Coloneljack suggested it was because there were people watching who didn't want to hear the "opposing argument" to whatever was their own standpoint.
The above bit really started me thinking, and I have to say that I think she may have a point. I think I've said this other places as well, but I feel like there is less and less opportunity for debate these days - real debate as exchange of differing ideas meant to inform and stimulate, rather than arguing to convince and convert.
Especially when the intent of the sermon is to make us think for ourselves, rather than towing the party line.
Is it possible that the very fact he is presenting in this manner - showing multiple viewpoints in an effort to stimulate thought rather than dictate it - is the reason people feel his messages are 'preachy'? That rather than have a quick, one-minute spot to present a singular point of view, he takes an hour-long episode to look at an issue from multiple angles, not necessarily getting to an answer?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2007-07-03 11:40 pm (UTC)The above bit really started me thinking, and I have to say that I think she may have a point. I think I've said this other places as well, but I feel like there is less and less opportunity for debate these days - real debate as exchange of differing ideas meant to inform and stimulate, rather than arguing to convince and convert.
Especially when the intent of the sermon is to make us think for ourselves, rather than towing the party line.
Is it possible that the very fact he is presenting in this manner - showing multiple viewpoints in an effort to stimulate thought rather than dictate it - is the reason people feel his messages are 'preachy'? That rather than have a quick, one-minute spot to present a singular point of view, he takes an hour-long episode to look at an issue from multiple angles, not necessarily getting to an answer?