Coulter’s just like the rest of us
Lots of folks have been ripping on Ann Coulter for her gunslinging remarks on TV of late (here’s a typical reaction), where she apparently comes out as intolerant and anti-Semitic. I have to say, Coulter’s an easy target. She’s weird to a lot of people. She’s like the conservative at the party who makes the liberal fiery mad, because she’s having a laugh and he’s trying to change the world. She’s not well-mannered like Laura Bush. She doesn’t really try to make friends, it seems, even with people who might one day agree with her. Nevertheless, the real controversy of her comments seemed to be her admission that a perfect America would be an America (and presumably a world) of Christians. This is not news, given the fact that Christian churches have been sending out missionaries since there were such things as Christians and churches.
All people believe that What They Believe is What Everyone Should Believe. Not every nook and cranny of their worldview, but at least the basics. I’ll go out on a limb and say that the Donny Deutsches of the world believe in basic ideas like Tolerance, Moral and Cultural Relativism, Democracy, Progress, etc., whatever those things mean to them. And in Donny Deutsch’s perfect world, I think, he’d want everyone to share those basic presuppositions. He might not want everyone to dress like him or eat like him or dance like him, but he would have to admit that he’d want his ideals to be the ideals. Heck, that’s why anyone shares his opinion out in the world: he believes his ideals are right.
So, I think it’s safe to say that Coulter was only admitting this: she believes the presuppositions of Christianity are right, and in a perfect America, those would be the ideals of everyone. But concepts like “an America of Christians” just scare people. The end result is that Coulter comes off like a zealous young student of Protestant theology who might believe the right thing, but just can’t say it quite right.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Special Student Discount for WORLD!








Click to Print
Include Comments










back to top63 Comments to “Coulter’s just like the rest of us”
Coulter comes off like a zealous young student of Protestant theology who might believe the right thing, but just can’t say it quite right.
Harrison, either you have simply lost all of your faculties, or Protestant theology students have become much worse than I thought!
Report comment to moderator
As I commented on the video a while back, Coulter’s Christianity is not unlike what David Gelernter calls Americanism, which is apparent by her equating her dream society to political ideologies early on in that conversation. I wonder what she thinks of the impact of American foreign policy on other Christians in the world, like those in Iraq who are suffering as a result the missionary zeal of the Americanists.
Report comment to moderator
Ahh, a world of Christians left to fight only with each other! WOW, what a concept. “Christians” don’t even the same morals. You all read from the SAME MORAL CODE BOOK and you can’t even figure it out. I’d go out on a limb and say that if the world were all Christians that they’d still be killing each other, if only for a simple thing like I gave God veggies and not meat as a sacrifice! I ♥ (love, in case my heart symbol doesn’t make it) Ann Coulter, crazy like a fox!
Report comment to moderator
So, Coulter just says what many of us believe. I only say it in person. She said it on TV. I’m not on TV.
At least our America would be tolerant, not like the toleration of the American University. You think we Christians are not tolerant? We tolerate our brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, mothers and fathers, children and cousins who are not Christians. As a matter of fact, we pray for them often.
But of course you non-Christians think Christians are all intolerant. That is because so many of us are tolerant that you don’t notice us. You only notice the obnoxious Christians. Do you ever notice the “Union” people and just how obnoxiuos and intolerant they are?
Report comment to moderator
Considering that 1) Cain was not a Christian and 2) Christ has fulfilled the ceremonial requirements of the law, the last comment of post 3 seems a bit confused. But strawmen are so much more fun to beat up on!
Report comment to moderator
Do any of you seriously believe Ann Coulter is a Christian?
Did she ever call herself that, or talk about it all, before publishing “Godless?” Has anyone ever shown that she attends any church as a member, and not as a guest speaker?
And does her harsh, often dishonest manner reflect Christ?
Coulter is a huckster. Always has been. When she stops making money from pretending to be a Christian, she’ll go on to something else and we’ll never hear about her “faith” again.
Report comment to moderator
Ok, I’m game…I’ll defend her. She has the guts to say what many are too cowardly to say. And, she has the international spotlight.
I wonder how many of YOU would have the spine to pipe up like she has?
Ps. It’s too easy to take shots at her in a blog like this. The same folks who do would probably cower in a corner if they were to meet her.
Report comment to moderator
“pretending to be a Christian”
You might be right SteveG but it’s pretty hard to fake being a Christian. I noticed in her godless book she did a pretty good job of repeating the usual Christian lies about evolution. It’s hard to fake that kind of religious ignorance.
Before I found out she was a liar for creationism I actually thought she might have some value. I will never make that mistake again.
Report comment to moderator
“I wonder how many of YOU would have the spine to pipe up like she has?”
There’s plenty of money to be made by lying, but I don’t think I have what it takes to lie like Coulter.
Report comment to moderator
“The same folks who do would probably cower in a corner if they were to meet her.”
No, I would ask her why she lied about science in her book.
Report comment to moderator
Ah, not so fast TJ… I didn’t make a direct reference to Cain, did I? Plus, we both know that Cain was “fugitive and a vagabond” and a couple verses later built a city, (Vagabond Builds City, read all about it!!!). Also, god didn’t kill him for his veggie offering, God just didn’t like them as much as the meat. Apparently, your god likes meat more than veggies. Frankly, I can’t blame him, though. I personally LOVE veggies too, just not more than meat (Wait, ,maybe I AM made in gods image).
Can you honestly say that all Christians have the same “basic ideas” and that they all agree on it’s meaning. If that’s the case, then I just don’t understand how you can all read the same book and all take something different from it BUT THEN, say it’s “Truth” and “infallible”. It just doesn’t compute. This is why Christians, I believe, couldn’t “perfectly” co-exist. Need we review history on this subject?
The last comment is 100% true. Ann Coulter makes this world go round and having her here makes it a much more interesting place. She’s not one I’d want to marry (any takers out there, she lookin’ from what I hear) but she’s a human being deserving of respect.
Report comment to moderator
And she knows how to burn and churn to make a buck!
Report comment to moderator
#6
I have been to a church exactly 5 times since I was twelve years old. 3 weddings, and two funerals. Whether someone attends a church or not has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they are Christian.
How do you know that she isn’t so well-versed that there isn’t a church with enough in common with her beliefs, in her area, that suits her needs?
I, for one love Ann Coulter.
She is the perfect woman.
I can say this because I am single.
Report comment to moderator
there are some doubts as to her gender or perhaps lack of
Report comment to moderator
#13 No, I agree it’s possible to be a Christian and not be a churchgoer, but the point I’m making is, until she had a book to sell that was about religion, I never heard her say a word about it.
Then suddenly, she’s an outspoken evangelical and wants us to think she always has been?
Right.
Funnily enough, she did claim to be a member of a church, but the church never heard of her.
Of course it is no coincidence that she wrote Godless during a time when a few religious issues, including gay marriage, intelligent design and the Christian-Muslim issues of the war, were being widely discussed. She saw a trend and cashed in on it, which is all she knows how to do.
Report comment to moderator
Ooops, it appears I did make a mistake. I was not commenting on your “last statement” (the one about Coulter), but on your misunderstanding of Cain (for which you are making a reference, as you both deny and then admit in your post).
I believe I’ve corrected you on your misunderstanding of Genesis 4 a while back, and yet you repeat your misunderstanding. Cain was forced to leave the presence of the Lord (leaving is usually seen as wandering away in such a context), and settled in the land of Nod (Nod means “wandering”). The term for “city” is a very general term in Hebrew (you seem to have a vision of a walled city with buildings and such, but if so you are reading your own misunderstanding into the verse). As far as the sacrifice goes, Cain’s problem was both his disobedience and his misunderstanding of the nature of sacrifice: as we are told in the book of Hebrews, “Without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness of sins.” That is the epitome of the nature of sin: self-reliance and self-sufficiency rather than submission to God and dependence on His forgiveness. That is the reason that people (Christians and non-Christians) hurt one another, and it is the reason that you misunderstand the Scriptures, reading a problem into a passage where there is none, and then refusing to be corrected on the matter.
Report comment to moderator
#7 “Ps. It’s too easy to take shots at her in a blog like this. The same folks who do would probably cower in a corner if they were to meet her.”
That’s easy to say too. If I had the chance to talk to her face to face, I would tell her just what I think. I haven’t had that chance, and probably won’t, so I’ll have to content myself with talking about her behind her back.
But I promise you, if such a chance ever comes, I’ll take it.
Report comment to moderator
Oh dear sir, TJ, no no no. The words say, and I quote here “When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.” A fugitive and a vagabond!!! (Does fugitive mean City builder in Hebrew?) So, city doesn’t mean city, in THIS context? However, I believe Enoch was a city, walled perhaps. Why wasn’t this book translated more clearly for those stupid people who don’t know bronze-age Hebrew? Stupid Americans!
Abel’s sacrifice was a “more excellent sacrifice” and if he (Cain) wasn’t a Christian and also wasn’t instructed by god on how to sacrifice, then how would Cain know how to make a “proper” offering? How did Cain even know he did something wrong in his sacrifice? In fact, how did Cain know murdering his brother was wrong (those he apparently did since he “hid” from god as if to say god was walking upright and was searching for him)? Where does it say that god told Cain (or his parents or anyone) that murder was wrong? Did god punish Cain for something he didn’t know was wrong to do?
Be that as it may, Thank the Good god above for AC, she’s the bees knees! If you think having an all Christian world (you too TJ) woud make it perfect, well, then, I have a bridge for sale.
Report comment to moderator
#15
Well,
I consider myself a member of Shepherd’s Chapel, in Gravette Ark. I’ve never actually been there. I’m sure they’ve never heard of me. And I don’t go around giving out their name, unless it is relevant to the conversation,or if I should happen to be write a book on that subject. I don’t always express my religious views when discussing politics.
Report comment to moderator
I didn’t be meaning to be putting that extra “be” in.
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Meaner, would you at least agree that most Christians do attend church at least somewhat regularly, even though you are one who does not?
Report comment to moderator
I am not the one who can answer that question.
Honestly, I have one sister, who (who knows what shes into…voodoo, for all I know) I haven’t a clue as to what she believes.I have another sister, who was indoctrinated in to secularism, evolution, the whole works, while she was in college. She now goes to church as a social event. Shes not sure about the tenets of the faith, but she goes. Luckily, she seems to be beginning to understanding scripture. I have an uncle and two aunts who go to church, but couldn’t carry on a conversation about the Bible if their lives depended on it.
On the other hand, I have two living grandparents who do not go to church, but are probably the most pious, God-loving people you could ever meet. My grandfather reads the Bible every night beefore he goes to bed. He is probably the only person I can actually discuss Bible topics with, face-to-face. (Shame I don’t get to see him very often)Regular church-goers just seem to get that glassy-eyed, vacant stare when you start discussing actual Bible text
And I doubt he has been to church in years, either.
Report comment to moderator
Scott, in Hebrew (just like in English), words can have a broad semantic range. In such cases (just like in English), the context helps determine the meaning of a particular word. Consulting a Hebrew lexicon (such as Brown Driver Briggs) would reveal to you that iyr can have a mean that ranges from a city or town, to a royal city, to a rural village, to a general term meaning “dwelling place”, to a fortified place of any size. Now, based on the context of the passage, allowing for the author to actually tell the events of the story (instead of reading one’s own assumptions into the text), giving the author the benefit of the doubt (as one would do with any other form of literature — unless one wishes to betray an obvious bias), will generally indicate that you are making much ado about nothing. Cain was forced to leave from the presence of the LORD, no longer able to till the land as he had before, cut off from the blessings of God because of his sin, and living in fear that someone would kill him out of revenge for his murder of his brother. Do the math. Really, this is much ado about nothing, and sounds more like the thing someone might get off of a Dennis McKinsey-style website.
I’m curious, though: what exactly do you think a Christian is? Since Cain lived thousands of years before Christ, since he did not place his trust in the sacrifices that prefigured the atoning death of Christ, and since he is an example of one who did not live by faith, then it is difficult to see how you would seem to suggest he is in some way a type of Christian.
Report comment to moderator
I’m sure the regular church-goers who are interested enough to frequent a Christian blog, would be an exception to the last part of my comment, though..
whew!
Report comment to moderator
FROM The Article: But concepts like “an America of Christians” just scare people.
Of course it does. First, you would have to lose all the best writers, composers, singers, dancers, artists and actors. That would leave Kurt Cameron and Anita Bryant.
Then you would have to get rid of all the sciences built on the foundation science of evolution. That would leave faith healers.
Then you would have to get rid of astronomy, geology, paleontology and a bunch of other sciences. Finally, you would end up with two sticks that you could rub together to make fire.
Eventually, someone would tell you that fire comes from hell and you wouldn’t even have that.
Report comment to moderator
I forgot to ask, who coined the phrase, “Coultergeist”?
Report comment to moderator
Sometimes I think Coulter’s shtick is just a shtick to make a lot of money, though after she made plenty of money she forgot to find any other purpose to her life so she just keeps on doing it.
Sometimes I think she’s dead serious, through, and through.
I don’t know which is worse.
She reminds me of Dr. Laura, in a way, except without all the charm and sex appeal of Mrs. Schlessinger.
Speaking of which, what’s the deal with Deryk? Has he freed Iraq from insurgents yet?
Report comment to moderator
This is spam, sort of. It’s from the Onion. It’s clean, sort of. It might be the way to deal with Ann Coulter, sort of.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/conceptual_terrorists_encase_sears
Well, I thought it was funny. If you did, you are in a lot of trouble. Don’t click my links from now on.
Report comment to moderator
I warned you. The following is slightly not clean.
The Onion is on a roll this week.
http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/if_elected_i_will_have_the
Report comment to moderator
Comments for this post have been closed as of now.
The Management. (You know who we are.)
Report comment to moderator
TJ, city, as far as I know, is NOT a Hebrew word… but you can labor over that one. Check out Webster for a definition. Apparently, to understand this word of God, one must have an in-depth working knowledge Hebrew or at least a long life to study at such depths. Too bad for all those illiterate people who can’t even read. Eternal damnation suckas, funny one God!
Give the author the benefit of the doubt? What in Heavens name are you talking about? This is the word of god, not some mortal man. The word of god!!! There is no room for doubt in the word of god, ask anyone.
RE your Christian comment, you were the one who said Cain wasn’t a Christian, I was just agreeing with you. Of course one cannot be a Christian without believing in Christ, who according to this tale, didn’t exist at the time.
However, can you answer how Cain knew that a non-blood shedding sacrifice was wrong? Did God tell him that killing his brother was wrong? Where did God mention to poor Cain that blood was required in a sacrifice? Citation, please? TJ, city, as far as I know, is NOT a Hebrew word… but you can labor over that one. Check out Webster for a definition. Apparently, to understand this word of God, one must have an in-depth working knowledge Hebrew or at least a long lifetime to study at such depths. Too bad for all those illiterate people who can’t even read. Eternal damnation suckas!
Give the author the benefit of the doubt? What in Heavens name are you talking about? This is the word of god, not some mortal man. The word of god!!! There is no room for doubt in the word of god, ask anyone.
RE your Christian comment, you were the one who said Cain wasn’t a Christian, I was just agreeing with you. Of course one cannot be a Christian without believing in Christ, who according to this tale, didn’t exist at the time.
However, can you answer how Cain knew that a non-blood shedding sacrifice was wrong? Where did God mention to poor Cain that blood was required in a sacrifice? Citation, please? I know Hebrews says it (which I’m pretty sure is in the NT) but how did Cain know a veggie sacrifice wasn’t enough? Did God tell him that murder was wrong?
Isaiah 1:11 I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.
Report comment to moderator
As for the beautiful Daisy, “her face was sad and lovely with bright things in it, bright eyes and a bright passionate mouth — but there was an excitement in her voice that men who had cared for her found difficult to forget.” There is something else in her voice that Jay Gatsby identifies as he begins to realize that he will never fulfill his dream of having her for his own. “Her voice,” he says, “is full of money.” She and Tom are two of the most memorable and readily identifiable characters in American fiction, and when at last they have done all their terrible damage, Fitzgerald pronounces his immortal verdict on them:
“They were careless people, Tom and Daisy — they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.”
That passage, like the whole of “Gatsby,” should make conclusively clear that Fitzgerald’s preoccupation with money and those who have it was a far more complicated business than is often understood. Whether he ever actually said that “the rich are different from the rest of us” is a subject of endless dispute, but if Hemingway did say in rejoinder, “Yes, they have more money,” then he missed the point. Fitzgerald understood that the rich live in a bubble the rest of us cannot enter, as the upwardly mobile Gatsby eventually understands to his painful regret.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/01/AR2007010100958_pf.html
Report comment to moderator
Easy, Scott. You’re messing up posts in your excitement.
This is part of your problem. You wish to read a text, written in Hebrew, as if it should have the same details of a 21st century work. Webster? Yes, that’s helpful for English words. But if this is the way you try to read the Bible, then it is no wonder you are having problems.
Normally, when one reads any written work, he gives the author the benefit of the doubt (Geneiss is written as an historical narrative; reading it in that fashion would be a place to start, instead of picking out a part here or there and addressing it out of context — the allusion to that sacrifice thing, for instance, can be found in Genesis 3). That means, if one is called a wanderer in one place, and only a sentence or two later he leaves and builds some sort of dwelling place, then most folks would consider that the author had not forgotten, in the span of just a few words, what had been said previously. Also, millenia would not have generally passed in which no one saw the slightest problem with the passage you mention, and then you, in the 21st century, suddenly think you have discovered a problem that the rest of civilization has somehow managed to overlook.
And I was not the first to suggest that Cain was a Christian. From your post #3: “I’d go out on a limb and say that if the world were all Christians that they’d still be killing each other, if only for a simple thing like I gave God veggies and not meat as a sacrifice!”
To the rest of the thread, I apologize that we have taken this in a direction that we should not have. I only desired to demonstrate an error of Scott’s (one he has been corrected on the past and still makes without any hint that he has ever considered that he might be mistaken), not hijack a thread.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t think Scott was saying Cain was a Christian. I think he was saying Christians fight each other over all kinds of seemingly trivial things.
The discussion of Cain is a digression, really. It is true that Christians are prone to infighting. Churches split over when is the appropriate time for baptism. In Ireland, Christians murder each other over a political dispute. Some Protestants think the Pope is the antichrist and some Catholics think theirs is the only true Christian church.
This is all human nature of course. But being saved by grace doesn’t seem to make many people rise above it.
Report comment to moderator
I would largely agree with your comments, SteveG. My complaint was that Scott used a poor example to malign Christians (once again, read the quote I referenced in my previous post; it is obvious he is referring to Cain, and it is obvious that he is trying to compare Christians to Cain).
It is indeed true that Christians are guilty of infighting. Of course, that “infighting” usually does not result in the violent sort. There have been some abuses in the past, of course. The Ireland reference is largely a red herring because (as you even suggest) it is largely politically motivated. On the other hand, it might also be pointed out that in societies where Christianity has flourished, overall society has benefited as well (the rise of science, hospitals, universities, literacy, representative government, etc.).
Of course, this is not to say everything is coming up roses, peaches, and even cream, but simply to make an observation. Certainly I would hope that you would agree that to take simplistic potshots and suggest that Christian societies are lawless is unwarranted.
Report comment to moderator
TJ, I agree with you in general, but I disagree that Ireland is a red herring. The point there is that while the dispute is political, the sides are drawn down religious lines and — the important part — the fact that they are Christians did not lead them to find peaceful ways to address their differences.
It isn’t that religion caused the fighting; it’s that their faith should, arguably at least, lead them to forego armed combat and terrorism in favor of discussion and dialogue and political process.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with your last paragraph, Steve. I think the religious lines is just an easy excuse to kill one another. It is mainly political (and I think you agree), but I cannot ignore the religious factor. Perhaps red herring was a bit too strong.
Of course, history is full of examples where people have used religion as a means of gaining political control/power/advantage, etc. Hitler was no more a Christian than you or I can fly. The Klansmen who misquote the Bible to subjugate other races are repugnant and are not behaving as Christians (as I once heard someone say, not everyone who wears a redcoat is a member of King George’s army). It is sad when folks misuse labels to harm others, and I’m sure you’d agree. But that can also happen with any sort of “unifying label” (Communism, National Socialism, even patriotism), not just religion.
Report comment to moderator
I hate “me too” posts, but I’ll say me too, to #37. I think we agree on this one.
Report comment to moderator
Steve, #34, you must have given me the benefit of the doubt when you read my post. I didn’t think that there was doubt. That you.
Talk about making much ado about nothing, here in post 35 you seem to agree with me TJ. Yes, indeed, the world would not be PERFECT if we were all “Christians” because of infighting over rather trivial things. Do you want to dispute the word “Perfect”? And are you suggesting that Christians have never killed each other in the name of their particular brand of Christianity?
Your comments about correcting me are very condescending. You didn’t convince me of anything. I think you are incorrect. Saying it, doesn’t make it any more true. You didn’t convince me. Does my “correcting you on evolution”, for example, make you argue any differently?
Back on topic, I think, normal people would agree that a world full of Christians would not likely make a perfect world. Bottom line. This is evidenced by all the infighting we see amongst Christians. I once heard one of my favorite people on this blog (she knows who she is) say that getting Christians to think alike was like herding cats. I couldn’t agree more.
When you use the book to make a point, be prepared to have to defend everything about the book, including the authenticity. I remain unconvinced.
Report comment to moderator
I apologize, Scott, if I sounded condescending. That is a difficulty of this medium. But you were incorrect. You made a very condescending comment yourself about Christians stemming from a misunderstanding of the Biblical text. My hope is not to necessarily “convince” you, but that you hopefully learn from such mistakes and not repeat them in the future.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for the discussion Steve. It’s nice to see that even if we disagree on some issues, we can reach some common ground, and not misrepresent folks in the process.
Report comment to moderator
I wonder how many of YOU would have the spine to pipe up like she has?
I’d be happy to, but it would get me banned from WMB.
Report comment to moderator
On more careless thought, while I still wonder if “Daisy” from The Great Gatsby does tell us something about Coulter, I am not more inclined to think that the novel applies more to Oral Roberts University.
Sorry, Ann.
Report comment to moderator
That’s the whole point, TJ, I am not convinced that I am mistaken. If it were that easy, everyone would interpret the same text the same way and there wouldn’t be any middle ground. I, personally, think that a book of moral code should be that way (not open to different interpretations), but that’s just my opinion. My proof of this is differences between religion that read the EXACT same book and live differently based on how they interpret it. I meet “Christians” who tell me homosexuality is not a sin and you know what, TJ, THEY BELIEVE THAT. Joel Osteen has a WHOLE big Houston church based on those “bubblegum” preaching. You know what I mean. I think Joel is Christian but he sure sounds different than other preachers I have heard speak. How can that be?
As far a Cain, goes (way too topic, so I understand why you may not want to answer) but it’s still not been explained HOW he KNEW about the method of proper sacrifice outlined in Hebrews, centuries later. Also, what law did god give to them that told him that murder was wrong? Why did god even punish him? These types of questions need to be answered to believe your explanation of this ancient Hebrew text. Until then, I don’t think you’re interpretation is correct.
Report comment to moderator
Sacrifices and morality existed before they were codified in the ceremonial law and moral law, Scott. That’s why I pointed you to Genesis 3 as an example.
The point of correctly interpreting the Bible is not that folks can justify whatever they want to out of the text. It’s whether they are handling the text accurately and consistently. You dislike Joel Osteen as do I. We both agree that what he is preaching is a novelty. How do we know this? One way is by examining what he says and seeing if it is line with what the Bible teaches (another aid would be to see if what he is teaching lines up in any way with what Christians have historically believed). In the same way, if the interpretation you put forth about a particular passage does not line up with the context of the passage, and if no one has ever seen it that way, then that should at least cause you to stop and think. It may not mean that you are wrong, but it should at least cause you some introspection. At the very least, it should make you refrain from hastily tossing out an inaccurate insult against Christians and then complaining when someone calls you on it.
Report comment to moderator
How did morals exist? On what basis did they exist? What defined them and how did Cain know what they were? God was careful enough to tell them not to eat the certain food but didn’t offer up any other moral code. Today those morals exist for you, if I might be so bold, on the basis of this book. It is NOT left up to your own will. God told you what the moral, but expected Cain to know it.
Frankly, I don’t know if the interpretation I put forth is new, you seem to think it is, it may be that I am the first one to bring it to your attention. A new set of eyes should serve you well, right? Maybe you’ll see that you’re incorrect, maybe not, you have to at least consider it. Regardless of that, it’s my conclusion.
It’s not that I don’t think about it, I should be remotely obviously that I do (benefit of doubt). As for hastily tossing it out, come on, do you really think I just tossed it out? Maybe you do, which is fine, you’re entitled to do so.
Report comment to moderator
If you are correct, then find me one historical interpretation of the passage from Genesis 4 that agrees with you.
On the contrary, we had this discussion before, I showed you the evidence, I even gave you a web link. And yet you are coming back and saying exactly the same thing.
Report comment to moderator
Scott, if you would like to know where morals came from, that would also be found in the opening chapters of Genesis as well. Genesis 1:26-27 — the imago Dei.
Report comment to moderator
I cannot. I also noticed that I cannot cite a passage from Alice in Wonderland that refutes that she slipped down a hole to find Wonderland. It doesn’t exist. Does THAT make your point true? Let me answer for you, NO. You do a lot of hocus pocus slight of hand with those words.
1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Where is thou shalt not kill that should have tipped Cain off? An exact citation.
Report comment to moderator
imago Dei.
You mean, the imagined Dei
Report comment to moderator
“God told you what the moral,(sic) but expected Cain to know it.”
Your point seems to be that God dealt unfairly by holding Cain to a moral code that Cain had no way of knowing. On what possible basis can you assert that Cain was innocent of any moral instruction?
Romans 1:18ff, although written long after, asserts that knowlege of God and His nature are the default position and is suppressed in unrighteousness.
Your underlying assumption that Cain was born innocent and required specific and explicit instructions before he could be held accountable needs serious reinforcement. And given the essentially universal presence of a moral sense among human cultures (albeit given different application), it would be an uphill fight. Sophomoric arguments are simpy a poor refuge from confronting the claims of Christ.
Report comment to moderator
Coulter professes to be a Christian – I and I can not see into her ‘heart’ to say otherwise. Giving her the benefit of the doubt on that, she has a long way to go on learning to live out some of the tenets of the Faith.
I do sometimes find her entertaining (in an obnoxious counter-liberal rhetorical bomb thrower sort of way, fighting fire with fire from the nutjobs of the left) – although I can’t say I’m proud of what little etertainment I get there.
Any real Christian would like to see the world redeemed and everyone on it saved, but I think Coulter does a poor job of expressing anything close to a correct position on it.
Report comment to moderator
Coulter professes to be a Christian – and I cannot see into her ‘heart’ to say otherwise.
I can! It’s BLACK in there!
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza,
Why not keep your cotton-candy “thoughts” to yourself? They only make you look stupid and embittered.
Report comment to moderator
#54 Lighten up, hun.
Report comment to moderator
Ken makes an excellent point in # 51.
The two verses in Genesis 1 show that man was created in the image of God. That alone presupposes that that he is not to destroy another image bearer (for this would be like attempting to “destroy” God). This is spelled out more clearly in Genesis 9:6 (which actually reads like a renewal of the creation covenant).
There is more to the Genesis 4 story that either of us have alluded to. Verses 3 and 4 read:
“In the course of time Cain brought to the Lord an offering of the fruit of the ground, and Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard.”
Two things to note: there is an obvious emphasis on Abel’s sacrifice (i.e., he brought “the best” — the firstborn and fat portions). However, the text makes only a general statement about Cain’s offering (the distinction is even more clear in Hebrew — there does not appear to be anything special about what Cain did, more like he was only going through the motions). But something that has been noticed about this passage (since the days of Martin Luther at least) is that there is an indication that God looked first to the heart of Abel (”had regard for”) before He looked upon the sacrifice (and did the same for Cain). Cain’s heart was not right before God.
The outcome of the passage shows this to be the case. He does not bring a bloody sacrifice, but instead sheds his brother’s blood (”The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground.”)
What I asked for was a reference that someone who had done exegesis on Genesis 4 came to the same conclusion you had. Why you decided to jump down a rabbit hole is beyond me.
Report comment to moderator
I cannot assert that Cain didn’t have moral instruction as much as you cannot assert that he did. Which is the best one to pick? I don’t see it in the book of truth so how is one to assume that was the case? Benefit of doubt? Oh, ROMANS… Listen, if your god wants to show himself to me, so I can “see” him, it sounds like a pretty easy thing for the omnipotent one to do. I can’t see him, really, and I am not kidding. If you want me to think that just because a banana is octagon shaped and it fits into my hand that that’s seeing god, they we can stop this right now. We’ll just never agree.
So, let me ask then, is your moral code “built in” or from a book? If so, people who have never read the book should have the same moral code as outlined in the Bible, is that correct? Moreover, making it even easier all Christians should have the same moral code, they all do read the same book as far as I know. You think that people just know that a blood sacrifice is preferred to one of veggies? I sure don’t, not without your book telling me so.
PLUS, my friend TJ said it was in Genesis, so it’s got to be in there somewhere, I just cannot find it.
Report comment to moderator
#56, God destroys people all the time, are you kidding me? He tells US not to, but if it’s His will, it’s OK. How is THAT in the image of God. Plus, IMAGE to me (checking Hebrew) means a visual or imagined physical likeness. This seems especailly true since the verse focuses on the physical creation. After all, if the mind was in God’s image, things might be a little different today.
Gen 9:6 adds even more confusion to your point. If that we’re the case, Cain should have been killed by God, not make a “vagabond”.
You’re a pretty funny lady/dude TJ.
Report comment to moderator
#52: and I can not see into her ‘heart’ to say otherwise.
Heart????
Report comment to moderator
Actually, the Hebrew word for “image” (tselem) can also mean semblance (or representation), not just a physical likeness or reproduction. Once again, you are simply taking your own subjective interpretation and reading it into the passage. This is not the way one does exegesis (any kind of interpretation, not just Biblical). Word have meanings, and those meanings are defined by their context, authorial usage, grammatical considerations, etc. To use an example that I read this morning, someone might say, “I am mad about my flat.” On the surface, that sounds like a very easy sentence to interpret. It is very tempting to read one’s own meaning into it, especially if one ignores things like the context in which the statement appears. In this case, it can have at least two interpretations. If the speaker is American, it means that he is angry about his tire being punctured. If he is a Brit, it means that he is overjoyed about his living quarters. But one will never ascertain the meaning of the statement by simply reading one’s own subjective and preconceived conclusions into it.
Report comment to moderator
Mr Meaner #13 Whether someone attends a church or not has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they are Christian.
How amazing that nobody has contradicted this falsehood! Not that anyone should take it upon my authority, who erred in twice attempting to become born again, thereby losing any credibility here. So I offer my opinion merely as an object of horror. Turn your eyes away, if you can: Mr. Meaner may be a hobbyist in Christian beliefs, even a fan of the Master, but he is not a branch of the vine.
Report comment to moderator
My mad is flat.
Report comment to moderator
TJ at #45: The point of correctly interpreting the Bible is not that folks can justify whatever they want to out of the text. It’s whether they are handling the text accurately and consistently.
But how do you know?
Some theologians argue that many of the moral laws in Leviticus, including the proscription on homosexual behavior, were intended not as eternal moral laws but as a way to distinguish the Hebrews from the other tribes around them. There are other laws given in the same sequence that no one today insists we still have to follow.
The part about homosexuality is Leviticus 20:13. Leviticus 20:9 decrees the death penalty for anyone who curses his father or mother. Levitcus 20:14 forbids marrying both a woman and her mother, which suggests that marrying more than one woman if they are not so related is ok. Do Christians advocate polygamy based on this verse? (Or even based on the examples of those later kings who had multiple wives and concubines.)
Leviticus 20:25 distinguishes clean and unclean animals, something kosher Jews follow but not Christians. Leviticus 19:19 forbids wearing clothing made of mixed fibers. Leviticus 19:20 says that fornicating with a slave girl who is betrothed to another is a less grievous sin than if she were free. 19:27 gives rules on hair and beard length, and 19:28 forbids tattoos.
So why single out a few rules and reject others. On what basis?
TJ in #56: The two verses in Genesis 1 show that man was created in the image of God. That alone presupposes that that he is not to destroy another image bearer (for this would be like attempting to “destroy” God).
But God decrees death as the appropriate punishment for many sins. I already cited one for cursing a parent. The man who slept with a freed woman betrothed to another would be put to death. And there are many more. If destroying “another image bearer” is wrong, why does God command just that in so many cases?
Bear in mind that by what you just said, there should not be a distinction because it’s punishment for sin. By what you believe, all are sinners, even though they may not be guilty of this or that specific sin. But all sinners are also image-bearers, so if it’s wrong to kill an image-bearer, then it’s wrong. And if it’s not always wrong, then how do you know when it’s ok?
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!