Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
Do you consider Kevmo’s posts here to be normal and acceptable in “open debate”?
***No doubt you would accuse Jesus of not being Christlike when He called false teachers of His day, ‘vipers’ and ‘sons of the devil’. And to hold me & other freepers to an even higher standard is basically a form of hypocrisy. I would expect nothing less from a heretic.
There's no "exposure", only your own false accusations, which you utterly refuse to support with evidence.
FRiend, I don't know what you think you're doing here, but it is getting a bit tiresome.
Don't you have something more important?
There’s no “exposure”, only your own false accusations, which you utterly refuse to support with evidence.
***The exposure is right here on the thread for all to see. You just want me to go fetch it for you because you’re lazy.
FRiend, I don’t know what you think you’re doing here,
***Heretic, I do know what you think you’re doing here, and it is simply evil intentions of trying to deny the deity of Christ. It is heresy. Jesus knew that false teachers like you are sons of the devil, and so do I.
but it is getting a bit tiresome.
***Good. Bring your heresy somewhere else rather than here on Free Republic. Better yet, take to heart that Jesus says you are a son of the devil by being a false teacher and stop doing it, submit to Him rather than twisting scripture and revising history.
Don’t you have something more important?
***It is Christmas time, when we celebrate the birth of Immanuel, which means God With Us. Jesus was God Incarnate, and I appreciate that about Him. So, on Christmas eve I tangle with a heretic who wants to deny that Jesus was God Himself. Seems rather important in the grand scheme of things. Since you’re so tired, perhaps you should quit this thread. Naturally, you could go over to the parallel threads on the religion forum but your trolling behavior will not be allowed. I have noticed that there are several non-trinitarians arguing their positions and, without the trolling abusive crap that you guys push, their arguments are falling very flat. Because in the end, the heresy is worthless.
I considered the immediate quibbling over what I meant by "heresy" an attack. The comment was made in reference to the article. The context and meaning of the term was already established by the article. It was a manufactured diversion.
They are not. But I think we should consider what it says about us if we assume to engage in political activism to influence what Congress does but won't even adopt ourselves the ethics, practices and conventions we're going to demand from them if we want an "original intent" application of the Constitution.
• Do you think that Kevmo and spirited should have something greater than their opinion behind the ideas they express?
I think they should have some sense of the context in which the ideas are expressed and the potential unintended consequences. Is this what we want people to understand political conservativism to be about?
• Or, contrarily, do you believe Kevmo’s and spirited’s ideas so repugnant that you believe the Regime’s power should be used (presumably at your direction) to suppress them?
I think the site made changes to prevent pissing matches over religious differences, and did it for very good reasons. They did that entirely on their own without any direction or even advice from me.
• Is it your opinion that some opinions are simply intolerable, and that your vote should be the deciding opinion decreeing which are?
In my house, yes. This is not my house, nor does it belong to you, kevmo, or spiritedirish.
• Are Kevmo’s and spirited’s opinions more outside the boundary of Society than Phil Robertson’s? NAMBLA? The GLBT?
In what context? Their religious beliefs are closer to Phil Robertson's. Their ideas on what to do about people that don't have the same beliefs they do seems more in line with the militant liberals.
• Does not Joe’s observation more closely approximate a description of Liberals, Planned Parenthood, or either of the Regime’s two political parties than anything else?
I don't know which "observation" you are referring to.
But that's the most important point: there never was such an "exposure", because I never posted what you've endlessly accused me of.
Your seeming "reluctance" to post even one of my "heretical" statements is just a pose.
You well know that such posts are not there, and now you're acting like a crazy-man in order to cover up the fact that, well, you're a crazy-man.
Boy, there's a clever strategy!
"Kevmo": "***Heretic, I do know what you think you’re doing here, and it is simply evil intentions of trying to deny the deity of Christ.
It is heresy.
Jesus knew that false teachers like you are sons of the devil, and so do I."
But I've never denied anything the Bible says about the "deity of Christ", and you can't produce a quote which shows I did.
In fact, my views are well within the "mainstream" of Christian beliefs, and most especially, they closely correspond to our Founding Fathers' religious views.
Which means that all this invective and false accusation you hurl at yours truly, BroJoeK, is also being hurled at our Founding Fathers -- and I think that could be a problem for Free Republic generally.
The question on the table today, Christmas Day, is whether the religious beliefs of our Founding Fathers -- from George Washington to Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison & others -- will their religious beliefs be treated with respect and tolerance by the good people of Free Republic?
Or will they be hounded & howled off of forums and away from Free Republic?
I personally don't think that's what Free Republic's (dare I say this?) founder wants.
"Kevmo": "***So, on Christmas eve I tangle with a heretic who wants to deny that Jesus was God Himself."
But the Bible never directly says that "Jesus was God Himself".
Sure, you are entitled to believe it, but some don't, including many of our Founding Fathers -- deistic Unitarians & Freemasons.
The question is whether Free Republic can find room in its heart, on this Christmans Day, to tolerate such interpretations?
Finally, there's an important point which needs to be made rather strongly, this Christmas Day:
In now several posts, Kevmo suggests that he is doing Christ's work in fighting off "‘vipers’ and ‘sons of the devil’.".
But Jesus used those words against people who denied what the New Testament says about Jesus: Messiah/Christ, Son of God, Son of Man.
Nobody here has done that, and so Kevmo's words are inappropriate.
But more importantly, I put this question on the table to everyone: who reading Kevmo's posts would ever wish to join a congregation full of people like Kevmo?
Wouldn't most people be inclined to flee as soon and as fast as possible?
Wouldn't Kevmo's approach drive people away from Christ, in droves, in millions?
In that sense, is it even possible that Jesus Christ has a greater enemy in this world than Kevmo?
Think about it.
And have a merry Christmas, to all.
Is the important question who would want to join such a congregation, or who would join such a political alliance?
Good man you are Bro joe - and you have the patience of a saint the way you deal with someone bearing false witness upon you. Bless you, best of holiday wishes. I hate it when FReepers turn into liars, we all have something to learn for your reasoned responses.
“Kevmo”: “***So, on Christmas eve I tangle with a heretic who wants to deny that Jesus was God Himself.”
But the Bible never directly says that “Jesus was God Himself”.
***And right there, you are rightfully declared a heretic. you twist history and the bible to conform to your viewpoint. It is simple heresy.
You are so caught up in your religious type of piety and intellect, that you are devoid of commonsense. You don’t know Jesus at all...only a learned Jesus of your mind..not the real one. And it is the darkness that is misinforming your mind about it all.
***Your comment is most likely about to be deleted from the thread it appeared on, because you have the inability to restrain yourself. Such inability has also been demonstrated by brojoke, so I’m responding over here where the religion mod won’t be removing your post. It is a simple demonstration of all the crap that I and others on this thread have been putting up with in the name of your godless and heretical chatter. You heretics are truly despicable.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3104329/posts?page=315#315
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3104329/posts?page=307#307
No you believe what some preacher has brainwshed you to believe.
***Making it personal. No doubt this comment will be deleted soon on the religion forum.
that is your apostate definition. You and others like you who have been badly brainwashed
***I think your post is going to be deleted by the religion moderator. So if you find some way to not “make it personal” you might be able to reformulate it on that other thread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3104329/posts?page=368#368
GarySpFc
“If you deny Jesus Christ’s deity...by definition, you are not Christian”
False...that is your apostate definition. You and others like you who have been badly brainwashed by the apostate church, in no ways define what a Christian is. How dare you.
And by the way, there are indeed souls on this earth whom have little knowledge about the bible, but still have accepted that sweet and forgiving Holy Spirit and treat others with kindness and mercy. That, is the definition of a real Christian...and Jesus said so himself.
368 posted on Wed 25 Dec 2013 09:54:22 AM PST by fabian (” And a new day will dawn for those who stand long, and the forests will echo in laughter”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: tedw
Thanks...it is sad to see many “Christians” cling onto a brainwashing by their leaders..cling on for dear life! Because their egos just will not allow them to admit that they have been snookered! But it was all foretold...apostasy is here and strong.
282 posted on Tue 24 Dec 2013 12:19:46 PM PST by fabian (” And a new day will dawn for those who stand long, and the forests will echo in laughter”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
***It would appear that your trolling, heretical and provocative arguments are about to be removed from the other thread.
Please do not lie about me...
***Where is the lie? The Religion Moderator would be no doubt be very interested.
you know very sell that I have indeed debated openly. You do not control the debate though. If you are going to ask non pertinent question to tbd
***Perhaps you should slow your typing down so we can understand it.
very simple debate and fact that the son is simply that , the son and our savior...then there is no need for me to answer those questions.
***There is plenty of need for you to answer such questions because they relate to the identity of the Most Important Person in History. If you can’t defend your views, then refrain from posting on such threads.
You are the one acting super pious and not mature. Thank you.
***Oh dernblatt. It would appear that your entire post is about to be removed by the Religion Moderator.
The kind of bowlsheet comment that gets deleted on religion threads.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3104329/posts?page=307#307
To: Iscool
No you believe what some preacher has brainwshed you to believe.
307 posted on Tue 24 Dec 2013 07:51:11 PM PST by tedw
And one of the typical tactics/answers used when one can not respond to simple scripture...
You’re completely off the deep end. If you’re gonna accuse a freeper of “bearing false witness” or being a “liar” then at least have the courage to ping him. You’re pretty despicable.
Maybe you should spend some time with brojoke explaining to him how Jesus is not the Messiah. Soon after that, you’ll be accusing him of all the same garbage.
But the Bible never directly says that “Jesus was God Himself”.
***As the thread title suggests, Damnable Heresy. Right in time for Christmas.
I think they should have some sense of the context in which the ideas are expressed
***The context is very simply, what the bible has been saying for 2000 years or so. Jesus was very strong in His condemnation of false teachers of His day, so why is it that you dimnobs think that I should have a higher standard than Jesus?
and the potential unintended consequences. Is this what we want people to understand political conservativism to be about?
***Anyone can look through your posts and after a while, they will realize that you are an anticonservative, antichristian troll. You have no basis for even pretending to talk about what conservatism should be about.
1784
The first settlers in this country were emigrants from England, of the English church, just at a point of time when it was flushed with complete victory over the religious of all other persuasions. Possessed, as they became, of the powers of making, administering, and executing the laws, they shewed equal intolerance in this country with their Presbyterian brethren, who had emigrated to the northern government. The poor Quakers were flying from persecution in England. They cast their eyes on these new countries as asylums of civil and religious freedom; but they found them free only for the reigning sect. Several acts of the Virginia assembly of 1659, 1662, and 1693, had made it penal in parents to refuse to have their children baptized; had prohibited the unlawful assembling of Quakers; had made it penal for any master of a vessel to bring a Quaker into the state; had ordered those already here, and such as should come thereafter, to be imprisoned till they should abjure the country; provided a milder punishment for their first and second return, but death for their third; had inhibited all persons from suffering their meetings in or near their houses, entertaining them individually, or disposing of books which supported their tenets. If no capital execution took place here, as did in New-England, it was not owing to the moderation of the church, or spirit of the legislature, as may be inferred from the law itself; but to historical circumstances which have not been handed down to us. The Anglicans retained full possession of the country about a century. Other opinions began then to creep in, and the great care of the government to support their own church, having begotten an equal degree of indolence in its clergy, two-thirds of the people had become dissenters at the commencement of the present revolution. The laws indeed were still oppressive on them, but the spirit of the one party had subsided into moderation, and of the other had risen to a degree of determination which commanded respect.
The present state of our laws on the subject of religion is this. The convention of May 1776, in their declaration of rights, declared it to be a truth, and a natural right, that the exercise of religion should be free; but when they proceeded to form on that declaration the ordinance of government, instead of taking up every principle declared in the bill of rights, and guarding it by legislative sanction, they passed over that which asserted our religious rights, leaving them as they found them. The same convention, however, when they met as a member of the general assembly in October 1776, repealed all acts of parliament which had rendered criminal the maintaining any opinions in matters of religion, the forbearing to repair to church, and the exercising any mode of worship; and suspended the laws giving salaries to the clergy, which suspension was made perpetual in October 1779. Statutory oppressions in religion being thus wiped away, we remain at present under those only imposed by the common law, or by our own acts of assembly. At the common law, heresy was a capital offence, punishable by burning. Its definition was left to the ecclesiastical judges, before whom the conviction was, till the statute of the 1 El. c. 1. circumscribed it, by declaring, that nothing should be deemed heresy, but what had been so determined by authority of the canonical scriptures, or by one of the four first general councils, or by some other council having for the grounds of their declaration the express and plain words of the scriptures. Heresy, thus circumscribed, being an offence at the common law, our act of assembly of October 1777, c. 17. gives cognizance of it to the general court, by declaring, that the jurisdiction of that court shall be general in all matters at the common law. The execution is by the writ De haeretico comburendo. By our own act of assembly of 1705, c. 30, if a person brought up in the Christian religion denies the being of a God, or the Trinity, or asserts there are more Gods than one, or denies the Christian religion to be true, or the scriptures to be of divine authority, he is punishable on the first offence by incapacity to hold any office or employment ecclesiastical, civil, or military; on the second by disability to sue, to take any gift or legacy, to be guardian, executor, or administrator, and by three years imprisonment, without bail. A father's right to the custody of his own children being founded in law on his right of guardianship, this being taken away, they may of course be severed from him, and put, by the authority of a court, into more orthodox hands. This is a summary view of that religious slavery, under which a people have been willing to remain, who have lavished their lives and fortunes for the establishment of their civil freedom.
The error seems not sufficiently eradicated, that the operations of the mind, as well as the acts of the body, are subject to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. If it be said, his testimony in a court of justice cannot be relied on, reject it then, and be the stigma on him. Constraint may make him worse by making him a hypocrite, but it will never make him a truer man. It may fix him obstinately in his errors, but will not cure them. Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error. Give a loose to them, they will support the true religion, by bringing every false one to their tribunal, to the test of their investigation. They are the natural enemies of error, and of error only. Had not the Roman government permitted free enquiry, Christianity could never have been introduced. Had not free enquiry been indulged, at the aera of the reformation, the corruptions of Christianity could not have been purged away. If it be restrained now, the present corruptions will be protected, and new ones encouraged. Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. Thus in France the emetic was once forbidden as a medicine, and the potatoe as an article of food. Government is just as infallible too when it fixes systems in physics. Galileo was sent to the inquisition for affirming that the earth was a sphere: the government had declared it to be as flat as a trencher, and Galileo was obliged to abjure his error. This error however at length prevailed, the earth became a globe, and Descartes declared it was whirled round its axis by a vortex. The government in which he lived was wise enough to see that this was no question of civil jurisdiction, or we should all have been involved by authority in vortices. In fact, the vortices have been exploded, and the Newtonian principle of gravitation is now more firmly established, on the basis of reason, than it would be were the government to step in, and to make it an article of necessary faith. Reason and experiment have been indulged, and error has fled before them. It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors? Fallible men; men governed by bad passions, by private as well as public reasons. And why subject it to coercion? To produce uniformity. But is uniformity of opinion desireable? No more than of face and stature. Introduce the bed of Procrustes then, and as there is danger that the large men may beat the small, make us all of a size, by lopping the former and stretching the latter. Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a Censor morum over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth. Let us reflect that it is inhabited by a thousand millions of people. That these profess probably a thousand different systems of religion. That ours is but one of that thousand. That if there be but one right, and ours that one, we should wish to see the 999 wandering sects gathered into the fold of truth. But against such a majority we cannot effect this by force. Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these, free enquiry must be indulged; and how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse it ourselves. But every state, says an inquisitor, has established some religion. No two, say I, have established the same. Is this a proof of the infallibility of establishments? Our sister states of Pennsylvania and New York, however, have long subsisted without any establishment at all. The experiment was new and doubtful when they made it. It has answered beyond conception. They flourish infinitely. Religion is well supported; of various kinds, indeed, but all good enough; all sufficient to preserve peace and order: or if a sect arises, whose tenets would subvert morals, good sense has fair play, and reasons and laughs it out of doors, without suffering the state to be troubled with it. They do not hang more malefactors than we do. They are not more disturbed with religious dissensions. On the contrary, their harmony is unparalleled, and can be ascribed to nothing but their unbounded tolerance, because there is no other circumstance in which they differ from every nation on earth. They have made the happy discovery, that the way to silence religious disputes, is to take no notice of them. Let us too give this experiment fair play, and get rid, while we may, of those tyrannical laws. It is true, we are as yet secured against them by the spirit of the times. I doubt whether the people of this country would suffer an execution for heresy, or a three years imprisonment for not comprehending the mysteries of the Trinity. But is the spirit of the people an infallible, a permanent reliance? Is it government? Is this the kind of protection we receive in return for the rights we give up? Besides, the spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence persecutor, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated, that the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.
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.