The Ravenous Wolves of FreeRepublic

Today | Douglaskc

[Colofornian]

I did quite a bit of research on this church and Armstrong a few years ago. I knew it was a cult as my neighbor got sucked in, got pregnant by a follower, left her husband and two children to be part of this group. Both she and her married BF left everything behind and never looked back. Long sordid story. I had never heard of Armstong until then. I did not know the author of this thread was a follower so thank you for the information.

So, Douglas, tell us, since you're our "thread expert" at FR on "tree analysis": Is Bonfire's (now former) neighbor a "good tree" or a "bad tree?"

[Kevmo]

Ok, let's get a working definition. Where is it defined in the bible? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy: The term heresy is from Greek αἵρεσις originally meant "choice" or "thing chosen",[4] but it came to mean the "party or school of a man's choice"[5] and also referred to that process whereby a young person would examine various philosophies to determine how to live. The word "heresy" is usually used within a Christian, Jewish, or Islamic context, and implies slightly different meanings in each. The founder or leader of a heretical movement is called a heresiarch, while individuals who espouse heresy or commit heresy are known as heretics. Heresiology is the study of 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.

[re_nortex]

From the cultist H.W. Armstrong's "1975 in Prophesy", illustrated by Basil Wolverton. It's notable that ol' Basil was also featured in MAD magagine.

[Kevmo]

from dictionary.com

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.
Origin:
1175–1225; Middle English heresie < Old French eresie < Latin haeresis school of thought, sect < Greek haíresis, literally, act of choosing, derivative of haireîn to choose

[metmom]

“That said, please provide these posts with “vulgarities, profanity, personal attacks” that you claim are being made” Evidently you don’t read what is right in front of your eyes as in post# 128. That being the case I’ll provide you with nothing.

You do know that "vulgarities, profanity, personal attacks" are summarily deleted by the RM. They simply are not permitted nor permitted to stand on the RF. When someone tried, the RM is all over it, as should be.

So just what vulgarities, profanity, personal attacks are you referring to?

[metmom]

Openly judging fellow FREEPERs' inward motives & emotions (as "bitter and angry") is DEEPLY problematic from several angles:

It's openly projecting is what it is.

And evidenced by the tone of the rant posted as a thread.

[reaganaut]

//Like theologians? I think there are Freepers who have theology degrees//

*raises hand*

[Gene Eric]

>> accused Christians of “arrogance” for asserting that Mormonism is a false religion.

A point you can’t sustain without misrepresenting #116.

The brotherhood of Christianity is not yours to define nor limit regardless of what you think you know and understand.

[Kevmo]

Catholic Word of the Day: HERESY, 09-21-13
CatholicReference.net ^ | 09-21-13 | Fr. John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3069554/posts
Posted on Sat 21 Sep 2013 09:58:52 AM PDT by Salvation

[count-your-change]

When I’ve seen the word heresy used here it seems to be defined by the poster so it’s not relativism on my part at all just a lack of clarity on how to identify it.

[Kevmo]

The brotherhood of Christianity is not yours to define nor limit regardless of what you think you know and understand.
***Let’s hear your definition. If no one is allowed to define the terms, then where do you even begin the debate? How about where CS Lewis set to define it in his book “Mere Christianity”?

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

“A point you can’t sustain without misrepresenting #116.”

---

And yet you turn around and write, immediately after:

“The brotherhood of Christianity is not yours to define nor limit regardless of what you think you know and understand.”

---

IOW, it’s ‘arrogance’ to condemn Mormonism or other anti-Trinitarian religious groups as cults, even though all of holy scripture and 2,000 years of Christianity back me up. You’re also appealing to a relativist view of the facts, since I cannot define anything based on those facts since it is impossible to “know and understand” anything.

If you do not “know and understand” these things, what makes you think everybody has that problem?

If this isn’t what you mean, then what do you mean? Is Mormonism a false religion? Is Athanasius incorrect to say that all Christians confess the trinity? Is Paul correct to declare that anyone who teaches a different Gospel than his is accursed?

These silly little games we play with the relativists are obnoxious. We play them EVERY TIME the LDS or other weird groups pop up.

[servo1969]

Servo1969, here.

I have glanced over this thread and believe I am totally out of my depth here.
But since a post of mine has been quoted I felt I should at least say hello.

So...

Hello!

[Kevmo]

my Catholicism
***Then you no doubt would proceed from the catholic definition of the word heresy.

Catholic Word of the Day: HERESY, 09-21-13
CatholicReference.net ^ | 09-21-13 | Fr. John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3069554/posts
Posted on Sat 21 Sep 2013 09:58:52 AM PDT by Salvation

[Colofornian]

From near the end of Douglas' vanity:

...” we should examine ourselves and our attitudes toward them and others. To pray that God gives us the wisdom, kindness and gentleness to deal with those...”

Well, since Douglas advocates that we “examine ourselves and our attitudes” and to seek “kindness and gentleness” as representative of our FR expressions, let's begin by inventorying this article for such kind & gentle attitudes modeled for us within this vanity, shall we?

* Pegged as “Ravenous wolves”: DouglasKC: ”These ravenous wolves exist in life. And they exist here in the religious forum of FreeRepublic.”
* Model of “civility” re: how to describe those you disagree with on the Religion Forum here: DouglasKC: “Really all the wolves can do is sit just outside the flock, snarling, biting and snapping at us.”
(Taking rapid notations here on “cleared” “civil” descriptors for future FR usage! Thanks, Doug!)
* Extended “workshop” notes on “Civility 101”: How to not only reference your fellow FREEPERs as “Animalistic,” but be rather descriptive about it!: DouglasKC: ”They behave like animals as all Christians did before becoming Christians.”
* And: ”He will show them that they are only pretending to be sheep and they will realize their animal nature and be ashamed. And then Christ will show them HOW to become sheep.
* And: ”They can't address others with whom they disagree without snarling, spitting and insulting. They bare their teeth and pretend that their animal nature is...”
(Hmmm...and all along I thought sheep were animals, too...interesting...learn something new here all the time!)

Internal motive-judging: DouglasKC: ”Really all the wolves can do is sit just outside the flock, snarling, biting and snapping at us. And maybe that's why they're bitter and angry. They realize that they're not real sheep. They envy that the sheep have real faith in their shepherd ”
* And: ”The purpose isn't to defend their own faith which often is hidden or not evident. The purpose is to satisfy their hunger for division, acrimony and blood.”
(Aside from somehow arriving at being an “expert” on the “purposes” of FREEPERs' internal motivations & mission-mindedness, See post #173 for How to “Disqualify That Opinion” per the arguments of liberals by accusing others of sounding “angry”)

* Openly Judged Before ALL: DouglasKC: ”These impostors? These fake Christians?”
* And: ”They realize that they're not real sheep.”

(Well, never mind Jesus having to sort out the sheep and goats as per Matthew 25 future prophesy about that...it appears Douglas went ahead & got 'er done!)

* Behavior Judged: DouglasKC: ”...their rude, crude and unChristian behavior”

(Oh, you mean like NONE of the above, right?)

[Colofornian]

(Hey...! And thanks for posting that thread!)

[Kevmo]

You’re also appealing to a relativist view of the facts, since I cannot define anything based on those facts since it is impossible to “know and understand” anything.
***Upthread he appeals to his own catholicism, so he would eventually get narrowed down to a ‘mere’ definition.

Is Mormonism a false religion?
***Yes. It is a heretical cult that denies Jesus was God Himself.

Is Athanasius incorrect to say that all Christians confess the trinity?
***Probably not.

Is Paul correct to declare that anyone who teaches a different Gospel than his is accursed?
***Paul is correct. No doubt such relativists would accuse Paul of arrogance or somesuch thing, and in the same wide swath they accuse Christ of not being Christlike when He condemns false teachers as ‘sons of satan’.

These silly little games we play with the relativists are obnoxious. We play them EVERY TIME the LDS or other weird groups pop up.
***They desire to be inclusive, but Christ did not have such a desire and so they’re being antichristian in that regard. So, let’s sit down and define the terms. Open up a trinitarian caucus thread that says “this is what we believe and why” and anyone who argues against such a belief is a heretic (if they call themselves christian). For me it’s simple: Jesus is God Himself. Anyone who promotes a different view, whether it’s polytheism, pantheism, Jesus was a demiGod, or anything else, is a heretic. Simple.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Servo's opinion is ALWAYS welcome!

[Vigilanteman]

Your post #166 sums it up pretty well. I do not, however, propose to understand the motives of the most vile and bigoted of these posters any more than I would propose to understand the protein content of a pile of dog droppings laying on the ground.

I would simply walk around the dog pile or, if I felt charitable and was armed with a trowel and plastic bag, scoop it up and properly dispose of it. That's about all we can do.

The incivility of these vile elements does nothing for the cause of FreeRepublic, Christianity or anything positive. It merely fouls the environment for all.

Their lame excuses about challenging what they consider heresies is merely that-- lame excuses for aberrant behavior. One can disagree without being disagreeable.

One need only look at the example of Jesus Christ himself both toward the Gentile woman and to the Samaritans, then considered a cult by the mainstream Judaism of his day . . . and to the self-important (and often self-appointed) leaders of the established religious hierarchy of his day.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Amen!