Replies

So you would prefer Our Sarah as a savior?

Maybe you need a grip on perspective regarding saviors.

Read your Bible.

“So you would prefer Our Sarah as a savior?
Maybe you need a grip on perspective regarding saviors.
Read your Bible.”

Ever hear of a metaphor? I dont think he meant personal lord and savior, personal redeemer, messiah.

I think “savior” was being used in a political sense, vis-a-vis the republican party. It ain’t rocket science.

Where did I say that Sarah was a savior? I was talking about the estsblishment. Goodness you PDsers hear what you want to hear, loon.

Actually, HG, methinks you've let your role as the official anti-Palin one-man swat team go to your head. I have read my Bible, and the word "Savior" has a more complex back-story than you are allowing. For example: Nehemiah 9:27 Therefore thou deliveredst them into the hand of their enemies, who vexed them: and in the time of their trouble, when they cried unto thee, thou heardest them from heaven; and according to thy manifold mercies thou gavest them saviours, who saved them out of the hand of their enemies. Clearly, a lesser usage of the Hebrew term "yasha," meaning one who delivers, makes safe, makes free, etc. In the immediate context it referred primarily to the so-called Judges of Israel, Othniel, Ehud, Barak, Gideon, and so forth, all mortals, all imperfect, but all called by God to benefit the people of God. So obviously, a quasi-political usage of the term is allowed, even for those who read their Bibles. But a lesser usage does not preclude a greater usage, as there are many other OT passages which point to God alone as the sole Savior of humanity. This is not a contradiction, as some would have it. This is really as one would expect it. God would use the multiple exemplars He Himself raised up for old Israel as pointers to the one true Savior. It has always been his Modus Operandi to foreshadow the work of Christ in lesser models. The whole temple system was a framework for God telling us about the Lamb of God. Therefore, intelligent references to the lesser meaning are not precluded by the presence of a greater meaning. I do not know what you think you have to gain by setting up these straw men every time someone has something good to say about Palin, and using them, and your sharply defined sense of proper English, to discredit the thoughts and beliefs of your brother and sister conservatives. I do read my Bible, and I guarantee you will find no justification for making insult, whether technically correct or not, your Modus Operandi. Indeed, I find more on the other side of that equation. Much more. Such as Christ’s teaching in the Sermon on the Mount that calling a brother a fool was so severe an offense Christ warned of judgment to those who practice it. Such a practice is not consistent with the principle of love that give shape to the entire teaching of the Scriptures. What does it Paul said about speaking well versus loving people? 1 Corinthians 13:1-3: Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. The rest of the chapter is pretty good too. You might check it out sometime, when you’re not busy “policing” Palin threads…