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.
It seems to me that truth is truth no matter where it is spoken. Falsehoods need to be exposed no matter the forum. If heretical beliefs are preached on the streets, in the churches, or in a internet forum they need to be condemned.
>>"Heresy" is simply a nasty way of saying "un-orthodox". Compare: the "N-word" versus "African American".<<
Using Alinsky tactics won’t work on scripture based believers.
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 ...”
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).
“Heresy” is simply a nasty way of saying “un-orthodox”.
Compare: the “N-word” versus “African American”.
***Then accept the label as properly applied to you. Christ Himself called false teachers of His day “sons of satan”, so it’s easier to accept being called a heretic than a satanist.
Broadly speaking distinctions between “orthodox” and “un-orthodox” are well known.
***You acknowledge your beliefs are “un-orthodox”, which is another word for “heresy”.
People who today call themselves “restorationists” are clearly un-orthodox.
***And just as clearly, heretical.