Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
What I do hope for is simple acknowledgement from people like yourself that those words are inappropriate, especially here in a News/Activism thread.
***The words are appropriate. You are properly labelled a God Damned Heretic because Jesus was vociferous in His denunciations of false teachers as ‘sons of satan’.
FRiend, we are speaking here of orthodox versus un-orthodox religious beliefs.
***Heretic, here is the Dictionary.com definition of heretic. If the shoe fits, wear it.
her·e·sy
[her-uh-see] Show IPA
noun, plural her·e·sies.
1.
opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, especially of a church or religious system.
2.
the maintaining of such an opinion or doctrine.
3.
Roman Catholic Church . the willful and persistent rejection of any article of faith by a baptized member of the church.
4.
any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs, customs, etc.
In both terms there is historical hatred and even murderousness manifested. So, they are inappropriate, especially on a Free Republic News/Activism thread.
***Did Jesus “manifest murderousness” when He properly condemned false teachers like yourself as ‘sons of satan’? Being called a God damned heretic is milder than being called a satanist. I am properly following Christ’s lead in condemning a heretical false teacher.
Terms like “orthodox” and “un-orthodox” are perfectly acceptable in any discussion.
***You’re just trying to control the discussion and define the terms. By doing so, you prove what Boatbums said: “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 ...”
The condemnation isn’t reserved for “preaching heretical beliefs”, it’s extended to include people who hold them and will not convert
***Ultimately, those who will not convert will end up in Hell; so will those who only just hold the beliefs but don’t teach them.
Even today, terms like “Damnable Heresy” (from spirited irish) and “God Damned Heretic” (from Kevmo) can only speak of a hatred bordering on the same murderousness faced by Jesus and many since.
***Was Jesus Polite to False Teachers?
Matthew 23
Code: BQ62411
Many Christians today are greatly concerned about the rising influences of communism, humanism, secularism, and social injustice. Yet those evils, great as they are, do not together pose the threat to Christianity that false shepherds and pastors do. Throughout the history of redemption, the greatest threat to God’s truth and God’s work has been false prophets and teachers, because they propose to speak in His name. That is why the Lord’s most scathing denunciations were reserved for the false teachers of Israel, who claimed to speak and act for God but were liars.
Yet for some reason, evangelical Christianity is often hesitant to confront false teachers with the seriousness and severity that Jesus and the apostles did, and that the godly prophets before them had done. Today, more than at any time in modern history and perhaps more than at any time in the history of the church, pagan religions and cults are seriously encroaching on societies that for centuries have been nominally Christian. Even within the church, many ideas, teachings, and philosophies that are little more than thinly veiled paganism have become popular and influential. As in ancient Israel, the further God’s people move away from the foundation of His Word, the more false religion flourishes in the world and even in their own midst. At no time have Christians had greater need to be discerning. They need to recognize and respect true godly shepherds who feed them God’s Word and build them up in the faith, and they also must recognize and denounce those who twist and undermine God’s Word, who corrupt the church and who lead lost people still further away from God’s truth and from salvation.
In Matthew 23:13–33 Jesus relentlessly condemned the false spiritual leaders of Israel, in particular the scribes and Pharisees, who then held the dominant power and influence in Judaism. Jesus warned about them in His first sermon, the Sermon on the Mount (see, e.g., 5:20; 7:15), and His last sermon (Matt. 23) consists almost entirely of warnings about them and to them. In this final public message, the Lord wanted to draw the people away from those false leaders and turn them to the true teaching and the godly examples of His apostles, who would become His uniquely commissioned and endowed representatives on earth during the early years of the church. He also gave the apostles themselves a final example of the confrontational stance they would soon find it necessary to take in their proclamation and defense of the gospel.
The unbelieving scribes and Pharisees whom Jesus addressed in the Temple stood alone in their sin and were condemned alone in their guilt for misappropriating and perverting God’s law and for leading Israel into heresy, just as the false prophets among their forefathers had done (vv. 30–32). But they also stood as models of all false spiritual leaders who would come after them. Therefore what Jesus said about them and to them is of much more than historical significance. It is essential instruction for dealing with the false leaders who abound in our own day.
In the first twelve verses of chapter 23, Jesus had declared that the scribes and Pharisees, typical of all false spiritual leaders, were without authority, without integrity, without sympathy, without spirituality, without humility, and therefore without God’s approval or blessing. Now speaking to them directly, He asserts they are under God’s harshest condemnation. In verses 13–33 Jesus pronounces seven curses, or woes, on those wicked leaders.
The scene in the Temple that day had become volatile in the extreme, in some ways more volatile than when Jesus had cast out the merchants and money-changers the day before. At that time Jesus’ anger was vented against what the religious leaders were doing outwardly, and that attack had outraged them (21:16, 23). Now, however, He attacked what they were inwardly, and that infuriated them even more.
In our day of tolerance and eclecticism, the kind of confrontation Jesus had with the scribes and Pharisees seems foreign and uncharitable. A person who speaks too harshly against a false religion or unbiblical teaching or movement is considered unkind, ungracious, and judgmental. Jesus’ indictments in Matthew 23, as well as in other parts of the gospels, are so inconsistent with the idea of Christian love held by some liberal theologians and Bible scholars, for example, that they conclude He could not have spoken them. What Jesus really said, they maintain, was modified and intensified either by the gospel writers or the sources from whom they received their information.
But the nature of Jesus’ condemnation of those corrupt religious leaders is perfectly consistent with the rest of Scripture, both the Old Testament and the New. Not only that, but Jesus’ words in this passage fly from His lips, as someone has said, like claps of thunder and spears of lightning. Out of His mouth on this occasion came the most fearful and dreadful statements that Jesus uttered on earth. They do not give the least impression of being the afterthought of an overzealous writer or copyist.
Matthew 23 is one of the most serious passages in Scripture. Jesus here makes the word hypocrite a synonym for scribe and for Pharisee. He calls them sons of hell, blind guides, fools, robbers, self-indulgent, whitewashed tombs, full of hypocrisy and lawlessness, serpents, vipers, and persecutors and murderers of God’s people. He uttered every syllable with absolute self-control but with devastating intensity.
Yet Jesus was never cold or indifferent, even toward His enemies, and on this occasion His judgment is mingled with sorrow and deep pathos. It is not the Son’s will any more than the Father’s that a single person perish, because it is the gracious divine desire that everyone would come to repentance and salvation (2 Pet. 3:9). At the end of His denunciation, Jesus extended by implication another last invitation for belief, suggesting that He would still gladly gather any unbelievers under His wings as a mother hen gathers her chicks, if only they would be willing (Matt. 23:37).
Available online at: http://www.gty.org/resources/bible-qna/BQ62411
COPYRIGHT ©2014 Grace to You
You may reproduce this Grace to You content for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Grace to You’s Copyright Policy (http://www.gty.org/connect/copyright).
The condemnation isn’t reserved for “preaching heretical beliefs”, it’s extended to include people who hold them and will not convert, or simply will not positively affirm they hold the correct beliefs.
***Already covered.
The Ravenous Wolves of FreeRepublic
Thu 02 Jan 2014 07:12:22 PM PST · 279 of 433
Kevmo to tacticalogic
You already know the answer.
The first line from that other thread...
“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).
It is likely that there is a more severe spiritual penalty to pay for teaching false beliefs rather than simply holding them to yourself. But that isn’t the point of this thread, so if it really tugs at you, open a thread on it.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies
Today such murderous intent is sometimes seen in those who accuse others of being “God Damned Heretics”.
***Jesus said false teachers such as yourself were MURDERERs.
Matthew 23 is one of the most serious passages in Scripture. Jesus here makes the word hypocrite a synonym for scribe and for Pharisee. He calls them sons of hell, blind guides, fools, robbers, self-indulgent, whitewashed tombs, full of hypocrisy and lawlessness, serpents, vipers, and persecutors and MURDERERS of God’s people. He uttered every syllable with absolute self-control but with devastating intensity.
Available online at: http://www.gty.org/resources/bible-qna/BQ62411
I know that's your answer, and I know that you consider any disagreement with you to be heresy.
Yes; I've noticed the Alinsky-style tactics too, CynicalBear — e.g., as directed against spirited irish and Kevmo.
IMHO, Saul Alinsky was one of the greatest intellectual swindlers of all time.
The Amazon entry for Rules for Radicals goes like this:
First published in 1971, Rules for Radicals is Saul Alinsky's impassioned counsel to young radicals on how to effect constructive social change and know “the difference between being a realistic radical and being a rhetorical one.” Written in the midst of radical political developments whose direction Alinsky was one of the first to question [???], this volume exhibits his style at its best. Like Thomas Paine before him, Alinsky was able to combine, both in his person and his writing, the intensity of political engagement with an absolute insistence on rational political discourse and adherence to the American democratic tradition. [???] [emphasis added]Got some great PR going for him right there.
Here is Alinsky's "Dedication" of that book:
“Lest we forget at least an over the shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the very first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”Here is a "radical community organizer," widely considered [by sociocultural zombies and radical progressives] a passionate champion of human social betterment, of "constructive social change." And yet he dedicates his magnum opus to Satan. And then misleads us by saying that Lucifer/Satan — the first radical — "won his own kingdom." Suggesting he had wrested it away from God, taking God's property "for himself," and keeping it.
But Lucifer/Satan did not take God's property, nor could he: That is entirely beyond possibility, even for an archangel. In no way does his Fall diminish God in any respect. Rather, God accommodated Lucifer's desire for "his own kingdom" by creating Hell — which is a "place" that has been entirely abandoned by God.... It has no Light; no Grace; no Love; no Truth; no Justice; no Salvation.
Bottom-line, Alinsky is an anarchist and a nihilist. He wants to take a wrecking ball to the American system, but not so much to raze the ground for some new more perfect development. Alinsky is not a stupid man. He knows that utopian schemes never work. He's not a "builder"; he is simply a wrecker, a perfect example of Satanic spite.
Well, just some thoughts re: a very Great Myth, FWIW.
Dear CynicalBear, you wrote: "It seems to me that truth is truth no matter where it is spoken. Falsehoods need to be exposed no matter the forum."
I so agree!!!
On that point, let me close with an observation from Eric Voegelin:
"The spiritual disorder of our time, the civilizational crisis of which everyone so readily speaks, does not by any means have to be borne as an inevitable fate; [but], on the contrary, everyone possesses the means of overcoming it in his own life.... No one is obliged to take part in the spiritual crisis of a society; on the contrary, everyone is obliged to avoid this folly and live his life in order."Thank you so much for writing!
Isn’t it amazing how understanding what scripture says helps us understand what is happening around us in this world.
Yikes!!! How do I disentangled these statements? There seems to be a "category error" at work here....
BJK does not mention out of what God made "it" happen, but then wonders if God might have somehow "stacked the deck" of a "Beginning" in favor of allowing "'interesting organic chemistry to grow slowly, slowly more complex until it looked like 'primitive life'."
As if he could in logic answer the second question without answering the first one, first.
Anyhoot, IMHO, God is in the Reality business, not the "looks-like-primitive-life" business. If you get my drift.
BJK apparently finds it difficult to believe because he cannot reduce God and His Word to the level of the categories of his own understanding. I am sure he is not alone in this. I regard him (and all fellow sufferers) as a work-in-progress, not as my enemy.... I pray God will bless him (and them).
* * * * * * *
Dear sister in Christ, this has been a most fascinating thread! We began with a presentation of Linda Kimball's impressive research into the historical roots of gnostic systems of thinking, and their relevance for understanding "the modern mind," especially as eventuating in the murderous totalitarian systems of the last century. Then we took various twists and turns along the way, most often into blind alleys involving strawmen; and finally, recently we ended up with a demand from a certain correspondent that we "prove" that the "top-tier" framers were not "heretics."
Which seems a pretty pointless exercise to me....
Anyhoot, dear spirited, I want to thank you for making this important research available here on FR. For I "plow these fields," too. :^)
You might be interested to know that a very great philosopher of history and political science, Eric Voegelin, "plowed these fields," too — devoting his five-volume History of Political Ideas and various volumes falling under The New Science of Politics heading to (among other things) the exploration of gnostic sources and their influence on modern culture.
Near the end of his life, Voegelin had concluded: "The essence of modernity is Gnosticism." Yet gnosticism as an existential/mental habit is ancient.
Essentially, what distinguishes gnosticism from other modes of human thought is its rejection of the world of normal human experience personal and social, down the ages — which sees the divine Creation mainly as a blessing of God, conferred upon mankind. Rather, evidently they favor a "doctrine" of a bungled world, because God Himself is a bungler [so just "get rid of him"]. And unless some true HUMAN genius comes along to fix the problem of imperfection in this world, it will be convulsed in suffering, darkness, chaos, Evil....
Hey, it makes no sense; but there are people walking around today who believe this sort of thing is "true."
I thought you might be interested to know that Voegelin eventually argued that Hermeticism was the "optimist" expression of Stoicism, and that Gnosticism was Stoicism's corresponding "pessimist" face....
Anyhoot, I am very much cheered to hear the following from my great, late teacher:
The order of being itself [ever remains] utterly unchanged. Even if Hegel, Marx, and Nietzsche thoroughly murder God and explain him away as dead, divine beings remains eternal and man must still get on with living his life sealed by his creatureliness and by death.From which, my takeaway is: Second Realities in time always must ultimately crash and burn on the rocky shores of First Reality, the Creation itself — which expresses God's very order of Being.
My My what a poetic way of putting magnanimous realities..
The rocky shoals of first reality are littered with shipwrecks of second realities.. and to those that survived marooned..
They immediately started building new vessels to escape the joys of first reality..
Humans be strange creatures... that are very entertaining to watch..
Not all have the expertise to study them as you do...
I say this, once being a human.... Yes, I admit it..
Before my evolution from worm to butterfly..
Must take re-birth to make you happy and fulfilled in first reality..
This story would make a damned good novel...
But the only ones to read it would be sailors on vessels of second realities.. while moored...
I love your prose...
No Reply. Eh?
Interesting. No reply yet.......
These “Second Realities” seem to be very individual things, but I’ve noticed they always have two things in common. They are always fatally flawed with respect to “First Reality”, and they always belong to someone else.
“The order of being itself [ever remains] utterly unchanged. Even if Hegel, Marx, and Nietzsche thoroughly murder God and explain him away as dead, divine beings remains eternal and man must still get on with living his life sealed by his creatureliness and by death.”
Spirited: In one ‘fell swoop’ so to speak, Voegelin annihilates Darwinian assumptions (chemicals to life to amoeba, etc), Eastern pantheist and New Age reincarnation and evolution of being concepts eventuating in ghosts, Transcended Masters and a whole host of “highly evolved” being conceptions.
Very observant... and are prone to superlatives..
That’s a consequence of having what is an admittedly limited sample to work with.
Check your pm.
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.