Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
In reviewing the various quotes from the Founders captured thereon, I note that most of the citations mention Jesus Christ specifically. Offhand, maybe three did not. [By my count, Henry Knox, John Hancock, and John Jay.]
It appears that the great revolutionary General Henry Knox might have been a monotheist. It was he who brought the great guns of Fort Ticonderoga to Boston, hauling by ox-drawn sled 60 tons of cannons and other armaments across some 300 miles of ice-covered rivers and snow-draped Berkshire Mountains to the Boston siege camps. As a consequence, the British were forced to withdraw from Boston into safer precincts in Halifax....
But I'd be inclined to say that this amazing military technocrat — an artillery officer by inclination and native genius of that art, as well as a brilliant, savvy military commander who got the job done, and brought his troops safely home under the most adverse conditions — if a monotheist, perhaps was so on Occam's Razor grounds, just as one supposes Sir Isaac Newton was likewise persuaded.
Does this make Henry Knox — or Isaac Newton — a "heretic?"
Guess that goes according to how one defines "heretic"....
Thank you ever so much for posting this valuable link, dear boatbums!
HAPPY NEW YEAR to all my dear friends here gathered!
Duh!
boadbums: "It seems you are unable to separate the views of the founders of America WRT religion versus politics.
That some held religious doctrines that were NOT orthodox, isn't a reason to toss out everything ELSE they believed..."
Please, please don't forget the essential fact here: spirited irish titled her thread, in part: "Damnable Heresies", and Kevmo has determined that my views, similar to those of many Founders, make me a "God Damned Heretic".
Now, it seems to me that should be a matter of grave concern to "the community at large", that both Kevmo and spirited should be sternly scolded for not only intemperate language, but unacceptable ideology.
Has anything like that happened?
Not a hint of it.
Instead, yours truly, BroJoeK, has been roundly scolded by boatbums & others for merely objecting to such insane talk.
Why?
boadbums: "NOBODY is advocating the murder of them or those who believe as some of them might have.
To be honest, I think you are being a little hysterical over it."
But, of course, you're not honest, because, if you were, then you'd have something to say -- here, on this thread -- to Kevmo about his "hysterical" words calling BroJoeK (and by implication, our Founders), a "God Damned Heretic".
And spiritually speaking, what could be more murderous in intent than calling down God's damnation on somebody who disagrees with your religious doctrines?
boadbums: "I repeat, they were not founders of a religion but of a nation and the basic underpinnings through their writings for how a nation can function in the best possible way for all its citizens."
True enough, but I again ask you to please remember: this thread is for the purpose of discussing "Damnable Heresies", and Kevmo has identified yours truly, BroJoeK, (and by implication our Founders) as one of those "God Damned Heretics".
But no, their hysteria is of no concern to boatbums.
Boatbums has nothing to say about their utter freekin insanity -- zero, zip, nada.
Instead boatbums is oh, so very worried about BroJoeK's reminders of how lunatic those people are.
So boatbums wants to be on their side, while still pretending to be half-way sane yourself, don't you?
boadbums: "You ask if I want to take "both sides".
I don't see that there really are two opposing sides.
Kevmo correctly states that God will damn those who do not believe the truth.
Jesus said we would "die in our sins" if we believed not that he was who he claimed to be.
What you call "murderous hatred" is pointless hyperbole - nobody is advocating an inquisition.
Cool your jets."
Ah, but FRiend, they do -- at least here on Free Republic.
Look at the language Kevmo uses not just to me but others who disagree with him.
He clearly wished to drive us off of Free Republic, and if he could get the "powers that be" to support him, he'd zot is in a second, wouldn't he?
In that sense, his intentions are not just spiritually but also physically murderous.
As for who "denies the truth", I'll again remind you that nobody on this particular thread has denied a single word the New Testament says about Jesus.
Yes, I have presented a small-few different interpretations of some words, interpretations which support many of our Founders' religious ideas, plus those of more-or-less 50 million world-wide "restorationists" non-Trinitarian Christians today.
And I have not asked anybody to accept those views, only that they be treated with forbearance & respect on Free Republic -- since nearly all those 50 million "restorationist" Christians should be our natural political allies.
FRiend boatbums, do you not yet grasp what's going on here?
Nobody denies that our Founders were all Christians of one stripe or another.
But for many, and virtually all of the "top tier" Founders, their Christianity was influenced more-or-less by Enlightenment Age deism, Unitarianism and Freemasonry.
This puts them into the same category as yours truly, BroJoeK, and along with around 50 million "restorationist" Christians today makes us all, in Kevmo's words, "God Damned Heretics".
Seems to me Kevmo's is a totally unacceptable point of view, and you, boatbums, should have the courage to stand up and condemn it.
But you don't, do you?
False. I have not "put aside" a single word, verse or book.
Yes, I follow the "restorationists' " understandings, and am well satisfied that these interpretations are closer to the authors' original intent than your "revisionist" trinitarianism.
However, I have never advocated that anybody here believe my particular point of view on this, only that you treat it with forebearance & respect, just as you would treat a close FRiend and hoped-for political ally.
So what exactly is your problem with that?
So you say, but I disagree.
And the proof is right there, staring you in the face in verse 7.
Go ahead, FRiend, read it, and weap.
In verse 6 Jesus has made us to be a kingdom to serve his God and Father.
Verse 7 describes Jesus "coming with the clouds", the reference being Daniel 7:13, where "one like a son of man" approached the "Ancient of Days" and was lead into His presence.
Next, in verse 8 the Lord God, "Alpha and Omega" speaks: clearly the Father Himself.
In verse 9, John himself speaks of the "word of God and the testimony of Jesus."
I understand those to be two separate beings.
This is presented in understandable form here.
FRiend, there are references and modifiers throughout those verses, so I "get" that somebody might wish to understand them differently.
But I don't see why a different understanding necessarily makes one a "God Damned Heretic".
Nothing "dishonest", much less "God Damned Heresy" about it, because there's no "shift".
And the proof is right there to see, in verse 7.
Go ahead: read it, and weep.
Nobody on this thread has denied that George Washington was a Christian -- indeed, he was an official in his home church.
That is beyond dispute.
But what would make Washington -- along with yours truly and modern "restorationist" Christians -- in Kevmo's words, a "God Damned Heretic" is that nothing in that particular prayer, or any other writings of Washington suggests he believed any Trinitarian ideas.
Indeed, Washington's membership in Freemasonry suggests strongly he did not.
I'm here to suggest that Washington's religious ideas should be treated with forbearance and respect here, on Free Republic.
Do you disagree?
BJK: Please, please don’t forget the essential fact here: spirited irish titled her thread, in part: “Damnable Heresies”, and Kevmo has determined that my views, similar to those of many Founders, make me a “God Damned Heretic”.
Now, it seems to me that should be a matter of grave concern to “the community at large”, that both Kevmo and spirited should be sternly scolded for not only intemperate language, but unacceptable ideology.
Spirited: The concern you raise is of grave concern to all human beings who view themselves as “sovereign,” that is, there is no transcendent Authority, no Mind, over their own minds. In other words, “man, but particularly BJK in this instance, is the measure of all things.”
That sinful men would elevate their corrupted reasoning above God was one of the very grave concerns of perceptive thinkers like Richard Weaver.
By the close of WW II, Weaver and countless other classical liberals apprehensively discerned that the Western civilized nations were on the road to breakdown and
totalitarianism.
Suffering “progressive disillusionment,” Weaver perceived that old cultural restraints had failed to control man’s propensity for evil. This led him to ponder the fallacies of modernist ideas-—the ones you champion, BRK-—
that had produced the holocaust of evil visited upon the world from WW I to WW II.
By late 1945, Weaver published his conclusions in his book, “Ideas Have Consequences.” The subject of Weaver’s book was “the dissolution of the West.” Its deterioration was traced by Weaver to the late 14th century when Western man had made an “evil decision.” Enticed by William of Occam’s (d. c. 1349) philosophy of nominalism, Western man abandoned his belief in eternally unchanging transcendent “universals” and thus the position that “there is a source of truth higher than, and independent of, man...”
The consequences of this revolution in ideas were catastrophic, for “The denial of everything transcending experience means inevitably...the denial of truth. With the denial of objective truth there is no escape from the relativism of ‘man is the measure of all things.”
As Weaver feared, things worsened as the downward spiral continued:
God would be conceptually murdered, Heaven shut-down and Nature itself elevated to the supreme reality. The doctrine of original sin was abandoned and replaced by the “goodness of man.” With only the physical world of the senses held to be real, supernatural Christianity declined, rationalism arose, and materialist science and biological evolution became the most prestigious way to study man.
With knowledge limited to the sensory realm (empiricism), man’s spiritual attributes, that is, man’s soul, mind,
conscience, and free will were soon lost in an endless cycle of reductionism and determinism. Man, created in the spiritual likeness of his supernatural Creator would be lost. In his place would stand the soulless human ape, an accidental emergent product of mindless evolutionary forces.
Weaver dubbed this way of thinking the “spoiled-child psychology” of modern man, who had “not been made to see the relationship between reward and effort.”
This orgy of mindlessness is traceable to certain terrible-willed modernists who, no longer wanting to be created in the spiritual likeness of their Creator, had failed to achieve an integrated world picture, a “metaphysical dream,” said Weaver.
Weaver concluded with an ominous warning:
“the closer man stands to ruin, the duller grows his realization (for) the annihilation of spiritual being precedes the destruction of temple walls.” (The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America, George H. Nash, pp. 30-33)
There it is BRK, a portrait of yourself: the spoiled-child psychology of a terrible-willed relativist blind to the fact that the cost of his intellectual arrogance is
annihilation of spiritual being.
But then pride goes before the fall of the narcissist relentlessly pursuing “self-gratification” no matter the cost to others. If erasing the stain of heresy from “self” means destroying the good character of others, then so be it.
Only in this world are you able to get away with your chicanery, manipulation of perception, and endless quibbling over the meaning of heresy. But within minutes of the death of your body, your immortal soul will be met by either a righteous angel or an evil angel sent to escort you into eternity.
With every lie, deception, twisted meaning, attempt at manipulation of perception and transference of your own guilt onto others, you are freely choosing which angel will be waiting for you when your immortal soul departs your dead body. And this is why CS Lewis said hell is a freely made choice.
It is not too late for you to repent, BRK. But don’t wait until it’s too late.
FRiend, the answer to your question is found soon after, in Mark 2:10-12:
Here again we see that Jesus clearly, consistently, openly said he was "Son of God", "Son of Man", Messiah/Christ.
He never explicitly claimed to be God Himself.
I live a life of repentance, in actions & words.
I expect, in due time God will find those acceptable.
I don't believe God intends me to hunt out & condemn "God Damned Heretics".
My job here is more concerned with a new commandment, from John 13:34, Romans 10:12 and several similar.
Look them up, FRiend. They're important.
"boadbums" = boatbums.
Time for coffee...
Like most liars who work for the father of lies, you purposely leave out that to the Jews —to whom Jesus first directed His teaching— the forgiving of sin was a Grace ONLY God could perform. So when Jesus forgave someone on Earth, the Jews received that as proof He was claiming the position which to their minds only God held. Your purposed deceptions expose for whom you are posting so arduously at FR. You are gladly serving the spirit of antichrist.
First, in this exchange Jesus, far from claiming to be God Himself, calls himself "the Son of Man".
And second, one answer to your unfounded accusation is found in Matthew 9:8:
Some translations say "to a man", others say "to men".
Of course, FRiend, if you refuse to believe Matthew on this, then what can yours truly, BroJoeK, say?
IF you were really seeking the truth, you would do a study on the identity of ‘Son of Man’ as explained in the Old Testament. Again, you try to deceive readers by implying the title Son of Man is somehow less than an identity reserved for The Messiah of Israel. You are a liar, through and through.
Wrong, wrong, wrong! Where did you dig up this nonsense? The only Deist was Jefferson, and David Barton's latest book provides evidence against that.
"The Progressives within academia, politics, and the left-leaning media are concerned that religious ideas may receive too much attention or acceptance within the general culture." As William F. Buckley said "...what we're up against, and though the Academy and the judiciary, is a felt disappointment that the American Revolution was not the French Revolution, and a consequent attempt to Jacobinize the Constitution into religion and its influence are wholly vanished from our public life." This attempt to marginalize religion, or even exclude it from the public sphere is an unstated recognition that religious ideology has profound influence on the minds of people, ideas that might run counter to contemporary Progressive elitism." William F. Buckley
This puts them into the same category as yours truly, BroJoeK, and along with around 50 million "restorationist" Christians today makes us all, in Kevmo's words, "God Damned Heretics".
Have you ever heard the word anti-Christ? It means against Christ. The rejection of Christ as God come in the flesh is what you reject. When you reject who He is, then in reality you are rejecting His AUTHORITY.
Seems to me Kevmo's is a totally unacceptable point of view, and you, boatbums, should have the courage to stand up and condemn it.
But you don't, do you?
Who would want to stand by someone opposed to Christ?
Sure verse 7 confirms verse 6:
Psalms 45:6-7 NASB
Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of joy above Your fellows.
The One coming on the clouds is Jesus Christ. No where do we see The Father communicating with John in chapter 1. Thus the linkage of you mentioned in Daniel and we also see in Ezekiel.
Clearly more gymnastics are required to deny “the first and the last” shifts from Jesus Christ to The Father. We see in the following verses two more confirmations Jesus is the first and last, which corresponds again to Isaiah 44 where it is clear Yahweh is the subject.
Here is the context:
Revelation 1:5-18 KJV
And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.
I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength. And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
What makes you think Free Masons all ascribe to the hidden secrets? Perhaps men join it for business and political reasons or the good food and fellowship at the social meetings. Do you really believe GW worshipped Baphomet?
Incorrect. Both references, one by GarySpFc and one by you clearly shows truly God and truly man.
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.