« GodBlogCon in Three Weeks | Main | Are Sermons Enough? »

August 29, 2008

Comments

I’m a Sarah Palin fan – no doubt about it.

Amen.

I'm thrilled. Add me to the list of "excited"!

Now this is just what we need to send Obama and Biden packing!
She is beautiful too.

I was concerned about who John McCain would pick. Gov. Palin isn't just an inspired choice -- she's the right choice.
A pro-life person with solid conservative credentials, she will bring so much to the ticket. She is someone that I can FOR rather than limiting myself to voting AGAINST B. Hussein Obama-Joe Biden.
And, yeah -- Gov. Palin is a beauty in every sense of the word.

FOXNews.com released a story Wednesday, in which John McCain was interviewed saying that he would be willing to select a “pro-choice” candidate for his VP choice. http://ntconservative.wordpress.com/2008/08/14/mccain-considers-pro-choice-vp/.

If this is true, it appears he is only pandering to the Pro Life movement because of the pressure exerted during the last few days.

It alarms me to think this old geezer could croak any second leaving the USA with a President experienced only in being a mayor of a town of about 9000 people and less than 2 years as Governor.

Not to mention the 2 scandals she is currently involved in.

I'm excited too but in a much different way.

Pro Life, do you think BHO's experience (4 years as a congressman) is materially superior to Palin's ?

Re: Pro Life, do you think BHO's experience (4 years as a congressman) is materially superior to Palin's ?

No. That's why I will vote for Bob Barr. If that helps give the vote to BO (pun intended) so be it, my conscience is clear.

*sigh*

I was hoping to get to avoid having to deal with this, but since I would like to see McCain as President ...

There are no men qualified to be VP?

What's up with the role confusion? This is stupid!

I laughed when Hillary got on stage and started acting like a man. Now I have to cry [like a girl lol] and hope that McCain lasts 8 years.

Is. 3:12a: As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. ...

Pointing to the fact that this verse is not related to this election can't change the fact that it's a shame to be oppressed by children and ruled by women.

I'll just have to vote for McCain; and impeach Palin if McCain steps down. O.o

Aquilas,

Are you serious regarding being upset that a woman could be president and that there is some sort of biblical basis for this?

Robert,

Yeah! This is lame!

And the Book of Judges was all about proving that Israel should obey god; and god showed that he was worthy by saving Israel via the *most* unlikely of people to be rulers: Gideon was a farmer, I believe; and Deborah was a woman; etc., etc. The point was that no one could boast that Israel was saved because of something *they* did.

A counter-argument might be David (as he was certainly an unlikely candidate), but - and aside from the fact that god was doing a similar thing through David as had been done through Gideon and Deborah, et al, in that god made sure Israel knew it was god calling the shots for Israel - not only would this be counter-Law-of-Moses, but god always chose men to be the kings - except for in the Book of Judges.

I do like Palin as a person, so far. She seems like a good and a neato person.

As good as Palin appears, this question bothers me most at this point.

Is McCain living in adultery, having divorced his first wife and married another? Ross Perot said that if a mans wife can't trust him, who can?

Pro Life - you can't seriously be considering Barr if your complaint against McCain is divorce. Barr is a double divorcee.

Also, if you are a Libertarian can you clarify the Libertarian position on abortion ?

Re:

Pro Life - you can't seriously be considering Barr if your complaint against McCain is divorce. Barr is a double divorcee.

Also, if you are a Libertarian can you clarify the Libertarian position on abortion ?


I must admit it is very unsettling to think Obama is the only one on the ticket we can trust according to Ross Perot.

I'm a Republican but I see an urgent need to keep the Neoconservatives and the Democrats out of office.

My first impressions of Palin and her values are very positive. I wonder about her limited experience internationally, and the compressed time frame for her to get up to speed.

She certainly throws a tantalizing unknown into the election equation.

BUT...WHO is going to be mothering those children??? Especially that 4-month-old baby?????

(I have also always thought it unfair to BO's children at their ages to have their parents so absent..despite the pretty picture being painted.)

Ross Perot is your moral compass ?

I suspect each candidate has areas of their personal lives that breach Biblical standards. They're running for political office, not pastor.

To "Pro Life":
Given the tone and rhetoric you used in describing Gov. Palin and Sen. McCain ("old geezer"), you don't seem interested in any meaningful dialogue.
If you want to talk about pandering, how about the pandering that Democrats do for Planned Parenthood money? The only issue which elected Democrats have never caved on is abortion. That isn't based on adherence to any principle. Ending life isn't a principle, it's a travesty. It has more to do with the billions of dollars pumped into campaign coffers by abortion providers who make money off human suffering and innocent blood.
Once you've addressed that facet of politics, come back and we'll talk about pro-life "pandering."

Isa. 3:12a
"Youths oppress my people, women rule over them." The word for rule over here is "mashal" and it means to exercise dominion over in the sense of seizing power. Gov. Sarah Palin is not seizing power but has been affirmed in the position of VP candidate by Sen. Mccain. She is not a disgrace or shame but is serving in a position that man has appointed her to. We also have the opportunity to vote for her and so this will also be our country's affirmation of her in this position. In this there is no shame. Please learn the context of scripture before you force your views of feminine oppression on others.

The United States political system in no way, shape, or form resembles ancient Israel's. It does no good to draw comparisons between the two, especially dragging Old Testament pronouncements into it.

England was ruled by women for centuries off and on, and was considered a "Christian" nation, however you want to take that.

America is not a new Israel. It is a secular, political entity with its own rules, for better or worse, which allow for women to rule over men. There is no Biblical mandate here, except that we as a nation exercise good judgement.

>> The word for rule over here is "mashal" and it means to exercise dominion over in the sense of seizing power.

If you think the issue being addressed here is that merely having your power seized is what is shameful, then why would the author be specific?

Why not say that Israel's power was seized?

The reason is because god was highlighting the fact that children and women were doing the seizing. And the fact that it was important enough to highlight means that it is specifically the role confusion of women holding power that is the cause of shame.

>> There is no Biblical mandate here, except that we as a nation exercise good judgement.

And where do we get our definition of "good judgement"?

Further, it's impossible to be a secular nation. Everyone has a belief about what everyone ought to do, and, even if they don't admit it, that belief comes from a worldview in which there exists an obligatory standard.

England was considered a Christian nation. I don't know what a *Christian* nation looks like, since a Christian nation has citizens of other faiths. No, we no longer have Theocracies - that was done away with at the Cross, a byproduct of god no longer respecting Israel pertaining to the means of salvation - but certainly you don't think that god changed the roles of men and women?

>> We also have the opportunity to vote for her and so this will also be our country's affirmation of her in this position.

O no - we're not voting for Palin. We're voting for McCain. The VP doesn't get voted in.

By me voting for McCain, I am not affirming Palin.

*You* may affirm Palin, but you are voting for McCain. Unless you think voting a president in because of a VP is the same as voting a VP in as president.

Re:

(Ross Perot is your moral compass?)

(I suspect each candidate has areas of their personal lives that breach Biblical standards. They're running for political office, not pastor.)

In Scripture Divorce & Remarriage equal Adultery. So,if McCain and second wife Cindy are living in adultery, can they possibly be good roll models for American youth? Can they be trusted? Will God lead them in unrepentant sin?

Ross Perot is certainly no moral compass, just a well respected Presbyterian who said something to the effect that if a mans wife cannot trust him, nobody can.

He actually supported Carol McCain financially through several operations after she was ejected through the windshield of a car. He also said this about John when he abandoned her while chasing loose women. "After John McCain came home, Carol walked with a limp, so he threw her over for a poster girl"

Aqilius,

Why is that you will capitalize Israel, Gideon, Deborah, and everyone else's name, but not the Creator of the universe?

Inquiring minds want to know...

>> Why is that you will capitalize Israel, Gideon, Deborah, and everyone else's name, but not the Creator of the universe?

The word "god" is a common noun, and, as such, is not capitalized - the same goes for "creator, universe" and "creator of the universe".

Names such as "Jesus, Israel, Gideon", and titles such as "I Am" (when used as a title), are proper nouns.

Pushing swing states like Colorado, Ohio, and Pennsylvania into the Obama column just became a lot tougher. Great move by the Republican strategists. Palin, a self-described hockey mom, understands the meaning of “save, and a beauty.”

Dr. Dobson’s endorsement initially flew under the radar of most of the talking heads. The Dems got Pearl Harbored and may not have realized it yet.

This game just got a lot tougher for the Obama camp. Hopefully, they rise to the challenge instead of wasting time reveling in the shortcomings of the Palin pick.

www.loosekannon.com

Aqilius said: "but certainly you don't think that god changed the roles of men and women?"

I do not believe we should apply Old Testament pronouncements on how the theocracy of Israel was to be run, to America.

No, God did not change the roles of men and women; society did. That's a whole other discussion. Whether you think women should be treated today as they were in ancient times is entirely your opinion.

"And where do we get our definition of "good judgement"?"

It is well understood that we (America) base our judgement on Judeo-Christian values. However, we pick and choose those values, not adopting wholescale the values of ancient Israel - the laws of relations between the sexes, property rights, hygiene, kosher laws, etc.

What I am saying is that there is no Biblical basis for objecting to a female President of the United States, because Old Testament government laws do not apply to us.

Pro Life - what about Barr's multiple divorces ? Please address why they are acceptable to you, but McCain's are not.

Re: Pro Life - what about Barr's multiple divorces ? Please address why they are acceptable to you, but McCain's are not.

Thanks for asking. Here are my thoughts.

Any divorce and remarriage is adultery. So I do not excuse Bob Barr's. He came up in a discussion about how inexperienced Obama and Palin are. I said essentially I am voting for him because of his experience. It’s much more than this though.

I also answered this question adding something like, it's unsettling to think Obama is the only one on the ticket we can trust according to Ross Perot.

Perot had a clear view of this issue since he nursed McCains wife Carol back to health, and condemned John's chasing loose women and taking up with Cindy while still married to Carol. He said; "After he [John]came home, he walked with a limp, she [Carol McCain] walked with a limp. So he threw her over for a poster girl with big money from Arizona [Cindy McCain, his current wife] and the rest is history."

Wow - that was a politician's answer if I ever saw one.

Please state in succinct terms the difference - in your opinion - between Barr's adultery and McCain's.

Re: Wow - that was a politician's answer if I ever saw one.

Please state in succinct terms the difference - in your opinion - between Barr's adultery and McCain's.

Thank you!

There is no difference, adultery is adultery. I suppose what we are getting at is how I can vote for one adulterer and not another while condemning adultery???

If this is the question, it is because of the unjust war involving the Neoconservatives (McCain)in Iraq. Also because their defense planning guidance doctrine of preemptive strike leaves little chance for peace.

To prefer one adulterer over another , or one group of mass murderers over another, comes down to this. What is the lesser evil? The Neocons, the Democrats, or the Libertarians?

Hi Pro Life,

You said, "Any divorce and remarriage is adultery."

However, your claim appears to be false. According to Jesus, not all divorce leads to adultery.

Jesus said (Matt 5:31-32), "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery."

Note the clause, "except for marital unfaithfulness" ... Jesus includes justifiable reasons for divorce -- in some circumstances.

Your thoughts?

Re: You said, "Any divorce and remarriage is adultery."

However, your claim appears to be false. According to Jesus, not all divorce leads to adultery.

Thanks for the reply.

Matthew gives a fuller presentation of this verse in 19:9

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery: and whoso marries her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Notice the innocent woman and the person she marries in the last part of the scenario commit adultery.

Why? Because she remarries.

When? After being divorced by an adulterous husband.

That is, husband #1 divorces his innocent wife and commits adultery by marrying another.

The innocent wife commits adultery along with the man she marries. In total, 4 people commit adultery because of divorce and remarriage.


The "except clause" according to popular opinion, should allow the innocent wife to remarry, free from the charge of adultery, but it doesn't.

>> The "except clause" according to popular opinion, should allow the innocent wife to remarry, free from the charge of adultery, but it doesn't.

An unmarried man can't commit adultery with an unmarried woman. So since a woman wrongfully divorced is single, she is therefore free to remarry.

When Jesus says "and whoso marries her which is put away doth commit adultery", he doesn't have to qualify that she was unfaithful because there's no point in saying all this if the sum of what is being said is that a woman put away cannot remarry under any circumstance, else she become an adulterer, and the man with her.

Aqilius,
Deborah was a prophet and a judge who wielded civil power and was sanctioned by God in this capacity. This would seem to indicate that it is possible for woman to be put in governmental authority.

Re: An unmarried man can't commit adultery with an unmarried woman.

The verse is about married people divorcing and remarrying. Not single people who fornicate. Anyone divorced and remarried is living in adultery. In this case it starts with one adulterous husband and ends with 4 people living in adultery through remarriage.

You cannot read into the verse that the wife was unfaithful. It is not there.

I know a somewhat famous theologian/author from a mainline denomination. He was very cruel to his wife and eventually drove her away. When she remarried, he believed she committed adultery based upon this verse. In his thinking, this gave him the excuse to remarry. The truth of the matter is however, He, his new wife, his former wife and the person she married are committing adultery.

>> You cannot read into the verse that the wife was unfaithful. It is not there.

Just because it isn't explicitly there, doesn't mean it's not there.

Consider 1 Cor. 9:3-10 (*v9):

9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

Now, the verse Paul quotes is *only* talking about our duty to working oxen. But he discerns a principle in this verse which he goes on to apply to:

• Marriage
• Warfare
• Farming
• Shepherding, and, of course,
• Preaching

... none of which are explicitly stated in the verse that is quoted.

And it doesn't have to be stated explicitly, because the command, itself, is born of a broader principle which Paul picked up on.

The same is true of the verse regarding the unfaithful wife.

So, because it is not enough for you to say that it is not explicitly stated that the woman of the passage in question was unfaithful, your rebuttal will have to take into account any principles which underly it - such as the principle I have argued for.

What you say doesn't make any sense at all. The husband puts her away and remarries committing adultery. Even if she was unfaithful, he still commits adultery when he divorces and remarries.

>> The husband puts her away and remarries committing adultery. Even if she was unfaithful, he still commits adultery when he divorces and remarries.

The first part of that passage says that there is an exception for unfaithfulness - the man is free to marry in such a case.

The point in bringing up the fact that the woman in the second part of the passage was unfaithful was to say that a man who marries a woman who was put away for unfaithfulness commits adultery - not so in the case of a man who marries a woman who was put away for reasons other than unfaithfulness.

Pro Life,

Thanks for engaging! As a man much wiser than me once said, "I seek clarity, not agreement" -- (Greg Koukl).

Point 1: You said, "Matthew gives a fuller presentation of this verse in 19:9"

What is "fuller" about this passage? "fuller" seems to be a subjective characterization and switching passages from Matt 5 to Matt 19 does not substantively contribute to the discussion.

Point 2: The Matthew 19 passage displays the same construct as Matthew 5; that is, (switching to the NIV), "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery"

Notice that the except clause is still there.

Let's break the semantic construct down so that we're clear:

"anyone who divorces his wife" = A
"marital unfaithfulness" = B
"marries another woman" = C
"commits adultery" = D

Matthew 19:9 can be read as

If "A" and "C", then "D", except in the case of "B".

Do you agree with this construct? If so, then adultery does not follow. If you disagree, can you explicitly say why?

Thanks!

I get the sense that several McCain supports are not being intellectually honest with the Palin decision. We all can see that she is a wonderful woman with strong conservative values that line up with much of our own. But was she the most qualified candidate for the office of Vice President of the USA and as many have said, "one heartbeat away from being POTUS?" I say no. Many of us I'm sure feel obliged to support the decision because we do not want to seem double-minded or dissenting but lets not get intellectually lazy here. No one saw this coming and with good reason. Unfortunately many Christians will vote simply based on who says they are pro-life and leave it at that. I hope we all dig a little deeper than that this election.

**the theological discussion on adultery/marriage is stimulating but it'd be nice to hear some more comments regarding Mrs. Palin.

Re:The first part of that passage says that there is an exception for unfaithfulness - the man is free to marry in such a case.

Not so, if this were true, the innocent woman and the person she marries would be free from the charge of adultery. She was put away by an adulterous husband.

Re:Let's break the semantic construct down so that we're clear:

"anyone who divorces his wife" = A
"marital unfaithfulness" = B
"marries another woman" = C
"commits adultery" = D

Matthew 19:9 can be read as

If "A" and "C", then "D", except in the case of "B".


One possible solution to this that aligns with my position is that the state killed fornicators.

For instants,the woman taken in adultery.

They did not recognize the situation spoken of by Jesus as adultery even though he spelled it out clearly.

So, if a man puts away his wife for sexual uncleanness, and the state executes her, he can marry another.

If he puts her away for another reason and the state does not kill her, he, she, the persons they marry all commit adultery.

Re:**the theological discussion on adultery/marriage is stimulating but it'd be nice to hear some more comments regarding Mrs. Palin.

It seems we hijacked the thread in the interest of showing that McCain in an adulterer and not to be trusted. It went further than expected and I apologize.

Back to Palin...

There are 2 scandals surrounding Palin at this point. They are "Trooper Gate" and "Baby Gate". We must be careful not to judge, but we should be informed. A google search should provide both sides of the story in each case.

"Pro Life," which I'm pretty sure is a misnomer, given his caustic rhetoric, has proved himself to be an agent provocateur. He has succeeded in derailing what could have been a great discussion on Palin.

Despite rumors to the contrary, it has been confirmed that Gov. Palin is not pregnant again.
What is troubling, however, is that Palin's unmarried, 17-year-old daughter Bristol is having a baby.
Voters will have to decide whether this is big enough of a deal to vote against the McCain-Palin ticket.
I know all I need to know about Obama-Biden. I can't believe our country will be secure with these people in the White House.

How many families have sacrificed so that the mom could stay home with the kids? Is there a greater chance that unmarried teen pregnancy can occur when mom is working rather than supervising? Thank God they don't believe in abortion. How does it look to American youth when the top office in the world is staffed by someone who was quite openly promiscuous and divorced to remarry? Or a mom who trades her kids for career?

The comments to this entry are closed.