Posted on 10/11/2007 10:36:00 AM PDT by Froufrou
She is reporting basic standard Christian theology. Jesus came as the Messiah to the Jews, and only after the Jewish hierarchy and the crowd rejected Him (not all the people—all the disciples were Jews) did he turn outward toward the rest of the world. This is not anti-Semitic, it is just the way it is. No one should take it as a criticism of Jews, who’s beliefs serve reasons which are TBA.
“Are you saying that Judaism is no better than Christianity or Islam?”
You are missing something fundamental about Jewish belief.
Jewish theology states that the afterlife is available to everyone of any faith provided they adhere to the seven Noahide laws.
Jews, either by birth or conversion, have a much heavier load of requisite behavior to qualify - adherence to the Torah.
Judaism is totally different than the theology of Christianity or Islam which damns outsiders who do not believe and conform.
You remind me of an editorial writer in a highschool newpaper. A banal regurgitation of the prescribed opinion, waiting to be graded by some idiot teacher.
I'm not complaining about her point of view, only her methods. She is an immensely intelligent person, and ought to know that there's are a lot more effective ways to influence people. Though I mostly agree with her on substance, I'm very disappointed in her choice of methods - I simply believe that they are counter-productive.
Chuckle all you want, but this type of behavior by Ann doesn't help to get our people elected.
I'm a smart conservative, just possibly even smarter than you, and I find it obvious that you don't know much about the Christian faith and it's intimate relationship to the Jewish faith.
Again, your comments seem to have no bearing on what I wrote. Perhaps you are just making a general response to everyone in the thread, in which case, I don’t feel compelled to pursue further discussion of your many curious comments.
And the apostles fled for their lives because of it. In 2000 years, one would hope we've refined the means of communications a bit and learned a little more tact. There's no need to lie but how you approach a subject makes the difference.
A Christian believes that Jesus came to fulfill the prophecies of the Jews contained in Scripture. Jews, obviously, disagree. Jesus came to offer a new covenant of forgiveness which Jews reject and continue to subject themselves to laws contained in the Torah which was the old covenant.
For what it's worth, there are sects and cults that believe they've been given newer instructions or a newer covenant than what Jesus brought - which most Christians reject. But I'm not about to stone them for their beliefs. They are welcome to have those views as long as they respect my right to disagree with it as I respect their right to disagree with me.
I hold firm in my faith and will, when asked, state my belief confidently but the time for those discussions are not on a secular national television show with its adversarial premises but in private under prayerful consideration with that individual. There is the right time and the right words which the Holy Spirit provides for each of us to share our faith with non-believers. I just think Ann would have been smarter to wait for that time to make such a declaration.
Then again, maybe this was the right time and I just don't realize it. I guess we'll see if she receives more scorn or praise for what she said.
As a Christian, I believe that all who accept Jesus are better off. Including Jews.
Including islamics.
Including Buddhists.
Only a fascist would have problems with that kind of positive thinking. I do not believe that Ann is guilty of rantings.
Other religions also believe that their teachings are correct.
What is your issue?
A proscribed opinion shared by a large number of other conservatives. The Clinton machine has done a good job on us. Instead of concentrating on the slime machine politics of the democRATs, we are arguing about Anne and religion. Nice going.
What was “untactful” about Ann’s reported statement? I’m not sure how you can put the Christian message more “tactfully” without muffling it so it’s not heard. Actually, it is, inherently, not a tactful message - which is why there have been so many Christian martyrs down the centuries. When you tell people what Jesus told people, or what Paul told people or what Peter told people, it’s going to make some people mad. I’m not sure how you can say “Christianity is the true religion” tactfully. But that’s what Christians believe.
All of my comments are quite relevant to that point ~ particularly since Ann Coulter was never, to anyone's knowledge, involved in forced conversions or mass murder, nor has the United States been involved in such things (referring to mass murder of Jews, or forced conversions of Jews).
So, what did you mean when you took this thread out of the Coulter discussion and dragged it into the arms of Spain?
(that can be an effective way of communicating) ~ (not one that would get you on anymore talk shows).
I guess the analogy didn’t work for you. I wasn’t talking about Ann’s POV either, I was referring to her method. Perhaps you’ve heard of fight fire with fire? Ann is very effective at using the media and Rats tactics in her own favor. Her success is evidence of that.
And personally, I think a beautiful, intelligent woman giving the Rats back some of their own medicine is exactly what people are looking for. The GOP presidential candidates would do well to adapt a much more aggressive attitude towards the Rats. It would fire up the base beyond belief, and help get the message out.
Actually Ann's reply is easy to understand. Deutsch implies that a community like she was talking about would be intolerant. She replied by pointing out the mega-churches she lectures at, where the audience is very diverse and interracial couples are nothing special and are fully part of the community, Ann contrasted that with interracial couples among liberals, where the couple gives off vibes of 'proving something' by the fact that they are of mixed raced. She exemplified this by appealing to the common culture, to a Seinfeld episode, to prove her point.
In short she was arguing from examples that Christian societies are more harmonious and tolerant than our current culture.
Ping to self....ping to self
From my post in 58: “evangelical Christians think Jews (and everyone else) should convert”. Actually, I think this is the rub of the problem. I do not know much about Judaism, but I don’t believe Jews make any great effort to convince others to become Jews.
One CAN convert, and some have done so throughout history, but it is not the norm. One isn’t likely to have a couple of Jews wearing white shirts show up on one’s doorstep handing out tracks on how to become a Jew!
Evangelical Christianity believes the “Good News” of Jesus Christ compels a witness to others with the hope of converting them to Christianity. And while no insult is intended, it is easy to understand why insult may be taken.
I try to avoid taking insult where none is intended - I get enough intentional insults sent my way that I’m too tired to duck the unintentional ones. I also tend to leave my discussions of my beliefs to either close friends who have asked, or semi-anonymous internet postings like these. I find anything else counterproductive.
But if the Bible is correct, and Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died for our sins, the message is clear — Accept Jesus Christ.”Accept Jesus Christ or what?
The New Testament of the Bible says, "the wages of sin is death [i.e., hell] but the gift of God is eternal life through our Lord Jesus Christ. There is no suggestion of the imposition by Christians of any penalty in this present world. In fact, a distinguishing feature of the New Testament as opposed to the Old Testament and the Koran is that the latter two are written under the presumption of theocracy, and the New Testament was written to and about Christians who were under government-sanctioned persecution. Consequently a far better case can be made that even Judaism, never mind Islam, is theocratic and intolerant in design than that Christianity is inherently such.Do you advocate a Christian “Jihad” against non-Christians? Do you agree with Ann and advocate forced conversions?
The exact quotation you are referring to was,We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.That was Ann's way of describing the mirror image of the aspirations of Osama ben Laden. Her point was not so much to make all Muslims Methodists but to define the existential nature of threat jihad posed to Western Civilization. Her point was that, subject to such a threat, our response was not properly a modest one but a blunt and unapologetic facing down of the threat.The tenor of the questioning Ann was responding to in this thread's interview is a demand that America, founded in the Colonial era and re-founded in the settlement of the Louisiana Territory by heavily predominantly Christian immigrants, should apologize for having Christian cultural assumptions built into it. And that is precisely what Ann, both in this interview and in the "convert them" quote, was rejecting.
Ditto
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.