A Son Of Liberty

Hey, take it easy on us militant childbearers.

Come to think of it, I always wanted to be Laura Ingalls Wilder too.

Am I still your friend?

What this man Jeffs has done is evil beyond description.

For you to group other ilks of Christians in with him is abusive, insulting and slanderous.

Disagreeing with the NIV is the same as heresy and child abuse?

Wearing pioneer dresses is the same as heresy and child abuse?

Do you know the difference between "Christian isolationism" and Biblical holy living and sanctification?

Do you know the difference between "militant childbearing" and a Biblical lifestyle of fruitfulness and fertility?

Do you know the difference between "world domination" and the Biblical concept of godly rule and dominion?

Do you know the difference between "multi-kiloacre compounds" and faithful agrarian living?

When you lump people together with the wicked and then mischaracterize their beliefs with inflammatory phrases, you are not standing for the truth. You are spreading hatred and discord and propagating unfair stereotypes of many people with whom you claim to share a Savior. Do you think God is pleased when you speak of your siblings in this way?

Do you not realize that words like this JEOPARDIZE your siblings in Christ whom you have insulted? Words like this motivate ignorant people to attack all Christians who are not living the typical status quo American life.

While I understand the attempt at humor, I am still disappointed. I sincerely wonder if someone snuck into your blog. This really does not sound like you.

B8

Mmhmm, I thought I'd strike a nerve. But what I find interesting is that no one stood up for the strawberries and their alleged misrepresentation.

I'm just waiting for the strawberry/puke story.  Ummm... is it still ok to have an opinion around here??  Because I'm pretty sure the words "For me" set this post as an opinion... but that's "just me".

Well, strawberries deserve what they get.

Opinions are also under the prohibition against slander.

Why the strike-throughs?

So, since you struck the nerve at which you were aiming, your over-the-top blanket misrepresentations were OK?

I slashed through "Christian" because I thought that I had chosen the words incorrectly. It's an edit.

What did I misrepresent? The lifestyle in Eldorado, TX, was freaky.

Wow, when I first read Joe's post, I just chuckled.  And then I read B8's comments; Joe, you struck a sensitive nerve, I guess.

The humor is good, really good.

But, the truth in play here is too important to joke about. Slander and accusations of cultishness are probably the greatest way satan sicks ignorant men on God's people in today's world. Why would you, a man of God, ever want to even possibly be connected to something like that?

Seriously,

B8

ps- I don't have a tractor or a farm animal, we own no pioneer dresses and my typical suburban plot is a cramped 1/3 acre. I do not have a dog in this fight; nonetheless, I will not let your predictable "jokes" of being over-sensitive ever keep me from standing for the truth on an issue like this.

Is labeling young Christian men "spikey-haired, super-way-cool, most-awesomest, surfer-dude, no-kids-of-my-own, embracing-singleness youth guys" abusive, insulting and slanderous?

Or is it a humorous way to make a point that leaves the reader thinking?

The sarcasm was tough . . . I think Christian should have been placed in quotes, because there are those who like to be identified with Christian who are so legalisitic in their so-called "Christianity" that they do not resemble Biblical Christians at all.  Paul spoke of those who preach "another gospel" and how they should be treated.  Generalizations can be dangerous . . . for example, all Amish are not bad, but many are on the fringe of being cultic in their practices.  In the same way, many "fundamentalists" are well-meaning, but misguided.  It is sad that some of these cult-like groups give real Christians a bad rep . . .

:o)}

Strawberries and puke...takes me back to my younger days. I still can't look at strawberries quite the same.

And about your dress comments, well, I do have a story to tell there... I was out with some other moms on a playdate the other day. A mom, not part of my playdate posse, showed up with her youngin's wearing a prairie dress with an apron. The other moms I was with looked at her and snickered. I was ashamed to have been with those moms that day. One mom said to me, "Doesn't she know she is a little out of style?" I retorted, "Maybe we are the ones out of style." From then on no other comments were made in my presence.

Yeh, Human Blogger.  "The man who eats [dresses]everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the who does, for God has accepted him.  Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand." (Romans 14:3-4)  We modern's think we have it all together when perhaps we need to take a big step backwards in the area of modesty. Perhaps some are too heavily into tradition or others are over-reacting but these might be less of a fault than going with the flow.  Joe, you write such insightful blogs normally, but what you did here was the same thing that the media is doing to Christians, clumping us with those who are not even Christians and radical cultists.  A Christian has chosen to follow Christ in a different way than you as regards dress and occupation and participation in the world (Yes, I know that most Amish and many Brethern are seeking salvation by works; many who dress and act thus are not from these groups.) but don't clump him or her with the cultist who may well be the excuse used for persecution of all Christians that is coming one day to this nation.  I think you were mistaken on this blog, Joe.

Obama really wants to be the U.S. President. Hillary and others have been (for various reasons) focusing

Please, Joe, you are too smart not to see the blanket misrepresentations in this post. But, just in case I am wrong, I will spell it out for you.

In the above post, you EQUATE the wearing of certain types of clothing (ie, prairy dresses, Laura Ingalls-style) with "brainwashing", being "hell-bent on world domination" and with the Texas Mormons, in general. Thus, you slander every group of people, Christians or otherwise, who happen to dress in a way that bothers your strawberry-and-puke-like preferences. FURTHERMORE, by remaining silent regarding the extensive mistreatment of the Texas Mormons, you implicitly support what is going on there, apparently because they violate your personal tastes. Sounds more like the silent and guilty German "Christians" during the rise of the 3rd Reich than a "Son of Liberty."

Respectfully,

B8