Godless - The Church of Liberalism

[Easyrider]

GODLESS – The Church of Liberalism - is the most explosive book yet from #1 New York Times bestselling author Ann Coulter. In this completely original and thoroughly controversial work, Coulter writes, “Liberals love to boast that they are not ‘religious,’ which is what one would expect to hear from the state-sanctioned religion. Of course liberalism is a religion. It has its own cosmology, its own miracles, its own beliefs in the supernatural, its own churches, its own high priests, its own saints, its own total worldview, and its own explanation of the existence of the universe. In other words, liberalism contains all the attributes of what is generally known as ‘religion.’ ” (Amazon.com review)

"If a Martian landed in America and set out to determine the nation's official state religion, he would have to conclude it is liberalism, while Christianity and Judaism are prohibited by law," Coulter writes in "Godless: The Church of Liberalism."

The WND columnist argues that while many Americans are outraged by liberal hostility to traditional religion, to focus solely on the Left's attacks on Judeo-Christian tradition is to miss a larger point: Liberalism is a religion—a godless one.

Chapter headings in Coulter's "Godless" include "On the Seventh Day, God Rested and Liberals Schemed" and "Liberals' Doctrine of Infallibility: Sobbing Hysterical Women" and "The Holiest Sacrament: Abortion."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=50364

Let the fur fly.

[1John2_26]

Moderator Intervention

MagusYanam wrote:
The chasm is too wide between your ears.


Just a reminder not to make personal remarks.

That is hardly a personal insult. The human mind is a gift from God and indeed what liberals profess and put into action - their belief system - is something "I have" put great distant between it and me. In my mind and my behaviors. Many, far more dispicable things have been leveled at my posts. I see words like these: "fundamentalist, myth, and ignorant," used as pure epithet without so much as a blink from you moderators. Fundamentalist, myth, and ignorant are not only inapplicable to a Christian, they are just cursing directed at us.

Since those words are not only allowed as epithet, but encouraged, there should be some levity to the attempt made by Magus to rile me. It is a very Christ-like ploy to get people upset to start them thinking, or to prove they do. Rememebr that at least one Pharisee "came to faith in Christ.

Only Jose has ever applied a perfect word to my approach here at debatingchristianity.com: Persona. I choose to distance myself from liberals and their ilk. I choose to define "them" as a conglomerate of anti-Christians because that is an aspect of what they are and do.

What Magus meant as a slight, I could have easily shown as wit and intellect applied correctly in regards to contemplating what is the modern liberal. It is very smart to keep a distence from liberalism . . . even in your mind. Just like Jesus said.

Ann Coulter, Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, Shaun Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingram, Laura Schlessinger (sileneced by gays) and others involved in "conservative" media, are members of a teenie minority pointing out what liberals really "are." I would expect once a person knows the truth of what a liberal "is," would not see a chasm built in the human mind to protect onesself from the effects of liberalism as anything but a good choice.

Magus is a fascinating individual for a Christian to interact with. The New Testament urges Christians not to yoke themselves with unbelievers, and yet, that is the support group of teachers, preachers and buddies for liberal theology. The Godless. Well, OK, maybe not "god" less, there are lots of gods, but certainly Jesus-less, in the sense of the real Jesus that is the Real God.

Jesus was insulted and executed by people that bear a striking resemblence to Liberals of today 2006. Incredibly so. The clubmembership of Liberalism which is too voluminous to capture completely (Sample: atheists, Humanists, Darwinists, liberals, progressives, skeptics, freethinkers, deists, theists, gays, lesbians, Democrats, liberal-theologians, Marxists, Communists, pederasts, agnostics, etc., etc., etc.,) all denigrate Jesus in eerily similar ways.

The Sanhedrin was a political group put into place by Herod, who was an impressive politician that accomplished great things, who was put into place by Roman authority. He was evil through and through. When looking at the New Testament as history, accurate history, the need to accurately define Liberals as Godless takes on its intellectual justification validated by truth. Truth has not changed in 2000-plus years. Only languages, and only a bit. Actions can still be the judge of what a person "is."

From what she says and writes, the actions of Liberals (of 2006) are defined fairly and indeed accurately by Ann Coulter.

[MagusYanam]

Jesus believed in the flood and Jonah being in the fish, as things that really happened. "moderate" is another way of saying "lukewarm." Of course I prefer the more accurate "unbeliever."

The first is anachronism. Jesus spoke of the meanings of the flood and Jonah stories, if you read those passages carefully, you'll find that whether he thought them factual or not was immaterial. Most Hebrews of the time would have thought the matter of their factuality immaterial to what Jesus was saying. Contemporary Hebrew theology was more concerned with the metaphors and deeper meanings of the text than with their factuality.

Second, I'll look it up but I'm fairly sure 'moderate' is not a synonym with either 'lukewarm' or 'unbeliever'. You gripe so much about liberals 'changing definitions' when you do the same - you do realise how that looks, right?

Christian Liberal is not just an oxymoron, it is a declaration of war against the Church.

Hardly. Most of us are pacifists, like the kerygmatic Christians.

That is terrible. Are you "sure" that really happened? Bearing false witness, though a political tool used often, is not a good Christian practice.

I did read the news on that primary. Admitted, I was reading some between the lines, but Bush wouldn't have said it if he thought it wouldn't carry political clout in his constituency.

Accusing southern Democrats, that are largely African American of being anti-Black is lunacy.

Of course, but that wasn't my assertion. The African American community in the South still votes Democratic - over ninety percent of it, anyway. I was referring to the Dixiecrats that became Republicans after 1965.

They bought into a lie (like Colson admits he did) and now Christ Jesus is showing them the path to healing.

That I didn't know. If Colson really is doing good work for inmates and helping them turn their lives around, more power to him. Perhaps there's hope for him yet.

A liberal wants to feed a child and bring him or her a licentious and hedonistic gospel of decadence.

Um, wrong. Where is your evidence? You have not given a single thread that ties the liberal politic directly to hedonism, licentiousness or the consumer culture. Like you say, bearing false witness is not good Christian practise.

Communism is not going to go over well to the honest people forced to pay for the "sins" of the unrepentent.

There is a difference between communism and regulated economics. Learn it. Communism advocates the use of force and violence; I don't. Capisce?

Not when it is couched in Gaia worship.

Who is worshipping Gaia here? The Sierra Club? The National Park Service? This accusation is ludicrous.

The "consistent" life ethic? That does not exist in liberal theology/ideology.

http://www.consistent-life.org/

Read away. These people have conservative views on abortion and euthanasia, but they are by and large liberals on about everything else (war, gun control, economics and social ethics). They actually reflect my own beliefs quite accurately.

The roles of government to a liberal is to criminalize and eliminate Christians from schools and the public sphere. They have accomplished both tasks.

Where is the proof? Give me one piece of legislation passed in the United States that criminalises Christianity and eliminates their voice from the public sphere? I have not been criminalised or had my opinions silenced in the public sphere even when I spoke about my faith.

Social justice? The biggest joke of all.

Jesus wasn't joking when he said that the poor and the meek and the mournful are blessed, or when he told his followers to give even the shirt on their back to the man who needed it more. He wasn't joking when he overturned the tables of the moneychangers and the merchants who were fleecing the worshippers.

Social justice is no joke - and liberal causes have a very strong history of trying to carry on Jesus' own.

Six strikes mean two outs Magus.

Then it looks like you're out for the next two innings; you completely missed the point of the entire liberal stance. I don't know what you were swinging at, but it certainly wasn't my views.

Any nod to agree with a liberal on any single point sets in motion their viewing that nod, as an acceptance of all of their heresy and evil.

That is complete and utter nonsense - I agree with what is right, regardless of who says it. It doesn't mean I agree with everything they say or do, just that I agree with that particular point. Read some of the conversation between Christ and Nicodemus, or between Christ and his disciples to get a clue of what I mean.

Other than that, ho hum. There's not much in your posts I haven't seen before, and it has yet to convince me that liberalism in itself is in any way dangerous or contrary to Christianity.

[Grumpy]

Al/John

Only Jose has ever applied a perfect word to my approach here at debatingchristianity.com: Persona. I choose to distance myself from liberals and their ilk. I choose to define "them" as a conglomerate of anti-Christians because that is an aspect of what they are and do.

Actually Al, any true christian MUST be a liberal, you cannot follow the teachings of Jesus spewing hatred out of your mouth. As far as I'm concerned Conservative Christian is an oxymoron. And Liberals carry the true meaning of Jesus' teachings into their political philosophies, wheresas you(whatever you are) spew hatred and filth with every word you type. You are doing more harm to your agenda than anything we could do, just by your example.

I don't personally know anyone quite as...humanity deprived as you seem to be. What you do to the scriptures is depraved. Jesus talked of the Sagasees and Pharisees knowing the word of the law but not having the spirit, that describes you to a "T".

Grumpy

[1John2_26]

Hey atheist,

You do realize the irony of 'you" judging "me," or better yet, judging "my" Christian walk?

I'll bet not.

When you're a follower of Christ Jesus, than spout your "encouragement" all you want to. Your personal insults are desperation looking for a victim to vent your anger on. That won't be me dude. I am no lamb. I have a sling to fend off wolves.

Al/John

Quote:
Only Jose has ever applied a perfect word to my approach here at debatingchristianity.com: Persona. I choose to distance myself from liberals and their ilk. I choose to define "them" as a conglomerate of anti-Christians because that is an aspect of what they are and do.


Actually Al, any true christian MUST be a liberal, you cannot follow the teachings of Jesus spewing hatred out of your mouth.

Tolerating miscraents and heretics is not the same as joining them in their cause. Jesus was clear on that. Hell is a reality. But, of course, not to an atheist.

As far as I'm concerned Conservative Christian is an oxymoron.

The memory of that assertion will never find its way to eternity. Jesus is God. It is a conservative view that liberals (and atheists) desperately try to dismantle.

And Liberals carry the true meaning of Jesus' teachings into their political philosophies, wheresas you(whatever you are) spew hatred and filth with every word you type.

We're never going to be buddies that's true. My pity for atheists does not even come close to hatred. For, I cannot hate anyone. Finding things that liberals believe in repugnant is fair though.

You are doing more harm to your agenda than anything we could do, just by your example.

Sorry I am not a lemming. I notice that ad hominem is the last ditch effort of the garden-variety anti-Christ more than often. Christian-bashing so effortlessly embraced by the diversity clubmembers.

Wanna bet I get a warning for my opinion of your opinion, and not a word mentioned to you? You are common in your vitriol and hatred towards Christians that do not agree with atheists and all of the rest of the members of the anti-Christian club.

I don't personally know anyone quite as...humanity deprived as you seem to be.

Jose has proven to be so much smarter than the "garden-variety" antagonizer of Christians here at debatingchristianity.com. You will never know who or what I do in rael life. I live my faith. Except in fighting back against the anti-Christian. I can't help myself with telling them "what" they are.

What you do to the scriptures is depraved.

that is truly hilarious and quite sad at the same time coming from such an avowed atheist as you are. Your opinion of a liberal or conservative orthodox Christian has virtually no value.

Jesus talked of the Sagasees and Pharisees knowing the word of the law but not having the spirit, that describes you to a "T".

And an atheist having an opinion of a Christian, and what they are supposed to be like, is important how? It cannot be of any value. Don't you have other more pressing things to do; like keeping prayer from elemetary schools while drug dealers, atheists, homosexual activists and perderasts get all of the access they need?

This thread is for liberals to answer Ann Coulter about how "they" are godless. How could an an atheist have any input on that matter, except to support a liberal into godlessness? You Grumpy, see Christians the way I see atheists. How can you apply value to any version of Christian when what you clearly see is worthless?

PM me if you desire to denigrate me again. Your cowardice and insults directed at me is starting to only make you look bad. As most know well enough, I could not care less about your opinion of "me" in debate threads. You are simply goading me into a fight so that the moderators will eliminate my voice, and as we have seen over and over again, will allow you complete license to do what you do best. Denigrate Christians.

Ann Coulter is the subject of this thread and "her" opinion of liberals that I of course wholeheartedly agree with. Start a new thread and go after her with your vengeance.

Also, Magus, deserves a partner that he can Biblically yoke himself to. He deserves better than your vitriolic - all to common - anti-Christian diatribe directed at some Christian guy posting what you don't like.

[1John2_26]

1John2_26 wrote:
Jesus believed in the flood and Jonah being in the fish, as things that really happened. "moderate" is another way of saying "lukewarm." Of course I prefer the more accurate "unbeliever."

The first is anachronism. Jesus spoke of the meanings of the flood and Jonah stories, if you read those passages carefully, you'll find that whether he thought them factual or not was immaterial.

He was a lunatic if he taught them as metaphor/allegory and then told people they were going to an allegorical hell.

Most Hebrews of the time would have thought the matter of their factuality immaterial to what Jesus was saying.

Nice spin. They knew they were facts that happened. Faith founded on myths is corporate insanity.

Contemporary Hebrew theology was more concerned with the metaphors and deeper meanings of the text than with their factuality.

The people that were drowned in the flood bear a striking similarity to the hedonists of today. Read the passage again and then include same-sex "marriages" in that decadence and laughter at the man of God.

Second, I'll look it up but I'm fairly sure 'moderate' is not a synonym with either 'lukewarm' or 'unbeliever'.

Democrat used to mean patriot. It means socialist-communist now.

You gripe so much about liberals 'changing definitions' when you do the same - you do realise how that looks, right?

I gripe about liars changing definitions to hide their lies. Very New Testament. Paul went so far as creating compound words to nail down definitions of people's immorality, so that no one "could" alter meanings easily. Jesus chose that guy for a reson.

1John2_26 wrote:
Christian Liberal is not just an oxymoron, it is a declaration of war against the Church.

Hardly. Most of us are pacifists, like the kerygmatic Christians.

Pacifist should not mean coward but clearly the people not willing to go to Saudi Arabia and bitch at the promoters of Islamic war worldwide is a definate place to label pacifists cowards. They'll shout epithets and insults at noble American soldiers but shrink in fear of Muslim jihadist. I have great disdain for pacifists that go off to protest demonstrations with a latte in one hand and an anti-American sign in the other. They will never be martyrs except to heart disease. There are no noble pacifists marching in the western world. Just anti-Americans and usually anti-Christians in numbers to big to ignore.

1John2_26 wrote:
That is terrible. Are you "sure" that really happened? Bearing false witness, though a political tool used often, is not a good Christian practice.

I did read the news on that primary. Admitted, I was reading some between the lines, but Bush wouldn't have said it if he thought it wouldn't carry political clout in his constituency.

Hold Bush accountable, but use the same morality to exorcise congress of liberals that kill children with every vote they cast.

1John2_26 wrote:
Accusing southern Democrats, that are largely African American of being anti-Black is lunacy.

Of course, but that wasn't my assertion. The African American community in the South still votes Democratic - over ninety percent of it, anyway. I was referring to the Dixiecrats that became Republicans after 1965.

I was born in the south. I am a Christian. Enough Black Democrats voted a morally sound conscience to give Bush wins in both elections. The tide is starting to turn where African Americans are seeing the carpetbaggers are Democrat liberals. I am starting to admire your position "slighly" but, it has nothing to do with the word "liberal" as it is applied in 2006. I cannot ever agree with you on any point because too many anti-Christians are seeking the destruction of Christianity through liberal activists. The clubmembership is dark and ominous connected to tightly for me to every see liberals as anything but dangerous. Re-label your movement and I'll send you a contribution to define marriage and family as man-woman-children as the only morally acceptable definition. All else must only be tolerated and never raised to equality.

1John2_26 wrote:
They bought into a lie (like Colson admits he did) and now Christ Jesus is showing them the path to healing.

That I didn't know. If Colson really is doing good work for inmates and helping them turn their lives around, more power to him. Perhaps there's hope for him yet.

Colson is much of what the conversion process is supposed to change in a person. Barry Lynn's demons have beaten a good man. Colson is "conservative" in his views, but living for the poor and needy, and, those in prison, when thugs like Lynn leave them to rot. I worked seven years with families of prison inmates. Most of the kids I worked with ended up following the path to prison. Not one of those lives were worthless.

1John2_26 wrote:
A liberal wants to feed a child and bring him or her a licentious and hedonistic gospel of decadence.

Um, wrong. Where is your evidence? You have not given a single thread that ties the liberal politic directly to hedonism, licentiousness or the consumer culture.

The voice of Holywood reprobates should be a glowing example. Almost exclusively liberal and truly hedonistic.

Like you say, bearing false witness is not good Christian practise.

And something I attempt in earnest not to be guilty of. That is find anti-Christians repugnant is a great fault, but I bear it openly and quite often with openness. Yet, I don't need to ask forgiveness of those that trample Christians in the dust.

1John2_26 wrote:
Communism is not going to go over well to the honest people forced to pay for the "sins" of the unrepentent.

There is a difference between communism and regulated economics.

Sorry, "regulated economics" sounds terrifyingly similar to soviet communism. It sounds like bad. Very bad. I prefer freedom to a regulated economic life. Let me do with my money what i want to. This is where I find liberals extremely threatening. They covet the Christian dollar because they know we use our money for the poor without trumpeting our goodness. They desire our money like vampires wanting the blood of virgins. It is creepy.

Learn it. Communism advocates the use of force and violence; I don't. Capisce?

Legislation. Learn that it forces communism on Americans, one liberal politician at a time. Comprende? I hope never to hear "Vashe Zdarovye" toasted over a drink after a session of Congrees, but I fear those days are closer than we think,

1John2_26 wrote:
Not when it is couched in Gaia worship.

Who is worshipping Gaia here? The Sierra Club? The National Park Service? This accusation is ludicrous.

Those pacificists marching and screaming are more apt to be Wiccans than Born-Again Christians. Yes, Gaia worship.

1John2_26 wrote:
The "consistent" life ethic? That does not exist in liberal theology/ideology.

http://www.consistent-life.org/

Read away. These people have conservative views on abortion and euthanasia, but they are by and large liberals on about everything else (war, gun control, economics and social ethics). They actually reflect my own beliefs quite accurately.

I will peruse their offerings with my apologetics glasses on.

1John2_26 wrote:
The roles of government to a liberal is to criminalize and eliminate Christians from schools and the public sphere. They have accomplished both tasks.

Where is the proof? Give me one piece of legislation passed in the United States that criminalises Christianity and eliminates their voice from the public sphere? I have not been criminalised or had my opinions silenced in the public sphere even when I spoke about my faith.

School prayer is not illegal? I was an atheist once, I am not lying. Christians in my high school were no cause for concern in any way. Seperation of Church and State is used time and again to silence Christians. View the hellishness of Americans United blah-blah-blah . . .

1John2_26 wrote:
Social justice? The biggest joke of all.

Jesus wasn't joking when he said that the poor and the meek and the mournful are blessed, or when he told his followers to give even the shirt on their back to the man who needed it more.

Conservative Evangelical Christians live that beauty every day. I am nothing more than a middle class family man and live the beatitudes. Far less than I wish I could finacially, but I do not see any missionary work from liberals that comes close to what conservative Churches do. I am not motivated by liberals to legalize same-sex marriage be put into the classification of evanglicalism.

He wasn't joking when he overturned the tables of the moneychangers and the merchants who were fleecing the worshippers.

How rich are Boxer, Feinstein, Pelosi and Kennedy? Their tables should have been overturned long ago.

Social justice is no joke - and liberal causes have a very strong history of trying to carry on Jesus' own.

It seems clearly, that those days are over.

1John2_26 wrote:
Six strikes mean two outs Magus.

Then it looks like you're out for the next two innings; you completely missed the point of the entire liberal stance. I don't know what you were swinging at, but it certainly wasn't my views.

Then no harm, no foul. "But," I will be waiting a long time I'll bet to hear from a liberal Billy Graham. Americans will reject a licentious communist/socialist, calling sinners to renounce the sins they were not born with an excuse to condone. Where are the liberals condemning Spong, Crossan, Williams and the rest of the heretical Jesus is myth leaders? You only read about the "conservative" opposition within the Anglican community. It seems clear as well that the new style liberals are hell-bent to poison the Life out of Christians.

1John2_26 wrote:
Any nod to agree with a liberal on any single point sets in motion their viewing that nod, as an acceptance of all of their heresy and evil.

That is complete and utter nonsense - I agree with what is right, regardless of who says it. It doesn't mean I agree with everything they say or do, just that I agree with that particular point.

Read some of the conversation between Christ and Nicodemus, or between Christ and his disciples to get a clue of what I mean.

Jesus rebuked them Magus. He told Peter once that his views were satanic. I see no "tolerance" becoming the celebration of abominations like in the "liberal Churches" Magus. Just the absolute opposite.

Other than that, ho hum. There's not much in your posts I haven't seen before, and it has yet to convince me that liberalism in itself is in any way dangerous or contrary to Christianity.

The aging process is a gift of clarity given to us by God. No one is truly doomed until they die denying Christ Jesus in thoughts and deeds.

My influence in a debate thread is not going to move anyone on their personal choices.

Now, "I'll" be praying for you. Or, better yet, I'll ask my children to pray for you. They are not yet tarnished by personal regrets of making bad choices they cannot shake easily, nor are they easily influenced to agree with others rather than to admit fault.

[Wyvern]

Nice spin. They knew they were facts that happened. Faith founded on myths is corporate insanity.

Do you believe in the flood and Jonahs tale? You do understand that both didn't just not happen they could not happen. The flood has a whole bunch of problems associated with it and Jonah would have suffocated/drowned within a few minutes.

The people that were drowned in the flood bear a striking similarity to the hedonists of today. Read the passage again and then include same-sex "marriages" in that decadence and laughter at the man of God.

If the flood happened as described in the bible the entire planet would have been effectively sterilized.

Democrat used to mean patriot. It means socialist-communist now.

Wrong on both counts.

You gripe so much about liberals 'changing definitions' when you do the same - you do realise how that looks, right?

I gripe about liars changing definitions to hide their lies. Very New Testament. Paul went so far as creating compound words to nail down definitions of people's immorality, so that no one "could" alter meanings easily. Jesus chose that guy for a reson.

John you do realize I hope that as was stated above, you do the exact same thing. When you are caught in a lie you change the subject or change the definition.

Hold Bush accountable, but use the same morality to exorcise congress of liberals that kill children with every vote they cast.

Abortion is not a law, the right resulted from a court case. If you are going to lay blame do it to the right people.

The voice of Holywood reprobates should be a glowing example. Almost exclusively liberal and truly hedonistic.

Sex and violence sells, look how much the bible has in it. They are capitalists and they are trying to make money. Sorry to say but you can only do so many biblical movies, and there has been a lot of them. Not to mention the major studios think in global terms nowadays as far as sales go and making a pro religion movie, any religion means you are automatically limiting your profit potential.

Sorry, "regulated economics" sounds terrifyingly similar to soviet communism. It sounds like bad. Very bad. I prefer freedom to a regulated economic life. Let me do with my money what i want to.

The soviet economy was what is called a command economy. The american and most of the developed and developing worlds economies are all regulated to one degree or another.

Legislation. Learn that it forces communism on Americans, one liberal politician at a time. Comprende? I hope never to hear "Vashe Zdarovye" toasted over a drink after a session of Congrees, but I fear those days are closer than we think,

Communists are not liberals except on college campuses. For all intents and purposes communism is dead. the few countries that still call themselves that aren't. Stop using old fashioned boogeymen.

1John2_26 wrote:
Any nod to agree with a liberal on any single point sets in motion their viewing that nod, as an acceptance of all of their heresy and evil.

Ahh, so thats why you are incapable of admitting you are wrong. Even in the face of overwhelming proof.

My influence in a debate thread is not going to move anyone on their personal choices.

If you would debate in a more open manner you might.

[MagusYanam]

He was a lunatic if he taught them as metaphor/allegory and then told people they were going to an allegorical hell.

Nice spin. They knew they were facts that happened. Faith founded on myths is corporate insanity.

Interesting you should bring that up; notice to whom Jesus talked about hell. He never spoke of hell to the outcasts or to the tax collectors but to the scribes and the clerics, the people who believed that following the letter of the law was more important than understanding the law.

But, as I said, the view that faith has to be founded on fact is anachronistic in the extreme. It only came about after the Enlightenment, when analysis of Scripture as historical began to take root. The standard interpretation earlier in Rabbinic tradition was that the stories of the creation and the flood were meant to convey an ethical or philosophical message, not to recount an event, and faith built on these stories was not made from crediting them as fact but from conviction in their deeper meanings. This is what Niebuhr called the dialectic of the 'true myth': it is just one more point in which liberal theology simply comes closer to Jesus' envisioned religion than conservatism does.

Pacifist should not mean coward but clearly the people not willing to go to Saudi Arabia and bitch at the promoters of Islamic war worldwide is a definate place to label pacifists cowards. They'll shout epithets and insults at noble American soldiers but shrink in fear of Muslim jihadist. I have great disdain for pacifists that go off to protest demonstrations with a latte in one hand and an anti-American sign in the other. They will never be martyrs except to heart disease. There are no noble pacifists marching in the western world. Just anti-Americans and usually anti-Christians in numbers to big to ignore.

...

do not see any missionary work from liberals that comes close to what conservative Churches do.

...

Those pacificists marching and screaming are more apt to be Wiccans than Born-Again Christians. Yes, Gaia worship.

Then you must be truly blind. The historic peace churches (to which I still retain ties) - the Mennonites, the Quakers, the Brethren et cetera - send missionaries to the more dangerous places in the world: the Middle East, South America, China. Once again you discredit the work they do and call them cowards (even when they are being imprisoned or worse) to get in a cheap shot at liberals.

Also, the point of protest is to make one's political voice heard in one's own forum. There is no power in a protest save in persuasion, usually through numbers, and hopefully of elected officials. So what would a protest in Saudi Arabia achieve? Read what King had to say about protesting before you call protesters cowards again.

And one more thing. Check out these guys:

http://www.madisonchristiancommunity.org/

I used to belong to this church, before we moved away from Madison. A good group of people, extremely hospitable down-home Wisconsin Lutherans. They decided to install solar panels on the roof (see those shiny blue-black panels?) and dedicate the grounds to a prairie restoration while we were members. These are no Gaia-worshippers, these are Christian environmentalists.

Sorry, "regulated economics" sounds terrifyingly similar to soviet communism. It sounds like bad. Very bad. I prefer freedom to a regulated economic life. Let me do with my money what i want to. This is where I find liberals extremely threatening. They covet the Christian dollar because they know we use our money for the poor without trumpeting our goodness. They desire our money like vampires wanting the blood of virgins. It is creepy.

Okay, let's talk about a little concept called corporate responsibility. It's a nice little concept, very warm and fuzzy-sounding, but with only one problem.

It doesn't exist.

Corporations like Adelphia, Enron, Halliburton, GM, Motorola et cetera have no sense of moral direction, as they repeatedly demonstrate. Adam Smith's invisible hand, if left to its own devices, pushes only in one direction - towards a monopolistic economy, towards widespread economic inequality and extortion, towards disregard for environmental concerns. This is why regulations put in place by such organisations as the EPA and the BLM exist. It's why even today the trust-buster president, Teddy Roosevelt, is considered a hero of domestic policy. And no one called him a communist for putting regulations on economic power.

You might not like the sound of it, but it won't change the fact that economic regulations are necessary, and a Christian who is in favour of a moral direction for society should support them as much if not more than things such as anti-abortion legislation.

School prayer is not illegal?

I pray in school quite frequently, as it turns out, and I have yet to be arrested for it. Try again.

Where are the liberals condemning Spong, Crossan, Williams and the rest of the heretical Jesus is myth leaders?

Could it be that Spong is a retired bishop who writes a couple of books and essays that are not proving influential enough to warrant reproof? Or that Crossan is a historian and not a theological scholar? And perhaps that the Right Reverend Archbishop Williams obviously doesn't think of Jesus as a mere myth?

Jesus rebuked them Magus. He told Peter once that his views were satanic.

Right, so what did he do? Did he cast Peter out of his sight, shun him, never agree with him again? Did he tell Nicodemus to leave him and never come back? No - he agreed with them when they were right and chastised them when they were wrong. Same as I do. A couple of faults or a few screwed-up beliefs do not an evil person make.

Now, "I'll" be praying for you. Or, better yet, I'll ask my children to pray for you. They are not yet tarnished by personal regrets of making bad choices they cannot shake easily, nor are they easily influenced to agree with others rather than to admit fault.

Thank you. I welcome your prayers and those of your children.

[MagusYanam]

I was born in the south. I am a Christian. Enough Black Democrats voted a morally sound conscience to give Bush wins in both elections. The tide is starting to turn where African Americans are seeing the carpetbaggers are Democrat liberals.

Um, wrong. 90% of the African-American community voted for Gore in the 2000 elections and 88% voted for Kerry in 2004. In both elections, less than 10% of black votes went to Bush. From what I have seen, I think the majority of African-Americans in this country do know what is 'morally sound'.

It's quite telling, actually, that you use the term 'carpetbaggers' to refer to the liberals who represent the best interests of the black community. The original 'carpetbaggers' were liberal Republicans who went into the south to set up freemen's schools and bureaus at great risk to their own personal safety. Many liberal Republicans in the South were lynched or silenced through violence by conservative whites.

I cannot ever agree with you on any point because too many anti-Christians are seeking the destruction of Christianity through liberal activists.

Then I pity you, that you don't dare speak out on what you know is right for fear of being seen with the wrong people. Jesus spoke a far more courageous line on this, by the way.

[1John2_26]

Quote:
Nice spin. They knew they were facts that happened. Faith founded on myths is corporate insanity.

Do you believe in the flood and Jonahs tale?

Jesus did. I believe in Jesus. Too.

You do understand that both didn't just not happen they could not happen. The flood has a whole bunch of problems associated with it and Jonah would have suffocated/drowned within a few minutes.

And we're really new monkeys. Yeah, I get the liberal deal. The comedy routine deal.

Quote:
The people that were drowned in the flood bear a striking similarity to the hedonists of today. Read the passage again and then include same-sex "marriages" in that decadence and laughter at the man of God.

If the flood happened as described in the bible the entire planet would have been effectively sterilized.

Preach it preacher!!!!!!!! Amen hallelujah.

Quote:
Democrat used to mean patriot. It means socialist-communist now.

Wrong on both counts.

My father was a Democrat and a great highly decorated patriot. He was a conservative man. Socialism is the hal-wat point to getting to communism. The Democrats are nothing they used to be. there are so many that love our enemies treasonously not Biblically.

Quote:

Quote:
You gripe so much about liberals 'changing definitions' when you do the same - you do realise how that looks, right?

I gripe about liars changing definitions to hide their lies. Very New Testament. Paul went so far as creating compound words to nail down definitions of people's immorality, so that no one "could" alter meanings easily. Jesus chose that guy for a reson.

John you do realize I hope that as was stated above, you do the exact same thing. When you are caught in a lie you change the subject or change the definition.

Your ad hom's towards my posts are pathetic. I accurately present the Bible, and that is shrieked at by liberals. Still the truth is not changed by protesting it.

Quote:
Hold Bush accountable, but use the same morality to exorcise congress of liberals that kill children with every vote they cast.

Abortion is not a law, the right resulted from a court case. If you are going to lay blame do it to the right people.

Abortion was "legalized." Hello?

Quote:
The voice of Hollywood reprobates should be a glowing example. Almost exclusively liberal and truly hedonistic.

Sex and violence sells, look how much the bible has in it.

No celebrating of the heroes doing adultery though.

They are capitalists and they are trying to make money.

Wjile speaking for the downtrodden masses. Hypocrites.

Sorry to say but you can only do so many biblical movies, and there has been a lot of them.

The Last Temptation of Mohammad isn't on the list. I believe Mo did have a few ladies if I recall my history. Notice how those religious movies have changed. Quo Vadis would be a hate crime now. Or, of course, the Roman Commander would fall in love with a "young guy." The Hollywood religion is the same on screen as in Democrat politics. Anti-American and lascivious licentiousness. Michael Moore is a deity on the left.

Not to mention the major studios think in global terms nowadays as far as sales go and making a pro religion movie, any religion means you are automatically limiting your profit potential.

Mel Gibson's film has sales over 300-million dollars. And still climbing. Try your propaganda on a college student.

Quote:
Sorry, "regulated economics" sounds terrifyingly similar to soviet communism. It sounds like bad. Very bad. I prefer freedom to a regulated economic life. Let me do with my money what i want to.

The soviet economy was what is called a command economy. The american and most of the developed and developing worlds economies are all regulated to one degree or another.

Fair enough. Let's not quibble over Democrat socialism and Republican freedom.

Quote:
Legislation. Learn that it forces communism on Americans, one liberal politician at a time. Comprende? I hope never to hear "Vashe Zdarovye" toasted over a drink after a session of Congrees, but I fear those days are closer than we think,

Communists are not liberals except on college campuses.

Where do I accept my award for best debater? I guess I have gotten through after all. Wiat, I gotta read that again . . .

Communists are not liberals except on college campuses.

Ahhh, like a three-hundred dollar massage.

For all intents and purposes communism is dead.

Like a Possum. If you notice it is stirring.

The few countries that still call themselves that aren't. Stop using old fashioned boogeymen.

I'll ask the missionaries kicked out of Venezualela what they think of your "opinion."

Quote:
1John2_26 wrote:
Any nod to agree with a liberal on any single point sets in motion their viewing that nod, as an acceptance of all of their heresy and evil.

Ahh, so thats why you are incapable of admitting you are wrong. Even in the face of overwhelming proof.

In the face of overwhelming anti-Christians. I make so few mistakes you never notice my apology. They are rae, but they do sometimes happen. Heavy with caveat of course. You never want to let a liberal think you like them. It could get messy.

Quote:
My influence in a debate thread is not going to move anyone on their personal choices.

If you would debate in a more open manner you might.

Obviously it is my open manner that is well known. I have no desire for dinner with anti-Christians. I am not a Pastor or Evangelist. I want anti-Christians to know they are spotlighted for a reason. Most robbers stay away from well lighted and well defended places. I don't own a gun (though after Katrina I may go and buy one), but I know how to use the truth to defend myself.

[1John2_26]

1John2_26 wrote:
He was a lunatic if he taught them as metaphor/allegory and then told people they were going to an allegorical hell.

Nice spin. They knew they were facts that happened. Faith founded on myths is corporate insanity.


Interesting you should bring that up; notice to whom Jesus talked about hell.

Would that be a real hell or a quaint little mythos hell? Kind of stupid to tell people they had better watch out or they will go to a fairy tale land.

He never spoke of hell to the outcasts or to the tax collectors but to the scribes and the clerics, the people who believed that following the letter of the law was more important than understanding the law.

What? hell is a reality to everyone Jesus preached to. He also mentioned Peter and the "S" word in the same sentence. This is where liberal theology is so dangerous. It paints a wrong picture of Christ Jesus, and it seems quite calcualted in doing so in contradiction of the Gospel accounts.

But, as I said, the view that faith has to be founded on fact is anachronistic in the extreme.

That is heresy and I also claim your position is founded on heretical teaching. The immutable things about Christ Jesus are not open for altering. Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. The forever part was about us. These writers of the New Testament letters knew heretics would be swarming in Christian congregations.

It only came about after the Enlightenment, when analysis of Scripture as historical began to take root.

I agree. Enlightenment thinkers were just guys. Many were wacked out guys. From the Enlightenment to Nazi Germany. Same real estate. Not a great legacy.

The standard interpretation earlier in Rabbinic tradition was that the stories of the creation and the flood were meant to convey an ethical or philosophical message, not to recount an event, and faith built on these stories was not made from crediting them as fact but from conviction in their deeper meanings.

Reformed Judiasm is redundant. Jesus would have known all about the schools of Shammai and Hillel. Jesus wasn't that impressed with Rabbi's. How many made up the Sanhedrin?

This is what Niebuhr called the dialectic of the 'true myth': it is just one more point in which liberal theology simply comes closer to Jesus' envisioned religion than conservatism does.

A myth doesn't exist. The liberal Jesus is no different than Nike.

1John2_26 wrote:
Pacifist should not mean coward but clearly the people not willing to go to Saudi Arabia and bitch at the promoters of Islamic war worldwide is a definate place to label pacifists cowards. They'll shout epithets and insults at noble American soldiers but shrink in fear of Muslim jihadist. I have great disdain for pacifists that go off to protest demonstrations with a latte in one hand and an anti-American sign in the other. They will never be martyrs except to heart disease. There are no noble pacifists marching in the western world. Just anti-Americans and usually anti-Christians in numbers to big to ignore.

...

do not see any missionary work from liberals that comes close to what conservative Churches do.

...

Those pacificists marching and screaming are more apt to be Wiccans than Born-Again Christians. Yes, Gaia worship.


Then you must be truly blind.

Not even close.

The historic peace churches (to which I still retain ties) - the Mennonites, the Quakers, the Brethren et cetera - send missionaries to the more dangerous places in the world: the Middle East, South America, China.

An American soldier frees the people that pacifists couldn't care less about. Literally. How many pacifistst sat on their butts as American soldiers enetered concentration camps? How many innocent people were literally saved by American soldiers while the worthless protestors back in American cities far from danger (except from an STD), bitched about those American soldiers? And, they haven't changed much except they aren't cursing the soldier "as much" now as when they literally planted the seeds of these liberals of today.

Once again you discredit the work they do and call them cowards (even when they are being imprisoned or worse) to get in a cheap shot at liberals.

Why would anyone be a missionary for a mythos? I know lots of nice Gewish guys. None though are called God.

Also, the point of protest is to make one's political voice heard in one's own forum. There is no power in a protest save in persuasion, usually through numbers, and hopefully of elected officials. So what would a protest in Saudi Arabia achieve? Read what King had to say about protesting before you call protesters cowards again.

They are cowards. It is just a fact. There shouldn't be any difference to suffering Saudi's then suffering victims of imperialist American soldiers starting wars for oil. When I see San Franciscans bording plains to bitch about gay rights and genocide in Mecca then I will not have the right to call liberals that make up the vast bodies in protest marches cowards.

And one more thing. Check out these guys:

http://www.madisonchristiancommunity.org/

I used to belong to this church, before we moved away from Madison. A good group of people, extremely hospitable down-home Wisconsin Lutherans. They decided to install solar panels on the roof (see those shiny blue-black panels?) and dedicate the grounds to a prairie restoration while we were members. These are no Gaia-worshippers, these are Christian environmentalists.

The liberals that want to tax Christian Churches better not get wind of their savings.

1John2_26 wrote:
Sorry, "regulated economics" sounds terrifyingly similar to soviet communism. It sounds like bad. Very bad. I prefer freedom to a regulated economic life. Let me do with my money what i want to. This is where I find liberals extremely threatening. They covet the Christian dollar because they know we use our money for the poor without trumpeting our goodness. They desire our money like vampires wanting the blood of virgins. It is creepy.

Okay, let's talk about a little concept called corporate responsibility. It's a nice little concept, very warm and fuzzy-sounding, but with only one problem.

It doesn't exist.

Go to an Evangelical "Conservative Church. That is what they are and what they do. They exist in abundance.

Corporations like Adelphia, Enron, Halliburton, GM, Motorola et cetera have no sense of moral direction, as they repeatedly demonstrate.

Halliburton has plenty of leftist employees, and when you rid corporations of unions, then regulating what goes on in the workforce can happen.

Adam Smith's invisible hand, if left to its own devices, pushes only in one direction - towards a monopolistic economy, towards widespread economic inequality and extortion, towards disregard for environmental concerns.

Hmmm, sounds very much like The Anti-Christ is builing his mark of the beast environment. Why be scared?

This is why regulations put in place by such organisations as the EPA and the BLM exist.

The corrupt EPA and BLM, or do those letters not mean Environmental Protection Agency and Bureau of Land Management? I wouldn't want my children working for those huge bureaucratic monsters.

It's why even today the trust-buster president, Teddy Roosevelt, is considered a hero of domestic policy. And no one called him a communist for putting regulations on economic power.

I'll bet Teddy didn't want the UN to have their fingers in our National Parks.

You might not like the sound of it, but it won't change the fact that economic regulations are necessary, and a Christian who is in favour of a moral direction for society should support them as much if not more than things such as anti-abortion legislation.

Communism kills. Just like abortion. Every human being should have the right to amass wealth for him or herself and their family. Once government can tell a free person what the can earn, we are living in horror and not freedom.

1John2_26 wrote:
School prayer is not illegal?

I pray in school quite frequently, as it turns out, and I have yet to be arrested for it. Try again.

As long as you don't try to teach it in class. That is only reserved for atheism and homosexuality. Religion is illegal. I would welcome comparisons of belief systems, but that is too threatening to the mind-contollers of the left.

1John2_26 wrote:
Where are the liberals condemning Spong, Crossan, Williams and the rest of the heretical Jesus is myth leaders?

Could it be that Spong is a retired bishop who writes a couple of books and essays that are not proving influential enough to warrant reproof?

Not influential? YOUR Anglican communion is splitting apart. Spong is followed powerfully by a group of loud heretics.

Or that Crossan is a historian and not a theological scholar?

Talk about spin. He sure is popular on the Discovery channel as a "scholar."

And perhaps that the Right Reverend Archbishop Williams obviously doesn't think of Jesus as a mere myth?

If he is a Christian, he cannot. And I noticed the wiggle room in "mere" myth. Jesus is God and always was. He didn't get a deity prize for resurrecting Himself.

1John2_26 wrote:
Jesus rebuked them Magus. He told Peter once that his views were satanic.

Right, so what did he do? Did he cast Peter out of his sight, shun him, never agree with him again?

No. Jesus watched Peter repent and change. THEN, he was given his place in the Church. Far different than what liberals are preaching.

Did he tell Nicodemus to leave him and never come back? No - he agreed with them when they were right and chastised them when they were wrong. Same as I do. A couple of faults or a few screwed-up beliefs do not an evil person make.

Celebrating evil and helping people stay unchastised is evil. That sure looks like what is happening in liberal theology. Mythos and all. A myth cannot save anyone.

1John2_26 wrote:
Now, "I'll" be praying for you. Or, better yet, I'll ask my children to pray for you. They are not yet tarnished by personal regrets of making bad choices they cannot shake easily, nor are they easily influenced to agree with others rather than to admit fault.

Thank you. I welcome your prayers and those of your children.

They are directed at you converting. First things first. Follow the Biblical brick road. My children are unabshed at asking people if they know Christ or not. Just tonight I took my kids by a Sherdi Sai temple and had a long talk with them about non-Christians. Not to hate them, just to know that they exist.