Coulter: Jews will be “perfected” when they become Christians

posted at 2:53 pm on October 11, 2007 by Allahpundit

I’m only linking this because we haven’t had a good Coulter throwdown in the comments lately, and plus it gives me a chance to link Omri Ceren’s eloquent diagnosis of the left’s bed-wetting over it. Breaking news: Christians believe all people ideally should be Christians.

COULTER: Well, OK, take the Republican National Convention. People were happy. They’re Christian. They’re tolerant. They defend America, they —

DEUTSCH: Christian — so we should be Christian? It would be better if we were all Christian?

COULTER: Yes.

DEUTSCH: We should all be Christian?

COULTER: Yes. Would you like to come to church with me, Donny?…

COULTER: No, we think — we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say.

DEUTSCH: Wow, you didn’t really say that, did you?

COULTER: Yes. That is what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws. We know we’re all sinners —

DEUTSCH: In my old days, I would have argued — when you say something absurd like that, there’s no —

COULTER: What’s absurd?

DEUTSCH: Jews are going to be perfected. I’m going to go off and try to perfect myself —

COULTER: Well, that’s what the New Testament says.

You all would know better than I but that is, basically, what the New Testament says, isn’t it? She’s not talking about forcible conversion; she’s saying Christians believe the Judeo-Christian tradition is The Way and those who don’t follow the path all the way to the end aren’t quite where they need to be. (There are even Catholic prayers to this effect.) The word “perfected” is dicey insofar as it implies Christians’ superiority to Jews but she’s only referring to doctrinal superiority as far as I can see, which isn’t exactly a bombshell assertion coming from a Christian. Does the left really mean to suggest she thinks it’s Jews, uniquely, who need to be perfected but Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc. are all already co-equal with Christians spiritually? I take it she’d say we’re not even on the path at all and thus, unlike Jews, for the moment entirely unperfectable.

Well, no matter. The left’s tolerance brigades see their opportunity and they’re going to take it.

Exit question assurance to our Jewish readers: We atheists love you just the way you are, baby.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8

The difference with Coulter’s statement was that she was being asked about the United States rather than heaven.

That’s true, but she was being asked about a perfect country, the ideal.

Notice one thing, she didn’t say that everyone would have to be Christian. She just said that people would be Christian, which implies that they would chose Christianity on their own.

That’s what all Christians wish. Christians wish everyone would become a Christian.

And to be fair, she did say the word heaven.

COULTER: UMMMMM (pause) … It would look like New York City during the Republican National Convention. In fact, that’s what I think heaven is going to look like.

Deutsch’s questions were convoluted and I think he was asking about political and societal changes while Coulter keyed on the word “perfect” and fast-forwarded to the Rapture.

Except that she tried to keep it all about politics.

COULTER: Well, everyone would root for America, the Democratic Party would look like Joe Lieberman, the Republican Party would look like Duncan Hunter —

DEUTSCH: No, no, no, I don’t want — I’m not talking about politically the landscape. What would our — would we be safer? Would people be happier? Would they be more —

As far as I can see, he was trying to be offended.

DEUTSCH: I can give — I can give you an argument there would be more divisiveness, that there would be more hate —

It looks like there is much we agree on. I recall when Pope Benedict said that Protestant denominations suffered from defects, I thought that was certainly his right. Protestant leaders disagreed, as they should have.

Of course it’s his right. And many Protestants feel the opposite way, which is something I’ve always disagreed with them about, going with the concept that we’re all part of the body of Christ.

In my opinion, it’s beyond pathetic that Christians can’t get along with each other. Going with the body of Christ metaphor, we’ve torn our Savior limb from limb.

Esthier on October 15, 2007 at 12:06 PM

In my opinion, it’s beyond pathetic that Christians can’t get along with each other. Going with the body of Christ metaphor, we’ve torn our Savior limb from limb.

I agree. Thanks for sharing your insightful points.

dedalus on October 15, 2007 at 12:18 PM

How is this different from atheism?

How is this different from any passionate belief?

The only way to refrain from being arrogant under this description is to have no real opinion at all.

I disagree. My ideology doesn’t say that you are wrong by definition. I think you are wrong because the facts do not support your conclusion.

Let me try and draw a more concrete example for you. I saw the movie “Jesus Camp” which I considered to be propaganda rather than documentary. However, if the producers had left out the editorializing by the Air America preacher, then it would have been documentary. That said, there was an interview with a Christian woman who said this (paraphrase): “Do you have Jesus? You either do your you don’t, and that’s the only thing that matters.”

In other words, everyone else is wrong, by definition, if they don’t “have Jesus”, which means, “conforms to my ideology”.

I don’t think that everyone else is wrong by definition if they don’t conform to my ideology. On the subject of the validity of the gospel, yes, I think you’re wrong, and I can tell you why. But the reason isn’t “because you are a Christian”.

I’ve never heard of “blows pony.”

I’m happy to acquaint you with it. The “born bad” theology performs fellatio on the genitals of ponies. It’s awful. It is the worst part of your religion. You should reform your religion and ditch that BS, or dump Christianity entirely.

You’re a little mistaken here though. It’s not that we’re all born bad but that we’re all born imperfect and that imperfect beings cannot get to heaven.

Wrong! You are born sinful and sin is bad. Therefore, so are you. You have a “sin nature” which is a bad nature. You’re bad. That’s why you deserve to burn in hell.

It is described as torture, but that’s precisely because life without God is torture.

Your description does not match my experience. My life without “god” is not torture. In fact, I’ve sat through some church singing that is some of the worst torture I’ve ever been through. Speaking of church singing, have you listened to “Contemporary Christian Music” before? It is, bar none, the world’s WORST music. It’s cheesy, repetitive, predictable, and childish. Jesus weeps when people sing “praise songs”. Here’s an apt analogy: CCM is to music as rape is to babies.

It’s not about flames and pain. Our bodies stay in the ground after we die and decay right there.

You must be new at this.

“As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.” Mat 13:40-43, words of Christ

“And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck. If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where ‘their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.’ Everyone will be salted with fire.” Mk 9:42-49, words of Christ

Unless Jesus was lying about “fire” and “gnashing of teeth”, then it very much *IS* about flames and pain.

Remember, my primary and favorite weapon to use against you is the Bible.

We get a taste of both while on earth. In the end though, it’s up to you and everyone else which to choose.

Esthier on October 15, 2007 at 11:21 AM

It is up to you to reject a misanthropic religion that teaches you to feel badly about yourself and worship an evil god. The choice is yours.

Loundry on October 15, 2007 at 12:33 PM

1. A marriage license is not a right, just like a driver’s license is not a right.

Red herring.

2. Marriage licenses are issued as state support and record for a traditional institution that has been around long before Christianity.

Appeal to tradition.

3. The institution of marriage has always been between men and women, never between men and men or women and women. The most successful form of the institution for a developed society is one man and one woman. (Note: “successful” here doesn’t mean super duper happy ecstatic joy for everyone, it means civil stability)

This is simply wrong. The Bible is an open-and-shut case for polygamy.

Disagree? Show me chapter and verse where it says that it is a sin for a man to have multiple wives.

4. The traditional institution of marriage

Meaning one man, many women. That’s traditional. Monogamy is a new innovation.

performs several functions in synergy with society:

4a. According to many ancient religions and evolutionary biology (whichever one you wish to believe in more), males and females balance each other emotionally because of how they were designed or how they evolved.

Appeal to emotion. (Do males and females “balance each other” when the husband hits his wife for being so stupid?)

4b. The emotional balance provided in 4a. gives any children produced by the male-female couple a more emotionally stable upbringing than a same-sex couple would.

Another appeal to emotion. (Does it give the child a “more emotionally stable upbringing” when the husband is a meth-dealer?)

5. Denial of a marriage license in no way stops anybody from loving anybody else.

Red herring. This is about the word and the special rights that married couples get.

In fact, during certain periods of time it was deleterious to couples to report their marriages to the government, and they got married anyway, albeit in secret.

Agreed, but another red herring. Gays don’t want equal marriage rights for the sake of the bad parts of marriage. They want the word and the special rights.

There is absolutely nothing stopping any gay couple from buying rings, swearing lifelong faithfulness to each other, and living together for the rest of their lives.

Does not follow. Gays want the word and the special rights.

6. The push for gay marriage, completely unprecedented in 5,000 years, is not about rights; it is a Lukacsian/Marcusian attack on both the family structure and traditional religion – the two big obstacles that must be torn down to pave the way for the Platonic utopia dreamt of by the neo- and crypto-Marxists for the past 80 years.

angryoldfatman on October 15, 2007 at 9:54 AM

Poisoning the well. “Marxism wants gay marriage, therefore gays are wrong.”

For the record, I don’t support special rights for anyone. But I do think all of the arguments against gays having the same special rights as straights are retarded, and your arguments are no exception.

Loundry on October 15, 2007 at 12:51 PM

That’s the deal with most religions, They want others to convert. You can’t tell me that Jews and Muslims don’t think there religion is better than others. If they thought their religion was inferior then they’d convert.

TheSitRep on October 15, 2007 at 1:04 PM

That’s the deal with most religions, They want others to convert. You can’t tell me that Jews and Muslims don’t think there religion is better than others. If they thought their religion was inferior then they’d convert.

TheSitRep on October 15, 2007 at 1:04 PM

Jews rarely proselytize. The ones that do are trying to get backsliders, not new converts.

Muslims are a different story. Theirs is a “convert, submit, or die” religion, and therefore, it’s the worst.

Regardless, bringing up Judaism and Islam in this context is a diversionary tactic.

Loundry on October 15, 2007 at 1:44 PM

Over 600 comments so far, Looks like Ann will be selling alot of books just on this discussion alone.

ScottyDog on October 15, 2007 at 1:46 PM

Over 600 comments so far, Looks like Ann will be selling alot of books just on this discussion alone.

ScottyDog on October 15, 2007 at 1:46 PM

“We can ignore Ann Coulter’s words, especially in light of how they make Christianity look bad, because, as everyone knows, she only says things to sell books.”

Keep telling yourself that and ignore the fact that there are millions of people who agree with her.

Loundry on October 15, 2007 at 1:50 PM

Over 600 comments so far, Looks like Ann will be selling alot of books just on this discussion alone.

She’s a terrific marketer and a master of the free PR that controversy can deliver. The question will be is she a net-vote-gainer for the GOP. Does she fire up the base more than she scares away the middle 40% of voters?

dedalus on October 15, 2007 at 1:54 PM

Loundry on October 15, 2007 at 12:51 PM

1. A marriage license is not a right, just like a driver’s license is not a right.
Red herring.

Nope.

2. Marriage licenses are issued as state support and record for a traditional institution that has been around long before Christianity.
Appeal to tradition.

Rebuttal from “mindless change is good”.

Also, you missed the main thrust of the argument: that the state-issued marriage license is a relatively new invention that was meant to augment an existing institution, not to establish a marriage per se.

3. The institution of marriage has always been between men and women, never between men and men or women and women. The most successful form of the institution for a developed society is one man and one woman. (Note: “successful” here doesn’t mean super duper happy ecstatic joy for everyone, it means civil stability)
This is simply wrong. The Bible is an open-and-shut case for polygamy.
Disagree? Show me chapter and verse where it says that it is a sin for a man to have multiple wives.

First off, I haven’t used any Biblical arguments, so I have no idea why you’re bringing them up except to tilt at windmills.

Secondly, I implied polygamy in my text. I’ll reiterate and highlight the portion that was supposed to give you a clue:

The most successful form of the institution for a developed society is one man and one woman. (Note: “successful” here doesn’t mean super duper happy ecstatic joy for everyone, it means civil stability)

I put that in there because there was more of a need for polygamy in tribal agrarian societies, especially when they were surrounded by more aggressive tribal agrarian societies.

4. The traditional institution of marriage
Meaning one man, many women. That’s traditional. Monogamy is a new innovation.

If you think of 2,500 years as recent, then yes, monogamous marriage is a new innovation. Otherwise, the old Greco-Roman marriage tradition is fine, since it meshes nicely with the Greco-Roman roots in the laws of our country.

performs several functions in synergy with society:

4a. According to many ancient religions and evolutionary biology (whichever one you wish to believe in more), males and females balance each other emotionally because of how they were designed or how they evolved.
Appeal to emotion. (Do males and females “balance each other” when the husband hits his wife for being so stupid?)

Simply mentioning emotion does not constitute an appeal to emotion. An appeal to emotion is something like “Women suffer so much from spousal abuse, so monogamous marriage is invalid”. Thus, you seem to be projecting.

My statement was simply a long accepted hypothesis of why marriage as an institution has lasted through thousands upon thousands of years.

4b. The emotional balance provided in 4a. gives any children produced by the male-female couple a more emotionally stable upbringing than a same-sex couple would.
Another appeal to emotion. (Does it give the child a “more emotionally stable upbringing” when the husband is a meth-dealer?)

Another projection and true appeal to emotion. You really need to learn your logical fallacies because you’re not looking too smart right now.

5. Denial of a marriage license in no way stops anybody from loving anybody else.
Red herring. This is about the word and the special rights that married couples get.

Actually it was a response to a red herring. The original red herring was dedulas claiming that marriage licenses can’t be denied because you can’t legislate love, or something along those lines.

As far as “special rights” go, the only one gay couples can’t get is joint tax filing. I’d be happy to throw out all income tax if that’s what’s standing the way of your happiness.

In fact, during certain periods of time it was deleterious to couples to report their marriages to the government, and they got married anyway, albeit in secret.
Agreed, but another red herring. Gays don’t want equal marriage rights for the sake of the bad parts of marriage. They want the word and the special rights.
There is absolutely nothing stopping any gay couple from buying rings, swearing lifelong faithfulness to each other, and living together for the rest of their lives.
Does not follow. Gays want the word and the special rights.

Sorry, you’ve got to take the bad with the good.

Words alone are useless. If somebody offered you a million dollars and told you that you could use it in the exact same way anybody else would, but you couldn’t call it “a million dollars”, I guess you would refuse it, and since you’ve implied that you speak for all gays, they would do so as well.

No wonder you’re so unhappy.

6. The push for gay marriage, completely unprecedented in 5,000 years, is not about rights; it is a Lukacsian/Marcusian attack on both the family structure and traditional religion – the two big obstacles that must be torn down to pave the way for the Platonic utopia dreamt of by the neo- and crypto-Marxists for the past 80 years.

Poisoning the well. “Marxism wants gay marriage, therefore gays are wrong.”

More like stating who is really behind the sudden push for gay marriage, and their reasons for pushing it.

For the record, I don’t support special rights for anyone. But I do think all of the arguments against gays having the same special rights as straights are retarded, and your arguments are no exception.

There are no special rights except for those I mentioned before.
I don’t mind you calling me retarded, since ad hominem is the standard counterattack of those deluded by neo-Marxist brainwashers. You’re just following your programming. I hope you break out of it soon (whether or not you remain gay, like Tammy Bruce) so you can be happy.

angryoldfatman on October 15, 2007 at 3:13 PM

Mcguyver,

Where are the working abstinence-only programs? Nowhere, because it’s an unrealistic expectation that the majority of hormonal teenagers aren’t going to “do it”. When, not if, but when, nature wins out then they had best be prepared.

I noticed, that once again, you dodged the gay marriage/gay adoption/gay “members of society” issues that you raised. Neato.

Krydor on October 15, 2007 at 3:20 PM

I noticed, that once again, you dodged the gay marriage/gay adoption/gay “members of society” issues that you raised. Neato.

Krydor on October 15, 2007 at 3:20 PM

I already quoted the points I stated and believe about the subject.

Ignore my points at your peril.

Mcguyver on October 15, 2007 at 3:38 PM

I can see how heterosexual marriage is threatened by divorce or by cohabitation, but not by other people’s marriages.

dedalus on October 15, 2007 at 11:33 AM

The “not affecting other people’s marriage” claim was used for justifying easier divorce and cohabitation, which you admit have been harmful.

Here’s the most recent gay refutation of the “hetero marriage will remain unaffected” argument I’ve found. It echoes Marcuse’s advocacy of Freud’s “polymorphous perversity”, which has been very detrimental to our society, and will continue to be so until we stop it.

angryoldfatman on October 15, 2007 at 3:52 PM

Where are the working abstinence-only programs? Nowhere, because it’s an unrealistic expectation that the majority of hormonal teenagers aren’t going to “do it”. When, not if, but when, nature wins out then they had best be prepared.
Krydor on October 15, 2007 at 3:20 PM

Here’s some empirical evidence that abstinence education is working.

The logic of “they’re practically animals so they’re going to do it anyway” also works against your contraceptives-only argument. If they’re not responsible enough to keep their clothes on, then they’re probably not responsible enough to use a contraceptive.

I don’t mind contracetive education as long as abstinence is mentioned as an alternative, and that sex education shouldn’t be pushed on kindergarteners.

angryoldfatman on October 15, 2007 at 4:18 PM

I just noticed the link connected to “Marcuse’s advocacy of polymorphous perversity” that I made above may not work.

Here’s the Google cache of that page.

angryoldfatman on October 15, 2007 at 4:42 PM

Rebuttal from “mindless change is good”.

In other words, you admit to appeal to tradition. Thank you.

As for your claim that the change is “mindless”, are you claiming that there is absolutely no reason (i.e., mindless) for a man-man couple to want the same special rights and magic word that a man-woman couple does?

Also, you missed the main thrust of the argument: that the state-issued marriage license is a relatively new invention that was meant to augment an existing institution, not to establish a marriage per se.

It was not relevant.

First off, I haven’t used any Biblical arguments, so I have no idea why you’re bringing them up except to tilt at windmills.

Do you agree that the Bible supports polygamy in the OT and in the NT? Are you even a Christian?

And it is not to tilt at windmills because the primary and strongest opponents of gay marriage are Christians who oppose homosexuality for Christian reasons. If polygamy is biblical, then it blows a hole right through the heart of your “one man, one woman” (where does scripture say that?) argument. And that is precisely why you are trying to sweep it under the rug.

The Bible also supports incest, for the record.

Secondly, I implied polygamy in my text. I’ll reiterate and highlight the portion that was supposed to give you a clue:

The most successful form of the institution for a developed society is one man and one woman. (Note: “successful” here doesn’t mean super duper happy ecstatic joy for everyone, it means civil stability)

You didn’t imply polygamy because your words were, “he institution of marriage has always been between men and women, never between men and men or women and women.” Are you backing away from that claim?

I put that in there because there was more of a need for polygamy in tribal agrarian societies, especially when they were surrounded by more aggressive tribal agrarian societies.

So it was okay to change the unchangeable definition of marriage to include polygamous partnerships because there was a “need” for it?

If you think of 2,500 years as recent, then yes, monogamous marriage is a new innovation.

Humans have been around for a long time. So, yes, it’s recent.

Otherwise, the old Greco-Roman marriage tradition is fine, since it meshes nicely with the Greco-Roman roots in the laws of our country.

The Greek tradition included pederasty. I guess that’s a fine tradition by you, too. “If it’s Greek, it’s good!”

Simply mentioning emotion does not constitute an appeal to emotion. An appeal to emotion is something like “Women suffer so much from spousal abuse, so monogamous marriage is invalid”. Thus, you seem to be projecting.

No, my characterization of your fallacy is correct. “Marriage is between one man and one woman because men and women balance each other emotionally.” The problem with your argument, of course, is that men-women pairings often times f*ck up with disastrous consequences. For you to say they “complement each other emotionally” is a feel-good statement. I can make the same feel-good statement about two men: they complement each other emotionally and better than a man-woman pairing because they understand each other better. Therefore, male-male love is superior to male-female love because they complement each other emotionally. Nice, huh? Just as invalid as your empty appeal to emotion.

My statement was simply a long accepted hypothesis of why marriage as an institution has lasted through thousands upon thousands of years.

Glittering generalities. Have you noticed the divorce rate recently? Is an “institution” defined as, “something that f*cks up half the time”? Marriage is a sham and you know it.

Another projection and true appeal to emotion.

See above.

Actually it was a response to a red herring. The original red herring was dedulas claiming that marriage licenses can’t be denied because you can’t legislate love, or something along those lines.

Fair enough, but your argument is still crap. Saying, “You can still love each other” does not answer why you are denying a male-male couple the same word and special rights that a male-female couple gets.

As far as “special rights” go, the only one gay couples can’t get is joint tax filing. I’d be happy to throw out all income tax if that’s what’s standing the way of your happiness.

It’s not standing in the way of my happiness. I repeat: I don’t support marriage, gay or straight.

That said, you know as well as I do that there are hundreds of special rights at the state and federal level that straight couples get in one fell swoop. For a male-male couple to “get” those same special rights, they have to jump through countless legal hoops and spend thousands of dollars. Why should they be forced to go through that to get those special rights if you don’t mind them having the special rights?

In fact, during certain periods of time it was deleterious to couples to report their marriages to the government, and they got married anyway, albeit in secret.

Usually Christians start talking about how crappy it is to be married once I start asking what rational basis there is denying gays the same word and special rights that straights get. You’re no exception.

Sorry, you’ve got to take the bad with the good.

That may be so, but:

1. Since when where you offering “the bad with the good” to gays?

2. Your argument is still crap. You’re offering up all the things that gays already have as a consolation prize in lieu of the things they really want: the word and the special rights.

Words alone are useless. If somebody offered you a million dollars and told you that you could use it in the exact same way anybody else would, but you couldn’t call it “a million dollars”, I guess you would refuse it, and since you’ve implied that you speak for all gays, they would do so as well.

That makes no sense. In any case, you know as well as I do that it offends Christians for two men to call themselves “married” and “husband and husband”. The word is very important, to both many Christians and many gays. The one and only reason you have in refusing gays from having it is because you want gays to be inferior to you and you don’t want them legitimized in any way.

No wonder you’re so unhappy.

Isn’t that precisely how you want me to feel?

More like stating who is really behind the sudden push for gay marriage, and their reasons for pushing it.

I was incorrect — it wasn’t poisoning the well that you were doing. It was guilt by association.

That said, it’s true that there are some gays and Marxists who want gay marriage for the sole reason of their push to destroy families. That doesn’t mean that ALL gays want it for that reason, but it’s in your interest to push that invalid argument.

I don’t mind you calling me retarded, since ad hominem is the standard counterattack of those deluded by neo-Marxist brainwashers.

I called your argument retarded, not you. You’re very intelligent. It’s your argument that is militantly stupid.

You’re just following your programming.

High chutzpah alert.

I hope you break out of it soon (whether or not you remain gay, like Tammy Bruce) so you can be happy.

angryoldfatman on October 15, 2007 at 3:13 PM

I will not only stay gay forever, but I will also do everything I can to discredit Jesus Christ and the ugly, stupid religion known as Christianity. And, to rub salt in the wound, I will be wealthy and live a full life in spite if my refusal to follow your path. You should abandon your religion because it is completely and totally wrong, and your desire to fight gay marriage has one and only one motivation: to prevent the lives of gay people from improving.

Loundry on October 15, 2007 at 5:00 PM

You haven’t knocked down any of my arguments, Loundry. I specifically avoided Biblical arguments because 1) they’re not necessary and 2) you don’t care about them. You are obsessed with the Bible and Christians, however, because of some danger you perceive which is nonexistent.

Rather than continue to counter each of your handwavings, which you could robotically continue indefinitely because they are preprogrammed, I’ll just leave you with this link.

Thanks, and get those rings and say those vows, Loundry, and let all of us know if somebody stops you.

angryoldfatman on October 15, 2007 at 5:30 PM

I agree. Thanks for sharing your insightful points.

dedalus on October 15, 2007 at 12:18 PM

I’m glad we can agree despite a few disagreements.

I don’t think that everyone else is wrong by definition if they don’t conform to my ideology. On the subject of the validity of the gospel, yes, I think you’re wrong, and I can tell you why. But the reason isn’t “because you are a Christian”.

Actually, it is precisely because I am a Christian. I cannot agree with you about the gospel and still be a Christian. The two are mutually exclusive.

The “born bad” theology performs fellatio on the genitals of ponies.

Just because I’m not gay, it doesn’t mean I don’t understand what blow means. I do appreciate the clarification though.

It’s awful. It is the worst part of your religion. You should reform your religion and ditch that BS, or dump Christianity entirely.

That’s not what Christianity believes.

Wrong! You are born sinful and sin is bad. Therefore, so are you. You have a “sin nature” which is a bad nature. You’re bad. That’s why you deserve to burn in hell.

Our nature is fleshly desires, which isn’t synonymous for sin. We can either give into them, therefore becoming a slave to them or we can ignore them.

The bottom line is that we’re not perfect.

I find it really amusing to be told I’m wrong about my religion from someone who has left it. Unsurprisingly though, I only hear that from people like you.

You really do view Christianity as legalistic though, which is unfortunate.

Your description does not match my experience. My life without “god” is not torture.

You aren’t separated from God here. That can only happen in one place, hell. God is everywhere on earth.

In fact, I’ve sat through some church singing that is some of the worst torture I’ve ever been through.

God isn’t necessarily in church or in those songs, especially not if your church was as judgmental and hateful as you claim. If so, they’re not filled with God but with the opposite.

Speaking of church singing, have you listened to “Contemporary Christian Music” before? It is, bar none, the world’s WORST music. It’s cheesy, repetitive, predictable, and childish.

Yeah, yeah. I grew up on that music. My parents didn’t want me listening to anything secular (i.e. nonChristian). They were just naive though since they had no idea what a Christian family looked like (neither were raised in one).

CCM is to music as rape is to babies.

Wow. You seem like the kind of person who’s into dead baby jokes. Unfortunately I can’t currently remember any.

Unless Jesus was lying about “fire” and “gnashing of teeth”, then it very much *IS* about flames and pain.

Yes, fire that is never quenched along with worms that never die. And yet this doesn’t sound metaphorical to you?

He tells people they’re better off cutting off their hands and plucking out their eyes. He’s either a loon or making a point.

I have no need to dispute the gnashing of teeth part. Times when I’ve been severely distressed, I’ve messed up my teeth. I’ve even bitten my own hand.

Fire though is an entirely different animal. Read further along in the Bible.

Acts 2:1-3

1 On the day of Pentecost[a] all the believers were meeting together in one place. 2 Suddenly, there was a sound from heaven like the roaring of a mighty windstorm, and it filled the house where they were sitting. 3 Then, what looked like flames or tongues of fire appeared and settled on each of them.

Are you going to tell me Jesus put His own disciples on fire after He went back to heaven? Were Peter and John horribly disfigured the rest of their lives?

Look, I can go far into this and give you the rundown of what I’ve come to believe. Fire is a concept used throughout the Bible, from a description of the Holy Spirit, to a concept of testing faith.

completely consumed by fire
But fire from heaven came down on the attacking armies and consumed them.
“will be consumed by the unquenchable fire of my anger.”
There is only the terrible expectation of God’s judgment and the raging fire that will consume his enemies.

Over and over again, the Bible refers to fire. And over and over again, it refers to being consumed by fire. Unquenchable fire still consumes everything it envelopes. So the concept you’re left with is one where a fire will consume you in the after life, leaving you with what exactly? You’ll be gone.

The only references to fire enveloping someone and yet not consuming them are references where the fire doesn’t harm them either.

The most common reference, separating the “chaff from the wheat” speaks of a practice of purification. The other about testing gold does the same. In fact, the common element about heat in all of these references is its ability to purify. That’s why we don’t eat raw meat.

Or look at it this way. The first person to bring up eternal fire was John the Baptist. He was a crazy guy and surely called by God to speak on behalf of his relative, but how was he to know what hell was?

And look at how he says it:

He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.[e] 12 He is ready to separate the chaff from the wheat with his winnowing fork. Then he will clean up the threshing area, gathering the wheat into his barn but burning the chaff with never-ending fire.

Isn’t that strange? First the fire is a baptizing tool, something that will happen to the good followers, then next its something that will happen to the chaff?

And what’s the common theme? Purification.

Or even further, look at literal fire. It is the only way to remove a thing from the planet. If you bury the banana peel from your last snack, it will simply become one with the earth. The only way to actually remove it from this place is to burn it.

God, being holy, which means “set apart” (specifically from sin), cannot be near sin by definition. So sin is removed from God the same way the banana is removed from this planet.

It doesn’t logically follow though that the body of a sinner will burn for eternity, because as long as the body is burning, it is not gone. So long as the banana continues to burn, it’s still on this planet.

Look, I can go on and explain all of this, but I fear I’m wasting my time and don’t wish to do so any more than I already may have.

Remember, my primary and favorite weapon to use against you is the Bible.

Cute, but really, I’ve cracked a few open in my time. If you think you know it better than I do, go ahead and try to prove it to me.

But seriously, do you really believe I didn’t know those verses? If you want to “beat” me at this (if one can win at this) you can surely do better than to quote from the gospels, the four books even back-slidden Christians know by heart.

It is up to you to reject a misanthropic religion that teaches you to feel badly about yourself and worship an evil god. The choice is yours.

Loundry on October 15, 2007 at 12:33 PM

It is a pure tragedy that all you got from Christianity was legalism. They certainly couldn’t be further apart.

But I don’t feel bad about myself, even when I sin. If the act of sinning actually had that much power over me, then Christ’s sacrifice would be completely powerless.

Esthier on October 15, 2007 at 5:34 PM

I just skimmed your lengthy deconstruction, Loundry, and saw this:

No wonder you’re so unhappy.

Isn’t that precisely how you want me to feel?

No, I don’t. That’s what I’ve said all along. I don’t get any pleasure from you being unhappy. I’d be willing to bet very few people here actually would, either.

angryoldfatman on October 15, 2007 at 5:35 PM

The logic of “they’re practically animals so they’re going to do it anyway” also works against your contraceptives-only argument. If they’re not responsible enough to keep their clothes on, then they’re probably not responsible enough to use a contraceptive.

angryoldfatman on October 15, 2007 at 4:18 PM

That’s a good point. If they can do one, why aren’t they capable of the other?

Do you agree that the Bible supports polygamy in the OT and in the NT?

I don’t. It shows examples of such marriages, but that doesn’t mean it supports it. In fact, quite the opposite is true. The kings who had multiple wives were violated the rule given to kings.

Deuteronomy 17:17
The king must not take many wives for himself, because they will turn his heart away from the Lord.

The Bible also supports incest, for the record.

Yeah, that’s not true either.

• Leviticus 18:9
“Do not have sexual relations with your sister or half sister, whether she is your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born into your household or someone else’s.
• Leviticus 18:11
“Do not have sexual relations with your stepsister, the daughter of any of your father’s wives, for she is your sister.
• Leviticus 18:12
“Do not have sexual relations with your father’s sister, for she is your father’s close relative.
• Leviticus 18:13
“Do not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, for she is your mother’s close relative.
• Leviticus 20:17
“If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a shameful disgrace. They must be publicly cut off from the community. Since the man has violated his sister, he will be punished for his sin.
• Leviticus 20:19
“Do not have sexual relations with your aunt, whether your mother’s sister or your father’s sister. This would dishonor a close relative. Both parties are guilty and will be punished for their sin.
• Deuteronomy 27:22
‘Cursed is anyone who has sexual intercourse with his sister, whether she is the daughter of his father or his mother.’And all the people will reply, ‘Amen.’

There are many, many more.

Also, look at what happened to Amnon after he raped his own sister.

The Bible is full of people who violated the laws and were still considered Biblical leaders, but that doesn’t mean the Bible was OK with their actions. It only means that God doesn’t only use perfect people.

Esthier on October 15, 2007 at 5:46 PM

the word and the special rights

What special rights?

Seriously, there are none. You don’t cross into a magical land after getting married. It’s still America.

Esthier on October 15, 2007 at 5:51 PM

Here’s the most recent gay refutation of the “hetero marriage will remain unaffected” argument I’ve found. It echoes Marcuse’s advocacy of Freud’s “polymorphous perversity”, which has been very detrimental to our society, and will continue to be so until we stop it.

Thank you for the link AOF, I’ll read & get back to you.

dedalus on October 15, 2007 at 6:05 PM

Uggh. So many heresies, so little time. Well, starting with Loundry’s post, which is the only one which responded directly to mine:

As a former ex-Christian, myself, who loves a good debate, I am often disappointed in the level of discourse that many Christians (and Conservatives) are satisfied with.

I think this is because most Christians don’t ever meet up with a seasoned and knowledgeable anti-Christian debater. There are many, many more Christians than there are anti-Christian debaters, after all. Christians spend much more time in church where everyone agrees and no one challenges the validity of the Bible or the mirth of the gospel. When they finally do meet someone like me, then the result is usually the very human and vicious side of Christianity that gays and atheists receive by default.

Actually, I blame public schools. I meet plenty of non-Christians who are equally incapable of following an argument, it’s just that I feel the sting more when I notice fellow Christians doing it. But your point about the insularity of many evangelicals is valid.

You might want to reflect, however, that the evangelical ghetto is not the only manifestation of Christianity even in America, and worldwide it is rather a minority opinion. There are much richer intellectual traditions that avoid many of the criticisms you make. I like to think of American, non-denominational, sub-Baptist, evangelicalism as essentially enlightenment liberalism in Sunday clothes. It traces its intellectual roots (such as they are) from Darby’s dispensationalism which arrived on the scene in the early 19th century, about the same time as Evolution, Marxism and Transcendentalism. In other words, the “3rd or 4th generation” (cf Ex 20:5) after the Enlightenment. I have more to say on this, but not here.

This is incorrect because you’re only relying on the quote that supports that conclusion. The quote I’m drawing from is this one:

COULTER: No. I’m sorry. It is not intended to be. I don’t think you should take it that way, but that is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews.

According to Coulter, Christians consider THEMSELVES “perfected Jews”, as opposed to regular Jews which must be imperfect and thus inferior.

[...]

Yes I can claim that she is being elitist because she thinks that she is perfected and others aren’t.

I wasn’t relying solely on that quote, but took everything she said into account. Note that in your criticism you have jumped from a plural (“Christians consider THEMSELVES”) to a singular (“she is perfected and others aren’t”). I grant that she is being somewhat sloppy here, but that is the nature of the medium. Live television is an inherently difficult medium for communicating complex and nuanced ideas and the interview format makes this even worse. This is especially true since Deutsch was clearly fishing for something controversial, having rejected 3 different versions of Ann’s comments before he finally got her to say something he could latch onto.

The best construction of what Coulter means here would be, as I have said, that Judaism is completed or fulfilled in Christianity. “Perfected” captures this idea less precisely, but, given the circumstances, adequately. To construe her comments as demeaning to Jews requires both that we ignore her protestations to the contrary and take her words in the least favorable light possible. Neither of these is constructions would be consistent with civil discourse, which demands that we try to see what the other person meant before rushing to take offense.

It may seem ironic to appeal to “civil discourse” in the context of an Ann Coulter comment, but not to do so cedes the field to the uncivilized. People who want to claim that they are better than Ann Coulter should act accordingly, no?

Maybe you don’t feel that way, and I understand that because I would have felt offended by the notion of Christians being perfected when I was a Christian. (”Only God is good.”) I understand that can be a controversial issue among Christians.

[...]

Why can’t someone be viewed as “lacking in some aspect” and simultaneously “less worthy”? Why must it be one or the other? I think it’s both.

This all assumes what I denied in the previous point, so it is difficult to answer without repeating myself. However, as to the last point, yes it is possible that she meant it both ways, but my point is that it is possible that she didn’t. People that take offense frequently describe themselves as being “hurt” which I take it is a thing we all want to avoid. If it is possible to avoid being hurt by Coulter’s comments, a reasonable person will do so. My claim is that people who are finding offense here are going out of their way to read her comments in a way which she claims she didn’t intend.

I understand that it’s in your interest to claim that Christendom is staid in the face of my offenses, but who made you the spokesman of all the Christians here?

I any event, I don’t agree that “you” (plural) are not offended. Have you seen MacGuyver’s wounded and childish responses?

I don’t see that it’s in my interest, particularly, but I think you missed my point. I was referring to the fact that that particular point didn’t seem to upset anyone, since no one picked it up to try to refute. I have seen the wounded and childish responses (more evidence that evangelicalism is a species of liberalism) by several people, just not to that particular line. Minor point, but just clarifying.

I think you’re splitting hairs. It’s a way of having your cake and eating it, too. Meaning, you can feel better and know your better than other people, and yet simultaneously somehow not be elitist. It smacks of “love the sinner, hate the sin” duplicity that I’m very familiar with.

I specifically deny this. Once again you are equivocating. Let me illustrate: if my daddy buys me a new BMW while you have to work and save to buy a beat up Chevy, I am better off than you in one sense but it is possibly that I am a much worse person. (I deny the leftist premise that inherited wealth is always a sign of moral turpitude, but it is certainly possible in some cases.) It is the same with this particular aspect of Christianity. We are told that we have been given something that the Jews have not — at least not yet. But we are specifically forbidden to take that as a sign of our own superiority. Someone has already quoted Romans 11 and I assumed that you were familiar with the argument, but here it is again just for completeness:

“You will say then, ‘Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.’ Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid.” Rom 11:19-20

This is the whole point that Coulter was making, though obviously not as coherently.

And prayer is a waste of time. Has Dennis Prager become a Christian through your prayers? If not, then why did you spend that time praying? You could have spend that precious time doing something more productive. If you want results, then get off your knees and do something and stop being so slothful!

I realize this is intended to be ironic, but just two points:
1. Prager is not dead, so it is unclear whether my prayers will go unanswered.
2. I have sent him as many emails as I considered appropriate when he brought up the subject and I felt I had something intelligent to say about it. Surely you are not advising me to browbeat the man? That would be … uncivil.

Do you think it’s arrogant that you chose to believe something that everyone else is, by definition, wrong if they don’t agree with you?

[responding to Esthier]
My ideology doesn’t say that you are wrong by definition. I think you are wrong because the facts do not support your conclusion.

[...]

I don’t think that everyone else is wrong by definition if they don’t conform to my ideology. On the subject of the validity of the gospel, yes, I think you’re wrong, and I can tell you why. But the reason isn’t “because you are a Christian”.

Ooh, there are lots of meaty points for discussion here.

1. No, I don’t think it is arrogant, since this what disagreement means. If I am right about anything, everyone who disagrees is wrong.

2. I don’t choose to believe things, I believe them because the facts will allow no other conclusion. Choosing is an act of will and we have no business exercising will over facts. I admit the possibility that I could be mistaken, but that has to do with competence in evaluating facts and nothing to do with choice. As an exercise, try “choosing” to believe that the computer monitor you are looking at right now is actually an aquarium. You can’t do it by an act of will, even if you have one of those nifty screen savers that makes it look like one.

3. I don’t see where you got the idea that I think everyone else is wrong “by definition”. In your later comments, you claim that you think we are wrong, but not “because” we are Christians. But surely I could say the same. I think you are wrong because God really exists not “because” you are an atheist. I believe Jews are wrong because Jesus really was God made flesh, not “because” they are Jews.

I hate that part of your religion. The “born bad” and “deserving of eternal torture” theology blows pony.

I hate it too, but that doesn’t mean it is false. I struggled with this very point for years after I had ceased being an atheist but did not yet want to be a Christian. I finally accepted Calvin into my heart, but it wasn’t a particularly joyful moment. See my comments above about “choosing” to believe things.

[responding to Esthier]
In fact, I’ve sat through some church singing that is some of the worst torture I’ve ever been through. Speaking of church singing, have you listened to “Contemporary Christian Music” before? It is, bar none, the world’s WORST music. It’s cheesy, repetitive, predictable, and childish. Jesus weeps when people sing “praise songs”.

Amen. This may refute my claim that evangelicalism = liberalism, since liberals actually do music fairly well. But the content of CCM is clearly an attempt to rip-off liberal music and slap some Jesus on it, so I think I am still mostly right, here. It is worse than building a house on sand. It is taking a house already built on sand and knocking out some of the supporting walls to put in a stained glass window. A stained glass window with a big happy face on it…

JackOfClubs on October 15, 2007 at 8:16 PM

@Esthier:

Our nature is fleshly desires, which isn’t synonymous for sin. We can either give into them, therefore becoming a slave to them or we can ignore them.

The bottom line is that we’re not perfect.

I find it really amusing to be told I’m wrong about my religion from someone who has left it. Unsurprisingly though, I only hear that from people like you.

Well, I am a Christian and I will tell you that you are wrong about your religion in this case. What you are describing is technically called Pelagianism, which was rejected by Christianity in the 5th century. (Council of Ephesus, AD 431 to be precise.) Actually the bible speaks very clearly that we are sinful from the time of conception. This isn’t a very pleasant idea, but it doesn’t do to water down the faith to make it more palatable.

I see this kind of thinking a lot in modern Christianity. I think it stems in part from the same kind of thinking that produces modern advertising: simpler = better. Also, there is a sort of anti-intellectualism which comes from an earlier inferiority complex that started in the time of the Enlightenment. The sylogism seems to go like this:

Intellectuals reject Christianity.
Intellectuals like complex, subtle arguments
Therefore, we should keep our answers simple in order to avoid losing our faith.

But this — aside from being an invalid argument of the form: All dogs have tails, all cats have tails therefore all dogs are cats — is a council of defeat. Better to say:

Intellectuals reject Chritianity.
Intellectuals like complex, subtle arguments.
Therefore, we should produce complex, subtle arguments that are persuasive to intellectuals.

You really do view Christianity as legalistic though, which is unfortunate.

This is actually a good point. I have noticed the same thing about many people who argue against Christianity. They seem to hate fundamentalism so much, but they eagerly adopt the same style of argument. They object, rightly, that fundamentalists are overly literalistic in interpretting the Bible, but then won’t accept any interpretation but a literal one when they think it supports their rejection.

The rest of your discussion about fire is pretty good.

Yeah, yeah. I grew up on that music. My parents didn’t want me listening to anything secular (i.e. nonChristian). They were just naive though since they had no idea what a Christian family looked like (neither were raised in one).

See? See? This confirms my suspicion that much evangelicalism is essentially people thinking in a liberal mind-set. We have lost a robust view of our roots because we have been raised by people who were raised by liberals. The cure, however, is to recover the traditions of our faith which, happily, have been written down and cannot easily be eradicated. The solution is not to try to reinvent the wheel by abandoning the two thousand years that the Holy Spirit has been active in the church. I think I see some signs of this happening, but it is frustratingly slow.

God isn’t necessarily in church or in those songs, especially not if your church was as judgmental and hateful as you claim. If so, they’re not filled with God but with the opposite.

Good point, but do I detect an element of anti-clericalism here? God is presumpively with people who call upon his name as was promised by Jesus himself. Some churches have indeed abandoned their faith and this may be one of them, but that is not the way to bet without further evidence. Better to get the facts before making accusations such as this, even given the qualifications you make.

But I don’t feel bad about myself, even when I sin. If the act of sinning actually had that much power over me, then Christ’s sacrifice would be completely powerless.

Is this biblical? Seems like you are only paying attention to half the story here. I know that Paul talks about not considering our sins, but James says “Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Lament and mourn and weep! Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up.” James 4:8-10.

See what I said above about simple answers.

JackOfClubs on October 15, 2007 at 8:53 PM

Here’s the most recent gay refutation of the “hetero marriage will remain unaffected” argument I’ve found. It echoes Marcuse’s advocacy of Freud’s “polymorphous perversity”, which has been very detrimental to our society, and will continue to be so until we stop it.

Thanks again for the two links. It would be illogical to say that since ultimately Marcuse held many objectionable views it thereby invalidates all assertions that concur with his thinking.

We both pointed to divorce and cohabitation of heterosexuals as weakening the institution of marriage. I find it odd that you think homosexual cohabitation is better for society than homosexual marriage. While young people may see cohabitation as an alternative to marriage, there are few who would consider homosexual marriage as an alternative to heterosexual marriage. Have gay people believed that they had to try to be straight and have they committed to heterosexual marriages in order to conform to society? Sure. But is that a good thing for society (or for the U.S. Senate)?

I think the conservative case for gay marriage is based on a belief that society benefits from the lifelong commitment two people make to one another, and the stability created when two people care for one another through difficult times. Marriages are helped when society recognizes the sacrifice that commitment requires and treat that bond with honor. I’d rather see us do away with divorce than ban gay marriage.

dedalus on October 16, 2007 at 11:38 AM

This has already dropped off the homepage, so I’m not really expecting anyone to read this.

Actually the bible speaks very clearly that we are sinful from the time of conception. This isn’t a very pleasant idea, but it doesn’t do to water down the faith to make it more palatable.

From conception. Think about that a bit more. Conception? Those little unborn children, thousands preemptively taken from this world, those are sinful creatures?

Sin is, by definition, the willful disobedience of God. You cannot willfully disobey God unless you understand what that means.

This is why even the Bible accounts for an age of accountability. You presume that I’m giving simple answers, but that doesn’t make it so.

2 Samuel 12:23:
23 But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.”

The latter is in reference to King David’s dead unborn child, the one he conceived with Bathsheba while she was still married to another man.

Did David believe he was going to hell?

This is God talking:

Deuteronomy 1:39:
39 And the little ones that you said would be taken captive, your children who do not yet know good from bad—they will enter the land. I will give it to them and they will take possession of it.

Isaiah 7:16:
16 But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.

The preceding verse is referring specifically to Jesus Christ. Isaiah prophesied of a time before even Christ as a child knew anything about wrong or right.

You took my answer as something simple, but being of the flesh is exactly how Paul describes it.

Romans 7:21-24
21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?

This is also what I was talking about, when I mentioned the fact that Christians are free to sin even though sinning makes us a slave to sin.

In this version, Paul says “body” not flesh, but it’s the same concept. Christians, being imperfect on earth, are constantly at war with their own flesh. That’s not necessarily sin. While all sin is fleshly, not all fleshly desires are sinful.

That’s what I mean.

Yes, we are born fallen. All of Creation is currently fallen. But no, I see nothing in the Bible that shows we’re all doomed to hell because of Adam’s sin. In fact, the Bible shows clearly that men are only judged for their own sin.

Romans 14:12:
12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

Revelation 20:12:
12And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.

Deuteronomy 24:16:
16 Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.

The solution is not to try to reinvent the wheel by abandoning the two thousand years that the Holy Spirit has been active in the church. I think I see some signs of this happening, but it is frustratingly slow.

I have no idea what that has to do with Christian music.

Good point, but do I detect an element of anti-clericalism here?

I don’t know what you detect, but I put none in my statement.

God is presumpively with people who call upon his name as was promised by Jesus himself.

Not exactly. God isn’t a genie, there at our beckon call.

The Bible has that passage, “where two or more are gathered in my name,” but it says specifically “in my name,” which implies a certain amount of “fruits of the spirit” type attitudes.

If people are gathered in hate, they aren’t gathered in Christ’s name. It’s really that simple.

Some churches have indeed abandoned their faith and this may be one of them, but that is not the way to bet without further evidence. Better to get the facts before making accusations such as this, even given the qualifications you make.

I haven’t made a condemnation of Loundry’s church. I’ve only stated that if that church truly is as hateful as his claims suggests, then it’s not a church that has even allowed God into its walls.

Galatians 5:22-23
22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control.

Churches that are filled with the opposite are not filled with God: “He who loves not knows not God, for God is love” (1 John 4:8)

I do not know that Loundry’s church is really as he says it is, but I do know that there are churches like that and that those churches are not of God.

Is this biblical? Seems like you are only paying attention to half the story here. I know that Paul talks about not considering our sins, but James says “Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Lament and mourn and weep! Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up.” James 4:8-10.

Where in there does it say “feel bad about yourself”? Being humble is a far cry from self-loathing.

Esthier on October 16, 2007 at 12:51 PM

No, I don’t. That’s what I’ve said all along.

I beg to differ. I think you have insisted more than once that I am “unhappy”. How do you know how I feel other than a desire of what you want to be true?

I don’t get any pleasure from you being unhappy.

I don’t believe you. I think you would enjoy watching your enemies suffer and would dislike watching them succeed.

I’d be willing to bet very few people here actually would, either.

angryoldfatman on October 15, 2007 at 5:35 PM

That may be true, but who made you their spokesman?

Loundry on October 16, 2007 at 1:03 PM

Loundry on October 16, 2007 at 1:03 PM

No, I don’t. That’s what I’ve said all along.
I beg to differ. I think you have insisted more than once that I am “unhappy”. How do you know how I feel other than a desire of what you want to be true?

How do I know how you feel?

1. Simple human empathy.

2. Observation of the tone and content of your writing, and common sense extrapolation from that observation.

I don’t get any pleasure from you being unhappy.
I don’t believe you. I think you would enjoy watching your enemies suffer and would dislike watching them succeed.

Only you think you’re my enemy.

Your level of distrust is one of the indicators of your unhappiness.

I’d be willing to bet very few people here actually would, either.
That may be true, but who made you their spokesman?

The same people who made you spokesman for “the gays”. Nobody. That’s why I wrote “I’d be willing to bet very few people here” rather than “Nobody here” – I can’t speak for everyone here.

You can continue to be distrustful, Loundry, but you’re really only hurting yourself.

angryoldfatman on October 16, 2007 at 2:12 PM

JackOfClubs,

Thank you again for your awesome response.

Uggh. So many heresies, so little time.

Sounds like I’m doing my job!

Actually, I blame public schools. I meet plenty of non-Christians who are equally incapable of following an argument, it’s just that I feel the sting more when I notice fellow Christians doing it. But your point about the insularity of many evangelicals is valid.

I’ll admit here that Christians are almost always better at debating than Leftists are. This is because Christians are used to trying to convince someone to their point of view. What Christians are NOT used to is doing the same with a person who is on the offensive and deliberately trying to weaken the Christian’s faith using the Bible as his weapon. That’s me, and that can make a Christian emulate a vicious Leftist faster than you can say “Jesus saves!”

You might want to reflect, however, that the evangelical ghetto is not the only manifestation of Christianity even in America, and worldwide it is rather a minority opinion.

But in America, they’re 30% of the population. America is what counts in this discussion. The good news is that the vast majority of the aforementioned 30% are Chunchy Christian Codgers (the CCC) who are dropping like flies. Have you noticed gay rights and atheist arguments ascending in the past few decades? The correlation is impossible to deny.

In other words, your team is losing. That’s good news.

The bad news is, “Progressives” are filling the gap. I’d much rather live among Christians, to be honest.

Note that in your criticism you have jumped from a plural (”Christians consider THEMSELVES”) to a singular (”she is perfected and others aren’t”).

That’s because she considers herself a subset of the aforementioned “Christians”.

The best construction of what Coulter means here would be, as I have said, that Judaism is completed or fulfilled in Christianity.

Spin it all you want, but she considers herself a “perfected Jew” as opposed to an imperfect and inferior regular Jew.

To construe her comments as demeaning to Jews requires both that we ignore her protestations to the contrary and take her words in the least favorable light possible.

I think she was speaking her heart but then suddenly aware that she was butting up against a type of political correctness that she didn’t want to trifle with. I think the reticence of many Christians to admit that they’re “better off than the Jews, who stupidly reject Christ” demonstrates that this type of PC is very powerful in American culture.

And that has been my point all along!

However, as to the last point, yes it is possible that she meant it both ways, but my point is that it is possible that she didn’t.

Of course it can be possible. I just don’t see it as likely since rejection of Jesus is a choice whereas blindness is not. Look back in the Old Testament and see what people are called (and how they are treated) when they disobey your god. Do you think some of that might rub off on how modern-day Christians view “God’s enemies”?

My claim is that people who are finding offense here are going out of their way to read her comments in a way which she claims she didn’t intend.

Of course. But why would they find offense in this instance whereas they would not have had she said it about atheists? Because American culture is sensitive to the plight of the Jews.

I don’t see that it’s in my interest, particularly, but I think you missed my point.

Of course it’s in your interest. You want Christ to win. You want the atheists to be discredited. Therefore, you don’t want Christians to look like they’re shaken up or wounded by anything I say, because Christ is more powerful than any atheist. Am I wrong about any of that?

I was referring to the fact that that particular point didn’t seem to upset anyone, since no one picked it up to try to refute. I have seen the wounded and childish responses (more evidence that evangelicalism is a species of liberalism) by several people, just not to that particular line. Minor point, but just clarifying.

You’re reading way too much into their inaction. Perhaps they don’t want to reply because they’re afraid of an atheist ex-Christian showing them that their arguments are, once again, unbiblical. Since they’re too cowardly to respond, it’s hard to know one way or the other so we best not read into their motivations in either replying or failing to do so.

I specifically deny this. Once again you are equivocating. Let me illustrate:

Your argument by analogy does not speak to the case at hand.

1. You are better off for making the more moral choice.

2. How are you NOT better than me (more deserving of rewards, happiness, etc., more moral, more holy, etc.)?

“You will say then, ‘Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.’ Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid.” Rom 11:19-20

This is the whole point that Coulter was making, though obviously not as coherently.

I disagree that Coulter’s point sounds anything like Rom 11:19-20. Furthermore, I know that scripture calls you to be humble. Scripture also calls you to be dirt poor and to not resist evil people. The Bible says all sorts of crap that Christians routinely ignore when it’s inconvenient or painful.

I realize this is intended to be ironic, but just two points:
1. Prager is not dead, so it is unclear whether my prayers will go unanswered.

You need to pay closer attention to what your Lord promises you:

“You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.” Jn 14:14, words of Christ

2. I have sent him as many emails as I considered appropriate when he brought up the subject and I felt I had something intelligent to say about it. Surely you are not advising me to browbeat the man? That would be … uncivil.

No, I advise you to renounce Christianity completely. Christianity is a harmful religion.

1. No, I don’t think it is arrogant, since this what disagreement means. If I am right about anything, everyone who disagrees is wrong.

It really depends on the subject. Some things are good for you that may not be good for other people. You are thinking that you’re right about something that is good for EVERYBODY, and that they MUST accept it, or else!

2. I don’t choose to believe things, I believe them because the facts will allow no other conclusion.

1. How can Jesus be fully man and fully god simultaneously?

2. Why are we being punished for Adam’s sin in spite of Deut 24:16?

3. How can god be jealous if god is love, yet love is not jealous?

4. How could the story of the flood be true? To begin with, there isn’t enough water. What do the facts show?

As an exercise, try “choosing” to believe that the computer monitor you are looking at right now is actually an aquarium. You can’t do it by an act of will, even if you have one of those nifty screen savers that makes it look like one.

The difference is that there is evidence for my computer monitor being what it is. What is the evidence for the truth of angels, demons, gods, devils, or souls? I see evidence *against* several of those things, but scant evidence *for* those things.

3. I don’t see where you got the idea that I think everyone else is wrong “by definition”.

Because it’s a common Christian belief. Forgive me if I’ve pegged you wrongly.

In your later comments, you claim that you think we are wrong, but not “because” we are Christians. But surely I could say the same.

Having faith is wrong in and of itself. Faith is choosing to believe something in spite of insufficient or contradictory evidence. You don’t have to be a Christian to have faith, either.

I hate it too, but that doesn’t mean it is false.

It is false. I am NOT just as evil as John Wayne Gacy, but you have no escape from that conclusion if you accept the stupidly misanthropic standard of “perfection” that Christianity demands you accept. The whole purpose of setting the bar impossibly high is to “convict” you and make you feel really lousy about yourself. People with life-long guilt complexes make loyal Christians (and loyal donors).

Amen. This may refute my claim that evangelicalism = liberalism, since liberals actually do music fairly well. But the content of CCM is clearly an attempt to rip-off liberal music and slap some Jesus on it, so I think I am still mostly right, here.

I wish CCM ripped off other music more effectively! Listening to “Barney and Friends” is more interesting than listening to CCM. If I knew nothing about Christianity and CCM was my introduction to it, then I would conclude that Jesus is the dippiest, stupidest loser in the universe.

Loundry on October 16, 2007 at 3:03 PM

dedalus on October 16, 2007 at 11:38 AM

Thanks again for the two links. It would be illogical to say that since ultimately Marcuse held many objectionable views it thereby invalidates all assertions that concur with his thinking.

My links provide information on what the activists (not necessarily rank-and-file gays) are truly attempting to do here, and where they get their foundational beliefs.

This is not about civil rights at all. This is about conserving the strong successful culture we’ve had for centuries. That’s why it’s called “conservatism”.

If this were truly about civil rights, then the Rev. Martin Luther King’s strategy of peaceful grassroots civil disobedience would work in changing society for the better. King and company didn’t wait for the government to give them rights, because they knew their rights didn’t come from the government.

If a conservative waits for permission from the government to do what he/she perceives to be good, is he/she really a conservative?

If it’s all about love, then why isn’t love being used to triumph over the supposed oppressors?

angryoldfatman on October 16, 2007 at 3:12 PM

Scripture also calls you to be dirt poor

It no more calls for people to be poor than it calls for people to commit incest, but I think you’re bored with me anyway.

Esthier on October 16, 2007 at 3:24 PM

I will say this about CCM music though. Yes, it is cheesy, but so is regular adult contemporary music.

The genre itself is a crappy, crappy genre.

There’s plenty of Christian music from other genres that are no different from secular music aside from the message.

Esthier on October 16, 2007 at 3:45 PM

My links provide information on what the activists (not necessarily rank-and-file gays) are truly attempting to do here, and where they get their foundational beliefs.

Understood. It would be inaccurate to judge a movement by its most extreme members or believe that the rank-and-file even agrees with the real revolutionaries.

This is not about civil rights at all. This is about conserving the strong successful culture we’ve had for centuries. That’s why it’s called “conservatism”.

Similar arguments were made to support miscegenation laws.

If this were truly about civil rights, then the Rev. Martin Luther King’s strategy of peaceful grassroots civil disobedience would work in changing society for the better. King and company didn’t wait for the government to give them rights, because they knew their rights didn’t come from the government.

I believe in the 9th Amendment and that all men are endowed by their Creator (not the government) with certain unalienable rights. Gay people are cohabitating without permission from the government, but like Dr. King and the suffragists they ultimately need the government to make legal changes.

If a conservative waits for permission from the government to do what he/she perceives to be good, is he/she really a conservative?

A lot of conservatives I know are passionate about a flat tax, but continue to abide by the current tax laws that can take 40% of their income. Conservative people can get married in secret or, in other countries at other times, practice their religion in secret or own guns in secret but one shouldn’t purposely run the country in a way that forces them to.

If it’s all about love, then why isn’t love being used to triumph over the supposed oppressors?

Ultimately, love, family love, is viewed as far more powerful and essential than government by Conservatives.

dedalus on October 16, 2007 at 5:52 PM

Understood. It would be inaccurate to judge a movement by its most extreme members or believe that the rank-and-file even agrees with the real revolutionaries.

You miss the point. These are the leaders. These are the movers in the movement. Saying that it’s inaccurate to judge a movement by the leaders is like saying it’s inaccurate to judge the Left by what Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or the “nutroots” say. The rank-and-file? They are told what to believe, and they believe it, just like you do.

The cultural Marxists will not stop at the line you imagine is there. Scalia and many others have warned us of this. Having lived through the leftist-dominated 1970s and its aftermath (and dreading an almost certain leftist future), I can assure you that we as a nation are going to regret this immensely.

angryoldfatman on October 16, 2007 at 7:56 PM

These are the leaders.

Gay people don’t have a leader any more than black people today do. Most African Americans in the 50’s and 60’s were moved by the Civil Rights struggle not due to something written by Black Power or Nation of Islam theorist but because they wanted to end discrimination. Jesse Jackson or others may try to speak for African Americans today but that’s more about his ego than any indication he has “foot soldiers”.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are elected leaders of the Democratic Party. The last time I checked (which isn’t often) Harry Reid was against Gay marriage. I don’t think he’d win an election as head of GLAAD.

Most of the gay people I know don’t know who Herbert Marcuse was and rather than trying to subvert capitalist society they are leading exponents of it. Are some of them savvy about using PR and the media to achieve their rights—sure, but it’s not part of a larger conspiracy. My support for gay marriage has less to do with an ultimate political objective, but rather, after 20 years of working in a competitive marketplace having known and relied on individual gay people who are of exceptionally high character, I believe they are entitled to the same rights I am.

In another post in this thread I mentioned a list of positions that I support. The only relevance is to your point that I’m waiting to be told what to believe by a group of Lacanian Feminist Marxists.

A Hillary administration would do much to further increase the role of government and to decrease the scope of liberty. I think she would damage the family and the individual, but I don’t think gay marriage does either.

dedalus on October 16, 2007 at 10:14 PM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8