Posted on 06/19/2006 10:33:36 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
Bookmark.
So in other words, JNL, you are quoting Scripture which says "judge not lest you be judged" in order to defend the judgmentalism of fake Christians who unjustly judge the President?
It is perfectly fine in your world to hate the President and judge him and still be considered a believer, but it is wrong for actual believers to point out that those who place themselves in judgment over the President are contradicting Scripture.
While you're busy quoting books you can't understand, let me know how you're doing on that proof of "2 + 2 = 5" that you're working on in the meantime.
Oh, and lovely grammar, by the way.
Non-sequitor alert.
I have no intention of arguing any of my points any more than what I stated. Suffice to say that Coulter may think she's furthering the conservative cause, but the cost in time and money for everyone else that has to jump to defend her and/or distance theirselves from her is not worth it. Coulter, or anyone else, can take a more mature and less sophomoric approach. I'm an adult, I expect Coulter and anyone else involved with the conservative cause to be an adult and conduct theirself as a mature, responsible adult also.
I'm just saying that one does not have to love or even like GWB to love Jesus or believe in God. Last time I checked that requirement was not in the Bible.
My grammar may suck but my point stands.
"Love one another as I have loved you."
Jesus says that his disciples are to love another. He did not say: "Don't bother loving or even liking one another as I have loved you."
Anyone claiming to be a Christian who feels, let alone openly expresses, hatred for their fellow Christian disciple George Bush is making a false claim. Especially if they have never personal met the man and he has never personally done them any wrong at all.
My grammar may suck but my point stands.
No, your point is inherently flawed, ridiculous and insupportable.
Your lame attempts to provide rational and Scriptural support for hating George Bush as an acceptable behavior for Christians have fallen completely flat.
Wow, I really can't argue with that, I guess I'd better get my statue of George out of the closet and start me a worshippin.
This foolish statement highlights several unattractive aspects of your character:
(1) You prefer juvenile mockery to adult discussion.
(2) You are unable to understand the difference between "fellowship" and "worship"
(3) You are a bigot who looks down on Bible Christians as somehow backward.
A very poor showing overall.
"(1) You prefer juvenile mockery to adult discussion."
No I prefer rational thought and understanding, equating disagreement and or dislike of a political figure with somehow not being Christian is closed minded and irrational.
"(2) You are unable to understand the difference between "fellowship" and "worship"
See above. Just because you happen to agree with GWB (as I do on a number of issues) does not mean that I need to attack someones faith. A does not follow B in this case.
(3) You are a bigot who looks down on Bible Christians as somehow backward.
Oh O.K. LOL I'm not the one claiming that anyone who disagrees with GWB is not a christian. Pot meet kettle.
If you had actually preferred rational thought and understanding you would have made a reasoned defense of your position.
You did not.
You responded by prooftexting Scripture and then by making a lame joke.
These facvts remain:
(1) No one, not the author of the thread, not Ann Coulter, not any poster, ever suggested that the President of the United States was a god or God.
That was a lie you concocted entirely on your own and which you could not and cannot back up with a shred of evidence or argument.
(2) The term "disagreement" was never an object of discussion. The original term under discussion was specifically "Bush-hater", not "person who disagrees with the President."
This bait-and-switch technique you are employing is one that is used to evade reasoned argument, not partake in it.
(3) Feelings of hatred for a fellow Christian are incompatible with Christianity.
It is specifically contrary to Jesus' direct catechesis of his disciples.
See above. Just because you happen to agree with GWB (as I do on a number of issues) does not mean that I need to attack someones faith.
Again, someone who simultaneously claims to be a Christian and to hate their fellow Christian, President Bush, has no faith to attack. No one can legitimately claim to be a Christian believer and then try to justify or excuse hatred of a fellow Christian.
Oh O.K. LOL I'm not the one claiming that anyone who disagrees with GWB is not a christian. Pot meet kettle.
Your bigotry is palpable through your condescending use of what you perceive to be a Southern dialect and your equation of maintaining Christian fellowship with the President as worship of the President.
Mocking the way a cultural group speaks and deliberately misrepresenting their notion of fellowship as idolatry are the actions of a bigot.
My factual point: that someone who claims to be a Christian and yet openly feels hatred for a fellow Christian is a false Christian is not based on prejudice or bigotry against any denomination or regional ethnicity - that's your forte - but is instead an analysis of the behavior of specific individuals measured against an objective standard.
One might as well say that I am a bigot for saying that embezzlers are uniformly poor fiduciaries.
Please then explain to me this:
"That is why liberals liberals are Godless.
They are the biggest Bush-haters haters on the planet."
What does one have to do with the other? Your argument is that any Christian cannot hate and or dislike (I'm not a big fan of the word hate) GWB and still be a Christian. That's laughable.
Carter's a christian (so he says), I'm not a big fan of his. Does that mean anything?
You paint a very broad brush.
If you consider socialism as a broad concept of the state being able to confiscate anything from any individual, at any time, and then apply that concept to suicide bombers (who are sacrificing all for the "greater good" under strong social pressure from the ruling mobs who run their local world) then you see that Islam and Socialism are very close, in practise.
Socialism is the extension of feudalism into the modern age. That's why the EU loves socialism. It preserves the old system of the lords and nobles (but in a slightly different guise) having absolute power over the common slobs. And what is Islam, if not Feudalism, and by extension, socialism.
The difference in individual liberty between a poor EU citizen-slob and some poor schmuck living under Sharia, is one of degree, not of kind.
He's not the only one who paints with a broad brush. Ann Coulter does, too.
So why did I buy her book? I think she's an idiot on the subject of religion (doesn't really know what the word means and refuses to talk about it) and a double-plus idiot on the subject of evolution (thinks that it's infallible when there are thousands and thousands of predictive tests it has passed and she knows nothing of any of them).
I'll tell you why I bought her book. Because she may be an idiot on some things, but on the one big subject of FREE SPEECH there is no one currently writing or speaking who so clearly defines the need for it, and the attacks on it, in America, particularly with regard to the MSM.
The fact that I disagree with her so strongly on many things makes it ENJOYABLE for me to support her by buying her book, just because she's such a freaking genius on the subject of free speech.
No one says FREE SPEECH better than Ann. I bought this book, and I'll buy her next one too.
Couldn't agree more.
You'll have to ask the person who actually posted those two sentences what he imagines the relationship to be.
Your argument is that any Christian cannot hate and or dislike (I'm not a big fan of the word hate) GWB and still be a Christian. That's laughable.
That's hardly laughable - it follows quite logically.
What does the word "Christian" mean? Presumably a believer in and follower of Christ - someone who is interested in what Jesus taught and who is interested in putting that teaching into practice.
In John's Gospel, Jesus speaks in great detail about what He will do for his disciples and also about how He expects his disciples to behave.
As I pointed out above, He describes the way they are to treat one another with exact specificity: the disciples are to love one another as He himself loved his disciples.
It stands to reason, then, that if someone hates a fellow disciple they are therefore opting out of their discipleship by directly disobeying Jesus' clear instructions.
I don't think Jesus' words could be any clearer or more eloquent: "Love one another as I have loved you."
Taking that perspicuous statement seriously is hardly "laughable" - it would be laughable to claim that a Christian can ignore Jesus' clear words because they conflict with whatever 21st century American political party talking points they happen to favor.
Carter's a christian (so he says), I'm not a big fan of his. Does that mean anything?
Again, whether or not you or I are fans of President Carter is meaningless. What is meaningful are objective facts.
President Carter is not a Christian because he, as a matter of public record, supports the murder of unborn children.
What he claims or how I feel about what he claims or does is immaterial: the facts of the case speak for themselves. President Carter has emphatically and categorically rejected Christian morality.
You paint a very broad brush.
"Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Further:
"Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."
Perhaps I am using a broad brush, but it's not my paint and it's not my brush.
Christianity is serious business - it's not a hobby for dilettantes.
Facile and incorrect.
Feudalism was based on personal allegiance between individuals in a reciprocal and voluntary relationship.
Socialism is based on the confiscation of property.
Viva Humberto Fontova
It really isn't that LONG -- yet -- so you can still read through the WHOLE THING rather QUICKLY.I re-sized most of the MARVELOUS (new!) photos of Ann posted there, so that it loads MUCH FASTER for (those folks on dial-up connections) than it did YESTEDAY. :o)
The outward trappings are slightly different but the actual economic freedom of a citizen in either system is the same. They own nothing, except the few household items granted to them by the state, and anything they do own is subject to confiscation at any time. I'm surprised you don't see the smilarities and I'm also surprised that you seem to think I made this equation up.
The EU is run by a new aristocracy --- the socialist bureaucrats --- who have every bit as much power over the economic freedom of the continent as the old manor lords used to exercise. You cannot make an economic decision of any kind in the EU without first waiting in line to get the blessing of some imbecile with the absolute power to say no.
So then I would assume that Anne Coulter wouldn't be your cup to tea then. Because, after all:
"Let's say I go out every night, I meet a guy and have sex with him. Good for me. I'm not married."
-- Ann Coulter, Rivera Live, June 7, 2000
Kind of blows out that whole anti-fornication rule.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.