I just have to look back at what God saved me from.

Heather

"“If any of you wants to be my follower, you must turn from your selfish ways, take up your cross, and follow me. If you try to hang on to your life, you will lose it. But if you give up your life for my sake and for the sake of the Good News, you will save it. And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul? Is anything worth more than your soul? If anyone is ashamed of me and my message in these adulterous and sinful days, the Son of Man will be ashamed of that person when he returns in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” - Jesus Christ

Tends to do it for me.

Quiet time in prayer knowing it was my sin that caused His pain and how much I do not want to bring more pain to Him . To die to self is to live in the Lord and it is more value to have His love than anything I may gain in this world . Jesus is my life and with out Him I would have no life !

Thank you for this post my brother !

11 last night and 8 above zero tonight , cold how about you ?

God bless!

Barry

well... posts like this for one!

and, i guess life in general seems to be doing a pretty good job of keeping me humble lately... trying times in parenting a very strong-willed little boy seem bring out the very worst in me and cause me to fall on my knees every night.

RYC: It's annoying how much things we have to do to stay involved in society. I'm on my way to something too. I have to go to work soon. I'm a waitress at Bob Evans.

Knowing that God was under no obligation to save me, and yet He did.

~IM_R

I thought about not going to my dad's Unitarian church because I don't feel spiritually connected there anymore because my minister is a prick and is everything a minister shouldn't be. And some of the politics at our church is hypocritical. I still go because I have a lot of respect for some of the members.

RYC: Yeah. Such is life when you have an arrogant, narcissistic minister. My dad raised me Unitarian and I'm starting to get annoyed with Unitarians in general because the Unitarian Universalist Association has complete control over us and we're supposed to believe as UUs in the principle of democracy but we really have sort of a pseudo democracy.

Knowing that my daily goal is to be a servant for the Lord.
RYC: I believe you ask the question about the reply button but I see that you must have found it right after the name of the person that left the comment.

Good post.
What helps me is remembering how I have fallen in the past, and how God has picked me back up and shown me His path again. Every time I prove myself unworthy of His grace, He proves how great His grace really is.

I avoid humility like the plague. I know my personal value too well. Accepting intrinsic, concrete rules will not help one survive.

Xanga Hope

A FOUR LETTER WORD

There's a four letter word that I'd like to write about. It's a word
that without it, life is not worth living and with it, you can't wait
for tomorrow. The second letter of this word is - o - and the last
letter is e. Do you know what it is? Did you say love? Good guess but
that's not it. How about this clue?

_o_e springs eternal.

Yes, hope. Thank God for hope. Proverbs 13:4 says: 

Hope deferred maketh the heart sick.

Isn't that true? You hope for something and look so forward to it and
can't wait for it to happen and then BAM, you realize that it's never
going to happen. A sick heart!

King David looking forward towards Jesus said - Therefore did my heart
rejoice and my tongue was glad; moreover my flesh shall rest in hope.

I'm so glad that I have hope for heaven and eternal life. Paul
expresses this in Colossians 1:5:  For the hope which is laid up for
you in heaven, whereof you heard before in the word of the truth of the
gospel.

And later in verse 27, Paul proclaims : Christ in you, the hope of
glory.

Praise God! Christ IN US!

And again Paul says in I Timothy1:1:  Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ
by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is
our hope.

Amen!

Paul likes to talk about hope. In Titus 1:2, he says:  In hope of
eternal life, which God that cannot lie, promised before the world
began.

I really like that one.

In the book of Hebrews, God tells us that we have hope as an anchor of
the soul.

Do you have hope as an anchor for your soul?

Romans 15:13 - Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in
believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy
Ghost.

Catholics and the bible

The canon of the New Testament was not formed by the decision of any
Church council. Rather, the Council of Carthage (397 A.D.) listed as
canonical “only those books that were generally regarded by the
consensus of use as properly a canon”. [Note 12]  In other words, it
didn’t create the canon. Rather, it formally identified the canon that
already existed.  The Catholic Church changed the Bible. In 1548, at
the Council of Trent, it added the Apocrypha to the Bible.

And why would the Catholic
church choose to separate certain books as canon from the other
writings? Does that not say that those books are more authorative? It
makes no sense to separate them if they're not. You appeal to the other
writings. If God felt that those were just as inspired as the canon and
they were necessary in interpreting the canon, he would have led them
to be chosen as part of the canon. There's a reason why God chose the
canon. Because it's the word of God. The other writings are not on par
with the canon. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't read them, but I
will believe the bible over what the other writings say. Just because
God used the Catholic church to assemble the canon doesn't mean that
they were incapable of falling into thinking they needed to add to
God's word.

APOCRYPHA

CANONIZATION: THE
APOCRYPHA

The Apocrypha were
formally canonized by the Roman Catholic
'Church' on April 8, 1546 A.D. at the Council of Trent.

The Council of Trent was
actually a series of 3 Church
councils held between 1545 and 1563 A.D. and dominated by the
newly-formed
Jesuits. It was called as an integral part of the counter-Reformation
which
had begun 28 years earlier, sparked by Martin Luther. The Papal bull
convening
this council required 3 things:

One of the catch-cries of the
Reformation was 'sola-Scriptura'
(i.e., "The Bible says!!"). In order for the Roman Catholics to say the
same thing, the Apocrypha were added to give "Scriptural" proof for
their
false teachings.

The resolution of the
Council was: "...if anyone receives
not as sacred and canonical the said books entire with all their parts,
as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church...let him be
anathema
(accursed!)."

Some of the unscriptural
Catholic doctrines supported
by the Apocrypha are:

Other unscriptural things
found in these books are the justification
of suicide (II Maccabees 14:43-46), slavery and cruelty (Ecclesiasticus
33:24-28), and reincarnation (Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20). Lying,
assassination
and magical incantations are also approved.

The Rheims-Douay Version
(1582 A.D.) lists 7 additional
books, adds to Esther and Daniel, and combines the "Letter of Jeremiah"
with "Baruch" -- thus including 12 of the 15 apocryphal books to the
Old
Testament.

The Council was selective
in this exercise,
because it did not include II Esdras, which in its chapter 7:105 speaks
against
prayers
for the dead!

6. THE INCLUSION OF
THE APOCRYPHA IN ENGLISH VERSIONS

Many of the early English
versions contained the Apocrypha,
for two basic reasons - because of the general acceptance of the
Apocrypha
during the Dark Ages, and/or (in case of the Authorized, King James
Version)
for Scriptural analysis.

In each case, the
Apocrypha were delineated
either in an appendix and/or with an explanation showing them to be
non-canonical.

Apocrypha began to be omitted
from the Authorized Version
in 1629, and by 1827 were excluded permanently.

7. ARGUMENTS FOR THE
INCLUSION OF THE APOCRYPHA

The following arguments
are most generally advanced for
granting the Apocrypha canonical authority:

Hebrews 11:35 is thought
to refer to II Maccabees &
and 12. (In actual fact, it is referring to I Kings 17:22 and II Kings
4:35.

Jude 14 cites the pseudepigraphical book of Enoch.
Does
it? It cites Enoch, whose words the Holy Ghost knew.

II Timothy 3:8 is also supposed to refer to some
Apocryphal
literature. Again, the Holy Spirit can reveal the names of the Egyptian
magicians when He chooses.

More will be said about
this later.

c. Early Christian art
includes Apocryphal scenes.

So?!?

d. Early Church Fathers
cited them and listed them as
Canonical.

More will be said about this
later.

8. ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE
CANONICITY OF THE APOCRYPHA

        
In a nutshell, the Roman Catholic church has never had any biblical
support for its teachings such as purgatory, prayers for the dead,
works for salvation, etc. However, these false teachings are found in
the Apocryphal books, so the Council of Tent in 1546, canonized them
proclaiming them to be "sacred" books. This supposedly gave them
support for there erroneous teachings. It is always the clear mark of a
cult or false church to add extra biblical revelations to the Bible in
order to seek to justify their false teachings. Historically, the Roman
Catholic church did not accept these books for the first 1300 years of
their history. The reason they changed their position was that during
the Reformation the teachings of Catholicism came under scrutiny by
people who were studying God's word, they could find no mention in the
Bible of a place called Purgatory, prayers for the dead, paying of
indulgences and other practices of the Roman church. The Roman Church
practice of accepting of money, called "indulgences" for the payment of
sins especially came under attack as being unbiblical. History shows
that accepting indulgences brought a great deal of money into the
coffers of the Roman Catholic Church. A Roman Catholic could actually
purchase a indulgence in advance and then go out an commit his sin. It
was this unbiblical practice that was one of the reasons that Martin
Luther wrote his "Ninety-five Thesis" and tacked it to the door of the
Wittenburg church door. His action sparked the Reformation which began
in 1517 which was the also the beginning of Protestantism.

http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/apocrypha.htm

Prior to the time
of the Council of Trent in the 1500s, the Roman Catholic Bibles did
NOT
include the Apocrypha as being part of the Formal Bible, nor as
being
Inspired in the same sense as the 66 books of the Bible. The acceptance
of the
Apocrypha as being "inspired" did not exist - for
the first 1500 years of Christianity.



http://www.carm.org/catholic/apocrypha.htm

Did the Church Fathers recognize the Apocrypha as
being Scripture?  Roman Catholics strongly appeal to Church history,
but we don't find a unanimous consensus on the Apocrypha.  Jerome
(340-420), who translated the Latin Vulgate which is used by the RC
church, rejected the Apocrypha since he believed that the Jews
recognized and established the proper canon of the Old Testament.
Remember, the Christian Church built upon that recognition. Also,
Josephus, the famous Jewish historian of the first century, never
mentioned the Apocrypha as being part of the canon either. In addition,
"Early church fathers like Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and
the great Roman Catholic translator Jerome spoke out against the
Apocrypha."

  So, we should not conclude that the Church Fathers unanimously
affirmed the Apocrypha.  They didn't.

Pope
Innocent III(so amazingly mis-named) launched a
truly bloodthirsty crusade against all “heretics”
(though many of these were much less heretical than the Roman
leadership itself had become). His wicked persecution of the
Albigenses of southern France has stood out in history as one of
the most despicable excesses of papal authority. Pope Innocent
III forced the King of France to kill many of
thousands of his people. The Albigensians had previously lived
mixed among the French Catholics, so Pope Innocent commanded that
every person in the region, including the Catholics, should be killed; what
a nice man he must have
been!



Who decides if something is ex cathedra?

For example, after Pope John Paul II'sapostolic letter

(On
Reserving Priestly Ordination
to Men Alone) was released in 1994, a few commentators speculated that
this might be an exercise of papal infallibility (for an example, see [2]).
In response to this confusion, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith has unambiguously stated, on at least three separate occasions [3][4][5],
that

was

an

teaching, saying that the content of this letter
has been taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium.

The Vatican itself has given no complete list of papal statements
considered to be infallible. A 1998 commentary on

,
written by Cardinals Ratzinger (the later Pope Benedict XVI) and Bertone, the
prefect and secretary of the Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith,
listed a number of instances of infallible pronouncements by popes and
by ecumenical councils, but explicitly stated that this was not meant
to be a complete list.

Many scholars within the church consider the Cadaver
Synod
an anomaly, something that stands entirely outside church experience
and which, therefore theologically speaking, never happened. However
dissenters outside the church have argued compellingly that the
'nullification' of Formosus's ordinations has never been reversed and
that raises momentous and troubling questions for the present-day
papacy. In particular it challenges the whole doctrine of papal
infallibility. Defined during the nineteenth-century reign of Pius IX
but held to apply to popes throughout history, this doctrine asserts
that the pope, under the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit is
incapable of making an error when pronouncing on matters of faith and
morals ex cathedra or 'from the chair'. This is a matter of vital
importance to millions of Catholics who wait to hear what their leaders
have to say on subjects such as birth control, women in the priesthood,
homosexuality and the like. Popes selling indulgences or plotting with
political conspirators are not generally held to have been speaking ex
cathedra.

 But in the case of the Cadaver Synod, Pope Stephen VI
can be seen to have been acting in an official capacity. And Stephen
not only declared the entire reign of his predecessor void, he even
proclaimed every priest ordained by Pope
Formosus
to be invalid. As a result some commentators hold that Stephen's
actions call into question the entire doctrine of infallibility, and
thus the bedrock of the modern church. Some say that the Cadaver Synod
casts doubt on the belief in apostolic succession. A line of 263 popes
leads all the way back to St Peter, the first vicar of Christ.
According to Catholic beliefs, the popes don't replace Peter the way a
president or prime minister replaces another; they only succeed Peter.
Each of them is to carry on the work of Peter to bring 'truth and
unity' to their flocks. The nullification of Formosus's ordinations
could be seen to break this apostolic succession since we can't be sure
which Bishops, and consequently popes, were ordained by 'nullified'
priests. If this is true the sanctity of Petrine succession, which
reaches back all the way to Jesus Christ himself, has been broken...' -
FROM National Geographics 'History's great untold stories' Page 18-19

The dogma of Papal Infallibility is rejected by Eastern Orthodoxy.
Orthodox Christians hold that the Holy
Spirit will not allow the whole Body of Orthodox Christians to fall
into error[5] but leave open the question of how this will be
ensured in any specific case. Eastern Orthodoxy considers that the
first seven ecumenical councils
were infallible as accurate witnesses to the truth of the gospel, not
so much on account of their institutional structure as on account of
their reception by the Christian faithful.

Furthermore, Orthodox Christians do not believe that any individual
bishop is infallible or that the idea of Papal Infallibility was taught
during the first centuries of Christianity. Orthodox historians often
point to the condemnation of Pope Honorius as a heretic by the Sixth
Ecumenical council as a significant indication. However, it is debated
whether Honorius' letter to Sergius met (in retrospect) the criteria
set forth at Vatican I. Other Orthodox scholars[6]
argue that past Papal statements that appear to meet the conditions set
forth at Vatican I for infallible status presented teachings in faith
and morals are now acknowledged as problematic (e.g. Exsurge Domine).

Following taken from conversation with MF.

[But there actually aren't any dogmatic pronouncements in the Second
Vatican Council.]

Then
why would the church change? If it's not ex cathedra, then it is STILL
wrong to eat meat on Fridays. Why does the church follow anything that
is not dogmatic? And why aren't the examples of infallible teaching of
the Ordinary & Universal Magisterium, contained in any one specific
document?

What about the scandal of the Cadaver Synod and Pope Formosous and the
nullification of him by Pope Stephen VI? That breaks the apostolic
succesion. And what about all the priests he ordained? How did God
allow him to be pope in the first place? Or how about Pope Honorius
being condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council? But you
blindly believe that God would choose someone like that to be the
authority of his church. Sorry, I cannot accept that.

The principal early Christian sects are generally known today as
Catholic Orthodox Christianity and Gnosticism, although other groups
also existed.

Roman state patronage for the Catholic Orthodox Church ensured
that it was able to expropriate the property of other churches which
did not share their views, and provided a cover for persecution until
there was essentially only one Christian Church left in the Roman
Empire.

The view held by religious authorities in the mainly
Greek-speaking eastern regions was that there were 5 senior leaders, or
Metropolitans, in this Christian Church, one of whom was the bishop of
Rome. However, the bishop of Rome, designated as the Pope, insisted
that he had greater authority than the other Metropolitans. Gradually,
differences built up until the Great Schism of 1054, when Pope Leo IX
and Patriarch Michael I excommunicated each other. There were attempts
at reconciliation and the Churches came close to being reunited in 1274
and in 1439, but the schism eventually became permanent.

The western Church, based on Rome, has become known as Roman
Catholic, while the eastern Churches have become known as Orthodox
Churches.

Peter
was never the first pope (if we
are thinking about the whole elaborate system of modern Catholic
popes) and the Roman Catholic Church is in error in claiming him
to be. Even the very early conception of the word 'pope'
would have required Peter to have been bishop of Rome and there
is no evidence that he ever was. However, there is
evidence that the apostle Peter was an important early
leader. He was, by the way, a married man with a mother-in-law so
was hardly celibate! (Mark 1:30).

.
Need I remind you that Rome develops new teaching only to say "that's
the way it's always been"? A bishop, whose prominence in history was
overshadowed by Gregory the Great, seemed a-okay with sola scriptura.
St. Caesarius of Arles said concerning a question related to a question
on the Holy Spirit: "Sacred Scripture has said nothing about this, and
it is wrong to violate the divine silence. *Since God did not think
that this should be indicated in His writings*, He did not want you to
question or to know through idle curiousity." I dare say, there's an
element to the regulative principle contained there as well! I know
what you're thinking...this wasn't a dogmatic teaching...sure. Maybe
not. But it seems strange that on a subject like this, he didn't appeal
to "it is traditioned!" since he was a bishop. He sounds more like a
Reformer than a Roman Catholick. There's also a portion of a sermon by
St. Augustine: "He (Christ) is the One and *only* pontiff, the one and
only priest, who was prefigured in God's priests of old".

CATHOLICS AND SALVATION




Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the
Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her
firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is
neither salvation nor the remission of sins... Furthermore, we declare,
we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation
that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (Beginning
and end of Unam Sanctam, Pope Boniface VIII, November 18, 1302)

It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are
outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics
and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the
everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels,
unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their
lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance
that only for those who abide in it do the church's sacraments
contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of
piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards;
and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in
alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he
has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.
(Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, February 4, 1442)

Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose
certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly condemned...But even in spite
of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in
Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called
Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of
the Catholic Church. (Unitatis Redintegratio, Second Vatican Council,
November 21, 1964)

Condemned Proposition (of Martin Luther, Number 33): That heretics be
burned is against the will of the Spirit. Exsurge Domine, Pope Leo X,
Condemnation of Martin Luther, June 15, 1520

This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to
religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune
from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any
human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a
manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly,
whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.
(Dignitatis Humanae, Second Vatican Council, December 7, 1965)

CHURCH FATHERS AND FAITH ALONE

"For it is most of all apparent among the
Gentiles, as he also says elsewhere, ‘And that the Gentiles might
glorify God for His mercy.’ (Romans 15:9.) For the great glory of this
mystery is apparent among others also, but much more among these. For,
on a sudden, to have brought men more senseless than stones to the
dignity of Angels, simply through bare words, and faith alone, without
any laboriousness, is indeed glory and riches of mystery: just as if
one were to take a dog, quite consumed with hunger and the mange, foul,
and loathsome to see, and not so much as able to move, but lying cast
out, and make him all at once into a man, and to display him upon the
royal throne" (Homiles on Colossians, Homily 5).

"Attend to this, ye who come to baptism at the
close of life, for we indeed pray that after baptism ye may have also
this deportment, but thou art seeking and doing thy utmost to depart
without it. For, what though thou be justified: yet is it of faith
only. But we pray that thou shouldest have as well the confidence that
cometh of good works" (On the Second Epistle of St. Paul The Apostle to
the Corinthians, Homily 2).

"As the Jews were chiefly attracted by this,
he persuades them not to give heed to the law, since they could not
attain salvation by it without faith. Against this he contends; for it
seemed to them incredible, that a man who had misspent all his former
life in vain and wicked actions, should afterwards be saved by his
faith alone. On this account he says, "It is a saying to be believed."
But some not only disbelieved but even objected, as the Greeks do now."
(Homiles on 1 Timothy, Homily 4).

IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

St. Bernard & Thomas aquinas opposed the doctrine.



There is no
evidence before the tenth century.
Nothing to explain St. John Chrysostom's & St. Basil's exegesis of
the Marian passages unless they were ignorant of apostolic tradition as
well.  No Patristic writings or Eastern liturgical texts implicate it.
(Mr_Jargon)

CATHOLICS, UNITY, AND DIVISION

The
battle raged for several years while Matatics
remained in full communion with Rome.
Then in early 2005, Matatics embraced a
view known as
sedevacantism,
which is the opinion that no legitimate pope has occupied the Holy See
since
the death of Pius XII. Ostensibly, this involves a kind of
auto-excommunication. According to Dave Armstrong (himself a lay
Catholic
apologist), when Matatics renounced the
current pope,

he
incurred latae sententiae
(automatic excommunication), based on cc. 751 and 1364 of the Code of
Canon
Law. The first states: the aforesaid canons defines
schism as “refusal of subjection to the Roman Pontiff, or of communion
with the members of the Church subject to him”. The second states that
the penalty for is automatic excommunication.

Matatics,
of course, still considers himself
a Roman Catholic—a truer Catholic than those who accept Vatican II. The
ironic thing is that virtually every pope for the 450 years before
Vatican II
would have much more in common with Matatics
than
with Keating in their respective opinions about the Mass. (So much
for semper eadem.)

The Bible records
that during such a time of passion, Daniel had a vision. The angel
Gabriel appeared to him and spoke. The Book of Daniel, Chapter
9:

The word "Christ"
means "anointed one." For this and other reasons, most commentators
conclude that Daniel received a prediction of Messiah's coming. More
than that, Daniel was told the date of Messiah's death, the
date he would be "cut off." That's the date we seek for our
astronomical investigation. So, can the numeric symbolism of Daniel's
"sevens" be deciphered? Perhaps it is not terribly complicated.

Taking a direct
approach, let us assume that the "sevens" are seven years. Gabriel told
Daniel that after the decree to rebuild, there would be "seven sevens"
(which is 49), plus "sixty-two sevens" (which is 434). After these 483
years, the Anointed One would be cut off. If the prophecy is true, this
would be the year of the crucifixion.

Remember
that in ancient times, our modern calendar system was not in use. In
other prophetic passages a year of 360 days is used (23).
To convert to our modern system which uses the longer solar year, we
must divide by the time it takes for Earth to orbit the Sun, which is
365.24 days. This yields 476 years on our calendar (24).

We now have a number
of years, but when do we start the countdown? Gabriel said to count
"[f]rom the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem."
When was that? The prophet Nehemiah records such a decree, and he dates
it as the twentieth year of Artaxerxes (25). On our calendar, that
date is 444 BC (26).
Counting 476 years from 444 BC, and remembering that there is no year
numbered "zero" AD, we discover what Gabriel told Daniel: the Messiah
would be cut off in 33 AD.

CALVINISM AND GOD CHANGING HIS MIND

The reason that there "APPEARS" to be a contradiction is because of a
false belief that many Christians have and think is biblical, but is
not. And that is that God predestines "EVERYTHING". This is easily
shown from the bible to not be the case. It starts with confusing
predestination and God's foreknowledge. They are not the same thing but
two separate things. Predestination requires foreknowledge, but
foreknowledge does not require predestination. Now, even though God
doesn't predestine everything, he does foreknow all things and he does
predestine specific things that he chooses to predestine such as Jesus
dying for our sins and for Christians to be conformed to the image of
his Son.



I will show you two biblical examples why God does not and cannot
predestine everything, otherwise he would not only be contradicting the
bible, but himself and his own will.



1 - God told Adam - "Thou shalt not eat of the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil."

So, we "KNOW' that it was "GOD'S WILL" for Adam to "NOT" eat form that
tree. So, it would be impossible for God to go against his own will and
predestine Adam to eat from that tree. It's very logical and I hope you
can comprehend this.



2 - James 1:13-14 - "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of
God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, NEITHER TEMPTETH HE ANY MAN!"
But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of HIS OWN LUST."



I hope you can put two and two together and see the clarity of these
verses. God does NOT tempt any man but we are tempted by our OWN LUST.
Therefore, again, it's impossible that God predestines us to be
tempted. We are tempted because he gives us freewill and we are tempted
by our own lust.



So back to Jonah and applying this to Ninevah. In certain situations
such as what happened with Ninevah, where even though God foreknows
something but has not predestined it, God allows himself to interact
with the freewill he has given us. Before Ninevah repented and IF they
wouldn't have chosen to repent, God would have destroyed them. But in
his mercy, he allowed them to repent, and he took away the judgement
they would have received had they not chosen to repent.

FREEWILL AND PREDESTINATION

And I'm telling you that you are wrong and confused. You're incorrectly
using foreknowledge and confusing it with freewill and predestination.
Predestination requires foreknowledge but foreknowledge does not
require predestination. We are destined, not predestined to do what God
foreknows we will choose to do. At first glance, it seems to be true
and make sense that if God foreknows the future, then we can't have
freewill, but it's like an optical illusion which "APPEARS" to be real
but in reality isn't. The illusion is based upon a false premise that
because God foreknows the future, we don't have freewill. We're
analyzing this falsely because of our perception of time. Let's analyze
this logically.  First let us start with the premise that we are able
to make choices. Ok, now let's assume that God foreknows the future.
So, he foreknows what choice we will make. Now here is where you really
have to think this through logically. Just because he knows what choice
we will make, does not take away the choice. And here is where a lot of
people stumble in their comprehension. It merely means and is true that
we will "ALWAYS CHOOSE" what God foreknows we will choose. We will NOT
make any other choice than the one God foreknows we will make.  The
"CHOICE" is "LOCKED IN."

   "IF" we would have chosen something different, then God would also
have foreknown that choice. We don't make the choice "BECAUSE" God
foreknows it. We make it because that's what we want to do at that
particular point in time.

  Here's another way to look at it. Let's say that you've been given
one minute to make a decision on whether or not you want to jump out of
an airplane and skydive. And whatever decision you choose to make when
the minute is up, is locked in. You can't change your mind after that.
So, after the minute is up, you now have no freewill to make any other
choice. Does that mean that the choice you made previous to when the
minute was up was not a choice? Of course it was. But if you look at it
from a different perspective of time, after the minute is up as opposed
to before the minute, it's an illusion that you are not able to choose.
This is the same time illusion  where we think that because we're at a
point in time "prior" to a choice being made, and because God is not
bound by time and foreknows our choices, that means that we can't make
the choice. But it's just an illusion based upon a false premise that
distorts our perception of what is reality and then leads to a false
conclusion.

And one more way to look at this. Imagine a world where God doesn't
exist and we are able to make choices. Now bring God into that world.
Just because he is able to see all the choices that are  being made
does not change anything and take our choices away. He's just able to
see them. There's a disconnect between the two. Our choice is not
predicated upon what he sees.



God made the Sovereign decision(omnipotence) to allow us to choose(free
will). Pre-knowing is not the same as pre-destining. We
are destined, not predestined, to do what we will choose to do. The
main point to all of this is that if we are not able to choose, then
love CANNOT exist. If we are forced to love someone against our will,
that is not love.



Another one is the free will vs.
omnipotence



I don't see any problem or contradiction at all. It's very simple in my
opinion. God made the sovereign
decision to
allow us to have the freedom to make choices. There's no contradiction.
There's God's will and our will. This does not take away God's
omnipotence because it was God's power and sovereign decision to give
us the freedom to make choices. Many people confuse predestination with
foreknowledge and try to make them synonymous. They're not.
Predestination requires foreknowledge but foreknowledge does not require
predestination. Example: God foreknew that Adam would sin but he did
not predestinate it. If he did he would be contradicting himself which
we know is impossible. God told Adam that it was his will for Adam to not eat of the fruit. So, it's impossible that God would have
predestined Adam to sin against him and do what God says was his will to not do. Now there are things that
God does predestine apart from our wills, such as Jesus dying for our
sins.



Here's a good way to think of this. Imagine a Grandmaster chessplayer
playing chess with a beginner. The Grandmaster is not predestinating or
telling the beginner what moves to make, but allows the beginner to
freely make any moves he chooses. And no matter what moves the beginner
chooses to make, the Grandmaster will always end up winning the game.
The same is true for God. He allows us to the freedom to make choices
but his will always be done in the end.



FREEWILL AND FOREKNOWLEDGE



I already told you that if he chose not to
eat it, God would also
have foreknown that. You are still confusing God's foreknowledge with
predestination and making them synonymous when they are two separate
things. God foreknowing has nothing to do with the choice. It's just a
foreknowing of the choice. This has the illusion of being
contradictory
if you don't comprehend it, which you clearly don't. If you see a
magician do an illusion, sometimes you're not sure what's real and what
isn't. But when you understand the illusion, you understand the reality
of it. If I said to you that a man can be both a father and a son at
the same time, and you said to me that it was contradictory and was
impossible, would that make it untrue just because you can't comprehend
how a man can be both at the same time? This is what is happening to
you concerning foreknowledge and freewill. Foreknowing the choice does
not take away the choice. It just foreknows it and as I explained, we will
only do what God foreknows we will choose to
do do. We won't make a different choice than the one
God foreknows we will make. We could have made a
different choice and If we would have made a
different choice, then God would also have foreknown that
choice. The illusion of this being contradictory stems from
the perspective
of two different reference points of time. The present time and before
the present time. In the present time, Adam made a choice to eat the
fruit. Now if you go back to a time prior to when this happened, God
knows the choice Adam will make and Adam will only
make the choice that God knows he will make. He will not make
any other choice. He could have but
he won't.
If he would have made a different choice, then God would have foreknown
that choice. If you're interested in the technicality of this, I
suggest that you read the book - "The Only Wise God by William Lane
Craig." He goes into depth on this subject.



Lamentations 3:33



ERASMUS ON FREEWILL



Erasmus, the Catholic counterpart of Luther at
the time,
really wants to preserve free will. He says: “In each individual action
two causes come together, the grace of God and the will of man: in such
a way, however, that grace is the principal cause and the will
secondary, which can do nothing apart from the principal cause, since
the principal cause is sufficient in itself. Just as fire burns by its
native force, and yet the principal cause is God who acts through the
fire, and this cause would of itself be sufficient, without which the
fire could do nothing if he withdrew from it”

LIMITED ATONEMENT

I John 2:2 - And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for
ours only, but also for the sins of the
whole world.
II Peter 2:1 - But there were false
prophets also among the people, even as there shall
be false teachers among you, who privily
shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying
the Lord that bought them. (Peter

says it's a damnable heresy for these false prophets and teachers to

say that Jesus didn't buy them. We are all bought with a price, the

precious blood of Jesus.)



I Timothy 4:10 - For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach,
because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all
men, especially of
those that believe. (If he didn't die for every ones sins,
there would be no logical reason for God to make the distinction and
say  - "especially of those that believe.")



Hebrews

2:9 - But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for

the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the

grace of God should taste death for every man.



II Corinthians 5:14 - For the love of Christ constraineth us; because
we thus judge, that if one died for all,
then were all dead.



Titus 2:11 - For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared
to all men.



I Timothy 2:3-4 - For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God
our Saviour; who will have all men to be
saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Ezekiel 18:30-32.

30

Therefore I WILL JUDGE YOU, O house of Israel, every one ACCORDING TO
"HIS WAYS", saith the Lord God. REPENT, and TURN YOURSELVES from all
your transgressions; SO iniquity shall not be your ruin.

31

CAST AWAY FROM YOU all your transressions, whereby YE HAVE
transgressed; and MAKE YOU A NEW HEART and a new spirit: for WHY WILL
YE die, O  house of Israel?

32

For I HAVE NO PLEASURE IN THE DEATH OF HIM THAT DIETH, saith the Lord
God: wherefore TURN YOURSELVES AND LIVE YE.

HELL AND PEOPLE THAT HAVEN'T HEARD THE GOSPEL

1 - God knows all things, so he knows
whether or not these people would have believed in him if they had the
opportunity to hear the gospel.

2 - Romans 2:14-16

14 - For when the Gentiles, which have not
the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these,
having not the law, are a law unto
themselves.

15 - Which shew the work of the law
written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing them
witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing
one another.

16 - In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men
by Jesus according to my gospel.

It seem like there's a different type of judgement for these people.

3 - I Peter 4:6 - For this cause was the
gospel preached also to them
that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the
flesh, but live according to God in
the spirit.

This is a little mysterious and I'm not dogmatic on it but I think that
it's possible that this is saying that some people that didn't get a
chance to hear the gospel,  get a chance to hear the gospel after they
die.

4 - I Peter 3:19 - By which also he went and preached unto the spirits
in prison.

 Here we see that Jesus preached to people that were already dead and
were in prison(hell?) from the days of Noah. (v.20)

5 - Acts 17:23 - For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found
an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD, whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

Here Paul is saying that the unknown God they are worshiping is the
same God of the bible that we believe in.

6 - Cornelius - Even though he wasn't saved, the bible says that he
feared God, and an angel(?) appeared to him and told him that God heard
his prayer and his alms were had in remembrance in the sight of God.
(Acts 10:22,30-31)

All of these pre-biotic experiments yield a racemic mixture,
that is, equal amounts of D and L forms of the compounds.
Indeed, if you're results are not racemic, you immediately
suspect contamination. The question is how did one form get
selected. In my opinion, the selection comes close to or
slightly after the origin of life. There is no way in my opinion
that you are going to sort out the D and L amino acids in
separate pools. My opinion or working hypothesis is that the
first replicated molecule had effectively no asymmetric
carbon.(henahan/Miller interview.

EVOLUTION

http://www.tektonics.org/guest/gardnermartin01.html

OCCAMS RAZOR

Wiki



Occam's razor is not equivalent to the idea that "perfection is
simplicity". Albert Einstein
probably had this in mind when he wrote in 1933 that "The supreme goal
of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and
as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate
representation of a single datum of experience" often paraphrased as
"Theories should be as simple as possible, but no simpler." Or
even put more simply "make it simple, not simpler".
It often happens that the best explanation is much more complicated
than the simplest possible explanation because its postulations amount
to less of an improbability. Thus the popular rephrasing of the razor -
that "the simplest explanation is the best one" - fails to capture the
gist of the reason behind it, in that it conflates a rigorous notion of
simplicity and ease of human comprehension. The two are obviously
correlated, but hardly equivalent.

In the philosophy of religion, Occam's
razor is sometimes applied to the existence of God;
if the concept of God does not help to explain the universe, it is
argued, God is irrelevant and should be cut away (Schmitt 2005). It is
argued to imply that, in the absence of compelling reasons to believe
in God, disbelief should be preferred. Such arguments are based on the
assertion that belief in God requires more and more complex assumptions
to explain the universe than non-belief. For example, in his
documentary The Root of All Evil, Richard Dawkins points out that none of
the miraculous cures in Lourdes,
France, require the existence of a God to explain them; the "cures" are
always for diseases that may have gotten better by themselves.

The history of theistic thought has produced many arguments
attempting to show that this is not the case — that the difficulties
encountered by a theory without God are equal to or greater than those
encountered by a theory postulating one. The cosmological argument,
for example, states that the universe must be the result of a "first
cause" and that that first cause must be God. Similarly, the teleological argument credits the
appearance of design and order in the universe to supernatural
intelligence. Many people believe in miracles
or have what they call religious experiences, and creationists consider divine design to be more
believable than naturalistic explanations for the diversity and history
of life on earth.

Rather than argue for the necessity of God, some theists consider
their belief to be based on grounds independent of, or prior to,
reason, making Occam's razor irrelevant. This was the stance of Søren Kierkegaard, who viewed belief in
God as a leap of faith which sometimes directly
opposed reason (McDonald 2005); this is also the same basic view of Clarkian
Presuppositional apologetics,
with the exception that Clark never thought the leap of faith was
contrary to reason. (See also: Fideism).
In a different vein, Alvin Plantinga and others have argued for
reformed epistemology, the view that
God's existence can properly be assumed as part of a Christian's epistemological
structure. (See also: Basic
beliefs). Yet another school of thought, Van Tillian Presuppositional apologetics,
claims that God's existence is the transcendentally
necessary prior condition to the intelligibility of all human
experience and thought. In other words, proponents of this view hold
that there is no other viable option to ultimately explain any fact of
human experience or knowledge, let alone a simpler one.

Considering that the razor is often wielded as an argument against
theism, it is somewhat ironic that Ockham himself was a theist. He
considered some Christian sources to be valid sources of factual data,
equal to both logic and sense perception. He wrote, "No plurality
should be assumed unless it can be proved (a) by reason, or (b) by
experience, or (c) by some infallible authority"; referring in the last
clause "to the Bible, the Saints and certain pronouncements of the
Church" (Hoffmann 1997). In Ockham's view, an explanation which does
not harmonize with reason, experience or the aforementioned sources
cannot be considered valid.

ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLES AND THE UNIVERSE

If you went down the street and saw a quarter
on the sidewalk, you would think naturally, "someone dropped a
quarter." If you went down the street and saw a handful of quarters on
the sidewalk, you would think, "Someone had a big hole in their
pockets, or dropped a roll of quarters."  But if you went down the
street and saw one hundred quarters on the sidewalk and they were all
carefully balanced precariously on their edges, you would have to think
somebody did this deliberately.  The Universe as we know it, is that
carefully balanced. This theory is known as the Strong Anthropic
Principle. The only possibility other than this Universe was created,
is there are so many universes that the equivalent of one hundred
quarters falling out of someone's pocket and ALL of them ending up
balanced on their edges occurred, completely by random chance. This
theory is known as the, "Weak Anthropic Principle." So if you are a
rational thinker here are your only two choices. Either this Universe
was created , or that there are multitudes of Universes.

To
name just a few of the finely tuned variables that are mentioned in the
books, "God the Evidence," by Patrick Glynn, John Leslie, in Universes"
and from George Greenstein's "The Symbiotic Universe."

Gravity
is roughly 1039 times weaker than electromagnetism. If gravity had been
merely 1033 times weaker than electromagnetism, stars would be a
billion times less massive and would burn a million  times faster.
Leslie, page 5.

The nuclear weak force is
1028 times the strength of gravity. Had the weak force been slightly
weaker, all the hydrogen in the universe would have been turned to
helium (making water impossible, for example). Leslie, page 24. Leslie
got this information from P.C. W. Davies, 1980 (Other Worlds), pp.
176-177.

"A stronger nuclear strong force
(by as little as 2 percent) would have prevented the formation of
protons, --yielding a universe without atoms. Decreasing it by 5
percent would have given  us a universe without stars." Leslie, page 4,
quoting Hawking,  Physics Bulleting: Cambridge, vol. 32, 1980, pp 9-10.

The
charges of the electron and proton have been measured in the laboratory
and have been found to be precisely equal and opposite. Were it not for
this fact the resulting imbalance would force every object in the
universe--our bodies, trees, planets, rocks, stars, to explode
violently. The Universe would consist solely of a uniform and tenuous
mixture not so very different from air. There would be nothing else.
Greenstein's "The Symbiotic Universe."

The
very nature of water--so vital to life--is something of a mystery.
Unique among the molecules water is lighter in its solid form than its
liquid form: Ice floats. If it did not, the oceans would freeze from
the bottom  up and Earth would be covered with solid ice. This property
is traceable to unique properties of the hydrogen atom. Leslie, p 30,
quoting Barrow and Tipler pp 143-144. CF Debtys Wilkinson, Our
Universes (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991), pp 171-172.

The
synthesis of carbon--the vital core of all organic molecules--on a
significant scale involves what scientists view as an astonishing
coincidence in the ratio of the strong force to electromagnetism. This
ratio makes it possible for carbon-12 to reach an excited state of
exactly 7.65 MeV at the temperature typical of the center of stars,
which creates a resonance involving helium-4. beryllium-8 and
carbon-12--allowing the necessary binding to take place during a tiny
window of opportunity 10-17 seconds long." Wilkinson, pp 181-183. See
also  John Gribbon and Martin Rees, Cosmic Coincidences (New York:
Bantam, 1989 pp. 243-247.

A remarkable
feature of the Universe is its emptiness. Stars are extraordinarily
distant from one another. However, were it not for these vast reaches
of empty space, violent collisions between stars would be so frequent
as to render the Universe uninhabitable. The yet more frequent near
misses would detach planets from their orbits around their suns,
flinging them off into interstellar space where they would quickly cool
to hundreds of degrees below zero. Greenstein's, "The Symbiotic
Universe.

Did you know that the unlikelihood of life happening
from a Big Bang? Donald Page of Princeton's Institute for Advanced
Science has calculated the odds against our universe randomly making a
form suitable for life as one out of 10,000,000,000 to the 124th power!
That's ONE OF OUT 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000! (I might be
off one decimal place because I'm not good at math.)

Did
you know that astronomers Fred Hoyle and N.C. Wickramasinghe found out
that the odds of the random formation of a single enyzme from amino
acid anywhere on Earth's surface is 1 in 10 to the twentieth power?
That's a ONE IN 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 CHANCE!

Did you
know that the problem from that point on is that there are about 2,000
enzymes and that the chance of getting all of them in a random trial is
only one part in (10 to the twentieth power)(to the 20,000th power)
which is equals 10 to the 40,000th power? I don't even want to try to
put that out in all numerical form. It's like me multiplying the really
long number up top by 322. I think you all get my point. It would look
a LOT bigger than this number 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Did
you know that that's just one step in the formation of life? Science
has yet to explain DNA and where it came from, or the transcription of
DNA to RNA which scientists admit cannot be numerically computed. Not
to mention meiosis and mitosis. I could tell you that there is enough
info capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopedia
Britanica (30 volumes) 3 or 4 times over.

Did you know that the
information capacity in a pinhead's volume of DNA is equivalent to a
pile of paperback books 500 times as tall as the distance from earth to
the moon - which is 238,855 miles? 1,194,275,000 miles of books filled
with a pinhead's volume of information from DNA. Wow, God!

Did
you know that astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle said that "a superintellect
has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology."?

Did
you know that astronomer George Greenstein said, "As we survey all the
evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural ageny
-- or, rather, Agency -- must be involved. Is it possible that
suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof
of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so
providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"?

Did you know
that astronomer Robert Jastrow said, "If the universe had not been made
with the most exacting precision we could never have come into
existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe
was created for man to live in"?

Did you know that astronaut John
Glenn said, "It is the orderliness of the whole universe about us --
from the smallest atomic structure to the most enormous thing we can
imagine: galaxies billions of light-years across, all traveling in
prescribed orbits in relation to one another. Could this have just
happened?... I can't believe that. This was a definite Plan. This is
one big thing in space that shows me there is a God. Some power put all
this into orbit and keeps it there"?

Did you know that there is
just enough oxygen on Earth -- comprising 21% of the atmosphere -- for
life to exist? If there were too much oxygen (25% or more), things
would catch on fire too easily; all oxidizing processes would proceed
to rapidly. If there were not enough oxygen (let's just say, 15%),
living beings would suffocate.

Did you know that the level of
water vapor in the atmosphere is just right for life on Earth? Too much
water vapor in the atmosphere would cause a runaway greenhouse effect.
The planet would become too hot for human life. Too little water vapor
in the atmosphere would yield an insufficient greenhouse effect, and
the planet would get too cold.

Did you know that volcanoes are
necessary for the spreading of soil nutrients? Too many volcanoes,
however, would cause critical energy from the sun to be blocked by
clouds of volcanic ash.

Did you know that the Earth has one moon,
which is just the right size? If Earth had more than one moon, or if
our one moon were much larger, ther would be tidal instability on
Earth. In fact, a much larger moon might cause tidal waves to engulf
the land.

Did you know that because Jupiter is a giant planet
with an unbelievably strong gravitational pull it attracts asteroids
and comets that Earth doesn't because of its small size and
proportionately weaker gravitational pull?

Did you know that
Earth is just the right distance from the sun for life to survive? If
we were too close to the Sun, everything would be incinerated and
evaporated. If we were too far from it, everything would freeze.

Did
you know that one scholar said, "One could think of the initial
conditions of the universe...as a dart board the fills the whole
galaxy, and the conditions necessary for life to exist as a small
one-foot-wide target: unless the dart hits the target, life would not
be possible"? But GLORY AND THANKS BE TO GOD BECAUSE HE HAS PERFECT AIM!

So basically, the chances of random life happening from a Big Bang
is not much more different than a big, fat 0.

The
truth is that there are numerous highly improbably factors that have to
be precisely in place in a BALANCED fashion for the survival of life on
Earth. Without any one of these factors, life wouldn't possible. Life,
however, exists on earth precisely because these conditions are JUST
RIGHT for life to exist.

I could go on and on and on and on and
on! I have so many statistics to post, and if those ran out, more would
come because the heavens tell of God and His glory and as long as
people are studying it, they will find more and more!

We're a speck of dust on the Earth, and God is Antares. Yay!

HOW'S GOD DOING ACROSS THE MAP WITH NUMBERS OF CHRISTIANS?

RESEARCH SAYS... VERY GOOD!

Christianity

QM  AND VACUUM

Also, I am not aware that anyone has ever created a "perfect" "vacuum."
Perhaps I am behind, though?? I would be glad to consult any recent
scientific publications or individuals who might say otherwise.



Space itself, also, is not a "perfect vacuum," at least as of knowledge
current in 2005; yet intergalactic space is 1 million times less
dense than the best "vacuum" able to be created by means of
technology (as of 2005) - (citing David Deutsch, author of The
Fabric of Reality (1997) in a 2005 lecture available here: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/47.




I
think it is very important to understand that the "vacua" created for
scientific experiments are not really "nothing." They APPROACH
conditions in which no "thing" of measurable mass exists; however, that
is not really "nothing." The "vacuum" IS measurable in length, width,
breadth, and time. Space is not really nothing, depending on what one
means by "nothing."





Space itself is something. It can be
called a vacuum, but we should understand the relative nature of the
word. The "vacuum" is not perfect or absolute, EVEN with our current
means of measurement.



There has been a 2,600 year debate over whether space is a vacuum, and
whether a true vacuum is possible.



In
my opinion, while space my come close to being "empty" of stuff to
which we are accustomed, "empty" of measured mass, it is a linguistic
mistake to call space "empty" in an ABSOLUTE sense. Why?



1.
Space can be pointed out. It exists, and we can detect it by means of
negation, and we can measure its length, width, breadth, duration
relative to objects with mass. It can also be called "that in which
mass exists/ inheres/ moves about."



2. Space has frequently been
called a "medium" or "substrate" (e.g. by Brian Greene, "The Universe
On a String" (2005) available here: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/251).
This is not really "nothing." Einstein thought it could be "warped,"
"curved," as the communicative medium of forces. Modern superstring
theory posits that space has 10 dimensions plus a dimension of time.
Again, space is not really "nothing" in any absolute sense.



The
statement made by the individual to whom you referred only indicates to
me an as-of-yet inability to measure mass within the
relatively-"near"-"vacuum" that eventually revealed an electron where
none was previously detected. That's not the same thing as the electron
coming from "nothing," unless the alternative-yet-relative definition
of "nothing" (which I proposed earlier) is used.

WHEN WAS THE BIBLE WRITTEN?
One of the reasons to date particularly
the gospels by 70 or before is that Jesus predicts the destruction of
the Temple.  None of the gospels mention the destruction of the temple
in 70 a.d., Either because of Jesus prophecy, or because of the central
place the temple had there would likely have been some mention of it's
destruction.  The gospels and other new testament writings speak of
Jerusalem and the temple as if it were in tact and a part of daily
life. 
It can reasonably be thought that most New Testament
writings date before 68 a.d.; the apostle Paul was executed during the
reign of Nero which ended in that year and the book of acts does not
record it, nor is there any mention in any other NT writing.  There is
also no mention of the death of James (the brother of Jesus), we know
from Josephus that He was killed in 62 a.d.

If the book of
acts was written before 62 (as it does not mention the deaths of
central figures Paul, and James), Luke would have been written before
that.  He begins the book of Acts with, "In my former book,
Theophilus...).  Before his death, Paul quotes (I Tim 5:18) from Luke's
gospel and calls it, "scripture."

If Luke was written before
60 a.d. Mark would have been written earlier as Luke says he got his
facts from eyewitness accounts (Luke 1:1-4). 

Paul's first
letter to Corinth was written between 55 and 56 a.d. and it is the
earliest and best authenticated testimony of the Resurrection.  Paul
writes down testimony he received from others later authenticated when
Christ appeared to Paul.  Most scholars believe that this testimony was
part of an early Christian creed that dates back to resurrection
itself, eighteen months to eight years after. 

Athiest John
A.T. Robinson wrote a book titled Redating the New Testament in which
he made a case for all of the New Testament writings having been
completed between A.D. 40 and 65.  We believe Romans, Galatians, and 1
Thessalonians to have been written before I Corinthians. 

Once
liberal archaeologist William F Albright wrote, "In my opinion every
book in the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the
40's and the 80's of the first century (very probably between A.D. 50
and 75)."

Did you know that even the Jewish Talmud speaks about Jesus? Did you
know there are 5,700 hand-written Greek manuscripts of the New
Testament? And in addition, there are more than 9,000 manuscripts in
other languages (Syriac, Coptic, Latin, Arabic) There is NOTHING in the
ancient world that even comes close in terms of manuscript support. The
next closest work is the Iliad by Homer, with a mere 643 manuscripts.
Most other ancient works survive on FEWER than a dozen manuscripts, yet
few historians question the historicity of the events those works
describe. Not only that but the time gap between the original and first
surviving copies is much closer for the New Testament.



New testament - 25 years

Homer - 500 years

Plato - 1,200 years

HUMAN CHROMOSOME #2

http://lukeplant.me.uk/blog.php?id=1107301656



http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/tale-of-two-chromosomes

GARY, DALLAS, AND EMAILS




Hello everyone. In case you don't know what happened with me and why
I'm no longer attending FOFCC, I'd like to tell you. Gary has decided
that the Lord is leading him in the direction of using Dallas Willard's
teachings. When he started teaching on the Beatitudes, it was something
I didn't agree with. I tried to share my disagreements with Gary, but
that didn't go over very well. After arguing back and forth, eventually
Gary said to me that if I as a leader in the church, could not support
him and believe in what he is teaching, and help him to teach it to
others in the church, then it would be better for me to leave. I told
him that I agreed with him, and respected that. It's not just the
beatitudes. There's other teachings of Dallas, which I won't go into
here, that are confusing and questionable to me. So, I didn't see any
reason
or feel
comfortable coming to church under those circumstances for one last
time and then leaving, even though I would have loved to have
personally seen everyone and said goodbye. And I didn't want to call
everyone up and tell them I was leaving. So, I didn't see any good way
of handling it, which is why I am writing this letter. Even though I
disagree with Gary, I have utmost respect for him. I don't have
anything bad to say about him. Life doesn't always work out the way we
would like, but we still have to trust and serve the Lord. You are all
in my prayers. If anyone has any further questions for me, you can
email me back or call me. I love you all as brothers and sisters in the
Lord.

BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS

First, the Biblical date for the Exodus conflicts even with
other information provided in the Bible itself. The Jews who wrote I
and II Kings said (I Kings 6:1) the Exodus was 480 years before Solomon
(c. 1446 BC), and Exodus says the Jewish slaves in Egypt built Pithom
and Rameses (Exodus 1:11). This place called Rameses is mentioned also
in Gen. 47:11, Ex. 12:37, and Num. 33:3,5, and is doubtless named after
the great pharaoh Ramesses II. But Ramesses II hadn't even been born in
1446 BC, so no city at that time would have been named after him. That
is one of the reasons why many modern Christians think the Exodus
happened in the 1200s (the time of Ramesses II) instead of the 1400s,
and the movie "The Ten Commandments" puts Moses in this later period.
If it did happen in the 1200s, then the Bible is wrong when it says it
happened 480 years before Solomon.

On the resurrection accounts from the 4 gospels - from soccerdad.

This
sort of confusing history that we find in the Bible is precisely the
sort of thing we would expect from a compilation of eyewitness
testimony. The statements are very empirical and without the
harmonization that we would expect if the testimony had been
massaged.You had the wrong reference for Matthew. It's 28:9,
not 20:9. Matthew 28:9 is about the women's response, not the
disciples' response. Peter and John acted on the women's account which
they alone heard first and went to the tomb. (John 20:3) Later, when
the women told the larger group, there was skepticism. (Luke 24:11)

Suppose a mom and her daughter go to
the store. There they meet Amanda Johnson and her daughter Megan. Later
that night, the mom talks to her husband and tells him that she saw
Amanda Johnson at the store. The daughter later meets separately with
her dad and tells him that she saw Megan as part of her recounting of
the day's events. Are the mom and daughter in disagreement?

A disagreement would be:

1. Gospel 1 states that only Mary was at the tomb.

2. Gospel 2 states that Mary and some other people were at the tomb.

conclusion: Gospel 1 disagrees with Gospel 2 as to who was at the tomb.

This disagreement doesn't occur in the gospel accounts. What you are
saying is the following:

a. Gospel A states that Mary was at the tomb.

b. From Gospel A's statement we infer that only Mary was at the tomb.

c. Gospel B states that Mary and some other people were at the tomb.

conclusion: Gospel A contradicts Gospel B as to who was at the tomb.

What
you have done is to create a straw man. The NT is especially concerned
with not doing violence to the eyewitness source evidence merely in
order to construct a comprehensive history. When you read the NT, you
need to bear this in mind. I assume that you will read it carefully and
charitably.

The issue as to when the stone was rolled away is
resolved by reading Matthew in the Greek. This is rather technical. The
particular type of aorist used by Matthew requires that the pluperfect
meaning; unfortunately, most English translations don't render this
correctly. If you're going to get picky about the order of events in
the NT, you really have to know koine Greek.

I'm not sure
what you mean by "concoct your own gospel" regarding the angels at the
tomb. Maybe you mean that in order to harmonize the events we would
have to generate a comprehensive history? I've answered that issue
previously.

Regarding the Galilee issue, an easy
harmonization suggests itself--perhaps Jesus both told them in Galilee
and told them to return to Galilee.

Regarding the women and
whom they told--if you had read on two verses farther in Mark, you
would have found that Mary Magdalene reported to the disciples. They
could have reported it several times--for such exciting and unexpected!
news, that would have required several recountings. Just this weekend
we saw the same thing regarding the rescue of a ship captain from
pirates.

UNICORNS

As far as we have known about the past, the
vast majority of people have always believed in some type of god. So,
in my opinion, the attempt at the unicorn and fairies as an analogy,
fails. There's no history of the vast majority of people believing in
unicorns. So, in comparison,  some type of god would be more likely to
exist than unicorns. I'm not suggesting that history proves the
existence of a god, but what you said is a poor analogy in comparison.

USING COP-OUT AND CONVENIENCE
Listen, you can keep saying that a thousand
times, but if it's true what I've stated, your using convenience does
not negate truth. What if I asked you what 1+ 1=? And you said 2. And
then I said, how convenient. So, I may be wrong in my answer, but just
saying convenient is moot.