Ann Coulter is taking a lot of flack for saying that Jews should convert to Christianity, and that they need to do so to be "perfected." Some, including the talk show host who was interviewing her, suggest that her comments were anti-Semitic. I don't think so, they reflected chauvinism about Christianity, not hostility to Jews. I'm sure Coulter would say that Muslims, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, and everybody else should also become Christians. It was the interviewer who, when Coulter suggested she'd like all Americans to be Christians, specifically asked about Jews.
In any event, my understanding is that the official position of the Catholic Church until Vatican II was that to be "saved" Jews needed to convert to Christianity, and that this remains the official position of some, but not all, Protestant denominations. As a Jew, this doesn't bother me in the least, so long as my non-Christian status doesn't lead to discrimination, but is merely a matter of theological dispute. If Christianity is a proselytizing religion that believes that all people should become Christians because that's what God wants, and that Jews are not exempted from that general principle, why should I care? Christians don't have to think my religious tradition is valid, just so long as they don't make me wear a yellow star or ban me from owning land (common medieval restrictions on Jews resulting from religious discrimination).
I called this post "Ann Coulter, Christian Chauvinist," but really any proselytizing religion is chauvinist, otherwise the religion wouldn't bother seeking converts. Americans who are in the public eye, as Coulter is, have learned that it's polite not to declare the superiority of one's religion, and the inferiority of one's neighobrs', publicly, which is a good policy for amicable interfaith relations. But Coulter is nothing if not blunt and impolite, so I see no reason to expect her to suddenly become Miss Manners when it comes to religion.
And, in case you're curious, Judaism traditionally holds that non-Jews need only obey the Seven Law of Noah to have a place in the World to Come (heaven). Some people who aren't very familiar with the Jewish tradition completely misinterpret the "Chosen People" concept to mean that only Jews find favor with God, providing fodder for anti-Semitism. Given the traditional Christian view that only believing Christians find favor with God, this misunderstanding is understandable, though unjustified. I explain the concept here, and conclude: "So, as far as I can tell, being the 'chosen' simply means that Jews are in a particular contractual relationship with God that our ancestors made, one that is not always to our advantage, and that is without prejudice to the status of Gentiles before God."
UPDATE: BTW, isn't Ann more of an "eye for an eye" than a "turn the other cheek" kind of gal?
Related Posts (on one page):
- Atheism and Proselytization:
- Ann Coulter, Christian Chauvinist:
Funny enough, as a Christian, I much prefer religious Jews to religious athiests. Judaism being a non-proselytizing religion, even the most orthodox Jew doesn't give a damn whether I convert to Judaism or not. This is greatly preferable to being reminded ad nauseum how annoying my faith is and how radical members of my faith are just as dangerous as radical members of other faiths.
I'm just sayin'... :P .... :D
Of course this only applies to those belief systems which require specifics for attainment of whatever, but in examining religion you have to take articles of faith as if they were true and compare actions against them.
But then Muslims think that Christians are missing the central event of human history as well. Like you, I don't care what nasty things SOME Muslims think will happen to me after I die. I DO object to any attempts at getting me there ahead of time.
COULTER: Do you know what Christianity is? We believe your religion, but you have to obey.
DEUTSCH: No, no, no, but I mean --
COULTER: We have the fast-track program.
DEUTSCH: Why don't I put you with the head of Iran? I mean, come on. You can't believe that.
COULTER: The head of Iran is not a Christian.
DEUTSCH: No, but in fact, "Let's wipe Israel" --
COULTER: I don't know if you've been paying attention.
DEUTSCH: "Let's wipe Israel off the earth." I mean, what, no Jews?
COULTER: No, we think -- we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say.
I remember, my parents told me the stories, when Germans attacked Russia many Jews did not want to evacuate.-
"The Germans are so cultured , so European, they will not cause us any harm."
And many stayed...
So it is really sad when you are trying to find any reasonable explanation to the piece of garbage called A.Coulter.
That said, I think it will be great day when Ann Coulter's "ideas" are ignored (as they should be) rather than taken seriously. I fail to see how she is any different than Michael Moore or Al Franken. The only people who like these types are sychophantic dogmatics.
*For some Orthodox Jews, I believe that Christians are deemed not to believe in God because of their belief in the Trinity, but I do not think that this is a majority position among Orthodox Jews.
One would think that because most conservatives now support preventing the annihilation of Jews, the anti-Semitism card would be work like the race card, where one group can discuss because it cares. But, alas, it seems that liberals get to play all the "protected class cards."
The official position after Vatican II is to say nice, but vacuous, things about Jews, but not change their position.
Catholics still believe that you can't go to heaven without excepting Jesus. Jews don't except Jesus. You can complete your own syllogism.
You also seem to assume that Ann Coulter is taken as seriously by the right as her counterparts are taken on the left. Don't forget that even the National Review (solidly conservative publication) fired Coulter, when Maureen Dowd still has her NYT column (I don't mean by that that Coulter is as bad as Dowd, but you get my point).
As a died in the wool atheist it does annoy me when I meet atheists that are obsessed with religion and are constantly harping about it. If there is no such thing as religion why is it they focus such huge amounts of time and energy arguing against it and pointing out the foiables of Christians like Ted Haggard, and Jimmy Swaggart, and Pat Robertson etc.? I spend as much time worrying about evangelists as a do about Kevin and Brittany and the kids. It seems to me the reason why is that they see it as an lifestyle, with its own set of expected behaviors; they are as dependent on its ritual condemnations of religion (especially Christianity) as devout Catholics are dependent on communion and confession. This doesn't apply to all atheists of course, or even most, but it is a distinct subtype.
Unlike OneofMany and AnonyEd I find Christian prothelyzing annoying too, except for Moonies, they always used hot girls to try to convert me, although I never got any.
Many Christians believe that redemption, for them, came through the crucifiction and resurrection of Jesus Christ--who died for their collective sins.
These Christians will tell you that Jews, being people of the Old Testament, also have a path through salvation--specifically through the strict adherence to the law given by God to Moses.
When you understand that viewpoint, Ann Coulter's quoted comments have context.
I'm just curious as I have not really heard of it before.
Thanks.
But what is the sense of a fundamentalist atheist -- and they certainly exist. Do they think they will go to Nonexistent Heaven if they try to save their neighbors from Nonexistent Hell?
A friend of mine told me she was in an atheist club. I asked her if she was in a no-such-thing-as-unicorns club too.
2. I think the Roman Catholic view was more complex ... and a little more humorous. Pre-Vatican II, the doctrine had been (a) salvation could only be achieved through the Catholic (not christian in general church) which was then modified to (b) we said "thru," not "by belonging to," so that any decent person can obtain salvation "thru" that church, whether or not he realizes or intends it.
Yes, this is a system that has room for distinguishing precedent on a meaningless basis to avoid overruling it and admitting that it was wrong...
That had come about thru a number of "how many angels can dance" exercises raising questions such as (1) Joseph, the father of Jesus, could not have been a catholic nor a christian. Nor could John the Baptist have been ... so neither received salvation? How about, oh, Moses and Abraham and others? Good enough to be prophets, but not good enough for heaven? (Met for a time by suggesting they got into Limbo, sort of a second-rate heaven, but by what standard do Joseph and Moses wind up in economy class eternity while a mass murderer who repents gets first class, by the accident of when he was born?) What about some fellow who never even met a catholic/christian? Is it his fault? What about one who met such, but their arguments for conversion were inept -- is it his fault that they couldn't make their case, and that he in good faith kept with what he believed to be the truth? How about, oh, Gandhi? Now there was a reprobate and pagan...
Many years ago, someone I knew in NRA was informed by a very good source that Carl Rowan, the columnist, was actually quite pro-gun and had little quarrel with NRA. My friend asked -- then why does he damn NRA and the gun movement in his columns? The answer was he writes for a living, has to sell his work to his customers, who aren't newspaper readers but newspaper editors, and the editors will pay good money to blast you. So that's what he does. We may have the same process here. If Coulter or Franken appeared to be logical, considerate of other views, dispassionate ... they'd quickly be looking for other work.
Cute rhetoric but do "these crazies" advocate genocide of the Jews? Or do they turn out to be pretty stand up allies for the state founded so that never happened again?
Not entirely true as phrased. Individual Catholics have a variety of beliefs on the issue. The issue has been one bothering Catholic Theologians for as long as there have been Catholic Theologians. The current teaching of the Church is that acceptance of Christ is essential for salvation, however from a strictly theological point of view all that is necessary for salvation is the intervention of Christ. There are various Christian denominations which require the acceptance of Christ for salvation but Catholocism (?sp) is not one of them. This is not imply that at some time in the future the Church will not discover that acceptance of Christ is necessary for salvation, but at this point in time the official position of the Church is that only the intervention of Christ is necessary for salvation.
2 millenia of bickering, politicking, disputing, assimilation, splitting, secting, reformation, reoorganization, reconciliation, revelation and much more have made it so that one should specify when talking about Catholic "beliefs" if one is refering to apocryphalia, bull, creed, catechism, cannon, doctrine, dogma, deliberation, encyclical, gosphel, habit, guidance, infallable truth, judgement, katechesis, law, magisterium, notice, opinion, pact, quam, reflection, statement, teaching, unum sanctum, verity, wisdom or something else - in terms of Catholocism "belief" is a word not very specific. It always kinda irritates me when people confuse doctrine with dogma or cannon with catechism, Catholics being among the worst offenders. Millenia of subtle distinctions and flavors of belief, yet people equate the magisterium with infallable truth, reducing all the hard work for untold numbers of theologians to nothing.
I think Dawkins was a lot better back when he wrote about science rather than this anti-God rant he's been on lately, but his response to arguments like this is nevertheless pretty good: If stamp collectors ruled the world and routinely vilified non-stamp collectors as amoral hedonists, then we'd probably see things like non-stamp collector clubs, too. The fact is inescapable that theism is a power social and political force and those of us who feel that it's all a load of BS are not irrational in expressing that view on occasion. Kazinski's point about atheists "pointing out the foiables [sic] of Christians like Ted Haggard, and Jimmy Swaggart, and Pat Robertson etc." answers itself: these are all individuals who have affected American culture and politics, for the worse, from the atheistic perspective.
Having said all that, I don't belong to any atheist clubs. But that's mostly a matter of laziness on my part.
We avoid the subject, and we all hope that in America Muslims will also soon learn not to insist publicly that their religion is the one true religion. Most atheists and agnostics, Hitchens and Dawkins excepted, already participate in the general polite avoidance by not acknowledging too loudly that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, et al., are all primitive superstitions, and all their believers deluded.
Coulter's mistake is not that she believes that her religion is the true one, but that she openly admits that she believes it, and she doesn't dilute that belief by proclaiming the multicultural shibboleth, the falsehood that smooths affable conversations: "But all religions are the same, aren't they?"
So "we [meaning Christians] just want Jews to be perfected" is really that much better? The problem is "perfected"--what does that word mean in this sentence?
You get into heaven by following the best religion of the time. If you lived before Jesus came, you get into heaven if you followed the Mosaic Law well. Before Moses, if you followed Abraham or whoever. Each prophet was like a constitutional amendment, moving the goalposts but not retroactively.
I'm surprised more religions don't allege this. Just say "(S)he was a good person who did not live to hear My message, and therefore is not bound by it. You, who have heard it, are."
I think that's a fair statement of moderate Islam, which seems Islam as a return of original Christianity and Judaism to their proper course, with perhaps some improvements. Sans, in the moderate version, any suggestion that one ought to kill any who do not agree. The historian Spengler draws some interesting parallels between Islam, Augustine, and Calvin.
When I look out at American culture, I see a lot of Haggard's, Swaggart's and Robertson's influence. In movies, TV, people magazine, all over the place. They may have influenced you, but they are nothing to me. They only have any sway over those who want to be swayed.
Then again, I'm not offended by the devout, I don't get it, but I'm not offended. I don't have a secret worry that they really will get in to heaven and I'll be left out. But obviously some atheists do.
Ah, but what of the worship of Ba'al? And how does that resolve the question of whether that notorious pagan Gandhi met the just deserts of his choice, or somehow sneaked into heaven on his own virtues?
(Rapidly computing just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. And preparing an argument as to whether God could commit suicide. If so, he is not really immoral, and if not, he is not really omnipotent. I think the one disadvantage of atheism is that a person never gets into this manner of issue. Of course its one advantage may be the same. Graciously spare us, oh, Odin!)
Nevertheless, I consider Ann Coulter to extremly sexy. Smart, witty, good looking (if a little angular), a commited deadead, and I hear she has even has had some economic success. If I thought she could overlook the fact I'm an atheist, I'd try to throw myself at her feet before her security detail hauled me off and disposed of me.
Cute rhetoric but do "these crazies" advocate genocide of the Jews? Or do they turn out to be pretty stand up allies for the state founded so that never happened again?"
Well, they come from a tradition that slaughtered Jews for centuries. They expect the Jews to be slaughtered again, for their benefit. Where they will be in say 25 or 30 years, when their Jesus still hasn't shown up on their relatively clear timetable (supposedly within the lifetime of the generation that founded Israel), that is an open question. I am glad you think they will remain "benign". Of course before the Iranian revolution Islam had been considered relatively benign for at least a couple of centuries--an exotic belief system from far away lands that stirred no fear in the West. Funny how these things change, huh?
All in all, empowering highly delusional religious fanatics is not a good idea.
The problem is that religious beliefs or atheist beliefs aren't a lifestyle. They are claims about what is TRUE. Yes, if all or even most religious people viewed their religion as a bunch of meaningless (or only endowed with the meaning they give them) rituals like some cultural jews I know then your point would be valid and religious choice would be much like taste in food. However, religious statements are claims about what the facts are and beliefs about what these facts are have real effects on the ground.
I mean do you feel the same way about people who think the earth is flat? Or people who promote belief in UFOs, telepathy, homeopathy or any other unscientific belief. Hell what about beliefs about politics or law? So long as you generally accept that one can reasonably care (or be appalled) at other sorts of false beliefs what makes false beliefs about religion different?
Now of course most atheists (including myself) aren't motivated by some great humanitarian motive when we make arguments against religion or denounce it. We have the same motivations that people do when they make most political, economic or scientific points. That is one wants to convince others that your beliefs are correct and make them see why their claims are invalid. In other words the motivations of atheists in arguing against religion are essentially the same as your motive in posting this comment. You had an opinion, believed it was true and desired to express it and make your point clear.
Frankly I am baffled at how people who would give no thought to spending 20 minutes arguing with a friend who claimed that Marylin Monroe was still alive in Kentucky assume that the only motivation for atheists must be their own sort of religious faith. There seems to be some fallacy here that to be a good atheist is to be a being of pure rationality without desires or concerns. Whether or not you enjoy arguing about religion has no relevance to the strength of your underlying argument or to why you accept it's conclusions and certainly doesn't show it is only your own sort of religion.
Why would anyone defend thoughtless, stupid remarks like that?
The perceived necessities of ideology are remarkable, aren't they?
Look if you really believe in your religion shouldn't you publicly embrace all of it's consequences. After all if in god's infinite wisdom non-belief really should be punished with worse chances in the afterlife how can you possibly justify not telling people this because it is impolite. How can it be that mere politeness is more important than saving people's immortal souls.
Sure some religious liberals try and say it doesn't matter which religion you believe but this is in direct conflict with the central tenants of most major faiths, i.e., that god went to get trouble to make sure people knew the religious truth. Moreover, if god doesn't really care what religion you have wouldn't he have not bothered with revelation at all?
I'm an atheist but I'd much rather have honest religious people who are willing to swallow the full consequences of their religious than this weird bastard where people claim to have religious beliefs but only because they never face the full implications of these beliefs.
Ba'al worshipers have pretty much been out pretty much since the begining, the Phonecians and the Isrealites having had a few problems a couple 3-4 milenia ago. Actually there is dispute about whether or not adherence to Abrahamic or Mosaic law is reguired, however those who sucessfully followed A&M Law in the appropriate times are accorded entry. Again while the intervention of Christ is necessary for salvation it has not been conclusively determined what criteria Christ uses to decide who He will intervene for, although those who follow the Catholic Church pretty much has VIP guarentees.
As for the other questions: as many angels as God wants can dance on the head of a pin (pre-quantum), however only one angel can occuppy a single point of existance at a single time so now that the universe has been discovered to possibly be quantum it may in fact be limited to the number of points of existance which fit on the head of a pin - how small is a point of existance?; eternal not imortal is more percisely what you want to use and the answer is yes God can commit suicide, but all of existance would end with him since God's being eternal means He coexists with all of existance; in a related vein, no, God could not create an existance in which he does not exist, which would seem to mean He is not of unlimited power, He only has power over the limited domain of everything. Any other questions which were answered long ago that you need the answers to?
Don't overlook the fact that it was us atheists that slaughtered far more people in the 20th century than any other "religion". Stalin, Mao, and almost too small potatos to mention Pol Pot were all committed atheists. Then you look at some of the other big massacres, Hitler and his minions could hardly be called Christians, sure they hated Jews but it wasn't from a Christian theological standpoint it was more from a pagan/nationalistic superstitious view. And the Turks and Armenians, Hutu and Tutsi, Darfur, I just can't see anything major in the recent past that you could pin on crusading Christians.
Not to excuse Christians, they had their moments, but throughout history, Mongols, Romans, Vikings, Crusaders/Inquisitioners, have all had a taste for going a little overboard. Even the Jews if you go far enough back had a taste for a little genocide.
It is just human nature. Unless of course you're a Quaker, like Nixon.
So, what do Jews believe happens to them after they die?
Also, I preferred the pre-Vatican church which held that Protestants were heretics who were going to burn in hell for all eternity. I remember being told not to go to the YMCA lest I be swayed from the one true faith. Jews did not show up on my radar; I didn't meet any till I went to college.
I'd put it this way: in Coulter's dream country, you'd still be Jews ... for Jesus!
No, Professor Bernstein, what she's getting flack for is saying, in so many words, that America would be a better place if they did.
Heck yeah, I'm perfectly OK with a Muslim stating that I should convert to Islam, just as long as he doesn't want to slit my throat if I don't, nor spend his time trying to bring about a legal regimen under which I'd be a second-class.
What's to debate? Gandhi is in Hell. With Saddam. And John John Kennedy.
Don't you watch South Park?
Donny Deutsch baited Coulter into saying that Christianity is an improvement on Judaism. Of course, nearly all Christians believe that, and Coulter said the obvious. Then Deutsch misquoted her, and accused her of hateful anti-semiticism. He was essentially saying that anyone who believes in the New Testament is a hateful anti-semite. Deutsch is a lying anti-Christian bigot.
Jews have got a longer tradition, Catholics have got fancier churches, Muslims have that...thing they have going for them.
But none of you will pass into the Kingdom Of Heavan (tm) until you BOW BEFORE YOUR LUTHERAN POT LUCK MASTERS!!!
MWUAAHAAAHAAAHAAAHAA...*cough cough*..excuse me..WAAHAAAHAAAHAAA!!!!!!
We just talk funny.
What's your take on this?
Jesus was a Jew, addressed as "Rabbi" in the Gospels. His apostles were Jews. As recorded in the NT, all of his followers during his ministry, with the exception of a few Gentiles, were Jews. Christianity was a form of Judaism, as much as Pharisaisim, Sadduceeism, or Essenism were. The Gospels record Jesus as saying that he was sent to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel". In his epistle to the Romans, the apostle Paul, a Pharasaic Jew, said that the gospel "is the power of God unto salvation for those who believe, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek (=Gentile)", and "There is no difference between Jew and Greek" for those who believe. (And, yes, the NT does say that one has to believe that Jesus is the Messiah to be saved.) But there is nothing in the NT suggesting that Christianity was anything other than a form of Judaism.
Coulter misstated what the NT says, but taken in its proper NT context, her remark wasn't anti-semitic, since the perfecting applies to both Christians and Jews.
In light of what the NT actually teaches, the fact that many Christians and Christian denominations, throught history, have practiced anti-semitism is undeniable, indefensible, and shameful. But the perversion of a religion shouldn't be equated with the religion itself, as taught in its sacred texts.
But Islam. Nothing bad about Islam. Just a few nutcases.
All Religious people must believe thier religion is superior. Otherwise, one would expect them to covernt to another "superior" religion.
I think normal rules of conversational charity mean we shouldn't interpret her as saying that they would then be totally perfect in the religious sense. Rather what she was saying is that it would be better and used the word perfected to make it clear that she didn't believe that jews were bad now, just that they could be even better.
If those that don't like it want to start the criticism wars, then let's get the game started.
+1 on the Lutheran pot luck comment above.
I agree. In a weird way I have more respect for the fundamentalists who take the Bible seriously, and literally, with all of the unpleasant parts included, than the liberal believers and theologians who say it's all about love and happiness and the details don't really matter, and gloss over the bits about smashing babies' heads.
So you want to ban her faith because it is hate faith?
Let's start that game now. I can think of a whole bunch of faiths I want banned right off the bat, yours is number one on the list (whatever it is, just ban it).
Then I will get them all, because they are all different than my faith and therefore hateful.
In the end that will leave my faith as not only the true faith, but the only lawful one.
Do you like the result?
Today, the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) called on mainstream media outlets to stop inviting Ann Coulter as a guest commentator/pundit and strongly condemned recent comments that Jews should be “perfected” by accepting the New Testament and that America would be better off if Judaism were “thrown away” and all Americans were Christian.
“While Ann Coulter has freedom of speech, news outlets should exercise their freedom to use better judgment,” said NJDC Executive Director Ira N. Forman. “Just as media outlets don’t invite those who believe that Martians walk the earth to frequently comment on science stories, it’s time they stop inviting Ann Coulter to comment on politics.”
Dante's Inferno is great literature, but there's little theological support for the perception of Hell as an ironic torture chamber. The Catechism does mention fire, but "the chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs."
More importantly, how can Christians who believe in Hell be worked up over waterboarding or other "abuses" for actual terrorists when decent people will suffer a fate that is infinitely worst and that lasts for eternity merely for the sin of not being a believer?
Because torture "is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity," and thus is evil.
Catholics still believe that you can't go to heaven without excepting Jesus. Jews don't except Jesus. You can complete your own syllogism.
Precise language is important here. The "accepting Jesus [as your personal Lord &Savior]" thing is of recent vintage, and isn't Catholic. What the Church actually teaches is that all salvation is through Jesus and His Church. The Church does not pretend to know, however, how big "the Church" is, or who is in Heaven, Hell, or elsewhere. Ultimately, God is going to save whom he wants to save, and the Church leaves open the possibility of salvation for all sinners, whether Catholics, non-Catholics, non-Christians, or irreligious.
It's funny: this is a legal weblog, and whenever there's a discussion of the law, commenters quote and link to statutes and case law. But when religion comes up, we're happy to throw out stuff we think we remember from Sunday school and whatever nuggets of information we've casually accumulated throughout our lives, regardless of whether there's any factual basis for it.
The best reading on the Church's teaching on the salvation of non-Catholics is Dominus Iesus. You'll want to scroll down pretty far to THE CHURCH AND THE OTHER RELIGIONS IN RELATION TO SALVATION. It's not that long. Here's the important part:
As for the salvation of the Jews, all of that applies. But Judiasm is special in that Christ did not come "to destroy the [Mosaic] law, but to fulfill it." One of the reasons that God sent Jesus was that it was (and is) possible to live in accordance with the Mosaic law and yet have no real personal relationship with God. And really, that's what religion is supposed to be about: man's commmunion with the Divine. By sending Jesus, God was saying "all these rituals are fine, and abstaining from these foods is good, but you're not getting close to me. The best way to get close to Me is to have a relationship with my Son." And that's what the Catholic sacraments are all about: having a relationship with Jesus.
The Cliffs Notes version: Judiasm is good, Christianity is better. Jews and everyone else increase their chance of salvation by following Jesus, but they might get saved anyway.
Completely true, so it's a good thing that Coulter didn't say anything like that. She said the Jewish faith is imperfect, which no Christian can dispute. From a Christian perspective, a perfect faith would recognize Jesus as the Son of God. Judiasm doesn't.
You have to have a pretty huge chip on your shoulder to get from that to "Jews are less than human."
Using the term "perfected" is not one that I am familiar with. Usually we, at least in the circles I run in, we sometimes refer to Jews who accept Jesus as Messiah as completed (Messianic Jews).
This is not a put down in terms of superior/inferior race or anything like that.
We mean that the Prophets and the Law came through the Hebrews, the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel). As the prophets foretold and looked forward to the day that God's promised Messiah would come, the redemtion, the hope of those living under the law and the circumcision. When Messiah, Jesus, came and fullfilled what was foretold, now, we look back at that fullfillment and live under the law of the circumcision of the heart, where the law is written in our hearts. This is what is meant by completed.
Now we look forward to the day when the descendant of the House of David, who was before David, will sit in the throne of David and bless ALL nations and shalom will reign forever. Amen.
Ann Coulter is probably the most religiously uninformed public figure I have ever heard of. I do not consider myself a "perfected Jew" as a Christian (I'm not a perfected anything), nor can I help but gagging at the idea Ann expressed (see transcript) that Christianity is the "Federal Express" way to heaven compared to Judaism. Before Ann or any other Christian starts talking about "perfecting Jews," they need to pay attention to perfecting Christians, for which there is very long way to go
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/009810.php
One of my favorite authors, the French philosopher Etienne Gilson, once stated (in a totally intra Catholic controversy) that true charity is to make the truth known. Obviously the goal of making truth known is to have truth accepted--which is to say, the "making known" is done for the sake of the hearer, not for the sake of the speaker. That principle imposes certain obligations on the speaker.
Muslims, or anyone else for that matter, can say whatever they want. And they already say that. They are wrong, though. Islam claims to revere Jesus but denies Jesus' claims to diety and Jesus' death and resurrection.
Lutheran food is okay. It gets the job done by filling you up, but it's bland and devoid of presentation. The German parts are sometimes okay, but the Scandanavian parts are awful (Lutefisk, anyone?). Lutheran food needs to be perfected.
Perfected food can be found in those countries with Catholic majorities: France, Italy, Latin America, Poland, etc. You can generally judge the awfulness of a nation's cuisine by whether it embraced Protestantism: Scotland, England, Scandanavia. Ireland is the exception - the food sucks there, and they're Catholic as the day is long.
With all the phony kerfuffle over the phony Limbaugh comments last week, here comes Ann Coulter with guns-a-blazing — basically sounding the al-Qaida line against infidels...only this time about Jews and Christianity.
I'm sure a lot of you are fans of her. But she basically needs to shut up and go away forever. There is simply no way to look at her comments and come away thinking that she's:
A) Entirely joking
B) Rational
C) A good spokesman for conservatism or Christianity
I've thought this about her for years. And the more outrageous she's gotten, the more I've just shook my head in disbelief that so many conservatives still defend her or otherwise admire her.
She's said that we should ponder murdering Supreme Court justices...wished that the 9/11 attackers had targeted the New York Times building rather than the WTC...and various other just dazzlingly odious things. Yes, I realize that usually she's just trying to be irreverent and perversely humorous.
But there's just nothing funny about these things. There's nothing funny about a "we must convert you" mentality about religion in an age where we're fighting people to the death who take that very outlook extremely seriously. There's nothing funny about poisoning high officials' desserts for political gain.
Every Republican candidate for office needs to denounce her, and right quick, and never have the slightest bit to do with her again. She's gone too far — and it's not the first time.
Membership in the visible church is no gurantee of membership in the universal, invisble, Church.
In the OT there were plenty of Jews and, yet, Elijah almost despaired until God Himself reassured Elijah that there were a faithfull remnant that would not bow to Baal.
In the NT there are examples and warnings about those who would come out of us but were not of us.
Of course, I am a former Roman Catholic and disagree with you of several fronts.
Ann Coulter is probably the most religiously uninformed public figure I have ever heard of.
Hitchens? Andrew Sullivan? Dawkins?
I do not consider myself a "perfected Jew" as a Christian (I'm not a perfected anything)
Neither do I. I think my faith is more perfect than it would be if I was Jewish, though.
nor can I help but gagging at the idea Ann expressed (see transcript) that Christianity is the "Federal Express" way to heaven compared to Judaism.
A crude analogy perhaps, but not gag-worthy. I would say that your probability of salvation goes up if you convert to Christianity from Judiasm, but I won't hazard a guess as to how much.
Before Ann or any other Christian starts talking about "perfecting Jews," they need to pay attention to perfecting Christians, for which there is very long way to go.
You keep using that word, "perfecting." I don't think it means what you think it means.
"Perfecting" doesn't mean that Christians are free from sin. It does mean that our faith is superior, which, quelle suprise, we actually believe. I suspect that Sensing does actually believe that his faith is superior to Judiasm , but he considers himself too polite to say so. Fine. Just as long as he's not embracing the heresy of Indifference.
Great series of posts--as to your last one, blame Irish cuisine on the fact that the British occupied Ireland for so long.
samuil: I do not consider myself a perfeced anything but to be a Christian one must understand the OT: the cultures, the histories. It is written by Jews and to properly understand the OT one must "become" a Jew. The difference between a Jew and a Christian is who we say Jesus is: just a rabbi or the Word made flesh?
"Jam," please feel free to disagree with my religion all you want. I'm just relaying what the Catholic Church teaches.
Salvation is through Jesus Christ alone. There is no salvation outside of Christ.
I agree that salvation comes through Jesus Christ alone. That doesn't tell us what we need to do to be saved. There's no doubt that Jesus is going to do the actual saving, but we don't know how he intends to do that. He could give us faith at the end of our lives and let us all into Heaven.
God is omnipotent. He can do whatever he wants. Jesus could elect to save people whether they believe in his Resurrection or not. I believe that in some cases he does. Regardless of what Jesus does, however, salvation still comes through him.
Also, kudos to the poster above who pointed out that Coulter's point as that America would be a better place if Jews converted to Christianity -- not merely that she personally preferred her theology to Jewish theology.
The question isn't whether Coulter is really a crypto-fascist(and I rarely if ever use that term to describe modern Americans, but it fits with her) or whether she's just playing one for the carny marks on the loony far-right. The problem is that the supposedly "liberal" mainstream media takes her seriously as a commentator/pundit.
- H.L. Mencken
Perfection in Christian doctrine is strictly a spiritual state, brought about by God's grace through a spiritual transformation, only in the afterlife, for all those who believe. It is unattainable in, and has nothing to do with this life. If this wasn't the perfection she was talking about, I can't imagine in what way she thinks Jews would be better if they became Christians since we pretty much share the same moral and ethical standards. In what way would the acceptance of Jesus as the Messaiah make Jews "better" in any way other than a spiritual/religious sense?
But I gotta give a shout-out to those who seriously compare Mann Coulter with Al Franken. It made for a great Friday morning laugh.
Umm...
So Christians (and those with a like, two-track eschatology) are committed to two joint propositions: (1) God consigns those who lack the appropriate belief(s) to an eternal stay in a very gruesome hell; and (2) in doing so, God is good.
The latter isn't a concomitant that Christians are simply forced to accept in light of their faith. Rather, it's an independent, positive, and rather odious, moral judgment about the kind of being they take God to be.
"Chauvinism" (construed as a reflective preference for one's own values) need not entail a character flaw. But Christian chauvinism does.
The left: Always anti-Coulter. No suprises here.
Conservatives who think she gives conservatives a bad name: Apparently this includes Donald Sensing and whoever that guy is from RedState. I've often said that "if Ann Coulter didn't exist, conservatives who want to get invited to liberal cocktail parties would have to invent her." Coulter-bashing is a great way to ingratiate yourself to the left as "reasonable." For these folks, Coulter isn't worth defending because even if she's right this time, she's eventually going to say something genuinely offensive, so why not get ahead of the curve and start criticizing Coulter before it was cool?
Irreligious conservatives/non-liberals: Coulter professed something about her faith, which gives atheists/agnostics an opportunity to criticize her for believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The ADL Wing of the Professional Racial Grievance Industry: Say anything less than completely laudatory about Judiasm and Abe Foxman more or less accuses you of firing up the ovens at Auschwitz.
The Overcompensators: The most amorphous group, overlapping with several of the others, but also including politically conservative Christians. Stricken with guilt over centuries of Christian (and non-Christian) anti-Semitism and western indifference to (and cooperation with) the Holocaust, these folks defend Judiasm reflexively, regardless of whether it's actually been slighted, and condemn anyone who says that Judiasm isn't as good as Christianity. Their hearts are in the right place. They understand that Jews have plenty of reasons to be suspicious of suddenly-friendly Christians who just recently stopped persecuting them. They don't want Jews to think of them as the next in a long line of Christians who persecuted them. They carefully avoid anything that could be viewed as critical of Judiasm, including saying that Christianity is superior and attempting to convert Jews to Christianity.
Strange bedfellows, indeed. Am I missing anyone?
This is a marked difference from believeing "that all people should become Christians because that's what God wants."
sort of like you can lead a horse to water, but can't make it drink. It's the whole free will thing.
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
God is the one who sees the heart of men and knows who really is saved but ... goodness gracious, man, what is the New testament if not the revelation on how to be saved?
Go to http://www.biblegateway.com aznd do some keywordsearches and read passages in context.
Here is a very small sample.
John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.[g]
John 8
23But he continued, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be,[a] you will indeed die in your sins."
John 10
31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"
33"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
1 John 5
11And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.
Yes.
T Tutins: The more traditional they are, the more likely they are to believe that there is an imortal, sentient soul that survives to an afterlife. There is little speculation about the nature of an afterlife because (1) there is no scriptural basis for such speculation, and (2) God is not supposed to be obeyed because the believing Jew has an ulterior motive of saving his soul.
Less traditional Jews tend to deny the existence of an afterlife, and others are agnostic about this point. It is not a major concern of Jews. I have never, for example, heard a sermon on the subject at a religious service.
This is another way of restating the heresy of modalism and not at all what the NT states.
Drake: Metaphors. Fires, worms, books in the spiritual realm? Maybe it is depicting the awfullness of being eternally separated from having a relationship with God. But if you die not wanting anything to do with God, God will honor your choice in the eternal. Those things were, at the time, the best and readily available every day, commonly known, things used to illustratrate a spiritual reality.
The traditional teaching is that adultery means sexual intercourse between any man and a married woman not his wife. No, this isn't very egalitarian. But that is not to say that sex outside marriage is OK, like a married man with an unmarried woman. It is a lesser offense than adultery in traditional views.
No-- this doesn't follow. Only those religions which hold that religion is strictly a matter between an individual and God hav ethis view. Judaism (and, as I understand it) Hinduism, among others, do not see it this way.
Think of humanity as a chorus. Altos are supposed to sing the alto part, and sopranos the soprano part. So it is with religion. In this view, God wants me to serve Him in one way, and wants you to serve Him in another way.
We hear much about toleration and diversity, but don't like to actually hear what we are supposed to tolerate. This is what religious freedom means. Coulter just says these things in venues which normally shy away from the details. The same things are said in churches all over the country every Sunday. Are educated people really surprised at these beliefs? Why?
Christianity derives its religious legitimacy from Judiaism. From the Christian perspective: Jesus was Jewish, he fulfills the requirements of the Messiah from the Tanakh (Jewish Bible), and for the first few decades all Christians had to convert to Judaism in order to be Christian. This little practice ended in a spat between Paul's version of Christianity and James' version of Christianity.
Same goes for Islam, they believe that all the previous Prophets were valid (Moses, Abraham, Jesus, etc.) but that the followers of these Prophets (Jews and Christians) corrupted the message and went off the path. So, Mohammed had to come along with the newest, bestests, and final revelation for everybody.
Thus, it seems immaterial that Ann Coulter said what she said. Christianity and Islam BOTH basically believe this. What is important is what Christians and Muslims DO with this belief. Restrictive lending and land owning laws, yellow stars, forced conversion, expulions, genocide are horrible and terrible expressions of the doctrine of 'perfection'. However, in 'Christian' lands things like that are looked upon with a evil eye. In 'Muslim' lands, things like that are not looked upon quite so badly.
I'd much rather focus on the nations and culture that are actually telling the world that they 'we are Jews 3.0 and Christians 2.0 and BOTH of you have got to upgrade, or we are going to make life so tough for you that it would be better that you do' than on focus on the folks who are saying 'hey, we are Jews 2.0 and it would be better if everybody got around to upgrading'
Apparently you did not follow the link that I took great care to provide. I even said that "the Catechism does mention fire." The Catechism quotes some of the same scriptural passages that you do, but the Catholic Church teaches that the chief punishment of Hell is "eternal separation from God." Beyond that, the Church won't hazard a guess as to what the torments of Hell are like. "Fire" might very well be a metaphor. If you want to develop your own interpretation of scripture I can't stop you, but I can tell you that your interpretation is not what the Catholic Church teaches.
(1) God consigns those who lack the appropriate belief(s) to an eternal stay in a very gruesome hell
Again, if that's your private interpretation of God's judgment, I can't stop you, but it's not the Catholic position. Here's what the Catechism has to say:
"God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end."
Going to Hell isn't the consequence of having or not having certain beliefs. It's about (1) persisting in mortal sin, (2) until the end.
Let's take the last part first. No one knows what "until the end" means. The natural assumption is to think that it means "death," but that assumption is an artifact of popular culture. There's no reason to reject the possibility that upon our deaths, God gives us a final choice to repent our sins or go to Hell. To understand why this is a very real possibility, you have to understand what makes a mortal sin. I'm going to run the explanation together a bit for clarity:"Grave matter" isn't relevant to our conversation, so let's skip it. The bottom line is that we really have no way of knowing what is a mortal sin. Oh, we can know what "evil" is, because there are some things that are objectively evil, regardless of whether the agent who brings them about sinned by doing so. But it's really not within our power to know if we truly knowingly and deliberately committed an evil act. I just don't know if those addicited to alcohol are responsible for their violence, or those addicted to drugs are responsible for their thefts, or those addicted to sex are responsible for their sexual immorality. I don't know if those with strong same-sex attraction are really freely consenting to immoral sexual acts. So I cannot judge what is and is not a mortal sin. To be on the safe side, we had best assume that all evil acts we commit are mortal sins. But it's far from clear that we always can know that.
Now, to get to my point (finally): living in the world challenges our faith tremendously. Science challenges our faith. The existence of evil challenges our faith. Sadness, loss, and disappointment challenge our faith. Even the most pious among us will freely admit that they have had a crisis of faith from time to time. Mother Theresa's Dark Night of the Soul (recently written about in Time, complete with embarrassingly ignorant quotes from Christopher Hitchens) is a prime example. During those periods of lack of faith, it's easy to fall into sin.
Faith is a daunting task, but God is merciful. That's why I think it's reasonable to think that upon our deaths God may say "faith was hard throughout your life, but now you can see what is True. Are you ready to confess your sins and receive forgiveness?" At that point, everyone but those who truly hate God, and who want to persist in hating Him even in light of the fact that He exists, can go to Hell. The rest of us are off to Purgatory for a bit. I'm very comfortable with an empty Hell. That doesn't mean that I'm right, nor does it mean that I should assume that I'm right and not avoid sin now. But I really think - and the Catholic Church teaches - that Hell is the consequence of willful disobedience of God, not of not believing the right things.
No. They all came from the Tanakh.
The first six commandments were given to Adam. These commandments were repeated, and a 7th commandment was added, when G-d made the Covenant of the Rainbow with Noah. Hence these became known as the Seven Noahide Commandments.
http://www.noahide.org/article.asp?Level=395&Parent=90
For crying out loud, we gave the world fruit suspended in jello. IN JELLO!!
What kind of madman are you?
You left out those who are just plain appalled that anyone would defend, let alone revel in, her hateful, bigoted nonsense.
I'm not going to get into a debate with you over what is necessary for salvation and what is sufficient for salvation. I'm just trying to communicate what the Catholic Church teaches, which is that God, in His mercy, can save even those who lack faith in Him. Whether He does or not is not for me to know. I don't claim to know who has been saved (other than the Saints). Irrespective of who God gives his Grace to, the Grace comes through Jesus.
Exactly.
And sorry, Grover, for not giving you specific credit for pointing out the "America would be a better place if. . . " aspect to her comment.
Still, I'm willing to admit this isn't the worst thing she's ever said. But that's just because she's set such an absurdly high bar for hateful, innaccurate, nonsense that it's hard for her to keep getting over it. But intelligent folks should get over her.
I respectfully disagree. If someone is a Jew or a Hindu and comes to believe Christianity, Islam, or another religion is superior to his own religion, he/she will convert to the "superior" religion absent some other factor. (see below)
By choosing to stay with their current religion, people are making a value judgment: my religion is superior to all others.
NOTE: I have made a few key assumptions.
1. The person is free to convert. In many Islamic nations, conversion from Islam to Christianity brings a death sentence.
2. The "other" religion will accept converts. Obviously, one cannot convert to a religion that will not accept you.
Sort of. The Torah doesn't have an arranged list of items, but it does recite god's conversation with Noah after the disembarkation from the big boat, and the seven laws are compiled out of that conversation. The compilation is in the Talmud.