I do agree that intellectual battles (which tend to be a benefit to one’s ego and not to the truth), should be avoided. I think the best way is, as he said, prayer. Let the Holy Spirit do the convincing; it’s not like you can “lawyer” someone into Christianity anyway. We serve, God saves. But there’s also an obligation to defend our doctrine. (Jude 1:3-4) I find that a hard concept to balance, but I believe we’re obligated to do both. I guess the key is to speak the truth in love, squelching pride and ego as much as possible. What do you think?

“When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen different doors and to those who are still in the hall. If they are wrong they need your prayers all the more; and if they are your enemies, then you are under orders to pray for them. That is one of the rules common to the whole house.”

Thus, I am not downplaying the importance of doctrine. You’re absolutely right, it is very important and should be discussed. But the moment it turns into an intellectual battle to prove one wrong, and the other false, I believe we’re missing the bigger and more relevant meaning of Christianity (or any other faith), which is love, humility, and service.

Does that make sense?

That said, I’ll put Mere Christianity back on my reading list for a re-read, because perhaps I’m misunderstanding you or what you said about Lewis. (And it is, of course, worth a re-read in any event. )

As for how this affects politics – I hope it’s clear that I’d have no problem voting for him. As I said in the post, “How Romney worships is a great deal less important to his Presidential campaign than how we can reasonably expect him to behave once he’s in office. His history, positions, and goals are what is pertinent to this election, not what church he attends. If you’re going to reject Romney, do so because there is a better candidate, not a better Christian.

To the same conservative Christians who are prone to reject Romney now – what good did it do you that Bill Clinton is a Baptist?”

- Put all religious dogma/doctrine aside and discuss Christianity from a unified moral framework
- Lewis compares Christianity to a great hall with many doors.
Each door represents a particular organized religion.
1st step is to enter the hall based on a personal belief in Christ and his “moral” teachings
Then patiently wait until God inspires you to enter a door.
After entering a door, do not disparage or ridicule people entering into other doors.

If we all followed Lewis advice, we would move past our doctrinal differences and recognize that Romney represents the core values of the “Moral Majority”; values that can and will shape the future of our country for the good, regardless of whether he is Mormon, Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, or even a member of a non-Christian but strong value-based religion like Judaism.

We cannot afford to be divided over doctrinal bickering in a time of great moral decay. We should elect based on experience, leadership, and values.

As for expending your resoures and energy. The comments section already exists, so would it really cost you more than you already pay? As for energy, I believe you wouldn’t need to exert any in defense of mainline Christianity, *many* people would enter the debate who share your views.

I agree that I do have the power and ability to squelch debate on this website. You’re right, it wouldn’t cost me extra cash to allow comments to remain. It would cost me time to answer the comments. And not just the few minutes it takes me to answer yours – religious debate requires prayer, thought, care, and research unless you’re just willing to pop off with smartass and facile answers, which I’m not. This blog only gets about 150-200 visitors a day – and they’re not all “real” visitors as about a quarter of them came here looking for porn and immediately leave. Very few people comment. I wish they would. But in the absence of commenters to enter the debate, that would just leave the opposition view sitting there on my server unanswered. And that’s what I have a problem with.

I disagree with your correlation between what I’m doing and what the government might do. The government is a completely different entity than a private citizen. It’s a difference in type, not degree. For example, the government has the right to execute criminals and levy taxes but I personally do not. Nor should I.

However, it remains that it is not correct when you say that “I don’t have the power or ability to ban discussion of other faiths.” You *do* have this power and ability…on your website. And I think its revealing that in the one place where actually do have the power and ability, you use to squelch debate.

The link to the bulletin board is heartening, I fully admit and praise.

But, the extrapolation is: if our leadership was like-minded, they would say “of course you’re free to be X (mormon, christian, jewish, black, gay, whatever…), but just not with *our* resources or in *our* country”. Which is what’s happened to Christians in the past.

As for expending your resoures and energy. The comments section already exists, so would it really cost you more than you already pay? As for energy, I believe you wouldn’t need to exert any in defense of mainline Christianity, *many* people would enter the debate who share your views. And through honest and open debate, the Truth would win out. You might even win some converts over time. If Christianity can’t survive debate, then maybe it’s not true, strong, or blessed by God….and you *know* that’s not the case. So why shut it off?

I understand your perspective about this but I can’t disagree more vehemently that this is *completely unlike* radical Islamists. They say “don’t talk at all” not “go talk elsewhere.”

The alternative to my preemptive shush is for me to have to pay for my “opponent” to promote their faith. That feels a great deal more like fascism to me than just directing people to a server where a debate or a response is welcomed.

Note I’m *not* promoting Mormonism; I personally don’t believe in it.

My issue is: how can we guarantee our religious freedom as Christians if we start banning discussion of other faiths? How are we different than the Muslim fanatics if we refuse to even debate or comment on opposing views? The Truth only gets stronger when it has been challenged and put alongside a lie. God’s truth will win out. Or do we doubt it?

Jprime, should I be able to plant any sign I want in your front yard? This is the electronic equivalent. Free speech means being able to say what you want, not to make other people listen, or make people repeat what you said. Hosting those views on a server that I own and maintain is the electronic equivalent of being made to repeat it. I choose not to spend my resources promoting a philosophy I believe is dangerously wrong. Any Mormon who wants to respond can do so, on a server I don’t own.

My server, my property, my decision what goes on it. I’m even selective about what clients I accept because I’m not going to promote any faith but my own.