Thursday, May 10, 2007
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
12:59 PM
One thing is certain, Joseph Farah and Rick Warren will never be buddies. And by a biblical measure maybe they never should be.
Rick Warren is in large part, one of the problems when it comes to why Christianity as it is expressed in the "seeker sensitive" circles today has become nearly useless. Warren even went so far as to allow Barack Obama to come preach the gospel of condoms on his own stage, in his church's auditorium, from behind the podium that Rick uses. (All the while Rick claimed he would never allow Obama "in the pulpit.")
Well if WND's claim that Rupert Murdoch is a born-again Christian, better yet that Rick Warren is in fact his spiritual shepherd, than Murdoch and Warren both need to be taken to the woodshed over a believer's responsibility towards the stewardship of morality in the world around them.
you do not have any credibility to comment on other peoples religion or morals as i find you to be the most immoral columnist on this website.
every week you attack your fellow americans with false and unproven statements.
that is called lying in my church.
you harm america every week with your divisive and hateful posts.
you sir, are immoral. |
|
|
|
You, sir, are a pompeous, non-substantive, blowhard commenter.
Please enlighten us as to WHY and HOW Mr. McCullough has no credibility, is immoral, lies, is divisive, is hateful...those are all positively horrid characteristics, and I wouldn't want to be reading a blog written by a man of such character. |
|
"But one thing becomes clear as you click from story to story, liberal thinking, philosophy, and policies will destroy our nation."
is this not divisive and hateful?
'Liberals like to embrace a compassionate but dead Jesus, they also revile the holy and risen Christ.'
"Liberals in America despise Christians of true faith. "
"What is this obsession that liberals have with seeing America destroyed?"
exactly how many liberals did this guy interview to come up with these conclusions.
10? 100? 1000?
he goes around saying hateful things about his fellow americans and some conservatives don't find that immoral?
here is the thing my conservative friends, now i could write articles stating that
conservatives hate God.
conservatives support a culture of death
conservatives support abortion
and those statements would be partially true because some conservatives do have those beliefs.
now i know and you know that the majority of conservatives do not believe those things but i could make the case.
would that be immoral, i think so.
as evidenced by my quotes this author does it on a consistent basis.
there are millions of liberals in this country and to stereotype them in such hateful, divisive language when those stereotypes are generally false is beyond the pale. a vast majority of liberals do not believe what this author says they do. is that lying? is that immoral? is that divisive?
yes, yes and yes
|
|
The quotes you quoted are all things I said, and they are all true.
Liberals don't wish to live under the authority of Christ - but they do wish to emphasize his "compassion."
Liberals DO despise person of genuine Christian faith... and their policies demonstrate it.
By someone pointing these facts out does not make it a hate-filled rant. It just one person's observation.
And by the way - division ain't always a bad thing. If anything it helps separate the posers from the real thing... |
|
|
Conservatives DO NOT support abortion... |
|
i thank you for responding, that took guts.
i read an article on this website yesterday about the bush wives being pro-choice, and here is a website.
http://www.republicansforchoice.com
now do i believe a majority of republicans or conservatives are pro-choice? absolutely not.
but that is the kind of reasoning you are using.
just because some liberal somewhere says something extreme you attribute that to all liberals.
how is that logical or even scientific.
there are millions of liberal Christians and presbyterian, american baptists, united methodists and church of christ denominations are self-proclaimed liberal Christian churches.
do you think your statements are representative of their views on Christ or Christianity.
absolutely not.
where do you get your views on liberals from.
here is a website specifically for conservative atheists.
http://www.compleatheretic.com/links/godlessright.htm
can i then conclude that conservatives are atheists.
absolutely not, but you do that to liberals every week. you paint with this broad brush and label all liberals the same.
there is no liberal party so when you say you draw your conclusions from their policies, just where are those policies written down Mr.Mcullough or are they your ASSUMPTIONS of what liberals believe.
you sir are doing a disservice to this country by dividing american from american, with opinions not based on fact but based on your "perceptions>"
are the atheist conservatives and the republicans for choice destroying america too?
you probably wont respond to this but as a Christian and a liberal i believe that stereotyping millions of americans without any scientific evidence to prove your point is simply bigotry.
|
|
and one last thing, "separating posers from the real thing".
so now you know how to identify "real" Christians from other Christians?
and just where did you get your theological degree from sir, and does God tell you who the "real" Christians are or do you have a litmus test in your office that was a revelation from God that allows you to determine this.
sheesh |
|
here is an example of what you constant demonizing of your fellow americans can come to.
"I believe the US will be attacked again with another 9-11 (or worse) that will finally wake up the Real Americans. On that day, the Filthy Liberal will tremble in fear as they are hunted down by the Patriots and silenced for all time."
"If my little scenario came to be, I would have no problem doing my part to rid America of the fatal cancer that has been inflicted on the very future of our nation by the Filthy Liberal."
this was posted last night named southerner and supported by another poster named black and white brian.
this is a result of the horrible things you say about liberals every week. Of course i am told by these two posters and many more that liberals can't be Christians. Do you agree with that perception? you columns seem to indicate your agreement.
Mr. mccullough you are a columnist and a leading voice on this website. do you see your role to encourage the kind of hatred toward fellow americans i have given you examples of or to work for an america where this kind of hatred is not celebrated but disrespected.
you call yourself a Christian sir, do your columns that spread hatred towards liberals.
express your Christian values?
explaining that they are simply one mans observations is not a sufficient answer for a Christian or a patriotic american.
|
|
Talk about incoherent blog commenting - collectively, your careless and superficial commentary truly takes the cake. Not to mention that your snotty attitude is truly infuriating.
E.g., why does Mr. McCullough, or any genuine article, need a degree in theology to distinguish non-Christians from the real thing? Along those lines, you wrote: "there are millions of liberal Christians and presbyterian, american baptists, united methodists and church of christ denominations are self-proclaimed liberal Christian churches...do you think your statements are representative of their views on Christ or Christianity."
That's PRECISELY the problem with the world's cornucopia of churches with beliefs all over map, who "remanufacture" Christ from the Biblical Christ to the Christ suited to taste and comfort of the "believer."
|
|
you write:
That's PRECISELY the problem with the world's cornucopia of churches with beliefs all over map, who "remanufacture" Christ from the Biblical Christ to the Christ suited to taste and comfort of the "believer."
who are you to decide who is "remanufacture" Christ from the biblical Christ.
have you read the bible in its original language like most theological students have or are you basing your arguments on a "re-interpretation" of the bible into english.
for example the greek word for faith is alot different than its english connotations.
were you aware of that?
as far as judging others, you are the arrogant one.
so tell us what your litmus test is for deciding who is a "real" Christian and who isn't.
of course, according to my bible only God knows what is in your heart.
maybe you are a better Christian than me and God is talking to you and telling you who is the real thing.
|
|
the idea that Christian liberals believe things differently from Christian conservatives goes to the core of what a Christian is.
i have tried to convince you that calling demonizing fellow Christians just because they are liberal is not justified and quite divisive.
on one of the mormon threads a minister articulated what i am trying to say about core Christian beliefs much better than i have.
here is his post:
As an evangelical, protestant Christian pastor I have studied a lot of Christian theology, and read through the Bible many times. Therefore, I can say with assurance that the above definitions do not match anything Christian that I have ever seen either in the Bible or in the theology texts. I challenge you to pick up any theology text book from any major evangelical, fundamentalist, Baptist, Episcopalian, Congregational, Catholic, Lutheran, Orthodox, Methodist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, or Reformed denomination, and compare the beliefs listed there to your own. If you did so, you would find a commonality of core beliefs among them that would completely disagree with your own.
In as much as these denominations agree on the basics of who God is, who Christ is, what salvation is, then they would all agree that the others are Christians too. When one of these denominations stop agreeing with the core beliefs of Christianity they stop being Christians.
"a commonality of core beliefs".
any who call themselves Christian should have these core beliefs and i can tell with assurance that Christian liberals have those core beliefs. |
|
Who is Christ and when did you affirm your trust in Him? Who was Adam and Eve? What do is the significance of the bread and the wine at the Passover Seder? These questions are just a few of many litmus tests proffered by the Bible, Mr. Religious Lib. Yet another litmus test is your overwrought reactions to Mr. McCullough's blog posts, from which much about you and your beliefs might be guessed.
Salvation doctrine is in no way complex, and does not require years of studying Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic in seminary. ("Pistis" is the Greek for "faith, by the way, and is translated as "trust", properly defined as "action without reservation" and not belief in something for which there is no proof). It is a major theme of the gospel that the most ordinary people were able to take advantage of the offer of the Lord to salvation because it was childishly simple; those converted were to "become as little children," preached Jesus Christ. While the Bible is often accused of being complex, obscure, and the like, it takes a really impatient or indifferent soul to imagine that it is in any way difficult to be saved.
Certainly, there exists some understood principle of what it takes to be a genuine Christian. The mixture we now have in the churches (the liberals, sacramentalists, fundamentalists, cultics, etc. etc.) is a hopeless hodgepodge that literally cannot be communicated with from any single pulpit. Furthermore, by sound biblical definition it is comparable t othe empire of Constantine: it is full of unbelievers made "Christians" by the act of some higher committee, not by acceptance of Jesus Christ for salvation.
|
|
you belie your own words.
your definition of "faith" means at least for yourself you have had to study to understand the original intent.
i vehemently disagree with this statement:
Certainly, there exists some understood principle of what it takes to be a genuine Christian. The mixture we now have in the churches (the liberals, sacramentalists, fundamentalists, cultics, etc. etc.) is a hopeless hodgepodge that literally cannot be communicated with from any single pulpit. Furthermore, by sound biblical definition it is comparable t othe empire of Constantine: it is full of unbelievers made "Christians" by the act of some higher committee, not by acceptance of Jesus Christ for salvation.
i have never attended a church in 40 years that said you became a Christian by the act of some higher committee.
the acceptance of Jesus Christ as the means of salvation is always and only the way to become a Christian.
see therein lies my problem with mccullogh, like you he presumes to know what others think and then criticize them based on a false presumption.
now when that feeds into a mindset of people who are looking to hate their fellow americans either for religious or political means, that in and of itself is not a Christian act.
i cited the example of the guy who wanted to hunt down and silence liberals also made the comment that dems and liberals don't pray.
mccullogh feeds that thinking with his columns.
he is a leading contributor to this website and needs to understand that his words have consequences.
unless of course you think it is fine to give ammunition to folks who think it is appropriate to hunt down and kill their fellow americans. |
|
Ok, I'm gamely trying to follow your baffling, clipped train of thought. Where do I "presume to know what other people think?" And is there something wrong with obtaining a proper understanding of faith in order to defend your faith?
You disagree that salvation necessitates placing faith in the REAL biblical Christ, not some mystical, unknowable Christ or some 20th century Christ remanufactured and reinvented for modern Western Civilization society?
You ignored the simple "litmus test" questions I posed to you previously (and which I provided to you, at your request, no less). E.g., Adam and Eve - did they exist, or not? Is the creation account in Genesis 1 for real, or just an allegorical/mythological/literary device? A "Christian" view on the perspicuity and reliability of Scripture would be Christ's view of the Scripture (and after all, the "Bible" in Christ's time was the "Old" Testament).
Finally, I note, without comment, that you want to saddle Mr. McCullough (and, apparently, myself) with responsibility for people "looking to hate other Americans."
|
|
|