Replies

Don't care what any angry FReeper tells me

Do you always go around corporately pointing fingers at people? (Or just this thread?)

(Be nice to know who's angry? Which posters/posts? And why you're superimposing motives upon complete strangers you don't know)

...people here...

Again, which people? You know, when you shotgun unkind criticisms at a broad target, you hit a lot of people. (That's not exactly good manners 'cause it casts a broad net)

You'll note this thread is about a given "issue" -- the reliability of whether the Book of Mormon is based upon real gold plates or not.

Instead of sticking to the issues, you've chosen to go on the attack vs. unnamed poster(s)...hurling accusations of anger, vitriol, attacking.

...attacking them with vitriol is not Christs way.

Well, again, which poster is being vitriolic? Which post? Which words? Why is it you unfairly shotgun everybody in this thread with whom you might disagree -- but you're somehow under no accountability to be responsible with your words?

If you hunted the way you wrote this post, look out! (Please, leave the shotgun at home when you go hunting)

Now, once we establish which post(s) you're referencing, may I suggest you then also establish why Jesus was similarly "wrong" to speak in some of the "ways" He did...

I mean...hypothetically thinking this out...I can't think of more caustic critiques coming from somebody's lips than to call someone...
..."children of the devil" -- to the religious legalistic Pharisees (John 8);
...whitewashed tombstones, vipers, and making "twice the son of hell" proselytes (to the Pharisees, Matthew 23), etc.

Now I haven't seen that done on this thread...so you'll have to enlighten us as to which posts you're referencing...and if also don't appreciate Christ's words (which you could similarly interpret), perhaps you should just take some scissors to John 8 & Matt. 23 and be consistent about it...or, when you get to heaven, you can direct your accusations to Christ face-to-face about that perceived "vitriol."

I'm friends with a few Mormons, and I tell you if I were to say anything close to what people here are saying about Mormonism to them not only would it drive a wedge between me and them, but more importantly, it would drive a further wedge between Christ and them.

And I'm a direct descendent of Mormons; a relative of many Mormons; in good relational terms with many Mormons; have never been upset with any of them relationally...so while you are good friends with some Mormons, if you're upset with some Christians on this thread...Mormons are your friends, but those Christians are your brothers and sisters and we're called upon in many places to be in harmony with one another within the Body of Christ...to have the shared Mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2), and not judge people inwardly...(superimposing feelings of "anger," for example...) 1 Sam. 16:7 reminds us that ONLY God sees the inside of a person...so not sure when you became an anger management expert of complete strangers you've had no conversations with...

Now, IF...
...this is all simply a matter of you lacking basic Biblical discernment...
...that Christ treated religious legalists distinctly than, say, the woman at the well...
...IF you lack basic Biblical discernment that the apostle Paul and Apollos treated legalistic Jews in synagogues in Acts 17, Acts 18, Acts 19 than Paul treated the polytheists on Mars Hill in Acts 17...
...then, hey, don't take that out on unnamed posters doing unspecific things. Please don't accuse generic posters of doing "unChristlike" things just 'cause you've tended to avoid applying passages like John 8, Matthew 23, part of Acts 17, Acts 18, Acts 19, Jude 3, 2 Cor. 10:3-5; Titus 1:9-10, etc. to your own worldview of religious legalists.

...not only would it drive a wedge between me and them, but more importantly, it would drive a further wedge between Christ and them.

Well, please show me where your "further wedge" theology is Biblical. I'm always "up" to learn more about the Bible; and I've got my own "blindsides." (One or two examples, please)

When I look at the Bible, it tends to define people as either...
...being in darkness or in light (not being in "half-light");
...being born once or twice (not in the middle -- 1.5 times);
...being spiritually dead (Eph. 2:1-3; Luke 9:60) or being alive in Christ (not halfway spiritually resuscitated);
...confessing Christ (1 Cor. 12:3) or rejecting Him (John 3:18) -- not some religious legalistic in-between roller-coaster).

The religiously legalistic, per Jesus, tend to have a distinct father per John 8. The legalists vigorously protested Jesus' conclusion, essentially saying they were in no way spiritual bastards. Jesus didn't tolerate such a position.

Tell you what...were you to show some consistency in any way, I suppose you could accuse Jesus of driving "further wedges" among some possible "seeker-sensitive" Pharisees, eh?

For example, in the last part of John 6 -- like John 6:50-59 -- Jesus for the first time introduced the concept of eating His body and blood of Christ. 'Twas a very difficult truth to absorb that Jesus gave in that synagogue -- to the point that they reacted with extreme negativity: "On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” 61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this...66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him."

Rather than go with your "further wedge" approach about not wanting to chase anybody on the fringe further away, Jesus simply let them go: 67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.

Did Jesus simply fail to understand in advance your "further wedge" approaches? Will you lecture Him, too, on these matters when you get to heaven?