Video: “Perfected: The Ann Coulter Song”
posted at 12:22 pm on October 25, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
In which Coulter is humiliated for believing, as a Christian, what Christians believe. In case you couldn’t guess from the living-room cameo, this is the voice of Obama girl, a.k.a. Leah Kauffman, helping Barely Political branch out from nonpartisan-ish T&A to overt attacks on conservatives. The clip is almost redeemed by the radiant hypocrisy of the reference to Coulter’s adam’s apple, something for which the left has mocked her for years. Liberals casting aspersions on Coulter’s femininity? High-larious! Coulter casting aspersions on Edwards’s masculinity? Outrageous.
Update: LAist has photos and video of Coulter last night at USC. “I don’t want to try to understand.”
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
I thought Obama girl was lip-synching. I could be wrong, but I honestly thought that wasn’t her real voice.
Damian G. on October 25, 2007 at 12:25 PM
It isn’t her real voice. Fox (or CNN) did a bit on it a while back.
amerpundit on October 25, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Obama girl was lip-syncing. Leah Kauffman, who’s singing here, is the voice of Obama girl. Obama girl herself, Amber Lee Ettinger, is sitting on the couch with Kauffman watching TV in the living room shot here.
Allahpundit on October 25, 2007 at 12:28 PM
I think it’s funny.
Killgore Trout on October 25, 2007 at 12:29 PM
Oh my mistake. I wouldn’t be surprised, however, if they recorded the song first then did the video.
amerpundit on October 25, 2007 at 12:29 PM
The Obama girl is the one sitting on the left on the couch. The girl singing is the original voice that she lip-syncs to. I guess she’s just coming out from behind the veil (pun-intended) to make her mark in the world of non-partisan (haha) parodies.
df4jc on October 25, 2007 at 12:29 PM
Is this from one of God’s chosen people? Someone should ask this simpleton if she understands what ‘perfected means’.
Wade on October 25, 2007 at 12:30 PM
One of the best things about the coming election, is hopeful when it is over we won’t ever have to hear from this jokers again.
Spirit of 1776 on October 25, 2007 at 12:34 PM
These two are just attention whores. The songwriting and singing? Both equally horrid.
matd on October 25, 2007 at 12:35 PM
She may have been born one of God’s Chosen, but she is now a disciple of Satan.
I had to stop this tripe half way thru…. Barf Inducing Hatred. Yeccch.
Always Right on October 25, 2007 at 12:36 PM
No talent for singing or writing music, no particular talent for political commentary. She seems to have stolen the opening line structure from Nashville songwriter Buddy Mondlock’s “When I was a Little Kid”.
She should stick with letting her stuff be amplified by Obama Girl’s amplified bosom.
Jaibones on October 25, 2007 at 12:39 PM
I get the impression many American Christians don’t really know what they’re supposed to believe. Which is why they should keep their beliefs private, rather than dragging them into the voting booth.
Enrique on October 25, 2007 at 12:43 PM
OK now I’m waiting for a song about John Edwards saying that if we just elect John Kerry then people like Christopher Reeves will get up out of their wheelchairs and walk again.
That would be Barely Political too right.
Zetterson on October 25, 2007 at 12:47 PM
And something tells me this video will go nowhere. Perhaps its the wicked fugly girl hogging all the camera time. At least have Obama Girl dancing or something if you want anybody to watch this garbage. Its almost as if she thinks that her message is thoughtful and important or something, to which I say, “hey fugly girl, sit down and shut up, nobody wants to look at you or listen to you.”
Zetterson on October 25, 2007 at 12:50 PM
Memo to Leah:
The left dropped the Jews and picked up the Palis/Islamofascists. You might need some Christian allies one of these days.
JiangxiDad on October 25, 2007 at 12:51 PM
The song isn’t even any good.
I mean, it doesn’t even pretend to be good. If it was taking the piss at Coulter, and it was semi-quality music, then, ok. But man, she didn’t even really try, did she?
nailinmyeye on October 25, 2007 at 12:55 PM
That was pretty funny!
nailinmyeye on October 25, 2007 at 12:56 PM
Coulter makes has built her career out of throwing mud at people. Of course she sets herself up as a target for ridicule.
I thought the folk singing was weak but the video does highlight how Coulter’s comments are heard by others who feel that Ann is promoting an ideal of America that doesn’t include them.
dedalus on October 25, 2007 at 12:59 PM
Right. Because a voting booth is not private. I mean who expects privacy there?
And nobody takes their beliefs into the voting booth, right? A buncha blank slates? Certainly YOU don’t take any of your personal beliefs into account when you vote, do you?
(insert eyeroll emoticon here)
Did you your comment sound intelligent when you made it? Or did it just sorta fall out of your empty head when you weren’t looking?
Here’s your sign, skippy. You earned it.
Professor Blather on October 25, 2007 at 12:59 PM
JiangxiDad on October 25, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Been saying the same thing till I’m hoarse.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on October 25, 2007 at 1:02 PM
Hilarious.
terryannonline on October 25, 2007 at 1:04 PM
Well said Prof.
I do not follow any religion (except the religious cult of my own spectacular sexiness - membership 1) but ‘freedom of conscience’ seems to be a rather significant underpinning of America. One of the most important places for that to be exercised is in the voting booth.
The First Amendment applies to gubmint, not me.
Ochlan on October 25, 2007 at 1:08 PM
Hello all.
Religious Jew here, and I would like to respond as follows:
Yup. Her comments were neither surprising nor offensive to me. Ann has long been a supporter of Jews and Israel and to condemn her as anti-semitic for merely stating a truism of Christian belief is specious. She is not advocating forced conversions, pogroms or beheadings (that would be the ROP). She’s just saying Christians believe everyone, Jews included, ought to be Christians. Wel yeah - duh.
True. We appreciate Christian support. Thanks.
ncc770 on October 25, 2007 at 1:10 PM
Engvall Rules!
ncc770 on October 25, 2007 at 1:12 PM
That may not be the most empty headed comment I’ve seen at HotAir but it’s certainly in the top ten. Congratulation !
Maxx on October 25, 2007 at 1:14 PM
I thought it was funny. It was supposed to be funny. This girl is obviously creative and belongs in Hollywood. No harm no foul.
ThackerAgency on October 25, 2007 at 1:15 PM
multiple fixes applied; no charge
BTW, how many of those people would love to have a country in which Christians aren’t included, hmmmm? Including you perhaps? The number is indubitably growing. How much longer until Christians are being thrown to lions again?
urbancenturion on October 25, 2007 at 1:16 PM
No need to thank me. I’m a landsman.
JiangxiDad on October 25, 2007 at 1:22 PM
Yikes, what a mediocre talent. No wonder she has to attach herself to musical assassination. Ann Coulter is a much more attractive women than she is, so no wonder she’s displaying her angst.
Ann Coulter has flashes of brilliance in her writing. Her ability to take the political landscape and synthesize it with popular, comic references puts her right up there with the best when it comes to satire. On top of that, she’s a woman, and an attractive blond. No wonder people are so offended, and it is pure hypocrisy.
Hening on October 25, 2007 at 1:23 PM
I thought Kauffman was better looking than the Obama girl. And the Obama girl’s dancing was just so over the top for me I couldn’t watch it. That said, starting out with the big-nosed Jew line and then focusing on Ann’s appearance is not a great lead into taking Ann Coulter quotes out of context. Everyone who has bothered to look into one of these episodes knows that Ann’s MO is to have an outrageous sound bite that has a different meaning in context than out of context. But this video is just part of the continuous process that the left has to go through to maintain their tenuous grasp on smug superiority.
pedestrian on October 25, 2007 at 1:27 PM
If you can find something I’ve said about excluding Christians, then you can move beyond innuendo.
If you think calling someone a “faggot” or “camel jockey” isn’t throwing mud then you are wrong.
dedalus on October 25, 2007 at 1:30 PM
That’s good, it should be carved in stone somewhere.
Maxx on October 25, 2007 at 1:32 PM
Thank you.
Romans 10:1
Any Christian worth his salt should pray for Israel to come to salvation in Christ, but even if they become Christians, they’re still unique compared with Gentiles like me.
Romans 11
They’re still God’s chosen people, and I’m still a “wild olive tree.” That’s why we should pray for the peace of Jerusalem. Israel belongs to God. He set that land aside for His own will and pleasure. He also gave it to His people Israel. The covenant made with Abraham still holds.
I support Israel because, even in their doctrinal and spiritual blindness, they are still God’s people. One day, I believe they will wake from their spiritual slumber, look upon the one whom they have pierced and rejoice in the Lord and His Christ. If that desire makes me evil in the sight of the world, then so be it.
spmat on October 25, 2007 at 1:40 PM
Well, this is a few blocks further than Ann walked…
Anyway, if Christ died for our sins and endured willingly for our salvation, and was buried, rose again from the dead, ascended back to heaven, and will one day return to this earth again, wasn’t his crucifixion necessary to fulfill God’s plan? Would there be Christianity without crucifixion? If so, what’s with the pierced part?
JiangxiDad on October 25, 2007 at 1:56 PM
That’s right. Christians and Coultor are a danger.
I would suggest a cute song about Allah and Mo but that would be dangerous.
RobCon on October 25, 2007 at 2:05 PM
JiangxiDad on October 25, 2007 at 1:56 PM
It’s a combination of the Old Testament and the New Testament -
Psalm 22:16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
Zechariah 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, …
John 19:34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, …
John 19:37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.
Revelation 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: …
The Old Testament quotations are Messianic. The New Testament quotations are the fulfillment of the Old Testament, Messianic prophesies.
OhEssYouCowboys on October 25, 2007 at 2:18 PM
Exactly. Seconds after claiming Coulter has an adam’s apple, the woman brings up the Edwards comment.
I’ll admit that in some sense, Coulter’s the boy who cried wolf here. She’s always insulting people, but the one time she’s not, she’s got very few allies. So in that since it shouldn’t be so hard to understand why so many are taking this comment and running with it, but it would be nice if people would engage their critical thinking every once and a while before jumping to knee-jerk conclusions.
It only ruins their credibility, not Coulter’s.
Esthier on October 25, 2007 at 2:27 PM
If Coulter is satirical, it is satire without irony (unlike Swift’s “Modest Proposal” or “The Colbert Report”). She is very adept at formulating sound bites that will generate outrage but can be contextualized into something less offensive. That style, though, is itself an easy target for parody.
Undoubtedly business is good for Ann Coulter, but will she become a political liability to the Republican candidate trying to get to 270? Will she help elect Hillary by playing into stereotypes moderates have of conservatives, or maybe she’ll provide a Sister Souljah moment if someone like Fred gets the nomination?
dedalus on October 25, 2007 at 2:31 PM
Pardon my ignorance, but which were from the Old Testament?
Also, doesn’t finding all of these references reflect on the NECESSITY OF CRUCIFIXION to Christianity? Wasn’t this then God’s specific intention when he sent Jesus down?
If that is the case, if it was intended, how can there be blame?
JiangxiDad on October 25, 2007 at 2:32 PM
Surely even the most ardent Coulter fans can agree with this. She distinguished herself precisely for her ability to sling the mud. I personally believe she is generally slinging mud back at those who slung it at the Right first, but that’s more of a side note than a dispute of facts.
For the record, I’ve never seen an inclination that you are anti-Christian.
Esthier on October 25, 2007 at 2:33 PM
Esthier on October 25, 2007 at 2:27 PM
It would be nice if the people who are attacking her - had actually read the New Testament, first. Their attacks, regarding this matter, only serve as a self-indictment - concerning their own ignorance.
OhEssYouCowboys on October 25, 2007 at 2:33 PM
JiangxiDad, these are the Old Testament ones.
These are from the New Testament:
And while I would agree that Jesus was sent to be crucified, I disagree that this makes those who crucified Him blameless (not that I’m blaming Jews for killing Christ either). Though that was Jesus’s purpose, those who executed Him still had free will.
In the same sense, Jesus also knew He’d be betrayed for this was also a part of the plan, but that doesn’t mean that Judas didn’t still have a choice in the matter.
That said, the blame is only on those who did it, not an entire race of people. In fact, it was the Romans who killed Him anyway.
Esthier on October 25, 2007 at 2:37 PM
Meh…………cr@p like this makes me wish I had the access to a recording studio the liberals have. I’m sure with the help of our HotAirHeads I could come up with some stingily witty lyrics… :p
doriangrey on October 25, 2007 at 2:37 PM
a song with statements taken out of context? brilliant.
Black Adam on October 25, 2007 at 2:40 PM
As in politically bare/barren?
Aptly named, I think.
Lawrence on October 25, 2007 at 2:40 PM
On the other hand, Kauffman also wrote (and sang) this tune:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFnzbjftMwc
…which I happen to like and approve of.
Coulter is a target for satire. I’m pretty sure she knows it and is secure enough in her own psyche to enjoy the joke.
Personally, I think that Kauffman though, in the words of Maverick:
“I had a shot. It was safe. And I took it!”
georgej on October 25, 2007 at 2:43 PM
OH… and just to state the obvious.
Women do have adams apples, just that mose women have enough fat on their boddies that you generally don’t notice. So this smacks to me as one woman’s jelously of another woman’s svelt and lanky physique.
Lawrence on October 25, 2007 at 2:43 PM
JiangxiDad on October 25, 2007 at 2:32 PM
No apologies from you are necessary. I’ve always appreciated your posts. The Old Testament references, supra, are from the Psalm and Zechariah.
Yes, it was necessary that Jesus be crucified. That he die was the only possible way for Him to show that death [Satan] had been defeated - and that He had been glorified by God. Death came into the world because of sin and Satan.
The fact that Jesus had to die [be crucified] doesn’t mean that Mankind was absolved of its complicity in His death. Men, because their hearts were hardened, refused to see, hear and believe that Jesus was the Messiah. Therefore, they chose [and I emphasize "chose"] to crucify Jesus. In the end, it’s a matter of pre-ordination by God, combined with God’s knowledge that Mankind would sin concerning His Son. This combination led to the death and, more importantly, the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
OhEssYouCowboys on October 25, 2007 at 2:44 PM
Thank you.
JiangxiDad on October 25, 2007 at 2:46 PM
Thanks for your answer too. I am a little stuck on the part about the necessity of some part of mankind to sin in order for God to accomplish his plan. That doesn’t sit right with me somehow, but I will continue to think about it. Thanks.
JiangxiDad on October 25, 2007 at 2:54 PM
No offense, but Christian proof-texts from the Tanach are often based on mistranslations or misunderstandings of the context, at least as expounded upon by Jewish sages for thousands of years. The “suffering servant” quotes to which you allude are a good example. Such passages have been seen as allusions to the Jewish people as a whole and not to any one person. There is no “suffering” requirement of the Moschiach. Even if one were to say that there is a “suffering” requirement of Moschiach, how can you attribute the suffering of one Jew to be messianic as opposed to the other millions of Jews that have suffered equal (the Romans crucified many, many, many Jews) or sometimes worse fates (often at the hands of Christians). The focus on a “suffering” requirement, even if it exists, rather than other requirements demonstrating the Age of Moschiach (ingathering of the Jews to Israel, rebuilding the Temple on its site, a flourishing of Torah learning and observance among Jews, peace among all the nations), that clearly have not yet been met, is one of the major factors that divide Jews and Christians on the issue of Jesus. There are others, but this suffices for now.
From a Jewish perspective there is no requirement or even desire to have Gentiles become Jews, so we are quite comfortable with Christians being Christians. As noted in my earlier post, I understand Christian belief that everyone needs to be a Christian, and am not offended by it. I just disagree, and think that anyone who keeps the 7 Noahide laws (monotheism, rejection of idolotary, no murder, no stealing, no adultery, establishing courts of law, and no cruelty to animals)gets a share in the world to come. My understanding of Christianity is that it fits the bill.
ncc770 on October 25, 2007 at 2:56 PM
And someone with a “beak” like that should be making light of someone else’s anatomy ?
netdude5 on October 25, 2007 at 2:58 PM
This video further validates Miss Coulter’s point that liberals have no sense of humor nor understand irony.
Since the girl in the video is so upset over the growth of her nose, maybe one of those adult pacifiers can be sent to her to take the attention off of her nose.
Weebork on October 25, 2007 at 2:58 PM
JiangxiDad on October 25, 2007 at 2:54 PM
It was necessary for Man to sin [kill] Jesus Christ; because, without His death, victory over Satan [who brought death into the world] couldn’t be had. In essence, the sins of Man led to the death of Jesus Christ; and the resurrection of Jesus Christ represented His victory over sin, death and Satan. God knew that Man was sinful. God knew that Man would act against His Son. The resurrection of Jesus Christ was God’s response to Man’s sinful nature - and to death and Satan.
OhEssYouCowboys on October 25, 2007 at 3:00 PM
Can you point out in what way Coulter is ironic? I know she is funny and clever. Maybe I’m just missing the irony.
dedalus on October 25, 2007 at 3:01 PM
Some Christian beliefs suck horribly. Should they not be humiliated for believing some stupid and evil things?
“It’s my RELIGIOUS BELIEF!” just doesn’t cut it any more.
Besides, it’s my religious belief to mock and deride all other religions.
Loundry on October 25, 2007 at 3:04 PM
ncc770 on October 25, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Regarding the “suffering” requirement, please see:
Isaiah 53 [in toto], and
Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself; …
In the vernacular of the time, “cut off” meant - death. The Messiah was to suffer and be killed - by Jewish prophesy.
OhEssYouCowboys on October 25, 2007 at 3:09 PM
I just lost my respect for Ann Coulter! The video of the girls on their couch was nothing of pornography. That is far from christian teaching and is blatant hypocracy. Ann please tell me that you didnt endorse the half naked women with the little girl voices! Shamefull. Youre a great writer. i must say i have all your books but the last, but please, leave the music lyrics and singing to the pros.
rpower57 on October 25, 2007 at 3:15 PM
Are you guys certain that wasn’t Halle Berry’s cousin singing?
swami on October 25, 2007 at 3:16 PM
She said:
“I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot–so….’”
So she didn’t actually say he was a faggot. The way she framed the statement, it was clear she knew she the left would call for her to be put into rehab simply for saying the word provocatively in a sentence, thus proving her point. The fact that so many are offended even she didn’t actually call Edwards a faggot, and yet everyone reading the quote understands what she was saying, because his vanity (as opposed to any homosexuality) is well known, is deep irony.
pedestrian on October 25, 2007 at 3:26 PM
How do you handle those “responsible?” They did something appalling, and yet somehow necessary. How do you ascribe blame in these circumstances? To blame the Jews as a group is problematic because the alternative to the sin committed would have led to what outcome??
JiangxiDad on October 25, 2007 at 3:32 PM
Please see the following links for a lengthy response to these proof-texts.
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq043.html
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq136.html
I have to run now, but thanks for the lively discussion. And just to get back on topic, I still think Ann Coulter is the cat’s meow!
ncc770 on October 25, 2007 at 3:32 PM
You’re welcome.
As far as I understand it, the sin wasn’t necessary. Had the people been able to accept Jesus as He was, God incarnate, there would be no need to sin just as there is no need to sin in heaven. Essentially, earth would have been heaven.
However, God, knowing that mankind is sinful and will continue to sin, made a plan in accordance with that knowledge.
Had mankind not been sinful, the sacrifice wouldn’t have been necessary and would not have occurred.
I can’t tell if you’re joking, because I can’t see the punchline.
A couple things…
First, if that’s the case, the Coulter should not be singled out for this “sucky” belief.
Second, the belief of all religious beliefs is that people are better of believing what the religion dictates. If the people of that religion do not believe that, then they’re probably still looking for what they believe.
And third, all beliefs in general function this way. Republicans believe their thoughts are better than those of Democrats. We make that value judgment every time we step into a voting booth. Just by choosing to comment in this blog, we’re making a judgment call that this blog is better than others.
I get your problem with hell, but your problem with her belief that her beliefs are correct makes no sense to me.
Esthier on October 25, 2007 at 3:33 PM
Why only seven?
Just curious.
Esthier on October 25, 2007 at 3:35 PM
Ask G-d. He gave the children of Noah after the flood (basically everyone is descended from Noah post-flood) 7 commandments and then gave an additional 606 (for a total of 613) commandments to the children of Israel. Sheds a whole new light on being “Chosen,” doesn’t it?
ncc770 on October 25, 2007 at 3:45 PM
Professor Blather on October 25, 2007 at 12:59 PM
Brilliant
MarkB on October 25, 2007 at 3:55 PM
Hebrews 12:8
If you are not disciplined (and everyone undergoes discipline), then you are illegitimate children and not true sons.
But yeah 606 is a lot.
One of these days I’d like to learn more about Judaism. There are so many similarities yet so many differences. I’m very familiar with the story of Noah, but I don’t recall Noah having an commandments.
Esthier on October 25, 2007 at 4:03 PM
In all candor, I’m afraid that any site named >”jewsforjudaism” isn’t likely to be an objective, paragon of religious instruction - when it comes to Jesus Christ being the Messiah. That’s why I cited Isaiah 53 and Daniel 9:26. Jewish prophets, who prophesied a suffering Messiah who would, indeed, be killed.
At any rate, I, too, enjoyed the discussion.
JiangxiDad on October 25, 2007 at 3:32 PM
You’ll note that I never “blamed” the Jews for the death of Jesus Christ. I did blame “Man” and “Mankind.” Again, they were responsible for the death of Jesus Christ; because, Man and Mankind is sinful. Also, again, sin had to occur; because sin was what had to be defeated by Jesus Christ. That was His purpose on earth. Therefore, the sinful acts of men, had to lead to the death of Jesus Christ. Thereafter, the resurrection of Jesus Christ marked His victory over death. The victory over death meant the victory over Satan, by whom death entered the world.
Those “responsible” for His death are given a reprieve, to wit: faith, that in Jesus Christ - their sins are forgiven. The answer for the sins of Mankind [not the sins of Jews] is in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Faith in Jesus Christ - because He defeated sin.
OhEssYouCowboys on October 25, 2007 at 4:08 PM
I forgot to “quote” you, above.
OhEssYouCowboys on October 25, 2007 at 4:09 PM
Thanks for the reply. I could agree with you that the left getting worked up about a remark for the opposite reason could be viewed as ironic. This case almost works, but I think Coulter intended to convey that Edwards was a prissy pretty boy and by saying that her comments included the word “faggot” she got that across.
Calling someone gay in order to emphasize their hetero tendencies would be ironic. Maybe she was doing that when she said Bill Clinton was a latent homosexual because he was such a skirt chaser.
dedalus on October 25, 2007 at 4:15 PM
I’m following the discussion. I apologize for jumping in.
We are not supposed to handle anything. We are supposed to accept and repent.
So, yes, we must not blame individuals and peoples for killing Jesus. God set up the course of events for Jesus to die, it is not something mankind planned to do. Accusing people of killing Jesus, or of being more appalling or sinful than others, overlooks the fact that we are all equally guilty in our own sin.
God did not create us to be sinful. Adam and Eve chose to disobey God and the consequence of that disobedience is reflected in the curse of sin on mankind. Once Adam and Eve were enthralled by sin, there was no way for them to affect their own salvation.
God, in omnipotent wisdom, has provided mankind a way to overcome the curse of sin. But it is something God has to do for us, not something we can do for ourselves.
What God did is send the Messiah/Christ as the man Jesus in order to suffer our punishments for us. What God commands us to do is to repent and accept Jesus’ sacrifice as our compensation for our own evil natures, thereby making us righteous through that sacrifice.
To God the Glory, through faith in Christ Jesus. Other than that, the debates about good, bad, whatever, are merely academic.
Lawrence on October 25, 2007 at 4:28 PM
JiangxiDad
No, not really. Just as there is a distinction between Jews (as a people) and Gentile Christians, there is a distinction between the path to discipleship between Jews and Gentiles. Acts 2:38 and Acts 10:47 demonstrate this difference. Jesus of Nazareth came for Israel as their Messiah, and they rejected Him. They reject Him to this day. As such, they received a special condemnation as a nation.
Matthew 23:37
But that condemnation of the nation does not extend to the revocation of their status as the beloved and chosen of God as a people.
Romans 11:26-29
They are enemies of the gospel (as is anyone that willfully hinders its preaching), but they are beloved of God. This, of course, is entirely in the realm of the spiritual and has no application to things carnal (government policy, etc.).
Yes.
When you beat someone soundly at a game of chess, did you force them to make mistakes, or did you simply understand the game better than they did?
spmat on October 25, 2007 at 4:37 PM
Very good…Now go ahead in Rom 11 and study verses 29-33 esp. 30-32. God is absolutely amazing
mjkazee on October 25, 2007 at 4:58 PM
I say this with respect - I think I know what you’re saying here…but…I would back away from the “one whom they have pierced,” and rather, assign blame where it is due - to humanity as a whole.
nailinmyeye on October 25, 2007 at 5:00 PM
I don’t think the point of her comment was to say anything about Edwards. It was a scripted comment she knew would provoke a reaction by using an un-PC word. People are offended by the use of a word associated with persecution of homosexuals. But everyone knows language is fluid and that Coulter doesn’t actually think Edwards homosexual. So your skirt chasing example is actually apropos, because she is using a gay word to describe Edward’s hetero primping. To claim outrage in this case is just cynical exploitation of other real outrages, and her hyperbolic use of the phrase “sent to rehab” evokes that. So the main irony among many in this short statement of hers is the left’s persecution of her beliefs that she triggers by using a word that refers to a persecution that is not even relevant to Edwards.
Also ironic, in looking up the etymology of faggot, I see it referred at one time to a heretic, which Coulter is now.
pedestrian on October 25, 2007 at 5:16 PM
You do not need to learn more about Judaism. Please excuse me for being blunt. My wife and I were invited to a ritual by orthodox Jews. It was absolutely forbidden but these folks loved us. What it was was a hair cutting ceremony involving a three year old. Very beautiful by the way. I had an opportunity to speak to the cantor of the temple and ask him the why and wherefores to this ceremony. His answer was that at three years old Abraham walked out of his home and looked to the sky and said that only God could have created such a thing. So that was when he received his first haircut and this ceremony was in dedication to that. Fine but that was long before God called him out of the land of Ur. Very entangled in folklore and law. Please just continue in your study of the Word, you will go a lot further. God Bless.
mjkazee on October 25, 2007 at 5:23 PM
The rhyming made me wince. *shudder*
aengus on October 25, 2007 at 5:51 PM
I appreciate your opinion here and mean no disrespect, but I see no reason I can’t do both.
Esthier on October 25, 2007 at 5:52 PM
I wouldn’t. If you read the verse from Zechariah I linked, it is clearly talking about Israel. The they in that verse is clearly referring to the “house of David” and the “inhabitants of Jerusalem.” Who has Israel pierced? Their Meshiach Nagid, their Messiah the King. Is this verse necessarily talking about His crucifixion? Maybe, but more critically, it is talking about their rejection of Him. Jesus referred to this on multiple occasions via parables (e.g the parable of the wedding and the parable of the evil husbandmen).
spmat on October 25, 2007 at 5:54 PM
All this talk of the Jews killing Jesus is bogus. Sure, the Sanhedrin ordered the hit, but Pilate had to approve the death sentence, and Roman soldiers performed the execution.
Damn Eyetalian Mob!
The Monster on October 25, 2007 at 5:59 PM
You are quite correct, though, in placing the blame for Jesus’ crucifixion on humanity in general and not on the Jews in particular. One cannot blame the “Jews” for the crucifixion of Jesus any more than they can blame baseball for the fact that the Cubbies never win a pennant.
spmat on October 25, 2007 at 6:01 PM
Right. I see what you are saying - I think. But, let me be clear, it sounds as if you are blaming the Jews for crucifying Christ.
This is not a position that either, should be supported by Christians, or, can be supported Biblically. Christ died voluntarily for all, for the sin of all - we all crucified Christ. And, to be technical, it was the Romans who carried out the act.
nailinmyeye on October 25, 2007 at 6:01 PM
Sorry - posted at the same time!
Ok, now I think I understand you more clearly.
And, the Cub analogy, is pretty good!
nailinmyeye on October 25, 2007 at 6:03 PM
nailinmyeye on October 25, 2007 at 6:03 PM
Okies, cool. The point I was trying to make was that Jesus submitted Himself to Israel as their Messiah. In that sense, only Israel could reject Him. They did, and in doing so, His salvation passed on to grubby Gentiles like me.
Jesus was, and is, a Jew, a son of David and the rightful heir to the throne of David. Jesus sits on the right hand of God, right now, as a Jew. Paul was, and is, a Jew. Paul was, and is, a Jew. Just because they had accepted and rejoiced in their long-awaited Meshiach Nagid doesn’t mean they stopped being Jews.
I believe that God isn’t done with Israel yet. Paul was born “out of due time” in the sense that he is the model for something to come. Believing Jews (those that take their Judaism seriously) are already good (if in gross error). There is coming a day when they will go from being good to being perfected. The dry bones have already come together, so who knows what powerful works God has in store for His people?
spmat on October 25, 2007 at 6:39 PM
Ooops.. “Peter was, and is, a Jew. Paul was, and is, a Jew.”
spmat on October 25, 2007 at 6:41 PM
Thanks for the etymology. I hadn’t known that.
If I follow, you are saying that the ironic aspect of Coulter is that she is saying something about Edwards not because she believes it (in fact she believes the opposite), but because she knows that she can make the left look foolish by jumping on something that isn’t really an issue. If that were the case, she could be seen as something like an Alice Cooper, not believing in the content of his shock metal but relying on the outrage by conventional society to sell albums.
I’m more inclined to believe that Coulter essentially means everything that she says, and is savvy enough with words to lay verbal traps for the left to overreact. Rather than the “faggot” comment being ironic, I think she was calling Edwards out more as a “sissy” than a “homosexual”.
dedalus on October 25, 2007 at 8:33 PM
I do as well. She even later clarified her comments to say she’d never insult gay people by lumping them in with Edwards.
Esthier on October 25, 2007 at 9:28 PM
Alright, I just watched it, and my reaction is: This chick wishes she were as relevant as Ann.
…oh, and her singing is off-key almost as much as it’s on.
urbancenturion on October 26, 2007 at 12:25 AM
Am I the only one who doesn’t think Leah Kauffman’s nose grew into her face? She is hateful and she is staved for attention AND she has no talent. She needs to “perfect” herself. Phew!
sinsing on October 26, 2007 at 12:45 AM
People, Jesus had to be crucified…….because God foreordained it. God, in precious times had told the Isrealites that they would be disciplined if they ever fell away from being faithful to Him. But woe to those by whom they were disciplined (paraphrase). The same applies here. Christ had to be “cut off” (per Daniel, as correctly noted above), but it came by way of “the Jews” which, since all the apostles were Jews too, has a very specific meaning. That is, not all Jewish people, just the religious leaders of the day. I fyou read the Bible (and I do, a lot), then you see that hypocracy and arrogance are some of the most hated things by God. These guys eventually figured out that Jesus was who He said He was, and He was humiliating them over an over again; because, instead of repenting and leading the Israelites to receiving Him, they rejected Him and opposed Him. Eventually, they ordered the hit, as stated so eloquently above. Yes, Pilate and the Romans performed the mechanics of the crucifixion, but as Christ told Pilate, he had no autority except that which was given to him by God.
Now, to the reason: Man did NOT have to sin. But Christ had to die. Since man sinned, God used the occasion to take care of two problems at the same time. But before the foundatino of the world, the council of the Trinity foreordained that Christ would be manifest as a man and shed His blood for the glory of the Father. Irrespective of sin, Christ would die so that God’s life could be released to reach man. Man can’t reach God, but God could reach man; and this was the process He designed and decided on.
Ok, here comes the controversy (or tedium, depending on your perspective). Athanasius (yes, that brilliant old codger) said: God became man so that man could become god. He didn’t mean that man would participate in the Godhead, he would never be the object of worship. But, as Peter said, we would be partakers of the divine nature. And Paul talked about being sons of God by receiving His life. God’s intention was to impart His life, eternal life, into His people (Christians and Jews). It just so happened that the Jews rejected Him, but His promise to them remains. Coming out of Egypt, He told tham He wanted them to be a nation of priests. He wanted them to be the priests to the rest of the entire world. They would lead the world in worship to God. And so they will. They are still the chosen race, and their preisthood will be established when Messiah returns. But sorry, Christians (or more properly, believers, though they come later) supercede the Jews (or the entire restored nation if Israel) to become God’s divine co-kings over the whole world.
So there you have it. Christ and His people are the fulfillment of David, and the restored nation of Israel will be the fulfillment of the Aaronic (moi, BTW) priesthood. Fun, huh?
urbancenturion on October 26, 2007 at 1:01 AM
Oh yeah, one more thing: Sorry for feeding the troll. I had no idea.
urbancenturion on October 26, 2007 at 1:01 AM
Jianxidad,
Sorry for butting in. I understand the question you’ve presented, and the answer goes to the differences in man’s nature vs God’s nature, at least partially.
According to Hebrews, “there is no redemption without the shedding of blood”. Every form of substitutionary sacrifice instituted by God includes the death of the sacrificial animal. Jesus, as “the spotless Lamb of God”, substituted his perfect, sinless life for ours, taking our punishment upon himself to free us from the just and correct wages of our disobedience to our Creator, making Heaven and eternal life with God available to unworthy humans.
It had to be so according to God. Why it had to be so, and no other way, is for our Creator to decide, and far be it for me to gainsay. I’d be a fool to attempt to explain what is beyond human knowledge.
Understand that God exists outside of the contraints of our physical universe, both in space and time. He “sees the end from the beginning, and the beginning from the end”, just as you or I could read the last chapter of a book before the first, He always sees all of time before Him. By that, He is able to know what actions people will take, even those he does not approve of. He knows that Pilate would wash his hands, He knows that the Jews would ask for Barabbas to be spared, He knows that the priests and scibes would whip up the crowd to call for Jesus’ execution.
That God knows what would happen does not in the slightest remove the blame of those who made the decisions. And blame enough there is to go around, in includes all of us. Each person on Earth has failed ot obey God completely, and for each of us Jesus was nailed on the tree. We are ALL to blame, but the good news is that Jesus ROSE, He IS ALIVE, and because He is, we can have that eternity promised by the Father.
Enrique, the Prof handled it well enough, but I just wanted you to know that I, and most Christians I know, are far more settled and secure about what they believe than virtually ANY non-Christian I know, and to attempt to avoid those beliefs when making political decisions would be both personal and corporate stupidity. But thanks for playing.
Freelancer on October 26, 2007 at 1:26 AM
Now that it’s there, I suppose I should start using the preview function. Eesh.
This was exactly what Ann said when asked about it after the fact. That calling someone a faggot was a “schoolyard taunt” that painted someone as a sissy, not necessarily as being a homosexual. Tell me that the names Silky Pony and Breck Girl don’t produce the same effect. It’s Arnold calling the California legislature “girly-men”.
It’s much ado about nothing. Sadly, some here piled on Ann for that, and for more recent comments that were no more harmful. The cry goes up, “yeah, she’s right, but I wish she wouldn’t say it that way”. Oh well.
Freelancer on October 26, 2007 at 1:31 AM
mjkazee,
I’m not sure who you spoke to about the “hair-cutting” ceremony, but I do not think it was correct. The ceremony is called an Upsherin. There is nothing “forbidden” about inviting friends, neighbors, and family. The reason for it has nothing to do with Avraham’s realization of the existence of the absolute unity of G-d. Rather, the Torah uses a metaphor in which it compares man to fruit-bearing trees (why it does so is a lengthy discussion for another day). There is a commandment that forbids Jews from picking the fruit for the first three years. From this, the custom arose not to cut a boy’s hair until his third birthday (the custom does not apply to girls, because often their hair is allowed to grow for far longer than three years). The third birthday is also when a boy begins learning and begins to wear a kippah on his head at all times and tzitzit (fringes) on a type of undershirt. On the third birthday, then, the family makes a great celebration and invites family, friends, etc. to snip a piece of hair. Generally, as you snip some hair, you give the boy a few coins or a dollar, so he can give the money to charity. This begins teaching him about the commandment to give charity. Also, the boy may be given a laminated board having the Hebrew alphabet on it that is smeared with honey or some other goody. He gets to lick/eat the treat, so that he always associates learning with sweetness.
ncc770 on October 26, 2007 at 7:01 AM
I must respectfully disagree. If you’re goal is to interpret Christian scripture, then you might have a point. But if you are interpreting Jewish scriptures, then I believe you must go to a source that looks at the original Hebrew and interprets the language in accordance with the way it has been commented on by Jewish sages for over 2000 years (much of which precedes Jesus).
ncc770 on October 26, 2007 at 7:08 AM
you’re = your
Sorry, it’s early.
ncc770 on October 26, 2007 at 7:09 AM
As a life long Catholic I have recently have been learning more and more about Judaism and it traditions in an effort to more better understand Jesus. It started a few years back when my family and I where at a Christmas production at a local Lutheran Church where the church’s member dressed up as Judeans and Romans and made the church’s ground look like Bethlehem circa 0001 BC. My Mother in Law made the comment ” Why is there a menorah? Isn’t supposed to be a Christmas play?” I responded “Um, well Jesus was a Jew.” The then responded now he was not he was a Christian. “No” I came back “Jesus was a Jew, he had a bris and bar mitzvah and his followers called him Rabbi.” In fact the concentration of the Eucharist during the mass is a re-enactment of the Last Supper which was the Seder meal.”
She was floored.
We as Christians need to embrace the Jewish faith. We as Christians have a lot to learn from them.
GREENTURTLE on October 26, 2007 at 8:56 AM
That’s a strange statement anyway. Christian means “belonging to Christ” and clearly Christ doesn’t belong to Christ.
Esthier on October 26, 2007 at 9:48 AM
Actually, it means “man of Christ” much in the same way as Corinthian means man of Corinth, or Ephesian means man of Ephesus, or Houstonian means man of Houston. You can explore the genitive case if you like for more. Here, I think it is called a “genitive of source.”
The “an” at the end of those words is the same “an” that means “man” in words like “an”thropology and mis”an”thrope.
urbancenturion on October 26, 2007 at 10:34 AM