Latte Links (12/4)



Some miscellaneous items from around the net.

Consider this an open thread post, and as always, free free to follow me on Twitter or friend me on Facebook.

Please read our comment policy before leaving a comment.

  • Adam Best

    The notion that Palin is qualified to be President is utterly ridiculous. She is inexperienced, undereducated, and does not value acquiring new knowledge. She is -basically- afraid to grow out of her willful ignorance.

    • http://www.caffeinatedthoughts.com Shane Vander Hart

      @Adam Best, Yes, I know and Obama had oh so much experience.

      Your education comment is just ridiculous, you shouldn’t have to have gone to an Ivy League school to be President. That’s an elitist argument.

      Where are you getting your information that she doesn’t value acquiring new knowledge? Anything to back that statement up? I can tell she’s done a lot of reading from her op-eds in National Review, The Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal, as well as, with numerous Facebook posts.

      Your comment is just ignorant leftist talking points, now if you want to engage arguing against her policy positions fine, but the characterization of her being some ignorant bumpkin is boring and has been debunked.

      Not to mention she has common sense which is something sorely lacking in the White House.

  • http://www.bonejangles.com Guy Incognito

    Ok, I read the link to First Thoughts and found this sentence: “Like many other evangelicals, I believe that the use of force against evil is not only in keeping with God’s ethical mandate but can even be a positive act of love.”

    I just don’t buy it. Jesus never advocated the use of force, even against evil. The most violent Jesus ever got was knocking over tables. Why try to rationalize war, when it clearly something that cannot be reconciled with Christ. What is the purpose of that, it can only lead to hypocrisy? Christ is the antithesis of war. And jumping through absurd theological hoops to justify nuclear weapons? Come on. Jesus said two swords were enough of a defense for a group of 12 men who had an angry mob coming after them, it is intellectually dishonest to think that He would be ok with WMD.
    .-= Guy Incognito´s last blog ..You Don’t Say =-.

    • http://www.caffeinatedthoughts.com Shane Vander Hart

      @Guy Incognito, I tend to agree with you (just because I link to something doesn’t mean I completely agree). The only “good” I see in nuclear weapons is that they are a deterrent. I pray that they are never used. Even in the example Carter gave of North Korea… there are more options available than even a tactical nuke.

      But, and I know you and I will disagree on this, in Matthew 5, Jesus is speaking to individuals, not nation-states, that doesn’t mean obviously that nation-states can go wage war. But nation-states (ie – governing authorities) are God’s servants, avengers to bring wrath upon wrongdoers, (Romans 13:4).

      Sometimes force is necessary, but it should be measured and I don’t think the use of a nuclear weapon would be.