Re: A Peace Proposal

From: wallyshoes <>
Date: Sat Jan 31 2004 - 20:41:47 EST

Michael Roberts wrote:

> In a way I agree with Burgy's peace proposal but sadly one or two things are
> needed first.
> 1) One should always take someone else's faith commitment at face value and
> not charge them with being liberal or fundamentalist with out very good
> reason.
> Thr worst offenders are those who refer to others as "supposed evangelicals"
> or some similar phrase. On the theology web Socrates rubbishes Hugh Ross and
> his fellow AIGer Mortenson is obnoxious about Dave Young "who has mislead
> many".
> There is also a difference between rubbishing and disagreeing. I disagree
> with A on homosexuality and B on the person of Christ and am prepared to
> argue with them but not rubbish them. (But I cant resist humour which
> doesn't always go down!)
> 2) A rigorous honesty in representing the case of someone else. I fear that
> in some cases winning the argument is more important than being honest.
> By being honest I do not mean being 100% accurate as we all make mistakes or
> are in error, but not distorting either wilfully or negligently.
> I have read posts on this listserve which I consider to be seriously in
> error, but the person made them in absolute honesty and integrity.
> Unfortunately I cannot say that about most YEC writing. That means that even
> a truce is well nigh impossible-
> Surely no Christian could object to this

I am one who does!


I think that many of them have every bit as much integrity as you do, Michael.


Walt Hicks <>

In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)

You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
Received on Sat Jan 31 20:42:53 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jan 31 2004 - 20:42:54 EST