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.
That's a very long sentence, but it seems to say you think I want Kevmo to take back his accusation of "God Damned Heretic", right?
No, I don't expect Kevmo to ever "take back" his words.
What I do hope for is simple acknowledgement from people like yourself that those words are inappropriate, especially here in a News/Activism thread.
boatbums: "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?"
FRiend, we are speaking here of orthodox versus un-orthodox religious beliefs.
Calling people of certain beliefs "un-orthodox" is equivalent to calling some dark-skinned individuals "African American" -- it is in no way hateful or murderous.
Calling un-orthodox people "God Damned Heretics" is equivalent to calling some dark-skinned people the "N-word."
In both terms there is historical hatred and even murderousness manifested.
So, they are inappropriate, especially on a Free Republic News/Activism thread.
boatbums: "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."
Terms like "orthodox" and "un-orthodox" are perfectly acceptable in any discussion.
Historically the accusation of "heresy" like "blasphemy" in Jesus time, was a threat of murder.
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.
boatbums: "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?"
By definition of the word "heresy", those professing different religions are unbelievers, not "heretics".
My request for forbearance and respect applies specifically to religious views of our Founders, and by extension, those we today call "restorationists".
These beliefs can be summarized with the phrase: Divinity of Christ, Unity of God.
My reasons should be obvious: if we reject our Founders' religious perspectives, then we are at least part-way to rejecting the Constitution they produced.
So I defend their religious beliefs in order to protect their constitution.
Is that not clear and obvious?
So your hypothetical question, involving somebody of a different religion defending our Founders' Constitution based on their different religion, well... it makes no sense.
boatbums: "Can anything qualify as heresy in your book?"
"Heresy" is simply a nasty way of saying "un-orthodox".
Compare: the "N-word" versus "African American".
Broadly speaking distinctions between "orthodox" and "un-orthodox" are well known.
People who today call themselves "restorationists" are clearly un-orthodox.
Likewise, many of our own Founders were "un-orthodox" in their religious views.
boatbums: "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."
First, I'm here trying to defend our Founders' religious beliefs, along with those we now call "restorationists", all of which I more-or-less equate to my own.
Of course, I speak for nobody and no denomination except myself.
But I think that all of those people would tell you pretty much the same as I do, which is: whatever the New Testament says clearly, unequivocally about Jesus I accept as "gospel".
I don't necessarily reject your Trinitarian theology as right-for-you, but it seems to me more than what the NT actually says, and since God is utterly impossible for humans to define -- beyond His self-definition as "I AM" -- the trinity seems both unnecessary and unwarranted.
In short: let the New Testament be sufficient unto itself, without imposing later theology on it.
Yes, I agree that is "un-orthodox", but how it could possibly qualify as, or deserve the name, "God Damned Heresy" escapes me.
Yes, still waiting as well.