall we?

As far as me being open-minded, I would say that it's a goal of mine rather than something I have achieved. But in contrast to your claim that an open mind is an empty mind, I think it's a positive goal, one that everyone should seek.

However, I don't think we need to be open minded on EVERY issue. For instance, if someone wants to deny the Holocaust to me, I'm not going to listen to him. I'm "close-minded" on that issue, and many many others. But as a general rule, I would like to be a person to which facts inform my opinions, rather than the other way around.

Your reading comprehension is very very poor, but then I should have known that from your previous habits. Nowhere did I say an open mind is an empty mind. Merely that we all have our areas of closemindedness, a fact that you just admitted about yourself.

 

[timschochet]

OK, now I see where you two are going with this. You guys are both using an absolutist definition of the phrase "open mind", suggesting that it means "empty mind", in order, apparently, to justify the original statement. Possibly because you are both religious Christians and don't want to criticize anyone who is promoting Christianity?

But this is dishonest, because both of you know, or should know, that the colloquial, accepted definition of "open mind" means a mind willing to accept new ideas, and willing to allow facts or newly found knowlege to change one's preconceived ideas or convictions.

Tim, I am sure you consider yourself open-minded, but you are really not on a lot of topics. All you know about global warming is the 97% of scientists whose life is dependent upon global warming theory being true, believe global warming is true. No matter what argument or fact are presented, you completely ignore the merits of the argument and fall back on what the tithe-sucking experts believe.

GW is a discussion I'm certainly willing to have with you, but let's do that in another thread, shall we?

As far as me being open-minded, I would say that it's a goal of mine rather than something I have achieved. But in contrast to your claim that an open mind is an empty mind, I think it's a positive goal, one that everyone should seek.

However, I don't think we need to be open minded on EVERY issue. For instance, if someone wants to deny the Holocaust to me, I'm not going to listen to him. I'm "close-minded" on that issue, and many many others. But as a general rule, I would like to be a person to which facts inform my opinions, rather than the other way around.

Your reading comprehension is very very poor, but then I should have known that from your previous habits. Nowhere did I say an open mind is an empty mind. Merely that we all have our areas of closemindedness, a fact that you just admitted about yourself.

Apparently it's YOUR reading comprehension which is poor. That statement was in reply to jon, who wrote: "An open mind is an empty one."

 

[DiStefano]

OK, now I see where you two are going with this. You guys are both using an absolutist definition of the phrase "open mind", suggesting that it means "empty mind", in order, apparently, to justify the original statement. Possibly because you are both religious Christians and don't want to criticize anyone who is promoting Christianity?

But this is dishonest, because both of you know, or should know, that the colloquial, accepted definition of "open mind" means a mind willing to accept new ideas, and willing to allow facts or newly found knowlege to change one's preconceived ideas or convictions.

Tim, I am sure you consider yourself open-minded, but you are really not on a lot of topics. All you know about global warming is the 97% of scientists whose life is dependent upon global warming theory being true, believe global warming is true. No matter what argument or fact are presented, you completely ignore the merits of the argument and fall back on what the tithe-sucking experts believe.

GW is a discussion I'm certainly willing to have with you, but let's do that in another thread, shall we?

As far as me being open-minded, I would say that it's a goal of mine rather than something I have achieved. But in contrast to your claim that an open mind is an empty mind, I think it's a positive goal, one that everyone should seek.

However, I don't think we need to be open minded on EVERY issue. For instance, if someone wants to deny the Holocaust to me, I'm not going to listen to him. I'm "close-minded" on that issue, and many many others. But as a general rule, I would like to be a person to which facts inform my opinions, rather than the other way around.

Your reading comprehension is very very poor, but then I should have known that from your previous habits. Nowhere did I say an open mind is an empty mind. Merely that we all have our areas of closemindedness, a fact that you just admitted about yourself.

Apparently it's YOUR reading comprehension which is poor. That statement was in reply to jon, who wrote: "An open mind is an empty one."

And did you read where you wrote: "I see where you two are going with this". Go back to Reading Comprehension 101.

 

[timschochet]

OK, now I see where you two are going with this. You guys are both using an absolutist definition of the phrase "open mind", suggesting that it means "empty mind", in order, apparently, to justify the original statement. Possibly because you are both religious Christians and don't want to criticize anyone who is promoting Christianity?

But this is dishonest, because both of you know, or should know, that the colloquial, accepted definition of "open mind" means a mind willing to accept new ideas, and willing to allow facts or newly found knowlege to change one's preconceived ideas or convictions.

Tim, I am sure you consider yourself open-minded, but you are really not on a lot of topics. All you know about global warming is the 97% of scientists whose life is dependent upon global warming theory being true, believe global warming is true. No matter what argument or fact are presented, you completely ignore the merits of the argument and fall back on what the tithe-sucking experts believe.

GW is a discussion I'm certainly willing to have with you, but let's do that in another thread, shall we?

As far as me being open-minded, I would say that it's a goal of mine rather than something I have achieved. But in contrast to your claim that an open mind is an empty mind, I think it's a positive goal, one that everyone should seek.

However, I don't think we need to be open minded on EVERY issue. For instance, if someone wants to deny the Holocaust to me, I'm not going to listen to him. I'm "close-minded" on that issue, and many many others. But as a general rule, I would like to be a person to which facts inform my opinions, rather than the other way around.

Your reading comprehension is very very poor, but then I should have known that from your previous habits. Nowhere did I say an open mind is an empty mind. Merely that we all have our areas of closemindedness, a fact that you just admitted about yourself.

Apparently it's YOUR reading comprehension which is poor. That statement was in reply to jon, who wrote: "An open mind is an empty one."

And did you read where you wrote: "I see where you two are going with this". Go back to Reading Comprehension 101.

Well, when jon wrote "exactly" in response to your remarks, it certainly appeared that you guys were saying the same thing. If you weren't, then take my remarks as a response only to him.

 

[DiStefano]

OK, now I see where you two are going with this. You guys are both using an absolutist definition of the phrase "open mind", suggesting that it means "empty mind", in order, apparently, to justify the original statement. Possibly because you are both religious Christians and don't want to criticize anyone who is promoting Christianity?

But this is dishonest, because both of you know, or should know, that the colloquial, accepted definition of "open mind" means a mind willing to accept new ideas, and willing to allow facts or newly found knowlege to change one's preconceived ideas or convictions.

Tim, I am sure you consider yourself open-minded, but you are really not on a lot of topics. All you know about global warming is the 97% of scientists whose life is dependent upon global warming theory being true, believe global warming is true. No matter what argument or fact are presented, you completely ignore the merits of the argument and fall back on what the tithe-sucking experts believe.

GW is a discussion I'm certainly willing to have with you, but let's do that in another thread, shall we?

As far as me being open-minded, I would say that it's a goal of mine rather than something I have achieved. But in contrast to your claim that an open mind is an empty mind, I think it's a positive goal, one that everyone should seek.

However, I don't think we need to be open minded on EVERY issue. For instance, if someone wants to deny the Holocaust to me, I'm not going to listen to him. I'm "close-minded" on that issue, and many many others. But as a general rule, I would like to be a person to which facts inform my opinions, rather than the other way around.

Your reading comprehension is very very poor, but then I should have known that from your previous habits. Nowhere did I say an open mind is an empty mind. Merely that we all have our areas of closemindedness, a fact that you just admitted about yourself.

Apparently it's YOUR reading comprehension which is poor. That statement was in reply to jon, who wrote: "An open mind is an empty one."

And did you read where you wrote: "I see where you two are going with this". Go back to Reading Comprehension 101.

Well, when jon wrote "exactly" in response to your remarks, it certainly appeared that you guys were saying the same thing. If you weren't, then take my remarks as a response only to him.

You really are quite pathetic.

 

[jon_mx]

OK, now I see where you two are going with this. You guys are both using an absolutist definition of the phrase "open mind", suggesting that it means "empty mind", in order, apparently, to justify the original statement. Possibly because you are both religious Christians and don't want to criticize anyone who is promoting Christianity?

But this is dishonest, because both of you know, or should know, that the colloquial, accepted definition of "open mind" means a mind willing to accept new ideas, and willing to allow facts or newly found knowlege to change one's preconceived ideas or convictions.

Tim, I am sure you consider yourself open-minded, but you are really not on a lot of topics. All you know about global warming is the 97% of scientists whose life is dependent upon global warming theory being true, believe global warming is true. No matter what argument or fact are presented, you completely ignore the merits of the argument and fall back on what the tithe-sucking experts believe.

GW is a discussion I'm certainly willing to have with you, but let's do that in another thread, shall we?As far as me being open-minded, I would say that it's a goal of mine rather than something I have achieved. But in contrast to your claim that an open mind is an empty mind, I think it's a positive goal, one that everyone should seek.

However, I don't think we need to be open minded on EVERY issue. For instance, if someone wants to deny the Holocaust to me, I'm not going to listen to him. I'm "close-minded" on that issue, and many many others. But as a general rule, I would like to be a person to which facts inform my opinions, rather than the other way around.

Your reading comprehension is very very poor, but then I should have known that from your previous habits. Nowhere did I say an open mind is an empty mind. Merely that we all have our areas of closemindedness, a fact that you just admitted about yourself.

Apparently it's YOUR reading comprehension which is poor. That statement was in reply to jon, who wrote: "An open mind is an empty one."

I was being a bit facetious and exaggerating, but in the extreme case a truly open mind is one which has no pre-existing biases and is willing to weigh all facts equally. But since everyone has life experiences and biases, then no one has an open mind. Most people claiming to be open-minded are really just full of themselves at how much smarter they are then the rest of the population. They believe an open-mind means seeing all the issues as they do.

 

[Buckfast 1]

OK, now I see where you two are going with this. You guys are both using an absolutist definition of the phrase "open mind", suggesting that it means "empty mind", in order, apparently, to justify the original statement. Possibly because you are both religious Christians and don't want to criticize anyone who is promoting Christianity?

But this is dishonest, because both of you know, or should know, that the colloquial, accepted definition of "open mind" means a mind willing to accept new ideas, and willing to allow facts or newly found knowlege to change one's preconceived ideas or convictions.

Tim, I am sure you consider yourself open-minded, but you are really not on a lot of topics. All you know about global warming is the 97% of scientists whose life is dependent upon global warming theory being true, believe global warming is true. No matter what argument or fact are presented, you completely ignore the merits of the argument and fall back on what the tithe-sucking experts believe.

GW is a discussion I'm certainly willing to have with you, but let's do that in another thread, shall we?As far as me being open-minded, I would say that it's a goal of mine rather than something I have achieved. But in contrast to your claim that an open mind is an empty mind, I think it's a positive goal, one that everyone should seek.

However, I don't think we need to be open minded on EVERY issue. For instance, if someone wants to deny the Holocaust to me, I'm not going to listen to him. I'm "close-minded" on that issue, and many many others. But as a general rule, I would like to be a person to which facts inform my opinions, rather than the other way around.

Tim is one of the few people on this board that I've ever seen openly change their mind on their position mid-thread based on listening to factually-supported arguments. Some might criticize the error of his first (or second) position or his "flip-flopping," but I think the world would be a much better place if more people showed the willingness to reevaluate their own positions based on facts and logical argument. There are no amount of facts in the world that could ever convince jon_mx that global warming is a reality. That's an intellectual weakness, not a strength.

 

[timschochet]

OK, now I see where you two are going with this. You guys are both using an absolutist definition of the phrase "open mind", suggesting that it means "empty mind", in order, apparently, to justify the original statement. Possibly because you are both religious Christians and don't want to criticize anyone who is promoting Christianity?

But this is dishonest, because both of you know, or should know, that the colloquial, accepted definition of "open mind" means a mind willing to accept new ideas, and willing to allow facts or newly found knowlege to change one's preconceived ideas or convictions.

Tim, I am sure you consider yourself open-minded, but you are really not on a lot of topics. All you know about global warming is the 97% of scientists whose life is dependent upon global warming theory being true, believe global warming is true. No matter what argument or fact are presented, you completely ignore the merits of the argument and fall back on what the tithe-sucking experts believe.

GW is a discussion I'm certainly willing to have with you, but let's do that in another thread, shall we?As far as me being open-minded, I would say that it's a goal of mine rather than something I have achieved. But in contrast to your claim that an open mind is an empty mind, I think it's a positive goal, one that everyone should seek.

However, I don't think we need to be open minded on EVERY issue. For instance, if someone wants to deny the Holocaust to me, I'm not going to listen to him. I'm "close-minded" on that issue, and many many others. But as a general rule, I would like to be a person to which facts inform my opinions, rather than the other way around.

Tim is one of the few people on this board that I've ever seen openly change their mind on their position mid-thread based on listening to factually-supported arguments. Some might criticize the error of his first (or second) position or his "flip-flopping," but I think the world would be a much better place if more people showed the willingness to reevaluate their own positions based on facts and logical argument. There are no amount of facts in the world that could ever convince jon_mx that global warming is a reality. That's an intellectual weakness, not a strength.

Appreciate the kind words. It's better than being called pathetic, that's for sure.

 

[jon_mx]

OK, now I see where you two are going with this. You guys are both using an absolutist definition of the phrase "open mind", suggesting that it means "empty mind", in order, apparently, to justify the original statement. Possibly because you are both religious Christians and don't want to criticize anyone who is promoting Christianity?

But this is dishonest, because both of you know, or should know, that the colloquial, accepted definition of "open mind" means a mind willing to accept new ideas, and willing to allow facts or newly found knowlege to change one's preconceived ideas or convictions.

Tim, I am sure you consider yourself open-minded, but you are really not on a lot of topics. All you know about global warming is the 97% of scientists whose life is dependent upon global warming theory being true, believe global warming is true. No matter what argument or fact are presented, you completely ignore the merits of the argument and fall back on what the tithe-sucking experts believe.

GW is a discussion I'm certainly willing to have with you, but let's do that in another thread, shall we?As far as me being open-minded, I would say that it's a goal of mine rather than something I have achieved. But in contrast to your claim that an open mind is an empty mind, I think it's a positive goal, one that everyone should seek.

However, I don't think we need to be open minded on EVERY issue. For instance, if someone wants to deny the Holocaust to me, I'm not going to listen to him. I'm "close-minded" on that issue, and many many others. But as a general rule, I would like to be a person to which facts inform my opinions, rather than the other way around.

Tim is one of the few people on this board that I've ever seen openly change their mind on their position mid-thread based on listening to factually-supported arguments. Some might criticize the error of his first (or second) position or his "flip-flopping," but I think the world would be a much better place if more people showed the willingness to reevaluate their own positions based on facts and logical argument. There are no amount of facts in the world that could ever convince jon_mx that global warming is a reality. That's an intellectual weakness, not a strength.

That is not true. What you don't understand is even the scientist who say they believe in glob warming are not 100 percent convinced themselves. When they rate their level of certainty is is like a 7 or 8, not a 10 like some like gravity would rate. The theory is misrepresented and assumptions and poor models are passed off as fact. There is a ton of good science in global warming, but there is also a lot of crap science. I just expect more honesty out of science and less political pooping.

 

[SacramentoBob]

I prefer a woman with open legs.

 

[Buckfast 1]

OK, now I see where you two are going with this. You guys are both using an absolutist definition of the phrase "open mind", suggesting that it means "empty mind", in order, apparently, to justify the original statement. Possibly because you are both religious Christians and don't want to criticize anyone who is promoting Christianity?

But this is dishonest, because both of you know, or should know, that the colloquial, accepted definition of "open mind" means a mind willing to accept new ideas, and willing to allow facts or newly found knowlege to change one's preconceived ideas or convictions.

Tim, I am sure you consider yourself open-minded, but you are really not on a lot of topics. All you know about global warming is the 97% of scientists whose life is dependent upon global warming theory being true, believe global warming is true. No matter what argument or fact are presented, you completely ignore the merits of the argument and fall back on what the tithe-sucking experts believe.

GW is a discussion I'm certainly willing to have with you, but let's do that in another thread, shall we?As far as me being open-minded, I would say that it's a goal of mine rather than something I have achieved. But in contrast to your claim that an open mind is an empty mind, I think it's a positive goal, one that everyone should seek.

However, I don't think we need to be open minded on EVERY issue. For instance, if someone wants to deny the Holocaust to me, I'm not going to listen to him. I'm "close-minded" on that issue, and many many others. But as a general rule, I would like to be a person to which facts inform my opinions, rather than the other way around.

Tim is one of the few people on this board that I've ever seen openly change their mind on their position mid-thread based on listening to factually-supported arguments. Some might criticize the error of his first (or second) position or his "flip-flopping," but I think the world would be a much better place if more people showed the willingness to reevaluate their own positions based on facts and logical argument. There are no amount of facts in the world that could ever convince jon_mx that global warming is a reality. That's an intellectual weakness, not a strength.

That is not true. What you don't understand is even the scientist who say they believe in glob warming are not 100 percent convinced themselves. When they rate their level of certainty is is like a 7 or 8, not a 10 like some like gravity would rate. The theory is misrepresented and assumptions and poor models are passed off as fact. There is a ton of good science in global warming, but there is also a lot of crap science. I just expect more honesty out of science and less political pooping.

No true scientist is ever 100% convinced of anything. The nature of science is that you must always be willing to revise your positions based on new evidence. That's what scientists have, but you don't.

 

[jon_mx]

OK, now I see where you two are going with this. You guys are both using an absolutist definition of the phrase "open mind", suggesting that it means "empty mind", in order, apparently, to justify the original statement. Possibly because you are both religious Christians and don't want to criticize anyone who is promoting Christianity?

But this is dishonest, because both of you know, or should know, that the colloquial, accepted definition of "open mind" means a mind willing to accept new ideas, and willing to allow facts or newly found knowlege to change one's preconceived ideas or convictions.

Tim, I am sure you consider yourself open-minded, but you are really not on a lot of topics. All you know about global warming is the 97% of scientists whose life is dependent upon global warming theory being true, believe global warming is true. No matter what argument or fact are presented, you completely ignore the merits of the argument and fall back on what the tithe-sucking experts believe.

GW is a discussion I'm certainly willing to have with you, but let's do that in another thread, shall we?As far as me being open-minded, I would say that it's a goal of mine rather than something I have achieved. But in contrast to your claim that an open mind is an empty mind, I think it's a positive goal, one that everyone should seek.

However, I don't think we need to be open minded on EVERY issue. For instance, if someone wants to deny the Holocaust to me, I'm not going to listen to him. I'm "close-minded" on that issue, and many many others. But as a general rule, I would like to be a person to which facts inform my opinions, rather than the other way around.

Tim is one of the few people on this board that I've ever seen openly change their mind on their position mid-thread based on listening to factually-supported arguments. Some might criticize the error of his first (or second) position or his "flip-flopping," but I think the world would be a much better place if more people showed the willingness to reevaluate their own positions based on facts and logical argument. There are no amount of facts in the world that could ever convince jon_mx that global warming is a reality. That's an intellectual weakness, not a strength.

That is not true. What you don't understand is even the scientist who say they believe in glob warming are not 100 percent convinced themselves. When they rate their level of certainty is is like a 7 or 8, not a 10 like some like gravity would rate. The theory is misrepresented and assumptions and poor models are passed off as fact. There is a ton of good science in global warming, but there is also a lot of crap science. I just expect more honesty out of science and less political pooping.

No true scientist is ever 100% convinced of anything. The nature of science is that you must always be willing to revise your positions based on new evidence. That's what scientists have, but you don't.

Science has no clue how much man is really contributing to global warming. On that point where they are at is monkey's throwing darts at a board, which is why 100 percent of their modeling has been wrong to date, they tend to grossly exaggerate the impact.

 

[matuski]

None of us has a totally open mind. There are things we have accepted which we believe to be true, things we have accepted because we believe them to be the best among alternatives, things we have decided to live by because they work best for us. To have a totally open mind means that we have no convictions.

Yet some of us will adapt in the presence of evidence to the contrary, or in response to an utter lack of it.

Some of us dig deeper in the presence of ever increasing evidence to the contrary, or a continuing utter lack of it.

 

[SacramentoBob]

No true scientist

What about Scottish scientists?

 

[B-Deep]

OK, now I see where you two are going with this. You guys are both using an absolutist definition of the phrase "open mind", suggesting that it means "empty mind", in order, apparently, to justify the original statement. Possibly because you are both religious Christians and don't want to criticize anyone who is promoting Christianity?

But this is dishonest, because both of you know, or should know, that the colloquial, accepted definition of "open mind" means a mind willing to accept new ideas, and willing to allow facts or newly found knowlege to change one's preconceived ideas or convictions.

Tim, I am sure you consider yourself open-minded, but you are really not on a lot of topics. All you know about global warming is the 97% of scientists whose life is dependent upon global warming theory being true, believe global warming is true. No matter what argument or fact are presented, you completely ignore the merits of the argument and fall back on what the tithe-sucking experts believe.

do you think tim should be more open minded?