[stuartcr]

If you don’t agree, why not just excuse yourself from the meeting?

[Natural Law]

"If you don’t agree, why not just excuse yourself from the meeting?"

The premise of the meetings was to explore and learn. That can't really take place when the conclusion must be reached before the lessons and discussions begin.

[pgyanke]

If you don’t agree, why not just excuse yourself from the meeting?

LOL! So, the Catholics mustn't share their faith? I've never seen an evangelical excuse himself when he thought he had something important to add to a Catholic Bible study (and yes, I am witness to such). I would think that a Bible study, of all places, would be an appropriate place to defend biblical notions. If they want to start their meeting with an unbiblical mandate, it should be discussed...

[Mad Dawg]

Let the record show that for once I agree with you. I think this fantasy "intervention" is not a good thing. If it were to happen, I think it would be rude. Yeah we have deep disagreements with Sola Scriptura (which I'm sure comes as a complete surprise to our Protestant brethren! Wow, who saw THAT coming?) but I don't think this presents a good way to bring them out.

Further, I think the writer is being a wee bit dishonest, maybe trusting more in aggressive discourse than in humbling himself before the Truth who is our Lord.

I say this because of his seeming IMHO to overstate the confirmation secular historians provide for the historicity of Jesus.

The arguments are worth considering. The scenario in which they are presented makes me a little uneasy.

[FormerLib]

But first, he says, "We must begin with the assumption that all present believe..."

Since the speaker is making a faulty assumption based on what he believes the assembled people believe, isn't each one of them have a duty to correct him if he misstates those beliefs?

Seriously, would you let him speak for you?