Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
That thread won’t be poisoned by your heresy like this one has been.
And you won’t even log onto the open thread for historicity, so you’re the one who has been exposed as the irrational one.
Best of luck with your continued heretical trolling /s
The previous thread I opened had an atheist very similar to your background start posting unhistorical garbage from atheistic websites. That ain’t conservative, that ain’t pro-God, it ain’t a discussion of historicity, it is simply troll vigilante censorship. T4BTT
Are you sure he wasn’t just a normal guy that wouldn’t take crap from sanctimonious twits?
He was an atheist posting on the religion forum. It is obvious that he was trying to pollute the thread, just as this thread has been. T4BTT
Ha! Too much of a shock to his world view for him to even begin to comprehend, but still damn funny!!!
I agree. The atheist on that thread had a shock to his world view, so he proceeded to pollute it. T4BTT
Was it Winston Smith?
Of course, it should not. Nor should the sectarian differences of any other religion. Liberalism, Atheism, or Islamism, for example. But, is that the opinion of the society in which we live? Is your disapproval reserved exclusively for Christians (and, perhaps, some Jews)? Do you greet with equanimity the expression of any idea opposing or supporting any doctrine of any ideology other than that of Christians? I have no indication that you do not.
Our Friend BroJoeK has quoted the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law”) in his attack on Kevmo and spirited for their comments regarding heresy. Do you wish to join him in his attack?
I wasn’t aware that Kevmo and spirited were “Congress.” Like the rest of us, Kevmo and spirited have no force behind their comments save opinion.
But, is it your opinion that some opinions are simply intolerable? Does that include the opinion of Phil Robertson? They are, after all, Bible grounded (according to Phil) BTW, what are Phil’s opinions exactly? Can you name them, and remain truthful? Are Phil’s opinions more outside the boundary of Society than (let us say) that of NAMBLA? The GLBT community?
Likewise, the opinions of Kevmo and spirited. Are their opinions more outside the boundary of Society than NAMBLA? The GLBT?
§ 1841. The remaining part of the clause declares, that "no religious test shall ever be required, as a qualification to any office or public trust, under the United States." This clause is not introduced merely for the purpose of satisfying the scruples of many respectable persons, who feel an invincible repugnance to any religious test, or affirmation. It had a higher object; to cut off for ever every pretence of any alliance between church and state in the national government. The framers of the constitution were fully sensible of the dangers from this source, marked out in the history of other ages and countries; and not wholly unknown to our own. They knew, that bigotry was unceasingly vigilant in its stratagems, to secure to itself an exclusive ascendancy over the human mind; and that intolerance was ever ready to arm itself with all the terrors of the civil power to exterminate those, who doubted its dogmas, or resisted its infallibility. The Catholic and the Protestant had alternately waged the most ferocious and unrelenting warfare on each other; and Protestantism itself, at the very moment, that it was proclaiming the right of private judgment, prescribed boundaries to that right, beyond which if any one dared to pass, he must seal his rashness with the blood of martyrdom. The history of the parent country, too, could not fail to instruct them in the uses, and the abuses of religious tests. They there found the pains and penalties of non-conformity written in no equivocal language, and enforced with a stern and vindictive jealousy. One hardly knows, how to repress the sentiments of strong indignation, in reading the cool vindication of the laws of England on this subject, (now, happily, for the most part abolished by recent enactments,) by Mr. Justice Blackstone, a man, in many respects distinguished for habitual moderation, and a deep sense of justice. "The second species," says he "of non-conformists, are those, who offend through a mistaken or perverse zeal. Such were esteemed by our laws, enacted since the time of the reformation, to be papists, and protestant dissenters; both of which were supposed to be equally schismatics in not communicating with the national church; with this difference, that the papists divided from it upon material, though erroneous, reasons; but many of the dissenters, upon matters of indifference, or, in other words, upon no reason at all. Yet certainly our ancestors were mistaken in their plans of compulsion and intolerance. The sin of schism, as such, is by no means the object of temporal coercion and punishment. If, through weakness of intellect, through misdirected piety, through perverseness and acerbity of temper, or, (which is often the case,) through a prospect of secular advantage in herding with a party, men quarrel with the ecclesiastical establishment, the civil magistrate has nothing to do with it; unless their tenets and practice are such, as threaten ruin or disturbance to the state. He is bound, indeed, to protect the established church; and, if this can be better effected, by admitting none but its genuine members to offices of trust and emolument, he is certainly at liberty so to do; the disposal of offices being matter of favour and discretion. But, this point being once secured, all persecution for diversity of opinions, however ridiculous or absurd they may be, is contrary to every principle of sound policy and civil freedom. The names and subordination of the clergy, the posture of devotion, the materials and colour of the minister's garment, the joining in a known, or an unknown form of prayer, and other matters of the same kind, must be left to the option of every man's private judgment."
We all weep and mourn over your burned, broken body.
But did he “pull his head out of his rear orifice before the huge spiritual price to be paid?”
Yeah, roger that.
sanctimonious
From Dictionary.com... Sanctimony
pretended, affected, or hypocritical religious devotion, righteousness, etc.
Now, that’s pretty much the opposite of what you trolls have been complaining about me on this thread. You’ve been whining about someone getting butt hurt because I keyed up on their heresy and didn’t write in soft, flowery tones. Make up your troll mind what it is that you find so objectionable.
"In the end, they persuaded Pontius Pilate to accept a "mutually-beneficial" political accommodation, wherein the rabble would be coached to free the thief Barrabas instead of Jesus.
Thus both the Sanhedrin and Rome could "save face." "
Agreed, FRiend boop, but that's not the question here.
The assertion on the table, from Kevmo, is that Jesus claimed to be God Himself, and that's why the Sanhedrin had him murdered.
But in fact, in all four gospels, Jesus made no such claim:
64 “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”[e]
62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked.
64 “You have heard the blasphemy."
Jesus answered, "If I tell you, you will not believe me, 68 and if I asked you, you would not answer.
69 But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God.".
70 They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?”
He replied, "You say that I am.”
71 Then they said, “Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips.”
65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy!"
23 "If I said something wrong,” Jesus replied, "testify as to what is wrong.
But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?”
24 Then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.
So, in four Gospels, only Mark has Jesus telling the Sanhedrin he is the Messiah -- not that Jesus is God Himself.
In all the others Jesus answers are vague enough so the Sanhedrin could interpret them however they wished.
The Sanhedrin obviously wished to find blasphemy, and so it didn't matter what Jesus actually said.
Kevmo insists that Jesus remarks in Matthew, Mark and Luke (but not John!) about the "Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the Mighty One", are code words which meant: Jesus is God.
Kevmo's "proof" is that the Sanhedrin heard these words as "blasphemy" and only a claim of being God Himself would qualify for their death sentence.
I say that the title "the Son of Man" certainly does not refer to God Himself, and does not suggest that Jesus = God.
Furthermore, from the context it's obvious that regardless of what Jesus actually said, or didn't say, as we see clearly in the Gospel of John: it didn't matter.
The Sanhedrin was "out to get him", and would have convicted him regardless.
Finally, let's look at the reason why Kevmo claims that "Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the Mighty One" means: Jesus = God.
This passage in Daniel says nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- about Jesus being equal to God.
It does, however, make a political claim that Jesus will rule over "all nations and peoples", a political claim which certainly justified the Sanhedrin's sending Jesus to their political authority: Pontius Pilate.
Do you disagree?
But Kevmo, FRiend, I have never doubted or questioned Ms boop's sanity, nor your insanity.
Unlike you, Ms boop has never insanely yammered "heretic" at me.
As we have reviewed already, titles "Lord" and "God" are also used in the Old Testament as terms of the very highest respect, for a king -- Psalm 45:6, Psalm 82:6.
Jesus himself notes this in John 10:34.
All claims that the Gospel writer John wants us to believe Jesus is God are countered by definitively accepting John 20:31 as fully expressing John's purpose and intention on this question.
Sorry FRiend, but your repeated claims to "historicity" are nothing more than thinly veiled bullying for your orthodox religious beliefs.
That fact is proved by your subsequent unbelievably atrocious behavior.
Serious "historicity" begins with studying the works of serious historians (i.e., Crossan), not apologetics & proof-texts for your religious orthodoxy.
What's there does not prove Jesus = God.
Of course, you are free to believe whatever you wish, but the text itself does not require that.
In fact, you've provided no quotes -- zero, zip nada -- to support any of your ludicrous accusations against yours truly, BroJoeK.
That proves your accusations are 100% false, and Kevmo is 100% lunatic.
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.