Maani,

Glad it sent you to the floor! About the penalty. Yeah…I read so many differing things but I decided to go with the stiffer sentence. I also found there’s a huge variance in the list and number of commandments, to say nothing of their content and translations. 

Either way…
Impale Palin!
To the Bastille!
Onward Christian Soldiers!
Onward Citizen Soldiers!
(Ooops, scratch those last two.)

BruSays:

ROFLMAO!  One correction, though.  The “penalty for disobeying” commandments was somewhat different depending on which one, and, in some cases, the circumstances of the violation.  That’s (partly) what the rest of the Torah was about.

Peace.

Palin’s logic goes up and down and around, just like a tilt-a-whirl.  Whichever way the winds blows, there is Sarah.
She is a trip, she is dizzifying, but shes no VP.

Hey Sarah, and all other clueless, hypocritical, right-wing, evangelical creationists…
Do these look familiar?

1. I am the Lord your God. Thou shall have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shall not make for thyself an idol.
3. Thou shall not use the Lord’s name in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath; keep it holy.
5. Honor thy mother and father.
6. Thou shall not kill.
7. Thou shall not commit adultery.
8. Thou shall not steal.
9. Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife.

Though no longer a believer, I was raised in a relatively progressive Christian home. As I recall (maybe Sarah Palin can set me straight on this) Moses’ tablets did not include the words “Choose any 7 of the above Commandments.” And they weren’t titled “Suggestions.”

And, relative to this blog, missing from the list is any mention of homosexuality. I guess God didn’t feel as strongly about gay sex as he did about swearing, stealing, lying…and adultery. 

The penalty for disobeying a commandment was death by stoning.

By my calculation, Sarah is almost surely guilty of disobeying #2, #3 (I suspect that off-air, her “gosh” and “darn” and “heck” come out sounding more like their “God,” “Darn” and “Hell” equivalents), #4, #5 (campaigns on Sunday), #6 (supports capital punishment), #8 (yep, your kids’ travel expenses were government-related?) and #9 (Troopergate).

Sarah, you’ve violated at least 70% of your cherished Ten Commandments. You are either a Class A Hypocrite or actually a non-believer. Either way, your religion condemns you.

Get out the stones, folks!

Did I really see an article somewhere which said that PALIN considers herself an intellectual? OMH, knock me over with a feather! My German Shepherd shows more intelligence than she does! ROFLMAO!

President Palin - try that on for size. For christsakes, just shoot me, now!

Spiritgirl:

“Didn’t Jesus say; Judge not, lest ye be judged’! Or ‘Whomever amongst you is without sin, cast that stone’”

Let’s get our Scripture and theology correct.

First, Jesus said, “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged.”

In other words, do not judge people for things for which YOU YOURSELF may be guilty.  Contrary to popular understanding, this does NOT suggest that we cannot, or should not, judge each other, as long as we are not guilty of the selfsame thing.  (However, such judgment is to be rendered humbly, lovingly and patiently, with wisdom and compassion).

Second, Jesus said, “He who among you is without sin, let him cast the first stone.”  But here again context is critical.  This was the incident of the adultress who was about to be stoned, when Jesus came along and made this statement.  Yet most people simply ignore what came next.  When all the people left (realizing their own sin), Jesus asks the adultress, “Woman, where are thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?” She says, “No man, Lord.”  To which He replies, “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.”

Get that: “Go, and sin no more.”  Thus, while Jesus did not judge or condemn the adultress, neither did He condone her behavior/lifestyle, since He tells her to “sin no more.”

Note that I am not taking a moral stand here on gays or gay marriage.  I am simply correcting common misinterpretations of Scripture and theology.

Peace.

Confusion reigns supreme!  “Marriage” as it is now defined was instituted in laws that “man” made.  Far be it from me to push my judgment and opinion on other people, but isn’t it that one man/one woman that produce that “gay” child!  And even though those families may not support their kids choices, they damn sure learn to support the child that they brought into this world!  Besides, I’m not in a “gay” persons bedroom so it really is none of my business!

Didn’t Jesus say; Judge not, lest ye be judged’! Or “Whomever amongst you is without sin, cast that stone”!  Remember that the next time before you speak out!

All:

Apropos of Palin’s cluelessness, consider this:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/22/palin-takes-heat-for-saying-vp-in-charge-of-the-senate/

Peace.

If one studied history long ago marriage was often between male/male or female/female. It was often a necessity of survival to have a helpmate over going it alone. Gender wasn’t a problem.

And yes, she is sitting in judgement. Do this woman not understand what she says?

Time to go home Sarah.

Actually, Palin is still incoherent.  She said Rowe vs Wade/abortion should be a matter that states decide. Now she says gay marriage should be a federally mandated issue.  NO CONFUSION HERE.
Her thought processes are one big splatter!

This person has shown me that she IS UNQUALIFIED TO EVEN DIG THE HOLE SHE NEEDS TO CRAWL IN TO…...

Far be it from me to be “quoting” from Jesus, but didn’t he say something like:

“Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s?”

Sounds to me like he’s saying if the secular government chooses to permit gay marriage, fine. If you, for reasons of religion, choose not to marry someone of the same sex, then don’t.

The Cristian, Bible-based religious doctrine is, by definition—believing without evidence—wholly without logic.

These people will say anything that comes to mind to maintain their own state of self-ignorance.

This woman, and those who think like her, are abominations.

Even your idea of an amendment to ‘DEFINE’ marriage as a union between a male and female is not appropriate govenmental duty, that is just plain frivolous bs to stay away from real issues on any level of governmental action. YOU have the right to define something for your gratification and editification but not for everybody else.

This may be out there more than once but with another mysterious upgrade from microsoft of wherever things are running different.

Even your idea of an amendment to ‘DEFINE’ marriage as a union between a male and female is not appropriate govenmental duty, that is just plain frivolous bs to stay away from real issues on any level of governmental action. YOU have the right to define something for your gratification and editification but not for everybody else.

States rights?? States rights!? We don’t got to show you no stinking states rights.

My goodness, she actually gave an answer to a question that was almost coherent! Will wonders never cease!