I think she pretends to be a good "Christian" but in reality she's a fake. Someone who says things like:

 

Now I realize some of these quotes may be out of context, and some of you will defend her saying she's just doing it to "make money". She's a hypocrite. Preaching about perfecting someone who doesn't believe like her when she's got a lot of work to do in order to perfect herself.

 

You have hit upon why I am uncomfortable listening and watching her. If she balanced her comments with the other side of the story, love, grace, mercy, than I could see it. But she has one story, a whack upside the head and I am not sure that is what Christianity is all about.

You have hit upon why I am uncomfortable listening and watching her. If she balanced her comments with the other side of the story, love, grace, mercy, than I could see it. But she has one story, a whack upside the head and I am not sure that is what Christianity is all about.

Coulter was much different when she first caught the public's attention. I think greed took over as she found that the more controversial she became, the more books she sold and the more speaking invitations she received. I have never read one of her books and rarely watch her interviews. She is not trying to win hearts and minds - she is just hawking books.

Saw the comments on Today show this morning.

 

Not wrong but politically incorrect.

 

The New Testament does teach that Jews need to accept Jesus Christ in their lives. Basically, that is what she said. But it was politically incorrect to say they needed to be perfected. As all unbelievers do.

 

NT teaches we are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God. Only with accepting Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior and His sacrifice on the cross for us do we become "perfect" enough to be in the presence of God.

 

Basically, he was offended that she said his religion was wrong.

 

:thumb:

 

I agree...politically incorrect. But, she's just stating what Christians believe. It was a Jewish person in this instance, but it could have just as easily been any other non-Christian person. The fact is, we as Christians believe that Chris is the only way to salvation...there is no wiggle room in that belief. Obviously, many people claim to be offended by it...if they are, so be it. A true Christian can't change his or her belief just so they can be politically correct.

 

I'm not going to debate what kind of Christian Ann Coulter is or isn't, but in this instance, she is accurately stating Christian doctrine, IMO.

Ronnie Deutsch tried to bait her and she stuck it in and broke it off. It made good TV for Ronnie, I know they don't care what she said.

 

See, if you offer the opinion that the Jews, by not accepting Christ for salvation, are not saved, you're anti-Semitic. That's the mantra. "Oh, have an opinion about my religion that I ask for? You're anti-semitic." The garbage here is Deutsch's, not Anne's, and I'm no Anne apologist.

 

If you are a Christian and you do not believe that it would be better if every single person out there followed Christ, then I think you need to examine if you're following the Book. What in the heck did Ronnie expect her to say?

 

:thumb:

 

Again, I totally agree.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/2007/10/ann-coulter-is-to-christianity.html

 

Here's an intriguing SAT-style question.

 

Ann Coulter is to Christianity as …

 

(A) Dr. James Dobson is to Sponge Bob Square Pants

(B) The new thought movement is to common sense

© Marilyn Manson is to Satanism

(D) Dick Cheney is to gun control

(E) Richard Dawkins is to reasoned debate

 

 

The correct answer is C. Both Ann and Marilyn found a profitable way to utilize religion as a provocative tool to feed their cash cow. Ann appeals to the base instincts of her rabid followers that right makes (Christian) might. Conversely, Marilyn attracts the kids of control freak parents who want to rebel from what can best be described as a rigid and repressive regime. I'll let the Satanists deal with Marilyn Manson, but please, do not interpret Coulter's trademark viciousness and venom as viable Christian virtues.

Coulter may profess to be a Christian, but her comments and demeanor are consistently very unChristianlike.

So you do not believe in what the Bible says? In fact, what Jesus says in that the ONLY way to the Father is through the Son?

 

This is a tough one. Do you believe that infants can't go to heaven? What about the aborted? Within the Catholic Church there was a long held tradition that used Limbo as an explanation of what happens to the unbaptised. Limbo was never part of Catholic teaching. When the discussion of Limbo came up a few months back I believe it was the church's position that it is inconsistent with the notion of the loving God presented in the totality of the Bible to think that the just and loving God presented in the Bible would exclude good and innocent people from heaven. Rockmom is likely to have links to much better explanation of Catholic teaching than I can provide.

Great line from Ann's latest book (which is a compilation of past Annisms):

 

"I carefully reviewed the lawsuits against the airlines in order to determine which airlines had engaged in the egregious discrimination against Muslim men so I could fly only those airlines."

 

I love Ann and I don't care what anyone on this site or anyone else for that matter thinks about her. I don't base my political beliefs on anything she says. I just enjoy her methods of delivery.

One has to give her credit she says what she feels.

I like her too.

There was an op-ed in todays Courier-Journal that I believe sums it up pretty well. We all pay a high price for the lack of civility in our discourse. Coulter isn't the problem. Without our appetite for people that will go out of their way to offend (and what Coulter said was offensive), there wouldn't be a market for the vitriol she spews. Look at the threads on Al Gore's Nobel prize. You don't have to agree with Al Gore's politics or his advocacy of global warming, but how does that make him a "joke" or a "dork", and worse, how does that make anyone that agrees with him a "joke". Move On is the same tripe coming from the other side. The vast majority of our political leaders have our country's best interests at heart. I may disagree with what they want to do, but that does not mean that they must be evil people, worthy of contempt.

There was an op-ed in todays Courier-Journal that I believe sums it up pretty well. We all pay a high price for the lack of civility in our discourse. Coulter isn't the problem. Without our appetite for people that will go out of their way to offend (and what Coulter said was offensive), there wouldn't be a market for the vitriol she spews. Look at the threads on Al Gore's Nobel prize. You don't have to agree with Al Gore's politics or his advocacy of global warming, but how does that make him a "joke" or a "dork", and worse, how does that make anyone that agrees with him a "joke". Move On is the same tripe coming from the other side. The vast majority of our political leaders have our country's best interests at heart. I may disagree with what they want to do, but that does not mean that they must be evil people, worthy of contempt.

The vast majority of political leaders have this country's best interests at heart? I think not.

 

Coulter acts in her own selfish interests, which is to sell books and to make money. MoveOn's motives are far more sinister. The Clintons and their political supporters founded groups like MoveOn and Media Matters to advance their political agendas and to launch orchestrated attacks on their political opponents.

 

Think of it this way. Coulter is like the town drunk in an old western. MoveOn is the faceless lynch mob that has been whipped into a frenzy and convinced that the sheriff and judge are the bad guys in the movie. George Soros and Hillary Clinton calmly throw down a few drinks as they play a game of poker in the town's saloon.

 

Meanwhile the mob prepares to burn down the jail and free some bad guys. The town drunk provides some comic relief as the audience anxiously waits for Clint Eastwood or John Wayne to ride into town...

This is a tough one. Do you believe that infants can't go to heaven? What about the aborted? Within the Catholic Church there was a long held tradition that used Limbo as an explanation of what happens to the unbaptised. Limbo was never part of Catholic teaching. When the discussion of Limbo came up a few months back I believe it was the church's position that it is inconsistent with the notion of the loving God presented in the totality of the Bible to think that the just and loving God presented in the Bible would exclude good and innocent people from heaven. Rockmom is likely to have links to much better explanation of Catholic teaching than I can provide.

 

A Just and Loving God does NOT exclude good and innocent people from Heaven. They do by not making the choice that Jesus is the Lord and Savior.

 

If I can be "good and innocent enough" to earn my way into heaven, what was the purpose of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross? Not trying to be a smart alec, as the sentence before can be read that way but an honest question? If I can "earn" my way into heaven, then Jesus' sacrifice serves no purpose.

 

I do think that Jesus' crucifixiation served a purpose of paying the price for those that cannot make a conscious decision as well as those that can. Aborted babies, as you mention.

Romans 2 is seen as a Scripture that hints that there are plans for those who do not know Jesus but admittingly, does not lay it out on the table....

 

(emphasis mine)

12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

There was an op-ed in todays Courier-Journal that I believe sums it up pretty well. We all pay a high price for the lack of civility in our discourse. Coulter isn't the problem. Without our appetite for people that will go out of their way to offend (and what Coulter said was offensive), there wouldn't be a market for the vitriol she spews. Look at the threads on Al Gore's Nobel prize. You don't have to agree with Al Gore's politics or his advocacy of global warming, but how does that make him a "joke" or a "dork", and worse, how does that make anyone that agrees with him a "joke". Move On is the same tripe coming from the other side. The vast majority of our political leaders have our country's best interests at heart. I may disagree with what they want to do, but that does not mean that they must be evil people, worthy of contempt.

 

Emperor Gore wears no clothes. He is of little substance. He is an opportunist. He is a tool of those who think propping him up makes Bush look worse and, thus, the 2000 election look like a tragedy (Bush doesn't need Gore to look bad. He is successful on his own. But, he is still preferrable to a vacuum like Gore.). He is enabled by the liberal media and by morons like those associated with liberal agendas such as the Nobel Prize, the Emmys, and the Oscars.

 

He is a clearly a dork.

Emperor Gore wears no clothes. He is of little substance. He is an opportunist. He is a tool of those who think propping him up makes Bush look worse and, thus, the 2000 election look like a tragedy (Bush doesn't need Gore to look bad. He is successful on his own. But, he is still preferrable to a vacuum like Gore.). He is enabled by the liberal media and by morons like those associated with liberal agendas such as the Nobel Prize, the Emmys, and the Oscars.

 

He is a clearly a dork.

 

Thank-you for making my point for me. Your post is a classic illustration of the problem that I see. I sometimes wonder why anyone ever enters public service when a large part of the population will immediatly call them every name in the book for the sin of holding a different political view.