This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1Arctic-Stranger
Not being a die hard conservative, I am wondering if ANYONE takes Ann Coulter seriously. Her recent remarks concerning women's sufferage and Jews are enough to make me wish that at least one woman could not vote.
2Doug1943
Well ...
Willam Buckley doesn't.
David Horowitz doesn't.
Christopher Hitchens doesn't.
Does anyone take Al Sharpton seriously anymore?
Some people do.
Willam Buckley doesn't.
David Horowitz doesn't.
Christopher Hitchens doesn't.
Does anyone take Al Sharpton seriously anymore?
Some people do.
4Arctic-Stranger
Who buys that cr*p?
5Essa
I don't keep up with Ann Coulter (or any other pundit, really) at all, so, please enlighten me for the sake of amusement: What did she say about female suffrage?
(Essa's motto: "I have two X chromosomes, and I vote!" :-D )
(Essa's motto: "I have two X chromosomes, and I vote!" :-D )
6codyed
I don't have an opinion of her. Her overly bombastic style of debate rubs me the wrong way. Then again she gets off on that sort of thing.
Besides, why should I care for someone that wouldn't give a second thought to a godless heathen like me?
Besides, why should I care for someone that wouldn't give a second thought to a godless heathen like me?
7geneg
This guy takes her seriously, and so should we. People laughed at Hitler in the beginning, too.
8Essa
Well, to be fair, the "completed Jew" and "perfected Jew" and "in an ideal world, everyone is Christian" type of comments are not unique to Anne Coulter. I've heard and read them from other (American) Christians, especially evangelicals as well as Messianic Jews (Jews for Jesus and suchlike).
In fact, the huge amount of support for Israel/Zionism/etc. from that crowd(s) has always kind of puzzled me, because as we can see from the comments of people such as Coulter, these folks don't seem to actually care about the Jewish people and, in my experience, often have little knowledge about the Jewish faith. Sometimes it seems that their "concern" for the Jews or for Israel seems to go only as deep as their concern for their own desires regarding the end-times. They also (seem to) give short shrift to the Israeli/Palestinian Christians and Christians elsewhere in the Middle East, whose roots go far back, sometimes to the time of Jesus himself.
I'm soon to begin reading Allies for Armageddon: the Rise of Christian Zionism which I hope will shed some light on these matters.
But I don't wish to derail the thread. I do wish to hear what Coulter said about female suffrage, although I suspect I will be sorry I asked. :-D
In fact, the huge amount of support for Israel/Zionism/etc. from that crowd(s) has always kind of puzzled me, because as we can see from the comments of people such as Coulter, these folks don't seem to actually care about the Jewish people and, in my experience, often have little knowledge about the Jewish faith. Sometimes it seems that their "concern" for the Jews or for Israel seems to go only as deep as their concern for their own desires regarding the end-times. They also (seem to) give short shrift to the Israeli/Palestinian Christians and Christians elsewhere in the Middle East, whose roots go far back, sometimes to the time of Jesus himself.
I'm soon to begin reading Allies for Armageddon: the Rise of Christian Zionism which I hope will shed some light on these matters.
But I don't wish to derail the thread. I do wish to hear what Coulter said about female suffrage, although I suspect I will be sorry I asked. :-D
9Arctic-Stranger
She said that her dream was to eradicate women's sufferage, because that would give republicans a better chance at winning. I will look for the exact quote.
Ahh, here it is: If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.
“It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it’s the party of women and ‘We’ll pay for health care and tuition and day care — and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?’”
She also said this: I think women should be armed but should not be allowed to vote. No, they all have to give up their vote, not just, you know, the lady clapping and me. The problem with women voting — and your Communists will back me up on this — is that, you know, women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it. And when they take these polls, it’s always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care.”
– Ann Coulter, Politically Incorrect, Feb. 26, 2001
Ahh, here it is: If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.
“It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it’s the party of women and ‘We’ll pay for health care and tuition and day care — and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?’”
She also said this: I think women should be armed but should not be allowed to vote. No, they all have to give up their vote, not just, you know, the lady clapping and me. The problem with women voting — and your Communists will back me up on this — is that, you know, women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it. And when they take these polls, it’s always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care.”
– Ann Coulter, Politically Incorrect, Feb. 26, 2001
10readafew
If she wants to start taking peoples rights away maybe we should start with her right to free speech...
11citygirl
The funny thing is that she's wrong. The fact that single women don't vote is actually a plus for the Republicans. I remember, during the last presidential election, hearing some truly disturbing statistics about how few Americans vote and, while single women may line up with the Democrats on issues, they don't actually go to the polls in large numbers. Supposedly, too, women become more conservative once they marry and have children and are more likely to vote. Why take such a person seriously? She doesn't even take herself seriously enough to see if her facts line up with her "position."
12geneg
Her audience is not the rational, thinking American. She is catering to the hate crowd and they take her VERY seriously.
13citygirl
The hate crowd. That's a subject worthy of its own thread. But what would we say? What is there to say?
15Doug1943
And, she is not a threat to anyone. She is part of the entertainment industry.
More importantly, what she says is the Rightwing symmetrical equivalent to Noam Chomsky: the attribution of absolute evil and conscious intent to every action of one's political opponents, deliberately ignoring the situation in which decisions were made or statements were uttered, ripping quotes from their surrounding context, etc.
Liberals love Chomsky, and Howard Zinn.
Let those who live in glass houses refrain from casting stones.
More importantly, what she says is the Rightwing symmetrical equivalent to Noam Chomsky: the attribution of absolute evil and conscious intent to every action of one's political opponents, deliberately ignoring the situation in which decisions were made or statements were uttered, ripping quotes from their surrounding context, etc.
Liberals love Chomsky, and Howard Zinn.
Let those who live in glass houses refrain from casting stones.
16skf
I think she says what she says to get ratings. People tune into her and Rush and others to raise their blood pressure, to make fun of them, to have something to talk about around the water dispenser (or on Library Thing!)
I am a true Christian and get embarrassed by people like this.
**Does she realize she's a woman who would not be able to vote?
I am a true Christian and get embarrassed by people like this.
**Does she realize she's a woman who would not be able to vote?
17Arctic-Stranger
I know a lot of "real Christians" who dont think they are any more perfect than anyone else.
18drneutron
She's an entertainer and she makes a living by saying outrageous things. Just like most of the people on TV today...
19dore
re 14
That's a very wide brush stroke that gives away a number of assumptions needing a serious reality check.
Plenty of "real Christians" are loving people; they are often very quiet, and, therefore, not newsworthy. They are, however, very positive and contributing members of our society.
re 18
It would be comfortable to believe she is just saying these outrageous things to get attention.
We have, however, had an entertainer as President of the U.S., and we currently have an entertainer as the Governor of California.
Are entertainers not required to be responsible for what they say?
If she wants to be fully reactionary, why doesn't she just say that the U.S. should be run by land-owning, white guys who have advanced educations and are in the upper income brackets?
After all, we have a representative democracy and these people could represent us more effectively than we can represent ourselves, can't they?
It is sometimes difficult to know where to draw the line. Do we object, thus bringing more attention to these opinions?
Or do we not react, hoping lack of attention will make these opinions go away, or fail to gain an audience.
Or do we just watch and see if these opinions are gathering strength, and, depending on the results, form strategy?
That's a very wide brush stroke that gives away a number of assumptions needing a serious reality check.
Plenty of "real Christians" are loving people; they are often very quiet, and, therefore, not newsworthy. They are, however, very positive and contributing members of our society.
re 18
It would be comfortable to believe she is just saying these outrageous things to get attention.
We have, however, had an entertainer as President of the U.S., and we currently have an entertainer as the Governor of California.
Are entertainers not required to be responsible for what they say?
If she wants to be fully reactionary, why doesn't she just say that the U.S. should be run by land-owning, white guys who have advanced educations and are in the upper income brackets?
After all, we have a representative democracy and these people could represent us more effectively than we can represent ourselves, can't they?
It is sometimes difficult to know where to draw the line. Do we object, thus bringing more attention to these opinions?
Or do we not react, hoping lack of attention will make these opinions go away, or fail to gain an audience.
Or do we just watch and see if these opinions are gathering strength, and, depending on the results, form strategy?
20drneutron
#19 Are entertainers not required to be responsible for what they say?
Not any more than any of the rest of us. How could we as a society make an entertainer or any other person in a public role "take responsibility" for what they say given that it doesn't violate laws such as libel/slander or similar restrictions. Using the media to present the truth where she's factually wrong is fine, but many of the outrageous things she says aren't of a factual nature. So other than out-shouting her or ignoring her, I don't see any options that don't lead to censorship.
Not any more than any of the rest of us. How could we as a society make an entertainer or any other person in a public role "take responsibility" for what they say given that it doesn't violate laws such as libel/slander or similar restrictions. Using the media to present the truth where she's factually wrong is fine, but many of the outrageous things she says aren't of a factual nature. So other than out-shouting her or ignoring her, I don't see any options that don't lead to censorship.
21AsYouKnow_Bob
Doug1943 And, she is not a threat to anyone. She is part of the entertainment industry.
Well, no: she's pushing the bounds of what it's acceptable to say in public. By doing so, she makes slightly less crazy talk seem reasonable.
Letting somebody who advocates the murder of liberals have access to a public forum coarsens the public discourse. (And no, her positions are NOT symmetric with Chomsky, Zinn, OR Moore.)
The interesting thing about her latest outburst is that she's giving away conservatives' cover of being in favor of 'majority rule': IF we live in a democracy, and IF the L/C split is along gender lines, then she's admitted that Conservatism is the minority position. Which is an interesting admission.
Well, no: she's pushing the bounds of what it's acceptable to say in public. By doing so, she makes slightly less crazy talk seem reasonable.
Letting somebody who advocates the murder of liberals have access to a public forum coarsens the public discourse. (And no, her positions are NOT symmetric with Chomsky, Zinn, OR Moore.)
The interesting thing about her latest outburst is that she's giving away conservatives' cover of being in favor of 'majority rule': IF we live in a democracy, and IF the L/C split is along gender lines, then she's admitted that Conservatism is the minority position. Which is an interesting admission.
22geneg
Doug, I admire the depth and breadth of your knowledge of all things wingish, both right and left, but I must say I am disappointed in your comment that "all Christians must believe in" the things Ann Coulter is selling with regard to Jews and Christianity.
Actually, Christ tells us to give people the good news and if they are accepting to stay with them for the night, if they are not accepting, to shake the dust of their village from our sandals and move on. No curses, no railing against them, certainly no attempts at forced conversion: just shake the dust off and move on. That's what Jesus teaches us about proselytizing. So when some one like Ms. (Mr.?) Coulter talks about "perfecting the Jews" by anything other than their own free will, she is NOT following the teachings of Christ.
Christianity has been so perverted by the fundamentalists that I can only conclude Christian fundamentalism, just like Islamic fundamentalism and Jewish fundamentalism is evil because it spreads hatred rather than love, justice, compassion, and humility, the trademarks of Christ. As Christ tells us "you will know them by their fruits". Christianity is far more than a series of laws, improbable stories, anathemas, and sin. It is also a philosophy of life acknowledging that sin, pain and reverses are going to happen and this is how to deal with them.
For a good primer on the philosophy and practice of the Christian Life, I would suggest spending ten or twenty bucks on a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
I do not intend to turn this thread into a forum on Christianity or Catholicism or discussion of the abominable history of Christianity, particularly in relation to the Jews, but it wears on me from time to time to see Christianity misused by people secular and religious who don't know what they are talking about.
I know, many of you say that about me and politics, so I guess we're even.
Actually, Christ tells us to give people the good news and if they are accepting to stay with them for the night, if they are not accepting, to shake the dust of their village from our sandals and move on. No curses, no railing against them, certainly no attempts at forced conversion: just shake the dust off and move on. That's what Jesus teaches us about proselytizing. So when some one like Ms. (Mr.?) Coulter talks about "perfecting the Jews" by anything other than their own free will, she is NOT following the teachings of Christ.
Christianity has been so perverted by the fundamentalists that I can only conclude Christian fundamentalism, just like Islamic fundamentalism and Jewish fundamentalism is evil because it spreads hatred rather than love, justice, compassion, and humility, the trademarks of Christ. As Christ tells us "you will know them by their fruits". Christianity is far more than a series of laws, improbable stories, anathemas, and sin. It is also a philosophy of life acknowledging that sin, pain and reverses are going to happen and this is how to deal with them.
For a good primer on the philosophy and practice of the Christian Life, I would suggest spending ten or twenty bucks on a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
I do not intend to turn this thread into a forum on Christianity or Catholicism or discussion of the abominable history of Christianity, particularly in relation to the Jews, but it wears on me from time to time to see Christianity misused by people secular and religious who don't know what they are talking about.
I know, many of you say that about me and politics, so I guess we're even.
23Arctic-Stranger
But maybe we need such a thread.
25Doug1943
So, it is not a tenent of Christianity that belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the acceptance of Him as my personal savior is a requirement for salvation? (I cannot plead Invincible Ignorance here.)
26geneg
My comment about (Mr?) was a bit of ill advised snark. I'm sure no one has noticed that I sometimes undercut my own arguments with not so smart smart alecky comments.
As to all the quotes from the CCC how do they differ with or refute anything I said before? Salvation stems from an individual choice to accept Christ as one's personal Saviour, this is the same offer made to Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Jains, or atheists.
I agree with Ms. Coulter that we should all be Christian, but the fact is we are not and we are called to conversion on an individual basis, not entire religions. The CCC with these statements
"674 The glorious Messiah's coming is suspended at every moment of history until his recognition by "all Israel", for "a hardening has come upon part of Israel" in their "unbelief" toward Jesus." ... "The "full inclusion" of the Jews in the Messiah's salvation, in the wake of "the full number of the Gentiles", will enable the People of God to achieve "the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ", in which "God may be all in all"."
indicate two things: Jesus cannot come until the Jews receive full inclusion in the Messiah's salvation. Since this is a prerequisite to the second coming, many Christians have an active interest that in some circles includes forced conversion, in order to make this happen. "All Israel" and "'full inclusion' of the Jews" indicate this will be a special conversion of some kind orchestrated by God "in the wake of "the full number of the Gentiles' " in His time, not ours. Bad things always happen when humans decide to act to effect God's plans from our own limited and imperfect understanding.
In the meantime we are to work to bring people into the Kingdom of God through personal decisions that are freely made with no coercion. One person at a time, regardless of race, creed or color.
As far as the idea of being perfected is concerned we are told " 'The Church (those of us who make up the body of Christ) ... will receive it's perfection only in the glory of Heaven' at the time of Christ's glorious return." So it would appear no one has yet been perfected. I don't know any Christians who consider themselves perfected Jews, or perfected anything for that matter. Perfection comes later, after the recognition by the Jews of Christ as the Messiah.
So, I don't disagree with any of the CCC quotes above, I just have a different understanding and am most dubious of people who work (in this case through forced conversion or belief in forced conversion) to force God's hand. They are out there, and many of them take what Ann Coulter says quite seriously.
BTW, I find it interesting that "The Beatitudes", which I would support being mounted on every courthouse wall, lawn, and public school in America are considered the perfection in Christ of the Ten Commandments. Why push for the Ten Commandments to be posted, the unperfected Law, when we have the perfection of the Law in the Beatitudes (CCC 1967)?
Ann Coulter's statements, in this case, are aimed at fundamentalist Christians. All fundamentalists are, by nature, opposed to the entire project of Modernity. This puts them at odds with the Conservative belief that Western Civilization is objectively better than any other, since Western Civilization is rooted in modernity.
That was also a nice move, Oakes, hoisting me on my own petard at the end. I still feel that way.
Okay, I will be happy to play dueling catechisms in the thread devoted to religion and politics, but not here.
As to all the quotes from the CCC how do they differ with or refute anything I said before? Salvation stems from an individual choice to accept Christ as one's personal Saviour, this is the same offer made to Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Jains, or atheists.
I agree with Ms. Coulter that we should all be Christian, but the fact is we are not and we are called to conversion on an individual basis, not entire religions. The CCC with these statements
"674 The glorious Messiah's coming is suspended at every moment of history until his recognition by "all Israel", for "a hardening has come upon part of Israel" in their "unbelief" toward Jesus." ... "The "full inclusion" of the Jews in the Messiah's salvation, in the wake of "the full number of the Gentiles", will enable the People of God to achieve "the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ", in which "God may be all in all"."
indicate two things: Jesus cannot come until the Jews receive full inclusion in the Messiah's salvation. Since this is a prerequisite to the second coming, many Christians have an active interest that in some circles includes forced conversion, in order to make this happen. "All Israel" and "'full inclusion' of the Jews" indicate this will be a special conversion of some kind orchestrated by God "in the wake of "the full number of the Gentiles' " in His time, not ours. Bad things always happen when humans decide to act to effect God's plans from our own limited and imperfect understanding.
In the meantime we are to work to bring people into the Kingdom of God through personal decisions that are freely made with no coercion. One person at a time, regardless of race, creed or color.
As far as the idea of being perfected is concerned we are told " 'The Church (those of us who make up the body of Christ) ... will receive it's perfection only in the glory of Heaven' at the time of Christ's glorious return." So it would appear no one has yet been perfected. I don't know any Christians who consider themselves perfected Jews, or perfected anything for that matter. Perfection comes later, after the recognition by the Jews of Christ as the Messiah.
So, I don't disagree with any of the CCC quotes above, I just have a different understanding and am most dubious of people who work (in this case through forced conversion or belief in forced conversion) to force God's hand. They are out there, and many of them take what Ann Coulter says quite seriously.
BTW, I find it interesting that "The Beatitudes", which I would support being mounted on every courthouse wall, lawn, and public school in America are considered the perfection in Christ of the Ten Commandments. Why push for the Ten Commandments to be posted, the unperfected Law, when we have the perfection of the Law in the Beatitudes (CCC 1967)?
Ann Coulter's statements, in this case, are aimed at fundamentalist Christians. All fundamentalists are, by nature, opposed to the entire project of Modernity. This puts them at odds with the Conservative belief that Western Civilization is objectively better than any other, since Western Civilization is rooted in modernity.
That was also a nice move, Oakes, hoisting me on my own petard at the end. I still feel that way.
Okay, I will be happy to play dueling catechisms in the thread devoted to religion and politics, but not here.
28geneg
I owe Ann Coulter and oakesspalding an apology. After searching the internets I have been unable to discover any instance of Ann Coulter advocating the forced conversion of the Jews. For this I am heartily contrite and offer my apology for an obvious misstatement of facts (okay, technically I lied, but not intentionally, just carelessly). I was unable to find any indication that Ms. Coulter is anything other than a loving, compassionate Christian, with a dedication to truth and concern for the spiritual well-being of others, shedding sweetness and light wherever she goes, with nothing more in mind than her love of God and Country.
I have come to the conclusion that Ann Coulter is the most important journalist of our time, if not of all time. She only says stupid things to attract attention to her more important issues, such as intelligence being an indicator of which political party one belongs to, ways in which Democrats hate America, and so forth.
to paraphrase a book I once read about Ann Coulter's politics , "He (I) loved Ann Coulter".
I stand behind my comments that people either don't understand the underlying message of the Gospel, or don't choose to make it a part of their political life.
I also do not believe Christianity is a "perfection" of Judaism. There are many important aspects of Judaism that Christians don't even consider a part of their religion at all. Not to mention many of those things they do believe.
Beyond that, Ann Coulter has my apology.
I have come to the conclusion that Ann Coulter is the most important journalist of our time, if not of all time. She only says stupid things to attract attention to her more important issues, such as intelligence being an indicator of which political party one belongs to, ways in which Democrats hate America, and so forth.
to paraphrase a book I once read about Ann Coulter's politics , "He (I) loved Ann Coulter".
I stand behind my comments that people either don't understand the underlying message of the Gospel, or don't choose to make it a part of their political life.
I also do not believe Christianity is a "perfection" of Judaism. There are many important aspects of Judaism that Christians don't even consider a part of their religion at all. Not to mention many of those things they do believe.
Beyond that, Ann Coulter has my apology.
29Doug1943
Okay, now that that's out of the way, I repeat my question:
Is it, or is it not, a tenent of Christianity that belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the acceptance of Him as my personal savior is a requirement for salvation?
Is it, or is it not, a tenent of Christianity that belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the acceptance of Him as my personal savior is a requirement for salvation?
31Arctic-Stranger
Doug, I wish it were that simple.
First, you have to define salvation. In Greek that means wholeness, or health, much more than just a "Get Out of Hell" card.
Second, the notion of belief in Jesus as THE son of God was not really solidified until the council of Nicea...325 AD. Are you saying there were no Christians before then? (People believed in Jesus, but before 325 many, if not most were Arian.)
Third, the phrase "personal savior never appears in the Bible. Nor in the literature of the Greek Fathers. I dont think it appears in Augustine, but it has been a while since I have read the confessions, and that wily bastard is really able to surprise me at times. Personal Savior is pretty much an American invention that stemmed from the revivials.
Savior? yes. Personal savior? No. As Americans it behooves us to remember that when Paul writes "you" he usually means "y'all."
Is Jesus "the only way to the Father"? It probably won't surprise you to hear me say, "yes and no."
Jesus says he is "The Way (Tao or Torah) The Truth, and The Life." You can go two ways with that. First, you can say, Jesus the way the truth and the life, and if you dont know Jesus you cannot have the way the truth and the life. One significantly large portion of the Church Universal has taught this.
Or you can say, if you find The Way, The Truth or The Life, you have found Jesus. Another significant portion of the Church universal has taught this. This is the way of sneaking Moses, Plato, Lao Tzu, and John Coltrane into salvation. (I am serious about the Coltrane part. There is a Church of John Coltrane in San Fransisco, part of the African Orthodox Church.
I tend toward the latter.
So in answer to your question: Is it, or is it not, a tenent of Christianity that belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the acceptance of Him as my personal savior is a requirement for salvation?
I say No.
First, you have to define salvation. In Greek that means wholeness, or health, much more than just a "Get Out of Hell" card.
Second, the notion of belief in Jesus as THE son of God was not really solidified until the council of Nicea...325 AD. Are you saying there were no Christians before then? (People believed in Jesus, but before 325 many, if not most were Arian.)
Third, the phrase "personal savior never appears in the Bible. Nor in the literature of the Greek Fathers. I dont think it appears in Augustine, but it has been a while since I have read the confessions, and that wily bastard is really able to surprise me at times. Personal Savior is pretty much an American invention that stemmed from the revivials.
Savior? yes. Personal savior? No. As Americans it behooves us to remember that when Paul writes "you" he usually means "y'all."
Is Jesus "the only way to the Father"? It probably won't surprise you to hear me say, "yes and no."
Jesus says he is "The Way (Tao or Torah) The Truth, and The Life." You can go two ways with that. First, you can say, Jesus the way the truth and the life, and if you dont know Jesus you cannot have the way the truth and the life. One significantly large portion of the Church Universal has taught this.
Or you can say, if you find The Way, The Truth or The Life, you have found Jesus. Another significant portion of the Church universal has taught this. This is the way of sneaking Moses, Plato, Lao Tzu, and John Coltrane into salvation. (I am serious about the Coltrane part. There is a Church of John Coltrane in San Fransisco, part of the African Orthodox Church.
I tend toward the latter.
So in answer to your question: Is it, or is it not, a tenent of Christianity that belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the acceptance of Him as my personal savior is a requirement for salvation?
I say No.
33Arctic-Stranger
Or it could mean this.
I am the badass god, and if you dont hang with me you are toast and I mean dog meat. So be fair and be square, and make sure JC is your main man or that frying sound you hear is your flesh burning in hell. Turn or burn. If you ain't riding with me, you are driving with Satan.
I am the badass god, and if you dont hang with me you are toast and I mean dog meat. So be fair and be square, and make sure JC is your main man or that frying sound you hear is your flesh burning in hell. Turn or burn. If you ain't riding with me, you are driving with Satan.
34Doug1943
I had a comrade, back when I was one, who seriously claimed that listening to Coltrane made you a revolutionary. Couldn't see it, myself. Or hear it.
35Arctic-Stranger
A Love Supreme would have exactly the opposite effect, I would think. At least it does for me.
37Arctic-Stranger
First, I never said anything about "the buddy Jesus." That was your interpretation, and not a fair one, I might add. I suggest you read CS Lewis's Abolition of Man, and specifically his work on the Tao at the end of the book. That was a major influence on my thinking on this subject. That and his The Last Battle in the Narnia series. Also of interest might be Christ the Eternal Tao, an Orthodox view of the relationship between Jesus and other religions.
And you will also notice that I did not pull the "This is a Johanine document, possibly later and with very different theology than the synoptics argument either. So I obviously don't see this as a better strategy. The Coltrane argument was a bit ironic, but I do wonder about Beethovan, Mozart, (and Coltrane, whose religious roots might surprise you), as well as Moses, Abraham, David, and even Joseph, Mary's husband.
Let me ask you this. Do you believe that everyone who has not made an explicit statement of faith concerning Jesus is not saved? If that is the case, then what about Moses, Abraham, Joseph and David? What happens then to Lao Tzu or the Buddha?
And you will also notice that I did not pull the "This is a Johanine document, possibly later and with very different theology than the synoptics argument either. So I obviously don't see this as a better strategy. The Coltrane argument was a bit ironic, but I do wonder about Beethovan, Mozart, (and Coltrane, whose religious roots might surprise you), as well as Moses, Abraham, David, and even Joseph, Mary's husband.
Let me ask you this. Do you believe that everyone who has not made an explicit statement of faith concerning Jesus is not saved? If that is the case, then what about Moses, Abraham, Joseph and David? What happens then to Lao Tzu or the Buddha?
38margd
SO--this thread made me wonder whatever happened to Anita Bryant. Not pretty--divorce, singing career and Florida Citrus gig over (due to meanness perception), plus she lost favor with religious right because of the divorce. Unfortunately, did some damage before just desserts. She did regret the meanness in the end. (If we can believe Wikipedia.)
39Doug1943
They covered that one about 800 years ago, I think. They get to slide through the idea of Invincible Ignorance.
What Christ said seems very clear and obvious to me. There is no room for mis-interpretation.
I believe that the problem of those who are not Invincibly Ignorant, but who are darned nice chaps, is solved by letting them have a second chance.
I have been told by a Christian friend that after I die, I will be presented with undeniable proof of the truth of the Christian message, and will have another chance to make the right decision.
This relieved me no end, as it means that I can continue playing cards, dancing, drinking and chasing women in the here-and-now.
What Christ said seems very clear and obvious to me. There is no room for mis-interpretation.
I believe that the problem of those who are not Invincibly Ignorant, but who are darned nice chaps, is solved by letting them have a second chance.
I have been told by a Christian friend that after I die, I will be presented with undeniable proof of the truth of the Christian message, and will have another chance to make the right decision.
This relieved me no end, as it means that I can continue playing cards, dancing, drinking and chasing women in the here-and-now.
40oregonobsessionz
>22 geneg: geneg
I was raised Catholic, and would not have thought of the Catechism as displaying a particularly tolerant worldview. In fact, it was my third grade Catechism teacher's weekly leading of prayers, for all those non-Catholic heathens who were going to rot in Hell forever, that led me to realize I could not accept 99% of the teachings of the RC Church.
I was raised Catholic, and would not have thought of the Catechism as displaying a particularly tolerant worldview. In fact, it was my third grade Catechism teacher's weekly leading of prayers, for all those non-Catholic heathens who were going to rot in Hell forever, that led me to realize I could not accept 99% of the teachings of the RC Church.
41Arctic-Stranger
I have been told by a Christian friend that after I die, I will be presented with undeniable proof of the truth of the Christian message, and will have another chance to make the right decision.
That is in the book of Hesitations?
That is in the book of Hesitations?
45amancine
How did Dorothy Parker put it?
Whose love is given over-well
Shall look on Helen's face in hell,
Whilst they whose love is thin and wise
May view John Knox in paradise.
Consolation, indeed.
Whose love is given over-well
Shall look on Helen's face in hell,
Whilst they whose love is thin and wise
May view John Knox in paradise.
Consolation, indeed.
46geneg
Oakesspalding says. " . . . in Christ whatever is true in all religions is consummated and perfected. (Geneg, note: there’s that perfection idea again."
Yes, perfection certainly is consummated and perfected in Christ. While Christ is the model that all Christians should aspire to, please point out to me one person who lived the perfected life. We are called to live in the imitation of Christ, but as Paul tells us all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. Christians will not be glorified and perfected until Christ comes again.
This is my position, as I pointed out earlier it is the position of the Catholic Church, as well. I will not change my position on this. Humans living this life are totally, physically incapable of receiving glorification and perfection. That's the glory of the "Good News": Even though we are all sinners, God has never abandoned us and wants us to be with Him so fiercely that He gave us His Son that our sins would be forgiven by Him (the Father) freely and gladly, all we have to do is be convicted of our sin (conscience, etc.), feel true contrition, try not to sin in the same way again and ask for His forgiveness.
The requirements for entering Heaven are laid out pretty specifically by Jesus Himself in Chapter 25 of Matthew (31 - 46). He all but says it is possible to enter Heaven without knowledge or acceptance of any theological program for salvation, Just be a servant to those in need. It is only because the Christian Churches in America have failed in their stewardship of resources that government has to get involved in this kind of service. It might help to examine the mote in the eyes of the Churches before we beat up on government for trying to serve the neediest among us.
Yes, perfection certainly is consummated and perfected in Christ. While Christ is the model that all Christians should aspire to, please point out to me one person who lived the perfected life. We are called to live in the imitation of Christ, but as Paul tells us all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. Christians will not be glorified and perfected until Christ comes again.
This is my position, as I pointed out earlier it is the position of the Catholic Church, as well. I will not change my position on this. Humans living this life are totally, physically incapable of receiving glorification and perfection. That's the glory of the "Good News": Even though we are all sinners, God has never abandoned us and wants us to be with Him so fiercely that He gave us His Son that our sins would be forgiven by Him (the Father) freely and gladly, all we have to do is be convicted of our sin (conscience, etc.), feel true contrition, try not to sin in the same way again and ask for His forgiveness.
The requirements for entering Heaven are laid out pretty specifically by Jesus Himself in Chapter 25 of Matthew (31 - 46). He all but says it is possible to enter Heaven without knowledge or acceptance of any theological program for salvation, Just be a servant to those in need. It is only because the Christian Churches in America have failed in their stewardship of resources that government has to get involved in this kind of service. It might help to examine the mote in the eyes of the Churches before we beat up on government for trying to serve the neediest among us.
47reading_fox
#39 " I will be presented with undeniable proof of the truth of the Christian message, and will have another chance to make the right decision.
"
Now that's my kind of religion one that provides proper proof, and you don't need to worry about it until afterwards.
Arctic, the book of hesitation in this the Gospel?
"
Now that's my kind of religion one that provides proper proof, and you don't need to worry about it until afterwards.
Arctic, the book of hesitation in this the Gospel?
48Arctic-Stranger
Oakesspalding,
I dont disagree with anything you say in your last post, at least not enough to bring it up, but I think your reading of Lewis could go deeper. What is it about the Tao that makes in worth his consideration? You are right on the "whats" of Abolition; the real question is why is Lewis doing this, and what is the ultimate import. You seem to want to separate his statements about the Tao from his thoughts in the Last Battle. True, Lewis was not a systematic theologian, so it may be unfair to expect him to act like one, but he was pretty consistant.
I think the Tao is for Lewis similiar to the "deep magic" we find in other places in the Chronicles. Now to put all my cards on the table, I have to admit that Til We Have Faces is my favorite Lewis book, and that constitutes my "canon within the canon" when it comes to Lewis. Back when I was a high school fundamentalist, that book disturbed me greatly, because he was using pagan themes to make a Christian point. Now I see it a bit differently.
ahh, but I digress. It is too easy to speak of "salvation" when the topic is someone else's salvation. Personally I find the quote about "no one coming to the Father but by me" a tad too easy to accept, and there was a time when I accepted it all too easily. Now I struggling with: "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
That is a saying of Jesus worth putting into practice.
I dont disagree with anything you say in your last post, at least not enough to bring it up, but I think your reading of Lewis could go deeper. What is it about the Tao that makes in worth his consideration? You are right on the "whats" of Abolition; the real question is why is Lewis doing this, and what is the ultimate import. You seem to want to separate his statements about the Tao from his thoughts in the Last Battle. True, Lewis was not a systematic theologian, so it may be unfair to expect him to act like one, but he was pretty consistant.
I think the Tao is for Lewis similiar to the "deep magic" we find in other places in the Chronicles. Now to put all my cards on the table, I have to admit that Til We Have Faces is my favorite Lewis book, and that constitutes my "canon within the canon" when it comes to Lewis. Back when I was a high school fundamentalist, that book disturbed me greatly, because he was using pagan themes to make a Christian point. Now I see it a bit differently.
ahh, but I digress. It is too easy to speak of "salvation" when the topic is someone else's salvation. Personally I find the quote about "no one coming to the Father but by me" a tad too easy to accept, and there was a time when I accepted it all too easily. Now I struggling with: "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
That is a saying of Jesus worth putting into practice.
49KromesTomes
Geneg: just to kind of cut to the chase then, you're saying that (Jesus said) one doesn't have to even believe in Jesus in the first place to get into heaven?
Is there really a significant number of people who believe this?
It is, obviously, 180 degrees different from what most fundamentalists say.
(Note: I'm a non-Christian who has very very little background in the bible, so these particular questions are not meant to be snarky.)
Is there really a significant number of people who believe this?
It is, obviously, 180 degrees different from what most fundamentalists say.
(Note: I'm a non-Christian who has very very little background in the bible, so these particular questions are not meant to be snarky.)
50Arctic-Stranger
Part of the problem is how limited you think the work of Jesus.
Some people believe that Jesus's work was relatively limited to the people who actually have some kind of encounter with him. Catholics and Orthodox tend to believe this relationship comes through the Church, Evangelicals tend to believe it comes down to the "personal relationship with Jesus." Lutherans and Reformed never really got this one down well. On the one hand believe in the Church and the Bible, but their formulation was more complicated. I will come back to them.
Now there is another group that believes the work of Christ was unlimited. Christ overcame death and sin. When the Allied forces beat the Nazis in France, the German were beat back, and you did not have to have a relationship with the Americans to enjoy the fact that the Nazis were no longer singing Deutschland Ueber Alles in your local cafe. This comes from what New Testament scholars call the Panta passsages in Paul. (Panta is greek for "ALL") We also see this in in early Christus Victor theology, that is an undercurrent of much early Eastern Orthodoxy. Mainstream protestantism picked up on this, most responsibly in the theology of Karl Barth (who was accused by the Dutch reformed of having Grace a little too triumphant.)
The stricter reformed movements started talking about Limited Atonement, meaning that Christ did not redeem everything, only the things that wanted to be redeemed. (That is part of the TULIP formulation Total depravity, Unconditional Grace, Limited Atonement, and two other things I cannot remember off the top of my head.)
Now how do you reconcile unconditional grace with limited atonement? Obviously people do this, but the it becomes a high wire verbal act before it is all over.
Well, enough of the short theology lesson. '
BTW, I lean toward the latter...Christ redeemed all things. and yes, that has major problems, but so does the notion that Christ redeems only Christians. (Christians, it turns out, act only slightly more redeemed than culture as a whole.)
Some people believe that Jesus's work was relatively limited to the people who actually have some kind of encounter with him. Catholics and Orthodox tend to believe this relationship comes through the Church, Evangelicals tend to believe it comes down to the "personal relationship with Jesus." Lutherans and Reformed never really got this one down well. On the one hand believe in the Church and the Bible, but their formulation was more complicated. I will come back to them.
Now there is another group that believes the work of Christ was unlimited. Christ overcame death and sin. When the Allied forces beat the Nazis in France, the German were beat back, and you did not have to have a relationship with the Americans to enjoy the fact that the Nazis were no longer singing Deutschland Ueber Alles in your local cafe. This comes from what New Testament scholars call the Panta passsages in Paul. (Panta is greek for "ALL") We also see this in in early Christus Victor theology, that is an undercurrent of much early Eastern Orthodoxy. Mainstream protestantism picked up on this, most responsibly in the theology of Karl Barth (who was accused by the Dutch reformed of having Grace a little too triumphant.)
The stricter reformed movements started talking about Limited Atonement, meaning that Christ did not redeem everything, only the things that wanted to be redeemed. (That is part of the TULIP formulation Total depravity, Unconditional Grace, Limited Atonement, and two other things I cannot remember off the top of my head.)
Now how do you reconcile unconditional grace with limited atonement? Obviously people do this, but the it becomes a high wire verbal act before it is all over.
Well, enough of the short theology lesson. '
BTW, I lean toward the latter...Christ redeemed all things. and yes, that has major problems, but so does the notion that Christ redeems only Christians. (Christians, it turns out, act only slightly more redeemed than culture as a whole.)
52geneg
I think Eurydice has found something. I will remember that.
Two famous cheek turners who accomplished their goals were Gandhi and King.
The fastest way for the Palestinians to achieve a good accommodation with Israel would be to follow Gandhi and King in following Jesus, but their failed culture will not allow it.
Two famous cheek turners who accomplished their goals were Gandhi and King.
The fastest way for the Palestinians to achieve a good accommodation with Israel would be to follow Gandhi and King in following Jesus, but their failed culture will not allow it.
53Amtep
I discovered the true meaning of 'turn the other cheek' one day while I was playing Wing Commander. I'd been ambushed by two Jalthi heavy fighters while I was dealing with a third, and I got caught by a full salvo on my left wing, which destroyed my shields and most of the armor on that side. Trouble! One more hit would be fatal, but I couldn't take my eye off my current target either.
Since it was a space combat simulator, up and down didn't have much meaning. I realized I could simply flip over and continue fighting, letting the Jalthi pound away on the other wing until I was ready to deal with them. I turned the other cheek—because that side still had armor.
The phrase has never been the same for me.
Since it was a space combat simulator, up and down didn't have much meaning. I realized I could simply flip over and continue fighting, letting the Jalthi pound away on the other wing until I was ready to deal with them. I turned the other cheek—because that side still had armor.
The phrase has never been the same for me.
54Arctic-Stranger
For Chesterton, Orthodoxy eventually became very Roman Catholic.
Very insightful post, OS. I will say I was surprised when your cards hit the table. You defend Jesus and the Biblical tradition more enthusiastically and intelligently than many Christians I know..if not most Christians I know.
I agree totally that faith should never be too easy. That is why I rebel against the easy answers of "follow Jesus and everything will be ok." I can attest, as a hospital chaplain, that people die, often in ways no one should have to die, and their faith often has little to do with how and why they die.
We have rather deviated from the original topic here, but what a deviation it is.
Very insightful post, OS. I will say I was surprised when your cards hit the table. You defend Jesus and the Biblical tradition more enthusiastically and intelligently than many Christians I know..if not most Christians I know.
I agree totally that faith should never be too easy. That is why I rebel against the easy answers of "follow Jesus and everything will be ok." I can attest, as a hospital chaplain, that people die, often in ways no one should have to die, and their faith often has little to do with how and why they die.
We have rather deviated from the original topic here, but what a deviation it is.
56wyrdchao
>52 geneg:/54 If Jesus were simply an ordinary man, the seeming contradictions in His statements could be explained as actual contradictions—the actual contradictions of an, at times perhaps insightful, but always fallible mortal being. But if He were much more than that, as orthodox Christians have always believed, then the task is to figure out how the whole thing fits together, so to speak, confident that it does fit somehow, even if the solution is far from obvious.
I'm a lot more comfortable with ACTUAL contradictions, here. Considering that most of the NT was written after the fact, and that is was also a political document (i.e. intended to establish a Church), we should be surprised that it is as coherent as it is. When someone says 'but maybe he was crazy like a fox', I am strongly reminded of conspiracy theorists. 'Don't attribute to evil what can be adequately explained by stupidity'.
----
As another failed Catholic, I have to admit that JC's importance to salvation seemed relatively minor to me as a Catechism student: I've always seen him as more of an example of just how badly orthodox religion can go wrong, and how a well-meaning but not-very-discreet rabble rouser can end up in bad trouble. Tragic, yes; I certainly felt (and feel) his pain. And imagine that he suffered as much for his (and mankind's) failure as for anything else.
RC's are made to feel retroactive guilt for this failure; salvation is a personal goal that can be guided by the example of Jesus. He isn't essential to it, but we sure are.
I'm a lot more comfortable with ACTUAL contradictions, here. Considering that most of the NT was written after the fact, and that is was also a political document (i.e. intended to establish a Church), we should be surprised that it is as coherent as it is. When someone says 'but maybe he was crazy like a fox', I am strongly reminded of conspiracy theorists. 'Don't attribute to evil what can be adequately explained by stupidity'.
----
As another failed Catholic, I have to admit that JC's importance to salvation seemed relatively minor to me as a Catechism student: I've always seen him as more of an example of just how badly orthodox religion can go wrong, and how a well-meaning but not-very-discreet rabble rouser can end up in bad trouble. Tragic, yes; I certainly felt (and feel) his pain. And imagine that he suffered as much for his (and mankind's) failure as for anything else.
RC's are made to feel retroactive guilt for this failure; salvation is a personal goal that can be guided by the example of Jesus. He isn't essential to it, but we sure are.
