Feed on Posts or Comments 24 July 2014

Christianity Johnson on 06 Sep 2008 04:01 pm

How Sarah Palin ignores God’s Will every day

This New York Times article talks about Sarah Palin’s religious beliefs:

In Palin’s Life and Politics, Goal to Follow God’s Will

Palin’s goal, according to the New York Times, is to follow God’s Will. The reality is far different. Sarah Palin actually ignores God’s Will every day she is in office. It is fascinating to watch such a devoted and public Christian behave in this way.

The article contains this quote:

In the address at the Assembly of God Church here, Ms. Palin’s ease in talking about the intersection of faith and public life was clear. Among other things, she encouraged the group of young church leaders to pray that “God’s will” be done in bringing about the construction of a big pipeline in the state, and suggested her work as governor would be hampered “if the people of Alaska’s heart isn’t right with God.”

She also told the group that her eldest child, Track, would soon be deployed by the Army to Iraq, and that they should pray “that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God, that’s what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan, and that plan is God’s plan.”

Here is the video of Palin’s address at the Assembly of God Church if you would like to verify the quotes and get a feeling for Palin’s tone and demeanor:

The article also contains this quote:

“The churches that Sarah has attended all believe in a literal translation of the Bible,” Ms. Kincaid said. “Her principal ethical and moral beliefs stem from this.”

How do Christians learn about God’s Will and God’s Plan? God does not make public speaking appearances. Thus, according to Christians, the way we hear God speak is through the Bible. The Bible is a Christians’ sole source of knowledge about God’s Will.

And this is where things get interesting. Because when we read the Bible, we find that God is quite clear. God does not want women serving in positions of authority. God wants women staying at home and living in full submission to men. Many evangelicals understand that it is a Biblical contradiction to have a female governor, and they are speaking out. In this post…

Voddie Bauchaum Ministries

…we find this quote:

My heart breaks for her husband.  Mrs. Palin is not even supposed to be the head of her own household (Eph. 5:22ff; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1-7), let alone the State of Alaska, or the United States Senate (The VP oversees the Senate).  He should be shepherding her, but instead she is ruling over him. 

These Bible verses tell us God’s Will in no uncertain terms, and they are amazing:

Ephesians 5:22:

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord

Colossians 3:18:

Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

Titus 2:3-5:

Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

1 Peter 3:1-7:

Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.

Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

Another salient verse is found here:

1 Timothy 2:9-15::

I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
 
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

This last verse not only tells women to live in full submission to men, but also tells them to avoid “pearls or expensive clothes”. Which is remarkable in light of the way Cindy McCain dresses:


Vanityfair.com – Cindy McCain’s $300,000 Outfit

Cindy McCain's $300,000 outfit
Photo via VanityFair.com

Apparently Cindy McCain’s goal in life is to laugh loudly at God’s Will

God has made his will incredibly clear to Christians in the Bible. Women are to be in full submission to men. They are to be silent in public. They are not to serve in any position of authority over men. They are to dress modestly, without pearls or expensive clothes.

What do Sarah Palin, and all of the Christians who support her, do with God’s Will and God’s Word on this issue? They completely defy God. They ignore God’s Word and God’s Will without a second thought.

How is this possible? How can Sarah Palin claim to be a strong Christian whose goal in life is to follow God’s Will, while at the same time defy God is such an obvious and public way? How can other Christians support her, knowing that she is defying God? The level of hypocrisy seen here is extremely uncomfortable to anyone who values honesty and integrity.

Are you a Christian who is beginning to understand the hypocrisy and delusion of Christianity? Are you growing ashamed of “God’s Will”, especially in light of how repulsive it is in the Bible? For example, who wants to believe in a book and a God that obviously treats women as second class citizens? To break free of religion, start by watching this video to affirm just how repulsive the Bible is:

Proving that the Bible is repulsive

Watch this video to understand the delusion of Christianity:

How do we know that Christians are delusional?

And then read through this web site, which will introduce you to a better way of life that is free from lies, hypocrisy and delusion:

- Whywontgodhealamputees.com

- GodIsImaginary.com

36 Responses to “How Sarah Palin ignores God’s Will every day”

  1. on 06 Sep 2008 at 8:39 pm 1.Snag said …

    Why doesnt she pray for the all-knowing God to guide her as she speaks to journalists?

    Sarah Palin will be missing from action Sunday a.m.

  2. on 07 Sep 2008 at 12:29 am 2.Snag said …

    Sarah Palin in hiding for TWO WEEKS?!

  3. on 07 Sep 2008 at 12:33 am 3.Snag said …

    A Most Unchristian Republican Convention

  4. on 08 Sep 2008 at 12:09 am 4.Helpus said …

    The hypocrisy of Christians is legendary. This is a perfect example. How can they be so blind to it? Someone please explain it to me.

  5. on 08 Sep 2008 at 1:09 am 5.Armchair General said …

    Deborah (from the book of Judges, in the Bible), was a WOMAN and a JUDGE over the nation of Israel.

    Why do you insist on spewing IGNORANCE?

  6. on 08 Sep 2008 at 4:41 pm 6.lil tom said …

    oh yeah, little debbie! yes, I love her Nutty Barâ„¢ Wafer Singles! they are delicious!

  7. on 08 Sep 2008 at 9:01 pm 7.SteveK said …

    The author of these blog posts is about as fundamentalist as the people he cites. It takes considerable effort and faulty reasoning to think the understanding of a few is considered the better, more reasonable understanding when compared to the understanding of the many – which happens to be the historical, traditional many. If the author wants to critique historical, traditional Christian belief then stay away from the fringe and focus on said belief.

    The only function this blog serves is to critique the beliefs of a select few. I wonder if the author would be surprised to know that most Christian’s join him in critiquing these beliefs – only with much less scorn and contempt for those who hold them.

  8. on 09 Sep 2008 at 12:26 am 8.Salcon said …

    SteveK is spot on. The minority of so-called “Christians” would act the way that this “wonderful” example illustrates. If you want to make a point about anything, you have to use a certain amount of critical thinking on your side of the argument, at least as much as you put into the other side; and that’s what is missing here.

  9. on 09 Sep 2008 at 12:31 am 9.OC said …

    SteveK, Armchair General,

    When I examine the blog post above, I count five Bible verses from the New Testament that all indicate the same sentiment. To quote: “God has made his will incredibly clear to Christians in the Bible. Women are to be in full submission to men. They are to be silent in public. They are not to serve in any position of authority over men. They are to dress modestly, without pearls or expensive clothes.”

    You both seem quite eager to dismiss all five verses. My query to you: If you do not believe what your God dictates in the Bible, what might it be that you do believe?

  10. on 09 Sep 2008 at 12:45 am 10.OC said …

    Salcon,

    “you have to use a certain amount of critical thinking on your side of the argument, at least as much as you put into the other side”

    Do tell. The argument appears quite straightforward, as the Bible is unmistakable in its sentiment. What might you believe is missing from said argument?

    Does your God wish women to wear pearls, or does he not? Shall women be subservient, or not? Enlighten us, if you please.

  11. on 09 Sep 2008 at 12:34 pm 11.Armchair General said …

    OC:

    You’re being extremely pedantic, and still ignoring the fact that you need to THINK when reading the Bible.

    For whatever reason, people seem to think they can skip to the middle of the book, grab one paragraph, and know EXACTLY what it’s talking about, without giving a second thought to context or continuity. Amazingly, no one would even think of doing this with any other book.

    Also, as SteveK pointed out, this website is taking a fringe-group (extreme fundamentalists) and stereotyping all of Christianity based on it. That’s RIDICULOUS. It’s no different than saying that Osama Bin Laden is a prime example of ALL Muslims. It’s the epitome of ignorance.

  12. on 09 Sep 2008 at 12:45 pm 12.Snag said …

    Armchair General – Reading the Bible is not “taking a fringe-group (extreme fundamentalists) and stereotyping all of Christianity based on it.” It is reading the Bible!

    Answer his question! What is it that you believe about women? Then back it up with scripture. Or do you just makeup whatever you want to believe out of thin air?

    According to God should women wear pearls or not? Should they be submissive to their husbands or not? Should they be allowed to teach or to have authority over a man or not? Then explain how you come to that conclusion given the verses above

  13. on 09 Sep 2008 at 1:33 pm 13.SteveK said …

    More fundy responses from our friends Snag and OC. True Believers in that which Christians do not believe and slayers of the strawman.

    I tried explaining what traditional Christianity believes about a few other verses and I got accused of distorting what the True Christian(tm) believes. Another strawman bravely defeated.

  14. on 09 Sep 2008 at 4:33 pm 14.OC said …

    SteveK, Armchair General,

    I find it to be quite fascinating that you have both chosen to sidestep my question:

    “You both seem quite eager to dismiss all five verses. My query to you: If you do not believe what your God dictates in the Bible, what might it be that you do believe? ”

    Might it in fact be the case that you manufacture your version of Christianity “out of thin air”, as it were. On what might you base your beliefs, if not on the Bible?

    Out of curiosity, how might a Christian decide if a women should wear pearls or not?

  15. on 09 Sep 2008 at 5:13 pm 15.SteveK said …

    “On what might you base your beliefs, if not on the Bible?”

    Textual context, historical/culture understanding, philosophical understanding, traditional Christian theological understanding, revealed theological knowledge/understanding. Do your best to determine what is true in all areas, while relying on God’s grace to be sufficient.

    “Out of curiosity, how might a Christian decide if a women should wear pearls or not?”

    Textual context, historical/culture understanding, philosophical understanding, traditional Christian theological understanding, revealed theological knowledge/understanding. Do your best to determine what is true in all areas, while relying on God’s grace to be sufficient.

  16. on 09 Sep 2008 at 5:14 pm 16.SteveK said …

    Oops..forgot to add ‘scientific understanding’ to both responses.

  17. on 09 Sep 2008 at 5:16 pm 17.SteveK said …

    More oops… scientific understanding doesn’t apply to the question of pearl wearing for obvious reasons.

  18. on 09 Sep 2008 at 5:58 pm 18.OC said …

    Pearls, yes or no? Please explain your logic based on “Textual context, historical/culture understanding, philosophical understanding, traditional Christian theological understanding, revealed theological knowledge/understanding.”

  19. on 09 Sep 2008 at 6:51 pm 19.Snag said …

    Why is it so hard for the two of you to admit that what the Bible says about women in those five verses is ridiculous? Why not admit what is obvious?

  20. on 09 Sep 2008 at 7:21 pm 20.SteveK said …

    “Pearls, yes or no?”

    I’m not trained in all of these fields so I rely heavily on the good scholarship of others. From that good scholarship, I gather Paul is talking about the proper worship of God so if the ostentatious showing of hair/jewelry and such has been shown to prevent the proper worship of God (in your community, culture, neighborhood, house, church) then don’t wear it. Otherwise, go ahead.

    Could everyone be wrong about this understanding? Yes. Is God’s grace sufficient in such a case? Yes.

    …..

    “Why is it so hard for the two of you to admit that what the Bible says about women in those five verses is ridiculous? Why not admit what is obvious?”

    Obvious to the few such as yourself and OC? I can’t answer that.

  21. on 09 Sep 2008 at 9:31 pm 21.Armchair General said …

    Honestly, why should we answer the question? Every time an answer is presented, you IGNORE it and move onto something else. Just like the FACT that the Judge Deborah is a WOMAN and in a LEADERSHIP position was ignored. You don’t really want an answer.

    For your information though, based on CONTEXT (and cross-referenced with other verses AND versions), the verse is talking about the importance of inward beauty (character) as opposed to outward, superficial beauty. It’s not saying that it’s EVIL to wear jewelry.

    I think it should be pretty obvious that a woman who’s kind and gentle is more desirable than one who wants loads of expensive jewelry. Unless you enjoy a gold-digger.

    You expect the Bible to read like a 21st century novel, when in fact it was written thousands of years ago. The sentence structure and continuity of Hebrew and Greek is ENTIRELY different than the English language. Hebrew poetry, for example, rhymes similar thoughts instead of similar words.

    You keep saying, “Blah blah blah, in ENGLISH you can’t blah blah blah.” Yeah, well the Bible wasn’t written in English, genius.

    People don’t flinch for a second when having to decipher hieroglyphics, or other ancient writings.

    What version of the Bible one looks at is important as well. The author of this website seems to use the New International Version quite a bit, which many times has weak translations from the Greek and Hebrew. Of course, that’s probably the point … in fact, I’d bet money on it.

  22. on 09 Sep 2008 at 10:28 pm 22.OC said …

    StevenK,

    And submission, yes or no?

    Ephesians 5:22:

    Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord

    Colossians 3:18:

    Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

    1 Peter 3:1-7:

    Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands

  23. on 09 Sep 2008 at 11:27 pm 23.Snag said …

    “Honestly, why should we answer the question? Every time an answer is presented, you IGNORE it and move onto something else. Just like the FACT that the Judge Deborah is a WOMAN and in a LEADERSHIP position was ignored. You don’t really want an answer.”

    If one part of the Bible says women need to be in full submission and another part says a woman can be a judge then a rational person would see that as a complete contradiction. Yet another example to prove the bible ridiculous.

    Also you are pulling the Deborah example from the old testament, which Christians routinely ignore. When the old testament says that we need to kill homosexuals the Christian rationalization is that its in the old testament. By Christian logic we ignore the Deborah example.

  24. on 10 Sep 2008 at 3:56 am 24.SteveK said …

    OC
    Research your questions yourself. You’ll appreciate it more that way.

  25. on 10 Sep 2008 at 4:53 am 25.SteveK said …

    Here’s an example of Snag and OC ‘logic’ in a court of law:
    ….
    Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defense won’t admit to what the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution says in plain English. It says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. It’s obvious to everyone – here read it for yourself. The defense wants you to believe that the law allows that right to be denied in the case of my client – a death row inmate at Folsom Prison.

    Why is it so hard for the defense to admit what the 2nd Amendment says? The law clearly says that my client has the right to keep and bear arms while in prison, and we are suing for that right.

    The defense will try to point to other areas of the law in an attempt to distract you from what is clearly stated in the US Constitution. Don’t let them manipulate you by manipulating what is obvious to all.

  26. on 10 Sep 2008 at 9:46 am 26.Snag said …

    SteveK – The court understands that felons give up rights like 2nd amendment rights. You would never get to speak to a jury because the judge would throw out your case.

    The court also exists unlike your God.

  27. on 10 Sep 2008 at 12:55 pm 27.SteveK said …

    “The court understands that felons give up rights like 2nd amendment rights.”

    This is the logical response of a normal, intelligent person. Quite the opposite response you’ve given several times here. In the above comments you and OC sound a lot like the prosecuting attorney in my example. Give it a rest.

    “The court also exists unlike your God.”

    Question begging, but a separate issue nonetheless.

  28. on 10 Sep 2008 at 1:58 pm 28.OC said …

    “Research your questions yourself. You’ll appreciate it more that way.”

    It is most gratifying to see you wilt when confronted with the utter idiocy of your imaginary God. In order to reply to the question, you must either defy your God’s Word, or you must entertain a Godly position that is repulsive to modern thought.

    If you were the rational sort, you would observe your two choices and come to the sensible realization that your God is ridiculous. He is a caricature from 2,000 years in the past. Instead you shall cling to the caricature and become a caricature yourself.

    How might I help you to release yourself from your belief in the ridiculous?

  29. on 10 Sep 2008 at 2:15 pm 29.SteveK said …

    “In order to reply to the question, you must either defy your God’s Word, or you must entertain a Godly position that is repulsive to modern thought.”

    …said the prosecuting attorney to the jury. Why is it so hard for the defense to admit what the 2nd Amendment says?

  30. on 10 Sep 2008 at 8:24 pm 30.SteveK said …

    I couldn’t resist one more reply to OC…

    “If you were the rational sort, you would observe your two choices and come to the sensible realization that your God is ridiculous.”

    Well…if you were the rational sort, you would observe your two choices and come to the sensible realization that your legal system is ridiculous. After all, what kind of systems says *all* have the right to keep and bear arms while at the same time saying felons don’t have that right. Pure folly I tells ya!

  31. on 10 Sep 2008 at 11:39 pm 31.OC said …

    SteveK,

    What you fail to appreciate is that, with each post, you move toward a position more ridiculous than the previous.

    Upon reading the constitution, you will note a mechanism it creates called the legislative branch, charged with the creation of new laws, as well as an executive branch to approve them and a court to interpret them, all carefully balanced. Therefore, the creation of new laws and a legal procedure for their application and enforcement is a component of the system. Within this system, the concept of a felon is defined, and a removal of rights held by law-abiding citizens is enforced upon felons as punishment. The entirity is documented in books of law that fill many shelves. The constitution does not create all the laws. It creates the system that creates the laws.

    The fact that you do not understand this shows a profound level of ignorance, no doubt fostered by your religious delusion. The solution is simple: Abandon your delusion and become a rational individual.

  32. on 11 Sep 2008 at 12:02 am 32.Armchair General said …

    Mwah ha hah … SteveK has successfully show you what it’s like to argue with someone of your mentality, OC. Infuriating, isn’t it?

  33. on 11 Sep 2008 at 12:26 am 33.OC said …

    What you fail to appreciate, Armchair General, is that, unlike the constitutional system, your religious reference, the Bible, has not changed in 2,000 years. It becomes more ridiculous with each passing day.

    In the simplest example, note that your Bible supports slavery in both the Old and New Testaments:

    http://www.godisimaginary.com/i13.htm

    Shown these verses, you will go to pathetic lengths to justify them rather than admit their repugnance.

    You too would benefit by abandoning your delusion and becoming a rational being. But I fear you are so blinded that it cannot happen. If for some reason you begin to perceive the light of reason, please do call my attention to it.

  34. on 11 Sep 2008 at 4:40 am 34.SteveK said …

    OC,
    “Upon reading the constitution, you will note a mechanism it creates called the legislative branch, charged with the creation of new laws, as well as an executive branch to approve them and a court to interpret them, all carefully balanced.”

    So you are denying what the 2nd Amendment says in plain English? Answer this question…why would the the US Government say *all* people have the right to keep and bear arms if it didn’t mean *all*? Why do you keep trying to justify what is obviously a ridiculous and unsupportable position?

  35. on 11 Sep 2008 at 5:44 am 35.Foolish believer said …

    I don’t get the constitution arguments or the point above so I can’t/won’t comment…
    However, I want to return to the original debate on the quotation from Peter:

    (1) “Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.”

    What is the opposite of submission? Does any man like it when he is maliciously overruled and disrespected by anyone? Man or woman?

    (2) “Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight.”

    This does not state that women cannot braid hair or wear jewels; it just states what the focus should be. If a woman believes that she can just dress up and that makes her beautiful, then she is living a shallow life. Braid hair, wear earrings etc, but know that this is not your true beauty – what an encouraging statement that no matter that styles, hair, jewels may disappear, a woman can still be fantastic!

    (3) “They were submissive to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.”

    What would have happened if Sarah was not “submissive”?

    (4) “Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.”

    We often overlook this part. No wife will have problems with being “submissive” to a husband that wholeheartedly loves and respects them and seeks their best interest for life. Love and wholehearted love is more submissive than submission in a relationship. Men, love your wives! Be more than submissive!

    Finally, the above only have meaning and implication for believers. If you have a relationship and faith in God, then the term submission has a totally new meaning. For example, to submit as to the Lord talks about love and devotion – without these two things being shown mutually, relationships die. Therefore, non-believers, you are under no obligation to think about these things otherwise they will always be misinterpreted.

    If you believe God is imaginary, then carry on your life living with that as your basis – your choice. All the best in justifying and rationalizing life.

  36. on 11 Sep 2008 at 1:49 pm 36.OC said …

    SteveK,

    “So you are denying what the 2nd Amendment says in plain English? Answer this question…why would the the US Government say *all* people have the right to keep and bear arms if it didn’t mean *all*? Why do you keep trying to justify what is obviously a ridiculous and unsupportable position? ”

    It would appear that you are following a trajectory that takes you from ignorance toward stupidity, but allow me to answer your question in the hope of enlightening you.

    You are quoting from the constitution:

    http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am2

    You will note upon examination of this most slender of documents that the constitution also contains a section known as the third article:

    http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article3

    This article manifests itself in a system of courts which administrates the “Trial of all Crimes” and metes out punishment for said crimes. One punishment, in the case of felonious crimes, is the elimination of certain rights, such as the right to bear arms, the right to vote, et cetera.

    Under this system, we find that the laws and punishments evolve over time. Modification is implicit in the system’s design. All modifications to the laws and punishments are thoroughly documented and available for all who wish to read them.

    Compare this system with your Bible. The Bible is purportedly authored by an infallible, omniscient, omnipotent being. The Bible is therefore itself infallible according to a majority of Christian believers. Thus it contains no mechanism for modification. The Bible is static, as your God strangely makes no manifestation to update it in modern times.

    Now we examine your book, which contains a set of God-given laws known as “the Ten Commandments”, of which most Christian believers are quite fond. The fourth commandment indicates that no human shall work on the Sabbath day. It is a blanket statement upon all humanity, believer and non. The punishment for violation of said commandment is set in the Bible’s book of Exodus as death.

    What do we find in our society? Christians piously post the Ten Commandments wherever they are able, and then routinely ignore the fourth commandment. There is no enforcement of the penalty, so they blithely shop on the Sabbath, in direct defiance of the God whose commandments they post.

    Thus we see that your Bible has become absurd in modern times. Its imaginary author is shown to be entirely impotent in terms of adherence and enforcement of penalties. Yet you will still claim that your God exists, that he wrote this absurd tome, and that he is omnipotent, despite the fact that he is most obviously impotent.

    If is for this reason that you are identified as delusional.

    Additional elucidation:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkXOwBIRX7Y

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply