Posted on 06/28/2011 7:03:53 AM PDT by Hojczyk
Edited on 06/28/2011 7:05:41 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Bristol Palin tells "FOX & Friends" that her mother, former Gov. Sarah Palin, has made up her mind and "definitely" knows if she is going to run for President or not.
BRIAN KILMEADE, FOX & FRIENDS: "Do you get the sense that your mom has not made up her mind yet or do you think she knows and hasn't told told?"
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
And nary a one, including Mrs Palin, comparable to Jefferson or Reagan.
The bar needs to be raised. Yet I'm afraid it won't be until the American voter learns the hard way.
I still don’t understand Paul Bunyan.
Sorry. Disagree. Consider the following:
Proverbs 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.
Your version of the “Context Rule” says, “he’s only talking about lots being cast into laps, so dice are not controlled by God, because they are not ‘lots’, and they are generally cast on the ground, not into laps.”
My version of the “Context Rule” says, “he’s talking about a game of chance; the principle is that even what we consider random is really still under God’s control.”
My Context Rule still produces a rock solid conservative, evangelical understanding of Scripture, and is consistent with some 2000 years of sound Biblical hermeneutics.
Your rule, where I am not allowed to see general principles because the general principles might somehow be inconsistent with the specific instance, is frankly something I’ve never heard before anywhere. I am a graduate of a well-known Bible school, and of a well-known conservative Christian university, have read extensively in the subject matter for many years, can read some Greek and some Hebrew, believe in a grammatical historical approach to interpreting Scripture, believe in a literal creation, a literal Adam and Eve, a literal Devil, a literal universal flood, all the miracles of both testaments, the literal virgin birth of Jesus, the literal death and bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead, by which we have the forgiveness of sins and the hope of life everlasting, the literal visible return of Jesus at the end of days, the eternal punishment of the wicked, and for the redeemed the glories of the eternal state with the triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, forever.
And yet, in all that, I have never heard once, in any material I have read, no matter how conservative or liberal, nor have I found it anywhere in Scripture, that I am not permitted to think, when I read the Biblical text, of the general principles that emerge from the specific details of the narrative before me.
So I am sorry, but unless you can actually convince me, from Scripture, why I should not be permitted to perceive general truths as well as specific truths in holy writ, I will obstinately continue to think as I read, because that is what thinking is, the continuous transformation of an incoming stream of raw data into a meaningful hierarchy of truth. You are literally asking me to leave off the top layer of that hierarchy of thought, and solely because it displeases you that one such general truth in a particular passage might well reasonably apply to Sarah Palin.
Not gonna happen.
BTW, I noticed you didn’t even attempt to answer any of my earlier questions. Let me try again. Do you believe the following propositions are true:
If God be for David, who can be against him?
If God be against Saul, who can help him?
If you do not believe they are true, do you believe they are false?
If you believe they are true, then why would they not be as true for you or me or Sarah as they were for David and Saul?
Last question: Why are you not answering my questions?
Cue the crickets …
“reminds me of the Black Knight”
I love that scene.
Ya know, there WAS one appendage of his that did not get cut off. So it IS possible that he procreated.
You never saw his face.
You never see PNSN’s name.
Coincidence?
Or... was King Arthur actually Carl Rove’s great, great, really great grandfather and he and Sir Rollins and the rest of “the establishment” have been fighting against the Knights of the Non-Candidate since the middle ages?
iow...you can’t. No surprise, no surprise at all.
__________________________________
Are you kidding?
Palin's(™)utter ineptitude as an executive blew a land deal for the ice-rink to nowhere. That didn't stop her from building roads and services out to the property though. By the time the town cleaned up after her it cost them over $2 million more than the original deal would have.
Excellent? Barely mediocre is more like it.
Thank you.
Join the crowd. I don't understand any of it.
Romans 8:31 is not a proverb, thus it is not interpreted as one interprets a proverb.
I have already told you that my interest lies in the misuse of Romans 8:31 as seen in this thread. I am not interested in your attempts to divert that subject. Your refusal to stick to that topic suggests that you are unable to defend your thesis that the verse was not taken grossly out of context.
Romans 8:31 was not written to indicate God’s support for any politician or leader.
I don’t believe that God appreciates it either. The versification of Scripture was done for people’s convenience—not as license for people to couppon-clip the verses they liked best to use them in an inappropriate context.
Being dead solid honest with you. If you think I have been off subject then I truly have no idea what being on subject means to you. I am a reasonably intelligent person and I do, sincerely, believe I understand what we’re examining here, and yet you seem to be off in a crazy place I don’t understand. I apologize if it seems otherwise to you but God knows my heart. I think we should drop it, as we are neither of us connecting with the other. Do you agree? Or we can continue if you want, but the effort to understand must be mutual, else there would be no point to it.
The subject of my concern is the use of “presently no screen name”s misuse of Romans 8:31.
If you can show that it is not a misuse, based on the context of that verse, then I think we will both be on the same course, even if we do not agree.
Sincerely,
I’m not convinced she’s not running.
All the MSM cliches work for you, don’t they? Watch The Undefeated and youll be singing a different tune...
Her inexperience and ineptitude cost the people of Wasilla $2 million in unnecessary expense. That is not a "mainstream cliche". It is a fact.
Let me say that again so as to be sure you get my meaning. PNSN did not cite the verse in Romans. He made a simple statement, which if you analyze it simply as a logical expression, is true and not false. The conditional expression, "If God is for A, then A wins," is true for any A.
What you seem to be saying, OTOH, is that if a particular sequence of words appears in Scripture, it may not be used anywhere else. I believe that to be utter nonsense, and certainly not how God intended the use of His word. If I had to eliminate from my mind all general principles I’ve learned from Scripture and applied to new situations, there would be nothing left, and I remain confident God would like me to remember what He has taught me.
Truthfully, I cannot grasp what you really want to get out of this. If either you or I or PNSN uses the text of Romans 8:31 in the context of Romans 8:31, we’ll all agree on the meaning. No question. That context is about salvation, justification, security, victory in Christ, etc. Nothing to do with politics. We agree. Are you hearing this? We agree.
But there is no rule of Scripture, and you have made no effort to show such a rule, that prevents me from learning general truths from specific texts, whether Proverbs or Isaiah or Galatians or Revelation. Now, you launch on that as a change of subject, and as a justification for not addressing any of my sincere questions to you, but I tell you it is the only subject in which there is any real dispute between us, as we are agreed on all other points, to the best of my understanding, and if we don’t address it, there is no basis for this conversation.
Your serve …
He did reference the text, knowing its context, and therefore, he ignored the context of the verse in order to make a point that could theologically and contextually be made with other passages.
He did not merely make a logical statement, he blatantly referenced Scripture, knowing other Christians would pick up on the reference, and he did so carelessly, ignoring its context.
And nary a one, including Mrs Palin, comparable to Jefferson or Reagan.
The bar needs to be raised. Yet I’m afraid it won’t be until the American voter learns the hard way.
I’m afraid that if you are waiting for Reagan or Jefferson, you are going to be disappointed every election cycle. There are no more clear choices, only varying degrees of “suck.” We happen to have three decent candidates in the race right now, any of whom would do a heck of a lot better job that Obama. We have one, possibly two candidates waiting in the wings that could sweep in and turn the whole race on it’s ear AND either of them would landslide Obama.
But as far as being a Reagan? Nope. Not a one of ‘em. Just varying degrees of “suckitude” and our job is to pick the one in the primary that sucks the least. In the general, I will consider the G.O.P. candidate. If it is not named Huntsman, I will consider even voting for him/her. I wouldn’t cast a vote for Huntsman even to keep Obama from another 4 years.
That's the exact opposite of what you said above. In case you've forgotten, here are your exact words:
"Not everyone is enabled with the capacity to see a winner like Sarah supporters are. We KNOW what to look for."
You need to make up your mind as to which it is. Is it "The WORLD KNOWS IT"? Or is it "Not everyone is enabled with the capacity to see a winner like Sarah supporters are."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.