Cynic

Excuse me if someone has already posted this: http://www.dougmcmullan.com/slideshow_2.htm

As I remember, Peter Beter's middle initial ("D") was always added by the media and Beter (in campaign ads) when Beter was running for governor here. (I thought Beter ran in several gubernatorial primaries, but the Wikipedia piece indicates a single attempt.) I didn't know old Weird Willy played stuff by Beter to the Advanced Class (I took the AC only once, in 1975), or that Beter apparently was such an over-the-edge frickin' crackpot -- though Peter D. Beter's alleged charge that the entity presenting itself as "Jimmy Carter" is an organic robotoid might for a while seem to answer more questions than it raises.

Happy B-Day, Jard!

Thanks, all. I did some regular shooting with a .45 ACP a while back, but became dissatisfied with the time it took me to recover sight-taget alignment for accurate shooting. The gun itself seemed accurate enough and very modest in its felt-recoil, but I didn't get to the place where I could plug out a succession of accurate shots. I guess it's watch a bunch of Rob Leatham clips and get better at it (if and when I get back to having time for regular shooting), before switching to a lighter caliber.

Gun weight, barrel length, model differences, etc. aside... If one shoots a .40 SW and a .45 ACP from two guns of the same manufacture and model, which gun (identified by caliber) is going to undergo the greater muzzle jump, and thus require more time and/or effort for re-sighting? Is the difference significant? Or slight?

Question: How does the muzzle jump of a .40 S&W handgun compare with the muzzle jump of a .45 ACP?

I haven't had much interest in this subject, but I tentatively lean towards the position attributed to Hodge (which seems to be the position Sunesis holds), but am not ready to put those holding some other position to the polemical rack over it. And before going around, further referencing the above snippet I posted, I would like to make sure its writer has his Hodges right (i.e. that the position he attributes to Charles Hodge is rightfully associated with Charles rather than with Charles's son, Archibald Alexander Hodge).

Jafin, Yes, Jesus Christ is God and God is triune. I cannot get involved in time-demanding posting right now, but suggest the following for some theological reading: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds.htm http://www.monergism.com http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/lor_boettner...sthegospel.html

Your rhetoric directed at the poster implied that he was inclined to do violence to homosexuals. Your demand was gratuitous. I don’t think the poster had come anywhere close to suggesting violence against homosexuals, and, though I do not recall his specific comments, the activist segment of the homosexual community is certainly a fair subject for criticism – particularly considering the heavy handed states of affairs coming about in Europe, in Canada, and on some U. S. college campuses due to gay activists and their fellow travelers obtaining some level of enforcement for their ideas about establishing a new order of “tolerance.” (In national politics in the U.S, the campaign hasn’t been significantly successful, probably due to changes in the political climate caused by outcomes of the 1994, 2000, and 2004 elections.) Quite the wordsmith, there, ain't you? Yes, I made a play on Patrick Henry’s words in commenting on a subject he was not speaking about (which is a common practice when making a play on words), but your objection still attempts to manufacture an unfounded comparison by building more on my wordplay than it will bear. The points with the Daschle photo were to illustrate the baselessness of your demand, irritate you, and be humorous in the process. I did not characterize the content of a preposterously hypothetical Daschle photo that one could insolently and gratuitiously pop up and demand that you not sleep with. And, to counter-illustrate your building more on my play on a Patrick Henry quote than it will bear: When you import a word such as filthy to manipulate a discussion with your opponent, beware of making the 'ol Freudian slip!

G-rth, Of course not (you don't go to my church). I first used some zoo-related, sexual innuendo to demonstrate that it was gratuitous of you to have (quite insolently) demanded that a poster who had made some comment about homosexuals just leave them alone (similarly as it would be gratuitous if one demanded that you not sleep with a photo of Tom Daschle or not molest zoo animals). I dropped the photo-of-Daschle thing rather quickly, I think, but used the bestiality thing (probably several times) in demonstrating by analogy that you had not supported an accusation you had frothed (i.e. I showed that there was no more demonstrable support in your posts for your accusation than the support existing on GSC threads for a contrived charge of Garthian bestiality). Dammit, am I addicted to it? I used it in another thread in demonstrating that a formally valid argument is not necessarily a sound argument – and irritated you in the process. (Two birds, one stone.) And, although you didn’t seem to catch the point, I spelled your name “G-rth” in that thread to suggest that your posts have a self-ultimacy about them (i.e. the kind of moral autonomy/supremacy and emotional entitlement that would go with one who has become to himself his own little god almighty). Now, I’ve used it again, less elegantly and psychologically overpoweringly than at first. What should I do with it? Simply put it to rest? Start a poll to see whether other GSC posters think it argumentatively brilliant, polemically hilarious, moderately sophisticated, slightly humorous, excessively suggestive, puerilely prurient, or just plain worn-out? If I didn’t mean my post “that way,” your tidbit is quite irrelevant. Care to demonstrate that the crowd that chronically blathers about the founding fathers and a supposedly previous “Christian America” (a crowd that has managed to irritate even the likes of me) had previously come up in this thread? ***** No commitment, of course, but I'm probably now or soon to be checking out of GSC for a while. There are things other than posting here I should focus on. What's Tom Daschle doing?

Garth, You're all worked up and in one of those misrepresentation-chucking fits, again. I was using Patrick Henry's quote for its calmly dismissive character and effect -- not appealing to the orator as a theological fellow-traveler. It doesn't bite me. Your "tidbit" is a red herring. I am aware that the subject quote is reputedly dubious, and have not here -- or in some other thread -- invoked it. Your bringing it up is like things would be if someone cited the history of the amorous endeavors you have engaged in outside zoos: off the subject, something that should interest only the abjectly naive.

As Patrick Henry might say, if posting here at GSC: If this [i.e. a recognition of mankind’s fallen-ness and a distinction between true and false religious worldviews] be trea -- er, "elitism" -- make the most of it.

I like that statement. Job did not obtain a reason for his suffering. In answering Job, God spoke in awe-inspiring majesty and reordered Job's view of Him, but did not give account of his superintendence of events to the man. Good topic, T-Bone, and good posts. I need to accomplish some stuff in the next few months, however, and can’t presently take time to do much more than nod.

I came across a performance of Handel's Messiah on the internet. Some good news: What I’ve listened to of the webcast seems to be a world-class performance of Handel’s classic. Some bad news: What I’ve read at the church’s website seems to reveal a governing theology and ministerial position that has abandoned the redeemer/redemption center of Christianity to embrace the apostasy of a smiley pluralism whose content was well-characterized by H. Richard Niebuhr in his criticism of theological liberalism: “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through ministrations of a Christ without a cross." Think, examine, reflect, mourn, repent, enjoy: http://www.trinitywallstreet.org/onlinetv/...d=40725&s=1

T-Bone, Thanks for the undeserved credit. I’m glad you’re enjoying the book, but I didn’t recommend it. The book was recommended on a blog to which I provided a link. The blog’s owner, Keith (aka; Captwade), is a Christian thinker and insatiable reader who often has something interesting and informative to say about Christian thought and apologetics, and other topics such as Christian counseling. I actually don’t recall having read more than a blog-entry or two on Christian decision-making, though I did download (though I haven’t gotten around to watching/listening to) the first video of the first series (“Making Biblical Decisions, Part 1”) of a course by John Frame on Christian Ethics that appears at http://thirdmill.org/seminary/catalog/ethi...ategory/catalog Some of Frame’s stuff is very good, though I don’t know about that work. An audio-CD set by Frame, called, “Doctrine of the Knowledge of God: History of Philosophy,” however, is – despite its mere 6-CD length – probably the most informative audio work I’ve come across. In 6 CDs, Frame manages to introduce his listeners to Meredith Kline’s comparison of biblical covenants to ancient near-eastern suzerain-vassal treaties, articulate his own “tri-perspectival” view of epistemology, and give an overview of Western philosophy from Thales to somewhere past Wittgenstein. FYI, I got it here (when it came out costing 3 bucks, rather than 5 bucks, per CD): http://www.wtsbooks.com/product-exec/produ...s_/parent_id/61 Anyway, T-Bone, thanks again for the undeserved credit—and please excuse me for disclaiming it. Considering my age, I probably should just shut up, and start taking whatever I can get.

Sunesis, Even some of Wright’s critics find parts of Wright impressive. Among several significant problems with Wright, however, is his recasting of justification. I cannot take time to attempt my own critique of Wright and/or other NPP figures, but refer you to some material which can give you some feel for the basis of the NPP controversy. At http://opc.org/qa.html?question_id=240 there are links to five short articles concerning justification, the New Perspective(s) on Paul, and another movement called the “Federal Vision.” The content of two of the articles seems especially well-directed for understanding the doctrine of justification and the way in which NPP teachings are at variance with it: 1. "Justification: What the Debate is All About," by David VanDrunen, contains a short overview of justification. (I particularly recommend attentiveness to concept of imputation and how the active obedience of Christ relates to the Christian believer's justification.) ( http://opc.org/nh.html?article_id=476 ) 2. "Getting the Gospel Right," by Cornelius Venema, has some statements about the doctrine of justification, and also contains a short critique of differences between NPP teachings and that doctrine. ( http://opc.org/nh.html?article_id=475 ) _______ "Consequently, the Reformers emphasized that the righteousness by which believers are justified is not a personal or inherent righteousness, but an 'alien' and 'imputed' righteousness (iustitia aliena et imputata). The believer's justification rests upon the righteousness of someone else, namely, Jesus Christ. By means of his obedient life, suffering, death, and resurrection, Christ met all the obligations of the law and secured the justification of his people (Rom. 4:25)." - Cornelius Venema

another spot, I'm confident I was the sole target of anotherDan's comments to which you took offense. I think the information, links, and customary identifier (i.e. "New Perspective on Paul") I have already posted should be sufficient to provide GSC readers with cause for caution, material for reading, and a phrase to use in search engines, if they want to know more about N. T. Wright and some of the doctrinal issues associated with him. As for this thread, I make no promises of course, but I now intend to leave anotherDan to a utopia of open-field running, tip-toeing through the tulips, freedom from discomforting information upsetting his plans for a thread -- whatever he might want to call it.

Reformed theology does not proclaim "eternal security" for those who have in some sense made a positive decision about Christ. It holds that those who are really elect will persevere unto the end. It also recognizes that some in the visible church who are professing believers will fall away.

I'll probably do what I damn well please.

By the way, What N. T. Wright is promoting is referred to as the "New Perspective on Paul,” or, in deference to variations that exist among NPP proponents, as one of the “New Perspectives on Paul.”

I don’t have time to get into a conversation in here, but N. T. Wright’s influence (an influence that was possibly somewhat indirect through my former pastor’s friendship and theological involvement with a fellow named John Armstrong) was one of the factors that led to my decision to depart from a church I formerly attended. A somewhat robust (and critical) critique of N. T. Wright’s teachings appears at http://www.opc.org/GA/justification.pdf (you can use the “find” feature in Adobe Reader to search for the word Wright, and note particularly the critique that appears in pages 47-55). Also, there are numerous Wright-related links (pro and con) at http://www.thepaulpage.com , whose webmaster I take for some fellow-traveler of Anthony Buzzard. What is N. T. Wright about? I don’t have time to do the rereading and honing necessary (I have read a bit both by Wright and about Wright) to produce much of a critique, but in short, IIRC: 1. Wright redefines Pauline references to the “righteousness of God” as God’s covenantal faithfulness; 2. Wright denies that the righteousness of the Christian is constituted in Christ’s active obedience being imputed to the Christian; 3. Wright is not a flaming Christ-denier, and carries himself rather well when he’s set off against some rankly unbelieving Jesus Seminar-type. 4. Wright has (unfortunately) gained a degree of influence in Reformed circles, which, according to Peter Lillback, have historically been prone here and there to neo-nomianism (a form of works-righteousness), similarly as Lutheranism has in places and times experienced some antinomian tendencies. In my solemn opinion, if the teaching of a purportedly Reformed church does not unequivocally recognize that the active obedience of Christ is imputed to the Christian (constituting the Christian’s positive righteousness) as well as affirming that Christ’s suffering on the cross made satisfaction for the wrath of God due the Christian for the Christian’s sin, that church should be deemed doctrinally suspect by others in the Reformed community. --------------------- "N. T. Wright rejects the imputation of active obedience on the grounds that 'it gives the impression of a legal transaction, a cold piece of business, almost a trick of thought performed by a God who is logical and correct but hardly one we would want to worship'" - R. Scott Clark, Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry, pg. 241. Disclaimer: I never heard my former pastor deny or question that justification involves the imputation of Christ's active obedience. My problem was that his friend and theological buddy was questioning it, and that imputed righteousness ceased to be preached, while a conditional eschatological justification came to be stressed from the pulpit.

That is the basis for the objection against unconditional election that is anticipated by Paul in Romans 9:19 and dismissed (without any philosophical explanation) in Romans 9:20-21. (see http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...ion=8;49;47;15; ) The following is excerpted from The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination by Lorrain Boettner. Reformed resources: Boettner’s Reformed Doctrine of Predestination is online at several sites (see http://www.lgmarshall.org/Boettner/boettner_rdp00.html ) A rather comprehensive site for Reformed theological resources is http://www.monergism.com . I came across http://www.lgmarshall.org/authorindex.html this evening. Its author list and resource links are impressive. For a discussion about the tension between God’s unconditional predestination of only the elect to salvation and God’s desire that all men be saved, see John Piper’s “Are There Two Wills in God? (Divine Election and God’s Desire for All to Be Saved) at http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary...o_Wills_in_God/ . Piper shows that Scripture indicates God wills some things in one way that he does not will in another way. Note to Sunesis: In addition to Geer, both John Schoenheit and John Lynn (I don’t know about the other fellow) have promoted a claim that God lacks complete foreknowledge. Note to all: I have several commitments that will be increasingly demanding of my thoughts and time, and I probably will not (after this post) be involved in discussions at GSC for a while.

What a HYPOCRITE! By the way, where sky4it's "points " have involved something other than fanciful allegations, I do not remember them constituting something more than assertions based on the dictionary definition of perseverance and the supposed licentious outcome of sovereign grace theology.

What a rabid and blindly raging little hack!

Garth, I have debated atheists and heretics here and on IRC, and you are the most unprincipled and shameless fellow I have come across, and I have well-exposed you in the past for lying and chucking blood libel. YOU PROBABLY KNOW DAMNED WELL WHAT THE TONGUE-IN-CHEEK COMMENT ABOUT THE DOG WAS ABOUT, AND ARE MALEVOLENTLY DISTORTING IT. P_I_S_S OFF, PUNK!