Maybe Rosie was right…

I recently blogged about Rosie O’Donnell’s comments regarding “Radical Christianity”. While Christian leaders and laymen riled (and continue to rile) at her statement, the more I thought about what she said the more sense it makes (whether she meant it to make sense or not is neither here or there).

OK, in case you don’t want to visit my previous post here’s her most controversial statement:

“Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have a separation of church and state. We’re a democracy here…”

Before I continue some definitions are in order. The word “radical” is most often associated with the far-left end of the political spectrum, whereas “reactionary” is its counterpart on the far-right. Since I don’t know what Ms. O’Donnell meant I’ll apply the common usage of “radical” to what she said.

Taking this definition of “radical” I would have to agree with her statement. A “Radical Christianity” is one which is far leftist or in today’s parlance, ultra liberal.

This type of “Christianity” usually denies Jesus’ Divinity and His bodily Resurrection (the central doctrine in Christianity), the inerrancy of the Scriptures, denies sin as a reality, states that all religions lead to God, and thus have a very false and warped sense of who God is. In other words “radical Christians” (in this sense) worship a false god, an idol, one fashioned by their own desires and imagination.

So yeah “Radical Christianity” is as threatening as “Radical Islam”(or any other type of Islam for that matter) in the sense they both keep you from having a true knowledge of the One True God.

Hats off Rosie for your outstanding insight.


8 Responses to Maybe Rosie was right…

  1. Belinda says:

    Radical anything is never a good thing . . .

  2. jules says:

    So are you saying that ultra liberal Christianity is as threatening as ultra liberal Islam (because if you use far left to define one shouldn’t you use it to define the other, so as to compare apples to apples) Where is the threat in either of these? In the degradation of “true Chrsitianity” (for lack of a better terms) I would tend to agree with Belinda by saying that radical anything is not good. But then I thought, back in the day people, suppossedly, rebeled against the then current order of “Christianity” , one that seemed wrought with politiking and greed. I think these people wanted more freedom to practice as they saw fit, which I’d think was more “liberal” than the norms of their times. So they were radical “far leftist for their time) And so, here we ended up. So it worked out for us in a sense?

  3. Lazaro says:

    To be fair to O’Donnell, I don’t believe she meant liberal Christianity when she put forth her statement. Why? Because she grouped radical Islam (which actually is reactionary and not radical but who’s counting) and radical Christianity in the same sentence.

    What she probably meant was reactionary Christianity. As to what her definition of this is well you have to ask her.

  4. jules says:

    Yes, I agree that O’Donnell was probably not referring to far left Christianity. But I was directing my comment to your argument on the threat of liberal or far left Christianity and how it keeps people from true knowledge of One True God. My point was that it may have been the far leftist christians of yore, their “radical” “liberal” ways and/or ideas that allowed us to get to the enlightened era of today. So who knows where the far left Christians of today may lead us or what we might learn from them. And as for far left Islam, maybe they are analogically like the rebel Chrsitians of the past…..

  5. Lazaro says:

    For starters, who are you referring to when you say the ‘leftist christians of yore’?

    As to why I consider far left christianity a threat, well only insofar as it denies the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. If it does then it’s not Christianity, plain and simple.

    Christianity isn’t about a lot of things. I know, some try to make it like other belief systems with all these rules and commandments and they’ll say “you can’t do this and you can’t do that and if you do then you’re not a Christian”, you’ve never heard that before right? this brand is actually far right (or left depending on the demands) but the point remains the same.

    Like I said, Christianity isn’t about a lot of things, but it is about “Jesus Christ rose from the dead” If you don’t believe that then you’re not a Christian (far left or far right, I dont care). How can I make such a presumptous statement?


    Agree or disagree with that statement, that’s between you and God, after all He inspired Paul to say it. if you think im taking it out of context, check it out for yourself dont take my word for it (who am i after all?)

    why do i bring this up? because some elements (and in increasing numbers) of ‘far left’ Christianity deny the resurrection of Jesus Christ. in my opinion this is dangerous because you have people who are telling open faced lies in the name of Christ. how can one deny the Resurrection and at the same time offer the hope of the gospel? It’s madness but worse it’s damning to those who preach this falsehood and it’s damning to those who accept the falsehood.

    I dont know about you but to me eternal damnation is as threatening to one’s soul as threatening can be…

  6. Lazaro says:

    sorry for the multipost, but I want to ask you something else : do you believe that there is a true/real knowledge of God? What are your thoughts on the matter?

  7. insightout says:

    I’m not sure what you are asking. I believe in God. I believe that Jesus Christ was his only son and that He rose from the dead. I believe that he is our only salvation. I don’t know why I believe this. In the face of all the “facts” that seem to contradict and confuse, of all the questions I can’t answer, I still believe. As for true/real knowledge OF God, what do you mean?

  8. Lazaro says:

    just got back from your blog… maybe you believe what you said you believe because faith is His Gift (eph 2:8-9). an unmerited gift, which that text also makes very clear… it does not make you or me or anyone else who believes these things better than anyone else, after all what did we do to receive this gift?

    as to the ‘facts’ that contradict and confuse, what are these?

    as far as true knowledge of God is concerned… is there false knowledge of God, for example? believing your dog is god is a false knowledge of God… so if there is a false knowledge is there a true knowledge? that’s what i was asking you, if you think there is a true knowledge of God?

    from what you stated you have true knowledge of God… how can i be so presumptous? well there is this:

    “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist” 1 john 4:2-3

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: