Sarah Palin??

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Shaky, ftw.

That's what I've been saying all along, and what Palin cleared up on the ABC interview last night.

I posted it on the other page, but in effect: She doesn't know God's will, doesn't speak for God, and hopes that we are doing His will.

A perfectly reasonable position for a Christian woman to take.

...I know... and I know that you were ignored. Some people don't want to be confused by the truth. In that case, you have to find a way to wake them up.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not my point and that doesn't make sense anyway.

The difference between "this was is God's will" and "I hope this war is God's will" is that in the first case the person is following some sort of conviction and in the second case is not. Supporting a war because you think it's the right thing is dangerous. Supporting a war for no reason is malicious.

But Obama is a Christian, and if god tells him to start a war, then he will have no choice but start a war.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But Obama is a Christian, and if god tells him to start a war, then he will have no choice but start a war.

*sigh* You aren't reading a word, are you?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
*sigh* You aren't reading a word, are you?

😆 Are you a Christian? According to what I have read from you there are two types of Christians; dangerous and malicious. If Sarah Palin is the malicious type, then Obama is the dangerous type.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
😆 Are you a Christian? According to what I have read from you there are two types of Christians; dangerous and malicious. If Sarah Palin is the malicious type, then Obama is the dangerous type.

It has nothing remotely to do with Christianity. It's about reasons and convictions (which I mentioned). A person who supports a war for no reason at all (like Palin) is malicious. Obama is not relevant to that at all.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The difference between "this was is God's will" and "I hope this war is God's will" is that in the first case the person is following some sort of conviction and in the second case is not. Supporting a war because you think it's the right thing is dangerous. Supporting a war for no reason is malicious.

Neither is a reason for 'supporting' the war. Palin has political and economical reasons for doing that. Just as anyone who supports the war does. The word you're looking for is 'justifying,' not 'supporting.' Which are entirely separate things.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It has nothing remotely to do with Christianity. It's about reasons and convictions (which I mentioned). A person who supports a war for no reason at all (like Palin) is malicious. Obama is not relevant to that at all.

But they have something in common. This commonality must be applied fairly. What you are doing is hypocritical. If you say that Sarah Palin, a Christian, is wrong for praying to her god that what we are doing in Iraq is god's will, then you have to say that if Obama, also a Christian, prays to do god's will, must also be wrong.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But they have something in common. This commonality must be applied fairly. What you are doing is hypocritical. If you say that Sarah Palin, a Christian, is wrong for praying to her god that what we are doing in Iraq is god's will, then you have to say that if Obama, also a Christian, prays to do god's will, must also be wrong.

What the hell are you talking about?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
What the hell are you talking about?

I'm sorry you don't get it, but demonising a Christian for what a Christian does without applying that standard to both sides is hypocritical.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm sorry you don't get it, but demonising a Christian for what a Christian does without applying that standard to both sides is hypocritical.

And I ask you again, did Obama make the same comment as Palin?

Originally posted by Robtard
And I ask you again, did Obama make the same comment as Palin?

I don't know, but all Christians must pray for god's will in their lives.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't know, but all Christians must pray for god's will in their lives.

And all Buddhists must set themselves on fire to make a point.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And all Buddhists must set themselves on fire to make a point.

That is a stupid statement. Buddhists are able to tell the difference between symbolic teachings and reality. Plus we need a really good reason to do that.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is a stupid statement. Buddhists are able to tell the difference between symbolic teachings and reality.

No they're not.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No they're not.

So, if a Buddhist cannot tell the difference between symbolic teachings and reality, then why would you think that a Christian can? After all Christians are far nuttier then Buddhists.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, if a Buddhist cannot tell the difference between symbolic teachings and reality, then why would you think that a Christian can? After all Christians are far nuttier then Buddhists.

Nah, Buddhists are nuttier.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Nah, Buddhists are nuttier.

Lets get back on topic.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Lets get back on topic.

Why? You're the one who began this little game of "make things up and pretend like they're true", scared you'll lose?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why? You're the one who began this little game of "make things up and pretend like they're true", scared you'll lose?

Your ignorance about my tactic does not change anything.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Your ignorance about my tactic does not change anything.

But your ignorance in general and inability to grasp basic logical principles does.