Thread: The Palin debate

Originally Posted by Aristarchos

BIBLE VERSUS THE US CONSTITUTION

GODZILLA VERSUS MEGALON

Godzilla wins!

-dale

Originally Posted by Aristarchos

She holds beliefs that make her Dominionist Organization a greater danger to American freedom than Al Qaeda killing a few thousand of us. Dominionists are a far greater threat to traditional American freedom than Russian troops and tanks in the Republic of Georgia

I reject your argument Aristarchos. If Sarah Palin is affiliated with the Dominionist Organization it can only mean more cheesy bread for all Americans!

Hmmm, parihaka suspects a logical train of thought going widdershins, or perhaps even deliberate obfuscation.


So.........

A woman in power (VP) would be the absolute antithesis of the Theonomy? Which would define a woman's role as that contained within the Old (Hebrew) Testament?

Vote for Obama and the democrats if you want a bunch of union prostitute, corrupt, lying, and racist cry babies.

Did I mention the biggest donors of the democrats are unions and LAWYERS?

The very people who hate the lawyers the most support the party of trial lawyers.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Hmmm, parihaka suspects a logical train of thought going widdershins, or perhaps even deliberate obfuscation.


So.........

A woman in power (VP) would be the absolute antithesis of the Theonomy? Which would define a woman's role as that contained within the Old (Hebrew) Testament?

Methinks he doth protest too much....)))

Originally Posted by Aristarchos

...

Palin is a follower of the Political Philosophy known as Theonomy. It is only partially religion based. It is foremost a Totalitarian Christian Reconstructionist whose stated agenda is the end of the Jeffersonian Constitutional Republic. Palin is the most dangerous person to run for US executive office in US History.

...

Aristarchos

Ari, I've got to challenge you on a few points.

First of all, you have grabbed at some random fringe websites and claimed that Palin supports their agenda. Please provide proof that she shares any of these beliefs.

Second, by doing the most cursory search on theonomy I could, I quickly found two websites that claim that theonomists do not, and can not support Palin.

Of course, from a Theonomic perspective nothing has changed. Neither McCain nor Palin are eligible for office: McCain who supports experimentation on murdered children, and Palin, who is not eligible due to her gender.

The Practical Theonomist

and: Winging It: Theonomists Against Palin

Third, you state that there exists a "Totalitarian Christian Reconstructionist whose stated agenda is the end of the Jeffersonian Constitutional Republic." I can't find such an agenda stated anywhere. Please provide a link.

Fourth, there is the fact that you used the phrase "Jeffersonian Constitutional Republic."

I know that it is fashionable in some circles to hold Jefferson up as some sort of paragon of freedom, but he wasn't. Oh, sure, Jefferson was a great libertarian, democratic thinker, writer, and philosopher, but as President he was a heavy-handed autocrat who ignored the very founding documents that he himself had helped author, at whim. By way of example, I submit the Embargo Act.

Please don't insult our great Republic by linking it with the name of that hypocrite dictator, Jefferson.

Finally, your concluding sentence, that "Palin is the most dangerous person to run for US executive office in US History" is ludicrous on its face. I have met every major, and most minor candidates for President for over 40 years, and I assure you that even if every word you wrote here is true, I have interacted with several candidates whose views are significantly more extreme and dangerous.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Hmmm, parihaka suspects a logical train of thought going widdershins, or perhaps even deliberate obfuscation.


So.........

A woman in power (VP) would be the absolute antithesis of the Theonomy? Which would define a woman's role as that contained within the Old (Hebrew) Testament?

A little detail he seems to have overlooked. How easy the mighty topple.

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Someone please correct me if I am wrong. Palin doesn't claim to be an ultra Christian. Being against abortion is not reserved to ultra Christians. A Down's syndrome baby won't know what it is like to not have Down's syndrome and therefore cannot experience what you call the "misery" of it. Bringing a "baby to earth" is not a flying experience, but rather an act of nature. Just a few thoughts in reply, General.

I have experienced seeing a Down's syndrome baby. My first cousin had a Down's Syndrome baby and it is heart wrenching to say the least.

The child requires constant and personal care. Most people with Down Syndrome who survive into their 40's and 50's begin to suffer from an alzheimer's-like dementia as per some studies.

I had no idea you were on such close terms with the Palin family. That would explain how you came to know on what subjects Gov. Palin tutored her daughter. You are indeed priviledged; my wife wouldn't let me listen to her tutoring our daughter on sex and babies out of wedlock.

I think you are deliberately interpreting the issue in a different manner to what I had intended.

I am not close to the Palin family as is obvious. I don't know as many Republican politicians didn't. Therefore, my not knowing or even hearing of her is not very unusual.

However, to believe that an evangelist is about to have a grandchild out of wedlock would surely indicate that she has not tutored her daughter in the ethical and religious issue concerning children produced out of wedlock.

No offense. But to label religion a hoax on account of the "sins" of its adherents is a little over the top. Or. do I miss your meaning?

Yes, you have missed the meaning. It was my interpretation on religion and it need not be universal. In the same manner as one would claim to be an atheist.

Let us put it this way:

Logical atheism holds that the various conceptions of gods, such as the personal god of Christianity, are ascribed logically inconsistent qualities. Such atheists present deductive arguments against the existence of God, which assert the incompatibility between certain traits, such as perfection, creator-status, immutability, omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, transcendence, personhood (a personal being), nonphysicality, justice and mercy.

Theodicean atheists believe that the world as they experience it cannot be reconciled with the qualities commonly ascribed to God and gods by theologians. They argue that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God is not compatible with a world where there is evil and suffering, and where divine love is hidden from many people. A similar argument is attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, the founder of Buddhism.

We are all prone to sloppiness in using the word "religion." There are religions and there are church orgnizations. Which do you mean in relation to Palin?

The relation is not only to Palin, but to all i.e. those who wear their religion on their sleeve, require to live up to all its tenets and not be selective!

It seems to me that everyone who says they are down on religion was either never up on it, or cut short their spiritual journey. I mean, who can say nothing is at the end of the road who hasn't traveled it?

If one travelled the full spiritual journey i.e. his whole life, then don't you think it would be too late in the day to realise the folly and make amends or seek a new path?

If one has to travel down the road to realise, then would you be of the same opinion and state that the Missionaries are doing it wrong by converting the masses in Asia and Africa since they are not letting people travel the end of the road to realise their spirituality?