|
Great post! Yes, I believe it to be possible. If I
didn't I'd use my fingers to type only to myself. Wait a sec, maybe that's what
some of us are actually doing. Ya think? Lance
----- Original Message -----
Sent: March 30, 2004 03:42
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Dialogue with
Mormons
Lance Muir wrote:
Attention all Mormon contributors: You may
reframe this query in better suited words if you wish: Do you (M) believe
all others (nonM) to be capable of engaging you(M) in any genuine
dialogue? DAVEH: Yes. But my experience
in TT has shown me that for every one who is willing to do so, there are many,
many more who do not want to do so.
If you believe that we (nonM) are in the "dark"
how can anything we say be taken seriously by
yourselves? DAVEH: Even though you (nonM) or me
(M) may be wrong on any given belief, I don't think that necessarily means a
meaningful/serious discussion cannot be had about such even IF one or both
parties are in error.
For instance, I believe
baptism is a very important aspect of salvation, and feel that those of you
(nonM) who do not share this belief are in error. However, I do want to
know why you believe as you do because as I see it.....the Bible is pretty
firm about teaching the necessity of baptism and its relationship to
salvation. It is my opinion that those who do not see the necessity of
baptism (being needed for salvation) have simply inherited this belief based
on Protestant doctrines that were derived due to a repugnance to RCC
dogma. Had it not been for the RCC insistence on baptism for
salvation, I believe Protestants would not have been so reluctant to
understand the Bible's comments about baptism the way they do.
It is such doctrinal leanings that persuade me to
think that most TTers are really Protestants despite their denial.
Though they may not think they are protesting anything, it is the adoption of
a belief system that is based on Protesters that draws me to think they
qualify as Protestants. Does that make sense,
Lance?
I think what I've said above pretty much
explains my interest in TT. As you may know, I am not here to learn/find
truth, but rather my interest here is in learning about what Protestants
believe and why they believe it because some of those beliefs are in
such contrast to my own. Yet we share the same Bible. I realize
that I benefit from extra Biblical knowledge, but I try to make allowance for
that and try to focus on what the Bible says and infers.
Another example.....I've often times mentioned
baptism for the dead as Paul referred to in 1 Cor 15:29. I have not this
to convince any TTers that baptism for the dead is doctrinally correct because
it is in the Bible. Rather I find the fact that there were Primitive
Christians practicing such to be strong evidence that some Christians actually
believed that baptism was necessary for salvation. Yet this seems to be
conveniently overlooked/ignored by many Protestants today. Instead they
insist that BFTD is reprehensible and not doctrinally correct simply because
it is mentioned in the Bible. For some reason, they seem to not be able
to see the bigger picture. To me this is fascinating.
IF, IN FACT YOU'RE WRONG HOW THEN CAN THIS BE
SHOWN TO YOU? DAVEH: Why do you feel so
compelled to show me that I am wrong, Lance? Can we not have a
meaningful discussion about what is said in the Bible, why it was said, and
what implications are resultant EVEN IF they do not agree with our personal
beliefs? Do you have to proof me wrong to make the discussion
meaningful???
I once had an 18 month conversation on this
very point which lead inexhorably to the only possible
conclusion... DAVEH: That you are/were
right......Is that your conclusion? Doesn't everybody think that
way, most of the time? Is there anybody wandering around TT thinking to
themselves that their beliefs are all screwed up and wrong and that they will
find somebody in TT that will set them straight? No?.....I suspect it is
the other way around. Everybody here wants to convince the other guy
that his beliefs are all wrong and that they should change to conform to their
correct understanding. >From what I see, that's a pretty rare event
here.
Personally, I think my approach is the
best. I'm not here to change. I'm here to learn. To me,
genuine dialogue is a two way
street. And, I tire quickly of those who think TT should only be a one
way street. So Lance, if you don't think we can have a meaningful discussion
UNLESS you can change me, then save your typing fingers for the guy who comes
to TT wanting to change to believe as you do. On the other hand, IF you
want to learn what I believe and why......or......IF you want to share with me
your beliefs and why you believe such.....I truly believe we can have a
meaningful exchange.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain Five email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
|
