bob@morningstar.com (Bob Sutterfield) (09/23/90)
In article <Sep.18.03.50.34.1990.9032@athos.rutgers.edu> farkas@qual.eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) writes:
...I have extended a challenge to look at any one of our believes,
and to see if they have any biblical foundations or not. Are you
willing to accept this challenge? If you do, we need to lay down
the rules by which we will agree to abide by...
Why does this sound so much like the recent discussion of homosexuals
in the church, where one person early on laid out the (remarkably
similar) ground rules for the conduct of a huge, hot debate, when it
was clear that nobody's mind would be changed? Why do people feel
like they need to throw down challenges like this? Can't such
discussions even be *approached* without such an adversarial attitude?
No, I suspect not. People get very stiff-necked when confronted with
viewpoints that differ from their own dearly-held opinions. One might
even apply the adjective "unchristian," to borrow from another thread.
Please note that the above has no relationship to "my position" on
either "debate issue," even though I hold "a position" on each. And
I'm not saying that we shouldn't discuss controversial topics here.
But please, when a hot topic has been thoroughly cussed and discussed,
and it's clear that nobody's moving any more, let it die quietly!farkas%qual@sun.com (Frank Farkas) (09/26/90)
In article <Sep.23.03.33.23.1990.5648@athos.rutgers.edu>, bob@morningstar.com (Bob Sutterfield) writes: >In article <Sep.18.03.50.34.1990.9032@athos.rutgers.edu> farkas@qual.eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) writes: > ...I have extended a challenge to look at any one of our believes, > and to see if they have any biblical foundations or not. Are you > willing to accept this challenge? If you do, we need to lay down > the rules by which we will agree to abide by... > >Why does this sound so much like the recent discussion of homosexuals >in the church, where one person early on laid out the (remarkably >similar) ground rules for the conduct of a huge, hot debate, when it >was clear that nobody's mind would be changed? Why do people feel >like they need to throw down challenges like this? Can't such >discussions even be *approached* without such an adversarial attitude? > Thanks a lot! However, I don't see the similarities with your example. I wish that you would have asked me, instead of assuming the reason why I made my suggestions (assumptions are the mother of screw-ups. The reason I have extended the challenge is because of all the garbage I have been reading on this alias regarding Mormons. Since none of the anti-Mormons except the Book of Mormon, or any one of the new revelations as scriptures, I wanted to discuss LDS believes by stictly using the Bible, since that scripture is accepted by both sides. What is wrong with this? >No, I suspect not. People get very stiff-necked when confronted with >viewpoints that differ from their own dearly-held opinions. One might >even apply the adjective "unchristian," to borrow from another thread. > You are right, anti-Mormons in fact do get stiff-necked when their orthodox believes are questioned. In fact, I don't believe that many of them know the Ten Commendments, specifically the one which has to do with the bearing false witness. They just go ahead and use information which is not true, over and over again, even after it has been shown that they are not true. I guess I am just getting tired of others telling me what I believe in. Just once I would like someone to ask me, "I know that you are a Mormon and I have heard all kinds of things about what you believe in. Tell me, what do you really believe about X, Y and Z?" >Please note that the above has no relationship to "my position" on >either "debate issue," even though I hold "a position" on each. And >I'm not saying that we shouldn't discuss controversial topics here. >But please, when a hot topic has been thoroughly cussed and discussed, >and it's clear that nobody's moving any more, let it die quietly! Great way of getting personal, with out getting personal! Does this mean that we will have no more mudd slinging on this net by anti-Mormons? By the way, what is so controversial about having a discussion about some of the issues I have suggested? With brotherly love, Frank