Feed on Posts or Comments 20 December 2014

Christianity Johnson on 06 Nov 2008 03:13 am

Sarah Palin Lost Because She Ignored Jesus

According to USA Today and many other sources, Sarah Palin famously said that she was praying to God and “putting this in God’s hands, that the right thing for America will be done at the end of the day on Nov. 4.”

Obviously, since God is imaginary, this was a silly thing to say. Human beings determine an election, not an imaginary God.

And many human beings looked at Sarah Palin and decided that she was damaged goods. For example, Dennis Hopper, longtime Republican, voted for Obama because of Palin, and publicly admits it in this video:

What Sarah Palin seems to miss is that she represents the worst of Christianity. She is a complete hypocrite. She proclaims belief in God, Jesus and the Bible, and then completely ignores what the Bible says. For example:

1) A Christian is supposed to love her enemies. Sarah Palin did not love the enemy. She attacked the enemy – in this case Barack Obama.

2) A Christian is supposed to obey the ninth commandment (You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor). Instead, Sarah Palin dropped lies and innuendo about Barack Obama in every public appearance she made.

3) A Christian is supposed to be give money to the poor. Instead, Sarah Palin went nuts buying hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of clothing for herself and family when given the chance. See this article: Hackers and Spending Sprees:

NEWSWEEK has also learned that Palin’s shopping spree at high-end department stores was more extensive than previously reported. While publicly supporting Palin, McCain’s top advisers privately fumed at what they regarded as her outrageous profligacy. One senior aide said that Nicolle Wallace had told Palin to buy three suits for the convention and hire a stylist. But instead, the vice presidential nominee began buying for herself and her family—clothes and accessories from top stores such as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus. According to two knowledgeable sources, a vast majority of the clothes were bought by a wealthy donor, who was shocked when he got the bill. Palin also used low-level staffers to buy some of the clothes on their credit cards. The McCain campaign found out last week when the aides sought reimbursement. One aide estimated that she spent “tens of thousands” more than the reported $150,000, and that $20,000 to $40,000 went to buy clothes for her husband. Some articles of clothing have apparently been lost. An angry aide characterized the shopping spree as “Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast,” and said the truth will eventually come out when the Republican Party audits its books.

4) The Bible suggests that knowledge and wisdom are good things. Ecclesiastes 7:12 says: “Wisdom is a shelter as money is a shelter, but the advantage of knowledge is this: that wisdom preserves the life of its possessor.” Sarah Palin is the picture of ignorance. How ignorant? Her interviews made it painfully obvious. As pointed out here, she does not even know that Africa is a continent:

5) A Christian is supposed to be humble. Matthew 18:4: “Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” Sarah Palin was the opposite. She was truly arrogant. Many described her as a “diva”: McCain adviser: Palin ‘is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone.’

If you are going to claim to follow Jesus, then you should follow Jesus. Imagine if Palin had come into the public spotlight as a humble, respectful, modest, loving person. What if she had admitted her weaknesses, and said, with humility, that she had a lot to learn and would do her best. Instead of tens of millions of people hating her and seeing her as an idiot, they might now respect her.

Everyone with intelligence – both religious and non-religious – sees the hypocrisy of Sarah Palin and her ilk and is repulsed by it. That may be one big reason why Sarah Palin lost.

In other words, if you are claiming to believe in an imaginary God, you should do what your imaginary God tells you to do. Otherwise, you come off as a hypocrite.

50 Responses to “Sarah Palin Lost Because She Ignored Jesus”

  1. on 06 Nov 2008 at 10:37 am 1.Hermes said …

    What I want to know is are fundamentalist Christians going to hold Palin accountable if she runs for public office again — national, state, or local?

    I’d say the answer is no. They won’t. Why? Because they would rather have an incompetent fundamentalist Christian in office ‘guided by God’ than a competent person of any other Christian denomination or sect, religion, or lack there of.

    How did I come to that conclusion? This election had the highest voter turnout in quite a while. It was based on the positives of Obama, and the negatives of both McCain and Palin; McCain’s support went down when he brought on Palin who McCain staffers have referred to as a “whack job”. Biden didn’t show up on the radar much.

  2. on 06 Nov 2008 at 10:45 am 2.Anonymous said …

    Palin gets the idiot vote. Every intelligent person sees the hypocrisy, but a large percentage of the population is not intelligent.

  3. on 06 Nov 2008 at 10:54 am 3.Hermes said …

    Continued. I removed proper punctuation and content to make WordPress happy and not reject my post.

    Yet, while Obama dominated the electoral college, the race was much closer on the popular vote; 54 Obama, 46 McCain. If in 2012 people who voted for Obama this year are still supporters but do not vote, the whole race could easily swing the other way. An indication of that will be shown in the 2010 elections when key House and Senate seats come up.

    Palin or some other incompetent and immoral fundamentalist who looks good and has a pleasingly duplicitous smile will get a core voting block. Where else are they to go? Not with the slander, fear, hate, and bigotry that were bolstered with facts cherry picked to make the lies and bigotry palatable. What does this say about the core voting block of a party that I once was proud to be a member of. If they fall for such thin bear bating and flat out lies, what won’t they swallow.

    Unfortunately, Obama seems to know this and has said he will increase the funding of faith based initiatives.

    Once beholding to the government, religious groups that can’t deal with capitalism themselves will be coaxed into feeding more from the Government teat.

  4. on 06 Nov 2008 at 1:38 pm 4.Brian E said …

    Excellent post – I just hope Palin doesn’t read it and take any advice. Oh, that’s right; she already knows everything and doesn’t need any advice. Good thing.

    Go back to Alaska and stay classy, Palin!

  5. on 06 Nov 2008 at 2:48 pm 5.Hermes said …

    Thanks. (?) Unfortunately, like Bush II, I can see Palin decide that ‘people love me’ and that would be enough to push her way back into the limelight. I’d be surprised if she doesn’t start chairing nebulous groups with names that sound good but are ineffective. She will be a ‘go getter … annoy you till you help me’ pest.

  6. on 06 Nov 2008 at 2:49 pm 6.Hermes said …

    Or maybe not. I’ve got a raging sinus headache right now and half of my brain is off.

  7. on 06 Nov 2008 at 9:10 pm 7.Rachel said …

    who knew that you could go to an ivy league school and still be considered stupid, just because you know God? I am not sure why you don’t want him to exist- maybe it’s somewhere here- but he does reward people who believe he exist and earnestly seek him. I am encouraging you to embark on an earnest search.

  8. on 06 Nov 2008 at 9:46 pm 8.Red O'Brien said …

    Rachel, are you kidding me? I would love it if God existed. Eternal life and all that? Hanging around with dead friends and family members whom I dearly miss? Sign me up for all that cool stuff. However, to use your phrase, I encourage you to embark on an earnest search for reality. I’m guessing you were brought up in a Christian home, which is why you believe such nonsense. If you were brought up as a Muslim, you would believe equally fervently in Islam, and you would be certain that Christians are delusional. Greeks deeply believed in Zeus and a bunch of other gods, and now we call that religion mythology. Some day, Christianity will be viewed the same way, and humanity will be the better for it. As for your first point, Sarah Palin’s Ivy League education has nothing to do with her perceived stupidity. (Note that the word used in the post was “ignorant” not “stupid.”) It has to do with things such as: 1) her not knowing that Africa is a country, 2) her inability to name even one Supreme Court ruling with which she disagreed, and 3) her belief that an invisible man helps make her life better. The list is much longer than that, though, trust me.

  9. on 06 Nov 2008 at 9:47 pm 9.Red O'Brien said …

    Oops. “Continent.”

    Blush.

  10. on 06 Nov 2008 at 9:55 pm 10.Red O'Brien said …

    Also, what is this about an Ivy League education? Were you talking about Palin? I took your word for it, then saw that her education wasn’t quite Ivy League.

  11. on 06 Nov 2008 at 10:38 pm 11.Anon said …

    Strains Between McCain and Palin Aides Go Public

  12. on 07 Nov 2008 at 7:57 am 12.Hermes said …

    Rachel, how many gods did you look at before deciding that you found the correct one?

  13. on 07 Nov 2008 at 8:45 am 13.African girl said …

    Red O ‘Brien’ said,

    It has to do with things such as: 1) her not knowing that Africa is a country,

    He also said,

    Oops. “Continent.”

    Blush.

    My goodness, are you people serous? Anyway, we’re used to it.It’s not like it’s the first time anyway.I forgive you…and Sarah Palin.

  14. on 07 Nov 2008 at 9:00 am 14.Hermes said …

    Actually, it has nothing to do with snubbing Africa. It has to do with basic knowledge of the world.

    Anyone who has graduated from High School, let alone College, should know basic things such as what the names of the continents are.

    That someone so stupid is a public official is stunning. That she could have become President (if McCain won and died in office) would be a disaster.

    I don’t know about where you are, I like to have important work being done by competent people. After 8 years of incompetent leadership, the USA deserves better.

  15. on 07 Nov 2008 at 11:26 am 15.African girl said …

    “Anyone who has graduated from High School, let alone College, should know basic things such as what the names of the continents are”

    That’s exactly my point, especially a college in the States.So much for a high ranked official.Still trying to swallow the shock, but I get your point, though.

    But would you still attack her the same way if she was an atheist like yourself and not a Christian? this is what it’s about, isn’t it? Not all Christians are airheads. Look at Myles Munroe, he’s one of the most well-know intelligent Christians in the world today.(Um… that’s if you do know him).Leaders of the world call him in for advice and opinion. Do not take Palin’s own personal character and apply it to all Christians.I’m a Christian myself and I condemn her actions.

  16. on 07 Nov 2008 at 11:41 am 16.Red O'Brien said …

    African girl, my mistake was actually a typo, not ignorance. I’d just been reading that Palin thought Africa was a country, which had the word “country” on my mind. Yes, I know full well that Africa is a continent, and I’ve known it since something like the third grade, but feel free to mock me. I can take it, especially since I’m not running for VP. I’ll gladly take a geography test against Palin any day.

    Also, I don’t think “attack” is the right word. It’s more like most of the country is in stunned disbelief that she was ever a serious candidate. I’ve voted Republican all my life, until now, because the Repub party has changed its values so drastically, and people like Palin are the cause. She’s a religious nutjob on top of being ignorant, and I just can’t take it anymore.

  17. on 07 Nov 2008 at 11:42 am 17.Hermes said …

    But would you still attack her the same way if she was an atheist like yourself and not a Christian?

    Yes. Unequivically. Morons should not run for high office. Incompetence tied with dogmatic loyalty to a person or an ideology is not a virtue. People with bad judgement in one area should be watched in all areas. Palin is (as McCain’s election staff said) “a nut job”. I agree with them. That she’s also stunningly uninformed and incurious about the world are a further negatives.

    I don’t agree with Christopher Hitchens on the Iraq war, and I’ve said so. I don’t agree with Bill Maher (a theist, but someone I generally agree with) on some of his nutty new age ideas. And I’ve said so. Thankfully, they generally get things right.

    As for accusing me of painting all Christians with a wide brush, I have to ask each Christian … were they for Palin or not? Were they for promoting Christinity in the public using the government (USA) over the rights of non-Christians or not? If they did nothing, they have painted themselves with that brush — and many did it proudly.

  18. on 07 Nov 2008 at 12:29 pm 18.Red O'Brien said …

    Well said, Hermes.

  19. on 07 Nov 2008 at 12:50 pm 19.African girl said …

    O’Brien,

    It’s OK, I undestand your point. It’s just that in Africa, Americans are known for their ignornace when it comes to knowlege about Africa (and the rest of the world. As for Palin, I expected her to know better as a politician so it’s even more shocking.

    Hermes,

    Yes some Chrisitans were for Palin (those with the same mindset as her). You can pray to God for something but if your motives are out of selfishness or bad-he will not give it to you.I personally think this was the case. Palin obviously expected the God she served to give her victory but she had the wrong motives and God chose an unbeliever over her instead. You can be a Christian but if you do not have the leadership ability and someone who is not a Christian has, God obviously will choose the non-believer because he knows better.

    God is wise enough not to choose a leader for the American nation just because that person is a Christian. So far the Christians I have heard praying were praying for God to assign the “right leader” for America and ignoring the fact that Sarah Palin is a fellow Christian because they knew this did not necessarily mean she or McCain are the right people for the job.

    Although Obama tolerates difference in religion, God saw other qualities and good policies in him that far outruns his views on religion. Perhaps he would handle the economic crisis better than McCain would have.God wants the best for the American nation and it’s more than just religious views.

  20. on 07 Nov 2008 at 1:04 pm 20.Hermes said …

    [ tips hat to Red ]

  21. on 07 Nov 2008 at 1:06 pm 21.Hermes said …

    So, humans weren’t even necessary?

  22. on 07 Nov 2008 at 9:14 pm 22.godsfavoritecolor said …

    African girl,
    Did god tell you personally how he chooses leaders, or did he just send you an email?

  23. on 07 Nov 2008 at 10:11 pm 23.yes man said …

    yes.

    I sure love it when people speak so confidently about how god works. no mysterious ways at all.

    ..and if Sarah Palin were an atheist, chances are she would also be better educated. statistically, atheists (and left wingers) reach higher in schooling and other intellectual endeavors.

  24. on 07 Nov 2008 at 11:44 pm 24.Anonymous said …

    McCain couldn’t have known how ignorant Palin is

  25. on 08 Nov 2008 at 1:00 am 25.Hermes said …

    LOL! The FOX report, though, shifts the blame from McCain to Palin. Yes, Palin is a moron. Yet, Palin didn’t show up and force McCain or anyone else in the RNC to take her as the VP runningmate. I don’t blame Palin for being chosen; that’s McCain’s fault and a whopper.

    I do blame Palin for being proud of her ignorance and her motions towards running for higher office. That she’s Governor of Alaska is already a travesty even though the state has a low population; 3rd lowest, smack between South Dakota and North Dakota.

  26. on 08 Nov 2008 at 3:19 am 26.nugget said …

    “Although Obama tolerates difference in religion, God saw other qualities and good policies in him that far outruns his views on religion. Perhaps he would handle the economic crisis better than McCain would have.God wants the best for the American nation and it’s more than just religious views.”

    What you are saying that God chose Obama, because of his policies and qualities? I am sorry, but God knew the result. However, God did not chose Obama or McCain, we did. McCain had good policies too, the reason he did not come out was because of Palin’s level of education presented(As described by O’Brien). God finds those of what He thinks is kind hearted, not on who has better policies and qualities.

  27. on 08 Nov 2008 at 7:17 am 27.yes man said …

    yeah, but nugget… you’re forgetting one thing: God does not exist. so everything you just blabbered on about was completely pointless.

  28. on 08 Nov 2008 at 8:39 am 28.nugget said …

    “you’re forgetting one thing: God does not exist. so everything you just blabbered on about was completely pointless.”

    In your point of view or your understanding, He may not exist, but in mine, He does. When i refer my comment to you, you may talk your mind. Unfortunately, i am not refering to you. Thank you.

  29. on 08 Nov 2008 at 9:45 am 29.Hermes said …

    Nugget, when you say ‘God exists for me’, can you tell me what you mean by the word “exists”?

    I’m very confused about this since the word “exists” seems to have a wholly different meaning from other uses of the word “exists” when used in sentences like ‘God exists’ as opposed to ‘Betty Smith exists’ or ‘My car exists’ or even ‘Love exists’.

    I realize that I may not be understanding what you mean, and this may be simple to address, yet I have no context to put your deity in without knowing what exactly is meant by ‘God exists’.

    I would appreciate it if you could thoughtfully shed some light on this.

    Details:

    Usually when I hear the word “exists”, I take it to mean that someone can say “New stop signs exist 3 blocks away at the corner or Willow and 8th street.”. Nearly everyone in town knows what stop signs are. They can, if they want, walk down to that intersection and see if the signs are there.

    If there are no signs, and there is nothing to show that there were any signs, when asked why this is the case it is not justified for the person to say “No, what I mean by ‘new stop signs exist’ is that the environment at that intersection makes me personally feel like stopping.”

    Note that I’m not asking you for proof of your deity.

    I am only looking to understand how you use the word “exist” in the context of referring to your deity.

    What I’m asking for is an example — without referencing your deity — of how to properly use the word “exists” that has the same definition but to do so in another context.

    For example, for common objects (and I am not calling your deity a common object), we can use the word exists this way;

    “This balberfarvel exists.”

  30. on 08 Nov 2008 at 9:49 am 30.Hermes said …

    (continued)

    “This balberfarvel exists.” = First example with an unknown noun leaving ‘exists’ partially undefined.

    “This cow exists in the same way that the balberfarvel exists.” = An example that clears up some of that ambiguity.

    … as opposed to …

    “This tragalicaltin exists.”

    “This pen exists in the same way that the tragalicaltin exists.”

    Meaning, you would not say that;

    “This balberfarvel exists in the same way that the tragalicaltin exists.”

  31. on 08 Nov 2008 at 9:50 am 31.Hermes said …

    (continued)

    I understand that you may not be able to categorize your deity in the same way that I did providing a simple comparison. That’s fine. What I would appreciate is that you take a stab at it using as simple an example as possible so that I get a hint when you say “exists” in the context of saying statements similar to “God exists for me”.

  32. on 08 Nov 2008 at 2:52 pm 32.Red O'Brien said …

    God cannot exist based on one’s understanding. He either exists or he doesn’t. What you used is a common fallacy that Christians resort to in debates. It is usually stated as, “Well, it’s true for me.” Or, “Well, he exists for me.” Any person with a logical mind can see the flaw in this sort of statement. Unfortunately, Christians rarely use logic.

  33. on 08 Nov 2008 at 3:38 pm 33.Hermes said …

    Agreed. I covered that partially in the comment “the environment at that intersection makes me personally feel like stopping”.

    In either case, I’m just looking for the meaning of a single word from Nugget … not proof.

  34. on 09 Nov 2008 at 2:24 am 34.Red O'Brien said …

    Hermes, sorry for the confusion. I was letting nugget know that he wasn’t making sense. Your comments made complete sense to me.

  35. on 09 Nov 2008 at 4:02 am 35.nugget said …

    My definition is similar to others. “Existence” does not actually mean “proof”. Existence varies upon what culture or language is depicted from, in reference to Etymology. Existence for me is considered to be based on what i choose to believe in or “how far i choose my mind to develop”. Regardless, there are gaps that lack evidence and will cause you to continue a journey of “filling in those gaps”. The semantics of the word “exists” is not officially known, such as “good” or “bad”, i would say it would have to be dependent on one’s definition.

  36. on 09 Nov 2008 at 4:14 am 36.nugget said …

    “It is usually stated as, “Well, it’s true for me.” Or, “Well, he exists for me.” Any person with a logical mind can see the flaw in this sort of statement.”

    What i was trying to state on my previous statement was that i was referring to African girl’s comment. “Yes man” should have responded with a little bit more respect, instead of posting a comment with a level of education near Palins. I assume that all of you are educated ladies and gentlemen, so then in conclusion, let’s speak like we are.

  37. on 09 Nov 2008 at 7:45 am 37.Hermes said …

    Nugget, thank you for your response. I take it that you do not know what you mean by the word “exists” in the phrase “God exists”?

    Is this correct?

    If this is not correct, I would appreciate an analogy that comes close to what “exists” means in the phrase “God exists” but without actually referring to your deity.

    As I mentioned before;

    For example, for common objects (and I am not calling your deity a common object), we can use the word exists this way;

    “This balberfarvel exists.” = First example with an unknown noun leaving ‘exists’ partially undefined.

    “This cow exists in the same way that the balberfarvel exists.” = An example that clears up some of that ambiguity.

    … as opposed to …

    “This tragalicaltin exists.”

    “This pen exists in the same way that the tragalicaltin exists.”

    Meaning, you would not say that;

    “This balberfarvel exists in the same way that the tragalicaltin exists.”

    Specifically, in these instances, the balberfarvel has a more cow-like existence while the tragalicaltin has a more pen-like existence.

    So, you could say something like this;

    “When I use the word ‘exists’ as in ‘God exists’, I use it like this;

    ‘The carolbulen exists.’

    not

    ‘The staggenvir exists.’

    Because … [ insert qualifications or clarifications here].

    If needed, after providing an analogy, feel free to add in qualifications so as to reduce any confusion.

    Thank you.

  38. on 09 Nov 2008 at 9:53 am 38.nugget said …

    Hermes, thank you for replying. My analogy that i prefer to demonstrate is: i use “exists” in “God exists” as is a “boy” is in the same way a “male”+”youth”, because the word “exist” is polysemous. So, it has different meanings in different aspects of different possible worlds. The cognitive linguistics may construct other conceptual definitions. Hopefully, my response may fill in those gaps of confusion. Thank you

  39. on 09 Nov 2008 at 10:05 am 39.Hermes said …

    So, it’s so broadly defined that you have no definition?

  40. on 09 Nov 2008 at 6:35 pm 40.nugget said …

    my definition is based on what i believe in.. what i am trying to say is that it would depend on your interpretation towards my open sentence.

  41. on 09 Nov 2008 at 7:10 pm 41.Hermes said …

    Nugget, so you’re saying that your god is like a male human … with extra meanings (undefined)?

  42. on 09 Nov 2008 at 7:24 pm 42.Hermes said …

    Clarification…

    Nugget, so you’re saying that your god exists like a male human … with extra meanings (undefined)?

  43. on 09 Nov 2008 at 7:47 pm 43.nugget said …

    My qualifications of my God is that in the same analogy as a boy is a “male youth”. In other words, my God is the same as “divine deity”. Your qualifications may not meet mines, it all depends on how your lexical semantics extend.

  44. on 09 Nov 2008 at 8:02 pm 44.yes man, sir! said …

    nugget said:
    “When i refer my comment to you, you may talk your mind. Unfortunately, i am not refering to you. Thank you.”

    hey, cool it boy man! this is an open forum and when you start speaking gibberish and pseudo-intellectual nonsense, I have the right to point that out. if your god “exists” (too bad we’ll never seem to understand what that word actually means…) then let Her deal with me. but I might add that it doesn’t do somebody who is trying to defend christianity any too when they return fair criticism with slanderous insults. is that really what they teach you?
    I apologize if my sense of humor was not funny to you, but I felt that it was fairly obvious that my comment was in jest. this is a site which promotes atheism and rational thinking (for the most part) after all, so you can’t be too shocked that people might not give much credence to your confident assertions that your god did anything whatsoever (let alone ‘exist’ in the first place).
    I have no reason whatsoever to respect insane belief systems. they are dangerous and will be the death of humanity. I respect clear thinking and and evidence based education. while I would be the first to agree that there are countless aspects of our universe that we don’t understand, it is foolhardy to make assumptions and assertions that can never be tested. again and again it leads to conflict (ie. whether on a message board or a battlefield) and there are just too many gods (millions) for any one of them to be right. they just die away and new ones take the place of old ones. this is why I find it within bounds to poke a little at an absurdity. religion is fascinating when seen for what it is: mythology. and absolutely terrifying when it is taken as fact.

    we need more people willing to live for science and less willing to die (or kill) for their religion.

  45. on 09 Nov 2008 at 9:40 pm 45.nugget said …

    Agreed. I do not mind if u point out my God, for it is your belief. My concern was how you expressed yourself with the level of respect that you did, sorry if that may offend you and sorry for the way i treated you. I prefer to stick to the blogs than the forums because of this “obvious” respect that the forums contain(sorry Hermes)..Although, I do agree with you in the aspects of universal understanding.

    “we need more people willing to live for science and less willing to die (or kill) for their religion.”

    I agree with we need more people to help develop a better understanding of the world and the universe around us, or united groups. However, science and religion are labels that just classify and separate one being from another(

  46. on 09 Nov 2008 at 11:15 pm 46.Anon said …

    Sarah Palin blamed by the US Secret Service over death threats against Barack Obama

  47. on 09 Nov 2008 at 11:51 pm 47.Anonymous said …

    Nugget: “My qualifications of my God is that in the same analogy as a boy is a “male youth”. In other words, my God is the same as “divine deity”. Your qualifications may not meet mines, it all depends on how your lexical semantics extend.”

    I’m not making myself clear.

    I do not have a qualification or definition of your deity. That’s what I’m attempting to understand from you. To me, what religious people say is vague and highly variable. I was hoping that if you could not explain what “God” means, that I might be able to learn what you mean by “exists” in the phrase “God exists”.

    Risking beating a dead horse, here’s a clarification of part of what I wrote earlier…

    “This tragalicaltin exists.”

    “This pen exists in the same way that the tragalicaltin exists.”

    Meaning that whatever a “tragalicaltin” is, it shares an existence that is more like a pen’s existence than any of the following;

    * Fire or plasma.
    * Light.
    * Sound from a speaker.
    * Radio waves.
    * A cow.
    * An emotion like love.
    * A mental calculation like 44*7-22 or remembering Paris.

    To drive this home, let’s say I produced a “tragalicaltin” and showed how it was used. You may see that it looks like a pointed scraping tool.

    When you write;

    “My qualifications of my God is that in the same analogy as a boy is a “male youth”. In other words, my God is the same as “divine deity”.”

    I’m stuck with two possibilities;

    1. Your God has existence like a male youth has existence.

    2. Your God has existence like any “divine deity” has existence.

    In the case of #1, I don’t think this is what you mean. Correct? (???)

    In the case of #2, I don’t know what a “divine deity” is beyond the highly variable and shifting versions I’ve studied. (For reference, look up Joseph Campbell. I’ve read his books both casually and academically. Campbell does not define this either, though he comes much closer for a generic concept of what a deity is and how it “exists”.)

  48. on 09 Nov 2008 at 11:58 pm 48.Hermes said …

    Anon: “Sarah Palin blamed by the US Secret Service over death threats against Barack Obama”

    Thanks for the link! It would be good for someone who lies so boldly — increasing the threat to anyone’s life — to get a bit of punishment for it. Unfortunately, it looks like that’s not going to happen. It is a good thing that Obama has top-notch protection. Let’s hope it is enough.

  49. on 10 Nov 2008 at 1:58 am 49.nugget said …

    “I do not have a qualification or definition of your deity. That’s what I’m attempting to understand from you.”
    Hermes, my qualification or definition would not make a difference to you.. allow me to explain the semantics of my expression of words will be not be the same as yours. When i refer to my “God” as a “divine deity” in the same way that some people detect “boy” as a “young male”. The meaning of this A reference to your “2nd possibility” in a similar way. My depiction of deity is that everybody’s deity is the same, but with different influences of cultures or different worlds.

  50. on 10 Nov 2008 at 2:01 am 50.Hermes said …

    Thanks, though I’m still at a loss. Each time I ask this question, I get an entirely different answer.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply