Posts Made By: William Paolini

I believe the bible teaches that God is sovereign in all affairs of man. Examples... God raises up nations and allows them to fail according to His purposes in the working out of His will and plan for mankind. Likewise, God raises up leaders and brings them down.

I would say this is reasonable. For me the Book of Job even more clearly makes the point as Satan requests permission to do what he did.

God allows what is perceived to be bad circumstances in ones life to either test their faith and perseverance or to get their attention.

I believe the two reasons you state are also reasonable, however I feel there are more. Certainly there are enough places in scripture where it being attention getting or as a test are evident, but we also have example of it being done to demonstrate God’s glory or sovereignty, and also simply because it is in God’s plan for it to happen so even though it seems like a bad thing tactically, it is for the good strategically (if we were privy to that plan we would see).

And, God chooses those whom He will save and those whom he will not.

Obviously true, but I also believe His grace is there to save all and His desire is to save all. So in that context while God is obviously still doing the choosing, in the end it is our own decision and choice which will be the determining factor. So my belief is that God chooses and offers all salvation and those who He will in the end choose not to save will be because those He offered refused of their own free will and ego.

Apart from God's grace and the working of the Holy Spirit, man cannot and will not choose God, rather, by the power of the Holy Spirit working in one's heart, God draws those He chooses to Himself, saves them, and sanctifies them, and brings them to glory in Christ.

Not sure I’m on board with this. Perhaps true. With one being separated from the Holy Spirit all meaning for them is really lost, so then all actions will not any meaningful direction. So perhaps you are right as with the presence of the Holy Spirit it gives us an internal compass of sorts so at least we can see the direction the needle is point and then have our free will to walk that direction or not. Without that compass then really just wandering aimlessly and with a purpose that is apart from God. So yes, perhaps then can’t even choose God as would really have no concept of a God in the first place so no reason to chart a course towards something that does not even exist for you. Truly sad.

I would say that this sounds quite logical and expected when talking lay religious vs lay A/A...why lay religious have priests, pastors, rabbis, etc to lean on when needed.

As other examples...

My car mechanic knows a lot more about my car than I do.

A few jobs ago one of my employees was on work visa here in the U.S. and he knew a whole bunch more about American history than I did.

Last year another employee just got their citizenship so to celebrate we got him a cake and I had the project team take the test just for fun...all the native born citizens failed big time!

Doug Matulis said:

Now libs have their very own gene to explain their insanity!

Great...now there is finally hope for a cure! LOL

Sounds more like a No-Think zone (LOL).

ditto

Interesting. But I think the person who wrote the article is missing the point...and made a few mistakes as well as the video does say he knows the tides come from the Moon. But he's putting it all on a challenge question that no one is answering for him, actually a few...where did the Moon come from? He's asking the question, in my interpretation, and wanting someone to supply a fact-based accounting. So not a theory...not a likelihood. Wants to know without the slightest doubt the entire process of how it got there? Lots of theory floating around, not facts though. That's his point. Faith goes both ways and operates both in religion and in science. So all he's saying you have faith in a theory of how it got there, and that we're just the "lucky" place where all the accidents happened so intelligent life sprang up here and only here (as there are no facts to the contrary), so the metaphorical you chooses to have faith in some theoretical process, he chooses to have faith in a God based process.

btw, I dislike the guy (well his program anyway since I don;t know him).

Greg Shaffer said:

Every now and then I run across what I would describe as profound logic, the letter below in my opinion fits the phrase "profound logic" to a T

"The Gun Is Civilization"


By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)


Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. ...

Well, right off the bat his initial premise is incorrect, therefore so is the rest of the argument. Some of the other ways in which we can deal with others, instead of just reasoning with you or forcing you, includes: negotiating with you, compromising with you, acquiesce to you, accept and believe that every individual has the right to their own life, liberty, and happiness so this course means take no action and agree to disagree and agree to live and let live (i.e., deal with them by letting them be), etc.

To be "civilized" means by definition of the word that you are characterized by taste, refinement, or restraint. No taste, refinement, and especially no restraint evident by feeling you need to carry a gun when you confront other people. The last thing that is is a civilized act.

By this person's convoluted logic we should probably start the arms race once more and get to building more nuclear weapons. And oh yes, his argument gives credence to Iran having nukes because of course this is to eliminate force from the equation when they deal with others and only allow reason to prevail. His essay is really quite far off the mark from being civilized at all. In fact, his last statement really sums up how he wants nothing to do with civilization as all he wants is to be left alone and makes it clear he'll use deadly force to ensure his dominion, and of course he feels fearful without it as there is always the possibility that some aberrant criminal member of society might have a real weapon to his none, then then he feels vulnerable and afraid because of that possibility and wants more firepower at the ready.

It's really a sad and misguided essay and this is exactly the kind of thinking we need to grow up out of, because in the end this only leads to one place, whoever has the biggest gun wins! Shameful.

For Wynn, and for his family, some moments of silence, and prayers that his example, and their love, lives on.
Amen.

No, because that is presumably not what Jesus did. We have no idea if He prayed to accomplish that change.

Russ Carroll said:

A post from Clyde from a messy thread in ID forum:

Clyde Crewey said:

"is to trust Jesus when he claims to be God in the flesh.."

There's a huge problem here and it's the well established history of the first earthly followers of Jesus.

There are many statements by Jesus in the gospels that leave no doubt that Jesus claimed to be God. They are not ambiguous whatsoever, especially if you understand anything about Judaism. This is one of the true "essentials" of orthodox Christianity.

True, there are several instances where Christ proclaimed this. Easy enough to do a Google search to find representative examples, even where He proclaimed "I Am". To get the full contextual picture of it though, during His life and the life of His followers afterwards, one really needs to fully comprehend Trinity with all its nuances and implications. Good point Russ.