Godless

[CoreIssue]

Anyone read Ann Coulter's new book Godless?

Someone asked my about the chapters on evolution.

[CTZonEdit]

Havent read it but in an interview I saw she states that your beliefs about evolution sets your world view and how you view yourself and others.

[CoreIssue]

Havent read it but in an interview I saw she states that your beliefs about evolution sets your world view and how you view yourself and others.
Interensting thought.

Ones belief on this issue and how one views God and the world indeed go hand in hand. I have seen that fact over and over and over.

[eahaddix]

Apparently Ann Coulter's book includes the following footnote on page 3:

"Throughout this book, I often refer to Christians and Christianity because I am a Christian and I have a fairly good idea of what they believe, but the term is intended to include anyone who subscribes to the Bible of the God of Abraham, including Jews and others."

[Emphasis Added]

This quotation illustrates the perils of equivocating Republican Conservativism with Biblical Christianity. Contrary to popular notions, the Republicans believe in the ambiguous "God" of "God, Duty, Country" Creedalism, not the 'Elohiym of the Bible.

:shrug: Since secular politics are involved, why should we expect anything less?

[CTZonEdit]

She would have to clarify further stating what she actually believes. She may be using the term to simplify things instead of getting steeped into debates about denomination.

But I am guessing here since I have not read the book.

[eahaddix]

She would have to clarify further stating what she actually believes. She may be using the term to simplify things instead of getting steeped into debates about denomination.

But I am guessing here since I have not read the book.

Singling out the "faith of Abraham" is an Interfaith tactic. Biblical Christians, Judaist Jews, and Muslims lay claim to the "faith of Abraham," including certain Biblical Scriptures about Abraham, but under different theological contexts. However, Interfaith talking points claim that this common focus of heritage represents theological commality.

See what I mean? Regardless of intention, these words come across as an implicit Interfaith assertion. Ann Coulter may not be theologically adept, but she is politically adept.

:snooty: You will not convince me of otherwise, CTZonEdit. ;)

[CoreIssue]

Hmmmm. By itself, I am not sure if she is using it in an Interfaith manner or citing she is defining the words in the widely used secular sense.

I would hesitate to take any firm position on this statement isolated by itself. It could could mean either point expressed, neither or both.

Do you have the book, Lucky?

[eahaddix]

Do you have the book, Lucky?

Hmmmm. By itself, I am not sure if she is using it in an Interfaith manner or citing she is defining the words in the widely used secular sense.

No, I do not own a copy. But I browsed this book at Books-A-Million, so I know that this quotation is correct. This notation begins with an asterisk, which appears in a sentence contrasting Liberalism's beliefs with "Christianity['s]" beliefs. Hence, she treats this ambiguous definition as a factoid, not as a disputed popular definition.

Moreover, as this notation implies, Ann utilizes her personal beliefs as a basis of reference.

"[...]I am a Christian and I have a fairly good idea of what they believe[...]"

Why would Ann mention her beliefs within her definition, if her definition was not self-referential to some degree?

I would hesitate to take any firm position on this statement isolated by itself. It could could mean either point expressed, neither or both.

Please. Any serious student of the Biblical faith would mention the Gospel (ref. 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015:3-8;&version=31;), John 3:16-18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:16-18;&version=31;), etc.), with an emphasis on Christ Jesus's identity (ref. Matthew 16:13-18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016:13-18;&version=31;), John 5:16-18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%205:16-18;&version=31;), John 8:57-59 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208:57-59;&version=31;), John 1:1-2, 14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:1-2,%2014;&version=31;), etc.). This core doctrine defines Biblical Christianity. However, instead of mentioning this core doctrine, Coulter references an ambiguous definition, which coincides with a critical area of Interfaith doctrine.

[CoreIssue]

No, I do not own a copy. But I browsed this book at Books-A-Million, so I know that this quotation is correct. This notation begins with an asterisk, which appears in a sentence contrasting Liberalism's beliefs with "Christianity['s]" beliefs. Hence, she treats this ambiguous definition as a factoid, not as a disputed popular definition.

Moreover, as this notation implies, Ann utilizes her personal beliefs as a basis of reference.

"[...]I am a Christian and I have a fairly good idea of what they believe[...]"

Why would Ann mention her beliefs within her definition, if her definition was not self-referential to some degree?
To some degree, as you say, I agree.

But she admists she has a 'fairly good idea,' which is a self limiter.

That is what makes it vague for me to see clearly.

It seems more like she is saying I have a good idea what different kinds of Christians believe. And upon that generality I base my arguments.

But, I could be complerely wrong. I admit that.

[guote]Please. Any serious student of the Biblical faith would mention the Gospel (ref. 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015:3-8;&version=31;), John 3:16-18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:16-18;&version=31;), etc.), with an emphasis on Christ Jesus's identity (ref. Matthew 16:13-18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016:13-18;&version=31;), John 5:16-18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%205:16-18;&version=31;), John 8:57-59 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208:57-59;&version=31;), John 1:1-2, 14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:1-2,%2014;&version=31;), etc.). This core doctrine defines Biblical Christianity. However, instead of mentioning this core doctrine, Coulter references an ambiguous definition, which coincides with a critical area of Interfaith doctrine. [/quote]
I agrree. And that is my point. Is she actually a serious student of the Biblical faith or a Christian in the most basic meaning?

I just see too much lack of information to nail down a firm position.

I have heard her often. And have never gotten a clear picture of exactly what her beliefs are.

[eahaddix]

But she admists she has a 'fairly good idea,' which is a self limiter.

That is what makes it vague for me to see clearly.

I disagree. The phrase "I have a fairly good idea" is a sarcastic understatement within political pundit speak. Now, since when was Ann Coulter a humble person? She believed that this definition was worth publishing, no?

I agrree. And that is my point. Is she actually a serious student of the Biblical faith or a Christian in the most basic meaning?

Faith is based on an achor, which is professed first and above all else. Hence, if one's profession of the Gospel does not hallmark an explanation of their beliefs (ref. Luke 6:45 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%206:45;&version=49;), Matthew 12:34 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2012:34;&version=49;), Matthew 15:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2015:18;&version=49;)), then how can one have a serious Biblical faith?

HANNITY: I share a lot of your views. But I want you to explain to everybody what is the foundation of Ann Coulter? Because a lot of people, when I mention your name to liberals they melt. You are like Alka-Seltzer in water. They bubble, fizz, give off their energy. You are the anti-Christ to them. Who is — what is the Ann Coulter? Where does your philosophy come from?

COULTER: Well, that's the toughest question I'm probably going to get on the book tour. In as much as I don't like talking about myself, I'm a Christian, and everything comes from being a Christian. Everything I do, I mean, from the interview that Alan was just reading from to Human Events. I mean, I do think Christianity fuels all of my books, because you are called upon to behave in a certain way as a Christian, and that is to fight lies, injustice, cruelty, hypocrisy. That fuels everything.

[Underlining by LuckyStrike]

Source: "Exclusive! Ann Coulter Talks About Her New Book 'Godless,'" by Fox News, 6/7/2006 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198549,00.html)

Why is an explanation of her beliefs "the toughest question"? Is she not "fairly sure"? This answer makes no sense. Moreover, anyone can advocate social justice, even Secular Humanists, New Agers, and Atheists.

With this in mind, the following article is an interesting article:

"'Godless' Author Coulter Unknown at Church She Claims to Attend," Max Blumenthal @ TheRawStory.com, 6/8/2006 (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Godless_author_Coulter_unknown_at_church_0608.html )

How did your own faith contribute to your book’s premise?

Although my Christianity is somewhat more explicit in this book, Christianity fuels everything I write. Being a Christian means that I am called upon to do battle against lies, injustice, cruelty, hypocrisy—you know, all the virtues in the church of liberalism. As St. Paul said, if Christ is not risen from the dead, then eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

Source: "Exclusive Interview: Coulter Says Book Examines 'Mental Disorder' of Liberalism," by Lisa De Pasquale @ HumanEventsOnline.Com, 6/6/2006 (http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15363)

So Christianity is a religion of social justice? What about Christ's resurrection?

I just see too much lack of information to nail down a firm position.

I have heard her often. And have never gotten a clear picture of exactly what her beliefs are.

Maybe this phenomenon is the point. She does not know or care about what she believes, except within political punditry. Hence, her definition of "Christianity" parallels Interfaith doctrine.

[eahaddix]

I've heard you described as a fundamentalist Christian. Is that true?

I don't think I've described myself that way, but only because I'm from Connecticut. We just won't call ourselves that. I suppose if you broke it down, yeah, I'm a Christian. I'm not sure I particularly disagree with people who do call themselves fundamentalist Christians. It just seems odd, that phraseology.

Source: "Ann Coulter, woman," by David Bowman @ Salon.com, 7/23/2003 (http://dir.salon.com/story/books/int/2003/07/25/bowman/index.html) [Original Format (subscription required)] (http://archive.salon.com/books/int/2003/07/25/bowman/index.html)

Fundamentalism is odd? Does she not have fundamental Biblical beliefs? :scratch:

Notice that Coulter dodges the question with an unsure answer, as with other interviews. She identifies herself as a "Christian," while refusing to offer any explanation.

You don't need a religion like Christianity, which is a rather large and complex endeavor, in order to flag that message. All you need is a moron driving around in a Volvo with a bumper sticker that says "be nice to people." Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity (as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of "kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and doesn't answer to the name Mohammed"). But to call it the "message" of Jesus requires ... well, the brain of Maureen Dowd.

[Underlining by LuckyStrike]

Source: "The Passion of the Liberal," by Ann Coulter @ TownHall.Com, 3/4/2004 (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/anncoulter/2004/03/04/10958.html)

I assume that Coulter is vaguely referencing Matthew 7:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:12;&version=31;). However, regardless of intention, this statement impacts this verse.

Incidental? I agree that Matthew 7:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:12;&version=31;) is not a prerequiste for salvation (Ephesians 2:8-9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202:8-9;&version=31;), Romans 11:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2011:6;&version=31;)). However, since God the Spirit puts the Law in the believer's heart and mind (Hebrews 10:11-18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2010:11-18;&version=31;)), disregarding Matthew 7:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:12;&version=31;) is no different than disobeying Galatians 5:25 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%205:25;&version=31;). Moreover, how does Coulter reconcile her assertion with John 14:23-24 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:23-24;&version=31;) and James 2:18-26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%202:18-26;&version=31;)?

Incidental by whose standard? This line of thinking is "Shopping Cart Theology" in action.

In fact, Jesus' distinctive message was: People are sinful and need to be redeemed, and this is your lucky day because I'm here to redeem you even though you don't deserve it, and I have to get the crap kicked out of me to do it. That is the reason He is called "Christ the Redeemer" rather than "Christ the Moron Driving Around in a Volvo With a 'Be Nice to People' Bumper Sticker on It."

Source: "The Passion of the Liberal," by Ann Coulter @ TownHall.Com, 3/4/2004 (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/anncoulter/2004/03/04/10958.html)

I agree, yet disagree, for this assertion is incomplete. Christ Jesus died for our sins, but how does one obtain salvation? And how can this assertion be true, if a simple belief in "the God of Abraham" makes one "a Christian"?

[CoreIssue]

The one article gave me the information I needed.

Being Presbyterian, or sympathetic to what they believe, gives a very good feel of her beliefs. It is a mix of some Bible, a lot of psychology, social doctrine and so on.

To such the Bible is a book that contains some firm issues that never change but a ton of issues that change and vary through the lens of society and culture.

Hence, she cannot nail down many firm doctrinal statements. The Biblie is not a firm set of rules, truths and realities, but a guideline and set of concepts through which society is interpreted.

Therefore, she will always be vague. Politics are as much a part of Christianity to her as is family, friends and personal beliefs.

I understand her much better now. And it firms up by impressions before we would collide heavily over what Christianity is and what the Bible says.