sky4it

Wordwolf, LarryNMoore: Interesting dialogue between u two, Wordwolf: Are you writing some of the messages at GS now like the one one the Law of Believing and stuff?

Yeah well ok, Garth, you want to let it go at that well fine by me. If Democrats and (some) Republicans view of the fine and beautiful, Miss Colther, does it for you, that's your business, not mine. Their view of her does not move me one bit. Does this mean Garth that I don’t get an apology? Because if not well then as I said follow your own advice and Deal with it. BTW, I will be waiting for my prayer on the stuff on Calvin in that thread. I like you a little more than you think. So bring me the bad’s on Calvin’s sex life (if you can find them and they exist); if my prayer is answered. But if your not going to apologize(for your misuse of my blaspheme statement) allow me to digress one more time: “Oh Earless One”(Oh come on Garth its all in good fun) Just so you know, that there is a concept of blaspheme of God and there is a probability for a guy like Dawkins commiting it, here is one for the show: Mark 3:28,29, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men and blasphemes wherewith soever they shall blaspheme, but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness; but is in danger of eternal damnation. Well, looks like Dawkins could commit blaspheme against God, and possibly be forgiven. (It depends) Furthermore, I think that the diatribe he launched out against God was exactly that. Perhaps it suits your purpose more to think of it as libel/slander or a slur of great magnitude. BTW blaspheme means to revile or execrate; To declare to be hateful or abhorrent; denounce. So lets not get so spiritual about it ok Ok Garth? Mark 3:30 BECAUSE THEY SAID HE HATH AN UNCLEAN SPIRIT. Meaning what Garth? Meaning that because they(the scribes) said he (Jesus) hath an unclean spirit. In his diatribe against God, did Dawkins attribute to him an unclean spirit? Gee, I better NOT answer that one. What do you think Garth? Need some more? Look up blaspheme against God in the Book of Revelation. NOW WHERE IN THIS DID I SAY IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE IN GOD, THAT IS BLASPHEME, OH EARLESS ONE? Peace BTW, I can take someone hacking on Rush and O Reilly somewhat, but on sweetheart like Ann ? That's a little to much for me, oh earless one . Why? Because I just don't bleed Republican much; thats why. And Ann doesn't click, ( I believe) to the Republicans to the extent people think. +

Horses: usaid: Maybe Mr. Sky4it we got off on the wrong foot and if we talk things out they will get better. Yeah, well don’t worry about it. Next time use both your feet. It takes two feet to walk and if you use em both, well then you wont get off on the wrong foot ie.(your wrong foot) with me. usaid: I have a number that I wrote down and if you can guess it please go ahead and try. What I told you is that you need to send it back to me in your post and I will tell you if that was the number I was thinking about. Send it over and I will tell you. With me, you need to follow the instructions. Usaid: My other question to you is what if Mr. Calvin is right about some things and you are not. This is where Calvin really gets whack. The good news is it doesn’t matter and I will explain to you why. Your postulate/premise is: That Calvin is right. (That Unconditional Election/Predestination is right) It does not matter and here is the reason: Nobody knows who the ELECT are for sure except who? Well God of course. Because it is God's foreknowledge of such things not man's. This is where it would get real bad for Calvinists for several reasons:What if God where to say, Well none of the Calvinists are the Elect? Guess what? You are 100 percent up a creek without a paddle in Calvinism, because Calvinists argue that who ever is “reprobated” God is just for doing it. Thus, on either side of the equation, it makes no logical sense to embrace Calvinism. But you might say, they trust in the sacraments? In this also Calvinists are up a creek, because their doctrine of reprobation isn’t even the same as what it means in II Corinthians 12:21 and all of Chapter 13 (II Corinthians) How does this effect the sacraments? The topic in 1 Corinthians 11:19 is about heresies and heresies are NOT AN EXCUSE for the sacraments. I Corinthians 11: 27 says” WHEREFORE WHOSOEVER SHALL EAT THIS BREAD, AND DRINK THIS CUP OF THE LORD, UNWORTHILY, SHALL BE GUILTY OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD. V: 30 also adds this can cause sickness , weakness and sleeping ie(death) Read verse 30 to understand it. Thus, if you espouse yourself to a heresy doctrine, which toss’s out the stuff we have talked about in this thread, the sacraments are of no or little avail. Still, reprobation, is the issue with Calvinists. Under right scriptural thinking, one is not allowed to be a fornicator, I Corinthians 6 :15-20 tells why. The bible says that fornicating in essence is joining Christ to a harlot. I Corinthians 6:18 says, “ Flee Fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.” These scriptures along with the ones in II Corinthians 12 & 13, form the basis for what reprobation is. Under Calvinism the reprobate are the NONELECTED ONES. Thus if they become reprobated or Unelected they have ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS FOR SALVATION, which is way more wacky than what scripture says about Salvation. (This is why it is so important to follow the bible and what it says is a reprobate and to make your calling and election sure. ) What I am saying is you are worse off under Calvinism, then you would be without Calvin at all. AND HERE’S THE KICKER: Some of these people may be judged just like this out of there own doctrine. WHY? John 5:45, Jesus said,” Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father, there is one that accuseth you, even Moses in whom you trust” Loosely speaking, Calvinists trust in Calvin’s rendition of scripture. Yet Calvin is the same one who condemns them, because they don’t have an out if they are not the ELECT or rather the Unelect. Get it? There is absolutely no out in Calvinism for whoever is reprobated and since they deny that they have to do some things, they could all be condemned by Calvin IF AND I SAY IF, God’s call’s them what Calvin described as a reprobate. God’s meaning of reprobate from scripture is different from Calvin’s so that it might in fact all happen that way. One more point and I will let you go. You have heard of Jehovah’s Witness’s. They teach a Revelation concept of the 144,000. I asked one JW and he told me those people have already been determined. I asked another and they told me they had not been determined. Do JW’s believe the only one that is in the 144,000 crowd are JW’s only? I don’t know. The point is simply that just by virtue of being a JW, that doesn’t necessarily put you in the 144,000 crowd. Same thing applies to Calvinism. Just by virtue of being a Calvinist doesn’t necessarily make you or one an ELECT. For to presume so, is just simply stupid.

Garth: u said you were tiring of the subject and I agreed , but I must digress one more time because of your insistence. To say that people like Ernst Haeckel, and Fritz Krupp and there cronies had nothing to do with the Holocaust is absurd. For the sake of argument lets put that one on the shelf for: I think your knowledge of Weikart is probably right up there with my knowledge of Wicans. Furthermore, since they are not here to defend themselves, I think leaving it with God who is the Righteous judge is the right place for it to be at this time. So lets let that one go for now. As far as my blaspheme statement goes, the definition extends more to calling lies the truth in particular; reference to when some religious types called things that were clean , unclean, so Dawkins may have not met the definition in a technical sense. Thus, lets let that one go for now too. (So, no don’t make inferences that everyone who doesn’t see things as I do is a blasphemer, which in fact you were saying that I did.) (Which in fact, I resent I might add) Because it WASN’T the fact Dawkins doesn’t believe in God that I made the statement; which is what you said I did. It was in fact how Dawkins described God. Now here is what you did: You put words in my mouth about what blaspheme is; which was WRONG of you, for which you own me an APOLOGY and if you don’t want to: take some of your own advice and DEAL WITH IT. GET IT? Usaid: reality dictates that they are not. Ergo, the flaw in your (and Richard Weikert's, and Michael Behe's, and Ann Coultergeist's, and even Dr. Kennedy's) rendering of evolution. Oh so now you want to talk about Miss Ann Coulter? Well we are just way beyond some people’s bedtimes now aren’t we Garth. Wasn’t it Keith Olbermann who called her the Poltergeist thing? But that’s not a libel or slanderous slur is it? Why? Because it suits your's or Olbermans purpose. I mean are you going to get a Miss Ann Colther (pun intended) doll and slam it on your desk like left wing Olbermann too? Or is there clown who wants to run on stage and throw pies at her like some joker did? Because that’s kind of where Ann makes her arguments about where the ax falls in her book “Slander.” about people whose IQ’s are so low they refuse to communicate in a reasonable fashion. (Notice I did not say this was you Garth) So you want to talk a little Coulter eh? While it certainly wouldn’t matter to you, but I gave one of Miss Colther’s books to someone who has there masters degree, and it took them a few hours to get through one Chapter. (Does Miss Colther have an emotional outburst at times? Well, yes, she does; but even when she does she is more intelligent than the left wingers who attack her for it. Gee, have a sense of humor today, and they pile on.) By the way, Garth, the media at times tells lies about her, and I will prove it to you in another post if you want. Miss Ann Colter, is brilliant intellectually, in fact she is so intelligent that people like Dawkins couldn’t possibly even read her or understand her. But that’s not what bugs them the most Garth. What bugs them is that she’s is good looking and has a terrific sense of humor. Her humor is so fine, they only wish. Want to know what Dawkins real problem is? Dawkins has been talking about bats and squirrels and seals for so long, he doesn’t even know what a beaver is anymore. (Pun intended) Then he looks at a stunner like Miss Ann, and he just can’t deal with it. Let’s just talk about your Poltergeist statement. Remember in the Bible where Jesus said He who has ears to hear let him hear. Sounds a little like an insult doesn’t it? I mean obviously if people have ears that’s what they use them for. At a minimum maybe he just knew they weren’t listening at all. Which is about where you and I are. You haven’t heard one word I said. Period. Even if the term “Coultergeist” thing isn’t slander or libel, lets say it’s good natured ribbing. Well then a guy like you certainly wouldn’t mind (because I know someone such as yourself would never stoop to slander/slurs/or libel) if I called you from now on “The Earless One”, in reference of course to the fact you never heard one word I said. It's a better place for someone like you too and here's the reason: I mean if you don't have any ears, then you have a good excuse that you never heard anything, instead of trotting out Darwin/Dawkins as though you never heard anything else. Get it? Now here’s the skinny, "O earless one” , I asked you, if you could get me some historical facts on Calvin’s sex life. I will be praying for you too that you have one of those things you may or may not think ever occur, as in a miracle, and you come up with it. I would like to think the better of you, that if you found such stuff, you might actually enjoy posting it. Unless of course your historical facts might actually serve to make the Bible look good, would that mean you would not post it? I do however think better of you “O earless one”, because on my dislike meter Calvin scores a perfect 10, where evolutionary atheists are between 3 and 9. (Gee does this mean we are friends?)

Garth said: Keep in mind, Wordwolf, that Darwin's version/understanding of evolution has (if you'll pardon the term) evolved to what we have now, ... and will continue to evolve as more information becomes available. Yeah, maybe in another billion years they will figure out all they ever did was pee on there own foot. How some people at GS really view Darwin, I dunno, but here is kind of how the Darwinian hard core evolutionists mind really works: The things with Darwin/Dawkin people when you make an intelligent arguement, like Behe, (or as I do) they don't dont talk about the words you used or have resources to cite for proof, equating something that is bad with Darwin or Dawkins, well you just insulted the state religion and you must be stupid by default. Darwinian evolutionists are intelligent by "unintelligent design", the rest of us apparently can't even lift Darwin's "we Darwinian evolutionist men we really wish we owned a bra" thesis, which thought is Dawinian in nature. (Can I make a logic arguement of that, in fact I can) Then, when they are discussing your straw arguement, they label it "libelous" even tho, light mental weights like Dawkins can have diatribes and rants basically blashpheming God, but that's just good sport. The fact they have to throw libel into the picture shows just how inept they really are. If there were adequate resources to disuade the arguement they wouldn't have to get so emotional about it. In fact, people like Richard Weikert, Michael Behe and Ann Coulter, when they do recitations and have 100's and 100's of resources that they spellout, it makes the libel arguement look like just what it is; the hocus pocus psudoscience is under assault, so it must be "Libelous".

Abigail & Garth Abi hope you didnt miss my last post to you. Garth: U said its getting old, agreed this is my last post on the topic. It really doesnt matter for people like Richard Dawkins anyway, the root of his real problem is that he got hit bya lightning bolt in his a s suption at age 17. Well, talk to you later on another thread.

Ab

Lindy Garth see above; Thanks Bramble, looks like somebody is challenging what I heard , anyway I appreciate it. But at least it proves the point that I did hear it.

Lindy: I cant remember where I read it, after this weekend I don't know if I wanna go look for it either. Actually, I think I saw it on television by a scientist doing an interview on a show. I do not remember his name. BTW Lindy what difffence does it make? Everything I cite or say on the topic, all of my stuff is "your material is irrelevent." Maybe we should go get Richard Dawkins and see if he can walk on water or part the Red Sea, instead of him explaining how a seal got out of the ocean developed paws and became a bear.

Garth: U said: Now there is one helluva straw man argument if ever I saw one. And one based on some serious flaws. First off, Descent of Man doesn't deal with racism I think it does. Dawin refers to "savages" and the "civilized" I mean who do you think Darwin was referring to when he was talking about savages? He also talks about cranial sizes of people. You think that Richard Weikert's book is hocu pocus? Have you read it or do you have as much knowledge about that as I do about Wicans? You dont think the Darwin statements I quoted are racist? oh ok they have cleaned up there act, well I guess thats good. u said: Oh, and your even weaker association of Nazism/Communism with atheists/evolutionists as a means of causely relating the two groups is filled with even more ridiculous assumptions, all based on the illogical flaw of rendering judgement upon the whole group based on the acts of various famous individuals in said group. But thats not my assumption Garth. My assumption is that in the absence of a true God society, where people have the right to practice there faith, this leads individuals to conduct they would not otherwise ascribe too. U said: ... So Adolph Hitler implemented evolutionary concepts into his philosophy of Nazism. So the theory of evolution should take the rap for that? In fact, evolutionary athiesm was the ideology that caused it. (Even if you say well they misinterpeted Darwin.) I mean does the Bible get a break for the Christian Crusades? If you dont want to believe Weikert, look at some of the historical facts. ( I dont stink at history that much) Fritz Krupp a known millionaire(industrialist) (Fritz Krupp was accused by newspapers in 1902 for homosexual and pedophile crimes ) (see the book Hitlers Scientists) , funded large populations of the biological sciences in Germany. As an amatuer biologist he was involved with scientists who "expounded hierarchical evolution in populations." The German scientific rendering of Darwin became Germany" "Racial Hygiene" ideology. They were in fact putting Darwin into practice. I am not saying Garth THATS THATS WHAT EVERYONE IS DOING TO DAY. This is however what the Germans did and yes, Darwin's hat should take some of the rap for that. u said: Weikart's material is also flawed I think its pretty solid, and he doesn't make shaky arguements. u said: So, because of this, you can show me all the material you want, and none of it would successfully show that evolution itself is based on/requires racism at its heart, of this I am certain. Ie., thus your material is irrelevent. ... And frankly, it would only serve to show the Creationist/theist side as being horribly desperate in defending its faith. So I suggest that you don't waste your time. Well, I am not horribly desperate to defend my faith, as you suggest. In fact, I only mentioned it too you because I thought you might like it. I will however take your suggestion and NOT MENTION IT AGAIN. You said,"thus your material is irrelevent., Well I suppose I could draw two points on a peice of paper and start to connect the dots but err uh egads but I don't want to err uh oops insult you either so never mind. BTW Garth, you said: Now there is one helluva straw man argument if ever I saw one. And one based on some serious flaws. First off, Descent of Man doesn't deal with racism, At least do one thing for me, and not tell me its not a straw man argument, which I think is absurd. Darwin has a whole chapter on races and many quotes which at least today would be considered racist. I mean I think you owe me at least a apology/take back on that one. Why? Because you said it yourself when you said "Darwin had flawed theories in his evolutionary reasoning" I suppose i have to accept that, but why does Darwin get an easy out and and have to have apologists?

Abigail and Garth: Garth see above post. Abigail: sorry it took so long for me to get back to you, they are playing football today. u said: Branding yourself with a particular label does not make you of higher moral character. Nor does it make you of a lower moral character. How you live your life does that. I think that is a lot of what Jesus taught on!! Maybe I can copyright that statement send it to all the churches and things will get better? I think that you summed up my thoughts precisely on the topic, in a way that only you could. Thanks U said: But, I don't think the Rabbis would get to up in arms about Calvin. First, most don't believe in the NT at all, so in a sense, anyone who claims that just because they believe in Jesus gives them any kinda pass or gives them any kind of moral high ground - well it isn't going to fly. Darn! Well at least if they read it and Calvin, I do think they might laugh a little. Usaid: The Jewish people, though, they don't think everyone has to follow all of the laws. Judaism teaches that the Jewish people are supposed to follow the laws. The Gentiles are only bound to the Noahic laws because their anscestors never made a committment to the rest of the laws. The Noahic laws are: 1) to establish courts of justice; 2) not to commit blasphemy; 3) not to commit idolatry; 4) not to commit incest and adultery; 5) not to commit bloodshed; 6) not to commit robbery; and 7) not to eat flesh cut from a living animal. And really, when you get right down to it, those same seven laws plus the 10 commandments are the basis for the 613 Jewish laws, which by and large exist to make sure the other 17 don't accidently get broken. Thanks for telling me that. I did not know that. My take is some of the old testament law was done away in NT thinking because it isnt well understood. Like "not bearing false witness" which brings conotations that some one doesnt just do it but bears it around. Only 613? I thought someone told me there were over a 1,000. Anyway I thought I would tell you a story of mine with a synagogue. When my daughter was 5 she had cancer (Luikiemia) She is cured and doing fine today. The oncologist was a Jewish guy, one of the best people I have ever met, a real fine man. One day I was sitting in the lobby, and I thought to ask him a question. I was thinking to myself, maybe people in the Synagogue actually believe in Jesus but why should they tell anyone? So I asked him. He told me that if you want to get an answer on that, you need to go talk to a Rabbi and ask them three times. So I went to the synagogue and met a young woman who was a Jewish Rabbi and asked her if it was possible they believed in Jesus. She told me no, they don't because the lion has not laid down with the lamb yet. The next time I saw the oncologist doctor, he told me , you know maybe you should check out a UU church. Anyway I thought you might find that story amusing.

Garth: Jupiter, acts as a shield from meteors and astroids which protect the earth from these things. In addition, the exact placement of Jupiter, acts as a gravitational pull to keep earth in place. Thus evolutionary arguments which say life could arise out of a 1 out of trillion/trillion zillion computations, are now facing long shot odds that cannot be computed because of Jupiters status. :) Regarding Racism and Evolution: 1) You might want to read Richard Wiekerts book, from Darwin to Hitler. 2) The ideology of Darwin, places race in different classes. I mean look up Darwin's pal Ernst Haeckel's Drawings, Naturliche Schopfungsgeschichte, where he depicts 6 human species and 6 simians, where he places what he (Haeckel) thinks is the lowest human class next to the simians. Of course, Haekel, places Caucasians at the top of the chart! (Did he mean something by this???) The quack Haeckel, also faked embryonic drawings to prove his Darwin pal's theory. This is how evolution got it's start as a "science." 3) The biggest mass murders of the 20th Century were all were Darwinian thinkers. Communists (and athiest) Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot and Nazi Germany (despite what Dawkins says). (Oh yeah, Jeffery Dalmer was an evolutionist too) Was Stalin a racist? Maybe we should ask some ethnic groups of non-causian status that he almost wiped out. 4) Ok I will give you a couple of quotes by Darwin in Descent of Man: Chapter "On the Races" a) Page 146 my book : Quote by Darwin, " The inferior vitality of mulattoes, is spoken of in a trustworthy work, as a well known phenomenon; and this although a different consideration from their lessened fertility, may perhaps be advanced as a proof of the specific distinctness of the parent races" Dawin just said at least these two things: I)Darwin said that marriage (Darwin calls it interbreeding) of blacks and whites creates a subject of "inferior vitality" This is racism by Darwin. II) Darwin also attributed to them "lessened fertitlity" This is racism by Darwin. Here is another racist comment by Darwin same book in the chapter of "On the Affinities and Geneologies of Man. a) page 134 of my book Quote by Darwin" At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world......... The break between man and his nearest allies will then be made wider, for it will intervene between man and a more civilized state, as we may hope, even then the Caucasions (Darwins just said that Caucasions are more civilized as he does in all his writings) instead of, as now, beween the negro, or Australian and the gorilla." End Quote by Charles Darwin When Dawin talks about the Australian he is talking about Aborigines. Darwin puts them and blacks in the class of the ?. It's so blantantly racist I dont even want to say it. I got more Garth too if you want. These comments by Darwin are racist.

Garth: I was responding to your comment on my garden variety athiest, and someone had mentioned that evolutionists and athiests are not always the same. Thanks to wordwolf for clearing up that, because I know there is a group that reconcile creation and evolution, and thats what they call em. I shall try to pick up the S/N better from now on. Other than that priniciple, most athiests are evolutionists. There may be a few athiests that believe in the bear flatulence theory or cosmic explosions, but not many. Garth usaid: I must have either forgot to respond to that other post, or I didn't feel it neccessary to. In any event, you might find Dawkins material difficult to understand, but, on the contrary, I find it quite plain and clear what he means. Perhaps its because you view him to 'insult your God' that clouds the issue for you. ... Face it my friend, apparently atheist's writings and material are a sore spot for you. Another suggestion if I may: Learn to deal with it, 'cause we aren't going to go away. I don't find Dawkins difficult. He is uneccesarily verbose. I wouldn't say the writings are a sore spot for me, I would say that I feel sorry for those that believe them. I reckon they are not going to go away too Garth. Discoveries about the planet Jupiter, have certainly alarmed athiests in recent days however. Dawkins concept of "cummulative selection" is illogical in the way that he derived it and makes no sense. It is a faulty arguement. It is in the book the Blind Watchmaker. If you have the book I could show you why. Speaking of racism, there is more racism in Charles Darwin's book Descent of Man than any person could possibly pull out of the Little Rascals because some people overused and misused the names from those characters. I am somewhat surprised that Darwin's books have been able to survive considering the terminology and things he says in that book.

Garth: Its probably a good idea you didnt respond to my other post to you. I really dont much feel like whipping out my Dawkins and Darwin stuff. Look Garth, I know that there are people they call Evolutionary Creationists (See I get out) When I mention athiests or evolutionists, I never get to excited about the terminology. I mean if there is a Christian Evolutionary Creationists in the bag I grab, well when you squeeze the bag they just kinda pop out of there anyway. LMAO Thats right Garth, I get out. yeah I aware that the 16th century Calvinist was a little different than todays, I was speaking more in the current day one I identified. Well I met a whole slew of new agers one time at a lake. I am sure there must of been a Wicca in there someplace. There was actually this one chick, standing on a dock on one foot flapping her arms with her eyes closed. (I think she was meditating) ( I kid you not) Thumbed through some of there books at Barnes and Noble. Certainly didnt look like healthy stuff to me. Abigail, I'll post back to you tomorrow, its late.

Abi: I think Romans 2:14-15 was the one you were talking about. say i had to edit my last message it was Roman 11 I was talking abt, later abi

Abigail: Nice to see you stop in and post here in the basement. Thanks Abigail: Or perhaps you need to define "redeeming qualities"? Yeah I am not sure that, that was the word I was looking for, I guess I was shooting for something that indicated that Christians should have lifes that lead by example or qualities one might want to emulate. I kind of wrote that last paragraph to Bramble of my previous post with some of your comments in mind also. usaid: Sky, even your New Testament speaks of the unbelievers who do that which is right, while the believers do not. I can't remember the exact verse and wording - if you'd like I'll find it for you. But the point is, don't be so sure that your Wicans can't have as many reedmable qualities as your bible believing Christians. Even your Bible says that isn't so. Yeah, and in your first sentence, I think you and I discussed that before. My particular take on Christianity is that the cross of Jesus is the power of God , so I like to keep it close to me. It certainly is disturbing to me Abigail, if in fact people say that Christians don't have any higher moral charachter than say anyone else. (Because it certianly isnt what the Bible has in mind) I mean its even more disturbing if when they say that, if it is true. Which is why if it is true, we could be seeing some of the things like Romans 11:17-26 where all Israel is saved. While I find it disturbing, it certainly isnt surprising. I mean Jesus himself said that "for as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the son of man be. " Matt; 24:37 Ie(people will be behaving like they did in Noah's day) HEY ABIGAIL not to change the subject but I was thinking about people of Jewish faith in relation to the Calvin thread and wanted to make one point to you. I mean Jewish Rabbis? They would absolutely shred Calvin and I want to tell you why. Let's see God gave Israel over a 1,000 laws, statutes and ordinances and Calvin comes along and gives everyone an UNCONDITIONAL PASS OF ELECTION. Jewish Rabbis? They are going to think that is hilarious. Remember when I told you I thought that all the old test stuff really boils down to just a handful of simple concepts. At least to me Abi, that makes sense.

Yeah and thats a tragedy too Bramble. What your saying isn't all together without merit. I can say that I have met some Christians in my life, that are terrific examples. Of course, i have seen church goers of which you speak that aren't. I suppose a good example is one of my son's friends dad who recently went to jail for abusing young girls. He was a church goer but , I am not sure that that in particular is a reflection on those of faith. I mean there have been other Republicans who are bible talkers who have had there lives exposed too in recent years. I suppose one has to look on in on a case by case basis. As a general rule this stuff shouldnt be happening and its certainly doesn't reflect on what the Bible tells people to do. Not surprisingly the same was said in the First century about those of Jewish faith by the Apostle Paul. That there character didnt measure up and Paul said , "the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles. Romans 2:24 Of course if it is as bad as you indictate, Ie(there is no difference) then in all likihood I dont think we would be far away from the events described in Romans 11: 17-26, wherein as it says in verse 26 "and so shall all Israel be saved" Still, Jesus described the last days as very much like they are today and told us "He that shall endure to the end the same shall be saved. Matt:24:13

Larry see above and one more point: u said: The "truth" is different to different people. But whatever your "truth" is and it works for you then hold on to it. It really doesn't matter if your "truth" is accepted by anyone else. Does this mean that you think 2 or more people can't come or dont come to a point of agreeement on what the truth is? Let me tell you how I see that: Let's say for example I know one scripture (and we all agree that God's word is truth. ie( Thy word is truth) So we all believe it to be the truth. From any other scripture(not the one listed in particular) , I have experience in application in points 1,2 & 7. Another guy has application experience in points 1,3 &8. Another guy in points 1,4, 5. My view is that we all have common truth and the rest we learn from each other or along the way. Now the application of scripture, its not unlike how the II Peter 1:10 principle on the bottom of my post is a poision pill to Calvinism. Or unlike how the sincerity and leaven scriptrues of the bible ended being poision pills to VPW. I do believe that we grow in the knowledge of God. Since we are limited it will always be a growing knowledge. No one gets a black box because we are limited in knowledge as to what we can know. I just read your last post and thanks Larry talk to you around the corner.

Larry: u said: If YOU were the only one to ever believe God raised Jesus from the dead and confessed him as Lord of life (that's an interesting phrase to think about in itself) would God still have sent him and would Jesus still have sacrificed himself for you? Well its a good thing that doesnt exist huh? Thats kind of like asking a guy who blew up himself with a grenade to save his buddy if he did it just for his buddy, I mean maybe he also did it to help his country win the war. I guess that if he would have had to do that so that I would be saved I would have to think the answer is yes he would have sacrificed himself for me. If however there was only one person could God just pull a Enoch and lift him out of there? dont know the answer to that question.

cman: usaid:basic Christianity101......what is that sky4it? to you i mean.... you know cman the basic goods like Jesus is the way the truth and the life. John 3:16 and the like and John 3:17 " that God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world but that the world through him might be saved" and John 3:18 "he that believeth on him is not condemned but he that believeth not is condemned already......" You know thats kind of just the basic goods that God offered in Jesus.

Larry: ( see above post) Bramble: u said: I guess I see cults like the TWI of the nineties, manipulative and micromanaging. Well yeah certainly so I agree. I think a cult can also be a permissive society too though. (Like Calvinim) u said: Many religions of the Book(Christian and other) do feel their way is the only way, and view those who believe differently as less good(or even as possessed, or evil) or even dangerous. Yeah but here's the thing Bramble. I think there are some general tenents of Christianity that are pretty well established wether in Catholic or Lutheran or Evangelical or Pentacostal/ Assemblies of God places that vary very little. I dont think that any of these organizations feel that "their way is the only way" ie(that an Evangelical would dismiss a Pentacostal/Assemblies or whatever the case may be) I mean I know for a fact I dont, I know many Catholics and have good freindship with them. u said: I'm not a Bible creation believer, and I think there are many non athiests who are not Bible Creationists. Pagan, Wiccans, many liberal Christians, non Chrisitian religions...*shrug* I don't think it is an indicator of evilness. To which I have to disagree. I mean the concept of thinking that Wicans have as much redeemable qualities as bible believing Christians is a little too much to take. I mean that's not what basic Christianity101 teaches. Niether, however, do you or should you see someone who is a Christian throwing people off buildings because they are the ones you mentioned.

LarrynMoore: My head was spinning through some of this stuff, and I wanted to bounce a couple other things off you. Jesus talked a lot about a place of outer darkness. Revelation talks about a second death, of which those who only have a first resurrection Rev. 20:6 are in good shape. Then the bible talks about a lake of fire. Whats the lake of fire? There is a thread on it here. Does it mean lights out forever? I think it could mean that. Somewhere in the second death and the lake of fire I think there is something in both those concepts which is decidedly negative. My stab on it is this? I think it has a component where there is somewhat of a loss (especially in the second death) The lake of fire being even worse. Whats that loss? I think it would be in my stab, the reduction of a persons IQ to maybe that of a 4 year old or a 7 year old or 10 year old whatever the case may be. Perhaps some of it might just be arrested development an inability to grow in the knowledge of God. Perhaps some of it may be separation issues. The second death cannot be a lights out death or the bible would not describe it “on such the second death hath no power” It is however a death of something of some magnitude. The positive of the same book however are to the people that “overcometh” stuff. I suppose that would be the short laundry list of the to do’s or not to do’s of NT dynamics. For simple starters how about the many people here who overcame TWI. You know there were and still are some people out of TWI who really love the Lord. Who in particular? Well Pawtuckets wife for one. She came and talked to me once and that’s what I recollect her talking about, that it boils down to loving the Lord. I happen to think Larry that the whole TWI mess, is a real tear jerker up in heaven with God and Jesus for this reason: Some of these people really loved the Lord. Its sometimes hard for me to talk her at GS. There is still a lot of pain here that people have and I have some of that same pain too. . I think the good news is that if one like myself and others can look at it as a graduation ceremony from the school of hard knocks and overcoming, well then that’s a good thing and nothing to be ashamed about. Interestingly the last time I left GS for a few years, some guy was posting to me and kind of making fun of my posts so I said well nuff of that I will wander elsewhere. I don’t mean to appear bullheaded but on somethings I am stuck or fixed in my view. I do believe that “truth” is a fixed reference point.

u said: Not all evolutionists also happen to be atheists. yeah I am aware of that. Excellent point Larry Ie( the stuff I quoted you saying) So what your saying is there is no such thing as a garden variety athiest? I know this guy who is a Doctor, very brilliant man. Early in his life he liked his Charles Darwin, but he also likes his bible. He was I believe a UU guy early in his life. . Last seen he was parading in and out of Assmeblies Churches and other places. He is one of my best friends. A truly terrific man. Poor Fred, never really found a church that eased his mind. Which is why I think the best place to go to church is always first in your prayer closet.

LarrynMoore: u said: I believe ya. I'm not meaning to be hard on you and I don't mean to be offensive when I say -- you Thanks i appreciate that. Here's the thing I think about athiests (evolutionists) and maybe you can help me with that. I wonder if it is possible to save them from eternal death, as in lights out and let me see if I can explain that. You know how the concept of believe and call upon God is so profoundly simple? Well an athiest of course doesn't beleive at all in God. So how would that effect one since there is a resurrection of the "just and unjust"? An athiest could wake up in the next life and what would there thought be? There thought would be (one would think) Well they just evolved. I mean there is no way to get an athiest out of that arguement right? Thus, how could one be saved?

Garth see above LarryandMoore: Thanks i might venture over there but GS has always been my fav spot :) ExTwi people are profoundly eloquet and considerate people. In fact, most of them were that way when they were in TWI too. Perhaps that might explain yet another reason why I never fit in with them all that well. I may in fact be just not that "considerate" It's not like I try not to be considerate Larry, because I try real hard.