Ann Coulter's new book? Godless Liberals.

[1John2_26]

Quote:
ENIGMA wrote:
Did anyone ever get around to providing a question for debate?

Why would a liberal claim to be a Christian when their preaching, statements, beliefs and actions are contradicted by the Gospels and the letters of the New Testament?

[Grumpy]

1John2_26

But relevant to liberals being godless.

What a ridiculous statement, completely without evidence, false and simply a slander of those who disagree with you. It is a substitute for real debate.

Grumpy

[1John2_26]

Many who have studied the times speculate that many of the restrictions of the OT have to do with foods(pork,shellfish,etc) that could easily cause food poisoning and trigonosis(a parasite) in the extreme heat of the area, thus were based on common sense as codified by the scriptures. The same can be said about the rules of Kosher.

And "somehow" the Israelites "just knew" that there was a difference in pig meat and cattle and sheep meat? Without the aid of microscopes and medical tests?

"Many who have studied," have the tools to "study" with.

The Israelites had sand and heat.

Sorry man, delusions caused by sun stroke do not a cure for disease "dis" cover.

[1John2_26]

1John2_26

Quote:
But relevant to liberals being godless.


What a ridiculous statement, completely without evidence, false and simply a slander of those who disagree with you. It is a substitute for real debate.

Maybe. "If" we didn't have Jesus telling us to judge the fruits of people. Where liberals tread, licentiousnes and "godlessness" are produced like rotted apples falling from a tree. Byt the way, apples come only from apple trees.

Just for the record.

Unless of course the tree has been altered.

[Grumpy]

1John2_26

And "somehow" the Israelites "just knew" that there was a difference in pig meat and cattle and sheep meat? Without the aid of microscopes and medical tests?

Yes it's called painful experience, natures harsh but certain teacher. When it get's codified into rules(religious or otherwise) it becomes hard won knowledge gained by our ancestors and passed down.

I have refuted every attempt of yours to foster this allegation (or wishful thinking) in every thread you have attemted to do so. Decimated.

You have refuted nothing and repeating a lie makes it no more true the second time(or the third).

Just for the record

The Bible does not mention homosexuality as it is understood today(two consenting adults).PERIOD.

Grumpy

[1John2_26]

Easyrider wrote:
Even if by chance your theory is true that God creates homosexuals (rather than abnormal chemical imbalances being at work in the mother's womb),

and who would be responsible for these chemical imbalances, other than God?

Crack. Stress. Maybe even liberal mindset? Thoughts are powerful.

he nevertheless prohibits gay sex relationships, as the Bible attests.

Let's revisit the OP.

Quote:
Why would a liberal claim to be a Christian when their preaching, statements, beliefs and actions are contradicted by the Gospels and the letters of the New Testament?

First off, notice that the OT is irrelevant to this thread.

Liberals have so discarded the OT as to be irrelevant entirely. No Genesis, no flood, no Jonah, etc., etc.. They like the fluffy Jesus so there is a tiny bit of common ground. At least to compare what is and what isn't truth.

I know you believe Jesus is also the 'author' of the OT, but the thread is specifically referring to books of the NT.

And there are many gods too. But we all know this about Yhwh. And Yhwh is the Saviour. The only One ever mentioned to the Israelites. (The OT thing.)

Secondly, it seems to me the implication of your statement is that someone who does not consider homosexuality per se, or all homosexual acts per se, immoral is Godless, at least that is what I am interpreting in the context of the thread.

That is correct. Even in the NT homosexuality and pagan detestable practices are equated. Always found together. In the NT one must leave gay sex. Male or female.

Now, the OP question makes some unsubstantiated assumptions, to whit, that liberal beliefs etc. are contradicted by the NT.

The NT makes the same assertion.

To be contradicted by the NT means, to me, that it is not possible to interpret the NT in any way to be consistent with the given statement.

Let the NT writers testify against liberals. They do a better job than most modern day westerners.

Now, we can argue about what is the best interpretation, and may never come to an agreement.

Which is ONLY a problem for the godless. For rabid secularists: What to do with the Christians that will not be tricked?

But it seems to me that ample evidence has been provided that it is possible to interpret the NT, taking into account the original language and even intent of the authors as much as it is discernable, in a way that allows that some homosexual acts are not immoral.

Which Christ Jesus and Paul refute. Same-gender marriage is not "marriage" to Jesus. Paul? No one can misinterpret really. That is why his very words are under attack. Typical of liberalism.

Yes, I would allow that one can interpret the NT in a different way and reach a different conclusion.

Christ Jesus said this as a warning of apostacy to the Sanhedrin members and anyone listening to Him. Peter, Paul, James, John, Jude, all make the same dire warnings to Christians.

When there is a disagreement, each person weighs the arguments in their own heart, prays and examines their conscience, and comes to their own conclusion.

Which ends when they demand by secular law overrides orthodoxy. Christians must "defend the faith." For after all it was delievered only once.

In such cases, the Bible allows that two believers can disagree and both still be in right standing with God.

On only some matters. Helping people sin is not one of them. Liberals help people choose anti-Christian beliefs and practices. Un-Christian Marriage as the nail in the coffin.

Thus, taking a 'liberal' interpretation of scripture does not mean taking a 'Godless' interpretation.

It does when it does. There is a point when a person has willingly left the faith. Romans chapter six makes this assertion very clearly. People in hell that Jesus talked about makes the point clear as well.

Such assertions seem to me to be nothing more than trying to avoid discussion and put ones own views above all others through ad hominem tactics.

Trying to avoid discussions is the legislation put into affect by liberal politicians that have criminalized and silenced Christians in public, education and the justice systems. That would be the place to find "trying to avoid discussions" in grueling reality. And of course the beginnings of both the great apsotcy mentioned in the NT and the coming persecutions we are seeing the start of now.

Go to AU.org for example. Or, Soulforce.org or just listen with ears (and eyes) open "to" liberals?

If a person hands you an orange when you ask for an apple and replies that "it is an apple," when you point out "it is not an apple," proves one of the people wrong when researched a bit. Now there may be ignorance or there may be deceit. That also needs study.

But the truth is not changeable. Only the position of being wrong about it. Liberals have too many wrongs to not be able to accuse them of being godless is a justifiable and proveable assertion.

If liberals trick people into thinking they are believers, they will accomplish this by infiltrating the ranks of the believers with cunning deception.

Ann Coulter has not gone out on a limb in her assertion and the accusation that followed her observations. In fact she has just studied the fruit on those limbs and called them what they are. She cannot be blamed for pointing out facts.

[1John2_26]

1John2_26

Quote:
And "somehow" the Israelites "just knew" that there was a difference in pig meat and cattle and sheep meat? Without the aid of microscopes and medical tests?

Yes it's called painful experience, natures harsh but certain teacher. When it get's codified into rules(religious or otherwise) it becomes hard won knowledge gained by our ancestors and passed down.

Uh yeah. The Israelites were not that many and communicable diseases and discouragement would have taken its complete toll on a bunch of wanderers following a deluded Ex-Egyptian around the desert. Which of course it almost did huh? The Bible hides nothing. Your logic needs to be examined and of course I do just that.

Quote:
I have refuted every attempt of yours to foster this allegation (or wishful thinking) in every thread you have attemted to do so. Decimated.

You have refuted nothing and repeating a lie makes it no more true the second time(or the third).

Your "opinions" are only from the source of those opinions. Your mindset. I have gone point for point with you and your position is based on altering and changing the texts or discarding what doesn't align with your motives. Mine just agree with the texts "in context."

And . . .?

Just for the record

"So shall it be written. So shall it be done." Pharoah, in the Ten Commandments.

"Amen." In the Bible.

I will take my stand (and my opinion) with the God of the Bible against your atheist godlessness that you use with Biblical facts to attempt to prove whatever it is you are trying to prove. The messenger has a message he has received from someone and is trying to deliver.

The Bible does not mention homosexuality as it is understood today(two consenting adults).PERIOD.

In your application of Biblical truth?

Or,

In your application of Biblical truth.

Either way, you are on one side and I on the other, where your offerings have been soundly refuted by the Biblical writers and I who agree with them. No matter if you change the rules or not.

Keep that recorder on.

[Cathar1950]

Marvin Harris in his book War, Pigs, Cows and Witches explains why pigs were not raised and ate. They use the same kinds of food people do.
So they compete for resources. While cud chewing animals eat what we don't eat such as grass. In a area like the Middle East only the rich could afford to raise pigs. So they didn't need microscopes to figure out that the economics were being stressed.

There is no reason why Christians cannot be liberal. Just because you take the bible literally when ever it suits you as an immature reading does not mean all take it the same way. Many Jews realize the stories are myths and tales. They have grown up. I find it interesting that you defend Ann when it suits you even if she is a heathen.

Let the NT writers testify against liberals. They do a better job than most modern day westerners.

They didn't even know what a liberal was. You read into it what you want.

On only some matters. Helping people sin is not one of them. Liberals help people choose anti-Christian beliefs and practices. Un-Christian Marriage as the nail in the coffin.

I thin they help bible-believers believe there is more in the bible then there really is by spiritualizing what you take literally.

[Jose]

Where liberals tread, licentiousnes and "godlessness" are produced like rotted apples falling from a tree. Byt the way, apples come only from apple trees.

You don't really mean to imply that you've read Ann Coulter's book and actually believe her gibberish? What is your definition of "liberal," anyway? It must be quite different from the definition that actual liberals use, especially those who are deeply religious.

By the way, these apples don't come from apple trees:

Podophyllum peltatum

Even if by chance your theory is true that God creates homosexuals (rather than abnormal chemical imbalances being at work in the mother's womb),

and who would be responsible for these chemical imbalances, other than God?

Crack. Stress. Maybe even liberal mindset? Thoughts are powerful.

You again ignore the biology. I'll explain it again. I'll try to use simple words for you.

• The male brain is not the same as the female brain.
• The brain develops over a longer time than the genitalia.
• Chemicals that mess up hormones change how development works.
• Chemicals can make genitalia develop wrong, and come out part-male, part-female. Doctors can see this and usually "fix" it by surgery.
• Chemicals can make the brain develop wrong, and come out part-male, part-female. You can't see the brain. You can't "fix" it.
• "Normal" genitalia sometimes are matched with a part-male, part-female brain. Voila, homosexual.
• Where do these chemicals come from? Some are natural. Many are produced by Big Companies as "pollution." These companies are protected by Republicans in Congress and the Presidency who prevent or remove "burdensome regulations." Thus, a vote for your "Christian" Republican is a vote for more homosexuals (and more cancer, more respiratory diseases, etc).
• To put the right chemicals in the right place at the right time to create a homosexual requires god to put it there (if you believe in god, and believe in god putting every one of us here, as we are, for a purpose).

Sorry, 1John. You can't blame liberals. You can't blame atheists. You can't blame Democrats. If you insist on blaming anyone, you must blame Christians for putting the people in power who pass laws against public health in the name of "helping the economy." If you must blame anyone, you must blame your god for creating homosexuals as often as he does. You can't blame Crack, Stress, or liberal mindset--unless, of course, you want to look silly. That's up to you, of course.

What you can do is stop badgering these people whom god has chosen to walk among us. You might even ask yourself if it makes any sense at all to pretend that it is "Christian" to deny people equal rights just because you like to think of how they might have sex. If you stop thinking about it, you might find life much less stressful.

[Cathar1950]

I think it is the whiptail lizard that has only females. They still go thru the mating ritual that causes them to lay their eggs but the x chromosome has disappeared. It is shrinking in human males. Maybe Homosexuality is nature experimenting (mutation and change) and some day there will be neither male nor female but just humans have children. We may even continue with a mating ritual. It could even be nature’s way of controlling runaway population growth.

[1John2_26]

Marvin Harris in his book War, Pigs, Cows and Witches explains why pigs were not raised and ate. They use the same kinds of food people do.

Ever read Slouching Towards Gomorrah by Bork? No wonder the liberals screamed him away.

Ever read Mere Christianity by Lewis?

So they compete for resources. While cud chewing animals eat what we don't eat such as grass. In a area like the Middle East only the rich could afford to raise pigs. So they didn't need microscopes to figure out that the economics were being stressed.

Nice try. Israelites ate human children during wars when and where they were surrounded by their enemies. (Why the heck this has been kept in the Bible is anyone's guess. Usually people developing totalitarian political systems do not list their horrors and bad deeds.) But anyway . . . I'm sure pigs would have been no problem to consume out in the desert by wandering starving misfits following an ex-Egyptian. But then again, upon contemplating Biblical realiies . . . real fear of the real God may make one keep in the stories one would rather not remember. Maybe Yhwh wasn't kidding around about consequences. Some Israelites took the story seriously enough to keep in the embarrassing stuff. Too.

Maybe that is in keeping with this thread after all.

There is no reason why Christians cannot be liberal.

Obviously. But there is a limit. A line once crossed that steps a person out of the faith. Too many Liberals have crossed line now, that Christians think of liberals as a mission field.

Just because you take the bible literally when ever it suits you as an immature reading does not mean all take it the same way. Many Jews realize the stories are myths and tales.

And many Jews (in fact all) make a place setting at their Passover Seders for Elijah. Who never died. A place setting that remains unfilled to this day. May Elijah come soon and find his place.

They have grown up.

That is debateable now isn't it? Growing up usually means "seeing things right (correctly). Wallowing in excuse is not growing up. It is remaining pre-Bar Mitvah.

I find it interesting that you defend Ann when it suits you even if she is a heathen.

I defend the truth. She is absolutely correct about liberals as they have evolved today.

Quote:
Let the NT writers testify against liberals. They do a better job than most modern day westerners.

They didn't even know what a liberal was. You read into it what you want.

There is no such thing as abortion for convenience, taxing the believers to pay for whoreish consequences, not holding criminals accountable, etc., etc., and of course no such thing as celebrating sodomy or same-gender marriage. All things the liberals have against God-believers. I just use logic to come to conclusions that are always there. When Ann is wrong I'll agree with that. On liberals - as can easily be seen by my posts before she wrote her book - couldn't agree with more.

Quote:
On only some matters. Helping people sin is not one of them. Liberals help people choose anti-Christian beliefs and practices. Un-Christian Marriage as the nail in the coffin.

I thin they help bible-believers believe there is more in the bible then there really is by spiritualizing what you take literally.

Men are marrying men with the screaming celebrations of a powerful segment of society supporting it. The Bible is not found wanting in its grueling reporting of the reality of what the godless will implement, what we are to observe, and what we are to do about it.

Namely, naming things the way they are.

On that, Ann has not failed in her opinions about liberals.

I emailed her many years ago about the condition of our youth and what I asserted was causing the incredible amount of troubles they are experiencing. She emailed me back about my assertions. I never thought about responding to her reply. I really didn't know who she was.

Now we have her latest book.

It's correctly titled at least.