What is Heresy?

[ScottA]

So, me being an atheist, I'm not capable of doing it then.

Anyone is capable of seeing and calling out error.

But it is true that a non-Christian is not capable of speaking to what they do not believe or understand (any more than someone who has never experienced any number of things--never been kissed, etc.).

 

[St. SteVen]

Thread necromancy---

On an Internet forum, the act of posting in a thread that is already considered dead and/or out of discussion.

Sorry. I was working on my list. - LOL

Matthew 10:8 NIV
Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,[a] drive out demons.
Freely you have received; freely give.

 

[Sabertooth]

The obvious question would be; who determines what is true? Infant baptism would be heresy (that which is untrue) to a Baptist.
I agree with @aspen in post #4. Heresy is subjective.

Is this a segue so you can pitch Universalism here...?

 

[Patrick1966]

Is this a segue so you can pitch Universalism here...?

2 Samuel 14:14
We must all die; we are like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again. But God will not take away life, and he devises means so that the banished one will not remain an outcast.

What does that mean to you?

 

[Patrick1966]

Sorry. I was working on my list. - LOL

Matthew 10:8 NIV
Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,[a] drive out demons.
Freely you have received; freely give.

SteVen, you left out this bedrock of orthodox doctrine.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Thread necromancy---

On an Internet forum, the act of posting in a thread that is already considered dead and/or out of discussion.

Is there a *best before* date on these threads? Do topics ever go "out of discussion"?
This is a great thread topic even if the original is 10 years old...
Newer members have not participated and therefore it is still a worthy subject....NO?

 

[Jay Ross]

Matthew 10:8 NIV
Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,[a] drive out demons.
Freely you have received; freely give.

2 Samuel 14:14
We must all die; we are like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again. But God will not take away life, and he devises means so that the banished one will not remain an outcast.

It seems to me that both of you have no understanding of what death is being spoken of in both passages.

When we sin by ignoring God's statutes, we become a candidate for the Second Death after the GWTRJ, unless we repent of our sins and throw ourselves upon the mercy of God.

In the Matthew 10:8 verse quoted we are to restore a person to life after becoming a candidate for the second death.

In the 2 Samuel 14:14 verse the death that is mentioned at the start of the verse is the second death where people have become a candidate for the second death. The second sentence of this verse quoted above tells us that God will provide the means through His grace to enable the one who is a candidate for the second death to humble himself and repent so that he can live once more before God. God is not the one who decided whether the banished one will repent before he physically dies that responsibility solely rests with the one who is a candidate for the second death.

When a person physically dies, all of his decisions are binding upon him, even in the Lake of Fire.

It is not God who torments the banished one. What torments him is the foolishness of his decision choices.

Shalom

 

[Patrick1966]

When a person physically dies, all of his decisions are binding upon him

Another made-up false doctrine of mainstream Christianity. Show me in the Bible.

 

[Jay Ross]

Another made-up false doctrine of mainstream Christianity. Show me in the Bible.

Luke 16:19-31 tells us that the rich man could not change his circumstances or the circumstances of their choices that his relatives might make before they die.

Patrick, if it is false, then why do you not provide the evidence that this is so.

 

[Mr E]

Is there a *best before* date on these threads? Do topics ever go "out of discussion"?
This is a great thread topic even if the original is 10 years old...
Newer members have not participated and therefore it is still a worthy subject....NO?

It's like this.....

The thread began in 2013. The OP stated that it was a carry over from yet another thread which no one participating now has access to or knowledge of... Secondly-- it's in the non-Christian section of the Forum, but here now we see nothing but further theological posturing of the identical kind currently going on in two other threads on the same topic. Here's a link directing you to them>> What is Heresy?

So... in terms of best before-- It's best to understand context before jumping into someone else's conversation-- it's considered impolite to neglect this and ignore the original dialogue that was the basis of that conversation. Rather than resurrect an old dead thread, it's better to start a new thread on an old topic-- but wait. @St. SteVen had already done just that, making commentary in this one unneccessary. It's better to let sleeping threads rest. It's why there's even an emoji for it, which an Admin posted the first time this ten-year-old thread was awakened a year ago.... but here we go again.

Now we even have @ScottA replying to the OP..... last seen August 16, 2015. His face is still on a milk carton. If seen, start a new thread to welcome him home.

 

[St. SteVen]

.... but here we go again.

Fourteen posts later, it seems to be alive and well. - LOL

I agree with @Aunty Jane
"Newer members have not participated and therefore it is still a worthy subject....NO?"

But... for a more "appropriate" location please visit...

Was Jesus Heretical? - Why did they crucify Him?

Was Jesus Orthodox? (or Baptist?)

Follow-up to the "Is Universalism Orthodox."[?] topic. What is this thing with accusations of unorthodox, heretic, heterodox, pagan, etc. Seems like blatant tribalism to me. Us versus them. When will we ever learn? So, was Jesus orthodox? Or did he operate outside the realm of the orthodoxy of...

www.christianityboard.com

 

[Mr E]

Fourteen posts later, it seems to be alive and well. - LOL

I agree with @Aunty Jane
"Newer members have not participated and therefore it is still a worthy subject....NO?"

But... for a more "appropriate" location please visit...

Was Jesus Heretical? - Why did they crucify Him?

Was Jesus Orthodox? (or Baptist?)

Follow-up to the "Is Universalism Orthodox."[?] topic. What is this thing with accusations of unorthodox, heretic, heterodox, pagan, etc. Seems like blatant tribalism to me. Us versus them. When will we ever learn? So, was Jesus orthodox? Or did he operate outside the realm of the orthodoxy of...

www.christianityboard.com

It's a great topic. And the appropriate thing to do is to start a new thread on it, which you did. To continue the conversation here is way up on the Silly Meter.... but don't let me discourage you. Let's see if Tim TP responds. Meanwhile, let me introduce......

 

[St. SteVen]

Let's see if Tim TP responds.

Does that mean this topic may be wiped by TP? - LOL

 

[Matthias]

...let me introduce......

View attachment 35498

The needle on the Silly Meter has to be off the scale when it comes to discussing someone else’s deity. But especially on a Board where a policy has been put in-place which threatens dire consequences for anyone - even those whose deity is the deity which must never be discussed is discussed by worshippers and non-worshippers of said deity ... without serious repercussions.

 

[St. SteVen]

The needle on the Silly Meter has to be off the scale when it comes to discussing someone else’s deity.

You misspelled dietary. (I think)

But especially on a Board where a policy has been put in-place which threatens dire consequences for anyone - even those whose deity is the deity which must never be discussed is discussed by worshippers and non-worshippers of said deity ... without serious repercussions.

What bush are we beating around here? ???
Or is this SUPPOSED to be silly too?

 

[Mr E]

The needle on the Silly Meter has to be off the scale when it comes to discussing someone else’s deity. But especially on a Board where a policy has been put in-place which threatens dire consequences for anyone - even those whose deity is the deity which must never be discussed is discussed by worshippers and non-worshippers of said deity ... without serious repercussions.

Many of those policies themselves are more than 10 years old and only upheld by zealous Moderators pining for the good old days where certain topics were forbidden, members had to sign on to a certain 'statement of faith' and non-christian posters were told to stand in a corner and posting only when posted to.

The new Owner has been much more open to having actual conversations, dialogue and even debate allowed here.

As an example-- one of the original responses to the original question in this thread links to a policy that no longer exists.

What is Heresy?

From another thread Are you saying you don't believe in the flood because science doesn't agree? Are you saying you believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ because science cant' disprove it? Why believe in the Resurrection of Christ and not the flood? People have in...

www.christianityboard.com

 

[Matthias]

You misspelled dietary. (I think)

I spelled deity correctly. It’s silly how often people who wish to speak about deity misspell it as diety.

What bush are we beating around here? ???
Or is this SUPPOSED to be silly too?

The Board policy bush.

In the history of bad policies, the policy which says the deity of the majority must never be discussed by anyone on this Board and it’s warning that those who fail to comply with the policy will be held accountable and then aren’t.

I think that’s supper silly.

A word to those whose deity is neither mine nor the Messiah’s: I’m no longer interested in discussing your deity with you. Abide by the Board policy and we’ll get along fine.

Most of my time here is spent posting cartoons. Sometimes I think that’s silly, but on a Board where people savagely tear one another apart, it just might not be.

 

[Matthias]

Many of those policies themselves are more than 10 years old and only upheld by zealous Moderators pining for the good old days where certain topics were forbidden, members had to sign on to a certain 'statement of faith' and non-christian posters were told to stand in a corner and posting only when posted to.

The new Owner has been much more open to having actual conversations, dialogue and even debate allowed here.

As an example-- one of the original responses to the original question in this thread links to a policy that no longer exists.

What is Heresy?

From another thread Are you saying you don't believe in the flood because science doesn't agree? Are you saying you believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ because science cant' disprove it? Why believe in the Resurrection of Christ and not the flood? People have in...

www.christianityboard.com

Inconsistency is silly.

 

[Matthias]

Here’s a silly one. I was notified a couple of months ago that a post I made more than six months before the current policy was put in-place was deleted for violating the new policy (okay) and threatening that if I did it again a much more severe action would be taken against me!

Meanwhile, violations of the new policy by others since the new policy was enacted is raging like a wildfire unchecked.

All you can do is laugh at that kind of buffoonery, wait for the zealot to stumble across another old post somewhere that violates the new policy before the new policy existed and flex their weak muscle.

The safe ground on this Board is, ironically, posting silly cartoons and memes until the whip comes down. Now that’s silly!

 

[St. SteVen]

Here’s a silly one. I was notified a couple of months ago that a post I made more than six months before the current policy was put in-place was deleted for violating the new policy (okay) and threatening that if I did it again a much more severe action would be taken against me!

Sounds like ex post facto law.

Ex post facto law
An ex post facto law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law.