She had gone beyond the definitions of left and right and gone plaid. I think she might be doing too much crank or something.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1003657196

*sigh* And that crazy bitch actually came and spoke at my university a couple years ago and everyone was all like, "yay....Coulter's here! She just gets a bad rap, but she knows what she's talking about." Boggles my mind how anyone can pay to see her speak, or even stay in her immediate vicinity. o.O

She's a nutjob. My mom used to like her until I pointed out that she was a fruity loon.

I don't defend what she said, it was not laid out in a thoughtful process.
I'm not even a practicing Christian ( I'd be excomminucated and probably be declared a heretic, which is ok by me anyway...), but do most people not understand the difference between Old and New Testament? There's a profound difference between them. Jews=/= Christians.

Maybe it was the way I was brought up, but my Dad spent a lot of time explaining RCC and Christianity in depth as well as the belief structure. It was the very first intro to critical thought. In his CCD class, we even went to a Synagogue to see their Saturday service.

I think the Western civilization embracing the Judeo-Christain tradition made personal liberty possible, that and a few Diests. But, recognize the Jews are not Christian, which means Christians will see them as needing to be saved.

this was hella funny: 'COULTER: Yes. Would you like to come to church with me, Donny?'

anyway, random search on yahoo, second hit was this:

CHRISTIAN PERFECTION
Christian perfection is the supernatural or spiritual union with God which is possible of attainment in this life, and which may be called relative perfection, compatible with the absence of beatitude, and the presence of human miseries, rebellious passions, and even venial sins to which a just man is liable without a special grace and privilege of God. This perfection consists in charity, in the degree in which it is attainable in this life (Matthew 22:36-40; Romans 13:10; Galatians 5:14; 1 Corinthians 12:31, and 13:13). This is the universal teaching of the Fathers and of theologians. Charity unites the soul with God as its supernatural end, and removes from the soul all that is opposed to that union. "God is charity; and he that abideth in charity abideth in God, and God in him" (1 John 4:16). Francisco Suárez explains that perfection can be attributed to charity in three ways: (1) substantially or essentially, because the essence of union with God consists in charity for the habit as well as for the endeavour or pursuit of perfection; (2) principally, because it has the chief share in the process of perfection; (3) entirely, for all other virtues necessarily accompany charity and are ordained by it to the supreme end. It is true that faith and hope are prerequisites for perfection in this life, but they do not constitute it, for in heaven, where perfection is complete and absolute, faith and hope no longer remain. The other virtues therefore belong to perfection in a secondary and accidental manner, because charity cannot exist without them and their exercise, but they without charity do not unite the soul supernaturally to God. (Lib. I, De Statu Perfectionis, Cap. iii).


and more:

RELIGIOUS PERFECTION
Christian perfection, or the perfection of charity as taught by our Saviour, applies to all men, both secular and religious, yet there is also religious perfection. The religious state is called a school (disciplina) of perfection and it imposes an obligation, more strict than that of the secular state, of striving after perfection. Seculars are obliged to perfection by the observance of the precepts or commandments only; while religious are obliged to observe also the evangelical counsels to which they freely bind themselves by the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. The counsels are the means or instruments of perfection in both a negative and positive sense. Negatively: the obstacles in the way of perfection, which are (1 John 1:16) concupiscence of the eyes, concupiscence of the flesh, and pride of life, are removed by the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, respectively. Positively: the profession of the counsels tends to increase the love of God in the soul. The affections, freed from earthly ties, enable the soul to cling to God and to spiritual things more intensely and more willingly, and thus promote His glory and our own sanctification, placing us in a more secure state for attaining the perfection of charity.

It is true that seculars who also tend to perfection have to perform many things that are not of precept, but they do not bind themselves irrevocably to the evangelical counsels. It is, however, expedient only for those who are called by God to take upon themselves these obligations. In no state or condition of life is such a degree of perfection attainable that further progress is not possible. God on his part can always confer on man an increase of sanctifying grace, and man in turn by cooperating with it can increase in charity and grow more perfect by becoming more intimately and steadfastly united to God.


Quite simply put, RCC and probably most other Christian religions that are not PC verses those seeking anyone not holding to specific tenants, woudl see a Jew as not perfect just by the vitue they do not accept Christ as the Savior; I. e. they are not Christian. /shrug it's a much ado about nothing simply put because she was not equipped to answer it or unable to deliver an answer on the spot.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11665b.htm


wiki had this which is interesting becasue it was kind of what I was thinking in historic terms, if Christ had not been a jew, would Jewish practices or law be so widesread known? especially seeing as the persecution of them for the past 3,000 odd years?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian

Criticism of the term
The term Judeo-Christian has been criticized for implying more commonality than actually exists. In The Myth of the Judeo-Christian Tradition, Jewish theologian-novelist Arthur A. Cohen questions the theological appropriateness of the term and suggests that it was essentially an invention of American politics.[1]. It has been suggested that the term obscures fundamental differences between the two religions - Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits writes that "Judaism is Judaism because it rejects Christianity, and Christianity is Christianity because it rejects Judaism"[2] - while erasing continuities between them and other religions, especially other monotheistic faiths. The Slovenian postmodern philosopher Slavoj Žižek has argued in this last point that the term Judeo-Muslim to describe the middle-east culture against the western Christian culture would be more appropriate in these days[3], especially noting the reduced influence from the Jewish culture on the western world due to the historical persecution and exclusion of the Jewish minority. A Judaeo-Christian-Muslim concept thus refers to the three main monotheistic religions that root to the Babylonian civilization, commonly known as the Abrahamic Religions

edit to add: reading it again, I see he really doesn't understand Christianity or doesn't want to. He sees it as getting rid of the jews, She's saying Christianity wants to convert them. What does he think RCC has been doing in Africa and South America all this time? It missions and conversions to Christianity ( I.e. salvation of the soul).

What? Lore....you're missing the reason for outrage. He's shocked that Coulter is saying America would be a better place if Jews were Christian. I think he understands what Christianity is, but just finds Coulter's statement kind of...insane. A sentiment I fully agree with. The Christian requirement (in most sects) to "save" others aside, to say that America would be a better place if Jews were Christians is an asinine and reprehensible statement.

Edit: I guess a way to put it into context...if I were to say that you silly Goyim are inferior to myself, spiritually or otherwise, because I'm Jewish, you'd be justifiably offended.

Coulter does need her own party. Michael Moore can be a member - we cn call it the Overhyped Blowholes for $$ Party. Those two are much the same at the end of the day.

You know this jewish religion versus christian religion talk came up here before. And someone here offered that the biggest difference as far as the world is concerned is that the christian faith comes with a mandate that they convert the world and the jewish faith does not.

Christians have the evangalical mandate by the new testament. The instruction to spread the word of christ is explicit. And the resultant manifestation is in conversion, and an inability to view an unconverted population as anything but a people that need to be converted.

The Jewish religion has no such evangelical mandate. The entire religion was "designed" around the idea of a choosen people. The religion was structured to tolerate false god worshipping neighbors. There isnt an evangelical mandate. There is quite a bit about deciding who is "in" and who is "out". But the religion at its heart has no problem simply showing people the door.

When you get right down to it this evangelical mandate is a bigger difference between christians and jews than any other thing you can point at. Practically speaking its a bigger difference than believing in christ or not believing in christ (though a christian proper is inclined to disagree!) The reason is it affects behavior and decisioning.

And in coulters case.... case and point...

Coulter's shtick has always been saying outrageous things from the most conservative point of view possible. It's not really anything to get worked up over.

Are you forgetting how much of that persecution has been by Christians?

Well, It's kind of hard to set that aside, being one of the core theological aspects of Christianity...

One Nitpick: It's not the christian that "saves" a non-believer, but Christ actually does the saving.

I would reject the idea that Non-Christians should be forcibly converted. I would reject the idea of requiring belief, or punishing those who believe differently. I think It is a Christian value to allow people to believe as they wish.

But in my understanding of Christian belief... would it be better if people of other faiths came to believe in and follow Christ? Yes. And not merely in terms of society as a whole, I feel it would be much better for the individuals that converted as well.

I don't think Couter is the best person to express it, and a CNBC talk show isn't the best place to discuss theology. But on that particular argument of hers, that I can't really disagree with it, other than to complain that it was presented poorly.

Honestly, I can't really comprehend any version of Christianity that doesn't hope that people of other faiths converted to Christianity. Which is really what Coulter seemed to be saying, albeit in a very awkward, poorly presented way.

Well, keeping it on the level of spiritual/religious beliefs... If you didn't feel your beliefs were superior to those of other faiths, why would you be following that particular set of beliefs? It isn't as if it's a college team to root for, and you just pick the one you like. There are some significant difference between faiths, and If you truly believe one is right, then you are making a decision that the others are wrong, and for that reason are also inferior to the one you follow.

That doesn't offend me at all. I disagree, but I am not offended by that by any means. Because at any point, If you convinced me that your beliefs were the correct ones, and I could follow them, then

(I do want to acknowledge here that I don't know a lot about Judaism, so forgive me if I'm going waaay off track here.) Now, If you are saying that because of your family/cultural background as a Jew, that you are spiritually superior, and that outsiders are not welcome to join that belief system unless they share your heritage.... Well that's a whole different story, and yes, I'd be offended by that.

I think one stumbling block here in understanding is that to Jews, Race, Cultural identity and Faith are intertwined in a way that is alien to Christians. Christians tend to live in a mindset where one can have Racial differences and Religious Agreement, or Racial Similarities and Religious Disagreement, and there is no confusion that they two things are different and separate.

Although in some cases there is significant overlap with a particular Christian denomination/race, Most Christians would have no problem at all acknowledging someone of a different race as a fully believing Christian. Yeah, I'd stick out like a sore thumb at an AME Zion Church, but If I agreed with them theologically, I have no doubt they'd accept me as a member.

I don't know how much that race/religion separation mindset holds true for someone from a Jewish background. Does a criticism of the Jewish Faith translate into a criticism of the Jewish Race to you?

To get things in perspective, I'm an agnostic who was raised in a non-practicing Christian environment. My family celebrates Christian holidays and has always referred to "God" as the Christian god, but we've never been to church outside of weddings and funerals. I don't even believe that we own a bible.

Classically, letting people believe what they want to believe is not a "Christian" value (see the Crusades), but rather a moral value held by many Christians, especially in free countries. Note that the major difference here is group mentality versus individual. The Vatican, for example, has made it clear that their stance on non-Christians is, while not threatening (at least not outside of the threat of the Wrath of God), is not kind either. They see non-Christians as pitiful creatures in need of saving, lest they burn in eternal hellfire (or, more accurately, be doomed to an eternity without the warmth of God's love).

Now, before I get anyone's feathers ruffled, some variation of this is true of most major religions. If you're not with them, you're something to be pitied, or worse yet, hated.

I don't expect many to agree with me, nor do I ask them to, but this is the major reason why I am agnostic. I believe in a soul, for I cannot imagine a sense of self without something beyond body and mind. I believe in the possibility of a god, but I cannot believe in a god that is supposed to love all of his 'children', yet condemn those who don't follow a particular faith. I can understand the concept of tough love applying to those who've strayed (ie. thieves, murderers, etcetera), and some divisions believe that even Satan can be redeemed were he to ask for God's forgiveness, but I cannot understand how a god who loves all of his 'children' can banish those who didn't believe in life to Limbo or worse.

As an addendum, I'd like to go on record that while I dislike certain aspects of religion, it has many good points as well. For those who believe (from the point-of-view of a non-believer), it can inspire them to great things. Were it not for religion, we would be in sore need of charities. Were it not for religion, some felons might otherwise not have found a path of moral redemption. Religion is a great thing, but unfortunately many (though I wouldn't go as far as to say most) who practice can't understand that it's not for everybody.


PS. I'm sorry if it sounds like I rambled a little bit, and perhaps I have, but I tend to write as a train-of-thought. It's one reason why I'll never be a professional writer.

See, to me what's really interesting was that Christ wanted people to be Jews. hehee. The conversion was pretty much all his Apostles. The salvation itself is the person recognizing Christ as the son of God, then accepting him into his life.

Now, the issue with God is that the Christian God it the Trinity in different variantions. This is not the same 'god' concept as most other faiths, so when peeps say religions 'worship' the same god, it is incorrect. IMO - they're trying to encompassing and PC.

Besides, JC just wanted Jews to be better Jews. Oh, the irony!

Eh, I respect RCC and Christianity. I just never saw mankind as infallible, which makes me not RCC ( Pope is infalliable - imo no, he is not divine, he's only 'divinely' insprired.) I never got interested in other branches of Christianity either. imo - due unto others, live the best life you can and enjoy it. If you beleive in a supreme being, then good for ya! I haven't really selected one single one. In the end, whatever gets you through the day and works for you, that's all you need.

I leave conversion to Amway and their ilk.

You would be incorrect then since all three major world religion (Christianity, Islam, and Judiasm) spring from Abraham. So unless Abraham worshiped three different Gods it is all the same God.

Well, all 3 religions believe different, and contradictory things about God. So At most, one of the three really worships God, while the other two worship their false understanding of God.

Yet more likely is that all 3 do that.

I'm suddenly reminded of that episode of South Park when only the Mormons picked correctly on earth and ended up in heaven with Saddam building WMDs.

This thread reminds me of why Religion is the single worst thing invented in all of mankinds history.

Spirtuality is good, Religion is nothing more the a man made Farce for people to Act spiritual when they really aren't. This is why, even though my personal spiritual beliefs are basically identicle to the tenats of the Christian Faith, I refuse to associate myself with the actual Religion.

My only problem with Christianity really is the fact that a Nun killing baby raper can get into heaven if he, on his death bed, says oops I'm sorry I believe in Jesus, while someone who believes in God but doesn't recognize his athority could lead the perfect life of sacrafice for his fellow man and still be sent to hell.

The God I believe in isn't so self centered he has to always have the spotlight.

That's been my opinion for a long time.

In general, if you're religious, and it helps you or others, and you're not causing harm to others, good for you have fun.

My personal belief is that while you can find a lot of things in a church, God usually isn't one of them.

Y'all are so negative. The other option is the complete opposite--they all really worship God, and there's no false way to do that. But I don't consider killing part of worship--why else would God stop ABRAHAM (= shared dude) from killing his son? (Of course, that whole story is awesome from another angle--because God really *did* want Abraham to kill his son and only realized at the last moment that it was a totally insane thing to want--so God's got some problems too, even though he doesn't really, they're all part of the God thing--plus God FIXES them and moves beyond them, something of which most people are incapable.) Well, unless you worship Aztec blood gods, and then there's that.

The bothersome fact is that nobody is ever really going to stop telling other people what to do and what to think and such.

Kind of reminds me of what a religious right leader here said on TV. He was asked "Do you think the world would be a better place if everyone thought and believed as you do?" and he went "Of course it would, doesn't everyone think the world would be a better place if everyone believed and thought what they did?". Which was very scary to me considering who the guy was and what he believed in terms of civil rights for those he deemed sinners. He was so convinced that if everyone could just be like him everything in the world would be much better, which to me is a little creepy when it comes from people who would want to outright eradicate certain minority groups they deem inferior.

Well that's a very Christian line of thought, that you have to pick the single right faith and the faith you picked obviously has to be the right one period. The polytheistic line of thought tends to be more like "Well, this one seems like a good fit for me, I don't care if it's right for you or not, it may very well not be and you'd be happier somewhere else". So yeah, to some it is kind of like a college team to root for and we picked the one we liked. I don't think mine is superior, I just think it's a better fit to my personality and moral code than the others. I'm very aware that for other people it may not be a good fit and there's other religions that may be better for them.

However as far as the Anne Coulter thing, well I'm happy with what I'm currently using and I refuse to listen to 'this is wrong for you and you need to change so I can be happy that I've saved one of the heathens' from a Christian or Muslim any more than I'd let them decide which food they decided I liked. It really is like that to me, that some people want to decide for you what you prefer without you getting any say in the matter because they're convinced they know best. Trust me, I get this a lot from people who are convinced they know better than I do how much I like onions. It doesn't matter how much I try to tell them I simply can't eat onions without gagging, they always insist their onions (god) is different and if I only try that of course I'd like it because no one who tried their onions (god) would ever dislike it because they themselves didn't. Which is a really disrespectful way to treat me, like I can't be trusted to know what I like. Personally so long as you're not eating another person, breaking a law or pushing your unwanted crap on me I'm fine with you eating and worshiping whatever you want. Truth is, I don't want to be saved and I see no need to save others (not that my religion would let me even if I did want it for some reason as it goes against the faith to try to convert people to it), I'm perfectly happy to live and let live. I just don't see why their need to spread their religion should mean I have to deal with the religious equivalent of telemarketers. Yes Mormons, I'm looking at you! A single no should be enough.

Koru, the opinion that there is no ultimate truth, and that no one faith is correct is in itself it's own faith.

Just lead them across the geothermal active fields, the bike tires will melt and you can escape.

I have similar attitudes toward religion, what gives someone the right to tell me what to believe. Why is some god who appeared to a tribe of sheepherders in the middle of the desert the one and only god. Does that mean all the people who hadn't heard of him are in hell or limbo?

But back to Coulter, someone needs to put her in a loony bin (and I'm sure a lot of Republicans would like too) and stop letting her appear on tv and radio.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wawSlr0Mvsk


teh funny

You don't think the world would be better if everyone believed as you do?

Nope, not any more at least. I used to back when I was a kid. But knowing me, I just don't think it would work out any better than it does right now. In fact, knowing myself, it could quite possibly be much worse. And a lot more boring, and in the long run probably a great deal less creative with only one belief and one set of morals. I like the different views and crazy people believing insane things.

So, you either think youur beliefs are not correct, or you think it would be a good thing to have other people hold incorrect beliefs.

Error. A sane man has to believe he is capable of being in error. Further given that you believe thousands of things it is likely that many of them are incorrect.

Therefore, it is rational to state that you are wrong about something it is just that you are incapable of knowing exactly what you are wrong about.

Heterogenous belief systems provide insulation against your error. If you homogenize a population into believing exactly as you do then you have guarenteed that everyone is wrong about the same thing. The rational person has to conclude that the best thing to do is foster multiple view points at once. This way atleast one person is not mistaken. Atleast then society gets the benefit of correct thought about everything at once. It just might not be from you... Otherwise you are ignoring the fact that you are certainly wrong about something.

I think a lot of things that were widely regarded as incorrect beliefs turned out to be great things that were actually true. So I'm pretty sure there's a lot of things I believe that will turn out to be wrong in the future that my great great great great grandchildren (should I ever procreate) will laugh at as such silly superstitions and be amazed someone could actually have believed such a thing. And the people who will discover these things to be wrong won't be the ones who think they're right and are content with that. It's not the people who go "Well of COURSE the earth is flat, I mean what are you touched in the head or something?" who fuel progress.

I used to get really mad at the things Ann Coulter said. Then somewhere along the way, I realized that a large part of what she does is just an act she puts on to help sell books and personal appearances. Since then, I've considered her to be largely irrelevant.

I honestly think that religious threads on the internet are pointless and leave some people with their feelings hurt (yet somehow I cant help but read them), but I agree 100% with ya Tiv. I was raised in a semi-practicing baptist home, and was sent to a over-zealous baptist school. I came away from it feeling pretty much jaded to spirituality as a whole, but recently have gotten over that and realized that religion - or at least that facet of it - is just business as usual and at the core has lost all but maybe a fragment of what it is truely supposed to be. I've realized that spirituality is a good thing, but I will never associate myself with a particular branch of Christianity. Ahhh, the stories I could tell about that place.

Exactly. She'll destroy even those she agrees with politically to sell her own books. She's the Michael Moore of the right; except that she gets less media attention than he does. (Though she publishes more often than he puts out a movie...)

And if you want to go back far enough, it's really the Sun god. But the religions themselves are vastly different. The Trinity is a breaker for Christian vs. non Christian. At that point, it is NO longer the same god. Allah =/= Yaweh=/= JC, Father & Holy Spirit (or whatever a particular relgion cares to call it.) The holy birth chnages the entire dynamics.

I prefer supreme being myself, as mankind is vastly limited in a meat sack trying not to drool on himself vs. a being able to create the universe. /shrug

add: http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog...y-for-one-year

interesting read

What happens if you live the Bible for a year?

You sort of answered your own question there. Sheep and shepherds are pretty much humanity made ideal, the desert a good picture of the world. And don't forget that the God appeared to the sheep too--they just weren't smart enough to know the difference between their feet and God.

Well, yes, because even "primitive" humans weren't too stupid to realize the sun's importance in our lives. But then you've missed their recognition of the Earth as another lifegiver--and, to rewind the tape even further, the ocean. Most creation stories start with the ocean (the void, the chaos, etc.--a poetic image of absolute nihilism). Here's a picture of its utter vastness in the face of ancient people (certainly that big space of water can have no bounds and no bottom!--and even today we don't really know what's going on down there), its sheer power and danger and capriciousness, its necessity in their lives as a mode of transport to distant worlds, and--hell--water's key position in "carbon-based" life (a damned misnomer, I'd say--I call us water-based life).

So it's fairly easy to see that all of our images of "truth" are shared amongst every human belief system and ARE truthful to our position in the world--needing energy from the sun, materials from the Earth, and water from the ocean (after it's cycled down to us a bit)--being much smaller than them, dependent on them, but able to alter them--of course we'd come to see ourselves as a special form of the creation of some combination of these three forces.

So there's no similarity between, say--religion and "state," religion and "university," religion and "corporation," etc? Religion is another community built by human beings who need something from each other and from the world around them--and humans, not any of their social creations, are what supply the viciousness which often results. Of course, humans with their capacity for love (which equals that for violence) often supply good benefits from such organizations. Neither impulse is likely to vanish with removal of things like religion, they'll just take different forms.