prisonchaplain
-
Posts
13955 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
92
Posts posted by prisonchaplain
-
-
Originally posted by Josie@Jan 7 2006, 12:39 PM
If a minister makes any kind of political statement to his church, the irs is bringing action against them to take their tax exempt status away from them.
I hate to make an over-the-top response to this, but I have some similar sounding quotes:
"Political parties have nothing to do with religious problems, as long as these are not alien to the nation, undermining the morals and ethics of the race; just as religion cannot be amalgamated with the scheming of political parties." (56)
"Worst of all, however, is the devastation wrought by the misuse of religious conviction for political ends." (57)
"Therefore, let every man be active, each in his own denomination if you please, and let every man take it as his first and most sacred duty to oppose anyone who in his activity by word or deed steps outside the confines of his religious community and tries to butt into the other." (58)
The speaker is Adolf Hitler.
If calling for the assassination of the leader of one country and saying another's health issues are brought upon him by God is not political, I don't know what is.
Thank God (and I mean that sincerely and reverently) that the IRS was not allowed to go after the Abolitionists or the Civil Rights activitists. As people of rigorous religious practice, I would think most here would realize that faith that is meaningful will, of necessity, effect our work, our play, our family life, and yes, our politics. In American democracy (democratic republic for you purists) everyone gets a say in the public arena--even right-wing Christians. Even Pat Robertson.
Maybe the irs should look at taking his tax exempt status away and the US government consider what action to take because of his call for the murder of a man.
While the speech was reprehensible, Robertson was not plotting an actual assassination, nor would anyone have taken his words as marching orders. I gotta ask you, don't you value freedom of speech?
-
Originally posted by GRR8@Jan 7 2006, 02:25 PM
you guys are typical of the breed of people who believe phil plaits bull ****, He wont face Hoagland in an on air debate in front of a national audience concerning the geometry of Cydonia, because he knows he cannot win the debate. End of Case. I win. Ozzy Osbourne is way more intelligent than you Snow, or Prison preacher, or Outshined. And he didnt go to College either. hehe.
I used to teach English conversation in South Korea. One time a student suggested that I take the TOEFL--just for fun. "No Way," I said. Even if I get a perfect score, students will say, "Well, yeah...he's a native speaker." BUT, if I get anything less, they'll wonder if their teacher is truly qualified.
My guess is that a real scientist would not want to debate a sci-fi writer who's lost the ability to distinguish questionable fiction with reality because:
A. It would give the writer a false appearance of credibility. Note how Hoagland already uses his invite to entertain some NASA employees at the equivalent of what we call a "lunch and learn," to suggest he's a highly revered consultant.
B. Hoagland is probably a good public speaker, who knows how to work a crowd. True scientists often are not proficient at translating what they do into laymen's terms, much less doing so with persuasion and humor.
Bottom-line: Gr88t, quit looking to phenomena from creation to revere, and look instead to the on Creator, the one true and living God.
-
Professor Stephen E. Robinson (BYU, Ancient Scriptures) makes the following statement in the book How Wide the Divide: The LDS believe there will be millions, even billions of good souls who will come from the east and the west to sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the celestial kingdom of heaven (Mt. 8:11)--including, in my opinion, a very large percentage of Evangelicals. (bold emphasis mine) Do you agree? Comments?
TRAVELER ANSWERS: I agree. In essence it is one of the prime reason we build temples, believe in doing "work for the dead" and look forward to the 1,000 years of Christ on earth. It is my personal belief that not one person that desires to live with G-d in his kingdom will be excluded. To be honest my friend the LDS doctrine on this subject is the only doctrine that I know of that believes this. All others will exclude somebody that is left without the knowledge of something at no fault of their own.
Now let me paraphrase and read between the lines, to see if I understand Prof. Robinson and the Traveler correctly. Prof. Robinson has become good friends with evangelical scholar, Prof. Blomberg (Denver Seminary). Additionally, he has consumed enough evangelical writing, that he "knows the language." Ultimately, he's convinced--and here the Traveler concurs--that most evangelicals, because of their hunger to serve God and love people, perhaps in the life to come, will respond favorably to the offer of conversion, which will be provided as a result of a baptism for the dead done here. Have I understood correctly?
I have a short comment about salvation, and this issue of "what if they did not know?" First, there is no doubt that Mormonism neatly solves this difficult question in a way no other faith does. On the other hand, evangelicalism may be more nuanced than most believe. Yes, there are some who say, no way but Jesus...if you did not know, you were not predestined or chosen. However, many others, myself included, suggest that there may be more hope than that. My personal experience came when someone close to me committed suicide. What made this especially confusing for me spiritually was that he had come to my church the week before, and had made a confession of faith...this totally out of the blue. So, was he truly saved? Did he "endure to the end?" Or, did he just go through this act to give me hope and make me feel better? I prayed about it, and after about three weeks got my answer: God is just.
So...is he in heaven or not? GOD IS JUST. Is he in hell? GOD IS JUST. In other words, do I trust God? Do I trust this loved one to him? On the Day of Judgment there will be no objections. All will agree that God was just and merciful. Furthermore, Romans 1 suggests that there is a general revelation of God that all have access to. Perhaps we'll be judged by how we respond to what we know?
Granted...Mormonism's answers are easier. But are they true? What I know for sure is that God is TRUE. Jesus is TRUE. For now, that's good enough for me.
-
Originally posted by Outshined@Jan 6 2006, 06:33 AM
Hoagland is not a scientist, and doesn't even have a college degree; he is a writer, nothing more. ... as compared to being a "science writer"
. Hey, I wouldn't roll my eyes at science writers. L. Ron Hubbard managed to start a brand new religion (Scientology), enlist a cadre of Hollywood elites, inspire some really bad movies (what was that Battleship Earth thing with John Travolta?), and be a catalyst for some really sober, intelligent discussions about psychiatra (ref. Tom Cruise). I'd say Hoagland may have some potential--just not in actual science.
-
Originally posted by Ray@Jan 6 2006, 04:49 PM
We [LDS] believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be the only true church of Christ upon the face of this Earth, meaning that this church is the only church which has been given authority from our Lord to do the work of our Lord as His duly authorized servants.
I thought I understood a lot of things when I first came to this site. However, it is safer to respond to what people say, rather than what I think they believe. You have clarified yourself.
Here's a thought. God can do what he needs to himself, but he has chosen to use his creation to accomplish his work amongst us. I grant you that it is possible that he would limit himself to using the LDS Church, with the faithful amongst its 12 million. However, I'd rather believe he was using the faithful amongst the roughly 2 billion souls that compromise the greater Christian community. We know that many so-called Christians are not. They name the name, but Jesus will say to them one day, "Depart from me, I never knew you." This is likely true, even in the LDS church. I'm guessing that curse will be from failure to truly embrace his love, not from failure to align with the most accurate church.
We believe all other churches to be either in a state of apostasy from the true church of Christ which was established by our Lord and His duly authorized servants in the meridian of time, or in a state of rebellion against the true church of Christ which has been restored and is now established on this Earth under the authority of our Lord and His duly authorized servants.
I'd simply point out that Prof. Robinson (BYU) has argued that terms like apostate, abomination etc. are reserved for corrupt creeds and those who willfully elevate them above Holy Scripture. He suggests that sincere Christians themselves are simply wrong on some teachings (such as the restoration).
Secondly, while we do believe that other people can receive gifts from the Holy Ghost, in the sense that the Holy Ghost can reveal His mind and presence to anyone whether or not they are members of the true church of Christ, we [LDS] do not believe that other people have “the gift” of the Holy Ghost, in that we do not believe that other people have been given the right to receive those gifts.
100-500 million Pentecostals/Charismatics who call themselves Spirit-filled, because they have received the gift of the Holy Ghost...all wrong. Yes, it's possible. I'm wondering what this means for them. Can they get into the terrestial kingdom and live forever with Jesus, even though they claim to have something from God, and they don't?
And btw, the greatest gift of the Holy Ghost is the gift of revelation, and those of us who have been given the gift of the Holy Ghost have been given not only the right to receive that gift, but can more easily obtain that gift because we have been given the right to receive that gift.
The key verse Jesus spoke, in terms of authority, was in Acts 1:8. He said we would receive power (authority) when the Holy Ghost comes on us to be his witnesses. He wants us to win souls, not set up a hierarchy. He told would-be leaders to grab a towal and wash feet. He said whoever wants to be great should serve. I am part of a royal priesthood, a holy nation. I belong to a good fellowship--one in which most of the people and leaders are simply hungry to serve God, to win souls, and to love--not by might, nor by power, but by God's Spirit, as Zecharia informs us.
John 14:6 says Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. I know the LDS church believes this, and that there are parallel verses in the Standard Works. And yet, the church would take on the role of gatekeeper. You want to get to the Father, go through the Son. BUT...if you want to get to the Son, you must come through us. You might help me get, but I'm not sure it HAS to be your church leading the way.
-
Originally posted by Justlooking@Jan 6 2006, 06:51 PM
Ok, if you do a search in the bible you will see that Jesus never calls Himself Son of God, but Son of man. That is due to His humility.
I said he was called that Son of God, not that he used that term for himself.
John 3:16: For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son...
-
Originally posted by funkyfool416@Jan 6 2006, 06:39 PM
What is everones view on the death sentence? Do you think that it should be allowed? Is it considered cruel and unusual punishment which is against our constitution? If you think there should be a death penalty, what should be the minimum age allowed to suffer the consequence?
My main difficulty with the death penalty is that wealthy fair-skinned types seldom get it, while men of color but not means, disproportionately do get it. It may not be inherently wrong, but the way our states carry it out has the appearance of being out of balance.
I think that the government is hypocrytical with the death sentence. They tell you that you aren't allowed to commit murder, yet isnt that exactly what the government is doing to you as your punishment...murder?
Yes, and it raises up armies for defense--armies charged with killing people. Except that there was a death penalty in the Mosaic Law, and God's people were often ordered to fight against the immoral Canaanites. So, that "no murder" command seems to be geared towards people killing out of criminality, anger, or negligence.
What about the tax money that is spent each year to house prison inmates? Does a murder deserve to have the americal people pay for them to stay alive?
It's cheaper to house them than to execute them. On the other hand, should we continue to keep alive individuals so dangerous, the present a threat to the correctional workers who manage them (the really bad guys)?
Is it a worse punishment to be put to death or is it worse to spend life in prison?
Yes. Lifers still have prison chaplains that can point them to God.
-
Professor Stephen E. Robinson (BYU, Ancient Scriptures) makes the following statement in the book How Wide the Divide:
The LDS believe there will be millions, even billions of good souls who will come from the east and the west to sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the celestial kingdom of heaven (Mt. 8:11)--including, in my opinion, a very large percentage of Evangelicals. (bold emphasis mine)
Do you agree? Comments?
-
I've finally finished it--and it was an eye-opener. Mormons and evangelicals who want to understand the other system better, and perhaps your own as well, would do well to read this book. Its nearly 200 pages are accessible, yet dense with content. I plan to reread it with a highlighter! Perhaps most useful for us at this board, is that the Mormon and Evangelical writers here are professors and friends. Thus, they model interfaith conversation that is intelligent, uncompromising, and yet respectful, and built out of mutual friendship.
For my complete review, see the following:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/083081991...glance&n=283155
By the way, if you find the review helpful, give me a vote. Also, if you find the book worthwhile, recommend it, and cast some votes at the url I gave you...increased traffic will discreetly inform site visitors that this book is generating interest.
-
Originally posted by Aristotle@Jan 6 2006, 03:13 PM
This brings up a question! Just curious, but are you gentlemen in an LDS forum to teach us about your beliefs, or to learn about our beliefs?
YES
-
Originally posted by Taoist_Saint@Jan 6 2006, 02:43 PM
I am not sure if anyone saw my challenge that I posted above...
...can you give me the names of anyone here who has actually changed their religious or political beliefs as a result of a discussion or debate?
Well, Setheus did get me to looking at the possiblity that the sons of God in Genesis 6 were simply the righteous descendents of Seth. That conversation led me to study, and discover that his view is not obscure, or even specifically LDS. In fact my own, denominationally influenced study Bible makes the same argument.
My mind is not yet made up, but Seth's efforts will probably lead me to change my view on this topic. I admit that demons intermingling with humans is something that it seems odd that God would allow to take place.
Tao, you right that not many change--certainly not quickly. But, hey...I testify that discerning greater light is possible.
-
Originally posted by Setheus@Jan 6 2006, 10:43 AM
What about where the Savior and Only Begotten is refered to as "son of man"?
This blows your ship right out of the water.
"Son of God" and "Son of Man" cannot be contradictory terms, because Jesus is called both.
I'll tell you what did blow my ship out of the water though. The footnote in my Full Life Study Bible (which happens to have a heavy Pentecostal and Assemblies of God flavor in its notes) contends that the sons of God are probably of the righteous line of Seth, because angels could not marry or have children.
I could still be right, but Seth, knowing that you have the full weight of tongues-talking Assemblies of God academia backing your view probably resolves the issue permenantly for you
Ah...theological debates make strange bedfollows
-
Originally posted by Taoist_Saint@Jan 6 2006, 11:43 AM
We have had the exact same problem here for decades. The LA riots?
Somehow our nation is still surviving.
Tao Saint, if it's any consolation, you're right. We're still mad because the French would back us in Iraq.
As a prize for garnering at least one supporter, have some Liberty fries on me!
-
Originally posted by Ray@Jan 5 2006, 06:00 PM
Prisonchaplain says: and more generally to all believers in all areas throughout the generations (are considered as a royal priesthood a holy nation according to 1st Peter).
Ray responds: If I understand you correctly, yes again.
The term “royal priesthood” may be used to refer to what other people have if they have what the people Peter was referring to had, in all areas and throughout all other generations…
Peter is not referring to what the believers "have," nor to what we "have," but rather to what they and we "ARE."
but it would not be correct to say that everyone who believes in Jesus Christ inherently has the royal priesthood simply by virtue of the fact that they believe in Jesus Christ.
Just so that we are on the same page, some definitions are in order.
1. Priesthood, in Peter's context, is not an office. He's not referring to what LDS call the Aaronic or Melchizedek (sp?) orders. Rather, this is the more general idea of Christians representing Christ to a lost world. BTW Prof. Robinson (BYU) seems to agree, when he argues that true Christians not only have the experience of conversion, but also accept the obligations of Christian living (Jesus says obey my commands if you really love me, for example). Those Christians, office holders or not, who are living the Christian life, do represent the Savior to nonbelievers. How many converts to the LDS Church, for example, come because of invitations from regular members, as opposed to from referrals by missionaries?
2. When I speak of "everyone who believes in Jesus," let us assume the Mormon understanding of salvation--those believers who are "enduring to the end." In reading How Great the Divide, I've become convinced that on this issue at least, we're more in agreement than we realize. My own fellowship is predominantly Armenian in theology, so we too believe the follower of Christ, after conversion, must, well, follow Christ.
3. Differing church structures are creating a bit of confusion here, I believe. In the LDS system faithful men are ordained into the priesthood. To use evangelical terms, all faithful men are "lay ministers." In most evangelical churches, we accomplish similar results by teaching that we are all called to be witnesses of Christ, we are all called to study the Scripture, we are all called to pray, to give, to encourage one another, etc.
4. As an FYI, most evangelical ministers have had the "laying on of hands." And all Pentecostal ministers should have received the gift of the Holy Ghost. Once again, then, we should be pretty close on this...unless you consider my church apostate, and do not really believe that non-LDS can receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, or be part of Peter's royal priesthood.
-
Originally posted by Taoist_Saint@Jan 6 2006, 02:02 PM
I wonder if change of political views is as rare or as common as change of religion...but it must happen.
So, to summarize, I believe that discussion RARELY can change someone's beliefs...only personal experience.
My political views have actually moderated with age. There's a common political proverb: If you are conservative as a young person, you have no heart. If you are liberal as an older person, you have no brain.
Ironically, from my teen years through my early thirties I considered myself a conservative Moral Majority Christian Coalition Better Dead than Red type Republican (sorry to my evangelical brother at this site
). Though I am still on the right side of the aisle, my views on taxes, 'proactive wars,' etc. have become much more nuanced.Tao Saint, while I agree with your analysis as far as it goes, you might want to consider that today's conversations/debates become tomorrow's past experiences. I might not instantly convert to another party of denomination, but if I change down the road, I might trace my change back to discussions I had this week.
It might be too, that some of the most 'heated' discussion would be considerably less so if we allowed for evolutionary changes in opinion, rather than looking for intelligently designed big bang conversions. B)
-
Originally posted by Taoist_Saint@Jan 5 2006, 01:56 PM
Starting now, I plan to avoid talking about politics and religion...
I guess if we aren't going to talk about politics or religion, we'll have to talk about women. Me thinks the contentiousness of politics and religion will seem like the proverbial Sunday School picnic compared to starting down that dark, dangerous rode. -
This is real simple. If Peter was writing in general to the churches (not one, but several), and if he was writing to people he did not know (strangers, you said), and if the letter was not specifically addressed to the leaders, but was to the churches in general, then it's a pretty easy assumption that the "royal priesthood" was a term Peter applied to believers in general. He did not have a specific person, or subgroup of people in mind. Furthermore, since the audience was so general (again, to strangers), then the words do indeed apply to believers throughout the ages. The 'royal priesthood' was not a term limited to the first generation of believers.
The Bible is a collection of works written to specific audiences, yes. However, if we accept that Scripture is God's word--that God intended it for his people for all generations, then of course the words apply to us--UNLESS the context is clearly not generalized.
Bottom-line: When 1st Peter declares strangers in several area churches to be a royal priesthood, it's pretty clear that the term applies to all the believers in those churches, and more generally to all believers in all areas throughout the generations.
-
Originally posted by shanstress70@Jan 5 2006, 12:48 PM
But Chaplain, what would you have done on that bus at that time? Sure, your solution is a great idea AFTER THE FACT. But it is disturbing that people stood by and let those things happen.
Well, yes--after the fact. But, more importantly, BEFORE the fact. How many of these incidents do NOT happen, because the criminal "found God" in jail, because the addict found deliverance in a faith-based rehab, and the 'young simmering child of an immigrant' found acceptance, purpose, and love in a house of worship?
I know my husband would have kicked some A@# and not allow that to happen, and I'm pretty sure that most of the men I know here in the good ole USA would!
If I'm not mistaken, three American planes were hijacked on 9/11, and only Todd Beamer, and perhaps a few others on one of those planes stepped in.
Quite frankly, in a hostage situation, blending in, not being noticed is the generally recommended course of action. If the 20 assailants were armed, and no one else was, then this really was a hostage situation.
It's fun to wax Rambo-ish about such incidents. We can perhaps be naively sincere about it. However, I would never judge someone elses actions in such a situation--at least not without knowing the details.
-
Originally posted by Fiannan@Jan 5 2006, 09:54 AM
20 v. 600 French? What's up with this? Stand by and let a woman be gang raped, people threatened, mugged, etc. and...? I can assure you that if this happened on a Russian train these 20 degenerates would have been beatened by the Russian men onboard (Russia, unlike much of northern Europe still have real men), probably castrated and then the criminals would have the real nightmare begin when the local militia came and administered some "Pulp Fiction" retribution on them. I would also hope that in the USA several good 'ol boys with concealed weapons would have sent these guys to meet their maker real fast. So Europe is this how empires finally die out?
While I understand the "righteous indignation" against these barbaric youth, and to some extent, against the men on the train who remained passive, I rather prefer the approach my church would take.
1. We've raised up a strong cadre of prison chaplains to offer hope, rehabilitation, and redemption to the criminals.
2. Besides training religious leaders, there are now a significant number of reputable, licensed, trained counseling professionals who infuse their services with faith-filled healing, for the victims.
3. We offer holiness teachings against the abuse of alcohol (that likely played a role in the activities of the abusers, and passivity of some of the passengers). Further, we have residential drug/alcohol recovery centers with success rates that are 4-6 times higher than purely medical rehabs.
Vigilantism offers short-term feelings of accomplishment and machismo. However, the rather expensive, time-consuming work of healing, recovery, rehabilitation we prove more beneficial in the long run.
Let is not tire of doing good...
-
Originally posted by Ray@Jan 4 2006, 05:22 PM
And while you have chosen to believe that Peter was speaking to you and anyone else who is simply a "believer" in Jesus Christ, you can not honestly say that the scriptures in the Bible support the idea that anyone who simply believes in Jesus Christ is thus endowed with His authority simply by virtue of their belief in Him, because neither that statement nor any like it are to be found in any of the Holy scriptures.
Peter's initial audience was the church of his day. It was written to followers of Christ. While certain verses are clearly directed at individuals or small groups, the bulk of Scripture--especially in the New Testament--is written generally, to Christians.
I shouldn't need a verse that says, "And these things are written for everyone who reads these words." Normally, when the audience is restricted, the restriction will be specifically stated. When a letter is "open" the "to whom it may concern" need not be specifically stated.
-
Originally posted by Setheus@Jan 5 2006, 09:19 AM
Thank you Jason for your tactful and overly graceful post. I should have said "Taught" by the RCC not "created". I am aware of the Mesopotamian origins of the Nephilim.
I did a quick check and the NIV, NRSV, and NAS translations all use the word NEPHILIM in Genesis 6:4. Additionally in Numbers 13:33 the word is used. So, apparently, while the Catholic church may have taught about it, there is at least some grounds in Scripture itself.
-
Originally posted by Fiannan@Jan 5 2006, 03:40 AM
Now since the Old Testament does imply a condemnation of racial mixing then one could say that interplanetary mixing would really be against the rules.
Even Bob Jones University has disavowed this interpretation. The Old Testament had repeated warnings against the Jews intermarrying with the Canaanites, who might not even have been of a different race. Furthermore, the reason for the prohibition was that the Canaanites worshipped false gods and were immoral--not because of racial issues. -
Originally posted by sgallan@Jan 4 2006, 08:34 AM
The history is..... when I was about 13 I asked "what about the dinosaurs". It was a Southern Baptist church. The answers didn't make sense. So I ended up being agnostic for the next 26 years. Then I attempted Mormonism. It seemed a little more rational with a nicer version of a posited God. But what I found was the same sort of anti-science, literal global flood mythology type nonsense. I think it was an Ensign articlein Dec2000. Well in such a top down organization, I figured any group that could get it so wrong.... while supposedly have the gifts of the HG.... wasn't worth listening to in a religious sense. So that was the end of that. Basically I have been and godless heathen for all except one year of the last 32. Even in that one year I think I had more doubt than belief but I did try. Anyhow, the science issues are one big reason why I prefer a secular household and education for my child.
Anti-intellectualism has been a curse in fundamental/evangelical/pentecostal/charismatic/"conservative" churches for quite some time. The problem is definitely less than it was, say a generation ago, when my own movement started a graduate school offering courses in biblical studies etc., but could not initially call it a "theological" seminary, because of the "liberal" connotations some fealt the word communicated. Today, we proclaim "knowledge on fire," yet still struggle against those fear knowledge from "secular" sources.
On the other hand, if anti-intellectualism is your own complaint against Christianity, you might consider searching out the writings of some reputable scientists who are also Christians, and seeing what types of churches they go to. My undergraduate studies at a Presbyterian Church USA college had none of the undertones you found so illogical.
I'm sure there's more to you Deism than this issue, but thought I'd throw out an obvious solution.
-
Originally posted by Snow@Jan 3 2006, 09:55 PM
Okay, but I'm not talking about evolution. I am talking about a young earth.
I suppose I made YOUR point anyway. It was hard enough finding one that was willing to question macro evolution. I could probably dig around and find one...but it goes without saying that the vast majority...well over 99%, of scientist do not buy into a young earth creationism.
My understanding is that Intelligent Design proponents have abandoned that position as well. Young Earth Creationism is clearly an effort of fundamentalists with science degrees, trying to justify their biblical interpetations. I.D. at least avoids that error.
This was a bit of a trick question. There isn't any evidence that Moses was the author, one significant reason why is that there is no real evidence that there was ever a real flesh and blood Moses.
I supposed by a strict biological or historical standard you may be right. The following article provides a good introduction the the different schools of thought on the authorship of the "five books of Moses."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tora.htm
Well - better said that "scripture" is dogmatically believed by some/many to be the word of God. God himself is silent on the matter.
He may have been "silent" to you, but some claim to have audibly heard his voice. Ultimate, whether claimed Scriptures are the word of God or not is a matter of some evidence mixed with much faith. Even those who say they've literally heard, must exercise faith that what they heard was God and not something else.
The difference in science is that it can be independently tested and verified. Outside the unmeasurable difference the scriptures make in the inner hearts and minds of believer, scriptures are not testable and verifiable.
Scriptural accounts are sometimes verified through archeology and other findings, but granted, such evidence is never as conclusive as pure scientific inquiries.
. 
I guess if we aren't going to talk about politics or religion, we'll have to talk about women. 
Me thinks the contentiousness of politics and religion will seem like the proverbial Sunday School picnic compared to starting down that dark, dangerous rode. 
How Wide The Divide?
in Book Club
Posted
There are three causes for such accusations. #1. Lack of trust. Many evangelicals and Mormons do not trust each other. We believe the worst of each other. So, when you're nice you're buttering me up. When you're mean you're showing your true stripes.
#2. As Blomberg admits, much evangelical apologetics material is simply out of date, or of poor quality to begin with. Yet, most evangelical laypeople do not have the training or knowledge to discern this reality.
#3. The language barrier is subtle but huge. Mormons and evangelicals share a similar vocabulary, but often attach different meanings to words. Additionally, Mormon and evangelicals have vastly different assumptions about the nature of God, creation, and the plan of salvation. So, when we speak to each other, or read each other's writings there's often a disconnect. We know what it's suppose to mean (using our own theological lenses), but we sense it's not the same. Quite often it isn't. Then we wonder if we're being intentionally deceived, or what is going on. Again, the answer is different meanings for certain theological words, and different assumptions about the grand scheme.
The solution is time and patience. Robinson and Blomberg can write as they do because they've learned each other's languages, theological assumptions, and, to a lesser extent, histories. Yet, even with this knowledge, I sensed the two occasionally struggled to full understand each other. However, if we're to "love one another," then struggle we must.