Subject:
|
Re: Mormon bashing again
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 5 Mar 2000 22:32:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1152 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> > That's not at all what those verses say.
>
> [big snip]
>
> Bill, I'm afraid that we'll simply have to agree to disagree. After reading
> all of them, I can't see how any of the references you pointed me to support
> your side -- or even fail to support mine.
That's fine, I was just presenting an alternative view point.
>
> And as for entering a civil discussion with you, I've decided to forget it.
> You certainly are well-versed with passages from the Bible, and this has made
> for an interesting scripture chase. However, you've also made enough pretty
> wide generalizations about people who don't agree with you, to convince me
> that you are, in your eyes, never wrong.
That's the point of wide generalizations - they're "generally" correct.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't think I've been rude or uncivil at all. I
also haven't claimed that I'm always right, I've merely pointed out several
references that seem to me to be pretty straight forward in their wording. I
haven't haggled over the meaning of the word "is" or any other word. I haven't
even offered "opinions" on any controversial passages.
You've disagreed with some of my statemens and I have disagreed with some of
yours. What's the difference? I have supported mine and you have supported
yours. If you disagree, that's just yofi and beseder (great and ok/fine).
>
> Your words: "[Disagreement] usually comes from having preconceived ideas or
> from a lack of drawing conclusions until processing all of the facts. Too
> many christians make judgements based on a few passages without considering
> their impact on other truths. Some just want to manipulate behavior. Some
> are frustrated at their own inability to control their own behavior that they
> try to control others which is far easier."
The usage of the word "usually" is significant to the statement. Besides, I
didn't say "Thus saith the Lord" or anything. Those comments were definitely
opinion, although mostly evaluations of _my own_ progression as a student of
the bible. They were not directed at anyone in particular and were not even
used in response to anything you had said.
>
> Rather than trying to find out which of these categories you cubbyhole me
> into, I will withdraw from discussing this with you.
I'm sure that in dealing with so called christians you have encountered strong
opposition to the fact that you are a Mormon, right? I haven't tried to label
you or put you in a box of my choice like that. I don't agree with that at all.
One of the first things people ask you when they find out that you are a
christian (of any stripe) is "what church do you go to" precisely because they
want to pre-label you and say "oh, you're one of those". I don't answer that
question directly, because I don't subscribe to any particular group's beliefs.
I think matters of belief should be handled like the Bereans who checked things
out for themselves and didn't take even Paul's word for anything. I routinely
read books from opposing view points precisely because I know I may be wrong
about potentially anything, and have ammended my beliefs dramatically on many
matters. I don't think there's anything wrong with possessing and sharing a
degree of knowledge about the bible. I also don't think it wrong to be
confident in ones beliefs. Lindsay blew me out of the water in matters of
science and with decisiveness, but I wasn't offended by that. I don't ascribe
my ideas to myself, I don't have an emotional attachment to them in the sense
that I don't feel rejected if my ideas are rejected. They are not personal.
Obviously, I believe they are right or I wouldn't hold to them. But I don't
claim them as originating with me. I believe the bible to be clear about many
issues, and yes, I think disagreement has to do with the things I mentioned
above and alot more. That's why I make a habit of not commenting on things that
I'm not sure about. I must admit that I engaged Lindsay in matters of science
on purpose, that's why I pulled out all the old cliches. I must say he exceeded
my expectations in his responses, but that's exactly what I wanted. I tried the
same thing in the "it's quiet in here" thread last week, but there were no
takers. It's my college substitute for now. Works for me.
>
> Cheers,
> - jsproat
I hope there's no ill will.
(Cheers) Are you British, by the way?
Bill
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
| (...) [big snip] Bill, I'm afraid that we'll simply have to agree to disagree. After reading all of them, I can't see how any of the references you pointed me to support your side -- or even fail to support mine. And as for entering a civil (...) (25 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
541 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
