Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
“Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22).
“And the fifth angel sounded the trumpet, and I saw a star fall from heaven upon the earth, and there was given to him the key of the bottomless pit." (Rev. 9:1)
In his Concise Commentary Matthew Henry identifies falling stars as tepid, indecisive, weak or apostate clergy who,
"Having ceased to be a minister of Christ, he who is represented by this star becomes the minister of the devil; and lets loose the powers of hell against the churches of Christ."
John identifies antichrists, in this case clergy who serve the devil rather than Christ, sequentially. First, like Bultmann, Teilhard de Chardin, Robert Funk, Paul Tillich, and John Shelby Spong, they specifically deny the living, personal Holy Trinity in favor of Gnostic pagan, immanent or Eastern pantheist conceptions. Though God the Father Almighty in three Persons upholds the souls of men and maintains life and creation, His substance is not within nature (space-time dimension) as pantheism maintains, but outside of it. Sinful men live within nature and are burdened by time and mortality; God is not.
Second, the specific denial of the Father logically negates Jesus the Christ, the Word who was in the beginning (John 1), was with God, and is God from the creation of all things (1 John 1). In a pre-incarnate theophany, Jesus is the Angel who spoke “mouth to mouth” to Moses (Num. 12:6-9; John 9:20) and at sundry times and in many ways “spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all…” (Hebrews 1:1) Jesus the Christ is the incarnate Son of God who is the life and light of men, who by His shed blood on the Cross died for the remission of all sins and bestowed the privilege of adoption on all who put their faith in Him.
Therefore, to deny the Holy Father is to logically deny the deity of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, hence,
“…every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist . . . and even now already is it in the world” (1 John 4:3).
According to Peter (2 Peter 2:1), falling stars will work among the faithful, teaching damnable heresies that deny the Lord, cause the fall of men into unbelief, and bring destruction upon themselves:
“The natural parents of modern unbelief turn out to have been the guardians of belief.” Many thinking people came at last “to realize that it was religion, not science or social change that gave birth to unbelief. Having made God more and more like man---intellectually, morally, emotionally---the shapers of religion made it feasible to abandon God, to believe simply in man.” (James Turner of the University of Michigan in “American Babylon,” Richard John Neuhaus, p. 95)
Falling Stars and Damnable Heresy
Almost thirty years ago, two well-respected social science scholars, William Sims Bainbridge and Rodney Stark found themselves alarmed by what they saw as a rising tide of irrationalism, superstition and occultism---channeling cults, spirit familiars, necromancers, Wiccans, Satanists, Luciferians, goddess worshippers, 'gay' shamans, Hermetic magicians and other occult madness at every level of society, particularly within the most influential--- Hollywood, academia and the highest corridors of political power.
Like many scientists, they were equally concerned by Christian opposition to naturalistic evolution. As is common in the science community, they assumed the cause of these social pathologies was somehow due to fundamentalism, their term for authentic Christian theism as opposed to liberalized Christianity. Yet to their credit, the research they undertook to discover the cause was conducted both scientifically and with great integrity. What they found was so startling it caused them to re-evaluate their attitude toward authentic Christian theism. Their findings led them to say:
"It would be a mistake to conclude that fundamentalists oppose all science (when in reality they but oppose) a single theory (that) directly contradicts the bible. But it would be an equally great mistake to conclude that religious liberals and the irreligious possess superior minds of great rationality, to see them as modern personalities who have no need of the supernatural or any propensity to believe unscientific superstitions. On the contrary...they are much more likely to accept the new superstitions. It is the fundamentalists who appear most virtuous according to scientific standards when we examine the cults and pseudo-sciences proliferating in our society today." ("Superstitions, Old and New," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. IV, No. 4; summer, 1980)
In more detail they observed that authentic ‘born again’ Christians are far less likely to accept cults and pseudoscientific beliefs while the irreligious and liberalized Christians (i.e., progressive Catholics, Protestant emergent, NAR, word faith, prosperity gospel) are open to unscientific notions. In fact, these two groups are most disposed toward occultism.
As Bainbridge and Stark admitted, evolution directly contradicts the Bible, beginning with the Genesis account of creation ex nihilo. This means that evolution is the antithesis of the Genesis account. For this reason, discerning Christians refuse to submit to the evolutionary thinking that has swept Western and American society. Nor do they accept the evolutionary theism brought into the whole body of the Church by weak, tepid, indecisive, or apostate clergy.
Over eighty years ago, Rev. C. Leopold Clarke wrote that priests who embrace evolution (evolutionary theists) are apostates from the ‘Truth as it is in Jesus.’ (1 John2:2) Rev. Clarke, a lecturer at a London Bible college, discerned that evolution is the antithesis to the Revelation of God in the Deity of Jesus Christ, thus it is the greatest and most active agent of moral and spiritual disintegration:
“It is a battering-ram of unbelief---a sapping and mining operation that intends to blow Religion sky-high. The one thing which the human mind demands in its conception of God, is that, being Almighty, He works sovereignly and miraculously---and this is the thing with which Evolution dispenses….Already a tremendous effect, on a wide scale has been produced by the impact of this teaching---an effect which can only be likened to the…collapse of foundations…” (Evolution and the Break-Up of Christendom, Philip Bell, creation.com, Nov. 27, 2012)
The faith of the Christian Church and of the average Christian has had, and still has, its foundation as much in the literal and historic meaning of Genesis, the book of beginnings revealed ‘mouth to mouth’ by the Angel to Moses, as in that of the person and deity of Jesus Christ. But how horrible a travesty of the sacred office of the Christian Ministry to see church leaders more eager to be abreast of the times, than earnestly contending for the Faith once delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3). It is high time, said Rev. Clarke, that the Church,
“…. separated herself from the humiliating entanglement attending her desire to be thought up to date…What, after all, have custodians of Divine Revelation to do making terms with speculative Biology, which has….no message of comfort or help to the soul?” (ibid)
The primary tactic employed by priests eager to accommodate themselves and the Church to modern science and evolutionary thinking is predictable. It is the argument that evolution is entirely compatible with the Bible when we see Genesis, especially the first three chapters, in a non-literal, non-historical context. This is the argument embraced and advanced by mega-church pastor Timothy J. Keller.
With a position paper Keller published with the theistic evolutionary organization Bio Logos he joined the ranks of falling stars (Catholic and Protestant priests) stretching back to the Renaissance. Their slippery-slide into apostasy began when they gave into the temptation to embrace a non-literal, non-historical view of Genesis. (A response to Timothy Keller’s ‘Creation, Evolution and Christian Laypeople,” Lita Cosner, Sept. 9, 2010, creation.com)
This is not a heresy unique to modern times. The early Church Fathers dealt with this damnable heresy as well, counting it among the heretical tendencies of the Origenists. Fourth-century Fathers such as John Chrysostom, Basil the Great and Ephraim the Syrian, all of whom wrote commentaries on Genesis, specifically warned against treating Genesis as an unhistorical myth or allegory. John Chrysostom strongly warned against paying heed to these heretics,
“…let us stop up our hearing against them, and let us believe the Divine Scripture, and following what is written in it, let us strive to preserve in our souls sound dogmas.” (Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, Fr. Seraphim Rose, p. 31)
As St. Cyril of Alexandria wrote, higher theological, spiritual meaning is founded upon humble, simple faith in the literal and historic meaning of Genesis and one cannot apprehend rightly the Scriptures without believing in the historical reality of the events and people they describe. (ibid, Seraphim Rose, p. 40)
In the integral worldview teachings of the Fathers, neither the literal nor historical meaning of the Revelations of the pre-incarnate Jesus, the Angel who spoke to Moses, can be regarded as expendable. There are at least four critically important reasons why. First, to reduce the Revelation of God to allegory and myth is to contradict and usurp the authority of God, ultimately deny the deity of Jesus Christ; twist, distort, add to and subtract from the entire Bible and finally, to imperil the salvation of believers.
Scenarios commonly proposed by modern Origenists posit a cleverly disguised pantheist/immanent nature deity subject to the space-time dimension and forces of evolution. But as noted previously, it is sinful man who carries the burden of time, not God. This is a crucial point, for when evolutionary theists add millions and billions of zeros (time) to God they have transferred their own limitations onto Him. They have ‘limited’ God and made Him over in their own image. This is not only idolatrous but satanic.
Additionally, evolution inverts creation. In place of God’s good creation from which men fell there is an evolutionary escalator starting at the bottom with matter, then progressing upward toward life, then up and through the life and death of millions of evolved creatures that preceded humans by millions of years until at long last an apish humanoid emerges into which a deity that is always in a state of becoming (evolving) places a soul.
Evolution amputates the entire historical precedent from the Gospel and makes Jesus Christ unnecessary as the atheist Frank Zindler enthusiastically points out:
“The most devastating thing that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve, there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus…into the ranks of the unemployed. I think evolution absolutely is the death knell of Christianity.” (“Atheism vs. Christianity,” 1996, Lita Cosner, creation.com, June 13, 2013)
None of this was lost on Darwin’s bulldog, Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1985). Huxley was thoroughly familiar with the Bible, thus he understood that if Genesis is not the authoritative Word of God, is not historical and literal despite its’ symbolic and poetic elements, then the entirety of Scripture becomes a collection of fairytales resulting in tragic downward spiraling consequences as the Catholic Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation makes clear in part:
“By denying the historical truth of the first chapters of Genesis, theistic evolutionism has fostered a preoccupation with natural causes almost to the exclusion of supernatural ones. By denying the several supernatural creative acts of God in Genesis, and by downplaying the importance of the supernatural activity of Satan, theistic evolutionists slip into a naturalistic mentality which seeks to explain everything in terms of natural causes. Once this mentality takes hold, it is easy for men to regard the concept of spiritual warfare as a holdover from the days of primitive superstition. Diabolical activity is reduced to material or psychological causes. The devil and his demons come to be seen as irrelevant. Soon ‘hell’ joins the devil and his demons in the category of antiquated concepts. And the theistic evolutionist easily makes the fatal mistake of thinking that he has nothing more to fear from the devil and his angels. According to Fr. Gabriele Amorth, the chief exorcist of Rome, there is a tremendous increase in diabolical activity and influence in the formerly Christian world. And yet most of the bishops of Europe no longer believe in the existence of evil spirits….To the Fathers of the Church who believed in the truth of Genesis, this would be incredible. But in view of the almost universal acceptance of theistic evolution, it is hardly surprising.” (The Difference it makes: The Importance of the Traditional Doctrine of Creation, Hugh Owen, kolbecenter.org)
Huxley had ‘zero’ respect for modern Origenists and received enormous pleasure from heaping piles of hot coals and burning contempt upon them, thereby exposing their shallow-reasoning, hypocrisy, timidity, fear of non-acceptance, and unfaithfulness. With sarcasm dripping from his words he quipped,
“I am fairly at a loss to comprehend how any one, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures. The very conception of the Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with Jewish history; the identification of Jesus of Nazareth with that Messiah rests upon the interpretation of passages of the Hebrew Scriptures which have no evidential value unless they possess the historical character assigned to them. If the covenant with Abraham was not made; if circumcision and sacrifices were not ordained by Jahveh; if the “ten words” were not written by God’s hand on the stone tables; if Abraham is more or less a mythical hero, such as Theseus; the story of the Deluge a fiction; that of the Fall a legend; and that of the creation the dream of a seer; if all these definite and detailed narratives of apparently real events have no more value as history than have the stories of the regal period of Rome—what is to be said about the Messianic doctrine, which is so much less clearly enunciated? And what about the authority of the writers of the books of the New Testament, who, on this theory, have not merely accepted flimsy fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands?” (Darwin’s Bulldog---Thomas Huxley, Russell Grigg, creation.com, Oct. 14, 2008)
Pouring more contempt on them he asked,
“When Jesus spoke, as of a matter of fact, that "the Flood came and destroyed them all," did he believe that the Deluge really took place, or not? It seems to me that, as the narrative mentions Noah’s wife, and his sons’ wives, there is good scriptural warranty for the statement that the antediluvians married and were given in marriage; and I should have thought that their eating and drinking might be assumed by the firmest believer in the literal truth of the story. Moreover, I venture to ask what sort of value, as an illustration of God’s methods of dealing with sin, has an account of an event that never happened? If no Flood swept the careless people away, how is the warning of more worth than the cry of “Wolf” when there is no wolf? If Jonah’s three days’ residence in the whale is not an “admitted reality,” how could it “warrant belief” in the “coming resurrection?” … Suppose that a Conservative orator warns his hearers to beware of great political and social changes, lest they end, as in France, in the domination of a Robespierre; what becomes, not only of his argument, but of his veracity, if he, personally, does not believe that Robespierre existed and did the deeds attributed to him?” (ibid)
Concerning Matthew 19:5:
“If divine authority is not here claimed for the twenty-fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis, what is the value of language? And again, I ask, if one may play fast and loose with the story of the Fall as a “type” or “allegory,” what becomes of the foundation of Pauline theology?” (ibid)
And concerning Cor. 15:21-22:
“If Adam may be held to be no more real a personage than Prometheus, and if the story of the Fall is merely an instructive “type,” comparable to the profound Promethean mythus, what value has Paul’s dialectic?” (ibid)
After much thought, C.S. Lewis concluded that evolution is the central, most radical lie at the center of a vast network of lies within which modern Westerners are entangled while Rev. Clarke identifies the central lie as the Gospel of another Spirit. The fiendish aim of this Spirit is to help men lose God, not find Him, and by contradicting the Divine Redeemer, compromising Priests are serving this Spirit and its’ diabolical purposes. To contradict the Divine Redeemer is the very essence of unfaithfulness, and that it should be done while reverence is professed,
“…. is an illustration of the intellectual and moral topsy-turvydom of Modernism…’He whom God hath sent speaketh the Words of God,’ claimed Christ of Himself (John 3:34), and no assumption of error can hold water in the face of that declaration, without blasphemy.” Evolutionary theists are serving the devil, therefore “no considerations of Christian charity, of tolerance, of policy, can exonerate Christian leaders or Churches who fail to condemn and to sever themselves from compromising, cowardly, shilly-shallying priests”---the falling stars who “challenge the Divine Authority of Jesus Christ.” (ibid)
The rebuttals, warnings and counsels of the Fathers against listening to Origenists (and their modern evolutionary counterparts) indicates that the spirit of antichrist operating through modern rationalistic criticism of the Revelation of God is not a heresy unique to our times but was inveighed against by early Church Fathers.
From the scholarly writings of the Eastern Orthodox priest, Fr. Seraphim Rose, to the incisive analysis, rebuttals and warnings of the Catholic Kolbe Center, creation.com, Creation Research Institute, Rev. Clarke, and many other stalwart defenders of the faith once delivered, all are a clear, compelling call to the whole body of the Church to hold fast to the traditional doctrine of creation as it was handed down from the Apostles, for as God spoke and Jesus is the Living Word incarnate, it is incumbent upon the faithful to submit their wills to the Divine Will and Authority of God rather than to the damnable heresy proffered by falling stars eager to embrace naturalistic science and the devil's antithesis--- evolution. But if it seem evil to you to serve the Lord,
“…you have your choice: choose this day that which pleases you, whom you would rather serve….but as for me and my house we will serve the Lord.” Joshua 24:15
I don’t object to however you chose to read it, but I don’t believe my understanding equates to “God Damned Heresy”?
***If this were the only verse in the bible that points to the deity of Jesus, you might possibly have a point. But there are dozens of verses and you need to turn yourself into a heretic pretzel to view them as you do. So, yes, your understanding equates to “God Damned Heresy”.
No gymnastics required at all,
***There’s tons of gymnastics. I posted a pile of evidence to you and your objection was that there was so much that it was like a whole book. Like I said earlier, if this were the only verse in the bible that points to the deity of Jesus, you might possibly have a point. But there are dozens of verses and you need to turn yourself into a heretic pretzel to view them as you do. You are a God damned heretic.
That’s why I’m here defending them.
***You are here defending heretical views because you believe them; you are a heretic yourself.
I don’t believe that difference requires you to label such beliefs as “Damnable Heresy”.
***You are denying that Jesus is God Himself. It is simple heresy.
Since our Founders and millions of “restorationists”
***beautiful euphemism for “heretics”
Christians shared similar beliefs, I’m asking you to treat them with forbearance and respect, in Free Republic News/Activism.
***Jesus properly calls you a ‘viper’ and a ‘son of satan’. No doubt you’d be asking Him to treat your openly damned heresies with “respect and forbearance”. He doesn’t hold that standard and neither should we.
BJK response: “God Damned Heretic” is a pretty strong opinion,
***Jesus has a strong opinion as well, calling you a son of satan.
FRiend, I am here to request that religious views similar to those of our Founders and today’s “restorationists” Christians should be treated with forbearance and respect on Free Republic, especially in News/Activism.
***Jesus properly calls you a ‘viper’ and a ‘son of satan’. No doubt you’d be asking Him to treat your openly damned heresies with “respect and forbearance”. He doesn’t hold that standard and neither should we.
As for “Corrected”, sure. “Debated”, sure. Labeled as a “God Damned Heretic”, no, not on Free Republic’s News/Activism forum.
***Take it up with Jesus, Who labels you a ‘son of satan’.
A reckless charge of “God Damned Heresy” is at least the religious equivalent of a racist’s “N-word”.
***Bowlsheet. The title of the thread itself calls out “Damnable Heresy”. My charge is not reckless. I tried to openly debate you about historicity across several hundred posts before I realized you are simply a heretic.
It is even more offensive (since we are told that some lovers call each other the “N-word”), it’s as historically murderous (compare the number of former slaves murdered in this country to heretics worldwide),
***Jesus himself calls you a ‘son of satan’. No doubt you would place the accusation of “historically murderous” at His feet for saying such a thing.
and with the obvious intention to bring down God’s everlasting rebuke of those who take a different view of certain biblical texts.
***You deserve “ God’s everlasting rebuke” for pushing your heresies.
I am here to request that such people be treated with forbearance and respect, especially in Free Republic’s News/Activism forum.
***Jesus properly calls you a ‘viper’ and a ‘son of satan’. No doubt you’d be asking Him to treat your openly damned heresies with “respect and forbearance”. He doesn’t hold that standard and neither should we.
I’m here to request that people who hold views similar to our Founding Fathers, and “restorationists”
***Euphemism: they’re simply “heretics”
Christians today, be treated with forbearance and respect on Free Republic’s News/Activism forum.
***Jesus properly calls you a ‘viper’ and a ‘son of satan’. No doubt you’d be asking Him to treat your openly damned heresies with “respect and forbearance”. He doesn’t hold that standard and neither should we.
But in fact, you’ve presented no evidence and quoted no words to support your case. The evidence and words you do present support mine.
***Round & round the heretic troll goes. Saying it over and over doesn’t make it any more true; such tactics are not allowed on religion forum threads and that’s why we don’t see you over there. You’re just a heretic.
I, of course, am totally satisfied with your understandings — they work for you, and they are not a problem for me.
***Then take your properly labelled heresies elsewhere.
I don’t reject you, I don’t condemn you, I don’t call you “God Damned Heretics”, I know you are sincere and well intentioned in your Christian beliefs.
***Jesus had strong words for false teachers as yourself, so I follow Him in that. You’re a son of satan. I do not believe you are sincere nor well intentioned in your beliefs that you so strongly desire to have fall under the christian umbrella. But they don’t because they are heretical false teachings and they’re condemned by God.
I am only here to request the same forbearance and respect for those who — as many Founders and “restorationists” — believe(d) differently.
***Jesus properly calls you a ‘viper’ and a ‘son of satan’. No doubt you’d be asking Him to treat your openly damned heresies with “respect and forbearance”. He doesn’t hold that standard and neither should we.
GarySpFc: “You are willing to accept Him as only a man, and that goes to the heart of the problem. When your Jesus speaks he voices an opinion…nothing more. He is simply a philosopher, with empty words.”
FRiend, I’ve said no such things, you are only imagining them. What I actually believe is what I think the New Testament clearly presents: the divinity of Christ (Son of God) and the Unity of God.
***Pantheism. Heresy.
Yes, I “get” that from some theological perspective or other, this might be a problem for some people.
That’s why I don’t ask you to accept my beliefs.
***Jesus properly calls you a ‘viper’ and a ‘son of satan’. No doubt you’d be asking Him to treat your openly damned heresies with “respect and forbearance”. He doesn’t hold that standard and neither should we.
I would not be kindly disposed to someone calling my mother a slut. Likewise, I am not kindly disposed to those with anti-Christ views.
***Well said.
Looks like you’re the last chance to salvage the trap.
YIKES!!!! "Unacceptable ideology???" What is going on here?
The Framers were not "ideologues."
Among other things, the Framers — faced with the weighty challenge of how to make a free government work — banked the fires of zealotry and political millenarianism in favor of latitudinarian faith and a quasi-Augustinian understanding of the two cities. They humbly bowed before the inscrutable mystery of history and the human condition with its suffering and imperfection and accepted watchful waiting for fulfillment of a Providential destiny know only to God — whose "kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36). But in addition to understanding government as necessary coercive restraint on the sinful creature ... they reflected a faith that political practice in perfecting the image of God in every man through just domination was itself a blessed vocation and the calling of free men: It was stewardship in imitation of God's care for His freely created and sustained world, one enabled solely by grace bestowed on individuals and a favored community. They embraced freedom of conscience as quintessential liberty for a citizenry of free men and women, as had John Milton long before who exclaimed in Areopagitica: "Give me liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties." [Which when you come to think of it is pretty silly; one cannot execute liberty of conscience when one is dead. So LIFE must come "first" among the God-granted human liberties.] And, for better or worse, they followed Milton (as well as Roger Williams and John Locke) in heeding his plea "to leave the church to itself" and "not suffer the two powers, the ecclesiastical and the civil, which are so totally distinct, to commit whoredom together." The correlate was religious toleration within limits, as necessary for the existence of a flourishing civil society whose free operations minimized tampering with religious institutions or dogmas. Yet the historically affirmed vocation of a special people under God still could be pursued through active devotion to public good, liberty, and justice solidly grounded in Judeo-Chrisatian transcendentalism. Citizens were at the same time self-consciously pilgrims, aware that this world was not their home. It is this ever-present living tension with the divine Ground above all else, perhaps, that has made the United States so nearly immune politically to the ideological maladies that have characterized much of the modern world, such as fascism and Marxism and, lately, fanatical jihadism.If we are in search of ideologues, I imagine we will find none among the Framers. Their genius was Godly and practical at the same time: They all stood on the same ground of Being; that is to say, on the Creator God and the liberties and commensurate/corresponding duties He imposes on every human person equally, regardless of "station" in life. This was their idea of the public good, the prescription for the flourishing of individuals and society itself, and the fulfillment of divine Justice as much as possible in this world.
Like all of politics, the Founders' solutions were compromises, offensive to utopians and all other flaming idealists. But this may be no detraction from their work, since despite all national vicissitudes, we still strive to keep our republic — under the world's oldest existing Constitution.... — Ellis Sandoz, Give Me Liberty: Studies in Constitutionalism and Philosophy, South Bend: St. Augustine Press, 2013, p. 32 f.
Now it seems to me the problem spirited irish and BroJoeK have been having on this thread is that the two do not stand on the same Ground of Being. What to BJK is a party game, a divertissement, an exercise in word-play is to spirited irish finally a matter of life and death. BJK senses spirited's alarm and passion regarding the cultural destruction and deformation that seems inexorably to be destroying our free society and thinks it's funny. So he has been working overtime to depict spirited as an object of ridicule.
Doesn't seem very "Christian" to me — though BJK occasionally murmurs that he is really a Christian himself.
For my part, I see very clearly the reasons for spirited's alarm. I share her concerns.
The so-called "Cartesian split" is no longer merely a hypothetical tinker-toy for the mind to play with: It has become the main presupposition of a despiritualized, unthinking populace utterly ignorant of human history and culture — theological, philosophical, religious, social — and the judicious common sense experience of living individual persons, then and now.
So of course spirited is worried. BJK, to you I say: Keep on dreaming. One can be a "star" in one's own dream world.
Though I don't see what good that sort of thing does for the maintenance of a free society governed by the Rule of Law, not by the Rule of Men.
Just some thoughts. I wish you both — and all the pingees — a HAPPY, HEALTHY, AND PROSPEROUS NEW YEAR!!!
kerping
Broj: 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. — BJK
BBoop: YIKES!!!! “Unacceptable ideology???” What is going on here? The Framers were not “ideologues.”
***But brojo wasn’t saying framers had unacceptable ideology, he was saying Spirited & Kevmo have unacceptable ideology.
Clearly, the true reason for your outrage - even the psuedo-suppressed version you are attempting to convey - is that, if Kevmo had used any other term to describe those such as you, who declare Christological doctrines contrary to the orthodox established and universally held version, you would probably not be this outspoken over it and wouldn't feel the need to keep demanding everyone agree with you to force Kevmo to take back his accusation of GDH.
You claim to be simply asking for respect and forbearance for yourself and the other 50 million or so you say agree with your view as well as the few Founders whom you presume would as well. Do you think it is possible to be respectful of contrary views and still be able to call heretical views what they are - heresy? Or do you think truth is really relative and there IS no absolute truth? What about the hundreds of millions of Christians who do follow the orthodox view of Christ? Is it that word, heretic, that really gets your goat or is it that you don't think anyone else is entitled to use it against anyone else? Here's a little bit about the word from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy:
According to Titus 3:10 a divisive person should be warned two times before separating from him. The Greek for the phrase "divisive person" became a technical term in the early church for a type of "heretic" who promoted dissension.[6] In contrast correct teaching is called sound not only because it builds up in the faith, but because it protects against the corrupting influence of false teachers.[7]
The use of the word "heresy" was given wide currency by Irenaeus in his tract Contra Haereses (Against Heresies) to describe and discredit his opponents during the early centuries of the Christian community. He described the community's beliefs and doctrines as orthodox (from ὀρθός, orthos "straight" + δόξα, doxa "belief") and the Gnostics' teachings as heretical. He also pointed out the concept of apostolic succession to support his arguments.
It appears to me that your objection is to anyone having a right to call you a heretic and, by extension, any of the Founders who might have held views similar to yours, yet, there is a basis for being able to determine orthodoxy and, by contrast, heresy. Would you be so vocal against this right if a Muslim came onto the forum and decried the same treatment because he states Jesus was NOT the Son of God but only a prophet of God excelled by Mohamed? Could you bring yourself to call that heresy and the one who spoke it a heretic? Or would you insist that his ideas also be given respect and forbearance? Can anything qualify as heresy in your book?
I will not ask Kevmo to retract his statement - as it isn't my business to moderate others here. If the actual Moderator hasn't done so after all this time - and your constant repetition of it - I would guess you probably have to deal with it. As others have also noted, you will also have to deal with Almighty God for the choices you make about what you believe about Jesus Christ. I may have missed it, but I don't recall you actually defining who or what you believe Jesus to be. If, according to you, he is not Almighty God incarnate, then who is he? Is he a created being, like an angel? Please be specific - we like that here.
Good grief! Those “Jesus is not God” guys still going at it? They deny all the scripture proving otherwise at their own peril.
Not only are they still at it on this thread, they’ve started another.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3107566/posts?page=214#214
Reading comprehension is important on Free Republic, don't you know?
The word "FRiend" is a term of respect from a fellow FReeper.
We are, after all, on the same political team, this is a News/Activism thread, and that's what "FRiend" is intended to remind you of.
If you reject such FRiendship, you also reject a large number of fellow FReepers, at which point the difficulty of winning in politics only grows.
GarySpFc: "Secondly, I disagree with almost everything you have written.
That the Founding Fathers were in the main deeply committed Christians, and not Deists or theistic rationalists I have no doubt, after having spent many years studying their lives and collecting their quotes.
That said, it is your views which we find to be anti-Christian, and the Funding Fathers are not on trial here.
***Posts several quotes to prove point*** "
And yet, since my views are quite similar to many Founders, all the condemnations you heap on yours truly, BroJoeK, also apply to them, and all the Christianity you've discovered in Founders' beliefs also applies to me.
That's why your Founding Father quotes confirm what I've been saying here all-along, and also reflect my personal beliefs.
And yet, our Founders -- in your mind -- are faithful Christians, while I -- in your mind -- am a "God Damned Heretic".
So, there seems to me a problem going on inside your mind, dear FRiend.
But I've "spewed" no heresies, merely taken the New Testament to mean what it says about Jesus.
That brings me to religious opinions which are quite similar to many (not all) of our Founders.
So I am here to defend them against the hatred you spew at me.
MHGinTN: "If I believed you were hung up on comprehending Whom Jesus Is, then I would offer the following little essay which I have offered here at FreeRepublic on occasion of such conundrum:
***posts lengthy Trinitarian exegesis*** "
FRiend I have not denied that you offer up a valid understanding, and I don't criticize you for it.
I merely point out that there are other possible understandings, and that both our Founders and today's "restorationists" Christians had/have different views.
What you will not find, in most Founders, is any explicitly Trinitarian language beyond what the New Testament itself says about Jesus.
That's because our Founders' Christianity was influenced to more-or-less degrees by ideas from Enlightenment Age theism/deism, Unitarian and/or Freemasonry.
These are ideas which you find so objectionable in yours truly, BroJoeK, but seem perfectly happy with in our Founders.
I didn't ask Jim Robinson to change his policy, I do ask you to change your heart about people who disagree with your particular religious doctrines.
Those include not just yours truly, BroJoeK, but also our Founders and many "restorationists" Christians today.
GarySpFc: "Secondly, you ask that we treat your false views of Christ with forbearance ad resect.
I treated you with respect, while carefully examining your views.
I came to the conclusion you are indeed a gnostic, and rejecting the deity of Christ."
Should I take it that history is not your strong point?
Historically, Gnostics did not deny the deity of Christ, rather they insisted on it, to the exclusion of his humanity.
Historically, Gnostics were opposed by people who came to be called "Arians" -- those who took a more literal interpretation of the New Testament, and while accepting Christ's divinity, insisted that Jesus was not God Himself.
Both the Gnostics and Arians were condemned to death by Roman Empire authorities -- beginning at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.
Those councils chose a middle ground, which claimed that Jesus was both God and Man, united in a trinity with the Holy Ghost.
Today, after millennia of persecutions, there are virtually no traditional-Gnostics left -- those who said that Jesus was only God, not human.
So whatever "spiritualism" we see today would be better labeled as "neo-Gnostics".
Arianism, however is a different story...
"Arianism" -- the idea that Jesus was something less than God Himself -- has always appealed to many people, including Jews and Muslims.
Among Christians, that was arguably the dominant idea, based on the New Testament, until eradicated by the Roman Empire, beginning in 325 AD.
Then, along with the Protestant Reformation came more anti-Trinitarians, especially amongst the Anabaptists (my ancestors).
Amongst our Founders, very few showed any signs of belief in Trinitarian orthodoxy, so most can be said to be, in effect, Unitarian-Christians.
Today such Arian-Unitarianism goes by the name "restorationists", and includes circa 50 million Christians world-wide.
None of this has anything to do with "Gnosticism".
On this particular thread there has been some speculation as to which of those denominations yours truly, BroJoeK, belongs to -- Mormon? Jehovah's Witnesses?
The answer is: none of the above.
I attend a small rural church, officially Trinitarian, but which seldom if ever dwells on the subject.
We say the non-Trinitarian Apostles Creed, and sermons focus on vital matters like our own sinfulness, and how we can be saved from it, not on the theology of a triune God-head.
GarySpFc: "I would not be kindly disposed to someone calling my mother a slut.
Likewise, I am not kindly disposed to those with anti-Christ views."
I have neither called your mother a "slut" nor expressed a single "anti-Christ view".
I am merely here to request that those who accept the New Testament words on Jesus -- i.e., our Founders, today's "restorationists" -- be treated with forbearance and respect, especially in a Free Republic News/Activism forum.
Why is that too much to ask from GarySpFc?
I respect your translation as a valid understanding for people who wish to see it that way.
But some do not, and historically, that was not the predominant view amongst the earliest Christians.
Many of those Christians saw Jesus as "divine" or "deity" without being God Himself.
It was also arguably not the view of many of our Founders whose Christianity was influenced by Enlightenment Age theism/deism, Unitarian and/or Freemason ideas.
They are the reason I'm here defending such "God Damned Heretics" against spurious accusations.
As previously discussed, that same "fullness" is found in Ephesians 3:19, where it applies to all Christians, without suggesting that all Christians are somehow part of a God-head.
The fact remains that there is no explicitly Trinitarian language in the New Testament, and that trinitarianism is an interpretation, valid certainly, but for some not necessarily the only valid interpretation.
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.