"We just want Jews to be perfected."

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Premise 1: the tenets common to the various Christian religions derive, deductively, that Christians should convert other people to Christianity, and that such conversion is for those others' own benefit.

Premise 1 is not technically correct, as it is quite possible to be a member of a Christian religion and not feel it's your duty to proselyte, or even that attempting to actively convert non-believers is contrary to your interests if you feel teaching by example is the better way. (That last part would hinge on whether "convert" is defined as active, or more generally to allow passive conversion.) A member of a Christian religion can also hold the supposition that it is not important to be "Christian" at all.

Your main failing here is that you try to deduce a common ground between a non-specific group of Christian religions. You could perhaps specify a group of Christian religions which would indeed allow for such an assertion.

Your caveat does not apply in this regard because you have defined it as dealing with "Christian", and not "various Christian religions". In your caveat you specified you had been very clear about what you meant, and so we can deduce that your caveat does not apply to your use of "various Christian religions" as what religions constitute "various" are not clear at all. Certainly not very clear.

Premise 2: Christians are acceptable in society.

Ok.

Premise 3: Hypocrisy is not acceptable in society, or at the very least is not preferable to intellectual consistency and rigor.

Premise 3 is the one you're trying to twist words so as to fit your false dichotomy. The obvious first: "not acceptable" != "not preferable". I can prefer something else without being intolerant of what I prefer less. For instance, I prefer french vanilla ice-cream (FREEDOM VANILLA!), but am not intolerant of regular vanilla. Whereas someone who finds regular vanilla not acceptable is expressing intolerance for regular vanilla.

That said, hypocrisy is acceptable. Free speech demands that it be so. As for "not preferable", that is a subjective observation, and will vary from person to person, and even situation to situation.

For instance I like that Coulter makes a fool of herself. It doesn't seem to hurt her own self-esteem, and I doubt anyone who's not already of that mindset is going to be swayed by what she says, so it is mostly harmless stuff. But it is good for some laughs. In her case, hypocrisy is preferable to me.

There are potentially other angles where it could be deemed so by various other individuals as well. One could be for those who oppose her publicly. They might very well want her arguments to be weakened by hypocrisy and thus lend themselves to refutation.

Conclusion 1: from Premise 2 and Premise 3: Christians who believe the logical conclusions of the tenets of Christianity are acceptable in society, or at the very least preferable to Christians who don't believe the logical conclusions of their own axioms.

Premise 3 doesn't hold up. So neither does Conclusion 1.

That said, Conclusion 1 is actually using a different premise than Premise 3. This is because it is not necessarily hypocritical to be a Christian and not believe the logical conclusion of that particular sexts own axioms. (That would be "illogical" or perhaps "ignorant", but not necessarily "hypocritical".)

Conclusion 2: from Conclusion 1 and Premise 1: Christians who believe that everyone would be best off as Christians are acceptable in society, or at the very least preferable to Christians who don't believe that everyone would best off as Christians.

Since Conclusion 1 is wrong, it follows that Conclusion 2 is baseless.

You actually aren't using Premise 1 here either, but a derivative. "Christians who believe that everyone would be best off as Christians" is a specific group of Christians with a commonly held belief as a given, not "the tenets common to the various Christian religions" that Premise 1 introduces.

Find the flaw, keeping in mind the below caveat.

It is impossible for me to find "the flaw" because of the plurality of the flaws present. There may be other flaws as well, but I don't have the time right now to give it more than a cursory look. (The computer parts just arrived )

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
What Coulter actually believes inside has nothing to do with the validity of her argument.

It (along with everything else she's said) is fundamental to analysis of whether her views are hypocritical or not.

They mean the same goddamn thing.

Believe in Christ.
Be a Christian.

Nope. Different things. This is extraordinarily obvious as there were those who believed in Christ before there were "Christians".

And the common tenets of Christianity don't require organized religion, and nothing Coulter said required people to be members of any organized church.

If you further qualify that to "nothing Coulter said in that particular interview", then I'd agree with you. Further than that I don't know. I recall she discredited the idea that Christians could be on the left, or at least Democrats... so she's using a somewhat unconventional definition of the term.

And that does'nt mean it isn't best for them to know and accept the truth.

What is "best for them" is debateable. We don't have to accept Coulter's view that everyone should be Christian. We can claim that such a view is pretentious even.

And people are allowed to be pretentious. I'm not the one trying to "perfect" people.

So, you're redefining Christian to mean something else, and claiming that this new definition proves your argument. Sorry, buddy.

Contrary to your claims, alternative sects who are not accepted by the Christian establishment do believe in Christ. I am not inventing them. Rather I am helping you to understand the reality that believing in Christ does not necessarily make one "Christian", nor vice versa.

I've been very clear in my meaning and usage, and you misliking my definitions doesn't invalidate my argument.

Your invalid arguments invalidate your argument. Your definition of the term Christian is irrelevent. It is Coulter's use of the term that matters for this discussion.

[Dr Strangelove]

Well it's not like she called the Jews "nappy headed".

When was this interview aired? I have yet to hear an Imus portioned storm demanding her ouster.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Ideally, all Christians would rationally reject Christianity and become atheist humanists

No. When I said her views are scary that everyone should be a Christian... I mean that that applies to all religions (or lack of religions) and philosophical beliefs (including political). The competition of different theories and beliefs not only strengthens your own, but allows for greater analysis and a flourishing of thought.

Personally, to me, one hell would be where everyone had the same religious and political beliefs, even if they were my preferred ones.

[Barnabas]

I dont think it is anti-semitic to want jews to convert to christianity.

[Darius871]

Ann who?

[Berzerker]

Its a perfectly reasonable statement

Well, not a whole lot of reason but it doesn't strike me as anti-semitic or out of the ordinary. All religions more or less portray themselves as "the way" to God (or enlightenment) and other religions as at least misguided. The funny thing is that she considers herself a Christian... I've read Jesus' teachings and she bears little resemblance to his religion...

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by onodera
I agree with Kuciwalker and Shrapnel12.

How can one call himself Christian if he/she doesn't believe in what's written in the Bible? "If you don't believe that Jesus is your God and also is son of God, you go to Hell no matter what, unless you're a baby."

You want to point me to that Biblical chapter and verse, Sparky? I'd be particularly interested in seeing the baby exception in print. And bonus points if you can put any of that in the mouth of Christ, rather than that wanker, Paul.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Barnabas
I dont think it is anti-semitic to want jews to convert to christianity.

Why would you want them to convert unless you thought your religion was better than theirs?

[Berzerker]

What a pity that such a rather good looking girl has to be a christian fundamentalist.

She's no fundie, check out those miniskirts.

How can one call himself Christian if he/she doesn't believe in what's written in the Bible? "If you don't believe that Jesus is your God and also is son of God, you go to Hell no matter what, unless you're a baby."

Hmm... I must have missed all that. The only "requirements" I can see is love God and love others, and forgive others as we ask God to forgive us. Thats the tough part, forgiveness... Btw, Jesus didn't believe everything in the Bible either He made some changes, alot of changes if you extend his teachings beyond the examples he provided.

[Kidlicious]

She's a wannabe shock jock.

[Berzerker]

Oh, one more thing The Jews portray themselves as "The Chosen People" so any bleating from them about her comment is Ironic I'd say...

[Kidlicious]

There are Jews and Christians who aren't like that, even though their religions are mostly that way.

[Berzerker]

we aren't talking about rational people, just the ones who think they have a leg up on the rest of us because they have a special relationship with God.

[Wezil]

Knock it off. We're in the process of trashing Ann Coulter here.