Jesus-Haters

[Vlad III]

I'd like to thank JohnT, once again, for providing for us yet another example of the type of Christianity he believes to be the true path. You know, the kind that teaches that you can 'earn' the right to call people you disagree with names, be disparaging and condescending, and talk down to those people in a way that you hopefully inflict some type of pain and inflammatory response.


...the name "Mormon" is synonymous with the labels "Antichrists" and "Bible haters" .


...they can accurately be termed as "AntiChrists.


So, you Mormons have EARNED these epithets...,


As it is, you collectively HATE Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and you collectively HATE the revelation of Jesus in the Scriptures, so the terms are accurate,

This is a wonderful example of the type of fringe-evangelical-Mormonism-Attacking-Christianity that only serves the opposite of this poster's stated purpose.

It isn't honest to call LDS "Jesus-haters", even if you do believe their theology is far from being the truth that you believe. You can believe someone is in error in their beliefs in Jesus, but calling them "Jesus-Haters" only serves to slam the door shut and close off the heart to your message and the spirit you should be teaching with. It also weakens your own credibility since most people, regardless of their opinions of LDS people, will admit that LDS people believe they are following Jesus the best way they can, even if they believe that the LDS have a false Jesus.

But to claim that LDS are "Jesus-Haters" is only to serve divisiveness and to **** up bridges whereby you can have a meaningful dialogue with those very people you are trying to witness to.


so please do not cry "foul" to Jill, or anyone else. Crybabies are not permitted here.

It isn't 'crying' to help someone see how they might become a better witness of Jesus, is it? I call 'foul' in your approach, but that is hardly being a crybaby. You're free to be inflammatory and divisive and to make dishonest shocking labels of the people you are trying to preach Jesus to, but aren't such things the an***hesis of what Jesus stands for and the an***hesis of your cause?

[Vlad III]

I found it interesting, though, how JohnT would tell LDS not to go complaining to Jill about his name-calling. Did not Jill create a sticky thread called "Derogatory Terms"?


The definition of a derogatory term is one that insults, belittles or treats a group or individual with contempt. This applies to terms like "anti-Mormon" and "Circuit Mormon".

I wonder if calling LDS people "Jesus-Haters" and "Anti-Christs" insults, belittles, and treats LDS with contempt.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

I found it interesting, though, how JohnT would tell LDS not to go complaining to Jill about his name-calling. Did not Jill create a sticky thread called "Derogatory Terms"?



I wonder if calling LDS people "Jesus-Haters" and "Anti-Christs" insults, belittles, and treats LDS with contempt.

Naa. Considering what Jesus said concerning the time when "men shall revile and persecute and say all manner of evil against you for His name's sake", I consider it a badge of honor.

[Vlad III]

Naa. Considering what Jesus said concerning the time when "men shall revile and persecute and say all manner of evil against you for His name's sake", I consider it a badge of honor.

Well, yeah, I'm not feeling despaired by it. I am just trying to wrap my mind around the psychology of telling a group of people that profess a belief and worship of Jesus, that they are "Jesus-Haters" and that they need to find Jesus to be saved.....as though the Jesus that this person is supposedly witnessing of is one who advocates name-calling if you think they 'earned' it.

LOL

[alanmolstad]

I'd like to thank JohnT, once again, for providing for us yet another example of the type of Christianity he believes to be the true path. You know, the kind that teaches that you can 'earn' the right to call people you disagree with names, be disparaging and condescending, and talk down to those people in a way that you hopefully inflict some type of pain and inflammatory response.





,



This is a wonderful example of the type of fringe-evangelical-Mormonism-Attacking-Christianity that only serves the opposite of this poster's stated purpose.

It isn't honest to call LDS "Jesus-haters", even if you do believe their theology is far from being the truth that you believe. You can believe someone is in error in their beliefs in Jesus, but calling them "Jesus-Haters" only serves to slam the door shut and close off the heart to your message and the spirit you should be teaching with. It also weakens your own credibility since most people, regardless of their opinions of LDS people, will admit that LDS people believe they are following Jesus the best way they can, even if they believe that the LDS have a false Jesus.

But to claim that LDS are "Jesus-Haters" is only to serve divisiveness and to **** up bridges whereby you can have a meaningful dialogue with those very people you are trying to witness to.



It isn't 'crying' to help someone see how they might become a better witness of Jesus, is it? I call 'foul' in your approach, but that is hardly being a crybaby. You're free to be inflammatory and divisive and to make dishonest shocking labels of the people you are trying to preach Jesus to, but aren't such things the an***hesis of what Jesus stands for and the an***hesis of your cause?
When people make snotty personal comments, you have to be able to look past them.
When they attack others personally, rather than other people responding in kind, spit-for-spit, there is a better way to go that avoids all the personal ****.....

Just put them on your IGNORE LIST.

it's that simple.
Their words, the personal remarks, all the snotty childish stuff is cleared right off your screen.

People forget that they can do this.
People need to always remember that no one has the right to post stuff on this forum or on your computer screen.

Its a privilege...

Starting a whole new topic like this to whine that other people are acting like snots only makes everyone involved look like adolescent misbehaving children.

I also think that it is kinda needless to complain to Jill (The owner and our host here) about a matter that is so easy to fix yourself.

[Phoenix]

Alan, you are lecturing someone's post from almost 5 years ago. I wonder if Vlad will notice your scolding reprimand.

Plus, your remark about

"Starting a whole new topic like this to whine that other people are acting like snots only makes everyone involved look like adolescent misbehaving children"

is a little ironic, since that post of yours make it look like you are whining about other people acting like snots.

[alanmolstad]

Alan, you are lecturing someone's post from almost 5 years ago. s.

no I am not

[Phoenix]

no I am not

You don't realize that the post you were replying to was from 2009?

[alanmolstad]

You don't realize that the post you were replying to was from 2009?

Phoenix, Im making use of a topic that I made sure was very inactive to address in a non-confrontational manner a contemporary issue that came up.

[Phoenix]

Starting a whole new topic like this to whine that other people are acting like snots only makes everyone involved look like adolescent misbehaving children.

That may be a valid point.

[alanmolstad]

That may be a valid point.

well kinda ....but my main point is found in my statement and belief that posting on this forum and on your computer screen is a " privilege ".... one I should always show my respect toward.

[Phoenix]

well kinda ....but my main point is found in my statement and belief that posting on this forum and on your computer screen is a " privilege ".... one I should always show my respect toward.

Does that mean you will stop making offensive posts with inflammatory allusions to sex cults, insults to other people's intelligence, etc.? Because you have respect for the privilege of posting here?

[alanmolstad]

well kinda ....but my main point is found in my statement and belief that posting on this forum and on your computer screen is a " privilege ".... one I should always show my respect toward.

I try to remember to " Keep it about teachings not about the personal"....

The posters here are guests and each should have a reasonable expectation of being able to share their own thoughts without being attacked personally or their motives questioned.

[Phoenix]

I try to remember to " Keep it about teachings not about the personal"....
The posters here are guests and each should have a reasonable expectation of being able to share their own thoughts without being attacked personally or their motives questioned.

So when you said

"In the end...."THIS" is what Mormonism is all about. Money, and chasing the skirts of younger girls"

you weren't questioning the motives of the millions of people who have chosen to be LDS?

[alanmolstad]

So when you said

"In the end...."THIS" is what Mormonism is all about. Money, and chasing the skirts of younger girls"

you weren't questioning the motives of the millions of people who have chosen to be LDS?


here is what is a good rule to keep.
do not talk about the other person.
everyone here is a guest and should not to be attacked personally.

So the Christian Tom, the Mormon Harry and the unbeliever Steve can come here and should not be attacked personally.

In the same way I try to never talk about the other person in a personal manner.
This is why I also don't feel the need to defend myself when I believe someone has started to make remarks about me as a "PERSON" rather just sticking with talking about different religions teachings and stuff like that.

But topics dealing with religions (such as the Mormon-sex connections) are always good topics for conversations.
That also is why I frame my posted comments in such a way as to be in the form of "You and I talking about this or that RELIGION" and why I try hard not to frame my posts as being "Me against you"

[RealFakeHair]

here is what is a good rule to keep.
do not talk about the other person.
everyone here is a guest and should not to be attacked personally.

So Tom can come here and should not be attacked personally.
in the same way i try to never talk about the other person in a personal manner.

but topics dealing with religions are alway good topics for conversations

Here is a better rule: Talk about ME! That's right me, no matter if it is good or bad, talk about me.

[RealFakeHair]

So when you said

"In the end...."THIS" is what Mormonism is all about. Money, and chasing the skirts of younger girls"

you weren't questioning the motives of the millions of people who have chosen to be LDS?

In the end: it is about believing the lie of the one who chased money and skirts of young girls, and married women.
It is sad, but true, however there is hope for you while you still live, that's hope for all of us too.

[James Banta]

Alan, you are lecturing someone's post from almost 5 years ago. I wonder if Vlad will notice your scolding reprimand.

Plus, your remark about

"Starting a whole new topic like this to whine that other people are acting like snots only makes everyone involved look like adolescent misbehaving children"

is a little ironic, since that post of yours make it look like you are whining about other people acting like snots.

Unless a subject has been placed out of bounds by Jill it is and always will be open to comment and dissection. If you have problems with your remarks being subject to such inspection or comment you shouldn't post here.. I see no whining in Alan's posts.. I see real complaints about the actions of others.. IHS jim

[alanmolstad]

...... I wonder if Vlad will notice your scolding reprimand.

.Let us hope so and save me from needing to repeat it.
But that all depends on if Vlad has connected this topic to his email and is able to get a message from the forum informing him that someone has commented on a topic he is following.

My real point in commenting about Vlad's topic is that we each have the ability to clean the forum of bad posters all ready.

I talked about the use we all can make of the IGNORE setting.
This is my point...that rather than acting like a baby and whining about name calling, you can just put the offender on Ignore.
After that if you wish to inform the owner of this message board of what you think the other person has done wrong you still can.
But even if the owner fails to take any action at all , you have taken action yourself putting the person on IGNORE and thereby cleaning off the offensive posts from your screen.

[Phoenix]

Let us hope so and save me from needing to repeat it.
But that all depends on if Vlad has connected this topic to his email and is able to get a message from the forum informing him that someone has commented on a topic he is following.

My real point in commenting about Vlad's topic is that we each have the ability to clean the forum of bad posters all ready.

I talked about the use we all can make of the IGNORE setting.
This is my point...that rather than acting like a baby and whining about name calling, you can just put the offender on Ignore.
After that if you wish to inform the owner of this message board of what you think the other person has done wrong you still can.
But even if the owner fails to take any action at all , you have taken action yourself putting the person on IGNORE and thereby cleaning off the offensive posts from your screen.

So instead of drawing this thread out even longer, you could have just ignored Vlad's post?

[alanmolstad]

I think the error that the guy makes is something that needs to be addressed....and I think Im just the guy to step up and do so.

The use of the IGNORE setting is a tool that can come in handy when you are being personally attacked.
That is my suggestion for all the Vlaqd's in the world.

If you dont like the way someone is personally attacking you, my advice is that in addition to informing the owner you also place the offender on your IGNORE list.

Attacking others in a personal and offensive manner is something that I see happen a lot on the internet.
Ever notice that the same guys who run out out of argument points are the same guys who are the first to start attacking the other person personally?.....I do.

There are other types that are always attempting to get other people to shut up so that only they are the only one posting.
i have seen this a lot around here too, where someone will get it into their heads that "only they" should be allowed to post on some topics or talk to some posters.
I , on the other hand, am always seeking out people to be a constructive part of the conversations...i have even sent a bunch of PM's to people that i know are just lurkers in the effort to get them into the game and start posting...the fact that they are Mormons is unimportant to me, I just like to see people being active and constructive to good conversations.

[Phoenix]

I think the error that the guy makes is something that needs to be addressed....and I think Im just the guy to step up and do so.

The use of the IGNORE setting is a tool that can come in handy when you are being personally attacked.
That is my suggestion for all the Vlaqd's in the world.

So maybe that is why Vlad isn't responding to your re****al of his post--he is following your advice about ignoring it?

[James Banta]

So maybe that is why Vlad isn't responding to your re****al of his post--he is following your advice about ignoring it?

Vlad won't post here because he has no answer anymore than you do to the double talk doctrines that have poured out of mormonism.. All he, or you, can say is you don't believe any other prophet than President Monson.. So what has he taught?

That Smith was a prophet? Yes, but he hasn't confirmed that the men that have held the office since were prophets.. If He confirms that then Smith's teaching are just as much the doctrines of the church as he own teachings. Smith tried to tell us that he could tell us how God became God.. That He was once a man and lived on another world the same as Jesus lived on this world.. That Jesus became a God through His obedience to the Father. Neither of these errors is taught in the Bible.. It is a man made invention.. Therefore Monson is in agreement with error. That proves that he is a false prophet.. He is a very good CEO, but he is a terrible theologian.. IHS jim