PDA

View Full Version : Ann Tertullian Coulter


lpetrich
October 28, 2006, 08:22 PM
I defy any of my coreligionists to tell me they do not laugh at the idea of Dawkins burning in hell.

You are fond of your spectacles, but there are other spectacles; that day disbelieved, derided by the nations, the last and eternal day of judgment, when all ages shall be swallowed up in one conflagration; what a variety of spectacles shall then appear! How shall I admire, how laugh, how rejoice, how exult, when I behold so many kings, and false gods in heaven, together with Jove himself, groaning in the lowest abyss of darkness! - so many magistrates, who persecuted the name of the Lord, liquefying in fiercer flames than they ever kindled against Christians; so many sage philosophers blushing in raging fire, with their scholars whom they persuaded to despise God, and to disbelieve the resurrection; and so many poets shuddering before the tribunal, not of Rhadamanthus, not of Minos, but of the disbelieved Christ! Then shall we hear the tragedians more tuneful in the expression of their own sufferings; then shall we see the dancers far more sprightly amidst the flames; the charioteer all red-hot in his burning car; and the wrestlers hurled, not upon the accustomed list, but upon a plain of fire.


1. Do the saints see the sufferings of the damned?

... Wherefore in order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned.

2. Do they pity them?

... Whoever pities another shares somewhat in his unhappiness. But the blessed cannot share in any unhappiness. Therefore they do not pity the afflictions of the damned.

3. Do they rejoice in their sufferings?

... It is written (Psalm 57:11): "The just shall rejoice when he shall see the revenge."

Further, it is written (Isaiah 56:24): "They shall satiate [Douay: 'They shall be a loathsome sight to all flesh.'] the sight of all flesh." Now satiety denotes refreshment of the mind. Therefore the blessed will rejoice in the punishment of the wicked.

I answer that, A thing may be a matter of rejoicing in two ways. First directly, when one rejoices in a thing as such: and thus the saints will not rejoice in the punishment of the wicked. Secondly, indirectly, by reason namely of something annexed to it: and in this way the saints will rejoice in the punishment of the wicked, by considering therein the order of Divine justice and their own deliverance, which will fill them with joy. And thus the Divine justice and their own deliverance will be the direct cause of the joy of the blessed: while the punishment of the damned will cause it indirectly.

What a tradition she is following. :p

Sources:

Ann Coulter: The middle of Chapter 10 of Godless: The Church of Liberalism, quoted by Richard Dawkins's webmaster in The Ugly (richarddawkins.net/theUgly)

Tertullian: De Spectaculis (The Shows), chapter 30, translation from The Origin and History of the Doctrine of Endless Punishment (http://www.tentmaker.org/books/OriginandHistory.html)

Thomas Aquinas: Summa Theologica, Supplement to the Third Part, Section 94, The relations of the saints towards the damned (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/509400.htm)

john_v_h
October 28, 2006, 09:36 PM
Very much what we'd expect from the "right-wing party toy." (Bill Maher) Coulter is what neocons snort up their noses to the have the feeling of being alive for a few minutes.

AthenaAwakened
October 28, 2006, 09:40 PM
Ann is such a fine christian man.

seebs
October 28, 2006, 11:05 PM
Aquinas at least argues that it is only incindentally tolerable, not peachy-keen in and of itself.

I don't know whether Ann believes that. If she does, I am very sorry for her.

(I'm not disputing the reliability of the quote; I just have no reason to believe she believes anything she says.)

john_v_h
October 28, 2006, 11:33 PM
What does it matter what Coulter believes? Coulter the human being pales to insignificance next to the dissemination and commercial success of her writings and appearances. Her positions are already so repugnant she would not be lower in my eyes if she also happened to be a hypocrite.

MadPhatCat
October 29, 2006, 12:05 AM
I defy any of my coreligionists to tell me they do not laugh at the idea of Dawkins burning in hell.

Coreligionists? I am pretty sure the only thing she is "religious" about is making a shitload of money by being an outrageous attention whore.

scisyhp
October 29, 2006, 12:16 AM
Like I always say; the motto of the far right should be "the louder you shout the name of Jesus, the less you have to act like him"

mfaber
October 29, 2006, 12:38 AM
I defy any of my coreligionists to tell me they do not laugh at the idea of Dawkins burning in hell.

If the above isn't enough of an expose on just what an ignorant, vitriolic hack she is, here's Ann in action:

Ann Coulter on 9-11 widows and, her notions of forcable conversion of Muslims to Christianity (payback for 9-11), and her views on evolution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YyjrhvmDM8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aiHbUplz3k

Just for fun...
Even some conservatives couldn't stomach the "Vicious Villianness' vacucous venom" about the victims of 9-11 and had the "nerve" to criticize her about it...here's a cartoon on the subject (Ann complains back...)

http://www3.youtube.com/watch?v=KmLJDrsaJmk

Site where you can witness Ann claim that ' things are going swimmingly in Iraq" (Ann Coutler meltdown) (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/08/24/ann-coulter-gets-her-freak-on/)

Here's a picture (worth a thousand words) that I think sums Coulter : "Godless: The Church of Liberalism"

http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l55/phoenix702/bulwinkefractured3gnobizarro.jpg

spamandham
October 29, 2006, 01:37 AM
Yah, but she's still kind of hot.

Merzbow42
October 29, 2006, 02:41 AM
I still love her, but she's gone off the deep end with that religion stuff. Michelle Malkin is poised to claim her mantle of conservative babe standard-bearer, I think.

bleubird
October 29, 2006, 05:58 AM
Yah, but she's still kind of hot.
If you are into necrophilia.

bleu

RAFH
October 29, 2006, 07:09 AM
If you are into necrophilia.

bleu

Perhaps the screen name gives a clue for this apparent aberration? Too much spam and ham could give one an aversion to any spam and ham, eventually leading one to seeing only bone and sinew as 'hot'.

But I see the problem as not only a lack of a healthy bit of physical mass but also the equivalent lack of mental and emotional mass.

Overkill
October 29, 2006, 10:33 AM
Michelle Malkin?
I'd hit it...
With an aluminum bat.

Lógos Sokratikós
October 29, 2006, 11:11 AM
lpetrich, I had no idea Tertullian and Aquinas were so sado. Gee whiz, my Catholic friends have no idea what gruesome company they're in.

But I know telling them about this is useless. Fear is the ultimate power in the universe. Reason, kindness, and all sorts of virtues are puny wusses in the face of fear.

EthnAlln
October 29, 2006, 01:19 PM
There's a new book out, titled Brainless, a response to Coulter's Godless, by Joe McGuire. I was browsing through it just this morning. If only her idiotic comment about Dawkins burning in hell (basically a harmless bit of inanity) was the worst thing she ever wrote. It would take a team of editors a year of deliberation to choose the absolute nadir of her writing.

Among other bits of amusement, McGuire reveals that she was romantically linked with Bill Maher for a time. And she engaged in some cute pillow talk with Alec Baldwin. It started when Baldwin was asked whether he'd rather have sex with Ann Coulter or Diane Feinstein. He chose Feinstein, saying that if he had sex with Ann, he'd have to commit suicide afterward. She responded by saying that she would consider that a sufficient reason for having sex with him.

Slightly off-topic. Al Franken's movie "God Spoke" is showing in a local theater. The bill outside claims Ann Coulter as one of the actors appearing in it. The movie must be a documentary. Otherwise, I can't believe she'd agree to actually stand before a camera in an enterprise run by Al Franken.

Donkeykong
October 29, 2006, 01:57 PM
Dont worry Ann will get it in the end.
http://www.hustlingtheleft.com/CRAPP_E_LIB/democrats.html
NSFW

EthnAlln
October 29, 2006, 02:55 PM
Dont worry Ann will get it in the end.
http://www.hustlingtheleft.com/CRAPP_E_LIB/democrats.html
NSFW

Ah, those Democrats! They know they have a problem with Larry Flynt's support, since he is just one more millstone around their neck when it comes to getting the support of the working classes. But there isn't any way they can keep him from printing this kind of stuff. At least they've had the good sense to refuse his money, and very publicly.

I think I'm going to hibernate until the election is over. Don't wake me up unless the Democrats win back Congress.