But suppose the differences are worthy of ridicule? Suppose, for example, a person misses the context and history of Rev. 13 and believes and teaches that the “mark of the beast” is a radio transmitter implanted under a person’s skin so they can be tracked and controlled by some future “antichrist?” There’s absolutely nothing in the Bible to support that idea, yet they teach it. In fact, they get all excited and are quite vocal when they read an article in the newspaper about such transmitter for pet dogs and cats, and see it as “proof” of their idea.
What’s wrong with a little ridicule when they insist on the correctness of their position?
Loving correction perhaps...ridicule no.