� Charles Locke wrote:
> DaveH, > > �� Sorry it took me so long to respond to your posting. I have been quite > busy. DAVEH:� No problem-----I have the same situation! > �� You misquotation totally misrepresented what I had originally posted. DAVEH:� Then you should post what you said, and what I said you said and let's compare the two.� And.....did I really "misquote" you, or did I paraphrase what you said and did so incorrectly.� I think there is a big difference, Perry.� When I quote people on TT, I try to highlight there words, copy and paste them so there is little chance of misquotations.� I have occasionally misquoted passages from the Bible that I've typed though. > Let > me try to say it in a way that is less ambiguous: > > �� Traditional Christians admit and accept there are things about God that > cannot be known by mortal men. However, LDS appear to construct logical > explanations to the unknowable things of God, EVEN IF THEY ARE FALSE. DAVEH:� Whether their (LDS) logic is correct or in error, the point you seemed to me to be saying is that LDS folks believe that the gospel is logical in the LDS realm.� And......that is the way a lot of LDS folks think.� Basically, the gospel explains where we came from, why we are here, and where we are going in a logical fashion that doesn't leave a lot of mysteries or paradoxes.� We believe there are logical explanations for everything the Lord has done and will do.� If we do know know the answers to specific details of the gospel, it is either because we have not researched it enough, or it has yet to be revealed. > So, > when I said "seem to have to have", it means it appears as though the LDS > place logic ahead of truth. DAVEH:� That may or may not be the case.� In theory, if LDS theology is correct......their logic is not "ahead of the truth", it is the truth. > And, while LDS theology seems logical to the > LDS, I do not see it as a logical system. DAVEH:� I think that is because you are looking at it with Protestant biases which make assumptions that I don't think are correct.� (Such as my previous discussion about the possibility of mortals someday becoming gods.� To you, it would be blasphemous I suspect.� But to LDS folks, it is quite logical.) > I am certain you understand how > logical arguments based on false premises produce false conclusions. DAVEH:� Sure.� But if they are based on correct principles, then it can explain a lot of truth that is unexplainable to others. > �� Additionally, you have since misquoted me again! DAVEH:� "misquoted"?� I think I tried to paraphrase your comments as I understood them.� If I have conveyed something you didn't say, please feel free to correct me.� You are the one who use the term "logical" in respect to LDS thinking.� If LDS theology is not thought to be logical to LDS folks, why did you mention it? > You seem to have a way > of taking my words and twisting them to your purpose. DAVEH:� Again.....Please correct me when I do that. > I don't need to > present the details, DAVEH:� If you are going to make the accusation that I am misquoting you, then it seems to me that you should explain how I misquoted you.� Do you think LDS folks consider their religion to be 'logical'?� If so, then didn't I paraphrase your comment relatively accurately? > but whether you are not reading carefully what is being > posted, reading into it what you want it to say, or purposely twisting it, I > have no idea. > > �� Concerning baiting. That is exactly what you are doing. You may not be > aware that you are doing it, but you are. When you come across with the "I'm > a poor LDS that does not understand the Trinity...please explain it" stuff, > and I give a very honest explanation, and instead of trying to understand > it, you come back with a rebuttal and argument about why it is false because > LDS does not believe it, you are showing that you did not want to learn, you > wanted to disprove it. That is baiting, my friend. DAVEH:� Call it what you want, but I don't quite see it that way, Perry. > If you want to debate, > say so up front. But please don't couch your intention behind a seemingly > earnest question. Besides, I missed the big red flag...if you haven't > understood the traditional Christian concept of the Trinity in the 3 years > you have been seeking an answer, the problem is not the concept...it is > probably that you do not want to understand it. DAVEH: Perry, I've come to realize that there are folks who grow to an old age in Protestantism without really understanding the nature of the Trinity.� Let me quote part of your explanation to me......... " So, in conclusion, the word "Trinity" is used by traditional Christians to express a paradoxical concept that is in the Scriptures, and the Trinitarian doctrine was developed to provide a resolution to this paradox, although it does include a "mystery"." .........Now Perry, no offense, but if you are going to criticize me for not understanding the "concept of the Trinity" in the past 3 years I've been here (and I might remind you that you weren't here to monitor any of those T-Doctrine discussions---IMO there was very little response to my questions about it) AFTER you suggested that the T-doctrine does "include a "mystery"" seems a little disingenuous.� How can anybody understand it if there is "mystery" associated with it. ���� Well Perry, I think I understand the concept of the Trinity all right......it was a politically motivated doctrine derived from men who wanted to bring about theological unity.� It is my believe that the T-doctrine purposely introduced vagueness and mystery into theology in order to bring a lot of divergent believers under the same theological umbrella.� What I don't understand are the details (viz substance) and why Protestants so readily adopt it without considering the hazard of the mysteries it introduces.� Isn't the nature of God important to Protestants?� If so, why should there be any mystery or paradox about it? > Perry -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ � ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
