I would expect (as per my own evaluation of that quote and of my own Christian experiences) is that she would need quite a bit of validation of such a feeling before thinking of proceeding with it.  Otherwise, she would probably choose on a moral basis.  But that's my evaluation.

What I meant by in principle was that if you agreed with what I said in regards to non-crazy religious people, not necessarily Palin.

In a discussion I make it a point to try and address every point made.

A slight correction to this post however: My position is that you have no reason to believe about her as you do other than your 'gut feeling', not your "experiences".  A subtle but important difference.

As for the point of the overall discussion, we would have to go back to you on that one.  You actually replied to me first.  As for the general path of the conversation which it seemed I was pushing more than you, the point was that you, like many others, base your dislike/disapproval/etc.. of Palin on very very little, or in this case essentially nothing.

And yes I realize you've agreed that this is the case, which takes me to the first line of this post.  I was wrapping up the last few points I hadn't yet addressed. So barring some newly raised issue, it does seem we have wrapped everything up.

I would think 95% of all Christians would make the same choice you would, just not her. I also think you would have not said what she said. You would have probably worded it differently. Most people would talk about it from the position of the soldiers. That god has a plan for everyone, and god will watch over them. Saying that the leaders are sending them out on a task from god is a little strange.

So, apart from our divergent interpretation of her quote, we seem to agree that Christians in general are generally not any less capable than any one else (which, as it appears, is what you and sqrl settled upon).

I suppose I was attempting to discern your position on that matter.

umm... rofl?

Instead of ranting, I will simply say this: Aside from direct prayer, the Bible IS the sole source of guidance in Christianity; it's God's Word. Any self-respecting Christian can tell you that. So there's nothing crazy or wrong or delusional about a Christian holding it in the highest regard, above all else. It's so much more than a mere "metaphorical text intended to help us lead better lives."

From viewpoints other than fundamentalist Christianity it's perfectly valid to think 100% belief in the bible is delusional.

Or I guess I should say, it's logical in the sense it's a part of being a good Christian, especially if you're a baptist or some other sect that follows the bible strictly. It's illogical in the sense that non-Christians simply believe differently. To us, it's just another piece of historical fiction. To us, it's like you believe 100% in, oh let's say, the Harry Potter series. Wouldn't you think someone who strictly believes in Harry Potter is delusional?

So you're comparing the most-sold, most-spread, most-translated, most-read, most-cherished, and most-hated book of all time to... Harry Potter?

Interesting.

I thought that at first too...

However she polls really well with Independents.  It's actually kinda scary.

He's comparing the contents, not it's role in history. And if you're not a Christian, then both books seem quite beyond belief.

Well they were mostly deists anyway.