Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, April 09, 2007
Kevin McCullough :: Townhall.com Columnist
"Why Liberals Revile the Risen Christ"
by Kevin McCullough
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Liberals detest the historical fact that Jesus Christ arose from the dead.

In doing so they betray the fact, that while they may attempt to embrace the Son of God as an icon of compassion, they have little actual intellectually honest use for the message or meaning of what He represented while on the earth. This rejection, hate, and rebellion against God neither lessens His reality, nor justifies their actions, attitudes, and behaviors in this life.

The worldview of modern liberalism is dependent upon a central truth- that God is either nonexistent or irrelevant. His mere existence is a condemnation of their thinking, and His involvement in mankind's affairs guarantees their conviction in the court of absolute morality.

As a writer and broadcaster I have never been shy to point to my belief - not just in the God who created me, but also in His Son. In referring to His reality in my life liberals have wrongly presumed that I fancy myself speaking "for God," or "putting words in His mouth." I have been criticized for "pretending to know the mind and heart of God" more times than I can count. But such criticisms are misguided for the substance of the claims is false. I do not now, nor have ever presumed to speak on God's behalf. He does not now, nor has He ever needed my assistance to carry His message. No argument that I have ever put into print was ever based on my self-generated view of what God thinks.

Liberals never cared about the integrity of such claims to begin with. Ultimately their battle has never been with a single thing that I've written, spoken, or broadcast. Rather the struggles within their own conscience, soul, and experience are against the truth that my assumptions rest upon. Most notably that Jesus Christ was dead but is no longer.

If Jesus Christ had stayed buried, the issue of His divine nature would have ended with Him. Yet if he did in fact rise, if he did in fact defy death, and constitute a mockery of sin, Satan, and his fallen angels - then that miraculous act alone would command the attention of the human experience. As it should!

If Jesus Christ was able to do what no other being has ever done - then the argument over whether God exists is concluded, and if God exists then his mere existence demands not merely our attention but our obedience. And if our obedience draws us to belief in Christ's completed death, burial, and resurrection then we obtain permanent relationship with Him. This relationship then grants us life everlasting - and we in response should live our lives based on gratitude for God's gift of life to us.

Liberals dislike words like "obedience" they are only able to associate its meaning to something equivalent to slavery. Yet when you consider what obedience is designed to encourage it is anything but. Would a parent think it unreasonable for a child to obey their instruction when the child is reaching for the hot stove, about to dart out into oncoming traffic, or jump into a body of water without the skills to swim? That instruction is designed to protect, save, and even enhance the child's life. Instructing our children to "study hard, make good grades, and always be prepared to do your best" could in some sense be seen as "slavery to an outdated ideal" but in reality it enables that same child to achieve - sometimes more than even they believe they are capable.

Liberals will attempt to dispute the premise of my claims and refer to their own personal, deep, and life long admiration of Jesus as proof. This is exactly the type of utilitarian relationship godless liberals deceive themselves with. They will speak in glowing terms of how Jesus fed those who were hungry, but will ignore how he instructed those he fed to live righteously. With contempt in their voice they will remind you that Jesus loved the poor, but will ignore His guidance on stewardship and personal responsibility. Liberals will scream shouts of hypocrisy about Jesus' "love for creation" in their demands to drive smaller cars, but ignore His attribute of complete sovereignty which oversees the cycles and the seasons of not just this planet but of all the created solar systems.

Liberals will also insist most assuredly that Jesus would never reduce modern sexual freedoms to old fashioned ideas of morality. They would argue that he would have (and therefore we must) embrace "love for all of man's sexual expression." Yet they purposefully remain blinded to the fact that Jesus said to the adulterous woman who was drowning in "sexual expression" to "GO and sin no more." Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "'Xtreme' Radio and columnist based in New York. He blogs at www.muscleheadrevolution.com. His second book "The Kind Of MAN Every Man SHOULD Be" is in stores now.

Be the first to read Kevin McCullough's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

To Jack
Jack writes: Friday, April, 13, 2007 9:49 AM

"Richie Boy"

Cute. Your best argument?


""If truth is subjective, what can we make of your assertion?"

That it is an accurate formulation of the relative nature of truth."

If truth is relative, any such statement is self-contradictory.

""Why make any assertions at all? Why are you here arguing if it's all subjective?"

Because I believe it is important to help the self righteous come to a higher level of understanding,..."

Ad hominem? But, anyway, if truth is relative, even name-calling fails.

""Only a fool would play a rigged game. I LOVE it when know-it-all's come here to argue that you can't objectively know anything."

That one can't objectively know anything, or at least that objective knowledge is not as easy to obtain as one might think, is a very legitimate philosophical proposition. Not grasping that reveals a limited understanding of philosophy."

Any philosopher who asserts that is also making a self-contradictory statement. Try getting metaphysical with gravity.


Re: Muslims and Christians: "Well, one might be. Neither might be. Both might be."

Impossible for both to be right because they contradict on the dates of the lives of historical persons, and other things. Now, if you believe in re-incarnation.

"If there is a higher truth that encompasses both (or all), then understanding it has to come from confronting cognitive dissonance."

Pure sophistry. (Don't get upset, Jack - that's only a relative opinion.)

"In short, I am just trying to help."

Why? In the end, with your position, it doesn't matter. You're just having "fun".


Allen's man enough to beat my wife.
Allen writes: Friday, April, 13, 2007 5:46 AM

"Rich D
Awwww - so when you can't answer a simple question, you just call people names, eh?

Wussa matter - did I make your wip [sic] quiver when I called Jesus a Zombie???"

You asked me to defend a statement that I didn't make. Are you really that slow?

"Yeah, you are claiming that a human being rose from the dead and that it's a [sic] "historical fact" -be man enough to back it up or don't bother posting."

It has been answered already, and you just don't accept the answer. The people who wrote that history were eyewitnesses.

"And please spare us the lame attempts at humor - you're a witless bore (then again, you are a KM fan -so I shouldn't expect much from you)>"

Ad hominem? (Name-calling for those in Rio Linda.) The humor must have struck home. Nobody forced you to read it.

"As far as "beating my wife", I'm gay - but I'de be happy to b*tch slap yours for being desperate enough to marry you."

[Intelligence Alert: Rio Linda explanation follows. Most of you really don't need this.]

You really are slow at this. The question I asked you was in exactly the same category as the one that you asked me. There is no good answer to it, and the only option is to ignore it. It's also a famous question frequently used in pointing up an argumentative fallacy, and has no personal reference to the receiver. The fact that you, Allen, don't seem to know this and took it personally tells me that you are playing in the wrong ballpark.

For the record, here is your question:

"Would you like to explain how it is a historical "fact" that Jesus Christ rose from a bloody death and became a zombie?""

Point one: I never used the word "zombie" - this is name-calling by you, hypocrite.

Point two: You are most disingenuous in using quotes around "fact". That tells me you aren't serious, i.e., lying again.

Point three: You asked me a question that you already knew the answer to just to yank chains. More dishonesty. Any serious person would do enough personal study first before exposing such ignorance in public.

Point four: My question was exactly the same as yours - no matter how you answer it (yes or no), you admit to something you don't want to, and also never claimed. No matter how I answer yours, I tacitly admit that Jesus is/was a "zombie", whatever the heck that is, even though I never said it. More lying, hypocrisy, and name-calling from you.

Point five: The fact that you have to announce your sexual preference shows oversensitivity, insecurity, and an inability to focus on the point. You could have just as well retorted, "Well, my shirt is green, so I win all debates today." Do you really define yourself by a propensity to buggery?

Point six: You're not "gay"; you're obviously unhappy and angry - at least in most of your posts. You folks really need a more descriptive term.

Point seven: You admit to losing the argument when you resort to threatening violence against an uninvolved person. That's real intelligence and manhood. Why, how brave of you to threaten a woman! Is that what being "man enough" means to you? I'll pass on your challenge. I hope that you are kinder to whoever's around you.

Point eight: You have to resort to insulting a third party (my wife) to deflect the debate from the issue - now that is a true mark of a dunce.

Dunce indeedy :)

You said it.

s.d.g.

Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.