Falling Stars, Damnable Heresy, and the Spirit of Evolution

Renew America ^ | Sept. 19, 2013 | Linda Kimball

[hosepipe]

That’s a consequence of having what is an admittedly limited sample to work with.

---

I agree.. first reality is a very limited sample..
Second reality is more democratic... all manner of designer realities..

[Kevmo]

I know that’s your answer, and I know that you consider any disagreement with you to be heresy.
***Again you already know the answer. For instance, in the past I’ve tangled with you on LENR threads, Crevo threads and had not called you a heretic. A troll, yes, but not a heretic. And I know you’ll continue to troll here on FR, pushing your antichristian anticonservative troll viewpoint.

[tacticalogic]

Second reality is more democratic... all manner of designer realities..

Is that democracy or anarchy?

[tacticalogic]

Then disagreeing with you in general is “trolling”. It only becomes “heresy” when it’s over religion.

[Kevmo]

Then disagreeing with you in general is “trolling”.
***No, you’re a troll because you fit the definition.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2165967/posts

It only becomes “heresy” when it’s over religion.
***Again, the heresy fits the definition. Others on this thread have called it heresy as well, but I don’t see you keying up and trolling on them.

From Dictionary.com

her·e·sy
[her-uh-see] Show IPA
noun, plural her·e·sies.
1.
opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, especially of a church or religious system.
2.
the maintaining of such an opinion or doctrine.
3.
Roman Catholic Church . the willful and persistent rejection of any article of faith by a baptized member of the church.
4.
any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs, customs, etc.
Origin:
1175–1225; Middle English heresie < Old French eresie < Latin haeresis school of thought, sect < Greek haíresis, literally, act of choosing, derivative of haireîn to choose

[tacticalogic]

But you’re not the Church. All the authority you have to be declaring heresy is what you have assumed for yourself.

[hosepipe]

Is that democracy or anarchy?

---

Democracy is Mob Rule by mobster...........
Anarchy is Mob Rule by mobster(s)............

[tacticalogic]

So, what is it that recommends this “Second Reality” idea as a paradigm to adopt?

[hosepipe]

So, what is it that recommends this “Second Reality” idea as a paradigm to adopt?

---

Designer Gods... worshiping while denying that it is worship..
Idolizing while denying the idol is an idol...

Being an ideologue claiming an idea as your own....
Preaching while claiming to hate preachers..

Religion in all but the vestments(mostly).. but including ceremonies..
Except for the bikers and bankers they have vestments..

[Kevmo]

Even DouglasKC acknowledges that what he's pushing is "unorthodox". I have every right in the world to declare a false teaching to be heresy. Just like the others on this thread have done and... do we see you keying up on them? No, you prefer to troll at me. So get lost, troll.

[tacticalogic]

Doesn’t sound like much of a recommendation.

[Kevmo]

Also, I don't see this particular troll keying up on other christian conservatives as much as he does to me, stalking me from thread to thread. He's never honest. He's just an asshole. So I'm going to post this item here, and whenever he posts to me on another thread I'll just send folks to this Tacticalogic Troll Get Lost post.

It is left up to lurkers as an exercise to follow this long term troll's antics and see for themselves. The reason why the mods haven't dispensed with him yet is because he knows exactly which bandwagon to jump on when he harrasses a social conservative, and he kept his mouth shut when JimRob tossed a bunch of evolutionists who then went on over to Darwin Central. It's only a matter of time. But that doesn't mean I have to carry the weight of combatting this asshole's constant bullshit.

[tacticalogic]

Even DouglasKC acknowledges that what he's pushing is "unorthodox".

Thread jumping is considered bad practice.

[Kevmo]

T4BTT

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3069049/posts?page=2832#2832

[BroJoeK]

tacticalogic: "Apparently there was, and still may be some sort of trap set.
Not sure exactly what the nature of it is,..."

I don't see a "trap", else surely we'd have been zotted by now.
And haven't even seen posts deleted by moderators, so am thinking they consider it all within normal limits.

What I think I see is something of an experiment, to see if these people can behave themselves once let loose outside normal restrictions of the Religion Forum.
Seems the answer is: some do quite well, others have no self-control, and go hog-wild at the first push-back from political reality.
Whether that's a net-gain or net-loss for Free Republic, I couldn't say for sure, but don't imagine many conservatives would welcome being called "God Damned Heretic", especially in the News Activism Forum, and would not support a site where that was likely...

On the other hand, there does seem to be a lot of interest, and maybe some are enjoying the show?

[BroJoeK]

MHGinTN: "Apparently someone connected to the current demonic regime has determined that separating conservatives from the Founders' values will divide sufficiently to allow the liars to prevent their removal from power."

First, let not your heart be troubled: I'm not "connected" to anybody outside immediate family and rural neighbors.

Second, virtually all of our "top tier" Founders' Christianity was influenced to a more-or-less degree by ideas from the Enlightenment, deism/theism, Unitarianism and/or Freemasonry.

So, I am here to request that you treat such ideas with forbearance and respect.
If you find that impossible, then just who, pray tell, has abandoned our Founding Principles?

[BroJoeK]

redleghunter to CynicalBear: "it is clear Who is Coming back in Revelation chapter 1 and that is “the Alpha and Omega” which is the Same in Isaiah 44, and there it is clearly YHWH, and in Revelation 1 it is clearly Jesus Christ, therefore YHWH is the God of Israel, and therefore Jesus Christ is YHWH."

FRiend, I've granted that is a valid interpretation, and have requested forbearance and respect for those Christians who interpret it differently.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Distinguishing Father and Son in pre-Incarnation revelation is not easy, and is further complicated by the fact that “Only the Son knows the Father, and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him.” It’s probably not worth the wrangle, because you’d have to tease the Trinity apart to do it and that’s knowledge at a God level, not at man’s level. The answer could be in the form of “both/and” if we could even understand it at the depth required.

[HiTech RedNeck]

And anyhow “Jesus” is incarnated Christ adding another layer of complexity. The account in Acts speaks of a vision of Jesus (not just “the Son”) standing at the right hand of God the Father. In heaven. We have something that blows our analytical categories to bits here. What role do bodies play in heaven? Is Jesus going to have a body we recognize in heaven? What is the event at the end of Revelation where apparently the mortal coil just dissolves away and yields to the New Jerusalem, is this literal? Symbolic? Both? So many questions, no easy answers. But we can say with confidence that heaven is not a vague place. If anything it is more solid than earth (cannot be shaken). Our perceptions are vague; we see through a glass darkly. But that doesn’t mean heaven is. There are going to be bodies in it. And if the Son wears a body, then He does. Will the Father be directly encountered... who knows. If He is, will God look like a duo... or will the Father be seen in a merged Son/Father incarnation... I don’t know. I hope I do not get carted off for blasphemy or heresy. Just asking some questions that probably sound pretty silly in actual heaven.

[BroJoeK]

redleghunter: "No they just belonged to churches which confessed the Trinity.
So again the issue of the secret life.
I would quit using the Masons as an argument.
You can't provide evidence any of those men were practicing Masons and could have just gone to the lodge for a nice meal and political connections."

We can only go by what the historical record tells us, and that certainly includes Freemasonry for a large number of Founders, including Washington himself.
Clearly and emphatically, Washington did not consider Freemasonry as contrary to his Christian beliefs, and the record we have on those beliefs shows:

1. Frequent praise of "Providence" for protecting the United States.
2. Occasional mention of Jesus in formal prayers, but not in his correspondence.
3. No record of any distinct Trinitarian language.
4. While Washington regularly attended church services of various denominations, he is said to have usually, or always, refused communion.

Therefore, I consider my statements on Washington's Christianity accurate: he was influenced to some degree by ideas from Enlightenment deism/theism and/or Freemasonry.
If that makes Washington, in redleghunter's mind, a "God Damned Heretic", then what does it make acknowledged Unitarians like the John Adams' (father & son) and recognized deistics like Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and James Madison?

I am here to request that you treat those men, and their religious ideas with forbearance and respect, especially on Free Republic's News/Activism forum.