Re: LDS attacking mainstream Christian beliefs
- From: "Jeff Shirton" <jshirton@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 01:12:26 -0000
"Just Wondering" <fmhlaw@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:11h9i72br62s792@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> I think *both* are important. In fact, I believe that part of how we
>> are to treat our fellow man is to share the *truth* of God with them,
>> so it is certainly not an "either-or" issue.
>
> Do you honestly believe
I am always honest in everything I post here.
You can be sure of that.
And even so-called "enemies" of mine, such as LDS Paula
mmmToblerone, know that to be true.
> (a) people post to this newsgroup to convert others to the
> truth about the nature of God, (b) people read this newsgroup
> seeking that truth, and (c) those in category (a) succeed in
> converting those in category (b) to the truth about the nature of God?
Your questions run the danger of assuming that there is one
particular answer which is correct for everyone. I reject that
idea, of course, and say this. I only know why I read the messages,
and post. I don't pretend to know why others do.
As for "converting" others, I am utterly incapable of doing
any such thing. Only God can change a person's heart. The
best I can do is plant and water, only God can cause an increase.
> I've never seen any evidence of proposition (c) in particular.
I have received a number of emails of encouragement, and
have even seen messages indicating "progress" on the part
of those who did not originally share my beliefs.
I understand that tangible evidence is very important for
many people. It is my understanding that many who preach
will not see direct, immediate results of their evangelization.
What they say may only remain a seed, hibernating in a person
for many years, until it begins to grow and bloom, and by this
time separated from the evangelizer both by time and distance.
I believe that it is God's will that I share His gospel with the
LDS population, and other participants in this newsgroup.
How effective I will be is none of my business, it is God's
business. Everything is under His control.
But even if none are saved through my efforts, I still believe
that the preaching of God's gospel is glorifying to Him.
> The question isn't whether to talk about the nature of God.
> It's a question of timing. Until you succeed in persuading
> others of the basic gospel principles of the Sermon on the
> Mount, talking about the LDS view of the Godhead is
> "casting pearls before swine,"
I completely disagree with you about the order here.
> "casting pearls before swine," which Jesus commanded
> his followers (in that very same discourse) NOT to do.
Certainly Jesus commanded that.
But I don't believe I *am* "casting pearls before swine".
I respectfully disagree with your evaluation.
>> Well, since you asked, it appears that you have gone out of your
>> way to avoid answering my question. And personally, I don't
>> find that "reasonable".
>
> You cut your own question out of my response, which was,
> What do the "reasonable people" say? I think I answered
> that question.
The question wasn't intended to be open-ended.
The question was intended to be regarding the *specific*
issue which I went into in great detail.
I'm sorry if you misunderstood my question.
Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco dot
ca
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"[T]he gospel is not that man can become god,
but that God became a man." -- James White
Challenge me (Theophilus) for a game of chess at Chessworld.net!
.
- Prev by Date: Re: A Rose by any other name... was:- Temple Recommend interview:
- Next by Date: Re: precepts in the Book of Mormon
- Previous by thread: Re: LDS attacking mainstream Christian beliefs
- Next by thread: Re: LDS attacking mainstream Christian beliefs
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
