It all seems so simple, doesn't it. We can use a nice cliche, "born again believers", and thereby avoid all the theological nitty-gritty.
Dare I ask? What exactly does it mean to be a "born-again believer"?
Yesterday two Jehovah's Witness came to my door. Are they "born-again believers"? Why or why not? Should we sweep these differences under the rug? What about Mormons?
As long as you stick with your skin-deep cliche, you don't have to worry about these things. But in real ecumenical dialogue, theology is unavoidable. You have to get your hands right in it, and start dialoguing. Of course I do not recommend dialoguing with people who just want to argue, or wrangle for its own sake. I recommend dialoguing with people who genuinely want truth, and who are willing to listen carefully and treat others with respect. But dialogue is something we have to to do in order to work out our differences. The last thing we should do is paper over them and pretend they don't exist. Read Kristine Franklin's story for a good example of why that is so.
-A8
And, yes, I really do believe you are someone who likes to argue for arguments' sake! lol You sound like someone who likes to prove they're right! But, that's OK. It really is! Whatever floats your boat and fills your day with meaning! lol
It's no skin off my nose what the Pope said or what he believes. I know where I stand with my God. I don't think we need to "work out our differences" when it comes to which church we choose to belong to and what traditions we choose to observe in that church. Our differences are with unbelievers and converting them using God's word and our example of His love. That's my thoughts on this subject. Good night, folks!!