BLAINE: Actually, Dave H and I agree on ALMOST everything. Nothing too important do we disagree on, I believe. This is true of most Mormons who are up on church doctrines, which is the result of the BoM's influence in this world of secular disagreement. We would both agree, I believe, for instance, that it would be great if we could teach you brethren the true gospel, as we understand it. (: (No offense intended.)
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 22:22:41 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I am not the one who believes that FF Bruce and myself and anyone > else share brotherhood because we agree. No two people on this > list are in agreement. > > > To tolerate everything is too teach nothing. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 2/20/2005 4:30:51 PM Pacific Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > As a good Missionary Baptist, you are a faithful conveyor of The > Defense. > > In order to refute an idea or set of beliefs it is good to have a > clear understanding of thse beliefs. If one is unable to define such > or to misapply beliefs that are not held to attack those beliefs not > held, is to destroy a straw man. Not always are straw men built as a > pretense to create a beatable opponent, sometimes they are built > because one does not care nor is able to correctly identify or > define those beliefs. well, you should know this up close and > personally -- sense you have tagged me with "water dog > Campbellite" knowing full well that I have not been associated with > the Chruch of Christ for years. Should you refute the "Missionary > Baptist" position what is that to me. Maybe you could give us all > the correct definition of a "Missionary Baptist" Maybe not; since > you have misapplied it to me, there is a good chance you would > misapply beliefs to them also! This is simply Slovenly "Scholarship" > at its worst. And where did I criticize their teachings? I am > critical > of their attitude -- negative and harsh has been my experience. > It is part of the reason why their membership is comparatively > small. And ---- they teach this silly notion of an inspired KJV > along with thinking that pictures of Jesus will send you to hell. > > What doctrinal issues are you in agreement with in the 54 who worked > on the Authorized Version? > > Lets ask them, oh that won't work. Maybe you could fill us in what > were their beliefs? this is how nuts this conservation is. You are > the one who insists that doctrinal sameness is critical to unity and > salvation. And now you make fun of me for asking what unity exists > between you and the 54? Go figure. > > What doctrinal issues do you agree with Mollenkott? > God is an abusive parent? > We are all lesbians? > God is a female? You are the who lfted up the 54. I do not even > know of Mollenkott. > > What doctrinal issues do you agree with Kittel? > The jews are not God's chosen people but vermin that should be > herded like cattle &gassed? I don't know if this is what Kittle > believed or if he was in fear for his life or his families life. I > do know that he wrote 26 of the over 1500 articles in the the > Theological Dictionary ----------- something you choose to > ignore. > > FF Bruce? > The Bible contains fables? What are you doing, Kevin. I am not > the one who believes that FF Bruce and myself and anyone else share > brotherhood because we agree. No two people on this list are in > agreement. > > > > > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term' ---------- "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.
