Coulter: Jews will be “perfected” when they become Christians
posted at 2:53 pm on October 11, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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: « Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 Next »
Good post, AP, you ole atheist you! :)
Yes, I agree. Omri Ceren’s diagnosis is accurate. The Coulter flap is just another fabricated scandal… another brick in the fortress against conservative expression.
petefrt on October 12, 2007 at 6:53 PM
If you’re still here on the tread. The question was about prophecy and the veracity of the Bible. It was prophesied at least 400 years before it happened in all cases:
1. Where Christ would be born
2. When he would be born
3. Into what family he’d be born into
4. That he would flee to Egypt
5. That he would be raised in Nazareth
6. That he would be beaten with stripes
7. That none of his bones would be broken
8. That his clothing would be gambled for upon his death
9. That he would be buried in a rich man’s tomb
10. That he would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver
11. That he would be rejected by society
12. That he would be Abraham’s descendant
13. That he would be Judah’’s descendant
14. That he would be Jesse’s descendant
15. That he would be David’s descendant
16. That he would be pierced
17. That he would be killed
Those are just off the top of my head. If you grab a good study Bible you can find each and every scripture reference to the events. Plus the Internet has some great prophecy guides. These are SPECIFIC prophecies. The odds against one man living them out by accident are beyond astronomical. The church pews are filled with those who sought to disprove Christianity and end up joining the faith.
Mojave Mark on October 12, 2007 at 7:05 PM
Likewise, and thank you..
RobertCSampson on October 12, 2007 at 7:18 PM
This shows how little you know about political discourse as well as proving my point in unerring fashion.
Ann expressing her own opinion when asked is somehow worse in your world than the Democrats daily concocting of red herring arguments based on things that they know not to be true such as Rush’s opinion of the military, lies about the actions of our soldiers from John Kerry and Jack Murtha, racebaiting from Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton or your twisting of both mine and Ann’s comments. Also, you should check your history. There was a time in this country when political discourse involved slander, liable and sometimes even gunplay.
Ann was asked a question and she gave her honest belief. Can you be offended by it? Sure go ahead. No one is stopping you.
While we are on it, I don’t necessarily think Ann’s “newsworthy” comments are premeditated. They are just a result of her honest and outspoken manner. She recognizes that as Americans, we have the right to believe what we want and even express that belief even if it includes what some would call hate.
For the record, I have read all of her published works. She is indeed opinionated and has her vision of what America is and should be. Some will agree and some will not. Inasmuch as things that she has contempt for, I don’t think “Joos” makes the list. An honest assessment of the context should tell you she didn’t intend anything but to express her own beliefs which happen to be that Christianity is a better choice. What else should a Christian believe?
RobertCSampson on October 12, 2007 at 7:49 PM
Really? That’s odd. Let me know how I twisted your words. Certainly, you can find numerous examples of really offensive behavior in American political campaigns from “Rum, Romanism and Rebellion”, to “Ma, Ma, where’s my Pa? Gone to the White House Ha, Ha, Ha”, but since the dawn of radio and television I think we’ve reached a new low with people like Coulter generating an industry for herself as a walking insult generator. Calling Edwards a f@ggot? Do I have to find that enlightening in order to comprehend political discourse?
If your point is that the Dems pull some of the same stuff, then fine. You didn’t mention James Carville who was probably the best at it. I think he has also cheapened the political conversation.
Can I be offended by someone’s honest belief? Sure, if someone honestly shared racist beliefs with me I wouldn’t discount the racism because it was bundled with honesty.
I think Coulter is an effective self-promoter. If you happen to believe that she does it all unconsciously, then OK. I’m not a mind-reader and don’t pretend to know what her true intentions are.
I just watched the interview with Deutsch, after reading the transcript last night. The video makes it clearer that she is speaking of her vision for a perfect society in the United States–a perfect society that has converted all the Jews. As I said above, I prefer the “more perfect union” of the Constitution and its “Blessings of Liberty” over religious uniformity to a cause that may or may not pay off in the next life.
dedalus on October 12, 2007 at 8:32 PM
600?
SouthernDem on October 12, 2007 at 9:14 PM
Are you sure about those prophecies Mojave Mark?
Prophecies Imagined & Unfulfilled
frreal on October 12, 2007 at 9:27 PM
She never once called that little priss a f@ggot. Do you think using the @ instead of an a will keep you from getting banned?
wytammic on October 12, 2007 at 9:27 PM
NO! You MUST be kidding! Christians want OTHER people to be … GASP! CHRISTIAN!?!?!
NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
One Angry Christian on October 12, 2007 at 9:46 PM
Oh Ann, another career ending statement. What does that make it now? Six or seven statements that would ultimately do you in?
Hey people, chill. True biblical Christianity is exclusivistic. We’re not Harvard’s Unitarian Universalists. We don’t think everyone’s getting there no matter what they believe. Sincerity is insufficient. We think that beliefs actually matter and have eternal ramifications. If heaven was attainable ANY OTHER WAY, do you think God the Father would have sacrificed His Only Son? Jesus is not A way. He is THE way. Christians do not go to heaven because of their righteousness. It is Christ’s forgiveness that paves the way to heaven. He paid the price to forgive the sins of those who would simply believe. Sin is defined as missing the mark. The mark is God’s holiness. Everyone misses it. Everyone is a sinner in need of Christ’s forgiveness. Having said that, people are free to consider Jesus a fraud and I will defend your right to believe so. But I will challenge your thinking. Asking a Christian to keep his/her faith to him/her self is assuming that they can easily dismiss the uniqueness of the person of Jesus. Ann Coulter is saying that Judaism is completed in Christ. We have Judaism to thank for Christianity. Christianity at its core is Jewish. The Gospel is Good News! Biblical Christianity does not threaten anyone to convert or else. Christianity is a thinking man’s religion.
leavenedbread on October 12, 2007 at 9:47 PM
Maybe I’m wrong. I thought she did at the 2007 CPAC. Here’s Michelle’s take. I’m not worried about being banned for using the words that are part of the political discussion.
dedalus on October 12, 2007 at 9:54 PM
1) screaming libs 2) wannabe conservatives who don’t understand what conservatism really means 3) bigots that think her opinions make her un-American when its precisely her opinions that make her American and their bigotry the real bigotry.
RobertCSampson
Gonna take a bit of umbrage with number two, there Robert. There was a time when conservative meant a whole bunch of stuff and little of it had to do with who you did and did not pray to.
If “True Conservative” means “Must Go To Church And Spend Money Quicker Than Liberals”, then I must find a movement that is somewhat “less Conservative”. You know, the one that likes low taxes and limited government.
Saying Ann is a harpy is not bigotry, it’s judging her by the content of her character. Strangely, this isn’t the first time she’s skirted the issue of making everyone Christian, but whatever. Let her talk, and let her take the heat she wants. She’ll sell some books, turn off potential new conservatives but it’s ok because Ann is REAL, man.
Poor repressed Ann. How will she ever make it through?
Krydor on October 12, 2007 at 10:43 PM
Comment + screen name = ROFLMAO!
angryoldfatman on October 12, 2007 at 11:01 PM
That link you provided is essentially a very wordy, pseudo-intellectual way of saying “I don’t think so!”
And a lot of “fact” which are only facts if you hold their pre-suppositions.
least1 on October 12, 2007 at 11:12 PM
Clearly, you felt it necessary to read into what I meant by my statement regarding “wannabe conservatives” by bringing up something entirely different… defining what I think a “true conservative” is. Forgive me for taking umbrage right back at you. I didn’t say anything about conservative having to do with who you did and do not pray to nor do I believe it does. From your comments, I have the same exact definition of conservative that you do.
I’m pointing out that those that attack Ann as somebody that is bringing down the level of political discourse or that she does more damage to us by her mean spirited attacks etc. blah blah blah, are clueless fools who don’t recognize that we are in a fight for the future of our country and its this exact PC garbage that could ultimately kill us all.
If she turns you or any so-called “potential new conservatives” then I don’t want to be on your team anyway. Call yourselves something else but you are not conservatives by any stretch.
RobertCSampson on October 12, 2007 at 11:14 PM
I will not debate with someone as intellectually dishonest as you. You should run as a Democratic Senator. You have the same tactics down as Reid et al. When you are prepared to make your points using the truth instead of lies and distortions, I am here.
RobertCSampson on October 12, 2007 at 11:17 PM
I found my conservative roots in the work that Bill Buckley did, much of it before Coulter was born. I find Coulter at odds with some of what Buckley accomplished.
dedalus on October 12, 2007 at 11:21 PM
RobertCSampson
2) wannabe conservatives who don’t understand what conservatism really means
Well, I attack Ann and…
I didn’t say anything about conservative having to do with who you did and do not pray to nor do I believe it does. From your comments, I have the same exact definition of conservative that you do.
We have the exact same definition of Conservative. Strange!
If she turns you or any so-called “potential new conservatives” then I don’t want to be on your team anyway. Call yourselves something else but you are not conservatives by any stretch.
Does Not Compute! Error! Error!
We agree on what Conservatism is, right? So, if we are in agreement with the basic idea, why can’t I be on your team? What is holding me back, man? Dude, I have to know!
Old Ann makes the claim of being a conservative, and the only thing she is conservative with is a dinner fork. Her conservatism is tied directly to her religion.
Krydor on October 12, 2007 at 11:31 PM
Hey, TJ, it took a while, but we’re up over 600 comments on this farcical thread. Lots of good thoughts, though.
But I’m wondering…does it count as 600 comments if 150 of them are from Laundry, and 100 of them are from MB4?
Jaibones on October 12, 2007 at 11:42 PM
I’ll read 100 comments from MB4–Always fun and informative.
dedalus on October 12, 2007 at 11:51 PM
Where we differ is that Ann turns you off and you feel that it will turn off so-called “potential new conservatives”. Whereas I feel Ann has the right to her opinion and that there was nothing inflammatory about this comment in the least. She is a Christian and she feels that everyone else would be better off if they were too. So what. I like chocolate and think everyone should like it too.
I thought this was pretty clear.
For the record, I don’t care about the merits of her belief just that she has the right to express it when asked and that you would have to be twisting her motivation to make it anti-semitic. She like many conservatives is strong supporter of Israel. Moreso, I would argue, than many who will condemn her comments in the coming media coverage of her comments.
Ultimately, this is much ado about nothing and illustrates one of my biggest problems with encroaching liberalism, the ravenous overzealous condemnation of controversial opinion on the subjects of race and religion. The Tolerance Police have once again gone overboard and if you left the station on that train, you also left your “true conservative” friends behind.
Lastly, arguing that Ann is not a conservative is kinda silly, don’t ya think?
I thought it was pretty clear.
RobertCSampson on October 12, 2007 at 11:51 PM
Feel free to let me know what you feel is a lie.
I agree, completely, with that statement.
dedalus on October 13, 2007 at 12:04 AM
Hey – if KOS can count ‘em, we sure as hell can!
T J Green on October 13, 2007 at 1:48 AM
For the record, I don’t care about the merits of her belief just that she has the right to express it when asked and that you would have to be twisting her motivation to make it anti-semitic. She like many conservatives is strong supporter of Israel. Moreso, I would argue, than many who will condemn her comments in the coming media coverage of her comments.
Anti Semitic, no. Tactless, though. That may well be my major issue with Ann. Complete lack of tact. She doesn’t want everyone to be a Christian in general, she wants everyone to be a Christian in her own image. She wants the Republicans to be physically diverse, but beyond that, they had better think the same way about all her key issues.
She’s already called for the forced conversion of the Middle East, if I recall correctly. She’s a scary woman, and it’s probably just as well she has no internal filter.
Krydor on October 13, 2007 at 11:30 AM
If you’re still checking in on this one, I’ll bother to answer.
It is not a convolution. Put an old VHS movie, one that you’ve watched before, in the VCR. Watch the penultimate scene of the story. Now consider this: Do the characters “within the story” know what’s going to happen next? You do. Does your knowing it change how it’s going to turn out? No. The decisions those characters make are their own, not yours. You are an interested observer who has the amazing power to observe ANY time point of the sequence you choose, because you are not bound within the chronology of the characters.
It is just the same with God, except that He is more than an observer. But He does NOT contradict free will. He may establish circumstances that make fools of us for misusing it (i.e. Balaam’s donkey), but our free will is intact.
Therefore, it is not incompatible beliefs that you cannot accept, it is your rigid refusal to consider a being can “read your story” as you might watch a movie. That’s ok, you’re free to refuse.
And on topic, Jews are free to not accept Jesus. Ann never said one word about forcing anybody to believe anything. Review her words. She said “we want”. Suddenly Ann Coulter (and by extension all Christians under this thought) cannot have a desire if it is in opposition to anyone else? That must be a restriction only applicable to us “Christianists”, because everyone else is allowed to oppose, even offend, and it’s just fine.
Freelancer on October 13, 2007 at 11:35 AM
Freelancer,
You are exactly correct regarding the VHS analogy. One of the places where science directly touches on Judaeo-Christianity is Einstein’s Relativity theory. According to Relativity, Time is the fourth dimension of the Universe. That means that God, the Creator of the Universe, is outside Time. Unfortunately, despite the best efforts of physicists and sci-fi writers, we are incapable of imagining how a being truly outside Time would interact with linear Time. Hence the confusion and apparent (but not real) contradiction.
Lancer on October 13, 2007 at 12:13 PM
Incidentally, I think the one group of non-Christians who had the most logical and intellectually honest response to Jesus’ claims about Himself was the original Sanhedrin. Here was a man who claimed to be the prophesied Messiah and the physical Son of God. Either He was what He claimed to be, or he was, under the Torah, a blasphemer. The Sanhedrin didn’t pussy-foot around with “well, we’re sure he means well, he’s just confused” or any other such mealy-mouthed, intellectually dishonest claptrap. They made their decision, that He was not the Messiah. And then they followed the Torah (as Jesus expected them to), which says that Blasphemy is a capital crime. Since the Romans reserved capital punishment to themselves, they had to go to Pontius Pilate to get it done. That is why Jesus was crucified Roman-style rather than stoned to death as the Torah commands.
Jesus Christ was either a liar and a blasphemer, or the Messiah and the Son of God. This third option that everyone likes to take, “he was a great guy but not the Son of God,” is simply non-sensical and a true self-contradictory belief.
Lancer on October 13, 2007 at 12:24 PM
Isn’t it possible to be a little of both? Was someone like Galileo both a heretic and positive contributor, and maybe a nice guy?
dedalus on October 13, 2007 at 1:04 PM
Both Son of God and nice guy, yes.
Not Son of God and still nice guy, depends.
If you define “nice guy” as being an alright fellow except for willingly lying about himself being the Son of God, then yes.
If you define “nice guy” as being an alright fellow except for being crazy enough to think he was the Son of God, then yes.
The shorthand for the argument Lancer is using is the “liar, lunatic, or Lord” argument, popularized by C.S. Lewis.
Of course infidels.org has a counter to it, which basically is a 4,000 word polemic that can be summarized as “Only the Sith think in absolutes! NUANCE!”
angryoldfatman on October 13, 2007 at 2:33 PM
Thanks, much appreciated.
dedalus on October 13, 2007 at 3:05 PM
You agreed that the world might be better off, at least for you, if everyone were Jewish. That’s what you said.
Your response left open the possibility that you might be wrong, but you still believe it might be true.
The only difference between your response and Coulter’s is that she is confident in her opinion.
Esthier on October 13, 2007 at 3:18 PM
HOLD IT everybody! Careful with your rhetoric here.
SouthernDem on October 12, 2007 at 9:05 PM thinks were are attacking Loundry here.
No joke:
Now thats irony!
Yeah….. poor Loundry indeed, getting attacked here.
Loundry can dish out all kinds of criticism, but when the heat gets turned up on him, he simply picks up his toys and leaves the kitchen.
I hope Loundry is squirming in his seat as he reads this.
Mcguyver on October 13, 2007 at 3:28 PM
Why would I care if everyone was Jewish? I’m not Jewish and I don’t spend much time with my friends talking about how they practice their religion.
One difference between me and Ann Coulter is that I believe that the “more perfect union” of the Constitution doesn’t rely on religious test. That and I don’t call people fagg0ts.
dedalus on October 13, 2007 at 3:46 PM
My guess is that Loundry doesn’t mind attacks on himself, as long as people recognize homosexuals as full participants in society.
dedalus on October 13, 2007 at 3:49 PM
I admit it, what I said was popularized by C.S. Lewis, although I was aware of the argument well before I ever read anything by him. The point still stands though, as does my contention that the Sanhedrin were among the first to recognize it. Jesus never left any room for “nuance.”
Lancer on October 13, 2007 at 4:05 PM
That is an oxymoron.
His problem of course, is the statement that a heterosexual marriage is superior to a homosexual marriage.
Homosexual partners cannot reproduce as a unit, whereas, heterosexual partners can reproduce and are full participants in society.
I don’t know what the problem is.
If homosexuals have a prayer in their survival as an element of contribution to society, they will acknowledge this and quit being so offended.
Homosexuals may be able to adopt a child from a heterosexual unit, but that is taking from, not contributing to.
Ooops. Did I just offend a homosexual?
Well. They have right to be offended. And, I have right to offend them.
Gotta a problem with that? Well then, move to Iran. Good bye, and, good luck.
Mcguyver on October 13, 2007 at 4:14 PM
Don’t get me wrong, I wasn’t slamming you or the argument. It just seemed to me that dedalus needed some help with understanding what you were telling him/her.
The liar/lunatic/Lord argument is so effective because Lewis brilliantly eliminated the “nuance” via simple, verifiable logic. I put up the infidels link to show how weak and ineffective the typical refutation is. They essentially try to blur the straight, dark, sharp, narrow lines that Lewis drew. They remain unsuccessful because their obfuscations are easily made transparent by simply cracking open the Bible and looking for yourself in verses other than the cherry-picked ones.
angryoldfatman on October 13, 2007 at 4:24 PM
If we can defend marriage by preventing infertile couples from marrying then we’ll ensure that we stop homosexuals, the elderly, or disabled people from tying the knot.
What’s more important? Fertility or love?
dedalus on October 13, 2007 at 4:37 PM
The difference is, Homosexuals could love themselves into extinction.
Mcguyver on October 13, 2007 at 5:02 PM
Let’s not get started on gay marriage, please. We’ve strayed from the topic enough already.
angryoldfatman on October 13, 2007 at 5:02 PM
Are you another speech dictator?
Mcguyver on October 13, 2007 at 5:05 PM
Just tired bro.
angryoldfatman on October 13, 2007 at 5:07 PM
Try this.
Mcguyver on October 13, 2007 at 5:09 PM
If God didn’t bother to create bad or good, why should God create free will?
Besides -
A man can do as he wills, but not will as he wills. Everybody acts not only under external compulsion but also in accordance with inner necessity.
- Schopenhauer
We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.
- Gene Roddenberry
MB4 on October 13, 2007 at 7:03 PM
I can’t decide which of these has the best ring.
*
Oh what a contorted web we weave once we practice to believe.
*
Oh what a contorted web we weave if we feel compelled to believe.
*
Oh what a contorted web we weave if our inner necessity compels us to believe.
MB4 on October 13, 2007 at 7:11 PM
Gene Roddenberry? Seriously?
I’d point out all the problems with that quote, but you don’t really care. Your quotes aren’t meant to promote discussion.
Yeah, you keep bringing up the Edwards thing. She did clarify that statement about a million times, once even saying that she’d never insult gay people that way since she has far more respect for them.
I’m not defending her statement, but there’s no reason to discuss it here. It has nothing to do with a religious litmus test and nothing to do with Loundry being gay.
And Coulter has never said anything about this country requiring a religious test. Nothing in that quote even implies that she wants the US to make everyone become a Christian.
Believing that a perfect world is one filled with one religion is not the same as wanting your country to have a religious litmus test. It’s asinine to even believe they’re the same. If a person said a perfect world would be filled with chocolate lakes and ice cream snow, would you assume that person wants the US to dump coco mix into the Mississippi River?
I assumed you were Jewish because of you comments, specifically the ones about moving to Israel. Either way, you admitted that a world full of Jews is probably better for Jewish people. Those are your words.
Ann Coulter said the exact same thing in reference to people of her religion.
Esthier on October 13, 2007 at 8:36 PM
Why not create free will? “Evil,” to oversimplify things, could be construed as an abuse of free will. In studying the Bible, I have noticed that the commission of sins is always a decision-an act of will.
Here’s a question: If we couldn’t sin, would we actually have free will?
Lancer on October 13, 2007 at 8:37 PM
BTW, angryoldfartman, I didn’t think you were slamming me, just wanted to get another couple of cents in.
Lancer on October 13, 2007 at 8:45 PM
Cool, Lancer, thanks.
LOL on the Tempurpedic bed, Macguyver!
MB4, do you really want answers, or do you just want to stay where you were at twelve years old? Because the questions you ask about Christianity are at about that level, when you say you stopped believing in it. Unless it was another religion you were talking about upthread.
angryoldfatman on October 13, 2007 at 10:20 PM
I think what I exactly said was: “It might. I don’t worry much about it, though I might if I was contemplating a move to Israel. I haven’t contemplated such a move.” That’s my way of saying I don’t have enough information or analysis to express an opinion.
If she had called him a white n-word, could she get herself off the hook saying that she didn’t mean it as an insult because she has so many black friends?
She said that McCain’s recent statements to belief.net were OK, except for where he allowed that a muslim could become president.
I could get behind something like that—mmmhhh chocolate.
dedalus on October 13, 2007 at 11:18 PM
His problem of course, is the statement that a heterosexual marriage is superior to a homosexual marriage.
In what ways are a heterosexual marriage superior?
Homosexual partners cannot reproduce as a unit, whereas, heterosexual partners can reproduce and are full participants in society.
Ah, so children define the betterness of marriage. Therefore, someone with 12 kids is superior to someone with 1? What about those heterosexual couples who will not have kids? Should they be forced to have kids as a requirement of marriage? Should unwed folks who have kids be forced into marriage to preserve its sanctity?
If homosexuals have a prayer in their survival as an element of contribution to society, they will acknowledge this and quit being so offended.
What happens to them if they decide that they don’t want to stop being offended? Their survival is at stake!
Homosexuals may be able to adopt a child from a heterosexual unit, but that is taking from, not contributing to.
What? Really? If a homosexual couple adopts a child, then they have actually created a negative on society?
Ooops. Did I just offend a homosexual?
Probably, but you definitely annoyed the crap out of me. The way you construct arguments is an insult to every style of classical logic.
Well. They have right to be offended. And, I have right to offend them.
Bravo, brave Sir Knight. Your Crusade will long be remembered.
Gotta a problem with that? Well then, move to Iran. Good bye, and, good luck.
I have a feeling you would be a better fit in Iran.
Krydor on October 14, 2007 at 1:42 AM
Oh.
I remember you Krydor.
You’re the one with the very successful anti-Bush, abstinence plan.
.
.
You’re welcome, speech dictator. And thanks for all your other compliments.
Mcguyver on October 14, 2007 at 1:55 AM
Sorry Ann, but that is not quite right.
The Jews are the “chosen” people, we Christians are the “saved” people.
In the “end” Jews will believe in Christ and recognize him as the messiah, but they don’t have to do a thing until then.
They will miss out on the rapture (along with a lot of good people), but that’s because they are meant to witness the end.
The “first” (Jews) will be last, and the “last” Christians will be first.
Christians are only obligated to protect Israel and the Jews, not “save” them.
Agrippa2k on October 14, 2007 at 2:01 AM
Seriously, if the best that I could do was to call someone a twelve year old, I would be much too embarrassed at my lack of debating skills and lack of socialization to even comment on a web site.
MB4 on October 14, 2007 at 6:43 AM
If we couldn’t fly, would we actually have free will?
Schopenhauer said that a man can do as he wills, but not will as he wills.
Now here’s a question: If we could see or hear a God, would we actually have clear thinking?
MB4 on October 14, 2007 at 6:56 AM
Would I kid you?
You got something against writers?
How about inventors then?
I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious ideas of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God. So far as religion of the day is concerned, it is a damned fake… Religion is all bunk.
- Thomas Edison (if you don’t like what he said, then throw away all your light bulbs)
How about a founding father?
I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology.
- Thomas Jefferson (if you don’t like what he said, then don’t salute the flag).
MB4 on October 14, 2007 at 7:09 AM
Sounds like what you hear from “Jews for Jesus” every day. Annoying, but hardly stand out like many of Ann’s comments.
Just another example of Media Matters types pressing a weekly quote from someone on their enemies list, of a type they think will piss people off.
Anil Petra on October 14, 2007 at 11:48 AM
Yes, having studied them for years, I don’t really find them to be the best people to emulate.
Because I’m required to approve of every word an inventor says before I use his/her invention?
If that’s the case, then I’m really worried about all those VW drivers I see on the road.
Because I disagree with one of the Founders?
Then again…
It is in our lives and not our words that our religion must be read.
- Thomas Jefferson
Say nothing of my religion. It is known to God and myself alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life: if it has been honest and dutiful to society the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one.
- Thomas Jefferson
Yes, I understood that. You weren’t being mystic there. However, even with your limited knowledge on the subject, you lean towards believing it is true.
Coulter has a lot of knowledge about Christians and was therefore more confident in her opinion that it is true.
Didn’t that work for Robert Byrd?
Look, as I said, I wasn’t justifying her statement. All I was saying is that as she has clarified it, the statement had nothing to do with gay people.
If anything, I grew up calling things gay, using the world as it was originally intended, “a gay day” and other cheesy references. When I said someone was acting gay back then, I didn’t mean homosexual. I might have meant fruity, but those two are not the same.
According to Coulter’s explanations, that’s what she meant with the Edwards comment. And that’s why I say, whether or not she should have used that word, this is not a conversation about homosexuals.
That’s no different than what Ayaan Hirsi Ali is saying. For the time being, she believes that Islam should not be a trusted religion and that it is a political movement right now. The way she is phrasing the debate, it’s no different than keeping communists from becoming president during the Cold War.
I’m not sure I agree with them, but with the way multiculturalism is ruining so many other countries, maybe I’d be wrong.
And for the record, I can’t imagine that anyone doesn’t have a religious litmus test. Are you telling me you’d be OK with a radical Muslim, one who believes in beating women who don’t wear their scarves properly, who hangs gays and who would execute a woman who was raped?
If you can say no, then you do have a litmus test. It’s just different than Coulter’s.
It would be nice, but it would also be crazy. We’re already a fat nation.
Esthier on October 14, 2007 at 12:00 PM
You are becoming indignant at your own words. To wit:
I was merely stating that your questions and arguments are indicative of the person you confess to be, i.e. someone who stopped studying the subject matter in question at twelve years old.
If you want to get all huffy about your own words being repeated to you, then you’re showing not only the intellectual level of that time, but the emotional maturity level as well.
If you don’t want to answer my initial question, then it’s apparent that you’re not looking for answers to your questions. You are merely looking for confirmation of a worldwiew formed and frozen at the time you were twelve years old.
angryoldfatman on October 14, 2007 at 12:01 PM
Any commenter on HotAir who claims to be offended by what Ann says is a liar. What they think they have to gain by feigning offense is something for psycho-scientists to figure out.
Commenters on the AC posts who think she has done damage to the GOP are fools. That damage continues to be wreaked on an hourly basis by RINOS in the Senate and, lately, the US Chamber of Commerce. They all would do well read one, any one, of her books.
The liar\fools are sickening excuses for Americans, especially those claiming to be conservatives and having the best interests of the conservative movement at heart. These “people” need to stop worrying about who’s watching and listening and how they may be perceived because IT.DOESN’T.MATTER. The left is going to demonize everything you say and claim to believe, no matter what. They are howling right now. So you might as well say what you mean without all the PC-laden, multicultural preening!
They epitomize the whiners and hand-wringers and the GOP is better off without them. I am convinced that they are all from Rhode Island and are responsible for Lincoln Chaffee’s misbegotten political career.
How’s that for a defense of AC?
netherman79 on October 14, 2007 at 12:51 PM
That’s great!
Where the hell have you been when we needed you, netherman79?
I see you have only showed up twice in the last few days on these blogs.
Mcguyver on October 14, 2007 at 1:18 PM
It might. I’m neither a mind-reader nor a spokesman for Jewish people, though my limited knowledge of Judaism tells me that they aren’t apostolic like Christians and for some there is a bloodline limitation on who could become a Jew. If a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindi felt that perfecting the United States involved mass conversion, I’d disagree with their vision. Coulter’s comments are particularly troublesome though in light of the historical treatment of Jews by European Christians.
Would it be offensive to Protestants to say that they need to accept the Catholic church in order for the United States to be perfect or for them to saved for eternity?
I think Byrd is a national embarrassment.
Someone’s belief of what will happen in the next lifetime isn’t compelling to me. If someone was born a Muslim or another non-Christian religion and their beliefs were rooted in the Constitution and they were right on the issues, I could support them. Kennedy’s Catholicism wasn’t a problem and I think Romney could be an effective president if elected. If someone were to check with their Bible, Koran, Pope, Ayatollah or Dalai Lama before the Constitution that would disqualify them.
dedalus on October 14, 2007 at 2:06 PM
I did not say that I stopped studying the subject matter in question at twelve years old. That is just not there in my words that you yourself quoted. Unless you can see invisible words like you can see an invisable God. lol. Read what I said again – C A R E F U L L Y.
There you go again with the juvenile name calling.
There you go yet again with the twelve years old stuff.
BTW, I am not at all fat. Eat your heart out!
lol.
MB4 on October 14, 2007 at 2:08 PM
Might they demonize you by call saying “liar\fools are sickening excuses for Americans”. That rhetoric doesn’t get the GOP to 270 electoral votes. The left is grandstanding with this SCHIP stuff, painting the GOP as insensitive to children. Coulter’s comments don’t help keep Clinton 2.0 out of the White House.
dedalus on October 14, 2007 at 2:16 PM
Like I said, you don’t want answers.
You say you stopped being “very religious” at twelve, at which time you imply that you became confused with questions like (your words here):
These are very elementary questions to which many in their mid-teens already know the answers. For instance, I just asked my sixteen year old son what was meant by God creating man in His image, and my son gave me a theologically sound answer.
Therefore, I can only conclude that you revealed too much about yourself with the “twelve year old” remark, and now you’re vigorously denying it, possibly hoping to salvage some pride.
That’s fine, but understand that you’re not being particularly impressive.
angryoldfatman on October 14, 2007 at 3:30 PM
Thanks Mcguyver! I rarely have time these days to debate the likes of dudealus, who, by the way should wake up and get real. What part of IT DOESN’T MATTER don’t you understand? As much as I hate to say it or see it happen, the GOP this time is not going to get 270 electoral votes no matter what.
Why? Because we have spent the last eight years being untrue to ourselves and the cause of conservativism. We have shied away from naming names and confronting the enemy of the American way of life.
The only thing you will have done in your attempts to “save” or “perfect” the GOP is create a record of helping the liberals win the power the are going to win anyway. Bra -vo. If Ann Coulter, tomorrow, goes on FOX News and renounces Christianity, conservatism and the GOP AND buys Al Gore’s book and donates big money to MOR-ON.ORG, she will still be demonized and ridiculed, and the GOP will lose by an even bigger margin.
netherman79 on October 14, 2007 at 4:29 PM
If you think it doesn’t matter that Hillary is elected, then you need to wake up. Just this week it was leaked that she wants a social security tax hike similar to what Edwards has proposed. Also, look at the age of the justices on the Supreme Court.
dedalus on October 14, 2007 at 4:35 PM
Question: How does a political party win elections with only 20% of the voting public?
Answer: They don’t.
Lesson: It is not just your party. It is also the party many moderates claim. But keep up this kind of rhetoric and they may decide they have a better chance of their moderate views being adopted by Democrats.
Bradky on October 14, 2007 at 4:41 PM
netherman79,
I struck that out because it is way too early too tell with such certainty, everything about the elections is very fluid at this time.
.
.
For the record, the only thing dedalus has contributed worth repeating is the following:
.
.
Exit question:
Was/is George Bush’s evangelical Christian belief a problem?
Mcguyver on October 14, 2007 at 4:43 PM
Believe me, no one dreads the next Clinton administration more than me. But pandering to the party pantywaists by being the first to bash Ann Coulter is not going to change things. You are only fooling yourselves if you think by tossing AC under the bus will somehow make things better.
And if AC stopped being AC, do you really think it’ll win over one Democrat? I certainly don’t. On contrary, you are alienting more solid Republicans who are increasingly convinced that there is little to distinguish one party from the other anymore. So why bother?
netherman79 on October 14, 2007 at 4:49 PM
Feel free to pick a point and disagree with it. The last comment of yours I read was denigrating couples that choose to adopt.
dedalus on October 14, 2007 at 4:58 PM
There’s no room in either party anymore for moderates. If Modeerates think their views will prevail in the Move-On.Congress then they are bigger fools than I have previously given them credit. I bid them a fond farewell and good luck.
It’s fish or cut bait time, Brad.
netherman79 on October 14, 2007 at 4:59 PM
I agree with you.
On a realistic note I don’t believe for a minute that such AC bashers here represent a majority in the general populace – except for the bloggers, et al who wish for a “faggot-free” discourse.
Rather, I think the vocal and outspoken ones tend to be the ones signing up when comment registration opens up.
So that is why we need more like you, netherman79 and et al to show up more frequently and bring some sense of balance.
Mcguyver on October 14, 2007 at 5:02 PM
You, my friend, would be more productive if you tried to “read the lines” between my three fingers flashing you.
Mcguyver on October 14, 2007 at 5:06 PM
Do you imagine that people enjoy it when you call them faggot? What of Christ’s teaching of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”?
If you were to direct the term at a co-worker in most states you would have legal problems.
dedalus on October 14, 2007 at 5:12 PM
Since there is no webcam support on HA, you’ll just have to rely on words and logic instead of hand gestures.
dedalus on October 14, 2007 at 5:15 PM
dedalus on October 14, 2007 at 5:12 PM
(Italics are my responses:)
If you were to direct the term at a co-worker in most states you would have legal problems. Do you imagine that people enjoy it when you call them faggot?
For the record: On the “faggot” joke, Ann was being absurd in quoting Bill Maher so as to demonstrate the absurdity of Bill Maher’s joke. So, you trying to bring this into a legal context is REVEALING how lame you are.
What of Christ’s teaching of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”?
For the record, I AM treating YOU, EXACTLY THE WAY I WOULD LIKE TO BE TREATED, that is, IF I was acting as stupid you are, I would want somebody to do anything, to try and knock some sense into me.
Mcguyver on October 14, 2007 at 5:29 PM
Unless of course, you have no imagination.
So let’s try this again: I’m flashing three fingers at you, (with the index finger being in the center) can you read between the lines?
Mcguyver on October 14, 2007 at 5:33 PM
But that’s because I care about common sense and how I look to the general public…. but then again if you don’t care about such things, well then it makes sense why you would continue acting stupid.
Mcguyver on October 14, 2007 at 5:37 PM
Actually, the Maher allusion was subsequent when she suggested it would have been better to wish Edwards was killed in a terrorist plot. The faggot joke was an allusion to Isaiah Washington entering rehab after an on-set comment on Grey’s Anatomy. Notice, I corrected you without needing all caps or name calling.
The legal context came about when you used the phrase “faggot-free discourse”. My point is that you are required to have “faggot-free discourse” in most businesses in America.
dedalus on October 14, 2007 at 5:54 PM
Feel free to identify what I’ve said that is stupid.
dedalus on October 14, 2007 at 5:55 PM
Here’s Michelle’s post on Coulter’s CPAC talk. My opinion on Coulter’s comments then are very similar to Michelle’s.
dedalus on October 14, 2007 at 6:01 PM
A completely out of context point.
Too numerous to mention.
Mcguyver on October 14, 2007 at 6:02 PM
see you in the minority party for the next generation or so.
Bradky on October 14, 2007 at 6:02 PM
I agree with Michelle here.
In my post above, I was merely stating what Ann was doing, though not acceptable.
Mcguyver on October 14, 2007 at 6:06 PM
Thank God that Ann Coulter has the courage to publically speak the God’s honest truth. At least redeemed believers can see the worlds, and those of this world’s, response to it, and know that the time is short…
NRA4Freedom on October 14, 2007 at 6:20 PM
Great. One point of agreement. There’s a few more, I’m sure.
dedalus on October 14, 2007 at 6:22 PM
The following is the only other one I’m aware of:
Mcguyver on October 14, 2007 at 6:30 PM
OK, we have two. At a high level, how ’bout these.
–We should secure our borders
–We should kill bin Laden
–We should keep the capital gains tax at 15% or lower it.
–We should privatize social security
–We should allow for more school choice
–We should decrease the size of the federal government
–We should not have socialized medicine
–We should not reinstate the fairness doctrine
–We should decrease our dependence on foreign oil
dedalus on October 14, 2007 at 6:39 PM
dedalus on October 14, 2007 at 6:39 PM
Italics my answer:
–We should secure our borders. Yes
–We should kill bin Laden. Yes
–We should keep the capital gains tax at
15%10% or lower. Yes–We should privatize social security. Yes
–We should allow for
moreschool choice. Yes–We should decrease the size of the federal government. Yes
–We should not have socialized medicine. Yes
–We should not reinstate the fairness doctrine. Yes
–We should
decreaseeliminate our dependence on foreign oil. YesMcguyver on October 14, 2007 at 6:45 PM
I wholeheartedly agree, and I believe that is exactly why Ann Coulter and Ayaan Hirsi Ali are concerned. Polls and current events don’t exactly paint a brighter picture.
I couldn’t agree more. I cannot understand how a former KKK keagle was ever elected in the first place.
They’ve already done so. It is apparently what they believe. I will admit that I was offended but only because I had always believed we worshiped the same Christ and believed the same theology and that dogma was not a requirement for heaven.
I can’t imagine Jewish people are under this same delusion. After all, Christianity and Judaism are different religions, whereas Catholicism and Protestantism are mere different denominations of the same religion.
Again, this wasn’t Coulter’s idea of changing the country. This was simply her idea of the perfect world, i.e. heaven. And maybe this is a shocker to you, but more religious people believe that their view of heaven will be filled with those who share their religious beliefs.
I have a really hard time imaging that you didn’t know that already though.
Christian theology in a nutshell: God made the world. The world fell into sin and needed a Savior. God’s Son decided to sacrifice Himself for us, making it possible for man to be saved by merely asking for salvation. The only catch is that you have to ask and acknowledge that salvation is warranted.
Those who ask for help can become Christians, people who are “born again” as new people. Yes, we believe people are better off when they are “born again” since at that point they get Jimmeny Cricket-like access to God through Jesus.
So if you consider that we believe that people are so fallen that we need a Savior, it stands to full logical reason that we believe people, in general and society as a whole, are better off when they accept that Savior and become Christians.
Fallen is something of a metaphor, but to put it even plainer, Christians see a world full of people who are drowning. We want to help by pointing these people to the lifesaver, but unless they decide to grab onto it, they’ll continue drowning.
With that mentality, doesn’t it stand to reason that Christians believe a perfect world won’t include drowning people?
She wasn’t picking on Jews. As she said, many Christians believe Jews go to heaven anyway. If anything, her singling out of Jews was only excluding to other religious and nonreligious groups, exactly the way Allah pegged it.
Esthier on October 14, 2007 at 11:11 PM
You’re welcome, speech dictator. And thanks for all your other compliments.
Mcguyver
No problem, and thanks so much for proving my point about your horrendous arguing skills, as you didn’t bother with any counterpoints.
1) Ah, so children define the betterness of marriage. Therefore, someone with 12 kids is superior to someone with 1? What about those heterosexual couples who will not have kids? Should they be forced to have kids as a requirement of marriage? Should unwed folks who have kids be forced into marriage to preserve its sanctity?
2) What happens to them if they decide that they don’t want to stop being offended? Their survival is at stake!
3) What? Really? If a homosexual couple adopts a child, then they have actually created a negative on society?
Speech dictator, indeed. I’m not even trying very hard to dismantle your asinine arguments.
Krydor on October 14, 2007 at 11:46 PM
:rolleyes:
Okay, we’re going to swerve into the gay marriage issue.
1. A marriage license is not a right, just like a driver’s license is not a right.
2. Marriage licenses are issued as state support and record for a traditional institution that has been around long before Christianity.
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)
4. The traditional institution of marriage 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.
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.
5. Denial of a marriage license in no way stops anybody from loving anybody else. 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.
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.
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
JackOfClubs,
Thank you for your awesome response.
Thank you very much for your praise. I like to think that Christians call me names and mock me because they hate what I say, not because what I’m saying is mirthless.
I’m a veteran in anti-Christian debate, so I’m used to the crappy Christian responses by now. Your response is the gem in a mountain of dung.
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.
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.
That is a point that several have raised above, but you seem to consistently want to take it the wrong way. Here is the context:
Yes I can claim that she is being elitist because she thinks that she is perfected and others aren’t. Of course, she could claim that she was lying when she said that, but I really do think she feels that way and other Christians on this very message board feel that way, too. 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.
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?
Precisely for the reason that I’ve stated several times: Conservative Christians pride themselves on flaunting their resistance to “political correctness”, but when it comes to the plight of the Jews, then suddenly they aren’t so proud of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You and a few others are the exception to this rule: you will proclaim what you think is true no matter how many Jews you offend, be it one, a thousand, ten thousand, or the entire lot of Jews worldwide.
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.
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 think that’s fair. I disagree that there is a “correct conclusion”, but I think you’re being reasonable given your incorrect assumptions.
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?
I agree. I can think of no less than six ways that scripture says how I can be saved off the top of my head. I think the sceptics annotated bible lists 25 or so. “How can I be saved?” is a question to which the Bible provides a very unclear answer.
I hate that part of your religion. The “born bad” and “deserving of eternal torture” theology blows pony.
I do hope you come back and respond.
Loundry on October 15, 2007 at 10:39 AM
On top of that, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from providing each other with health insurance and setting up wills so that they will be able to see each other in the hospital.
The only other “benefit” of state-sponsored marriage is the supposed tax breaks we get, but those are completely bogus. There’s only a noticeable break if one spouse makes much more than the other.
For instance, if a single person makes over 30,000, that person is moved into another tax bracket. However, a married couple isn’t moved into another tax bracket until they make a combined 60,000. Essentially, if both spouses make 30,000, then neither is getting a break. However, if one spouse makes 45,000 and the other makes 15,000, there is a slight net gain filing together than filing separately.
But if a rich couple marries they’re actually better off filing separately.
Esthier on October 15, 2007 at 10:45 AM
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.
The difference with Coulter’s statement was that she was being asked about the United States rather than heaven.
The founders of the United States had an opportunity to make the new country officially Christian, but they had a different vision. 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. There I’d agree that when Christ descends from heaven with all of the Saints we can put the U.S. Constitution aside and prepare for the last judgment. From that perspective, Coulter’s statements are fine.
dedalus on October 15, 2007 at 10:53 AM
On this I completely agree. In high school I was first confronted with atheists, one I eventually married. The other Christians at school kinda looked like their heads were on the verge of exploding every time he posed a question.
He was really cocky about it though too. If he hadn’t been so brilliant, I don’t think I’d have fallen for him.
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’ve never heard of “blows pony.”
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. The standard is perfection, and since everyone falls short of that, we need some extra in if we want to spend our afterlife with God.
But it’s really that simple. Those who don’t want to spend their afterlife with God are given the option of spending it away from Him. It is described as torture, but that’s precisely because life without God is torture.
If God is Peace and Love in absolute terms, then Peace and Love do not exist outside of Him. By default that makes separation from Him torture. It’s not about flames and pain. Our bodies stay in the ground after we die and decay right there.
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
If you are saying that you are OK with civil unions that confer the rights & responsibilities of marriage to gay couples, I think that would be a practical compromise.
Marriage hasn’t been an immutable institution over the course of history. Cultures had arranged marriages, or viewed women as property, or didn’t require fidelity, or allowed for polygamy, or allowed children to be married, or had differing views on divorce.
There is something inherent in some people that make them strongly attracted to the same sex. Some say it is genetic and some say it is formed in the early years. If it is either of those two cases I’d find that discriminating against gays marrying is analogous to anti-miscegenation laws which weren’t struck down nationwide until 1967. 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
Krydor on October 14, 2007 at 11:46 PM
I’ve already told you what I believe in a earlier post, which you use to ask your questions, as if you were trying to start a debate.
You’re also the one that claims that stressing abstinence is not an effective form of birth control, because kids are going to do what they’re going to do.
In case you don’t realize, that gives you a lack of credibilty in any debate.
Just as in this latest attempt of yours to debate me, when I have already stated clearly what my points were on the difference between heterosexual and homosexual marriages. Now you try to twist it around with some non sequitur points.
Back to the abstinence non-debate you and I had, you have Bush trying to get an abstinence program going that works – not that I agree with or believe the government should or can do anything effective here – your asinine comment is that stressing abstinence doesn’t work.
Then here is the anti-Bush abstinence program:
Readers can determine for the themselves as to your debating skills.
Mcguyver on October 15, 2007 at 11:38 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 Next »