BJK response: "God Damned Heretic" is a pretty strong opinion, one reminding us that Jesus was called a God Damned Blasphemer before being murdered, and that countless other Christians were called "God Damned Heretics" before they too were murdered (i.e., burned at the stake) in the name of orthodox Christianity.
boatbums: "You apparently believe that doctrine doesn't or shouldn't matter to a Christian and you would be absolutely WRONG to think that."
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.
boatbums: "All you have to do is look at how God dealt with it to know that it IS highly critical to following God in a correct way and according to how HE wants us to.
This isn't to say that we shouldn't respect others and to treat others as we would want to be treated, but when someone promotes ideas that fly in the face of the truth, they SHOULD be corrected."
"Treat others as we would want to be treated?" -- now there's a novel idea.
Wherever did it come from? </sarc>
As for "Corrected", sure.
"Debated", sure.
Labeled as a "God Damned Heretic", no, not on Free Republic's News/Activism forum.
boatbums quoting 2 John 1:9: "Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God;"
And yet, in no post on this thread or any other have I denied even a word of what the New Testament clearly says about Jesus.
boatbums: "Nobody says you should be murdered - THAT is being hysterical."
Sorry, FRiend boatbums, but the "hysteria" is all on your team, and you should be helping to bring these lunatics under control.
A reckless charge of "God Damned Heresy" is at least the religious equivalent of a racist's "N-word".
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), and with the obvious intention to bring down God's everlasting rebuke of those who take a different view of certain biblical texts.
I am here to request that such people be treated with forbearance and respect, especially in Free Republic's News/Activism forum.
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.
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.
Have you forgotten Colossians 2:9? You have denied this passage emphatically states Jesus is fully God (Deity). You failed miserably in attempting to equate the passage with Eph. 3:19. Furthermore, in the attempt you have revealed yourself as an Arian, and hiding behind that mask is a Jehovah Witness.