Posted on 08/30/2014 8:36:05 AM PDT by WXRGina
Appearing in part 1 is the phrase "low-information voter" (LIV) which is oft used by a popular radio talk show host. The host suggests that those who make up this population set are individuals who vote for a candidate or important issue having little or in most cases zero knowledge about either. LIVs are highly opinionated even when they have no idea what they're talking about.
Also included in part 1 was the following quote from C. Edmund Wright. I appreciate the way he expands on the LIV concept:
But forget low-information voters for just a minute; the malignancy that is really destroying this country is low-information people with high-profile power and/or influence. You know, people who would lobby for, comment on, advocate for, or vote on laws like ObamaCare without any understanding of its real-world impact. Such felonies are then carried out by low-information bureaucratic microbes with the power to destroy lives and businesses with impunity, and a political and talking-head class with the access and sway to codify these common malfeasances. Destruction of private property and liberty – and these two concepts are not divisible – takes place in government cubicles every minute of every day across the country. And why not? (Source – emphasis in original)
His thoughts fit nicely with what I've come to believe about many leaders in the evangelical community. Specifically, a large number of them are uninformed people with high-profile power and/or influence. The LIVs Wright's pointing a finger at are liberals. Likewise many of the evangelicals that came to mind for me are liberals but because liberal has a negative connotation they prefer "progressive Christian" or "social justice Christian." Take your pick. But whichever one you go with has its roots in communism.
So to Christianize the LIV phrase I simply changed "voter" to "evangelical," thus it became "low-information evangelical" (LIE). I defined the LIE in this way:
Reminiscent of the LIV, the high-profile LIE does not understand the impact that his unorthodox view has on the visible church. When it comes to the Bible, the LIE has opinions on a variety of challenging topics. Even when his opinion is decidedly unbiblical, he presents it as the gospel truth. The LIE's arguments are often based, not on what God's Word clearly teaches but instead on esoteric experiences he's had or what he's picked up from LIE celebrities.
More on esoteric experiences in a moment.
There's also a group of evangelicals that fall into the category of undistinguished LIE (ordinary folk). The term I bestowed on them is u-LIE. This group is also uninformed on many things (both Christian and otherwise). They are often biblically illiterate. In part 1 I made this observation:
Sadly, some undistinguished low information evangelicals (u-LIEs) assume that popular pastors, teachers and best-selling authors would never steer them wrong. But nothing could be further from the truth!
Last but not least, I coined the phrase LIE-celebs. These individuals are prominent Christian leaders who are uninformed people with high-profile power and/or influence. Many of them are false teachers who do not speak for God.
LIE-celebs And Their Vain Hopes
God tells us how we are to handle false teachers:
Thus says the LORD of hosts: "Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you, filling you with vain hopes. They speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the LORD." (Jeremiah 23:16).
We are to pay these folks no mind.
One example of a LIE-celeb is popular women's Bible teacher Beth Moore. In part 1 I reported on Moore's claim that she receives personal direct revelation from Almighty God. In other words, God tells her things. According to her, He calls her "baby" and "honey." I'll have more to share on this modern day prophetess in a moment.
LIE-celeb Joyce Meyer also claims that she receives extra biblical revelation or "revelation knowledge" from the Almighty. Both Moore and Meyer's respective claims clearly deny the sufficiency of Scripture. Equally troubling is that Joyce holds to heretical Word of Faith (WoF) theology. So naturally her students are swallowing the poisonous prosperity health and wealth gospel that does not save anyone. Following is an erroneous assertion made by her:
The Bible can't even find any way to explain this. Not really. That is why you have got to get it by revelation. There are no words to explain what I am telling you. I have got to just trust God that he is putting it into your spirit like he put it into mine. (Source)
Why do I say this is erroneous? Because it's not taught in the Bible. She made it up. How do I know this? I searched the scriptures. (Acts 17:10-15) Nowhere does Scripture teach that God's people are given special "revelation knowledge."
"The fact that contemporary evangelicals seek 'fresh' revelations from God," says Larry DeBruyn, "indicates that they no longer consider Holy Scripture to be sufficient and authoritative in matters of faith (2 Timothy 3:16). This seeking is Gnostic and mystic. Harvie Conn ...a former missionary in Korea, noted that the 'central feature of mystical religion is its 'belief in special revelation outside the Bible.' Yet if the Bible is no longer considered sufficient, the coming of "new revelations" raises the following conundrum. I repeat it.
"If added revelations repeat what's in the Bible, they are unnecessary. If new revelations contradict the Word of God, they are heresy. And if they supplement God's Word, then the new revelations imply Scripture's insufficiency, and about this Proverbs warns: 'Add thou not unto his [God's] words, lest he [God] reprove thee, and thou be found a liar' (Proverbs 30:6, KJV)." (Source – emphasis added.)
Gnosticism is esoteric mysticism – a desire to "know the unknowable." One of the obstacles the early church faced was Gnosticism. The Gnostics believed that the masses are not in possession of spiritual knowledge, and only the truly "enlightened" can experience God. The Apostles condemned Gnosticism as a heresy.
But Gnosticism is not the issue; the issue at hand is this: how can one know for certain if Meyer's so-called revelation came from God? "Is she on par with the apostles who received revelation knowledge from God himself?" asks apologist Matt Slick. He continues:
Or how about the Old Testament prophets? Does she, like them, also receive revelation knowledge from God? If so, how would we know if it were true or not? The answer is simple: we test what she says against Scripture, and it is obvious that she is getting a lot of things from somewhere else that contradict the word of God. (Source)
More On Moore
In part I brought the reader up to speed on Beth Moore's slide into mysticism and also gave a heads up on her unbiblical teaching and had planned to leave it at that. But then the news came that she made an appearance on Joyce Meyer's TV show. This is the sort of news Beth fans should be made aware of, so I decided to include a bit about it here. Just before her appearance Beth tweeted:
I have the great privilege of sitting down w/@ Joyce Meyer in her studio today to talk about unity. Pray for Jesus to be so present & pleased.
The unity Meyer and Moore espouse is man centered, not Christ centered.
Scoffers And Bullies And Meanies, Oh My!
So – Beth Moore sitting down for a chat with a WoF heretic is a problem in and of itself. But the reason she gave for appearing on the show was to talk about unity. The obvious question is why would a "solid Bible teacher," as she is called, choose to unite with a woman who preaches a false gospel? Although their tête-à-tête is troubling it's not the only concern people have with her. As I pointed out in part 1, she's been under fire for, among other things, engaging in Christian mysticism, likewise for her acceptance of "charismania" which is odd for someone who's an SBC Lifeway Bible teacher. Another problem arose when she appeared on Life Today with "Protholic" and big time promoter of ecumenism James Robison and proceeded to advise the audience to tune out the "scoffers":
We're going to have people that are honestly going to want to debate and argue with us about awakening and downpours ... But there will be scoffers and they will be the far bigger threat, the one within our own brothers and sisters, our own family of God – far, far more demoralizing. And yes, it will come from bullies, and yes, it will come from the mean-spirited. (Source)
Beth's attempt to shut people up who question her teaching should be concerning to Christian women who read her books and participate in Bible studies she has written.
Be Watchful!
For those of you who are Joyce Meyer fans, it's imperative that you wake up to the fact that some of this woman's teaching is outright heresy. Anyone who continues learning from her is choosing to remain under the teaching of what Jesus referred to in Mat. 7:15 as a ravenous wolf. Listen to John's warning:
Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works. (2 John 9-11)
Sadly, a growing number of LIE-celebs, likewise u-LIEs, are taking part in the wicked works John spoke of.
We are living in perilous times, brethren. It's now common place for professing Christians to dabble in mysticism. The result? Many believers boast of having subjective magical mystical experiences such as visions; dreams; impressions; hearing inner voices; experiencing private illumination; and angel visitations. Warning! Christians who engage in esoteric mysticism deny sola Scriptura – the sufficiency of Scripture.
God's people must come to grips with the fact that historic orthodox Christianity holds to the belief that everything we need to know about our Triune God is contained within the pages of the Bible. (Psalm 119:105)
Stranded In Spiritual Infancy
Following is an observation by apologist and author Bill Muehlenberg from a post entitled Kindergarten Christianity:
We have millions of believers who may have been saved decades ago, but are still acting like spiritual infants. They have not grown much, they have not progressed much in their walk with Christ, and their spiritual condition is rather anaemic [sic] and shallow.
They have not become genuine disciples in other words, and they are still stranded in a spiritual infancy. They can't even handle the deep truths of God as revealed in Scripture. Indeed, many of them hardly even read their Bibles, barely pray, or engage in in-depth fellowship.
No wonder they are still floundering around as babies. They have not moved beyond the nursery. They are all stuck in day care. They are permanent residents of Christian kindergarten. Sadly this is so very widespread today in our churches.
This brings me back to the low information evangelical. As Muehlenberg pointed out, many Christians prefer milk to solid food. (1 Cor 3:1-3) Consequently they're biblically illiterate...which is the reason for the colossal lack of discernment among Christians. So it should come as no surprise that the worst sort of unbiblical teaching has reared its ugly head in the visible church, thanks largely to diaper-wearing milk-fed u-LIEs who rarely, if ever, go to the Bible to scrutinize someone's teaching. (1 John 4:1) These same u-LIEs are the ones who put on a pedestal/promote/pay tribute to and finance the lavish lifestyles of LIE-celebs, some of whom are prosperity preaching/health and wealth televangelists. What will it take to get professing Christians to understand that they're propping up heretics?
Before I close I must also mention that the liberal media seems to think that all Protestants are evangelicals – and that includes WoF heretics such as Joyce Meyer, Joel Osteen, T.D. Jakes and Oprah's pal New Age/New Thought/Emergent guru Rob Bell. Nowadays evangelical is such a broad term that it has lost its meaning. Even Red-letter Christians Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis, who have abandoned the biblical gospel for the "social gospel," call themselves evangelicals.
Campolo, Wallis, Osteen, Bell, et al can say they are monarchs and wear a crown if they so desire. But as I've said many times, a mouse in the cookie jar is not a cookie.
Resources:
Beth Moore: God's Vision for the Church Includes the Roman Catholic Church "Denomination" – Apprising Ministries
Beth Moore recommends 'Jesus Calling' book – Apprising Ministries
Contemplative Prayer – On Solid Rock Resources
Cults and Heretical Teaching – On Solid Rock Resources
Emergent/Emerging Church – On Solid Rock Resources
New Age/New Thought Spirituality – On Solid Rock Resources
Occult – On Solid Rock Resources
Word of Faith/Televangelists – On Solid Rock Resources
Please see the RF Guidelines set up by the RM in regards to accusing others of lying.
http://www.freerepublic.com/~religionmoderator/
“Forms of “making it personal” include mind reading, attributing motive, accusing another Freeper of telling a lie (because it attributes motive, the intent to deceive) - making the thread “about” individual Freeper(s), following a Freeper from thread to thread and badgering a Freeper over-and-again with the same question. “
So now i am lying because i took your response at face value as a denial ("disinformation") of my assertion that the Donation of Constantine was a forgery? Them then tell me how your response says otherwise:
“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine"; I have been wondering how you came to be in possession of so much disinformation. I’ve been reading a book called “The Da Vinci Hoax,” and now I think you got a lot of your information from “The Da Vinci Code.”
You cite a source i provided, and then refer to so much disinformation, and that you think i get lot of my information from “The Da Vinci Code.” How then is this not a denial of my assertion that the Donation of Constantine was a forgery??? And that i am lying about you by taking this at face value? Does anyone else want to judge this matter (besides violating forum rules)?
Or do you want to blame this your old age again?
In post 66, did you or did you not intend to convey that Daniel's information about the Donation of Constantine was false?
This thread is not posted in the Religion Forum and therefore the RF guidelines do not apply on this thread.
“In post 66, did you or did you not intend to convey that Daniel’s information about the Donation of Constantine was false?”
So, “one of the most charitable posters on FR” wants to badger me with a tendentious question.
No, I did not intend to make a statement about the authenticity of the Donation of Constantine.
I intended to make a statement about bringing up the Doctrine of Constantine in the first place, when no one else had.
I intended to make a statement about using that long-dead controversy to badger present-day Catholics.
And I intended to make a statement about the ethics of a person who would do that.
“You cite a source i provided, and then refer to so much disinformation, and that you think i get lot of my information from “The Da Vinci Code.” How then is this not a denial of my assertion that the Donation of Constantine was a forgery?”
Not that this would apply to any poster on FR, of course, but I find it unpleasant to try and converse with someone who is both malicious and stupid, and is blissfully unaware of either condition. Not, of course, that anyone on FR is both malicious and stupid. That could never happen, and if it did, we wouldn’t be permitted to comment on it.
To those of moderate or higher intelligence, my comment speaks to the dishonesty of bringing up a long-dead, ancient kerfluffle in an attempt to sling mud at the One True Church.
“accusing another Freeper of telling a lie (because it attributes motive, the intent to deceive)”
Notice that this rule advantages liars, and disadvantages those who catch them. You can tell which is which by gauging a poster’s affection for this rule.
DSC, resorting to such bombast only digs your hole deeper, as if any postings evidence maliciousness by deliberate distortion of the truth and or lacking intelligence it is yours, as you charge me with lying due to your apparent inability to makes yourself clear - or admit guilt - which is the second time you did this in a 3 days.
First you carelessly make the fallacious statement that "As a matter of fact, if you go to Mass every day for three years, you will hear the entire Bible read aloud," which is rather a dumb thing to do in an age and forum in whichsuch assertions can be checked out and error exposed.
And yet after this was exposed, your only response to my assertion that this was as "another parroted dubious claim" was that "The Internet is a wonderful resource. It also provides fallacious information for the malicious to use in spreading error."
Meaning either you were the malicious one using the Internet in spreading error, or fellow RCs, which can hardly be your charge, or it infers that my exposé of your prevaricating propaganda is what is spreading error.
Finally when cornered you blamed your old age and infirmity, admitting you "misspoke," but followed that with distinguishing it from the professional liars one encounters.
And which is consistent with your well-know theme of anti-Catholic bias, and asserting there never has been or is a scintilla of anti-Protestant bias on FR, and thus i replied "Be careful throwing rocks at known or anonymous liars, Rome herself made use of the works of such done in the interest of supplying what Scripture does not," citing the Donation of Constantine besides the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals.
But true to form, you retort , "I have been wondering how you came to be in possession of so much disinformation. I’ve been reading a book called “The Da Vinci Hoax,” and now I think you got a lot of your information from “The Da Vinci Code.”
And which i dare say "anyone of moderate or higher intelligence" would normally see as a denial that the Donation was a forgery - or an example of an inability of a FR to be coherent - or unwillingness to be honest - and invite anyone on FR to express their judgment.
And yet when i conclusively substantiated that this is held to be a forgery even by Cath. scholarship, you have the audacity to charge me with lying, saying you did not affirm or deny anything about the Donation of Constantine, the very thing you cited as disinformation akin to The Da Vinci Code! And if not then the only item remaining as "disinformation" would be the Pseudo-IsidorianDecretals. No wonder you threatened to ignore me!
Yet when i went over this with you, rather than admitting the obvious, you example more inability to be coherent, or honest, explaining that you find it "unpleasant to try and converse with someone who is both malicious and stupid, and is blissfully unaware of either condition," but that this does not apply to any poster on FR or that it could.
A poor attempt at tongue-in-cheek at best, while then you come close to exampling malice by deliberate distortion of the truth and or lacking intelligence (even in damage control) by explaining your "disinformation" "Da Vinci Code" dismissal of my reference to the fallacious Donation really refers to "the dishonesty of bringing up a long-dead, ancient kerfluffle in an attempt to sling mud at the One True Church,"
which not only presumes what remains to be proven, and attempts to blithely dismiss such evidence as the Donation (and infers more recent examples of dishonestly are non-existent) against Rome being the OTC , but in-credibly charges me with dishonesty when it is you who have exampled this by your fake claims and damage-control denials!
Yes indeed, it would be best for you to ignore me, as the more you attemptted to be an escape artist the more your insolence has been displayed on FR for all to see, and as a negative example of what devotion to Rome can foster and excuse. Like mother like son, while charging bias in your glass house.
Thanks.
I hadn’t noticed.
Thanks.
Nice use of alliteration!
I just HATE when evidence of this is posted!!!
Matthew 15:16
"Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them.
Matthew 231. Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:
2. "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.
3. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.
4. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5. "Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long;
6. they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues;
7. they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them `Rabbi.'
8. "But you are not to be called `Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers.
9. And do not call anyone on earth `father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.
10. Nor are you to be called `teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ.
11. The greatest among you will be your servant.
12. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
13. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
14. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
15. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
16. "Woe to you, blind guides! You say, `If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.'
17. You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred?
18. You also say, `If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.'
19. You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred?
20. Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it.
21. And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it.
22. And he who swears by heaven swears by God's throne and by the one who sits on it.
23. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.
24. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
25. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.
26. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.
27. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean.
28. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
29. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous.
30. And you say, `If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.'
31. So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets.
32. Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!
33. "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?
34. Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town.
35. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
36. I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.
37. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.
38. Look, your house is left to you desolate.
39. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, `Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.' "
Mark 7:26-27
26. The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.
27. "First let the children eat all they want," he told her, "for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."
And St. Paul chimes in...
Galatians 5:12
As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!
Let them see...
Arrogance is boundless in some people.
As it should.
I'm late.
Did it START in religion and then get MOVED to blog?
I intended to make a statement about bringing up the Doctrine of Constantine in the first place, when no one else had.
I intended to make a statement about using that long-dead controversy to badger present-day Catholics.
And I intended to make a statement about the ethics of a person who would do that.
_enUS475&gws_rd=ssl#q=Madison+Ruppert+hijack+republic+focus&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-Address
Ah... intentions!
Gotta love 'em!
(They make SUCH good paving stones!)
I hardly think it needs any more than what it has on it's plate right now.
Oh??
You can tell which is which by gauging a poster’s DISaffection for this rule.
...by a nattering nabob of negativity!
—DSC_Wanna_be(I’m right - you’re wrong - The End)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.