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.

[MagusYanam]

Both of my children are in private Christian schools... to keep them as far away from the mind-controlling indoctrination of liberal hedonism package as some wierd kind of academics.

So you admit that you are pontificating on things you really don't have a clue about. You hide behind the skirts of your conservative pundits and parrot them with every opportunity you get. I went to a public school, and unless critical thinking is somehow 'indoctrination', am none the worse for it. Unless you participate in the public school system, it is hypocritical to criticise it.

It's clear that you don't understand liberalism, therefore you try to make it into a kind of boogeyman and demonise its followers. If you don't see the evil in that, then I'm praying hard for the well-being of your soul.

It is interesting how rich Pelosi and Feinstein and Kennedy are and none of them live "in the hood."

Red herring. How many Pelosis, Feinsteins or Kennedys run Vanity Fair or MTV?

Like i wrote, there will never be a Billy Graham on the left.

You do know that Billy Graham is a registered Democrat, right? And that he supported Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton?

We have on the left, however, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Hans Küng, Gary Dorrien, Phyllis Trible, Charles Kimball, Walter Brueggemann and the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. All of them hold or held leftist economical and social-progressive views and expound forms of liberal theology including Bostonian Personalism (Reverend King), Liberation Theology and of course the Social Gospel.

[1John2_26]

I'll respond to this other "stuff" later. I gotta go. Look what time it is?

Quote:
1John2_26 wrote:
Liberalism no longer means looking out for people's rights . . . it means silencing the Christian,voice; and that has been done with an effeciency that would make the Gestapo proud.

You see this? This is a Christian exercising his right of free speech. Right here on this keyboard in Providence, Rhode Island. I've been doing this for years and I have yet to be silenced by this supposed anti-Christian crackdown.

Try being a Christian . . . accurate New Testament and all. Christianity is completely silenced by liberals. You can pretend that the guys at Americans United, or the New York Times (et al) are not liberals but they are in lock step with favorite lefty social politics. Anyone that thinks a liberal means to give Christians a fair shake is deluded, or far, far worse. Those liberals like Mr. Lynn, that hear a Christian speak freely . . . demand to impose taxes on the outspoken Christian, or just out and out sue them quiet to scare them from speaking.

On the other hand, it seems the religious right seems to be doing its damnedest to exclude, denigrate and silence voices which assert a more moderate, less dogmatic form of Christianity.

How cute is that. "A more moderate, less dogmatic form of Christianity." The kind of Christianity that progressives and atheists and humanists, and skeptics, and liberals all agree on, is not Christianity. It is evil with a face or two or three finally seen in the light. Certainly it does not represent the Gospel.

Where are the Desmond Tutus, Gary Dorriens and Hans Küngs of the right, who push for actual social justice and work to propagate a meaningful vision of the Gospel in our time?

Desmond Tutu? There are starving Africans living closer to him than the evangelical missionaries from conservative Churches going around the world to feed Tutu's fellow Africans. The hypocrisy of liberal Christians is pitiless. Shake a few hands, say the word "Love" and get a humanitarian award at a big luncheon. While of course Baptist missionaries are being shot to death while feeding the poor and clothing the homeless. "Shot" are the lucky ones.

Once again 1John2_26 demonstrates his complete lack of ability to engage in civil discussion, instead using the space freely given him on this forum for demagoguery, sensationalist hyperbole and libel.

Not freely, anonymously. I would have been fired from my job long ago if the leftists that are in complete control at the top ever got wind of what I dare speak in freedom. I don't fly rainbows in my office and I don't celebrate condom-morality, socialism, or give guilty people a free ride by excusing their actions with a new mental health label.

Ann Coulter is one voice rising against the true sodom-like nature of liberalism. It is godless. Just a quick trip around infidels.org, or Humanist offerings and you can see the club membership of liberalism casts a very big shadow.

1John2_26 wrote:
Both of my children are in private Christian schools... to keep them as far away from the mind-controlling indoctrination of liberal hedonism package as some wierd kind of academics.

So you admit that you are pontificating on things you really don't have a clue about.

I'm more comfortable with the Apostle Paul siding with me (actually I with him) than a garden-variety leftist.

You hide behind the skirts of your conservative pundits and parrot them with every opportunity you get.

And how many enlightened pundits do you trot out? Never a C.S. Lewis or Chuck Colson.

There is a big difference in looking at the Churches wrongs and saying that heretics may have a good point or two, and just changing the truth for a lie. I do agree with people like Coulter (and Colson), that liberals have gone too far and have left the Church for the culture. They are godless indeed "now."

Let's look at Kung:

After establishing the historic basis of the Lord’s Supper Küng begins to look at the purpose and meaning of this gathering. He states, ‘The new fellowship which met to share meals was according to the New Testament characterized by eschatological joy (cf. especially Acts 2:46): joy in the experience of this new fellowship, joy especially in the awareness of fellowship with the glorified Christ who would be present in the meal of the community, joy above all in their excited expectation of the approaching kingdom of God.” [5] This joy derives from a threefold perspective which should characterize the People of God. The perspective of the past prompts recollection and thanksgiving for how God has acted, especially in the death of Jesus. The perspective of the present prompts joy in the celebration of the community, and the One who draws together and unites the separate individuals into one church. The perspective of the future brings the joy of anticipation, the anticipation of the future consummation of history and the eternal reign of the Messiah. As a link to the future this meal already anticipates in the present that which is not yet fully known. This meal is thus a “fellowship, koinonia, communio” [6] with the risen Christ and his present community.”

The last part of this chapter Küng provides a most interesting perspective. If those who are baptized are guaranteed community, what is the church to do with heresy, people or ideas which threaten the core unity of the church. He quickly notes that numbers do not equal correctness. The minority is not always the one which needs to be reunited with the majority. In responding to heresy, the reaction should not be simply to reject or attack. Rather, Küng points out that there is always an element of truth in heresy, there is something which the heresy is exaggerating or pointing out, maybe to an extreme level, but still may be highlighting the Church’s own weakness.

The Church, Küng argues, while intent in preserving all Truth, may not have arrived yet at this lofty goal, and thus must be willing to hear correction. Küng boldly states, “In all ages the Church has been partly responsible for the rise of great heresies, and nearly always by neglecting or even by obscuring and distorting the Gospel.” Heretics are rarely seeking the destruction of the church for its own sake, but rather are wrestling with their own faith. In responding to heresy, the church must realize its commitment to the baptized, listening and being willing to look at its own missteps, letting heresy become constructive rather than divisive and destructive.

This is a far cry from heretical freaks that have morphed into some new kind of being. Celebrating, promoting and embracing heresy as something good is clearly the declaration of this new liberal Christian 2006. You cannot shake off the liberals at the Jesus Seminar and heretics like Spong and Lynn, that trumpet a Christ that is completely missing from the New Testament. Liberals now, are not embracing "tolerance" they are selling the Lord of Glory for some kind of humanist pipe dream.

I went to a public school, and unless critical thinking is somehow 'indoctrination', am none the worse for it. Unless you participate in the public school system, it is hypocritical to criticise it.

I participated in the public schools. Christians were not seen as bigots, ignorant and whateveraphobes. I want my Children as far away from Liberals as i can get them until they are out of the child years.

It's clear that you don't understand liberalism, therefore you try to make it into a kind of boogeyman and demonise its followers.

I am a Christian. Satan has demonized Liberals. Anyone that thinks same-gender marriage, socialist-fascism, abortion and free love, can be celebrated in a Christian Church is far past deluded.

"What" can "we" agree on? Feeding the poor? Not if it is to look for healthy children that need to realize they are gay or lesbian (labels hiding something) in need of sexuall orientation classes. Christians feed the poor to show them Christ Jesus, not, an introducation into a life of licentiousness and deviance.

If you don't see the evil in that, then I'm praying hard for the well-being of your soul.

Save your prayers for those that need to be snatched from a life of decadence, deviance anti-Christian hatred and heresy. Unless you want to pray that I'll somehow come up with the money needed to send my children to a private Christian College. One hopefully not picketed by gay activists calling my children to a life defined by sodomy. Something tells me thet gay evangelicalism is just fine with liberals. Although there is no support anywhere in the "already written" New Testament to support gay activism within the Church.

1John2_26 wrote:
It is interesting how rich Pelosi and Feinstein and Kennedy are and none of them live "in the hood."

Red herring. How many Pelosis, Feinsteins or Kennedys run Vanity Fair or MTV?

What politicians do MTV and Vanity Fair trumpet? Liberals. A fact is not a red herring. It is good versus evil. Christians are the good guys by the way. At least Christ Jesus anyway.

1John2_26 wrote:
Like i wrote, there will never be a Billy Graham on the left.

You do know that Billy Graham is a registered Democrat, right?

Many Christians in southern states are registered Democrats. They vote far more moral these days and have utterly rejected "liberal" doctrine and dogma except of course those on professional handouts and that is only some of them. Once a person lets go of their guilt - through a good Christian experience - they become far more conservative when, after leaving debauchery behind, they embrace a better life.

I wonder how he Graham in the booth? Not really. I have heard him preach manmy, many times. No shred of liberal heresy in Graham's message. The Modesto Manifesto, of Graham and his ministry partners, destroys any myth that Graham and liberal can be connected.

I am thought of as a independant by my friends because I like the Clinton's and a tiny bit of some of the things the Democrats pop off about. I'd rather cut off my hand then vote for a liberal. I hope it never comes to that choice.

And that he supported Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton

Jimmy Carter used to think thoughts were like actions. Johnson was my father's pick and not afriad to label America's enemies. Very non-modern liberal those guys. And Bill Clinton just needs to be pitied. I also do not dislike he or his wife. If they choose hell on earth, trust me, I will not walk with them down their liberalism trail to hell. Liberals are hell bent to build hell here on earth, but Christians have given back the tools. I pray for Bill and Hilary to embrace the kind of Gospel that Billy Graham does. It is clear by their actions that they do not view the Gospel as life changing in thought and deed. Well, maybe "Mrs." Clinton. A Christian cannot put on and take off the truth of the Gospel for political correctness and hedonism and for votes.

We have on the left, however, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Hans Küng, Gary Dorrien, Phyllis Trible, Charles Kimball, Walter Brueggemann and the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. All of them hold or held leftist economical and social-progressive views and expound forms of liberal theology including Bostonian Personalism (Reverend King), Liberation Theology and of course the Social Gospel.

Liberals preach the Gospel of "Do what thou wilt." Like I wrote, omitting C.S. Lewis and Charles Colson says volumes about the liberal position on morality, decency and the immutability of Christ Jesus and a Christian life. Paul of Tarsus comes to mind as a non-liberal author as well.

Your list of heroes are meaningless to a Christian, if they preach a different Gospel, which clearly is a accurate assertion that they do.

Ann Coulter is not wrong in her assertions about whatever liberals have become. Whatever they once were is no longer part of the paradigm of leftist-liberalism. You don't feed the poor and then hand them condoms, you feed the poor and teach them about Christ Jesus. If you are a Christian that is.

Something the godless simply declare they are not.

What could a Liberal and a Christian ever agree on?

Here is a good parable about the hedonism so prevalent in today's Liberalism and a poor man:

The Rich Man and Lazarus
19"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

22"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'

25"But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'

27"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'

29"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'

30" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'

31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

The chasm is too wide between Liberals and Christians.

Ann gave her book an accurate title.

[micatala]

Christianity is completely silenced by liberals.

False.

This is a far cry from heretical freaks that have morphed into some new kind of being. Celebrating, promoting and embracing heresy as something good is clearly the declaration of this new liberal Christian 2006.

All Christians support heresy. Jesus was a heretic and was executed mainly for this reason. Those of us who are Christians are heirs to this heresy from Judaism. Those of us who are Protestants might be considered heretics to the Catholic tradition. If the disciples of Jesus had not been willing to consider that the heretical message they were hearing was the truth, there would be no Christianity today.



All this bombastis anti-heresy lingo is merely a rhetorical ploy to uphold the status quo without actually having to address the issues or particular views in question. Similar language can be found in the Bible, usually spoken by the Pharisees.

Satan has demonized Liberals. Anyone that thinks same-gender marriage, socialist-fascism, abortion and free love, can be celebrated in a Christian Church is far past deluded.

Again, rather insulting language, and once again showing no qualms about mis-characterizing reality. The statement lumps liberal Christians in with all sorts of other groups or associate them with ideas that they do not hold.

What politicians do MTV and Vanity Fair trumpet? Liberals. A fact is not a red herring.

But even a fact which is an actual fact can be a red herring it it is used disregarding any form of logical thinking.

This statement is a logical fallacy. The statement assumes that every A is a B, and then concludes that all B's are also A's. Even if every MTV and Vanity Fair employee were liberal, this would not show all liberals support MTV and Vanity Fair.


The same fallacious thinking occurs if we assert that, since KKK members are Christians, all Christians are racists.



Most of the rest of this post suffers from the same logical fallacies, misidentification of people and groups, and mis-characterization of liberals. One does not have to be a liberal to see the fallaciousness in these arguments, whether they are made by Coulter or someone else.

[MagusYanam]

Try being a Christian . . . accurate New Testament and all. Christianity is completely silenced by liberals. You can pretend that the guys at Americans United, or the New York Times (et al) are not liberals but they are in lock step with favorite lefty social politics. Anyone that thinks a liberal means to give Christians a fair shake is deluded, or far, far worse. Those liberals like Mr. Lynn, that hear a Christian speak freely . . . demand to impose taxes on the outspoken Christian, or just out and out sue them quiet to scare them from speaking.

You can't be a Christian, accurate New Testament and all, without having some social-democratic politics. And as for the Christians being 'silenced'? I hear the Christian right screaming in the news, on television and on the radio all the time. But not the more moderate voices, oh no, we're too boring. People want to see the extremes and the media are ignoring us in favour of the fundamentalists.

It's the Christian liberals who are the new silent majority. Hopefully, we'll soon be able to take back our religion and have our voices heard again, as we did when Reinhold Niebuhr was in his heyday.

How cute is that. "A more moderate, less dogmatic form of Christianity." The kind of Christianity that progressives and atheists and humanists, and skeptics, and liberals all agree on, is not Christianity.

You'll have to show me these 'atheists' who agree with my religious views. 'Cause I certainly haven't found one yet.

Desmond Tutu? There are starving Africans living closer to him than the evangelical missionaries from conservative Churches going around the world to feed Tutu's fellow Africans. The hypocrisy of liberal Christians is pitiless. Shake a few hands, say the word "Love" and get a humanitarian award at a big luncheon. While of course Baptist missionaries are being shot to death while feeding the poor and clothing the homeless. "Shot" are the lucky ones.

How pharisaical. You vaunt your own peoples' good deeds while spitting on the good work done by Desmond Tutu and the TRC in South Africa. Guess who has been protecting so many of your beloved Baptist missionaries from being shot (and quite successfully also), through human-rights activism and through advocacy of rebuilding law and order in post-apartheid South Africa?

I participated in the public schools. Christians were not seen as bigots, ignorant and whateveraphobes.

Then why did you leave the public schools? Christians obviously had a voice in them.

Save your prayers for those that need to be snatched from a life of decadence, deviance anti-Christian hatred and heresy.

Fine, I'll pray for Ann Coulter as well.

What politicians do MTV and Vanity Fair trumpet? Liberals. A fact is not a red herring. It is good versus evil. Christians are the good guys by the way. At least Christ Jesus anyway.

And what did Paul (or Jesus) have to say about zealotry? 'Good vs. evil' is often a far too simplistic way of looking at the world, especially on a political spectrum.

Many Christians in southern states are registered Democrats. They vote far more moral these days and have utterly rejected "liberal" doctrine and dogma except of course those on professional handouts and that is only some of them. Once a person lets go of their guilt - through a good Christian experience - they become far more conservative when, after leaving debauchery behind, they embrace a better life.

Don't get me started on southern politics. Billy Graham is obviously not motivated strongly by politics given the number of presidents he has supported on both sides of the fence. But the Southern states are truly frightening. Bush won the South Carolina primary by pandering to racist voters, accusing McCain of being in a relationship with a black woman.

And it was obvious that the South turned away from the Democratic party when the Democratic party began supporting civil rights for blacks. To think of the Southerners as 'moral' for doing so is beyond lunacy.

Liberals preach the Gospel of "Do what thou wilt." Like I wrote, omitting C.S. Lewis and Charles Colson says volumes about the liberal position on morality, decency and the immutability of Christ Jesus and a Christian life.

Good point about C.S. Lewis. Mere Christianity is something I should read - I know it informed quite a bit of my father's (um, liberal) theology.

But as for Colson? What right does he have to talk about 'morality' or 'decency' or 'the Christian life' when he was deeply involved in one of the greatest assaults on both morality and decency carried out on the American people? I refer, of course, to Watergate here.

You don't feed the poor and then hand them condoms, you feed the poor and teach them about Christ Jesus.

Jesus himself never put any conditions on feeding the poor. I don't see why I should either.

What could a Liberal and a Christian ever agree on?

Economics, the environment, the consistent life ethic, the roles of government, social justice...

Oh, sorry, was that question meant to be rhetorical?

The chasm is too wide between Liberals and Christians.

The chasm is entirely in your imagination. In the real world, that chasm doesn't exist. I happen to be both liberal and Christian - in most cases for the same reasons. And I'm proud to be both.

[micatala]

Moderator Intervention

The chasm is too wide between your ears.

Just a reminder not to make personal remarks.

[ENIGMA]

Question from a Moderator

What is the question for debate?

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.
[...]
Let the fur fly.

Did anyone ever get around to providing a question for debate?

[McCulloch]

After 106 posts and still no clear question for debate, this discussion has been moved out of the debating forums.

[MagusYanam]

Just a reminder not to make personal remarks.

My bad. I have gone back and edited my remark to something a little more along the lines of what I'd intended.

[1John2_26]

1John2_26 wrote:
Try being a Christian . . . accurate New Testament and all. Christianity is completely silenced by liberals. You can pretend that the guys at Americans United, or the New York Times (et al) are not liberals but they are in lock step with favorite lefty social politics. Anyone that thinks a liberal means to give Christians a fair shake is deluded, or far, far worse. Those liberals like Mr. Lynn, that hear a Christian speak freely . . . demand to impose taxes on the outspoken Christian, or just out and out sue them quiet to scare them from speaking.


You can't be a Christian, accurate New Testament and all, without having some social-democratic politics.

If Democrats hadn't turned the corner from just debauched miscreants to purely evil. I would have embraced supporting some Democrat. But, the Kennedy's and the Demo-ilk are just too evil. The con of Democrat politics looks sometimes kind of Christian-like.

And as for the Christians being 'silenced'? I hear the Christian right screaming in the news, on television and on the radio all the time.

Prison Fellowship was just sued out of a prison by the Reverned Barry Lynn's satanic organization clothed in liberal politics.

But not the more moderate voices, oh no, we're too boring. People want to see the extremes and the media are ignoring us in favour of the fundamentalists.

Jesus believed in the flood and Jonah being in the fish, as things that really happened. "moderate" is another way of saying "lukewarm." Of course I prefer the more accurate "unbeliever."

It's the Christian liberals who are the new silent majority.

The chaff has always been a larger group. Weeds flourish in a healthy lawn. Christian Liberal is not just an oxymoron, it is a declaration of war against the Church.

Hopefully, we'll soon be able to take back our religion and have our voices heard again, as we did when Reinhold Niebuhr was in his heyday.

Abortion for convenience, same-sex marriage, Jesus as myth and all?

1John2_26 wrote:
How cute is that. "A more moderate, less dogmatic form of Christianity." The kind of Christianity that progressives and atheists and humanists, and skeptics, and liberals all agree on, is not Christianity.

You'll have to show me these 'atheists' who agree with my religious views. 'Cause I certainly haven't found one yet.

The Jesus as myth crowd and liberals are ideological/social partners. Abortion and same-sex marriage and all. Christians should be different than atheists.

1John2_26 wrote:
Desmond Tutu? There are starving Africans living closer to him than the evangelical missionaries from conservative Churches going around the world to feed Tutu's fellow Africans. The hypocrisy of liberal Christians is pitiless. Shake a few hands, say the word "Love" and get a humanitarian award at a big luncheon. While of course Baptist missionaries are being shot to death while feeding the poor and clothing the homeless. "Shot" are the lucky ones.


How pharisaical. You vaunt your own peoples' good deeds while spitting on the good work done by Desmond Tutu and the TRC in South Africa. Guess who has been protecting so many of your beloved Baptist missionaries from being shot (and quite successfully also), through human-rights activism and through advocacy of rebuilding law and order in post-apartheid South Africa?

I'll look into your position. My guess is Tutu is one for accepting a lot of back-patting from humanists. If he is a Christian I'll apologize for the slight. Barry Lynn is far more than likely demon-possessed and he has the word "Reverend" in front of his name too.

1John2_26 wrote:
I participated in the public schools. Christians were not seen as bigots, ignorant and whateveraphobes.

Then why did you leave the public schools? Christians obviously had a voice in them.

"Had." Past tense.

Now celebrating anal and oral sex is moral goodness . . .

. . . and Christ Jesus is a hate crime. Don't worry, Jesus taught that Sodom and Gomorrah were reality as well. Unfortunately mentioning foul abominations and the Lord is all too necessary in todays outreach. We have liberals to thank for that. Too bad Jesus is now the hate crime.

1John2_26 wrote:
Save your prayers for those that need to be snatched from a life of decadence, deviance anti-Christian hatred and heresy.

Fine, I'll pray for Ann Coulter as well.

Any comment/comeback/rebuttal would be seen as a personal insult directed at you. And like I wrote, your positions are sometimes fascinating to me. You get so close to orthodoxy and Biblical truth.

1John2_26 wrote:
What politicians do MTV and Vanity Fair trumpet? Liberals. A fact is not a red herring. It is good versus evil. Christians are the good guys by the way. At least Christ Jesus anyway.

And what did Paul (or Jesus) have to say about zealotry? 'Good vs. evil' is often a far too simplistic way of looking at the world, especially on a political spectrum.

In what New Testament? Paul and His Lord and Savior were both executed for very black and white assertions. The way liberals writhe now must not have changed in 2000-plus years. Question their actions and motives and you get attacked.

1John2_26 wrote:
Many Christians in southern states are registered Democrats. They vote far more moral these days and have utterly rejected "liberal" doctrine and dogma except of course those on professional handouts and that is only some of them. Once a person lets go of their guilt - through a good Christian experience - they become far more conservative when, after leaving debauchery behind, they embrace a better life.


Don't get me started on southern politics. Billy Graham is obviously not motivated strongly by politics given the number of presidents he has supported on both sides of the fence.

Yet no leftist Billy Graham. And, there never will be. "If" he is a Democrat, then sign me up. I'll vote for the conservative candidate as soon as the curtain is pulled.

But the Southern states are truly frightening. Bush won the South Carolina primary by pandering to racist voters, accusing McCain of being in a relationship with a black woman.

That is terrible. Are you "sure" that really happened? Bearing false witness, though a political tool used often, is not a good Christian practice.

And it was obvious that the South turned away from the Democratic party when the Democratic party began supporting civil rights for blacks. To think of the Southerners as 'moral' for doing so is beyond lunacy.

Accusing southern Democrats, that are largely African American of being anti-Black is lunacy. I know so many southerners of many different genetic mixings and they all reject the commie-leftist socialist liberal. To a person. African Americans do not like people having anal and oral sex compared to slavery. Liberals are presenting lunacy to morally sound people that reject them and their message. And of course we see gays and lesbians descending on Christianty for an ulterior motive, much like liberals have.

1John2_26 wrote:
Liberals preach the Gospel of "Do what thou wilt." Like I wrote, omitting C.S. Lewis and Charles Colson says volumes about the liberal position on morality, decency and the immutability of Christ Jesus and a Christian life.

Good point about C.S. Lewis. Mere Christianity is something I should read - I know it informed quite a bit of my father's (um, liberal) theology.

And I'll study Tutu. I get a bad feeling about that guy, I must tell you. A Christian accepting a Nobel prize is creepy.

But as for Colson? What right does he have to talk about 'morality' or 'decency' or 'the Christian life' when he was deeply involved in one of the greatest assaults on both morality and decency carried out on the American people? I refer, of course, to Watergate here.

"Repentance." I am not surprised that in liberal theology the concept is so foriegn as to be impossible to grasp. Colson has done more for those in prison than any liberal that has created the permissiveness and licentiousness that gave these criminals the green light to do whatever they wanted to. They bought into a lie (like Colson admits he did) and now Christ Jesus is showing them the path to healing. But, of course liberals have sued Colson's Prison Fellowship and had them removed from reaching "those in prison." I am very comfortable accusing Barry Lynn and his liberal hordes of working for Satan.

1John2_26 wrote:
You don't feed the poor and then hand them condoms, you feed the poor and teach them about Christ Jesus.

Jesus himself never put any conditions on feeding the poor. I don't see why I should either.

As a matter of fact, He did. No one is to lead children into harms way. A liberal wants to feed a child and bring him or her a licentious and hedonistic gospel of decadence. Vanity Fair and Cosmopolitan, the New York and LA Times are not the kinds of literature that a Christian should bring to people struggling with issues caused by lascivious licentiousness. A child wants and needs parents. To Christians that ONLY means father-mother-child. Christ Jesus in the Gospel is immutable on that fact.

Liberals proclaim that husbandless mothers are "hella cool." Where is the dissatisfaction with the term "baby's momma" from anyone on the left? It is not a hate crime or discrimination to preach the Gospel. Except to a liberal.

Like I wrote, there will never be a Billy Graham coming from out of liberal theology. Never. Why would anyone go hear a preacher preach a gospel of lascivious decadence? Heck, lost souls get enough of that from the liberal media. Why trudge off to a stadium to see a bunch of Playa's and Ho's hitting on each other and exchanging cellphone numbers for booty calls later that night?

1John2_26 wrote:
What could a Liberal and a Christian ever agree on?

Economics, the environment, the consistent life ethic, the roles of government, social justice...

Oh, sorry, was that question meant to be rhetorical?

Economics? Communism is not going to go over well to the honest people forced to pay for the "sins" of the unrepentent. The environment? Not when it is couched in Gaia worship. The "consistent" life ethic? That does not exist in liberal theology/ideology. Christian or secular. Fatherless children and those slaughtered for convenience are products of the permissiveness and hedonsim literally preached by liberals. Now, to the point where same-gender couples can have children. Sorry two mommies don't cut it either. Not to the Gospel anyway. Liberals have unleashed abomination and do not allow disapproval or dissent. When they cannot trick decent Christians, they turn to liberal politicians to seal the deal.

The roles of government to a liberal is to criminalize and eliminate Christians from schools and the public sphere. They have accomplished both tasks. It is a fact. Social justice? The biggest joke of all. The permissiveness of liberal theology is sickening in this area. Now debauchery is a civil right and Christ Jesus is a hate crime.

Six strikes mean two outs Magus.

1John2_26 wrote:
The chasm is too wide between Liberals and Christians.

The chasm is entirely in your imagination. In the real world, that chasm doesn't exist. I happen to be both liberal and Christian - in most cases for the same reasons. And I'm proud to be both.

Christ Jesus admonished me from the Gospels to allow liberals to go on their way, but, challenging every word and deed in the light of the Gospel. Rejecting liberals is therefore not only supported by the New Testament, but seems the very reason the Gospels and letters were written in the first place. The Gospels and the rest of the New Testament testifies against what liberals preach and teach today as when they were written.

Some people will be lost to liberal licentiousness as its taste is alluring, while others are snatched from the fire, when they see the harm done. The Christian must strive to worship Christ Jesus as God and yet humbly remember to reach out to others no matter the personal cost to themselves, to save those lost.

Any nod to agree with a liberal on any single point sets in motion their viewing that nod, as an acceptance of all of their heresy and evil. Poison is best served with a good flavor, otherwise it is rejected quickly, and liberals have that down to a science.

I will not sell the Lord of Glory for the political correcteness of liberals.

It does not take a mature Christian long to taste what is unacceptable in liberal words and deeds, and it is more important to sound the alarm to warn the innocent what liberalism will do to them, or, better yet, "has" done to them.

[1John2_26]

ENIGMA wrote:
Did anyone ever get around to providing a question for debate?

Why would a liberal claim to be a Christian when their preaching, statements, beliefs and actions are contradicted by the Gospels and the letters of the New Testament?