Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: bob@morningstar.com (Bob Sutterfield) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: X and Christianity (was Re: Mormonism and Christianity) Message-ID: Date: 23 Sep 90 07:33:25 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Morning Star Technologies Lines: 22 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article 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!