Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Is what Ann Coulter said wrong

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 5
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next
  • #1

    Is what Ann Coulter said wrong

    I've seen this debated other places and I thought I would bring it over here. Maybe the way Coulter expresses herself here is a little brash, but I really don't see anything wrong with the point she is making. I would use less brash language, but other-than-that I have no problem with what she said

    What is wrong with saying that as a Christian you think Jews should convert to christinaity.

    I have no problem with Jews saying that I should convert to judiasm






    Here is a youtube link: http://youtube.com/watch?v=LVtL80HqjEk

    Columnist Ann Coulter Shocks Cable TV Show, Declaring 'Jews Need to Be Perfected by Becoming Christians'
    Thursday , October 11, 2007


    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301216,00.html

    Slash-and-burn columnist Ann Coulter shocked a cable TV talk-show audience Monday when she declared that Jews need to be "perfected" by becoming Christians, and that America would be better off if everyone were Christian.

    Coulter made the remarkable statements during an often heated appearance to promote her new book on advertising guru Donny Deutsch's CNBC show "The Big Idea."

    In response to a question from Deutsch asking Coulter if "it would be better if we were all Christian," the controversial columnist responded: "Yes."

    "We should all be Christian?" Deutsch repeated.

    "Yes," Coulter responded, asking Deutsch, who is Jewish, if he would like to "come to church with me."

    Deutsch, pressing Coulter further, asked, "We should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians?" She responded: "Yeah."

    Coulter deflected Deutsch's assertion that her comments were anti-Semitic, matter-of-factly telling the show's obviously upset host, "That is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews."

    The show transcript of their conversation about Jews appears below:

    DEUTSCH: Let me ask you a question. We're going to get off strengths and weakness for a second. If you had your way, and all of your — forget that any of them —

    COULTER: I like this.

    DEUTSCH: — are calculated marketing teases, and your dreams, which are genuine, came true having to do with immigration, having to do with women's — with abortion — what would this country look like?

    COULTER: UMMMMM (pause) ... It would look like New York City during the Republican National Convention. In fact, that's what I think heaven is going to look like.

    DEUTSCH: And what did that look like?

    COULTER: Happy, joyful Republicans in the greatest city in the world.

    DEUTSCH: No, no, no, no, but I'm talking about this country. You don't want to make this country — it's not about Republicans. I'm saying, what would the fabric of this country look like? Forget that the Republicans would be running the show.

    COULTER: Well, everyone would root for America, the Democratic Party would look like Joe Lieberman, the Republican Party would look like Duncan Hunter —

    DEUTSCH: No, no, no, I don't want — I'm not talking about politically the landscape. What would our — would we be safer? Would people be happier? Would they be more —

    COULTER: We would be a lot safer.

    DEUTSCH: Would there be more tolerance? Would there be — would women be happier, would the races get along better? The Ann Coulter subscription — prescription. What — tell me what would be different in our fabric of country, because —

    COULTER: Well, all of those things.

    DEUTSCH: I can give — I can give you an argument there would be more divisiveness, that there would be more hate —

    COULTER: Oh, no.

    DEUTSCH: That there would be a bigger difference between the rich and the poor, a lot of other — tell me what — why this would be a better world? Let's give you — I'm going to give you — say this is your show.

    COULTER: Well, OK, take the Republican National Convention. People were happy. They're Christian. They're tolerant. They defend America, they —

    DEUTSCH: Christian — so we should be Christian? It would be better if we were all Christian?

    COULTER: Yes.

    DEUTSCH: We should all be Christian?

    COULTER: Yes. Would you like to come to church with me, Donny?

    DEUTSCH: So I should not be a Jew, I should be a Christian, and this would be a better place?

    COULTER: Well, you could be a practicing Jew, but you're not.

    DEUTSCH: I actually am. That's not true. I really am. But — so we would be better if we were — if people — if there were no Jews, no Buddhists —

    COULTER: Whenever I'm harangued by —

    DEUTSCH: — in this country? You can't believe that.

    COULTER: — you know, liberals on diversity —

    DEUTSCH: Here you go again.

    COULTER: No, it's true. I give all of these speeches at megachurches across America, and the one thing that's really striking about it is how utterly, completely diverse they are, and completely unself-consciously. You walk past a mixed-race couple in New York, and it's like they have a chip on their shoulder. They're just waiting for somebody to say something, as if anybody would. And —

    DEUTSCH: I don't agree with that. I don't agree with that at all. Maybe you have the chip looking at them. I see a lot of interracial couples, and I don't see any more or less chips there either way. That's erroneous.

    COULTER: No. In fact, there was an entire "Seinfeld" episode about Elaine and her boyfriend dating because they wanted to be a mixed-race couple, so you're lying.

    DEUTSCH: Oh, because of some "Seinfeld" episode? OK.

    COULTER: But yeah, I think that's reflective of what's going on in the culture, but it is completely striking that at these huge megachurches — the idea that, you know, the more Christian you are, the less tolerant you would be is preposterous.

    DEUTSCH: That isn't what I said, but you said I should not — we should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians, then, or —

    COULTER: Yeah.

    DEUTSCH: Really?

    COULTER: Well, it's a lot easier. It's kind of a fast track.

    DEUTSCH: Really?

    COULTER: Yeah. You have to obey.

    DEUTSCH: You can't possibly believe that.

    COULTER: Yes.

    DEUTSCH: You can't possibly — you're too educated, you can't — you're like my friend in —

    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.

    DEUTSCH: Wow, you didn't really say that, did you?

    COULTER: Yes. That is what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws. We know we're all sinners —

    DEUTSCH: In my old days, I would have argued — when you say something absurd like that, there's no —

    COULTER: What's absurd?

    DEUTSCH: Jews are going to be perfected. I'm going to go off and try to perfect myself —

    COULTER: Well, that's what the New Testament says.

    DEUTSCH: Ann Coulter, author of "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans," and if Ann Coulter had any brains, she would not say Jews need to be perfected. I'm offended by that personally. And we'll have more "Big Idea" when we come back.

    (BREAK)

    DEUTSCH: Welcome back to "The Big Idea." During the break, Ann said she wanted to explain her last comment. So I'm going to give her a chance. So you don't think that was offensive?

    COULTER: No. I'm sorry. It is not intended to be. I don't think you should take it that way, but that is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews. We believe the Old Testament. As you know from the Old Testament, God was constantly getting fed up with humans for not being able to, you know, live up to all the laws. What Christians believe — this is just a statement of what the New Testament is — is that that's why Christ came and died for our sins. Christians believe the Old Testament. You don't believe our testament.

    DEUTSCH: You said — your exact words were, "Jews need to be perfected." Those are the words out of your mouth.

    COULTER: No, I'm saying that's what a Christian is.

    DEUTSCH: But that's what you said — don't you see how hateful, how anti-Semitic —

    COULTER: No!

    DEUTSCH: How do you not see? You're an educated woman. How do you not see that?

    COULTER: That isn't hateful at all.

    DEUTSCH: But that's even a scarier thought. OK —

    COULTER: No, no, no, no, no. I don't want you being offended by this. This is what Christians consider themselves, because our testament is the continuation of your testament. You know that. So we think Jews go to heaven. I mean (Jerry) Falwell himself said that, but you have to follow laws. Ours is "Christ died for our sins." We consider ourselves perfected Christians. For me to say that for you to become a Christian is to become a perfected Christian is not offensive at all.

    DEUTSCH: We will let the audience decide then, won't we? Ann Coulter. New book. More "Big Idea" straight ahead.
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 10-16-2007, 04:55 PM.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Is what Ann Coulter said wrong

    Well, IMO she is wrong as in incorrect, but I don't have a problem with her saying that.
    That'll do.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Is what Ann Coulter said wrong

      I have no problem with those who disagree with her, but I do have a problem with those who are saying she should never be allowed on TV again or be brought on this network or that network.

      Maybe I should re-write the thread title.

      Should she be allowed to say this kind of stuff. Is it offensive what she said.
      Last edited by Unclebuck; 10-16-2007, 05:02 PM.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Is what Ann Coulter said wrong

        She should be ignored the way you ignore crazy people on the street. Not just for this statement in particular (which is an unfortunate phrasing that probably isn't as offensive as it comes off, of course, she probably intentionally phrased it that way to **** people off), but for her entire pattern of ludicrous, attention-grabbing behavior.
        2010 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champion Baltimore Bulldogs

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Is what Ann Coulter said wrong

          What do you mean by "allowed". We have free speech in America. Of course she's allowed to say whatever she wants.

          As for Coulter as a person, I hate that c**t with all my soul, so no I wouldn't shed one tear if I didn't see her black soot filled head on my TV ever again.

          And yes, saying that your race or group is perfect (and that other groups are less perfect by comparison) sounds like aryan hate to me. So yes, it's insulting in 80 different ways.

          Saying that America should be 100% christian also sounds like Aryan hate.
          “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

          “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Is what Ann Coulter said wrong

            She's allowed to say whatever she wants. But it is this type of thinking, this "I'm better than you because I'm <insert religion>" state of mind has fueled violence and persecution for thousands of years and is still causing violence today.

            Specifically, the idea that Jews are not "perfect" and need to be corrected undoubtedly led to the Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust, various pogroms, etc. Although she may not be intending to be, she is being anti-Semitic with that line of thinking.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Is what Ann Coulter said wrong

              Coultor scares me. She's obviously abrasive and so forth. She is certainly not going to convince anyone to become a Christian by her statements and the way she presents them.

              However, there is no doubt that most Christians believe all other religions are false. Here is one reason why:

              "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6

              That's quite an exclusionary statement and one of the most important verses in the entire bible...of course the new testament which the Jews do not recognize of course.

              The bottom line: The only thing that really matters in Christianity is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If you accept Christ as your saviour and that he died for your sins...you are in the proverbial club. Otherwise, you are not. It's really that simple....and it is that exclusive.

              If you think it's "unfair" or does not make sense, that's a reasonable reaction. However, before coming to that conclusion and shutting down, think a little bit about what love means to you. Now for something deep. Would you appreciate the love of a robot that you constructed?....or another human being that has free will...that is, a choice of whether to love you? Which one's love would you value more? I would only suggest that you investigate the facts and give the Christian religion at least as much of a chance as any other belief you might have.

              Now, the kicker is...and it is so ironic...the evangelism and exclusionary statements that enrage non-Christians are precisely what Christians are called by their faith to proclaim...in love. If Christians don't do that, they are actually not doing what they are called to do. Isn't that one amazing?!

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Is what Ann Coulter said wrong

                Yes, UB, what Ann Coulter said was wrong. She's got every right to say it as long as she's got someone willing to let her on air to say it (much like Don Imus), but that doesn't make it right.

                First off, we've got what we call freedom of religion in this country. What Ann Coulter is saying boils down to "I don't believe in the Constitution". I've not really heard her speak much, I don't get too deep into politics, but I can say, due to this speech of hers, I will never take her seriously. Ever.

                This country is founded on freedom, and what she is saying is that freedom of religion is unnecessary because Christianity is the only religion we need. This is the same thing that Fundamentalists in Iraq believe, just with Islam instead of Christianity. And before you try to derail this on a tangent about people blowing themselves up vs. peaceful conversion, keep in mind that Muslims haven't been suicide bombers forever, and that all ends have a beginning. It's frightening. If you want some sort of Christian Theocracy, the Religious Right can get together with Pat Robertson, pool some money and go buy an island and get started. This country is for people with ideas and opinions!

                I also know another guy who thought that Jews were unnecessary and that humanity could somehow be "perfected". I'll give you three guesses who that was.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Is what Ann Coulter said wrong

                  Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                  I also know another guy who thought that Jews were unnecessary and that humanity could somehow be "perfected". I'll give you three guesses who that was.
                  walt disney?
                  This is the darkest timeline.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Is what Ann Coulter said wrong

                    Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                    walt disney?
                    Accurate, possibly, but the guy I'm thinking about also envisioned the Volkswagen.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Is what Ann Coulter said wrong

                      As a believer in Christ I feel that she is wrong for saying that. How can the world be perfected by everyone joining one church? I have a few Jewish friends that are alot more caring and peaceful than alot of Christians I know. My brother is an Agnostic and he lives more "Christ-like" than I do at times. If her church picks on people like she does, I wouldn't want to be a part of it.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Is what Ann Coulter said wrong

                        Originally posted by Irk Woodsman View Post
                        As a believer in Christ I feel that she is wrong for saying that. How can the world be perfected by everyone joining one church? I have a few Jewish friends that are alot more caring and peaceful than alot of Christians I know. My brother is an Agnostic and he lives more "Christ-like" than I do at times. If her church picks on people like she does, I wouldn't want to be a part of it.
                        Mr. Woodman,

                        Yes, people are not perfected by joining one church. However, if you are a Christian I presume you believe that only those who believe in Christ are saved. If not, don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger...but I would be surprised you have not seen the overwhelming statements in the bible to the contrary. So, I presume you are talking about simply joining some, or any, brick and mortar church.

                        Also, as for perfection, this might be what Coulter is referring to. Not saying I like her style and abrasiveness, but some of what she says is in the bible:

                        Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

                        Hebrews 10:11-14

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Is what Ann Coulter said wrong

                          Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                          I also know another guy who thought that Jews were unnecessary and that humanity could somehow be "perfected". I'll give you three guesses who that was.
                          Guess #2: Bobby Fischer?
                          Read my Pacers blog:
                          8points9seconds.com

                          Follow my twitter:
                          @8pts9secs

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Is what Ann Coulter said wrong

                            Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                            Yes, UB, what Ann Coulter said was wrong. She's got every right to say it as long as she's got someone willing to let her on air to say it (much like Don Imus), but that doesn't make it right.

                            First off, we've got what we call freedom of religion in this country. What Ann Coulter is saying boils down to "I don't believe in the Constitution". I've not really heard her speak much, I don't get too deep into politics, but I can say, due to this speech of hers, I will never take her seriously. Ever.

                            This country is founded on freedom, and what she is saying is that freedom of religion is unnecessary because Christianity is the only religion we need. This is the same thing that Fundamentalists in Iraq believe, just with Islam instead of Christianity. And before you try to derail this on a tangent about people blowing themselves up vs. peaceful conversion, keep in mind that Muslims haven't been suicide bombers forever, and that all ends have a beginning. It's frightening. If you want some sort of Christian Theocracy, the Religious Right can get together with Pat Robertson, pool some money and go buy an island and get started. This country is for people with ideas and opinions!

                            I also know another guy who thought that Jews were unnecessary and that humanity could somehow be "perfected". I'll give you three guesses who that was.
                            I took her statements as favoring that all people become Christians. That's very, very different than favoring a forced belief in Christianity. That is one point that many people seem to have great difficulty in distinguishing...or perhaps they don't want to make the distinction. Perhaps this is due to being annoyed by the "finger pointing, bible thumping" Christians.

                            The truth is, Christians know that there is no value in forcing people to believe in their religion. Said another way to be sure it's understood, people have to come willingly to believe in Christ or there is simply no value to their "belief". Instead, the modus operandi is to evangelize. That means spread what they believe to be the truth in an effort to get you to believe and be saved. That's hardly forcing anyone to do anything. I could understand it being annoying, but it's clearly not coercion.

                            BTW, this is one truly significant difference between Islam and Christianity. Theocracies and forcing their religion on others is precisely what's going on in the world of Islam today. They are doing what some people seem to fear most about the Christians.

                            BTW, I know a guy who was a Jew and thought humanity could somehow be "perfected". I'll give you three guesses who that was.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Is what Ann Coulter said wrong

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              Also, as for perfection, this might be what Coulter is referring to......
                              could be. I just don't like to paint the picture that once you're a Christian everything is perfect or great (if that's what she is saying).

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next
                              Working...
                              X