Neil wrote: BTW, I hear some people bash Wikipedia, but most of the articles I've seen are of good quality.
Only problem I remember having with Wikipedia was bias.
A year ago or so I Googled the word Monergism, wanting to know what it meant, having heard it mentioned in my Sunday school class.
Wikipedia not only defined Monergism but took the liberty of trying to point out 3 or 4 of its (perceived) flaws.
Curious, I then looked up Synergism, expecting Wikipedia to be even-handed by pointing out ITS flaw, but NONE were listed; prompting me to suspect that at least one of these definitions was submitted by a free-willer.
Neil wrote: That's the man. I'm not surprised that someone from San Jose would know this! Do you know if he's still around? Cypress Semiconductor
I had to call my friend, who used to work for Cypress.
He said T.J. Rogers is still head of Cypress and has founded at least one other company (can't remember the name), but he's not so prominent in the news these days.
10 years ago or so, T.J. led the charge to fight-off an attempt by Jessie jackson and his people to "liberalize" hiring practices here (by trying to increase emphasis on the person's heretige/race/etc. and not just their merits).
Apart from this and sporatic commentary on excessive taxes and the added stress they inflict on local industry I haven't heard much from T.J. lately.
Neil wrote: Discovery Institute's "Privileged Planet" is indeed nicely made & even encouraging, but in endorsing the Anthropic Principle as it does, it in effect repeats the untenable Teleological Argument for the existence of God. Even if one concedes that the universe has design & purpose, it does not logically follow that the Scriptural Trinity made it - perhaps Zeus or Voltaire's "committee of gods" did. Thomas Aquinas et al. couldn't avoid begging the question here. Apologetics has been hindered by use of this argument. Now it may be acceptable if one uses it ad-hominem - assume your opponent's probablistic empirical principles for the sake of argument. Even if you don't agree with this, it's best to be aware of objections *before* encountering a well-briefed atheist.
At least it's more robust than the old "god-of-the-gaps" argument.
Did you once say that David Hume more or less torpedoed the whole Teleological Argument many decades ago? I guess I could just google it, and find out but sometimes it's easier just to ask someone.
Icon O'Clast wrote: Unfortunately I do not feel it is beneficial to me or anyone else I continue these discussions. When things degenerate to a point where simple questions are not answered but are responded to with diatribe and meaningless and fruitless nonsense one can only say, "What's the point!" To all who have contributed meaningfully and with reverence to God and His Holy Word - thank you and God bless you. To those who do nothing but spit out hatred for the theology of the Reformers - goodbye and have fun in the woodshed. Adios.
Thanks for at least trying to get thru to some of these other people. It's pretty frustrating to have to listen to the same self-justification-based drivel over and over again from some of them.
Knowing just what true faith is is a very important issue indeed, and we must be sure we get our truth from God's word, the Bible.
Mike wrote: It does make you wonder why there should be joy in heaven over one sinner that repents. Why are they joyful at the time of repentance? If it were a gift, should they not instead have been joyful at the time the sinner was predestined to receive it?
You're assuming that "those in Heaven" ALSO know who is and who is not predestined. Since only God was around before the foundation of the world, only He knows for sure who is and who is not predestined. That's why "they" rejoice when one repents, because it's the first real manifest evidence that God has saved them.
You Arminian/Anti-Calvinists are making this issue much more convoluted than it really is.
It would be nice if this film ended up convicting at least a few of our modern secular scientists not to be so hastey to dismiss that which seems profoundly counterintuitive to them (e.g. Paul Erlich's dismissal of Julian Simon's population studies as being of a "flat-earth" mentality--even though Simon was the one who turned out to be right!).
One of their own, Richard Feynman, admonished his own students to be wary of misleading themselves during scientific endeavors by saying "YOU yourself (student) are the easiest one to fool".
Even more cool would be the conviction of Ben Stein himself that in challenging the Darwinists, he's not just wrestling with flesh and blood, but PRINCIPALITIES, etc.; which would eventually lead him to God/Christ/salvation.
kenny wrote: The divorce rate in America went up as the number of women abandoning their homes and children to enter the work force went up.
This is a HUGE problem, reinforced by stupid shows like Mary Tyler Moore and Murphy Brown. I have literally dozens of female co-workers with young kids at home alone while mommy satisfies her greed and conformity to modern female standards by leaving them for their daycare or GRANDPARENTS to raise.
Every day I drive to work I go by a local park where virtually ALL strollers are being pushed by an man or woman in their 60s or 70s. Where the @#$$%! is MOMMY--Oh...she's too busy helping daddy bring home the bacon. It's mind-bogglingly foolish and bad for the family in the long run.
"Pope urges all Christians to 'hold fast' to scripture".
Sure. He and his fellow Catholics will do the same, but in addition to holding fast to scripture, THEY/Catholics will ALSO hold fast to their sacred traditions, post-apostolic visions (Fatmia, etc.), and Church authority in general as being on the same level as scripture; thus defining their wider absolute authority than most other Christian denominations subscribe to (5 solas, etc.).
They needed to conduct a STUDY to determine this???
I don't watch either channel, but flipping the dial one day, I came across a bisexual reality dating show. Curious, I looked up the channel number and found that it was MTV (which used to show music videos back in the 80s). Need I say more?
I don't use the NIV since the ESV (which our church uses) is at least as easy to read as the NIV. I've heard the NIV is OK for reading but not studying, since it's not a literal word-for-word translation. I still prefer KJV not just because it's stood the test of time, but most of the passages I've memorized in my lifetime and can recall and apply are from KJV.
What I hate is the almost unavoidable result that any/all credit for "helping" the "poor" ends up going to those who take wealth from others instead of to the ones who generated that wealth in the first place.
Even worse is that the latter are often vilified in order to further enhance the "generous" reputation of the former.
Biblical and Marxist socialism invariably alienate the helper and the one being helped to the point that neither is aware of the other on any kind of personal level.