Posted on 10/15/2007 9:12:48 PM PDT by goldstategop
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/VaticanJewish_96/4607_96.htm
Jewsish Antidefamation League on Pope John Paul...
The point is that only Catholics have a religious obligation to consider the Pope's teachings. As far as the others are concerned, no one on earth has a religious obligation to pay them any attention whatsoever.
IMHO your argument is a good example of the argumentum ad authoritatum logical fallacy.
Sounds like Michael Savage isn’t of the same opinion as Prager. Michael’s feelings got hurt and now we can see some of what Michael is made of.
I agree with the author that the criticism of Ann is ultimately bad for the Jews, but it is also simply unfair to Ann and I wish the author had stated this as well.
I don't think it is legitimate the way you have used the word "imperfect" here, particularly since you put it in quotes and say that this is Ann's view. Ann did not use the word "imperfect". She did use the word "perfected" which has a theological usage in the Bible that is quite different from the opposite of the meaning of the word "imperfect" as used in common speech. You have mischaracterized Ann's statement and opinion in my estimation.
Is it any wonder that PC manipulates almost EVERYTHING we do in this country. It is the main reason the GOP is infested with RINOS. Americans are owned and without a backbone. Our country is going to hell in a handbasket and we seem helpless to stop it.
Well, my argument was that Ann Coulter has poisoned the dialogue between Jews and Christians with her statement that is not reflective of modern Christian teachings by several major christian organizations, as indicated by the wikipedia article explaining Christian-Jewish reconciliation.
If she wanted to preach Christianity, she should have talked about Jesus and the benefits of Christianity in society, rather than saying Jews were somehow inferior to Christians as humans. She may not have meant that Jews were inferior, but thats what it sounded like to the viewer. She didn’t even mention Jesus in the conversation.
Jesus = Christ = Christian.
If the viewer was both ignorant and biased, that would be true.
Are you really surprised that Christians wish for others to be Christian?
Ever notice how Liberals never say anything offensive??
Pray for W and Our Troops
And?...
More common sense from Dennis Prager...
michael savage condemns the left for not airing his speech at the awarding of a first amendment award he was giving... yet when someone speaks about something he is emotional on like ann coulter, he condemns her for saying it.
hypocracy at its best.
teeman
wikipedia is your source for Christian-Jewish info ???
You might wanna try Old Testament-New Testament in the future. Doctrine is pretty clear IMO, and Ann simply offered a choice in faith according to that doctrine.
Libs and mussies are the one who DEMAND conversion "OR ELSE"...
At the Last Supper, after giving the apostles his Body and Blood in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, Jesus commanded them to repeat his action: “Do this in memory of me.” Jesus’ last command to the apostles before the Ascension is “Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Which suggests that Jesus cared about doctrine (”TEACH all nations”) AND ritual acts (the sacraments) as well as ethics.
sounds like you search for evil conservatives behind every
corner.
For a Christian pretend that Christianity does not see itself as the natural continuation of God's relationship with humanity does nothing to help "dialogue." It only serves to keep everyone talking at a table and saying nothing. That's not dialogue. It's polite avoidance of 1+1=2. I suppose that Jewish denunciation of Christain doctrine is "not nice" and should get someone panties somewhere in a wad.
I don't think that liberals think that liberalism is morally superior. How could liberals argue that any of their positions are from a position of moral superiority? Since they don't even HAVE morals, as someone said. That's my point.
Prager is ascribing to liberalism a morality that I don't think even the liberals think they have. Liberals want to lower the age of consent to 14. What's moral about that? They want drugs to be legalized. What's moral about that? They want abortion to be legal (and it is). What's moral about that? I could go on and on.
None of their viewpoints are from a position of morality -- they want to do away with traditional morality, as we know it. So for Prager to come along and say that liberals think they have moral superiority is ridiculous. I think some of you misunderstood my point.
I also never accused Prager himself of being a liberal. But I HAVE disagreed with him in the past, and expect on occasion to disagree with him in the future.
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.