Godless - The Church of Liberalism

[Easyrider]

GODLESS – The Church of Liberalism - is the most explosive book yet from #1 New York Times bestselling author Ann Coulter. In this completely original and thoroughly controversial work, Coulter writes, “Liberals love to boast that they are not ‘religious,’ which is what one would expect to hear from the state-sanctioned religion. Of course liberalism is a religion. It has its own cosmology, its own miracles, its own beliefs in the supernatural, its own churches, its own high priests, its own saints, its own total worldview, and its own explanation of the existence of the universe. In other words, liberalism contains all the attributes of what is generally known as ‘religion.’ ” (Amazon.com review)

"If a Martian landed in America and set out to determine the nation's official state religion, he would have to conclude it is liberalism, while Christianity and Judaism are prohibited by law," Coulter writes in "Godless: The Church of Liberalism."

The WND columnist argues that while many Americans are outraged by liberal hostility to traditional religion, to focus solely on the Left's attacks on Judeo-Christian tradition is to miss a larger point: Liberalism is a religion—a godless one.

Chapter headings in Coulter's "Godless" include "On the Seventh Day, God Rested and Liberals Schemed" and "Liberals' Doctrine of Infallibility: Sobbing Hysterical Women" and "The Holiest Sacrament: Abortion."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=50364

Let the fur fly.

[otseng]

Let's please avoid making comments about each other personally. Please stick to the topic (though I'm not clear what the debate question is) and not comment about other posters. Thanks.

[1John2_26]

John2_26,

At the very heart of the matter you and I are on the same sheet of music, Jesus Christ is the son of the living God....in fact the embodiment of the father incarnate in the flesh.

At the very heart of the matter to a liberal is expunging the real Christ from the Bible and society.

I'm not on an anti Christian campaign, I'm all about facing the truth and being willing to change just as the apostles had to throw out some very cherished beliefs.

That would still make Liberals look bad. The "Christians" of the New Testament do not look like the Liberals of today. Anti-Christ better describes the modern-day liberal. Let's start with abortion, taxation and then on to (of course) hedonistic licentiousness.

Quote:
So you label them liars why?

Liars is your word not mine.

Heresy and heretic are both words that mean "liar." Political correctness is a liberal way of not having to see or hear the truth.

The age of the Babylonian captivity was a far different time from this age and surely none of the OT editors from the "priest class" ever considered that some future generation would consider their writings inspired by God himself.

Oh please. History in and out of the Bible warns us all about the sickness that dwells intact within Liberalism.

The common people heard Jesus gladly, It was the corrupt priest class that conspired to kill christ just as they rejected and killed so many of Gods messengers before them.

You mean the "highly educated" priests?

You think that it is not possible for there to be some.....well, ......chosen people bias in the scripture yet they could put Jesus on trial on trumped up charges even have the son of God killed?

If the Bible was written the way Liberals would want, there would be no Bible. It would be changed every election.

Wake up and smell the coffee, is good advice for those that drink coffee. It awakens them.

Quote:
Should I run that opinion by an orthodox Rabbi and see if he agrees with you. I'm thinking, he's not going to.

Go right ahead, they've had 2,000 years to review the record and still reject Jesus based on their conclusions from the PERFECT record of the OT. Jesus, according to Jews was not the JEWISH Messiah...and they are correct, he was not according to their evolved concept of him.

ALL Christians were Jewish believers at one time.

European's have brought us this filthy version of religion that permeates much of the Christian debates.

Facts are nothing to fear.

The enlightenment thinkers include some very sick individuals (IMO). And the Liberal holds many views from the enlightenment period until now as most supporting of their (LIberal) positions.

Where did Nietzsche end up?

[Cathar1950]

At the very heart of the matter to a liberal is expunging the real Christ from the Bible and society.

Maany are looking for the real Jesus and find themselves. It has nothing to do with liberals. You live in a fantasy world.

[1John2_26]

Quote:
At the very heart of the matter to a liberal is expunging the real Christ from the Bible and society.

1. Many are looking for the real Jesus and find themselves. 2. It has nothing to do with liberals. 3. You live in a fantasy world.

I numbered your sentences for easier grading.

1. True. The real Jesus is the Creator so obviously logic agrees with you here.

A gold star for you.

2. True. The real Jesus is hated by liberals. I'll show you in the grade you get for number three.

3. Wrong. Unfortunatley Liberals are as real as an STD.

Let me show you a liberals' "Jesus."

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/119/story_11975_1.html

A Bishop Speaks
John Shelby Spong


The Right Man for a New World
The new Archbishop of Canterbury must get rid of the Jesus who "died for our sins."

In late February the Church of England, the mother church of Anglicanism, will install a new leader. He is an interesting man and, in my opinion, the best of all possible choices to head the third largest group of Christians in the world. His name is Rowan Williams.

Yada, yada, yada badum-badum-dadum-badum (in the background the sound of fingers drumming on a table top ).

In many ways it was a daring appointment, and in this choice the entire Anglican Communion, of which the Episcopal Church in the United States is a part, has decided to join the modern world. It represented a specific decision to reverse the dreadful and misguided reign of his predecessor, George Carey. Carey had positioned Anglicanism in the right-wing evangelical camp of Bible quoters.

Imagine the audacity of "Christians" quoting the Bible will ya'.

Rowan Williams is only 52 and could serve in this position for almost two decades, giving him time to put his stamp upon the Church. He is a product of England's middle-class who has developed his intellectual skills at both Oxford and Cambridge. He was a theology professor at Oxford prior to being elected a bishop in Wales only a few years ago. Shortly thereafter his fellow bishops in Wales chose him to head the entire Anglican Church in Wales.

Schools where once walked C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien. Also Christians with a powerful "theology."

Williams has the academic skills to engage changing ideas in our culture.

What was that in the New Testament about Satan masquerading as an angel of light?

One hopes he will use these gifts to hammer out a Christianity that is both relevant and believable.

Of course a "Christianity" devoid of Christ Jesus.

Christianity desperately needs to escape the language of antiquity that has portrayed sacrifice and shed blood as signs of salvation.

Anatomy has not changed at all since the time of Paul. Even, further back "as the story goes.

The Jesus who "died for our sins" has simply got to go in our post-Darwinian world. Christianity must move beyond a rescuing Jesus, who overcame a fall that never happened, even metaphorically, to restore human life to a status it has never had, even mythologically.

Sounds like the rantings of a large club membership I keep listing all the members of huh?

Williams' task is nothing less than to articulate a new Christianity for a new world.

Liberals and liberal theology.

No fantasy world about liberals.

[1John2_26]

Here's a taste of the "kinds" of people Ann is denigrating with such value in her position of highlighting "what" they are:

Artificial Wombs and Pregnant Men

By Annalee Newitz, AlterNet. Posted June 6, 2006.


Feminists shouldn't back away from the debate on genetic engineering, or it'll be up to the men. Again. Tools
EMAIL
PRINT
53 COMMENTS



Also by Annalee Newitz

Laptops for Dolphins
Now that we know dolphins have a complex language, shouldn't we be trying to learn it?
Jun 13, 2006

Anti-War Comics Surge
An anti-war comic book series shows why comics are surging in popularity: because they can help us make sense of our troubled times.
May 30, 2006

The NSA's Political Fiction
Why do so few American citizens care that our own government is spying on us?
May 22, 2006


More stories by Annalee Newitz



I've been sorely disappointed by feminists' responses to genetic engineering. Like many life sciences, genetic engineering has its dark side -- but that's no excuse for groups like Gene Watch to claim that the feminist position on genetic engineering should be "Just say no." Why the hell shouldn't feminists seize the means of reproduction and turn them to our own best interests? Why shouldn't we be at the table when policymakers determine the best ways to regulate cloning, genetic engineering and new reproductive technologies?

If we turn our backs on the debate, it will just go on without us. And we know how that turns out already. Just look at what happened with birth control pills. The pill was developed and tested in the 1950s entirely by male researchers -- one of whom, Harvard's John Rock, was a devout Catholic. Rock pushed for a dose cycle of the pill that would replicate women's monthly menstrual cycle, essentially so that it could be, like the rhythm method, a God-approved form of birth control. The Pope disagreed, but the monthly pill cycle stuck, despite the fact that the pill could completely eliminate menstruation for as long as a woman wished, and there was no evidence that this was any less healthy than a monthly menstrual cycle.

Let's think here, people -- if women and feminists had been involved in the process of developing the pill, there is no goddamn way we would have let them take away the possibility of a pill to eliminate our "little visitor." No woman likes to bleed once a month. It's messy, it's crampy, occasionally there are embarrassingly stained clothes and sheets. Only men would deem it "better" for us to keep on putting up with this biological annoyance even after finding a cure for it. Luckily, there are now a handful of birth control products on the market, such as Seasonale and Lybrel, that do eliminate periods as well as prevent pregnancy. It only took 50 years.

That's why any feminist worth her sodium chloride should be charging into the debate on genetic engineering with a list of demands. Hell, yes, we want to change the biology of reproduction -- and we want to change it now.

The primary goal of a feminist genetic engineering project is to cut the reproductive process loose from patriarchy and male domination. One simple way to do that is to make sure feminist politics are front and center in any discussion about how we will use genetic engineering to eliminate harmful birth defects. I think we can all agree that it would be great to make sure babies aren't born with holes in their hearts, but what about girl babies born with small breasts? Can't you just see some clueless researcher claiming that women with small breasts are "harmed" psychologically, and that therefore we should engineer all women to have big ones? Feminists need to shut that shit down right away.

But what do we want? First of all, we want genetic engineering to transform the way families work, perhaps by making it possible for two women to create a baby without male intervention -- or for more than two parents to create a baby. (Researchers in Japan have already bred a healthy baby mouse out of genetic material from two females, and researchers in England are working on a human baby that will have genetic material from two women and one man.) Either way, you've got new parental formations, and hopefully this biological change will lead to child care being meted out more equally -- or at least challenge our preconceptions about what it means to be a "mommy" or a "daddy."

We also want artificial wombs, so that women don't have to stay home from work while gestating their fetuses. We need technologies that will at last close the "baby gap" in workplaces where women fall behind their male colleagues during pregnancies and their children's early development. Plus, we want men to be able to participate as fully in the reproductive process as possible. That's why male pregnancy and lactation should be a goal of feminist genetic engineers. We don't want merely to liberate ourselves from the reproductive process; we want to bring men into it as our equal partners.

New family structures, artificial wombs and pregnant men are just the very beginnings of what feminists should be demanding when it comes to the genetic transformation of our species. Let's get out of the streets and into the lab!

Annalee Newitz is a surly media nerd who thinks mpreg stories are the wave of the future.

[MagusYanam]

Anti-Christ better describes the modern-day liberal. Let's start with abortion, taxation and then on to (of course) hedonistic licentiousness.

Okay, let's start with why all the anti-abortion arguments haven't yet swayed me to the pro-life camp.

First of all, the entire issue is a Republican smokescreen to divert attention away from the real issues, like poverty and inner-city education. You want to get rid of abortion? Let's start by backing a good liberal stance: making it affordable to raise children for the poorest members of society. Or how about another liberal stance? Teach kids to think with their heads instead of their glands. I was raised in a liberal home and taught in a liberal public (gasp) school, where I was taught that if you're smart, you'll wait until you were in a good financial situation and ready to support a marriage and a family before having sex. Republicans are making such a big stink about it because they know that their economic policies will lose them votes. They don't give a damn about abortion. What advances toward reversing Roe v. Wade has the Bush administration made in its... what... six years?

And onto taxation. I've heard the claim made somewhere before that liberals are benefitting off of high taxes somehow. Well then, let's take a look at the numbers and see where the taxes are going:

Net Federal Subsidy Beneficiaries (through taxes) of the 1990's

Missouri: $107.4 bil
Mississippi: $100.1 bil
Alabama: $86.9 bil
Florida: $85.9 bil
Louisiana: $84.3 bil
New Mexico: $84.0 bil
Kentucky: $67.8 bil
Oklahoma: $66.1 bil
West Virginia: $55.1 bil
South Carolina: $54.6 bil
Tennessee: $42.7 bil
Indiana: $41.8 bil
Arizona: $40.4 bil
Pennsylvania: $38.0 bil
Hawaii: $30.8 bil
Maine: $27.7 bil
Montana: $26.8 bil
North Dakota: $21.9 bil
Iowa: $19.1 bil
Alaska: $18.8 bil
South Dakota: $16.4 bil
Idaho: $13.7 bil
Kansas: $11.8 bil
Nebraska: $8.4 bil
Utah: $7.9 bil
Wyoming: $2.1 bil


Net Federal Subsidy Losers (through taxes) of the 1990's

New Jersey: $265.4 bil
California: $253.5 bil
Illinois: $252.7 bil
New York: $242.2 bil
Michigan: $138.5 bil
Connecticut: $129.7 bil
Texas: $87.9 bil
Minnesota: $78.4 bil
Wisconsin: $59.6 bil
Massachusetts: $54.4 bil
Washington: $47.4 bil
Nevada: $37.4 bil
New Hampshire: $27.8 bil
Ohio: $22.7 bil
Colorado: $22.5 bil
Delaware: $10.8 bil
Georgia: $10.6 bil
Oregon: $10.3 bil
Rhode Island: $9.2 bil
North Carolina: $2.7 bil
Vermont: $0.1 bil

Yessir, all that money's being taken from the good honest people of... um... New Jersey, California, Illinois and New York and being given to support the licentious habits of people in... um... Missouri, Mississippi and Alabama. Namely to the bosses of the ag and mining industries, so they can buy their next Cadillac Escalade.

Hedonism? The liberal cities of the North are propping up the dying economies of the rural Bible belt with the sweat of their brows, and what are we getting in return? Doesn't sound very hedonistic to me, no sir. Maybe if the conservatives want states' rights so much, we should let them have 'em. Let's see how far the South gets with no support from the federal government. Like that $84.3 billion dollar question of Louisiana. Oh, wait...

ALL Christians were Jewish believers at one time.

European's have brought us this filthy version of religion that permeates much of the Christian debates.

Facts are nothing to fear.

The enlightenment thinkers include some very sick individuals (IMO). And the Liberal holds many views from the enlightenment period until now as most supporting of their (LIberal) positions.

Where did Nietzsche end up?

Facts are nothing to fear especially when you don't know any, eh, 1John?

Nietzsche was a little late to the party if he was an Enlightenment thinker. He was a counter-Victorian Perspectivist, which stands to reason since he did most of his work in the later 1800's. And the Enlightenment ended almost 100 years earlier. He had little to no influence on European or American philosophy since he was associated with the Nazis and went largely ignored until well after theologian Reinhold Niebuhr had already articulated the modern liberal philosophy.

Oh yeah, and our 'liberal' positions which are supported by Enlightenment ideas come from such devout Christians as Rene Descartes, Gottfried Leibniz, Isaac Newton, John Locke and Immanuel Kant. Look them up; you'll find them all quite sane. Except Newton; little too much mercury in the old brainpan in his later years.

The real Jesus is hated by liberals.

Funny way they have of showing it, following Christ's commandments and all that. While all the while appealing to his teachings to strengthen their positions on social and economic issues.

Wrong. Unfortunatley Liberals are as real as an STD.

Nice comparison of an entire group of people to a disease, very retro - I seem to recall that some German political leaders tried that line in the 1930's.

Nietzsche would be proud.

[1John2_26]

1John2_26 wrote:
Anti-Christ better describes the modern-day liberal. Let's start with abortion, taxation and then on to (of course) hedonistic licentiousness.

Okay, let's start with why all the anti-abortion arguments haven't yet swayed me to the pro-life camp.

How can a liberal be swayed into the abortion is murder camp, once they have so much blood on their hands and consciences? Well let's see the spin?

First of all, the entire issue is a Republican smokescreen to divert attention away from the real issues, like poverty and inner-city education.

Both eliminated by good parents. Notice the "s?" It means two and it means a man and a woman. Married raising their own kids man and woman.

You want to get rid of abortion? Let's start by backing a good liberal stance:

Condoms or oral sex?

. . . making it affordable to raise children for the poorest members of society.

The children have to want to stay in school first. You forget that part. Bad role models bad children.

Or how about another liberal stance? Teach kids to think with their heads instead of their glands.

Codom morality isn't really very moral.

I was raised in a liberal home and taught in a liberal public (gasp) school, where I was taught that if you're smart, you'll wait until you were in a good financial situation and ready to support a marriage and a family before having sex.

Ten bucks says you had a mother and a father raising you. Parents that didn't want to be raising your kid.

Republicans are making such a big stink about it because they know that their economic policies will lose them votes.

Get an education and make money? That seems like even what liberal smart people think.

They don't give a damn about abortion. What advances toward reversing Roe v. Wade has the Bush administration made in its... what... six years?

The only place it counts. the Supreme court? Not bad Mr. President. Bush that is.

And onto taxation. I've heard the claim made somewhere before that liberals are benefitting off of high taxes somehow. Well then, let's take a look at the numbers and see where the taxes are going:

Will populations be considered? Will taxed corporartions be considered? Are these numbers obtained by Air America links?

Net Federal Subsidy Beneficiaries (through taxes) of the 1990's

Missouri: $107.4 bil
Mississippi: $100.1 bil
Alabama: $86.9 bil
Florida: $85.9 bil
Louisiana: $84.3 bil
New Mexico: $84.0 bil
Kentucky: $67.8 bil
Oklahoma: $66.1 bil
West Virginia: $55.1 bil
South Carolina: $54.6 bil
Tennessee: $42.7 bil
Indiana: $41.8 bil
Arizona: $40.4 bil
Pennsylvania: $38.0 bil
Hawaii: $30.8 bil
Maine: $27.7 bil
Montana: $26.8 bil
North Dakota: $21.9 bil
Iowa: $19.1 bil
Alaska: $18.8 bil
South Dakota: $16.4 bil
Idaho: $13.7 bil
Kansas: $11.8 bil
Nebraska: $8.4 bil
Utah: $7.9 bil
Wyoming: $2.1 bil

"Who" benefitted. As in what people?


Net Federal Subsidy Losers (through taxes) of the 1990's

New Jersey: $265.4 bil
California: $253.5 bil
Illinois: $252.7 bil
New York: $242.2 bil
Michigan: $138.5 bil
Connecticut: $129.7 bil
Texas: $87.9 bil
Minnesota: $78.4 bil
Wisconsin: $59.6 bil
Massachusetts: $54.4 bil
Washington: $47.4 bil
Nevada: $37.4 bil
New Hampshire: $27.8 bil
Ohio: $22.7 bil
Colorado: $22.5 bil
Delaware: $10.8 bil
Georgia: $10.6 bil
Oregon: $10.3 bil
Rhode Island: $9.2 bil
North Carolina: $2.7 bil
Vermont: $0.1 bil

Yessir, all that money's being taken from the good honest people of... um... New Jersey, California, Illinois and New York and being given to support the licentious habits of people in... um... Missouri, Mississippi and Alabama.

No comment as any would be perceived as racism instead of truth. New Jersey, Illinois and California still have large numbers of nuclear families.

Namely to the bosses of the ag and mining industries, so they can buy their next Cadillac Escalade.

An Escalade? Mmmmmm, no comment as any i offer may be twisted to appear as racism.

Hedonism? The liberal cities of the North are propping up the dying economies of the rural Bible belt with the sweat of their brows, and what are we getting in return?

More taxation? More fatherless children?

Doesn't sound very hedonistic to me, no sir.

The liberal media machine is hedonism for sale and purchased.

Maybe if the conservatives want states' rights so much, we should let them have 'em. Let's see how far the South gets with no support from the federal government.

Someone would have to get off the welfare rolls and get a job huh? Guess who? The inner city folk that vote Democrat.

Like that $84.3 billion dollar question of Louisiana. Oh, wait...

You mean the state where its inner-city citizens (Democrats) turned on each other like wolves the moment order was lost? That is your offer of subjects to emulate?

1John2_26 wrote:
ALL Christians were Jewish believers at one time.

European's have brought us this filthy version of religion that permeates much of the Christian debates.

Facts are nothing to fear.

The enlightenment thinkers include some very sick individuals (IMO). And the Liberal holds many views from the enlightenment period until now as most supporting of their (LIberal) positions.

Where did Nietzsche end up?

Facts are nothing to fear especially when you don't know any, eh, 1John?

My facts are not heard over the screams of racism and homophobia directed to shut them up, by the screaming hysterics on the left.

Nietzsche was a little late to the party if he was an Enlightenment thinker.

Whatever. He influenced this "skeptic" progressive anti-Christian crowd uber mensch God is dead and all. It was inappropriate to list Locke below. His view of atheists aren't going to go over well with a large voter block lliberals depend on.

He was a counter-Victorian Perspectivist, which stands to reason since he did most of his work in the later 1800's. And the Enlightenment ended almost 100 years earlier. He had little to no influence on European or American philosophy since he was associated with the Nazis and went largely ignored until well after theologian Reinhold Niebuhr had already articulated the modern liberal philosophy.

He is a god now to the left. Without doubt.

Oh yeah, and our 'liberal' positions which are supported by Enlightenment ideas come from such devout Christians as Rene Descartes, Gottfried Leibniz, Isaac Newton, John Locke and Immanuel Kant. Look them up; you'll find them all quite sane.

I will look them up again. We'll see how Kant measures up with orthodoxy. But unfortunately orthodoxy can change on a whim in liberal theology. On a whim.

Except Newton; little too much mercury in the old brainpan in his later years.

Mmm, hmm.

1John2_26 wrote:
The real Jesus is hated by liberals.

Funny way they have of showing it, following Christ's commandments and all that.

Jesus has to real first Magus. Liberals have a very odd view of Jesus the Messiah/Jesus as God incarnate. Some things are immutable in the New Testament, but not it appears in liberal theology. Like I wrote, to be changed on a whim. Shall I post Rowan Williams yet again. He and Spong are living people.

While all the while appealing to his teachings to strengthen their positions on social and economic issues.

Somehow I think the communism being ushered in by the left is not going to be good for Christians that actually believe in the Bible. The leftists will be fine and employed I'll bet.

1John2_26 wrote:
Wrong. Unfortunatley Liberals are as real as an STD.

Nice comparison of an entire group of people to a disease, very retro - I seem to recall that some German political leaders tried that line in the 1930's.

Liberals are building ghettos for Christians that believe the Bible. Your comparison to Nazi's and their views on the people of God will come back to haunt the liberals that have maintained some semblence of a conscience not completely seared away.

Nietzsche would be proud.

He was an atheist. he would proud of Liberals.

[MagusYanam]

How can a liberal be swayed into the abortion is murder camp, once they have so much blood on their hands and consciences?

My hands and my conscience are clean. Ad hominems will get you nowhere, especially where they are so ill-applied. Oh, and I don't gamble BTW, especially since I was indeed raised in a nuclear family, like most liberals I know. And I plan on raising one of my own when I'm old enough, not that it matters.

I stand by what I claim: Republicans are using the issues of abortion and gay marriage as smokescreens to draw attention away from their rape-the-economy Reaganomics, which even now are depriving poor people of the good homes I think you and I both sincerely want them to have.

Will populations be considered? Will taxed corporartions be considered? Are these numbers obtained by Air America links?

I get my data from the U.S. census - these are population data from state and federal taxes. No matter which way you slice it, money is being drained out of the cities - away from where it belongs, away from the poor inner-city schools and public services - and into rural areas, particularly in the South and in the West. But it's not even getting to the poor people there: the demographics show even that. So, who benefits?

Rich people in the South and the West. While poor children in the inner city suffer. This is a problem 'liberals' are trying to fix, and instead you pharisaically insult them for their efforts.

The liberal media machine is hedonism for sale and purchased.

Cut me a break. The biggest critics of the media now are liberals.

Have you ever seen Outfoxed?

You mean the state where its inner-city citizens (Democrats) turned on each other like wolves the moment order was lost? That is your offer of subjects to emulate?

I seem to remember Louisiana swinging the other way in both elections? My point was that the funds were ill-allocated since the feds didn't do enough to save New Orleans even though they could have. And whom do we have to thank for that?

It was inappropriate to list Locke below. His view of atheists aren't going to go over well with a large voter block lliberals depend on.

Well, he was one of those Enlightenment thinkers...

If you had even picked up An Essay Concerning Human Understanding to read even one line, you'd realise that many of his epistemological and moral views are the basis for many liberal views. British Empiricism and Kantian deontology contributed heavily to the Social Gospel movement, which in turn produced modern liberal theology and philosophy.

I've read all the people I've listed, except Newton. But I'm just a philosophy major, not a physicist.

Shall I post Rowan Williams yet again.

Bring it on.

Not that I don't know exactly what quote you're going to post. And I'll counter with posts from the Right Reverend Williams' book, 'Where God Happens: Discovering Christ in One Another'. The actual Christ, that is.

Your comparison to Nazi's and their views on the people of God will come back to haunt the liberals that have maintained some semblence of a conscience not completely seared away.

I'm not even going to try to point out the hubris of thinking of yourself as all of the 'people of God'. Suffice it to say that most of the 'people of God' would see your remark as incredibly arrogant and definitely un-Christian.

It was not I that tried to compare an entire group of people to a disease. Meanwhile, I'll pray for you that you encounter a more Christian frame of mind before next you post.

[1John2_26]

Magus,

Of all the leftists that post on this website, which is just about everyone it seems, you fascinate me the most. Thank God for the aging process.

1John2_26 wrote:
How can a liberal be swayed into the abortion is murder camp, once they have so much blood on their hands and consciences?

My hands and my conscience are clean. Ad hominems will get you nowhere, especially where they are so ill-applied.

It is deadly serious the assertion I presented. Deadly serious. But not my death or yours. Abortion is heinous and it is murder.

Oh, and I don't gamble BTW, especially since I was indeed raised in a nuclear family, like most liberals I know. And I plan on raising one of my own when I'm old enough, not that it matters.

For healthy unviolent and not drug addicted gangsters, the nuclear family matters most. That is to prevent what Liberals feast on when applying the profession built around intervention. How nice to teach children to do whatever they want to and then of course making money off of their situation once they most certainly screw up. Feminists don't exactly fall in the conservative camp either Magus. Remember Dan Quayle? He went to war against unwed motherhood (of course Hollywood) and he hasn't been proven wrong yet. Visit your local juvenile hall for the proof.

I stand by what I claim: Republicans are using the issues of abortion and gay marriage as smokescreens to draw attention away from their rape-the-economy Reaganomics, which even now are depriving poor people of the good homes I think you and I both sincerely want them to have.

OK. But they are using good morality on both subjects of same-gebder marriage and slaughtering children before they see the light of day for more than a moment. I stand by myt claim that Liberals are killers, and killers of far more kinds of people than just the most vulnerable and innocent.

1John2_26 wrote:
Will populations be considered? Will taxed corporartions be considered? Are these numbers obtained by Air America links?

I get my data from the U.S. census - these are population data from state and federal taxes. No matter which way you slice it, money is being drained out of the cities - away from where it belongs, away from the poor inner-city schools and public services - and into rural areas, particularly in the South and in the West.

Decent people are fleeing indecent people from the inner city to the rural setting. And it ain't just white flight.

But it's not even getting to the poor people there: the demographics show even that. So, who benefits?

Not those looking to stay on government programs. Those people in the rural areas that do not want to live among the kinds of people that dwell in the inner city, are not choosing their neighborhoods out of racism or bigotry BUT out of a better moral environment.

Just for once deal with the truth of the matter of inner city problems. It is from sickening immorality, not because someone won't pay their way from government check to government check. That liberal promise is dead and buried in the "lie" section.

Rich people in the South and the West. While poor children in the inner city suffer. This is a problem 'liberals' are trying to fix, and instead you pharisaically insult them for their efforts.

I insult Liberals for telling the truth of what they are by what they do. It has been a long time since Reverend King and the content of the character of inner city poor is almost pure immorality. If I was pharisaical, I would be a Liberal patting myself and my voluminous club of leftists expressionists on the back for the incredible lie that "I do so much for the poor. Look at me for what I do?" That is hypocrisy. Giving welfare checks to pay for licentiousness is not morality. It is pimping. And of course we now have the fact that "pimping" is a respected thing.

1John2_26 wrote:
The liberal media machine is hedonism for sale and purchased.

Cut me a break. The biggest critics of the media now are liberals.

Have you ever seen Outfoxed?

Fox is outfoxing the Liberals in mind controlling viewers and the Left is hysterical about it. The Left actually thought everyone wants to be a hedonist. I believe they have regrouped yet again and now we see them claiming some kind of Christian identity. The Left is going to learn another lesson: Not everyone wants to be a heretic either.

1John2_26 wrote:
You mean the state where its inner-city citizens (Democrats) turned on each other like wolves the moment order was lost? That is your offer of subjects to emulate?


I seem to remember Louisiana swinging the other way in both elections?

That would show how many people have moved away from New Orleans.

My point was that the funds were ill-allocated since the feds didn't do enough to save New Orleans even though they could have. And whom do we have to thank for that?

The Liberals that believe government is the saviour.

1John2_26 wrote:
It was inappropriate to list Locke below. His view of atheists aren't going to go over well with a large voter block lliberals depend on.

Well, he was one of those Enlightenment thinkers...

If you had even picked up An Essay Concerning Human Understanding to read even one line, you'd realise that many of his epistemological and moral views are the basis for many liberal views.

Like this one?

A Letter Concerning Toleration

by John Locke

1689

Translated by William Popple


Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of a toleration. As for other practical opinions, though not absolutely free from all error, if they do not tend to establish domination over others, or civil impunity to the Church in which they are taught, there can be no reason why they should not be tolerated.

Ann and John walking hand in hand through history.

British Empiricism and Kantian deontology contributed heavily to the Social Gospel movement, which in turn produced modern liberal theology and philosophy.

Kant?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-development/#3

Now Kant speaks of God as possible maker of multiple universes (# 8; 1:22), as engineer of dimensions (# 11; 1:25), and as sealing off this world from improbable others (ibid.). But in the same breath (# 7-10), he makes force responsible for these tasks. And he already showed his hand in his praise for the entelechy. Entelechies are programs of the self-organization and sustenance of things — in Aristotle's words, a dynamis put en ergon or put in action; i.e. energeia.

Kant's waffling over God and force permits only two readings. Neither of them would be palatable to any Christian worth his salt: either God is creative force, or God created creative force. By Kant's account, the former would mean that God is describable as a physical quantity. The latter would imply that force, not God, created the universe. Whoever suggests either is not a believer and does not deserve to graduate under a Pietist advisor, not even a liberal one.

I've read all the people I've listed, except Newton. But I'm just a philosophy major, not a physicist.

Have you ever read the Gospel without thinking it is lies, myth or bogus? Have you ever read it and thought "What if this is reality?"

1John2_26 wrote:
Shall I post Rowan Williams yet again.

Bring it on.

Not that I don't know exactly what quote you're going to post. And I'll counter with posts from the Right Reverend Williams' book, 'Where God Happens: Discovering Christ in One Another'. The actual Christ, that is.

The "cosmic, universalist's" Christ, or, the God Incarnate son of the Virgin Mary Jesus? Certainly Some pretty famous Anglicans think Jesus was a myth. That is to say, a lie. A warm and fuzzy universalist-mythical Jesus is a sick joke. Actaually a Satanic assertion. No joking about it.

OK I post it:

The Jesus who "died for our sins" has simply got to go in our post-Darwinian world. Christianity must move beyond a rescuing Jesus, who overcame a fall that never happened, even metaphorically, to restore human life to a status it has never had, even mythologically.

Williams' task is nothing less than to articulate a new Christianity for a new world.

That is 100% Satanic Magus. It is "Liberal theology" as well.

1John2_26 wrote:
Your comparison to Nazi's and their views on the people of God will come back to haunt the liberals that have maintained some semblence of a conscience not completely seared away.

I'm not even going to try to point out the hubris of thinking of yourself as all of the 'people of God'.

I am confident that Christ died for my sins and that I am saved by His atoning death on the Cross. Those that think Christ is a myth or just some cool philosopher are wrong. Satanically wrong.

Hubris, Wasn't that a popular denigration, with leftists in Bush's first term?

Suffice it to say that most of the 'people of God' would see your remark as incredibly arrogant and definitely un-Christian.

Polycarp wouldn't. Paul wouldn't. And most importantly the Father of Christ Jesus doesn't. Christ Jesus is God and my savior. I don't put on humility to perform as an act.

It was not I that tried to compare an entire group of people to a disease.

Think about. Thoughts are a part of actions. The actions of liberals is unfettered hedonism and lascivious licentiousness. While, of course, throwing some bones to the poor to make the typical leftist (like those in Hollywood) feel good about what they "do for the poor."

Meanwhile, I'll pray for you that you encounter a more Christian frame of mind before next you post.

How can anyone know what a Christian frame of mind is from the Liberal Jesus of hedonism and self-promoted righteousness?

How many awards are there from Nobel to the Academy of Motion Pictures yada, yada,yada, for leftists to pat themselves on the back for all they do to the world. Er, I mean "for" the world.

I mean multi-colored condoms and legal marijuana are such impressive acheivments for the advancement of Christian morality.

Liberalism as it is practiced today, is not the way Magus, to anything good except a free clinic for drugs to cure the STD's . . . that are still curable.

Hey! That's something. See, there's my humilty for "all" to see.

[Cathar1950]

Your liberal bash is unsupported slander.
How many liberals are in here?
Because Ann writes a book all liberals are beasts?