Why Does Glenn Beck Hate Jesus?

Time.com ^ | March 14, 2010 | Amy Sullivan

[Colofornian]

When Glenn Beck told listeners of his radio show on March 2 that they should "run as fast as you can" from any church that preached "social or economic justice" because those were code words for Communism and Nazism, he probably thought he was tweaking a few crunchy religious liberals who didn't listen to the show anyway. Instead he managed to outrage Christians in most mainline Protestant denominations, African-American congregations, Hispanic churches, and Catholics...

[Elsie]

Yes, we know that Satan can appear as an angle of light, but does that mean that all angels of light are Satan?

Who really cares? There's an apt description of TWO of them found in MORMON writings..

[Elsie]

I love your logic, or would that be “illogic.”

Are you forgeting the DIFFERENT gospel the two PERSONAGES were preaching?

[urroner]

A gospel that is different from the one Christ taught or from the one that you believe? You are assuming that your interpretation of the Bible is right.

[urroner]

I see, you make a silly statement, refuse to defend it, and then you still continue down the path that you refuse to defend. Typical MO.

[urroner]

See my post to reaganaut.

[Godzilla]

You are assuming that your interpretation of the Bible is right.

And your 'interpretation' is spoon fed through the filters of the teachings of so-called apostles and prophets along with alledged additional 'works'. These are what mormonism used to 'define' scripture. mormomism cannot rely on just the bible - because it refutes the teachings of mormonism all the time.

[Elsie]

Which one?

[Elsie]

I see, you make a silly statement...

Which one?

[Elsie]

... refuse to defend it, and then you still continue down the path that you refuse to defend.

Some folks KNOW when the horse is dead and time to get off of it.

[Elsie]

You are assuming that your interpretation of the Bible is right.

It is MORMONism that is so hungup on INTERPRETATION of Scripture.

Christians, however, just READ it.

[greyfoxx39]

;)

[urroner]

So Elsie, when are you going to get off your dead horse?

[urroner]

Just read it heh. Are you saying they don’t study it, pray about it, ponder upon it, but they just read it? Good answer. I won’t agree with you on that. I have attended many Southern Baptist Bible studies and there wasn’t just reading going on in there. There was some serious discussion upon what certain scriptures meant and some of these discussions turn into some arguments and I wasn’t even involved in the discussion. In these SB Bible studies, there was a lot of interpreting going on.

[urroner]

You made a comment about “angels of light” like it was something really important, something to demolish the Mormon Church, yet when asked to defend you statement, you responded with “Who really cares.” That was pretty silly.

[reaganaut]

placemarker

[reaganaut]

You are assuming that your interpretation of the Bible is right.

- - - - - -
Well it really isn’t my ‘interpretation’. The Gospel I believe IS the one Christ taught.

Scripture (as a whole) interprets scripture (verses). What the Christ taught (and what I believe) does not contradict scripture (basic exegesis) nor the context of the verses.

However, what the LDS use as biblical ‘proof’ texts always violates the context and the rest of the Bible as a whole.

You seem to be assuming that what I believe is not what Christ taught and that Christ taught the Mormon gospel. Nothing could be farther from the truth. You seem to be assuming that there was a need for a restoration and that Christ set up a denomination, neither of which has any biblical basis or foundation in reality.

If you would like to discuss how the LDS twist various ‘proof’ texts, feel free to list some and I will respond with the proper exegesis and analysis of the text (glad my Biblical Studies degree is coming in handy).

[urroner]

reaganaut said:
You seem to be assuming that what I believe is not what Christ taught and that Christ taught the Mormon gospel. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

I say:
I don’t understand what you are saying. You say that I seem to be assuming something and then you say that this appearance of assuming couldn’t be further from the truth. I agree with you. I don’t assume, I know.

reaganaut, I have seen almost all the “proof texts” used by critics of the Mormon Church and I have found them all to be unconvincing, hence, that’s why I’m still an LDS-Christian.

[Elsie]

 

You made a comment about “angels of light” like it was something really important...

---

KJV

 

2 Corinthians 11:12-15

 12.  But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we.
 13.  For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
 14.  And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
 15.  Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

 

 

 

 Galatians 1:6-9

 6.  I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
 7.  Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
 8.  But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
 9.  As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
 

[Elsie]

I don’t understand what you are saying.

Why doesn't this surprise me?

[Elsie]

... I have seen almost all the “proof texts” used by critics of the Mormon Church and I have found them all to be unconvincing...

Are you saying they don’t study it, pray about it, ponder upon it, but they just read it? Good answer.