Posted on 10/13/2007 7:36:02 PM PDT by neverdem
I understand that Mark was written (in Greek! not Aramaic or Hebrew) as an aid to the Romans to distinguish Christians from the Jews. Jews were in revolt, and were being exiled or killed. I can understand why one would perhaps emphasized ones distinguishing marks, so as not want to be treated as the Romans treated the Jews.
“Ann offered the host the chance for salvation and he slapped it aside. More’s the pity...”
I respect your piety but have to disagree. Ann was offered the chance to say non christians will go to hell which is a very theologically supported point of view. She didn’t. She said jews could be perfected. Everything you posted about Christ is right in my opinion except the choice involved. Coulter has no right to say any christian is perfectable let alone jews. Do you believe in the trinity? Transubstantiation? The Nicene Creed? On this we christians differ. Some are certain that those that disagree with their pov will go to hell. One thing I think I am on firm ground is that all christian sects think that we are all sinners and can’t be perfected in this life. We can only be saved. Coulter should have known and articulated that. Instead she made all christians look like idiots.
None of the churches you listed follow the teachings of Christ. What is your point?
She didn't demand that they be "perfect." She demanded that they be "perfected" which has a perfect analogy in the greek word telew which is used in just such a way (being perfected in Christ) in the New Testament. I suspect that Ann Coulter is not even a really good armchair theologian, but she got this one right (from a Christian perspective). The fact that so many Christians are offended by it just shows our complete and total Biblical illiteracy.
And you're right, Christ doesn't demand that Jews be perfect. He demands that of everyone. Oh wait, we can't do that. We might need a Savior. Oh, whew. We have one.
“Perfected” Hysteria
By Dennis Prager
FrontPageMagazine.com | 10/16/2007
Those who label Ann Coulter an anti-Semite do damage to the battle against anti-Semitism.
I say this as a committed Jew, a religious Jew, a Jewish writer and lecturer, a past college instructor in Jewish history, co-author of a widely read book on anti-Semitism, recipient of the American Jewish Press Association’s Prize for Excellence in Jewish Commentary, instructor in Torah at the American Jewish University, and a man who has fought anti-Semitism all his life.
There is nothing in what Ann Coulter said to a Jewish interviewer on CNBC that indicates she hates Jews or wishes them ill, or does damage to the Jewish people or the Jewish state. And if none of those criteria is present, how can someone be labeled anti-Semitic?
What damage has she ever done to Jews? What is wrong with a person believing that it would be better if another person adopted their faith? Is there one leftist who doesn’t believe that a conservative would be better — “perfected,” if you will — by embracing leftist beliefs and values? Why is it laudable for a left-winger to hope that conservatives convert to liberalism, but dangerous and hate-filled when a Christian hopes that Jews or anyone else will go to heaven (that is, after all, Ann Coulter’s and most other Christians’ primary concern) by believing in Jesus?
I have read Jewish and non-Jewish writers who argue that Ann Coulter’s words will lead to another Auschwitz. How does one respond to irrationality? How does one respond to hysteria?
There is also a move to boycott Ann Coulter, so dangerous are her words. Of course, there is no such Jewish or left-wing boycott of former President Jimmy Carter, who has done real damage to the Jewish people by describing Israel as an “apartheid” state in the very title of his anti-Israel book. In fact, Carter was invited to speak on his loathsome book at Brandeis University, an ostensibly Jewish university. But for many Jews and leftists, real hatred, real damage to Jewish security can only come from the Right, especially from Christians on the Right. So Ann Coulter, who has done nothing in her life to compromise Jewish welfare, is to be boycotted, but Jimmy Carter is worthy of invitations to speak. Jewish groups even invite John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, the authors of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, which is essentially a tempered modern-day version of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. But Ann Coulter is beyond the pale. And she said nothing to harm Jews.
She said she believes that Jews who accept Jesus as their savior are “perfected.” I fail to see why this is some form of hate-speech, let alone the basis of anti-Semitism, as stated by Abe Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League, which often defames conservative Christians, whom he and his organization hold to be the greatest domestic threats to America.
As a practicing Jew, I do not agree with Ann Coulter’s theology any more than those attacking her do. But I am neither offended by her nor frightened by her or her beliefs. She believes that Christianity is better than Judaism. So what? Why is that in any way different from leftists thinking that liberalism is truer and morally superior to conservatism? Or conservatives thinking that their values are superior to leftist values?
Leftists not only believe that conservatives are philosophically imperfect, but they often believe that conservatives are bad human beings (something in no way implied by Coulter about Jews). Howard Dean has said that conservatives don’t care about children who go to bed hungry. Leftists yearn for a world without conservatives at least as much as most believing Christians want a world without non-Christians. The difference is many leftists are immeasurably more likely to impose their views on others than Christian Americans are. Left-wing judges impose their views — e.g., on same-sex marriage — on society. And eftist educators force young students to watch Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, the former vice president’s hysterical beliefs about impending doom — and offer no countering viewpoint.
As fate and irony would have it, this past Sunday night I was the keynote speaker at the Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas. Since 1981, the church, led by Pastor John Hagee, has had an annual “Night to Honor Israel.” Five thousand Christians came to this year’s event, where they heard and sang Hebrew songs and watched their pastor give $8 million to various Israeli and Jewish charities.
Those are Ann Coulter’s people, and they are, by and large, the best friends the Jewish people have today. And since Judaism teaches that we judge others by their behavior, not their beliefs, this Jew thanks them. And fears those who fear them. One day, God forbid, should there be real anti-Semitism in America, these hysterics will have cried wolf so many times that no one will listen.
I'm not saying you did. Rather I was illustrating that Ann was not being pushy.
I stated, in a public forum, that I think she’s wrong. Period.
Are you now maintaining you merely disagree with her on some theological point?
Earlier you wrote that she had been offensive and said she behaved like an ASS. Furthermore you maintained that the offensive was obvious. Thus when you say "she was wrong" I must take it to mean you she was "morally wrong" in a conventional way recognized by most of society.
So I'm trying to find the basis of this moral condemnation. From your previous post it sounded like you thought she was being too pushy with her religious views. I responded with jaw dropping incredulity because she had in fact been pointedly asked for her views on the matter.
Not an oath, just an expression of exasperation.
28As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable.
Verse 29 seems to be rather inconvenient for his conclusions. As far as verse 28, I could not tell what translation he was using, but none of the ones I looked at stated that "they were enemy's of God" like his did.
I might go through it a bit more later, but I think it does not look like his doctrine is well founded in Christian Scripture.
It still remains that Coulter used an egregiously poor choice of words. Your writer is correct that “perfected” is a very liberal word and mindset. It implies doing something in the here and now and it also implies using an external force. The jews are very familiar with others attempts to perfect them by making their lives miserable if they don’t convert. What the heck was she thinking?
I never said Ann was being pushy with her views, I said she was an ASS to have said what she did.
“The basis of this moral condemnation” (your choice of words; I just think it was a dumb thing to say):
Well, let’s see. It was insensitive, as she used a word (perfection) which was commonly used during WWII as a way of justifying exterminating Jews and which gave the reason for a supposedly superior race doing the exterminating. I think it was a poor choice of words. I stand by that.
I am not disagreeing with her on any theological point. I am agreeing with the bulk of people who think she went too far. If this isn’t valid enough for you, I will still sleep tonight. I think you are looking for detailed theological explanations where none are needed, or you’re spoiling for a fight over scripture. I am a layperson, Andy, not a theological student or priest or nun. I also happen not to think I need to have only a theological justification for something being wrong, nor do I have to give a theological basis for my feelings. That is not the community in which I choose to live. To quote a Supreme Court Justice, “it’s a little like pornography; you know it when you see it.” Ann was wrong for having said something unnecessarily offensive, against a group who did nothing to her, and she used a word that I think was chosen poorly, especially given the events of the 20th century and even threats commonly made today by certain despotic leaders. Why this is not clear to you, I’m not sure. You seem bent on defending her, or defending the expression she made.
I also do not feel that Jews need to be converted. I think they have their God, they are a Godly people, and a tight knit community. They could do worse. So I am not in favor of giving them any crappola. I feel her remark did that and I stand by what I feel, and incidentially, what a lot of other people feel as well.
One really must stretch for that connection, and we both know she was alluding to nothing of the sort. There is a point at which the fault of the offense lies with the offendee and not the offender. This is way over that line.
The underlying problem is not that you were offended. Despite what you say you were not. Sorry, just don't believe you. The underlying problem is that you are afraid of hyper-sensitive left wing mega-whiners that might get offended at you for failing to act offended. After a while, it permeates into the rest of us that must live with the mega-whiners, and we go along feigning offense at anything that they might not like.
I am not disagreeing with her on any theological point. I am agreeing with the bulk of people who think she went too far.
Went too far? Another term that presumes that she volunteered an opinion she was not asked to. As if she decided to make a prepared announcement. Again I must remind you she was not choosing to "go there". Deutsch choose to "go there". So if "there" was too far, why do you chose to blame Ann? Answer: Deustch is not the target of the mega-whiners. Ann is the conservative. You have been conditioned to worry about offending people like Deutsch. You have certainly not been conditioned to worry about offending people like Coulter.
Don't believe me? Consider the opposite scenario. Coulter grills Deutsch on his religious beliefs. Then she ceases upon something she finds offensive and berates him for it. In such a scenario who would the mega-whiners say went too far? Why again it would be Coulter! So if you are a "sensitive" member of "polite society", you had best act like you agree.
Its up to you. Let the mega-whiners control you, or have the courage to form your opinions without being hyper sensitive to how they might intentionally misconstrue what you said.
Andy, really. You have no idea what you’re talking about. This started weird, I thought it had potential as a good exchange, and it has become truly dumb. I haven’t discussed this with anyone else but people on two blogs that I visit which had posts about it (FRee Republic being one! Lots of appeasers here!). I saw it while I was home. I need no such crutch to get along with anyone. I was offended. If you can’t deal with that, or if you want to psycho-anaylyze, more power to you. For Pete’s sake, this whole exchange with you was an example of why the saying “don’t feed the bears” exists.
Oh great, now your insulting my whole species. I'm so offended ;-)
The most offensive person in history is Jesus. Ann is in the best of company.
Let those who are offended beware lest they sow the offense they seek to reap.
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.