Coulter: Tea Party are hypocrites if they vote for Newt

IMHO, when you watch “everything” and well more than half of all news articles are biased against the conservative message, it pollutes your mind to where you you are not capable of of informed decisions.

Gladly. Let us take a look at John 8: 3-11, which you alluded to.

———————————–

3And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

4They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

5Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

6This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

8And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

9And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

10When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

11She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

————————————

God grants us the freedom (liberty) to do what we want, which includes rejecting Him and his teachings, but does not suggest that there will be no consequences for these actions. It is up to each person individually to do God’s will according to his or her conscience.

Jesus is ultimately saying here that it is not for men to enforce the will of God.

“Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise, making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord’s will is. Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit” (Ephesians 5:15-18)

I’m going to have to throw a flag here, as a Moderator. I think your debates keep running off the rails because of a tactic that pretty much always takes debate off the rails. You might not be aware you’re doing it (most folks aren’t, until it’s noted).

In a contentious debate, namecalling is always a bad idea, but occasionally it happens, and we might let it slide (as long as it isn’t nasty). However a bigger problem is “telling people what they think.” When you try to pigeonhole people by telling them what they think, or what philosophical group you’ve decided they are in, it creates logic problems for you (ad hominem as well as straw man) and generates anger. No one accepts being told what they think. (Understandable, since mind-reading is, so far, an unproven skill in humans.)

So please refrain from telling folks things like, “you’re a moral relativist” and that they “love sin” and related other declarations about what it is that they are thinking.

This goes doubly in religion-related debate. I will shut those down, firmly if I detect that tactic being used.

Remember, this is about how you formulate your argument, it’s not about what you believe or wish to convey.

Feel free to ask questions about this if you need more from me, thanks.

The Gospel is more than just “accepting Jesus into our hearts.”

“Lest ye repent, ye shall likewise perish.”

So, are you saying the Religious Right is wrong to defend baby killing? Are they wrong to defend traditional marriage?

Again, define morality.

I’m wrong? Hardly, I never stated that God wasn’t real to the founders, I didn’t say they had any difficulty defining morality. Go back and reread my comment, show me where I stated anything that you claim (by your response) I said. Go ahead I’ll wait.

You lack the ability to form a coherent, reasoned response so you fall back on Ad Hominem, my how original and sadly typical. I’ll let you in on a little secret, if people like myself were working to send this country “to hell in a handbag” , we’d be there already. You can bank on that. Finally, I have no need to go back and read or reread the 10 Commandments, besides Mosiac Law has little to do with with the Constitution, the Declaration or whether or not the founders were Christian (which I never claimed they were not).

So you are a Fundamentalist Theocrat, then. Two can play this game of applying labels you know. You have labeled me as an Atheist and now a Libertarian, neither of which is anywhere close to accurate. As if those labels were,that would serve to give any credibility to your rambling diatribe.

As to the Founders, they were not “Conservatives”, a Conservative by definition is one that seeks to preserve or restore traditional institutions or conditions. At the time of our founding a Conservative was a Monarchist, our nations founders could hardly be described as Monarchists now could they? They were by the definitions of their own time Liberals, what we know refer to as a “Classic Liberal” which is diametrically opposed to what is known as a “Modern Liberal”. Nor did I state anywhere that founders were not practicing Christians, but you should look further into their writings than “cherry picking” a few quotes that you believe support your argument. Particularly in regards to Washington and Franklin, I did notice you neglected Jefferson. I wonder why?

Mosaic law is Hebrew and was written for and by the Jews, Leviticus were strictures, laws and practices that apply to the tribe of Levi. Go back read the US Constitution, it has little to do with civil law, as in crimes and punishment. If indeed our founders meant for our nation to be a Christian nation ruled by Biblical Law why did they include this in the text;

Article VI. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Morality is drawn from many sources including religion, but it is not exclusive to any particular religion or to religion itself. Witness the fact that a good share of the morals of Christianity are drawn from Judaism. However that said, religion is morality based.

As to Wallbuilders, while David Barton has done a yeoman’s job of collecting original documents and writings from historical figures related to the foundation and beyond of this nation, the documents he tends to predominantly focus on are those that support his personal views on the nature of the founder’s intent. Which would explain why you would ignore Jefferson and cherry pick quotes from Washington and Franklin that you believe will bolster your position, which is fine as we are all guilty of it to one degree or another, but I would encourage you to read beyond the selected writings that Barton presents.

Now to the Declaration of Independence, I had to chuckle a bit when you quoted a man who was 8 years old at the time the Declaration was ratified as to what the Document did or was intended to do, yet you completely ignore the author, whose opinion on the document would be far more relevant and knowledgeable than that of John Adams’ son. The Declaration is a list of grievances and a statement of a course of action and purpose. The purpose of the document is laid out clearly and concisely in its preamble;

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Now if, as you assert, the document was intended to declare the formation of a “Christian Nation” ruled by Biblical Law, why would the author, Jefferson, give equal status to “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” ? Why the style of reference to God as “nature’s God” and not as the “Christian God”? There is no mention anywhere in either the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution of any sect or denomination of any particular religion.

Do not try to construe this as a denial of the fact that American are a predominately Christian people or “nation”, however every nation that we refer to as “Western” is predominately Christian (although this is changing in Europe). Nor should it be construed as a denial that our founders were Christians as I have never asserted that, you tried to imply, in error, that was what I stated. In regards to religion, our nation was founded, in great part, on the concept of religious freedom, you cannot have religious freedom when a nation is ruled by one denomination’s interpretation of scripture.

Come back and talk to me when you have an argument of substance, instead of a boat load of ad hominem.

I didn’t gloss over your quotes, but if you like some here are a few, enjoy.

“No one sees with greater pleasure than myself the progress of reason in its advances towards rational Christianity. When we shall have done away the incomprehensible jargon of the Trinitarian arithmetic, that three are one, and one is three; when we shall have knocked down the artificial scaffolding, raised to mask from view the simple structure of Jesus; when, in short, we shall have unlearned everything which has been taught since His day, and get back to the pure and simple doctrines He inculcated, we shall then be truly and worthily His disciples; and my opinion is that if nothing had ever been added to what flowed purely from His lips, the whole world would at this day have been Christian. I know that the case you cite, of Dr. Drake, has been a common one. The religion-builders have so distorted and deformed the doctrines of Jesus, so muffled them in mysticisms, fancies and falsehoods, have caricatured them into forms so monstrous and inconceivable, as to shock reasonable thinkers, to revolt them against the whole, and drive them rashly to pronounce its Founder an imposter. Had there never been a commentator, there never would have been an infidel.” — Jefferson’s Letter to Timothy Pickering, 21 Feb 1821

“The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.
1. That there is one only God, and he all perfect.
2. That there is a future state of rewards and punishments.
3. That to love God with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thyself, is the sum of religion.

These are the great points on which he endeavored to reform the religion of the Jews. But compare with these the demoralizing dogmas of Calvin:
1. That there are three Gods.
2. That good works, or love of our neighbor, are nothing.
3. That faith is every thing, and the more incomprehensible the proposition, the more merit in the faith.
4. That reason in religion is of unlawful use.
5. That God, from the beginning, elected certain individuals to be saved, and certain others to be damned; and that no crimes of the former can damn them; no virtues of the latter save.

Now, which of these is the true and charitable Christian? He who believes and acts on the simple doctrines of Jesus? Or the impious dogmatists, as Athanasius and Calvin? Verily I say these are the false shepherds fortold as to enter not by the door into the sheepfold, but to climb up some way. They are mere usurpers of the Christian name, teaching a counter-religion made up of the deliria of crazy imaginations, as foreign from Christianity as is that of Mohomet. Their blasphemies have driven thinking men into infidelity, who have too hastily rejected the supposed author himself, with the horrors so falsely imputed to him. Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christian. I rejoice that in this blessed country of free inquiry and belief, which has surrendered its creed and conscience to neither kings nor priests, the genuine doctrine of one only God is reviving, and I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die an Unitarian.” –Jefferson’s letter to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, June 26 1822

“If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both here (England) and in New England.” –Benjamin Franklin

In short it is you who has a comprehension problem and lack the ability to form anything resembling coherent argument. The frothing hatred that comes through in your posts, in the way of name calling, labeling, ad hominem attacks, show you to be an individual devoid of reasoning and incapable of rational discourse, as well the bigotry you display, as somewhat less than expected from one who describes themselves as a Christian. I refer you to Matthew 7:3-5.

Have a better life. God Bless.

I have tried to remain reasonable and courteous in the face of your personal assaults on my character, which at first I found humorous, however do not take it as a sign to continue your present form and style of response. If you are incapable of responding further with civility, do not bother. You can take that however you like, but you may want to read here prior to formulating your response.

Excellent comments. I am not advocating an absence of the rule of law (anarchy). The purpose of the law is indeed to protect the rights and liberty of individuals. The problem is when the law is used to violate the rights and liberty of one to benefit others. As Bastiat would say, “the law perverted.”

As for your comments on drug legalization, I think that the 18th and 21st Amendments show that prohibition as a means to protect basic societal safety (and morality) is a flawed concept.