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.

[1John2_26]

1John2_26 wrote:
Cathar, what does supporting this site entitle you to do?

The same as anyone. I think you know that so what is your point?

Down below I have posted just some of the johnism against liberals.
Is any of this true? How many liberals do we have here that identify with these characterizations?
I guess I was out of line. But if john is not breaking rules with these kinds of statements are we to believe what he says about liberals are true? I will gladely edit my post.
How about you john?

I am going to debate my own position?

I do not desire to become a liberal once again. That clubmmembership has left me with lasting regrets.

There is hardly - if anything - left of nobility in liberal thought and certainly none in the actions carried out by socialist anti-Christians. There is a war being waged against Christians that they have finally woken up to see. Secualrism is more preached and taught as a religion than Christianity. Now we Christians know that finally after awakening from the stupor and mesmerizing effects of sophisticated people tricking us, no differently than an innocent child to their victimization.

The Democrat party is the perfect place to prove that. How many very conservative and orthodox Christians wallow among the hedonists of that political expression? Many. And I know many of them. They are torn between not liking "big business" and supporting the destruction of our world by Liberals preaching immorality and sickness. The new conservative movement within the African American community is witness to that. They have been sold a load of bull#@$! by the leftists and they now know it.

I'll go through my own list and as an orthodox Christian, amplify them just a bit. I usually do not like dancing through liberal hoops.

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

Once a person actually watches an abortion and whom it destroys, they either change or sink deeper into denial. Denial I feel is Satanic.

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

What was once peddled to us in the lie of protecting the mother's life is now the technique of slamming a pair of scissors into a baby's skull, spreading that bleeding and painful wound even further apart, jamming in a vacuum tube and vorcefully vacuuming out the baby's fully formed brain. The murdered and mutilated child then IS born and dumped into the trash.

Welcome to liberal reality. Welcome to hell on earth.

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.

Liberals preach that embracing the non-Biblical family and sexual acts is completely OK. That morality is seen as a hate crime is proof of the Satanic power behind licentiousness. Where are the great role models for marriage in the screams and hysteria associated with liberal politics. Hilary Clinton and that is it. Otherwise Hollywood the all power Oracle for Democat Liberals is as evil as it gets. Youth follow Hollywood idols.

I stand by my claim that Liberals are killers, and killers of far more kinds of people than just the most vulnerable and innocent.

The role models of the left are who? Actors and rappers and socialists and communists in abundance. And I left out all of the pure and openly declared anti-Christians that literally fund and promte liberal/progressive actions and acts.

That liberal promise is dead and buried in the "lie" section.

Ask that to a mother of three children in the inner city, all from three different fathers not raising any of those children with the "baby's momma?" Now ask the same question of a conservative Church going "inner-citywoman married to the same man for twenty-nine years?

I insult Liberals for telling the truth of what they are by what they do.

By their fruits you will know them. Abortion and redefining marriage are distasteful fruit. And, indicative of rotted roots.

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.

That stands as it is. Sounds more like Bill Cosby than me so, I'll leave it alone.

The Left actually thought everyone wants to be a hedonist.

And they not only demand it but put laws into place so nobody can issue another opinion.

The Liberals that believe government is the saviour.

I'm OK with as is as well.

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

It is Satanic to preach or teach that Jesus was eaten by dogs, celebrated the idea of same-sex marriage and abortion for convenience, did not exist or is just one of many roads to a good place in eternity. Educated liberals do not get away with the excuse of being deluded.

The actions of liberals is unfettered hedonism and lascivious licentiousness.

Hollywood. And of course the liberal prinit and TV media forms.

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."

Pederasty may come to the forefront of the liberal actions of some liberals, here. Lot's of good looking children in the inner-city. Just fatten them up like Hansel and Gretal. First teach them in schools that they can celebrate deviant sex acts.

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

Yeah.

Liberal theolgy is altering and changing the immutable for convenience, to have a lot of friends and to feel satisfied with self worth.

How many people were with Jesus as He really hung on the Cross really dying? How many people "changed their behaviors" when they accepted Christ Jesus the Lord as Risen Saviour?

Every single one of them.

How many liberals have how many anti-Christain "partners," trying to expel Christians and the Christian voice from public, social and political venues?

Ann Coulter accurately titled her book.

What bones are the victims of liberalism gnawing on?

Their own.

Tossed to them with the promise of a better life.

[micatala]

Like Ann Coulter, the previous post so distorts liberalism that the description provided bears so slight a resemblance to reality that the arguments and conclusions thereupon based have no relevance to reality.

I am perfectly happy to accept that there are legitimate criticisms to be made of liberals and liberalism. But I believe it is appropriate to base these criticisms in fact, rather than engage in gross hyperbole and mischaracterization.

As I have stated eslewhere, I agree that abortion is violence, and I do not support 'abortion on demand' or 'abortion for convenience'. However, the graphic and emotional language in the preceding post ignores that many women face very difficult decisions regarding being pregnant. It also ignores the fact that unborn children, or even young children, have throughout history almost never been afforded the same rights and privelages as older children or adults. To simply equate abortion with murder ignores this history, including Biblical history, and trivializes the exceedingly difficult issues related to abortion.

The role models of the left are who? Actors and rappers and socialists and communists in abundance. And I left out all of the pure and openly declared anti-Christians that literally fund and promte liberal/progressive actions and acts.

Selective mischaracterization. Do you have any data on how many self-identified liberals hold particular persons or types of persons as 'role-models?'

I reject your characterization of liberal role models until you can provide evidence that large numbers of leftists seek to model their lives after such people.

By contrast, tole models that I have actually heard liberals idenitfy with include:

Martin Luther King
Gandhi
Eleanor Roosevelt
Albert Einstein
John Kennedy
Mother Theresa
Thich Nhat Han (sp?) (a Buddhist thinker)
Elie Wiesel (holocaust survivor)

How many of these are anti-Christians, actors, rappers, socialists, or communists?

The fact that some Hollywood types are liberal says essentially zilch, zippo, nada, nichts about what the 'average' liberal thinks, believes, or holds in esteem. The rhetoric of this argument is simply bombastic hyperbole meant to smeer an entire group on the basis of a few members.

The Left actually thought everyone wants to be a hedonist.

And they not only demand it but put laws into place so nobody can issue another opinion.

I don't know what else to say but this is out and out false.

Obviously you can try to dodge by playing on the definition of 'the left', but typically this would refer to the large group of people who share particular political views. As a whole, I don't believe you will be able to find any evidence that 'the left' as a group desires everyone to become hedonistic.

A few examples of 'hedonistic leftists' does not count. After all, we can find a few examples of hedonistic right-wingers to make the same case. NO, you must show that the left as a group desires people to be hedonistic.

This would mean you have to show that the left, as a group, desires everyone to believe that physical pleasure and gratification is the sole or chief good in life.

Given your second claim, you also must show that the left as a group not only demands that people be hedonists, but that they do not allow people to disagree with the idea that everyone should be hedonists.


If you cannot do this, then what is any reasonable reader of this forum to conclude other than that Cathar was correct, at least on this particular point?

[1John2_26]

1John2_26 wrote:
Magus,

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

Not quite sure how to take that.

You seem to value the nuclear family just a bit. Very un-PC for a leftist. You could be guilty of a hate crime over in Boston Mass.

1John2_26 wrote:
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.

I live in the inner city. I know what problems there are with the inner city where I live (Providence, RI - I go to school in Kalamazoo), and that their solution doesn't lie in 'government checks', unless those 'government checks' are going to the schools.

I lived for three years two blocks from Watts. Just one block from Martin Luther King Jr. blvd. Things have gotten worse in California in the cities. That state is just about cooked and done as a leftist country.

Most of the problems here are due to poor education, and I think most of the people here would do well to start investing in the system they have.

I think your position is wronng. It is the lack of nuclear families.

You have to start somewhere to get inner-city families a better home life.

Mother-father-children. Hello? The way you made it. Do unto others huh?

As this is the case, I think federal money would be better spent not on the mining corporations and agribusiness out West or down South but on schools. Here on the East Coast.

There are plenty of schools. Without businesses employing people there are no people to tax for those funds for those liberal schools to teach condom morality. I would think a liberal would want big busliness to supply all of those hard working tax payers?

1John2_26 wrote:
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.

Like 'American Idol' style hedonism or 'Desperate Housewives'? Both shows from your beloved FOX Network.

The only thing I like about Fox is that they give some conservatives a place to speak on FoxNews. That right has been eliminated at ever other channel.

It's sickening to most liberals that this kind of vulgarity is what passes for entertainment in Middle America.

It would evaporate instantly if there were great Gay heroes on either show. Sorry i don't watch Fox programming much so fill me in if desperate houswives now include same-sex couples.

Liberal entertainment tends to be far more highbrow. Prairie Home Companion is pretty good in a down-home, Minnesota kind of way.

And as usual they'll sneak in a gay character that is so moral and pure while the Christian "like" characters are ignorant uneducated haters. How many of those shows are on the networks indoctrination platforms? I have emialed by my friends about several.

1John2_26 wrote:
I believe they have regrouped yet again and now we see them claiming some kind of Christian identity.

The liberal Christian voice has been there ever since the days of Horace Bushnell and F. D. Maurice back in the early 1800's. And they draw their theology from the Gospel, the one in which Jesus said to turn the other cheek and give your cloak to the man who needs it more.

And notice Jesus threatened those that would lead children into harm. Teaching children to embrace sex as long as they do it safely is Satanic Magus. That is if you believe in the New Testament as valid writings on real things. I notice that in liberal theolgy of "yesterday 2006" that that is just a matter of opinions and subject to a vote.

If we see more people subscribing to that time-honoured tradition, more power to them. It will lead to a healthier religion.

"Time-honoured tradition?" Jesus is God in time honoured Christian tradition. Also marriage is and always will be between a man and a woman where the real jesus is preached and proclaimed. "Leaving" a life of sin is the "time honoured tradition" of Christians. Not redefining words that cannot be changed. Political correctness has nothing to do with the Gospel. In fact it is opposite to it.

1John2_26 wrote:
Have you ever read the Gospel without thinking it is lies, myth or bogus?

Liberals take the Gospel more seriously, apparently, than the conservatives ever have. Take a look at what kiwimac quoted. I read the Gospel as truth - it's where I get my social and moral philosophy.

Selling people what they want to hear is soemthing Jesus warned us about would occur in those that were not members of the faith. Liberals are literally selling a Gospel includes killing children, teaching them to celebrate sexual deviant acts, and to believe that Jesus is just a rather good concept and nothing much more.

Meanwhile, you'd best look to your own theology.

I did and I do. That is why I oppose liberal theology. It is Satanic in such obvious ways that I can do nothing else but stand against "it."

1John2_26 wrote:
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.

Well, the joke's on you. Unless you didn't write this, also:

1John2_26 wrote:
Quote:
Many are looking for the real Jesus and find themselves.

Oddly Cathar wrote that. Although his views are easily anti-Christian in just about every aspect; other than, Christians can live in ghettos called their own Churches.

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

My sarcasm hung heavy there I can assure you. Cathar does not believe that Jesus is the Creator.

Get your theology straight before you try playing the heresy card on me. Most of Athanasian Christianity (including Anglicanism) regards Jesus as the Son - God in human form - not the Creator.

Really? Heresy so proudly proclaimed?

I like your spunk. Most heresy is rather hidden until it is popped out as a surprise on the misled.

It seems that the writer of the Gospel of John disagrees with Anglicanism:

John 1

The Deity of Jesus Christ
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

He was in the beginning with God.

All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.

The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

It appears John knew what was coming in liberal theolgy and dealt with beforehand.

Unless of course we conservative non-Anglicans do not understand that all things coming into being does not mean creation.

Jesus is God, the Son of God and the Creator of all things.

To a Christian. Like Paul for example in his letter to western Europeans and Americans errrrr, I mean Romans:

Unbelief and Its Consequences

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, (AN)being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing to be wise, they became fools,

and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and [d]crawling creatures.

Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.

For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,

and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,

being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,

slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,

without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;

and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

I'm believing that none of Paul's ideas here support liberal theology.

But they do support John in his Gospel. And of Course Christ Jesus whom both worshipped as the Creator of all things.

[Cathar1950]

John in his late highly Gnostic Gospel is always a favorite for American bible-believing evangelical Christians with their 19th century literalism.
Jesus did not create the universe or the world. It is just saying that the organizing principle (logos or reason) was with God during creation. I don’t put much faith in the author’s (who ever he or she was. Some think it was a rewrite of Mary M or even James) words as historical. A close reading makes you wonder if he reported anything the man Jesus said. It is a rather late tradition with a more pronounced Christology.
In Mark you have Jesus being adopted at the resurrection. Mathew has him at the baptism, and Luke at his birth. “Son of God” was a designation for Priest, kings, prophets and even Israel. But like 1john it is an interpretation only more informed.

Now his left/right dichotomy is pure nonsense. I know personally people on both sides that disagree with abortion and also that agree it is a issue concerning a woman’s right over her reproduction and body. Myself I find it regrettable but an option and none of my business. I would like to think if we educate and solve other social problems such as poverty we would go along way in preventing that kind of choice. “When I was hungry you feed me” seems more useful than calling liberals murders which is a mischaracterization and a lie.

You seem to value the nuclear family just a bit. Very un-PC for a leftist. You could be guilty of a hate crime over in Boston Mass.

No one would be guilty of a hate crime and you should know that. Most of us value a nuclear family I even value extended families. But that is not the reality that many are born into. Orphans are just one case.

Most of the problems here are due to poor education, and I think most of the people here would do well to start investing in the system they have.

I think your position is wronng. It is the lack of nuclear families.

That is rather simple-minded. Poor education and poverty are not limited to non-nuclear families and are a factor.

"Time-honoured tradition?" Jesus is God in time honoured Christian tradition. Also marriage is and always will be between a man and a woman where the real jesus is preached and proclaimed. "Leaving" a life of sin is the "time honoured tradition" of Christians. Not redefining words that cannot be changed. Political correctness has nothing to do with the Gospel. In fact it is opposite to it.

The Ebonite and Nazarene position show you to be in error. You have only embraced one Christian tradition and usually have a 19th century literalist interpretation. Your rather static view of religion is limited.

Selling people what they want to hear is soemthing Jesus warned us about would occur in those that were not members of the faith. Liberals are literally selling a Gospel includes killing children, teaching them to celebrate sexual deviant acts, and to believe that Jesus is just a rather good concept and nothing much more.

Liberals are doing no such things. You lack an adequate social construct.
You seem to be the one trying to sell.

I did and I do. That is why I oppose liberal theology. It is Satanic in such obvious ways that I can do nothing else but stand against "it."

Again you show you ignorance of liberal theology. You could do more like try learning something.

Oddly Cathar wrote that. Although his views are easily anti-Christian in just about every aspect; other than, Christians can live in ghettos called their own Churches.

Is that supposed to be some sort of slur? I tend you think you are anti-Christian, so what?
It is hard to say what you mean considering you make no sense.

My sarcasm hung heavy there I can assure you. Cathar does not believe that Jesus is the Creator.

You don’t know what I believe or think. You seem to confuse sarcasm with nonsense.
Jesus as the Son of God would be always secondary it is implied with the father son relationship. Daddies come first. You take a metaphor and one gospel and liberalize it to Senseless rhetoric.

Now Paul.

for God made it evident to them…
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen…God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,

So it is evident invisible and they can’t see it because God gave them over.
Is that supposed to make sense?

and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and [d]crawling creatures…
For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator

So Jesus God’ s son and creation are being worshiped in the form of a corruptible man. After all he did die. According to your story he became a spiritual being.

I don’t think John or Paul make sense. But neither did Jesus’ followers and brothers when they withdrew from Paul. Paul got his stuff from visions. He proclaims he received his gospel from no man and when Jesus real followers tried to straighten Paul’s followers out with the truth he tells them not to listen to the people Jesus taught and calls them all kinds of name. Like you do everyone that disagrees with you. You do sound like Paul the heretic, anti-law Roman, Hellenistic preacher of a mystery religion.

[MagusYanam]

You seem to value the nuclear family just a bit. Very un-PC for a leftist. You could be guilty of a hate crime over in Boston Mass.

Boston is a beautiful city, especially the Commons. I've been there many times - and I haven't been arrested once, there or anywhere else.

I think your position is wronng. It is the lack of nuclear families.

Circular reasoning, anyone? Cathar1950 is right here. Use your head for once in your benighted life - think of every skill that is necessary in building a successful nuclear family. Money management, learning how to build a successful relationship with one's spouse and children and maintaining a good-paying job, for starters.

And where do prospective parents learn this, might I ask? Their own parents don't seem to be doing a very good job of it.

There are plenty of schools. Without businesses employing people there are no people to tax for those funds for those liberal schools to teach condom morality. I would think a liberal would want big busliness to supply all of those hard working tax payers?

Schools with no money and ever-decreasing programmes (believe me on this one, I graduated from one not three years ago and things haven't changed), because their money is being used to subsidise mining and agribusiness in rural areas, i.e., the businesses are leeching off the government and not contributing enough back to the system to pay for it! Like I said, that subsidy money isn't trickling down to the average taxpayer.

The only thing I like about Fox is that they give some conservatives a place to speak on FoxNews. That right has been eliminated at ever other channel.

Tell that to David Brooks, Tucker Carlson and George Will. I'm sure it will be news to them.

And as usual they'll sneak in a gay character that is so moral and pure while the Christian "like" characters are ignorant uneducated haters. How many of those shows are on the networks indoctrination platforms? I have emialed by my friends about several.

Um, yeah, right. Even though the host is a dyed-in-the-wool Minnesota Lutheran. Only a zealot wearing blinders would think of PHC as an 'indoctrination platform' for anything but good entertainment. And I'm not sure as I'm remembering the last gay character on PHC, you'll have to fill me in on that one.

And notice Jesus threatened those that would lead children into harm. Teaching children to embrace sex as long as they do it safely is Satanic Magus.

And it's not what liberals are actually saying. I go to college at one of the most liberal campuses in the Midwest, as well as having gone to an inner-city public school, and the talks were all about using your head before using your pituitary. If you can't afford the consequences, don't do it, is usually the way it's presented. Conservatives say much the same thing, only they fault liberals for telling kids to think instead of telling them what they should do.

That is if you believe in the New Testament as valid writings on real things. I notice that in liberal theolgy of "yesterday 2006" that that is just a matter of opinions and subject to a vote.

Liberal theology is and always has been swayed by as critical scholarship, not by popular opinion. Especially given that religious conservatives in the United States have already demonstrated their ability to shout down the liberal voice by manipulating the popular political forums.

Really? Heresy so proudly proclaimed?

One God in three persons is orthodoxy. Athanasius settled this dispute in the fourth century AD. God is a unitary being comprised of three personae: God the Creator and Heavenly Father, God the Son and Personal Saviour and God the Holy Spirit and Comforter. What you were proposing is actually a form of unitarianism, that Jesus and the Creator were the same persona.

Unitarians have drifted so far in that time from mainline Christianity that they are really no longer Christian. So tell me, are fundamentalists going the same way? Because that's the station I see your train of thought leaving.

[1John2_26]

I cannot respond to cathar's jumblism. It bears no resemblance to exegisis or apologetics. Just some kind of opinion he's been told about and repeats. Seriously it is a waste of my time.

But this?

Like Ann Coulter, the previous post so distorts liberalism that the description provided bears so slight a resemblance to reality that the arguments and conclusions thereupon based have no relevance to reality.

Many people are seeing liberals for what they truly are and not what they pretend to be.

I am perfectly happy to accept that there are legitimate criticisms to be made of liberals and liberalism. But I believe it is appropriate to base these criticisms in fact, rather than engage in gross hyperbole and mischaracterization.

Trying to catch a slippery con artist is not easy. The left hides so well in plain sight. Because, there is no difference anymore between all of the diverse expressions that are exactly the same. Progressives, skeptics, humanists, atheists, liberals, freethinkers, etc., etc., etc., what's the difference anymore? They all dance to the same piper and sing the same song.

As I have stated eslewhere, I agree that abortion is violence, and I do not support 'abortion on demand' or 'abortion for convenience'. However, the graphic and emotional language in the preceding post ignores that many women face very difficult decisions regarding being pregnant. It also ignores the fact that unborn children, or even young children, have throughout history almost never been afforded the same rights and privelages as older children or adults. To simply equate abortion with murder ignores this history, including Biblical history, and trivializes the exceedingly difficult issues related to abortion.

Not when it is used for convenience and as a form of birth control to avoid accountability. It is murder then. The liberal hides their crime in hysteria and civil rights lies. Abortions must be legal for emergencies, but as quick as you can read the word "emergencies" a liberal puts every condition in that category, while expunging morality from earth. Players (playa's), pimps, ho's and bitches used to be, adulterers, criminals, sluts and whores. Now they are role models for our inner city and rural youth. Liberals one and all.

1John wrote:
The role models of the left are who? Actors and rappers and socialists and communists in abundance. And I left out all of the pure and openly declared anti-Christians that literally fund and promte liberal/progressive actions and acts.

Selective mischaracterization. Do you have any data on how many self-identified liberals hold particular persons or types of persons as 'role-models?'

Gimme a break. It is truthfully stating a fact.

I reject your characterization of liberal role models until you can provide evidence that large numbers of leftists seek to model their lives after such people.

Which city do I start with? New York? Oakland? Berkely? Boston?

By contrast, role models that I have actually heard liberals idenitfy with include:

Martin Luther King
Gandhi
Eleanor Roosevelt
Albert Einstein
John Kennedy
Mother Theresa
Thich Nhat Han (sp?) (a Buddhist thinker)
Elie Wiesel (holocaust survivor)

I have heard that too. Conmen usually try to look presentable. Any living liberals in politics and education act like these people now?

How many of these are anti-Christians, actors, rappers, socialists, or communists?

Please. The assault on Christians from liberals is so well documented that people can write books entitled Godless The Church of Liberalism. C'mon man, I have been posting stuff like that for a while now. Ann is just getting good money for doing what needs to be done on a larger scale.

The fact that some Hollywood types are liberal says essentially zilch, zippo, nada, nichts about what the 'average' liberal thinks, believes, or holds in esteem. The rhetoric of this argument is simply bombastic hyperbole meant to smeer an entire group on the basis of a few members.

The connect the dots group is very well lit up now. Christians that believe in traditional morals are scumbags, bigots and phobic ntballs to liberals, that must be outlawed and silenced and permissiveness that singnifies the liberal of today in all their guises is the only good thing. What is the difference in fascism liberal style of today from the fascism of just a few decades back? No guns.

fas·cism (fshzm)
n.
1. often Fascism
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

The bolded wording sounds like liberal/progressive politics. Please note how "hate crimes legislation" is used to terrorize and eliminate any dissent of the liberal agenda.



1John wrote:

1John wrote:

The Left actually thought everyone wants to be a hedonist.

And they not only demand it but put laws into place so nobody can issue another opinion.

I don't know what else to say but this is out and out false.

Children in schools force fed the celebration of queer culture and condom morality. Pure liberal ideology ensconced in both hedonistic outreaches.

Obviously you can try to dodge by playing on the definition of 'the left', but typically this would refer to the large group of people who share particular political views. As a whole, I don't believe you will be able to find any evidence that 'the left' as a group desires everyone to become hedonistic.

Liberals, progressives, atheists, skeptics, freethinkers, Democrats, greenies, socialists, communists, et al John Does inclusive. Ask a political question and they all knee jerk exactly the same "nowadays."

A few examples of 'hedonistic leftists' does not count.

Yes I notice facts mean little to liberals. For example, it is "in bad taste" to "show" an abortion in Congress. Darwin forbid anyone sees the truth "on the left.

After all, we can find a few examples of hedonistic right-wingers to make the same case. NO, you must show that the left as a group desires people to be hedonistic.

Ask any of the club members I listed about abortion? They'll knee jerk in unison.

This would mean you have to show that the left, as a group, desires everyone to believe that physical pleasure and gratification is the sole or chief good in life.

I have proven that over and over again. But what is amazing with a liberal like with avortion, you show them the facts and they say: "Where's your proof?" It is why so many people are coming to terms with the evil inherent in the new kind of liberal that has "evolved."

Given your second claim, you also must show that the left as a group not only demands that people be hedonists, but that they do not allow people to disagree with the idea that everyone should be hedonists.

Abstinence and homosexuality taught in schools says volumes about liberals killing off any dissent. Where are the role models telling children to wait to have sex "Like I did." OR, the role models saying: "Don't make the mistakes I did. It is better to live a life commited to your husband or wife. there is nothing to be gained by multiple sex partners and quite a bit to lose."

There is no morality on the left "in my opinion." Just do what thou wilt."

If you cannot do this, then what is any reasonable reader of this forum to conclude other than that Cathar was correct, at least on this particular point?

Wow, you agreed with Cathar. There's a surprise huh? You guy's Masons too?

Ann wrote her book because she has the proof to do it.

[1John2_26]

1John2_26 wrote:
You seem to value the nuclear family just a bit. Very un-PC for a leftist. You could be guilty of a hate crime over in Boston Mass.

Boston is a beautiful city, especially the Commons. I've been there many times - and I haven't been arrested once, there or anywhere else.

Try to stop a school from indoctrinating children into the celebration of sodomy, err, I mean gays rights. Sorry, I forgot about the redefining of words by liberals.

1John2_26 wrote:
I think your position is wronng. It is the lack of nuclear families.

Circular reasoning, anyone? Cathar1950 is right here. Use your head for once in your benighted life - think of every skill that is necessary in building a successful nuclear family. Money management, learning how to build a successful relationship with one's spouse and children and maintaining a good-paying job, for starters.

I in darkness? You yoke yourself to unbelievers not I. The club membership of liberals. I left that black world long ago. (Hmm, maybe I'll intend that pun.)

Sorry pal, the nuclear family is defined as man-woman-children. I see the liberal spin is well embraced in your attempt to hide the truth.

And where do prospective parents learn this, might I ask? Their own parents don't seem to be doing a very good job of it.

Single mothers and dead beat dads are producing many struggling children. You may not want to debate "family" with a conservative. All you have to work with is neo-liberal social politics. History declares the abomination of what has been done to "family" by the permissivness taught so vociferously by liberals.

1John2_26 wrote:
There are plenty of schools. Without businesses employing people there are no people to tax for those funds for those liberal schools to teach condom morality. I would think a liberal would want big busliness to supply all of those hard working tax payers?

Schools with no money and ever-decreasing programmes (believe me on this one, I graduated from one not three years ago and things haven't changed), because their money is being used to subsidise mining and agribusiness in rural areas, i.e., the businesses are leeching off the government and not contributing enough back to the system to pay for it! Like I said, that subsidy money isn't trickling down to the average taxpayer.

Myth is fun to invent and the liberals are masters of the craft. Parents are the backbone of a good school. Husbandless mothers are dailing their children and the proof is in the inner cities. ON THAT you and I could agree that there needs to be a fixing OF THAT problem. But liberal hedonsim and licentiousness needs to be destroyed first. A baby needs a momma and a daddy. Liberals are compltely and utterly wrong to redefine that immutable truth. As a Christian I claim it is the work of Satan controlling liberal ideology on that. Destroy the family and mankind is shattered.

1John2_26 wrote:
The only thing I like about Fox is that they give some conservatives a place to speak on FoxNews. That right has been eliminated at ever other channel.

Tell that to David Brooks, Tucker Carlson and George Will. I'm sure it will be news to them.

Good point. I'll email the other 99% of the liberal pundits naking up the "other" voices in the media and let them know they have opposition. Well, maybe i won't. I don't have a thousand years at my disposal.

1John2_26 wrote:
And as usual they'll sneak in a gay character that is so moral and pure while the Christian "like" characters are ignorant uneducated haters. How many of those shows are on the networks indoctrination platforms? I have emialed by my friends about several.

Um, yeah, right. Even though the host is a dyed-in-the-wool Minnesota Lutheran. Only a zealot wearing blinders would think of PHC as an 'indoctrination platform' for anything but good entertainment. And I'm not sure as I'm remembering the last gay character on PHC, you'll have to fill me in on that one.

The ubiguity of sensational and saintly gay people on network and cable/satelliteTV supports your position in absolutely no way. But my position is firmly grounded. Just a minute, I'll be right back, after I watch the last bit of Will and Grace, The Ellen Degeneres Show, Rosie's boat cruise or Queer Eye for the Straight Guy episodes I never miss. Please don;t quote me here. I missed every show except i did watch Rosie's cruise. I couldn't help seeing the irony of a Gay's and Lesbians "cruising" on a ship, while we were to see how, well, sensational and saintly those gays and lesbians were.

1John2_26 wrote:
And notice Jesus threatened those that would lead children into harm. Teaching children to embrace sex as long as they do it safely is Satanic Magus.

And it's not what liberals are actually saying.

Please excuse me while I choke back the dinner I had earlier. That is exactly what liberals have put into school classrooms Magus. C'mon man, I am a Californian.

I go to college at one of the most liberal campuses in the Midwest, as well as having gone to an inner-city public school, and the talks were all about using your head before using your pituitary. If you can't afford the consequences, don't do it, is usually the way it's presented.

So it's . . . don't screw poor women? Or wait until you have your degree and screw whoever you want as long as you wear a condom. Now THAT message is taught by all sorts of snobby families. The east coast has a lot of snobby families.

Conservatives say much the same thing, only they fault liberals for telling kids to think instead of telling them what they should do.

How cute. Conservatives want to tell kids that sex before marriage is not inevitable and inescapable and not something they will do no matter what. Conservatives wnat good Christian role models to tell their stories BUT, Liberals/progressives/secularists/humanists/skeptics/ ah geez, "the club" have outlawed Christians from public schools. Yes, Magus there are good Christians out there. Don't believe the liberal media. The troubled youth pandemic we are suffering cane along with the rise of liberalism. Of course it did.

1John2_26 wrote:
That is if you believe in the New Testament as valid writings on real things. I notice that in liberal theolgy of "yesterday 2006" that that is just a matter of opinions and subject to a vote.

Liberal theology is and always has been swayed by as critical scholarship, not by popular opinion.

Who do you think you are debating? That is so wrong that I would be barred from this website for telling you what you are doing here! Heresy and false theology IS what liberals are peddling now. Whatever happened a hundred years ago or longer is not what is happening now. Raping the Bible is what is happening now in "liberal theology." You cannot shake off the lunatics like John Spong and John Crossan from your side of this debate. In fact "as a Christian" I can assert they are demon-possessed, without crossing any lines of insult. Liberals have left thought behind if destroying Jesus is the goal. Which I assert is the goal.

Especially given that religious conservatives in the United States have already demonstrated their ability to shout down the liberal voice by manipulating the popular political forums.

Orthodoxy and immutable truth does not shout. It condemns liberal theology. The condemnation of what is being peddled in liberal theolgy is Satanic and well described as such IN THE bible.

1John2_26 wrote:
Really? Heresy so proudly proclaimed?

One God in three persons is orthodoxy. Athanasius settled this dispute in the fourth century AD. God is a unitary being comprised of three personae: God the Creator and Heavenly Father, God the Son and Personal Saviour and God the Holy Spirit and Comforter. What you were proposing is actually a form of unitarianism, that Jesus and the Creator were the same persona.

How wrong can you be? Very wrong it appears. You look like you are presenting modality (Modalism). Heresy through and through. Christ Jesus is the Creator. Please do not quote Cathar1050 for support. And I'd rather start another thread to deal with this topic anyway.

Unitarians have drifted so far in that time from mainline Christianity that they are really no longer Christian.

Yes indeed. Blessing same-sex marriage and all. Very liberal those Unitarians. Very liberal Anglican even. It is not my theology that runs wholeheartedly to heresy and blasphemy. My orthodox position is well grounded in the Christ Jesus of the Gospels.

So tell me, are fundamentalists going the same way? Because that's the station I see your train of thought leaving.

I am a conservative, orthodox believer. It is no surprise you miss the train on which I ride. The fundamentals are unchangeable. No matter who is in political power or standing at the pulpit, or teaching philosophy at a liberal college, or who is changing legislation and laws to criminalize Christians who are conservative and orthodox.

"In my opinion," Ann Coulter is right in her assertion that liberals are godless. At least Godless in the Biblical sense. How many posts have I written the exact same thing. (That's not a question.) She cannot effect change of the gods they follow. That is in the hands of the real God to do.

Ann can just write the truth on that matter.

[Wyvern]

I cannot respond to cathar's jumblism. It bears no resemblance to exegisis or apologetics. Just some kind of opinion he's been told about and repeats. Seriously it is a waste of my time.

It's amazing how you can easily identify something as opinion when you disagree with it, but your faculties desert you when it is an opinion you agree with.

Trying to catch a slippery con artist is not easy. The left hides so well in plain sight. Because, there is no difference anymore between all of the diverse expressions that are exactly the same.

Replace the word left with right and your argument is just as true, just as relevant as well.

Players (playa's), pimps, ho's and bitches used to be, adulterers, criminals, sluts and whores. Now they are role models for our inner city and rural youth. Liberals one and all.

I keep telling you, not a single rapper that has made it is a liberal, in fact many of their songs could be made into conservative anthems, considering how they are about getting and retaining money and power, a very conservative thing indeed.

1John wrote:
The role models of the left are who? Actors and rappers and socialists and communists in abundance. And I left out all of the pure and openly declared anti-Christians that literally fund and promte liberal/progressive actions and acts.

While at the same time you ignore the actors and musicians who are openly and proudly christian, how terribly one sided of you.

Gimme a break. It is truthfully stating a fact.

We are not in the '30's, today you would be hard pressed to find any actor that calls themselves a communist, HUAC did a very thorough job.

Which city do I start with? New York? Oakland? Berkely? Boston?

I can tell you have never been to any of these cities, especially Oakland. Please stop with these bland generalizations.

fas·cism (fshzm)
n.
1. often Fascism
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

The bolded wording sounds like liberal/progressive politics. Please note how "hate crimes legislation" is used to terrorize and eliminate any dissent of the liberal agenda.

Who is the dictator? No, liberals is not the answer. In your analogy they are the fascism members not the dictator. Where is the nationalism and racism? That is mostly a conservative thing. Where is the terror and censorship? Hmm, this person wrote a book and went on all the major talk shows so I don't see how you can say anything anti liberal is being censored. I don't recall any liberal groups having gatherings to burn this book so I don't see the terror either.

Liberals, progressives, atheists, skeptics, freethinkers, Democrats, greenies, socialists, communists, et al John Does inclusive. Ask a political question and they all knee jerk exactly the same "nowadays."

Why do you think the republicans are the majority right now, it's because all these folk can't agree on many things. As opposed to the republican method in which nearly everyone is required to be in rigid lockstep with their policy. It's amazing how you almost always describe the exact opposite of what you mean to.

Yes I notice facts mean little to liberals. For example, it is "in bad taste" to "show" an abortion in Congress. Darwin forbid anyone sees the truth "on the left.

It's also in bad taste to show a liposuction procedure, I've seen both and liposuction is much nastier looking and smelling. Lots of people don't like to see blood, so whats your point?

I have proven that over and over again. But what is amazing with a liberal like with avortion, you show them the facts and they say: "Where's your proof?"

If you could come up with some actual proof instead of opinion that you say is proof, you might have a chance of convincing/quieting some of us.

Where are the role models telling children to wait to have sex "Like I did." OR, the role models saying: "Don't make the mistakes I did. It is better to live a life commited to your husband or wife. there is nothing to be gained by multiple sex partners and quite a bit to lose."

Maybe you are too old but many things you can teach children, but many others you have to let them make the mistakes. After all look how the baby boomers disregarded nearly everything their parents taught them about sexuality during the 60's and 70's, but now they are flocking back to more traditional ways, because they had to learn the lesson on their own.

Ann wrote her book because she has the proof to do it.

No, she wrote it because she is a bankable author with a large following, which means the publishers were happy to have her write a book since it would get them millions.

[Cathar1950]

Trying to catch a slippery con artist is not easy. The left hides so well in plain sight. Because, there is no difference anymore between all of the diverse expressions that are exactly the same. Progressives, skeptics, humanists, atheists, liberals, freethinkers, etc., etc., etc., what's the difference anymore? They all dance to the same piper and sing the same song.

Lumping these many groups is something from your imagination. As I see it you are the one doing the dance and playing follow the leader. You remarks concerning liberals are largely another form of the scapegoat mentality you use on homosexuals.

Children in schools force fed the celebration of queer culture and condom morality. Pure liberal ideology ensconced in both hedonistic outreaches.

They are not being forced or fed. Your prejudice is unwarranted and false.

Yes I notice facts mean little to liberals. For example, it is "in bad taste" to "show" an abortion in Congress. Darwin forbid anyone sees the truth "on the left.

You have not presented any facts related to the subject just poor opinion. Darin isn’t doing anything.

I have proven that over and over again. But what is amazing with a liberal like with avortion, you show them the facts and they say: "Where's your proof?" It is why so many people are coming to terms with the evil inherent in the new kind of liberal that has "evolved."

Most agree you have not proven anything but that you have unfounded opinions and mis-characterizations.

Try to stop a school from indoctrinating children into the celebration of sodomy, err, I mean gays rights. Sorry, I forgot about the redefining of words by liberals.

No one is teaching sodomy except maybe you.
You should know that isn’t true. You seem to be the one constantly redefining and misusing words.

Wyvern:

It's amazing how you almost always describe the exact opposite of what you mean to.

I have notice also Wyvern how 1john usually has it backwards. He displays his intolerance and then accuses liberals of what he is doing. I have seen it over and over in his threads.

[MagusYanam]

Try to stop a school from indoctrinating children into the celebration of sodomy, err, I mean gays rights.

Don't see the point in stopping what's not being done.

I in darkness? You yoke yourself to unbelievers not I.

No, you only yoke yourself to libellious, avaricious, degenerate drunks like Ann Coulter, right?

Sorry pal, the nuclear family is defined as man-woman-children.

Sorry pal, I think you want to make that a responsible man and a responsible woman teaching responsibility to their children. But you have to start somewhere: schools should be able to teach kids responsibility when they're not getting that education anwhere else. But that's kind of difficult on our current budget.

Single mothers and dead beat dads are producing many struggling children. You may not want to debate "family" with a conservative. All you have to work with is neo-liberal social politics. History declares the abomination of what has been done to "family" by the permissivness taught so vociferously by liberals.

I'm not debating the first part; I'm trying to figure out ways to solve it using both my 'social politics' and my experience, which is more than I see you doing. And the abomination wrought on the society and the family has a far more fitting name: consumerism. People are being sold all of this baggage of sex and violence by the moneyed interests (most of which are not liberal).

For someone who talks so much about 'cause and effect', you sure miss one big cause.

So it's . . . don't screw poor women? Or wait until you have your degree and screw whoever you want as long as you wear a condom. Now THAT message is taught by all sorts of snobby families. The east coast has a lot of snobby families.

If I were you, I wouldn't talk about what I don't know. I live here on the East Coast. And the liberal message here is... think first; know what the consequences are and what you're getting yourself into, then do the right thing. Nothing more. I know you're a conservative who doesn't want to use his brain and just parrot Cal Thomas and Ann Coulter all the time, but I'm going to be an optimist and say that the average kid in an inner-city school can be taught to be smarter.

Yes, Magus there are good Christians out there.

You don't need to tell me; I know quite a few of them, and I hope I may be found one myself when my time comes.

The troubled youth pandemic we are suffering cane along with the rise of liberalism. Of course it did.

Cause and effect. Sociologists and churchmen took a look at the troubled youth pandemic in the United States and thought, 'what can we do to fix this?' and thus the Social Gospel was born. For this pandemic, we are the cure.

The better question is, what is the underlying cause of the pandemic? I've said it before and I'll say it again: it's because your average American is being fed the message by corporations that material acquisition is more important than developing character.

Liberals have left thought behind if destroying Jesus is the goal.

Which I assert is not the goal. Liberals are trying to find Jesus' relevance to modern ears and defend him to modern historical methodology. We undertake the tasks of historical criticism and examination of translations to better understand the historical Jeshua ben Joseph, the carpenter-turned-radical-reformer of the 1st-century who spent his life ministering to the poor, the sick and the outcast, and who became known to history as the Son of Man.

How wrong can you be? Very wrong it appears. You look like you are presenting modality (Modalism). Heresy through and through. Christ Jesus is the Creator.

You wouldn't know the Modalist (better-known as Sabellian) heresy if it came up and bit you in the face. I was presenting Athanasian trinitarianism - Sabellius and his followers believed that there was only one person 'behind the veil', which appears to correlate more with your stance than with mine. Jesus and the Father are not the same persona, as you seem to claim.

I am a conservative, orthodox believer.

Could have fooled me. Or should I say 'deceived'? The 'conservatives' of today are nothing like kerygmatic Christians - the kerygmatic Christians were inclusive (though having to remain secretive in Roman society), community-oriented, pacifistic and scholarly. We only see modern 'conservatism' after the pre-millenialist movements of the late 1800's, well-noted for their shall we say 'unconventional' views, which evolved through backlash against evolution into the modern evangelicals, fundamentalists and dispensational pre-millenialists.

The fundamentals are unchangeable.

And what are the fundamentals? The ones the liberal Christians have been following all along: love your neighbour and love your God.