Posted on 05/28/2005 11:26:17 AM PDT by RWR8189
Relying on Webster's for a theological term is like going to Hardee's for a elaborate romantic dinner
Good analogy. However, our Christian religions are considered heretical in other countries. The definition meeans different things to different people. To me, it is someone who espouses Christianity or purports to live a good life, but who demonstrates the exact opposite. I guess I fall into that category sometimes so what am I to say anything? Christianity was considered heretical during the time of Jesus. Other religions were considered heretical by the Catholic Church.
I also remember something about stones and lines too. The truth is that we are all chaff. Anyone can be judged as such. The Savior associated with the Gentiles and sinners and reserved his harshest criticism for those church leaders who went about promoting hate and bigotry. Yes, there are some obvious ones like murderers, but for the most part, I prefer to leave the judging up to the Savior and make sure that I myself am trying to do my best to have faith through the Savior's grace and live a Christ-like life. I fall short many times, of course, but still keep trying.
WOW, I can't believe you posted the whole thing! I was coming to do the same. A very interesting article. I like him so far, actually I've liked Romney since my disgusting co-relgionists the Kennedy's picked on him for his religion. Like they respect or obey their own!
"An open and avowed atheist would probably be rejected out of hand by an even higher number."
Yes, I've often thought that. I went to school with a kid we used to joke would be the first Jewish president of the US (obviously he chose another path, but I wouldn't rule it out altogether even today, he's only 47 now), and I've thought we'll have a Jewish president, a Mormon president, a Hindu president, heck, we may even have a Muslim president before we have an atheist president.
"To me, it is someone who espouses Christianity or purports to live a good life, but who demonstrates the exact opposite."
That's hypocrisy, not heresy. Heresy is espousing a false doctrine, I don't know why Webster's would say Christian doctrine or mainly RC doctrine, I suppose that could be accurate but I'd say the concept could apply to any religion.
Suppose I say Buddah never really acheived nirvana, he just died and got buried. I think to a Buddhist that would make me a heretic, if I was myself a Buddhist. I think that is part of it, you can't be a heretic unless you are a member of the relgion you are giving "false" information about.
And, not to be confused with blasphemy.
Yeah, most are all right. Just as most Catholics are all right, most Lutherans, most Baptists, most Pentecostals, etc.
Some Mormons are jerks, as are some Catholics, some Lutherans, some Baptists...
What it boils down to is pretty simple: By their fruits you will know them. If someone seeems nice, friendly, sane, helpful, and committed to family values and conservative principles, they're probably pretty good people to have as friends. Their religious beliefs doesn't matter one little bit.
I have met some very firm-believing, Bible-quoting, self-proclaimed "Christians" who acted very un-Christlike. I have known atheists and Jews who are better "Christians" than a very few of the nominal Christians I have known.
Possibly. Based on his immigration and anti-Napster lunacies, I don't know if I'd support him for the SCOTUS, either.
I don't know if I'd support him for the SCOTUS, either.
Yes, he does have some interesting causes and ideas from time to time. That analogy for the SC seems a little too much like something else if you know what I mean.
_______________________________ That's hypocrisy, not heresy. Heresy is espousing a false doctrine, I don't know why Webster's would say Christian doctrine or mainly RC doctrine, I suppose that could be accurate but I'd say the concept could apply to any religion.
Suppose I say Buddah never really acheived nirvana, he just died and got buried. I think to a Buddhist that would make me a heretic, if I was myself a Buddhist. I think that is part of it, you can't be a heretic unless you are a member of the relgion you are giving "false" information about.
______________________________________________________ I had to read it twice, but I do agree with you for the most part. I would say that one who is a "hypocrite" to his/here religion can be a heretic in a manner of speaking. People do have different definitions of it. To be honest, it is one of my least favorite words. I prefer to look at myself and how I'm doing first before I use such monikers on others. Thanks for your response.
"I believe that only two types of people live in Massachusetts, the wicked wealthy"
Yeah, no Mormons fit THAT description. /sarcasm
Joseph Smith died like he lived. leading a mob or running from one. He also shot back, no lamb to the slaughter, he shot three and killed two of the mob. I like that part.
You might want to follow your own advice. Nauvoo, Illinois; Kirkland, Ohio; and Independence, Missouri were hardly the products of a mob. All were beautiful cities carved out of the wilderness. Nauvoo was on a swamp that the Saints had to drain before they could build. Most were sick with disease from living in the swamp while they worked.
Joseph Smith most certainly did go like a lamb to the slaughter. He had left Navuoo and was heading west. He was with trusted and loyal companions. He was safe.
He was met by a group from Nauvoo begging him to return, fearing that there would be retribution against the city if they learned Joseph Smith had left and was unreachable.
Joesph Smith voluntarily turned and headed back to Nauvoo, knowing he would be arrested and likely killed.
The gun was smuggled into Joseph as he was in the jail cell. He fired on the mob after they put a bullet in the head of his brother.
So what we had was one pistol that fired twice against a mob of over a hundred that riddled Joseph's body with bullets and shot his brother through the head.
To call this a gunfight instead of cold-blooded murder is an insult.
While you're at it, here's some more to look up:
Haun's Mill Massacre
Missouri Extermination Order
Utah War
Not that any of these records convince true believers.
And you can read a good critique of the book, here.
"... some co-religionists say it doesn't begin until implantation occurs, because "there's no soul" until then." I would like for these 'co-religionists' to show to me proof of their assertion. If they cannot prove this assertion then as 'believers' they ought err on the side of LIFE and not open embryo-aged humans to exploitation and dissection for their body parts, their stem cells. Orrin Hatchling is an excellent case in point ... he's pro-life up to the point of a certain age in a lifetime already begun, that age being the embryonic life/age.
I've always liked Terry Eastland's writing, even when he was covering the Supreme Court for The American Spectator.
The rest of you need to check this out for yourself.
-good times, G.J.P. (Jr.)
If you mean true believers that Mormonism is an evil cult, I would agree.
They're dead and don't care.
If you don't believe they're really able to baptize by proxy, then you shouldn't care either.
They're really harmless to you and your dead relatives so let them have their fun.
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.