Sarah Palin and Holy War in Iraq?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Did God actually destroy nearly all of a mankind in a worldwide flood?

No. As with most of the stories in world mythology, a local event has been wrongly taken to have been global. There is no geological evidence for a global flood. Flood stories in world mythology are common in all parts of the world. Many of these stories, however, do not get spun as universal yarns, but remain credible in their descriptions of protohistoric human experiences.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Well in this speech she did say it was "a task that is from God" and "that plan is God's plan."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2ypVSYoEKA

This shows she did use God as a weapon to "justify" the unjust.

If your recollection of the interview is accurate, it shows a lack of integrity.

Wasn't Bush quoted as saying that God told him to invade Iraq?

Did I miss the tar and feather party?

Is there going to be one for Palin?

No matter what people may say, both you and I know the real reason the US went to Iraq which is oil. Having said that, we can then conclude that if those in question did say that the US went to war because God told "W" to do so then they are a liar. Then again, I have never heard "W" say that he went to war because God told him to do so. In fact, the reasons I have heard him say he went to Iraq includes WMD's and not adhering to UN mandates etc. As for me, these are half truth. I think they were worried about WMD's because he even used them on his own people at one time, however, the real reason was that the region is oil rich. In addition, Saddam did break mandates set by the UN that were basically without any teeth unless they chose to enforce them.

As for Palin, I guess we will have to hear what her reasoning is for saying what she said. I think that is only fair.

Originally posted by whodey
No matter what people may say, both you and I know the real reason the US went to Iraq which is oil. Having said that, we can then conclude that if those in question did say that the US went to war because God told "W" to do so then they are a liar. Then again, I have never heard "W" say that he went to war because God told him to do so. In fact, the reaso ...[text shortened]... l have to hear what her reasoning is for saying what she said. I think that is only fair.

I hope you recognize that half-truths told with an intent to deceive are lies.

There's no doubt that Palin said what she said. She purported that the invasion of Iraq was "a task that is from God" and "that plan is God's plan." You say that in the interview "she said that the Iraqi war was NOT a holy war nor does she necessarily believe it is God's will."

I'm guessing that the interview you saw was her "reasoning".
So was it "a task that is from God" that is "NOT a holy war"? Was it "God's plan" but not necessarily "God's will"?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I hope you recognize that half-truths told with an intent to deceive are lies.

There's no doubt that Palin said what she said. She purported that the invasion of Iraq was "a task that is from God" and "that plan is God's plan." You say that in the interview "she said that the Iraqi war was NOT a holy war nor does she necessarily believe it is God's wil ...[text shortened]... is "NOT a holy war"? Was it "God's plan" but not necessarily "God's will"?

I do recognize that half-truths are lies and I also recognize that every politician under the sun does this no matter their religious affiliations or lack thereof.

Originally posted by whodey
I do recognize that half-truths are lies and I also recognize that every politician under the sun does this no matter their religious affiliations or lack thereof.

Unfortunately it seems that the vast majority of politicians do lie to further their agenda which is pathetic.

What's particularly pathetic is when they use God to further their agenda.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I see. Did God actually destroy nearly all of a mankind in a worldwide flood?

No. but it was close. He destroyed all of humanity, save eight. Noah, his 3 sons, and all their wives survived in the ark. God determined the wickedness of the earth too unbearable, so the rest of humanity perished.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Unfortunately it seems that the vast majority of politicians do lie to further their agenda which is pathetic.

What's particularly pathetic is when they use God to further their agenda.

What can I say, vote for Obama. He says he is a Christian but that is all. Interestingly, things that he may do wrong, like lying to the voters, is never linked to him saying he is a Christian. I guess because he does not pander to the religious right he gets a free pass.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
No. but it was close. He destroyed all of humanity, save eight. Noah, his 3 sons, and all their wives survived in the ark. God determined the wickedness of the earth too unbearable, so the rest of humanity perished.

I bet a lot of people suffered very badly.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I bet a lot of people suffered very badly.

They were "wicked" after all.

Originally posted by whodey
I do recognize that half-truths are lies and I also recognize that every politician under the sun does this no matter their religious affiliations or lack thereof.

As one politician put it:

"As for this crucial issue, half my friends are for it and half my friends are against it. And I'm with my friends!"

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Unbelievable. Maybe you are that dense.

See what happens? The moment I point out to you that you have not clarified anything you desperately try to make this about me.

Do you or do you not believe in the active Living Father God that Jesus followed?

Ever since we started to discuss and debate you have singularly failed to answer any simple direct question that you sensed might undermine your position. You did this right from the start. You just cannot go there can you.

Originally posted by knightmeister
See what happens? The moment I point out to you that you have not clarified anything you desperately try to make this about me.

Do you or do you not believe in the active Living Father God that Jesus followed?

Ever since we started to discuss and debate you have singularly failed to answer any simple direct question that you sensed might undermine your position. You did this right from the start. You just cannot go there can you.

How do you manage to get so lost all the time?
You know, I've taken you by the hand several times in similar situations where I've painstakingly cut text from earlier in the thread and showed you point by point where you've gone wrong to no avail.

This time I'll let you do the work.

Look back in the thread. What you misrepresented was my position on salvation which I immediately clarified and have clarified dozens of times before.

You then tried to play "innocent" and claim that you don't know what you're supposed to have misrepresented right after I'd just pointed out that you'd misrepresented my position on salvation. You then give an example about whether or not I believe in an "active Living Father God". I then explained to you that I'd never accused you of misrepresenting my postion on that topic, so it has NOTHING to do with your misrepresenting me.

Now you're insisting on getting clarification on something that has nothing to do with your misrepresenting me.

I'm sorry, but it's been my experience that most are able to follow along in a scenario similar to the above. Maybe you're the type of individual that needs to go back and reread the posts several times for you to be able to comprehend what's going on. Maybe you're just too proud to do so.

Just go back and read through the posts. Read through it several times if need be. I really don't think you're so dense that you couldn't comprehend what's going on if you gave it a little effort.

Originally posted by no1marauder
They were "wicked" after all.

Of course you scoff, however, from a Biblical perspective God is in a quandary of sorts. God let the "wicked" flourish unabated at one time which was probably due to his reluctance to destroy them because he did not wish to harm them. So what happens when the are left to their own devices? It appears that in Genesis they become increasingly more wicked which creates more harm and pain to those he did not wish to harm in the first place. Then God decided that to save humanity he must destroy them all and start afresh via the flood. From a Biblical perspective it was either save Noah and his family from the flood or let humanity destroy themselves, so God chose the former.

After this episode, we see God intervening from time to time such as with Sodom and Gomorrah. It seems that instead of letting humanity get to the point of "no return", God intervened at times to prevent a "pre-flood" level of wickedness. It seems to save humanity, at times arms and legs that have rotted off must be amputated.

Now whether you choose to laugh at these stories or attempt to find logical fallacy after logical fallacy as to their validity, I think I have pretty much nailed the message that was tried to be conveyed through these stories which is, sin is destructive and brings death. Of course I am sure you will scoff at such notions of sin even existing, but that is for another thread.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
How do you manage to get so lost all the time?
You know, I've taken you by the hand several times in similar situations where I've painstakingly cut text from earlier in the thread and showed you point by point where you've gone wrong to no avail.

This time I'll let you do the work.

Look back in the thread. What you misrepresented was my position ...[text shortened]... t you couldn't comprehend what's going on if you gave it a little effort.

Do you or do you not believe in the active Living Father God that Jesus followed?

A simple yes or no was all that was required wasn't it?.

One of them has 3 charactors the other has 2.

It seems that you would sooner wax lyrical for 5 minutes or so explaining to me why I should waste my time going back looking for an answer that both you and I know isn't there.

Wierd isn't it?

Just answer the question. I estimate it would take you less than 10 seconds. The reason why I asked it is because it's a classic example of how you evade and duck.

You just did it. You don't seem to know that you are doing it.

This little mini debate we are having is about misrepresentation. My point was that I didn't know what it was that I was supposed to be misrepresenting because you don't answer straight questions that offer clarification.

I have just asked you a straight question. Did you notice it? It was the one with the "?" after it and the answer is either yes or no (or don't know I suppose).

You didn't answer it. (Did you notice this?)

I would defend your right to not answer the question but don't duck and dive with nothing answers.... just say "I don't want to answer the question" OR " I refuse to answer the question"

You only cheat yourself.

(There is of course an explanation as to why you won't answer it and that's because you know that to answer either "yes" or "no" is going to create a problem for you. I think unconsciously you know this and can see it coming - so like any good politician you have to duck and dive as you just did. You really are very good at it. )

Originally posted by knightmeister
Do you or do you not believe in the active Living Father God that Jesus followed?

A simple yes or no was all that was required wasn't it?.

One of them has 3 charactors the other has 2.

It seems that you would sooner wax lyrical for 5 minutes or so explaining to me why I should waste my time going back looking for an answer that both you and I ...[text shortened]... have to duck and dive as you just did. You really are very good at it. )

I know it's about misrepresentation.

Please read what I posted earlier as many times as it takes for you to wrap your mind around it:
You then tried to play "innocent" and claim that you don't know what you're supposed to have misrepresented right after I'd just pointed out that you'd misrepresented my position on salvation. You then give an example about whether or not I believe in an "active Living Father God". I then explained to you that I'd never accused you of misrepresenting my postion on that topic, so it has NOTHING to do with your misrepresenting me.

Now you're insisting on getting clarification on something that has nothing to do with your misrepresenting me.

Maybe if you pointed out the parts you're having trouble with, I can help you through it.