If snake oil isn’t a sock I’ll eat my hat.
Within Christianity, it’s controversial, too. Our estimable jurisconsult has once again played his little bait-and-switch, beginning by talking about a consensus or majority view and closing by rendering the opinion of himself, his faction, his church, or whatever – and hoping that nobody noticed when he switched from “The facts are…” to “I and mine believe that…”
The teaching of Scripture is, God is merciful and loving of all. Christians are given the commission of bringing the Good News of Jesus to others and encouraging them to enter into a relationship with God through Him. To be sure Jesus is on record as saying that “No one comes to the Father except by Me” – but the context was one of reassurance, that you didn’t need to keep perfect Torah or achieve complete release from the passions of the world to find God; Jesus is the Way and He came that we might know the Way. But further, it’s important to see that within the context of Trinitarianism – we’re not talking about you needing to put your trust in some Palestinian rabbi whose life is scarcely documented outside polemic works relating to becoming His partisan, but rather to the Eternal Word, the Active Principle in God, who became incarnate as Jesus the Christ, who is everywhere at all times.
So yeah, you can be saved by accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior. But the person who says that he/she is certain that’s the ONLY way is putting his/her own limits on God’s mercy – and God’s extremely clear about what He thinks of doing that.
It’s ironic how much that question matches the gay marriage one – in each case, someone wishes to be dog in the manger – and what Christians see in the Manger is something other than a selfish definer of True Scotsmen.
Eat shit, fucker. Just because I’ve been here long enough to see her ugly mug in a link doesn’t make me a sock.
Post a picture of yourself, then. Go on. I’m sure your blinding beauty will dazzle us all.
(FWIW, I think Anaamika has a lovely smile, but looks best in dark hair.)
Go away.
Jews have to obey all those boring old laws. That’s like using the United States Postal Service. Christians just believe in Jesus and they’re saved. That’s like FedExing yourself to heaven.
Or something.
What are you, 12? Why be a jerk?
Mika is very nice looking, and more important, she’s nice.
Tomndeb-please explain the grammar. I don’t understand how Coulter is using “perfected” . Clearly, she’s using it as an adjective, but I’ve only heard it used as a verb ( example:snake oil has perfected a method of being a total jerk in just 8 posts.)
It’s awkward as hell, sounds like trashy English, and makes little to no sense–perhaps that’s why they use it?
I too am a bit lost on the FedEx stuff. Maybe she’s referring to that mysterious arrow that appears in the E and X? Once you see it, you can’t not see it–much like the BVM in a piece of toast or a pane of glass? 
Well, from reading the transcript, what I’m getting is that Ann is trying, very awkwardly, to express a basic tenet of the Christian message as presented by Paul in his letters (especially Romans): that “we” (meaning the Jews, of which Paul was one) used to be “under the Law” (that is, bound by all of the Old Testament Law: ya gotta be circumcized, ya gotta observe all the dietary restrictions, ya gotta make all the sacrifices, etc. etc.), but that now, thanks to Christ, we (as Christians) are no longer under the Law. We are justified by faith, not by works.
I’ve heard the word that used that way before. “The perfected gadgetnamehere entered the battlefields of Europe in 1943.” Used as Coulter does, the implication is that Jews are defective Christians.
Sandy Koufax is the past perfect.
As for Coulter’s claim that it would be better if we were all Christian, well, from what I know of her, I get the impression she also thinks it would be better if we were all conservative.
I can’t work up much outrage over Ann Coulter or anyone else thinking it’d be good if the rest of the world agreed with them.
That’s funny. I always thought that Jews (or at least Jesus) were perfected Christians…
It’s still awkward sounding, IMO.
Yeah, but the gist of what she’s saying is pretty darn mainstream, no? Granted, she has a not-so-nice way of saying it, but in this case all she’s really saying is that she thinks, as a Christian, that it would be a better world if Jews accepted Christ. Again, she isn’t arguing for forcible conversion (although she might have at other times). Christians do try to convert others, but she isn’t exactly banging on Synagogue doors screaming for the worshipers to accept Christ as their personal savior.
Now, she picked a controversial venue to express this. (Shocker!) The host of that show is Jewish, and he took offense, which I don’t really blame him.
At any rate, this rates pretty low on my Ann Coulter outrage meter.
Strangely enough, a “D” recently fell off the sign for the local neighborhood deli.
I regard this as an omen foretelling the arrival of Neighborhood Eli, the Perfected Jew.
Hoo, boy.
I do not have a penis. I was crossing my legs at the terror of a man’s penis being a dragon. Get it? I was jumping to the next thought and envisioning said dragon-penis and so I crossed my legs.
I do not think snake oil was insulting me, I think he was just saying “You’re a girl, don’t worry”, but I wasn’t worrying about having a dragon-penis, merely experiencing one.
Better?
And now that I’ve read the entire thread and see it was an insult, hmm. Well, I can’t say I’m convinced I’m ugly because snake oil thinks so. Thanks to all of you who defended me! But my ego’s OK, really.
On second thought, perhaps “controversial” is the wrong word, and the fault lies with me.
Within Christianity, her statements do not reflect any sort of univeral agreement, but they are not uncommon, unheard of, or otherwise remarkable. Many Christians would disagree with her, though, so perhaps they are “controversial” even within Christianity. So I’m coming to see that that word wasn’t the best to convey my thought. I should have said “not unusual” or “not remarkable.”
And, of course, as you correctly point out, outside the realm of Christian belief, it’s safe to say her views would find precious little traction.
what surprised me was the target in this one. usually, she targets ‘librils’, or folks who criticize Bush (the 9/11 widows for example) or really safe targets like folks who practice Islam.
even soulless bastids don’t generally like to appear as soulless bastids, attacking a main stream religion is risky.
on the real plus size, I rarely start threads, but this one has had: a duplicate thread closed, an idiotic troll/sock banning, jokes, is now on it’s second page only hours after it’s birth. ::happy sigh::
You wound me, sir.
As a Roman Catholic, I certainly believe that the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church is the best and most certain way to salvation. But I also believe in the doctrine of baptism of desire, that one who acts under the inspiration of grace, seeks to do good and know God sincerely and strive to fulfill His will as best he can, may be saved even if they know nothing of the Church or of Christ, and have not been traditionally baptized.
In short, I do NOT believe it’s necessary to know Christ or be a Christian to be saved, and I repudiate any view to the contrary.
…says the guy who is not “within” Christianity, and therefore has little if any insight into that perspective.
The problem with the statement arises precisely because it was made in the context of “the country would be better off (in a material, not spiritual, sense) if…”. The assertion that the country would be better off in that way if everyone were Christians carries an inherent claim that Jews et al are inferior in their civic virtues (respect for rule of law, loyalty to the nation, work ethic, and such).