Jesus being mean


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

That’s accurate, and it’s also accurate to say it’s very naive if someone thinks they can be spread truth by being abrasive, obnoxious or insulting. If I walk up to you and say “Hey, only an idiot doesn’t believe in the Book of Mormon.” You virtually guarantee that the person will never open a Book of Mormon in their lives.

You are openly misrepresenting what I said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Vort said:

You are openly misrepresenting what I said.

I didn’t even quote you. Relax. 

“Not merely stupid, but self-contradictory” 

edit-I though TFP called people “stupid.” Nope, it was you. My bad. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the OP, I've read recently that the Lord has been offending a LOT of people in the United States. 

Evangelicals call the Lord "liberal" and weak

Quote

Moore told NPR in an interview released Tuesday that multiple pastors had told him they would quote the Sermon on the Mount, specifically the part that says to “turn the other cheek,” when preaching. Someone would come up after the service and ask, “Where did you get those liberal talking points?”

“What was alarming to me is that in most of these scenarios, when the pastor would say, ‘I’m literally quoting Jesus Christ,’ the response would not be, ‘I apologize.’ The response would be, ‘Yes, but that doesn’t work anymore. That’s weak,’” Moore said. “When we get to the point where the teachings of Jesus himself are seen as subversive to us, then we’re in a crisis.”

it is interesting how the world stays the same even as it changes and advances.  The same problems during the Lord's ministry exist today and I think that if he were here today the result would be the same, those who profess to worship the Lord and are in the Churches would be some of the first to call for his crucifixion or his death. 

The Lord was an extremely liberal radical during his time.  He called for things that most of the religious individuals at the time were against.  He called for forgiving others who offended you, letting your rulers rule over you and keeping your religion separate from that of Caesars.  If you accept his apostles also spoke for him, he instituted a type of socialism (called Religious Socialism by many scholars today) where all property was shared amongst those in the church community for the benefit of others.  He called for people to feed the poor and care for the sick so that none would be hungry and all would have basic necessities in a society of his. 

His church called for RIGHTEOUS leaders who were married.  He called for faith and common sense. 

These ideas offended those who were in power.  His ideas would tear down the more conservative ideals of the time (where church LEADERS dictated what you could do including how many steps to walk on the Sabbath, etc) which were alarmingly closely aligned to many of the ideas of today.

I think people would be surprised at HOW liberal his ideas really are.  Even today, his ideas are extremely liberal in relation to what we think in general.  In that light, the same type of people (those who were the leaders of the church at the time, those people who followed what those teachers taught) would probably call for his destruction today.

(And to be clear, when I refer to leaders of the church I am NOT referring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I am talking about Church leaders in general.  These would be those Pastors, Preachers, and others who teach such ideas as hatred of others today, prosperity gospels, those who teach not to help the poor and to try to stop any aid going to them, those who teach that people get what they deserve and that the poor and disabled deserve whatever has happened to them, those who argue to destroy those who don't agree with you, that teach that anger and distrust are what we should do to others because we feel they did it to us, those who teach revenge, and on and on and on in regards to what I see many who claim to be Christian are actually being taught and actually doing these days).

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LDSGator said:

That’s accurate, and it’s also accurate to say it’s very naive if someone thinks they can be spread truth by being abrasive, obnoxious or insulting. If I walk up to you and say “Hey, only an idiot doesn’t believe in the Book of Mormon.” You virtually guarantee that the person will never open a Book of Mormon in their lives. 
 

Church members like to believe that how you present yourself and how you dress matters. That’s partially why missionaries can’t light up cigarettes in ripped jeans and vulgar t shirts. However, a guy in a suit with a clean haircut calling people who don’t agree with him “stupid”  is far more damaging. 

Just out of curiosity, do you recognize the difference between, for example, stating on a forum that believing the world is flat is stupid and going up to a flat-earther and telling them that they're stupid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Just out of curiosity, do you recognize the difference between, for example, stating on a forum that believing the world is flat is stupid and going up to a flat-earther and telling them that they're stupid?

Yes.

And, “just out of curiosity” do you recognize how someone would find it odd if a person acts nice and polite offline then acts like a jerk on a forum? Essentially, it tells the world that you know how to act properly but for whatever reason you feel like it’s fine to act the opposite way online. 

I have more respect for an abrasive prig who acts that way 24/7 than someone who is nice and sweet in person than goes online and acts like a jerk because there are no repercussions for it. It walks right up to the line of cowardice.

I’m dumb as a rock. If I can see it this way, I guarantee you others are thinking the same way.  

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s a not a new thing. I’ve always wondered why people act differently online than they do in real life.

If someone wants to take out their anger on people in a forum, why don’t they try a martial art or a sport that lets them have an outlet for  their aggression?  I think it’s because there are real consequences in that world. If you play dirty there, you’ll get it thrown back at you. Painfully. If you play dirty online, the consequences are much less “painful”. 

I’ve never understood it. That’s for sure. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Yes.

And, “just out of curiosity” do you recognize how someone would find it odd if a person acts nice and polite offline then acts like a jerk on a forum? Essentially, it tells the world that you know how to act properly but for whatever reason you feel like it’s fine to act the opposite way online. 

Since you followed up your "yes" with a view that seems to believe that stating that it's stupid to believe the earth is flat as a general statement on a forum is equivalently improper to telling someone they're stupid to their face, and exactly opposite to holding one's tongue when speaking face to face with a flat-earther, I am entirely unconvinced by your claim to recognize the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

The Lord was an extremely liberal radical during his time.

No, he was not, not in any sense in which that word is used in American political discourse today.

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

He called for things that most of the religious individuals at the time were against. 

That is not a feature of today's American liberalism, unless you're saying that Jesus would call for the freedom to destroy your unborn baby if you feel it might inconvenience you. Pretty sure you're not saying that.

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

He called for forgiving others who offended you, letting your rulers rule over you and keeping your religion separate from that of Caesars.

Certainly not any sort of feature in modern American "liberalism".

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

If you accept his apostles also spoke for him, he instituted a type of socialism (called Religious Socialism by many scholars today) where all property was shared amongst those in the church community for the benefit of others.

This is simply false. We as Latter-day Saints are familiar with this general idea. It's an application of the law of consecration; early latter-day efforts were generally called "united orders", were entered into only by covenant, were always voluntary, could be left at any time, and were administered in all cases by leaders called of God and not by agents of profane governments. To compare such small, private, religiously motivated efforts to "a type of socialism" is way beyond the mark.

I think it's worth noting that even with divine guidance, the early covenant Saints failed to get those societies to work as they were intended, until the effort was ultimately abandoned.

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

He called for people to feed the poor and care for the sick so that none would be hungry and all would have basic necessities in a society of his. 

As he has always done. Note that he did not call for Rome to care for the sick or for the nominal Jewish king Herod "to feed the poor and care for the sick so that none would be hungry and all would have basic necessities." Jesus' call to action was an individual charge, to be fulfilled individually and not to be abrogated to a government (profane or otherwise) to enforce such feeding and caring.

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

These ideas offended those who were in power.  His ideas would tear down the more conservative ideals of the time (where church LEADERS dictated what you could do including how many steps to walk on the Sabbath, etc) which were alarmingly closely aligned to many of the ideas of today.

I think you overstate, or simply misstate. Please outline which of "the more conservative ideals of the time...were alarmingly closely aligned with many of the [conservative] ideas of today."

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I think people would be surprised at HOW liberal his ideas really are.  Even today, his ideas are extremely liberal in relation to what we think in general.

This is not even slightly true unless you intend the word "liberal" in almost the opposite sense to which it is normally used in America today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Since you followed up your "yes" with a view that seems to believe that stating that it's stupid to believe the earth is flat as a general statement on a forum is equivalently improper to telling someone they're stupid to their face, and exactly opposite to holding one's tongue when speaking face to face with a flat-earther, I am entirely unconvinced by your claim to recognize the difference.

It's my observation that people who don't keep their covenants often think it's "mean and drives people from the church" when you talk about keeping your covenants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

It's my observation that people who don't keep their covenants often think it's "mean and drives people from the church" when you talk about keeping your covenants.

Any talk of personal responsibility for embracing one's salvation is dismissed by many as "earning your way to heaven", and asserting that sin is real and that it separates us from God is characterized as denying the pure love of Christ. All manner of false doctrine exist. We cannot blame individuals for the existence of Satan's lies. But it is clear that at least some actively embrace the victimized "not my fault" mentality, eschewing all accountability for their actions. They will find to their dismay that their Creator will indeed require an accounting at their hand, despite their protestations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

It's my observation that people who don't keep their covenants often think it's "mean and drives people from the church" when you talk about keeping your covenants.

That's how it is with iniquity in general in our day. Save for a few crimes that are still socially regarded as wrong, you are not allowed to say negative things about doing wrong because that implies casting judgement on the doers of them. To do so is divisive and meanspirited, which apparently matters more than the actual doing of right or wrong. This is even starting to include being too public in one's own right actions because doing right can only be motivated by wanting to make others look bad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thread closed.   As a reminder, here are some of the site rules:

Quote

2. Please be conscious of the fact that although Third Hour is aimed towards an LDS audience, that the membership of this site consists of friends from an array of different backgrounds, beliefs, and cultures. Please be respectful and courteous to all, and know that everyone who is willing to follow the Rules and Terms of Third Hour are welcome to participate and be a member of Third Hour. 

Quote

3. Personal attacks, name calling, flaming, and judgments against other members will not be tolerated.

 

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.