(07-01-2009 03:43 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-01-2009 11:19 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(07-01-2009 11:08 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-01-2009 07:17 AM)Paul M Wrote:  I'm not sure what she has ever done as a biblical literalist that would get me upset. I'm agnostic, not that that matters much, and I don't want the mullahs running anything. Is she pro death penalty? So am I. Does she want creationism taught along side evolution? I just don't want either taught as proven fact. Is she pro life? A man and a woman?

What has she done because of her beliefs (everyone has there own) in an official capacity to turn you off of her?

Nothing...I have no problem with biblical literalists. I just would prefer not to have one a heartbeat away from being POTUS.

"Thou shall not steal"
"Thou shall not bear false witness against they neighbor"
Take care of the poor, orphans and widows.

Yeah, who'd want someone like that in charge?!

Nice try Torch....but....As someone who is science minded...you know my problem here.
I have never disputed the morality of the new testament. That is why I have zero problem with people of faith.... Of course...We don't need to mention the violence of the old testament do we?

you can also find the logic of the 2nd Amendment litered throughout the Bible, including the Old Testament

from one of the better Gun Control debates you'll ever hear:

http://www.contra-mundum.org/cm/reviews/...ontrol.pdf

Quote:Having proposed the “pragmatic” reasons against gun control, he then takes us directly to
the Word of God as his ultimate authority on this matter. He mentions Exodus 22:2
(Killing a thief found breaking and entering); Judges 15 (the story of Samson killing
many Philistines with the jawbone of an ass); Luke 11:21 (“When a strong man armed
keeps his palace; his goods are in peace”); Nehemiah 4 (The builders of the wall armed
themselves); Luke 22:36 (Where Jesus told His disciples to buy a sword). Bahnsen’s
point is that there is an abundance of Scriptures which speak to the issue of selfprotection.
Rather than being vague and imprecise, God in His word has spoken quite
clearly on this subject.
The interrogatory portion of the debate proved to be an interesting exchange. Dr. Atwood
asked Dr. Bahnsen about the Reformed understanding of the 6th Commandment.
Bahnsen responded by going to the Westminster Larger Catechism, Questions 134-136,
and pointing out that the Reformed understanding calls for two things; the preservation of
innocent life and the punishment of evildoers. The answer to Question 135 reads, in part,
“The duties required in the sixth commandment are ... avoiding all occasions,
temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any; by just
defence thereof against violence, ... .” Likewise, Question 136 refers to “necessary
defence” as an exception to the rule of the preservation of life at all costs.

(07-01-2009 03:52 PM)GGniner Wrote:  

(07-01-2009 03:43 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-01-2009 11:19 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(07-01-2009 11:08 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-01-2009 07:17 AM)Paul M Wrote:  I'm not sure what she has ever done as a biblical literalist that would get me upset. I'm agnostic, not that that matters much, and I don't want the mullahs running anything. Is she pro death penalty? So am I. Does she want creationism taught along side evolution? I just don't want either taught as proven fact. Is she pro life? A man and a woman?

What has she done because of her beliefs (everyone has there own) in an official capacity to turn you off of her?

Nothing...I have no problem with biblical literalists. I just would prefer not to have one a heartbeat away from being POTUS.

"Thou shall not steal"
"Thou shall not bear false witness against they neighbor"
Take care of the poor, orphans and widows.

Yeah, who'd want someone like that in charge?!

Nice try Torch....but....As someone who is science minded...you know my problem here.
I have never disputed the morality of the new testament. That is why I have zero problem with people of faith.... Of course...We don't need to mention the violence of the old testament do we?

you can also find the logic of the 2nd Amendment litered throughout the Bible, including the Old Testament

from one of the better Gun Control debates you'll ever hear:

http://www.contra-mundum.org/cm/reviews/...ontrol.pdf

Quote:Having proposed the “pragmatic” reasons against gun control, he then takes us directly to
the Word of God as his ultimate authority on this matter. He mentions Exodus 22:2
(Killing a thief found breaking and entering); Judges 15 (the story of Samson killing
many Philistines with the jawbone of an ass); Luke 11:21 (“When a strong man armed
keeps his palace; his goods are in peace”); Nehemiah 4 (The builders of the wall armed
themselves); Luke 22:36 (Where Jesus told His disciples to buy a sword). Bahnsen’s
point is that there is an abundance of Scriptures which speak to the issue of selfprotection.
Rather than being vague and imprecise, God in His word has spoken quite
clearly on this subject.
The interrogatory portion of the debate proved to be an interesting exchange. Dr. Atwood
asked Dr. Bahnsen about the Reformed understanding of the 6th Commandment.
Bahnsen responded by going to the Westminster Larger Catechism, Questions 134-136,
and pointing out that the Reformed understanding calls for two things; the preservation of
innocent life and the punishment of evildoers. The answer to Question 135 reads, in part,
“The duties required in the sixth commandment are ... avoiding all occasions,
temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any; by just
defence thereof against violence, ... .” Likewise, Question 136 refers to “necessary
defence” as an exception to the rule of the preservation of life at all costs.

I doubt there is an issue that one can't find some obscure biblical passage to justify or use as debate fodder. I'm really does not interest me that much.... I do however recommend the teachings of Jesus for statists. They really need to take his example of loving your neighbor to heart.

(07-01-2009 02:28 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(07-01-2009 01:54 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  

(07-01-2009 01:53 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(07-01-2009 01:51 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  

(07-01-2009 01:50 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(07-01-2009 01:49 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  Yes. Now what does that have to do with Palin?

Try re-reading the entire threat from post #1, little Johnny. Maybe you'll understand then.

First of all, I never claimed Palin was responsible for the meth problem in Alaska. I would hope you would have the same intelligence level to understand that Obama had nothing to do with Chicago's issues, either. Especially considering he holds neither the title of Mayor or Police Superintendent.

I was wondering why you rudely injected yourself into a discussion between Nomad and myself also.

If you dont want an open discussion on a public message board, then I would advise utilizing the PM feature with the member of your choosing.

Then don't ***** when I bring up Chicago's problems when someone blames Palin for Wasilla.

I can ***** whenever I want, thank you. I am not goingto sit idly on the sidelines when you trash my hometown, and a city I love despite its flaws.

Two points. Palin brought in more votes for McCain than she cost him. The folks who say they would have voted for McCain if she wasn't on the ticket would have found some other excuse not to vote for McCain. On the other hand the religious right was very much going to sit out this election and without them, it would have been a 50-0 sweep for Obama. And for those who say, they didn't vote for McCain because Palin wasn't qualified, tell me, what qualifications did Obama have that McCain didn't have? And what qualifications did the plagerist have that Palin didn't have? I guess you could say he read books that he could steal quotes from.

(07-01-2009 05:37 PM)EastStang Wrote:  Two points. Palin brought in more votes for McCain than she cost him. The folks who say they would have voted for McCain if she wasn't on the ticket would have found some other excuse not to vote for McCain. On the other hand the religious right was very much going to sit out this election and without them, it would have been a 50-0 sweep for Obama. And for those who say, they didn't vote for McCain because Palin wasn't qualified, tell me, what qualifications did Obama have that McCain didn't have? And what qualifications did the plagerist have that Palin didn't have? I guess you could say he read books that he could steal quotes from.

I can't speak for other voters..but..I can assure you she cost the ticket my vote.
My stance on this has been consistent and was posted numerous times during the election. The second I found that she was a biblical literalist, I knew I could not vote for that ticket. I hated not to vote for JM. I think he was the most qualified candidate and is a man of true character. He let others sway him into picking Mrs. Palin. It has been documented that she was not his first pick. I still think it was a mistake.

Most likely though...It would not have mattered anyway. The GOP made its bed in Iraq and now is paying the price for sleeping in it.

(07-01-2009 03:43 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-01-2009 11:19 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(07-01-2009 11:08 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-01-2009 07:17 AM)Paul M Wrote:  I'm not sure what she has ever done as a biblical literalist that would get me upset. I'm agnostic, not that that matters much, and I don't want the mullahs running anything. Is she pro death penalty? So am I. Does she want creationism taught along side evolution? I just don't want either taught as proven fact. Is she pro life? A man and a woman?

What has she done because of her beliefs (everyone has there own) in an official capacity to turn you off of her?

Nothing...I have no problem with biblical literalists. I just would prefer not to have one a heartbeat away from being POTUS.

"Thou shall not steal"
"Thou shall not bear false witness against they neighbor"
Take care of the poor, orphans and widows.

Yeah, who'd want someone like that in charge?!

Nice try Torch....but....As someone who is science minded...you know my problem here.
I have never disputed the morality of the new testament. That is why I have zero problem with people of faith.... Of course...We don't need to mention the violence of the old testament do we?

Like this?

2 Kings 6:18-23
18 As the enemy came down toward him, Elisha prayed to the LORD, "Strike these people with blindness." So he struck them with blindness, as Elisha had asked.

19 Elisha told them, "This is not the road and this is not the city. Follow me, and I will lead you to the man you are looking for." And he led them to Samaria.

20 After they entered the city, Elisha said, "LORD, open the eyes of these men so they can see." Then the LORD opened their eyes and they looked, and there they were, inside Samaria.

21 When the king of Israel saw them, he asked Elisha, "Shall I kill them, my father? Shall I kill them?"

22 "Do not kill them," he answered. "Would you kill men you have captured with your own sword or bow? Set food and water before them so that they may eat and drink and then go back to their master." 23 So he prepared a great feast for them, and after they had finished eating and drinking, he sent them away, and they returned to their master. So the bands from Aram stopped raiding Israel's territory.
NIV

(07-01-2009 06:51 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I can't speak for other voters..but..I can assure you she cost the ticket my vote.

You're right, you can't. As an independent conservative she's the REASON I voted for that RINO. You're an anarchist so your little opinion means nothing.

While Obama explodes the US spending......in Alaska Palin has been shrinking theirs....awful I know!

Governor Murkowski's last budget FY2007: $11,697,400,000
http://gov.state.ak.us/omb/08_OMB/budget...ummary.pdf

Governor Palin's latest budget FY2010: $10,570,000,000
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/omb/10_omb/bu...-21-09.pdf

other Spending related numbers:

http://gov.state.ak.us/omb/10_omb/budget...quests.pdf
Murkowski's federal requests total: 63 projects @ $349,497,000

http://gov.state.ak.us/omb/10_omb/budget...quests.pdf
Governor Palin's federal requests total: 8 projects @ $69,100,000

a number that has been on decline since she became Gov.

She is the complete opposite of Obama in so many ways, and instead of talking about fiscal conservatism like many do, she actually figured out a way to accomplish it.

(07-01-2009 09:12 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(07-01-2009 06:51 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I can't speak for other voters..but..I can assure you she cost the ticket my vote.

You're right, you can't. As an independent conservative she's the REASON I voted for that RINO. You're an anarchist so your little opinion means nothing.

Sorry...No anarchist here. I firmly believe in rules pertaining to property rights...arbitration of disputes...contracts between consenting parties, ect. I just think an unfettered free market should be the basis for society...not power tripping people backed up by governmental force.

Reb....I fully understand how it feels to sacrifice ones principles and have to cast a ballot for someone you really do not support. That is usually what I have done. I have just decided not to do it anymore.

You are correct...my opinion means nothing...Just as casting a ballot means nothing. Regardless of the outcome of these popularity contests...You lose. Government continues to grow and continues to be more intrusive in your life. That is the nature of ALL governmental systems. It can be no other way.

(07-01-2009 07:22 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(07-01-2009 03:43 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-01-2009 11:19 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(07-01-2009 11:08 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-01-2009 07:17 AM)Paul M Wrote:  I'm not sure what she has ever done as a biblical literalist that would get me upset. I'm agnostic, not that that matters much, and I don't want the mullahs running anything. Is she pro death penalty? So am I. Does she want creationism taught along side evolution? I just don't want either taught as proven fact. Is she pro life? A man and a woman?

What has she done because of her beliefs (everyone has there own) in an official capacity to turn you off of her?

Nothing...I have no problem with biblical literalists. I just would prefer not to have one a heartbeat away from being POTUS.

"Thou shall not steal"
"Thou shall not bear false witness against they neighbor"
Take care of the poor, orphans and widows.

Yeah, who'd want someone like that in charge?!

Nice try Torch....but....As someone who is science minded...you know my problem here.
I have never disputed the morality of the new testament. That is why I have zero problem with people of faith.... Of course...We don't need to mention the violence of the old testament do we?

Like this?

2 Kings 6:18-23
18 As the enemy came down toward him, Elisha prayed to the LORD, "Strike these people with blindness." So he struck them with blindness, as Elisha had asked.

19 Elisha told them, "This is not the road and this is not the city. Follow me, and I will lead you to the man you are looking for." And he led them to Samaria.

20 After they entered the city, Elisha said, "LORD, open the eyes of these men so they can see." Then the LORD opened their eyes and they looked, and there they were, inside Samaria.

21 When the king of Israel saw them, he asked Elisha, "Shall I kill them, my father? Shall I kill them?"

22 "Do not kill them," he answered. "Would you kill men you have captured with your own sword or bow? Set food and water before them so that they may eat and drink and then go back to their master." 23 So he prepared a great feast for them, and after they had finished eating and drinking, he sent them away, and they returned to their master. So the bands from Aram stopped raiding Israel's territory.
NIV

No...The other stuff

(07-01-2009 09:12 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(07-01-2009 06:51 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I can't speak for other voters..but..I can assure you she cost the ticket my vote.

You're right, you can't. As an independent conservative she's the REASON I voted for that RINO. You're an anarchist so your little opinion means nothing.

Stop acting like yours is worth more.