Thomas the Doubter wrote: The Creation Museum is a wonderful place , and their ministry too. Go see for yourself someday, until then hold your tongue.
Not relying on my senses as much as some persons named Thomas, I don't need to be there to form my opinion; as Strat said, it will change nothing. It is the spirit which quickens; the flesh profits nothing [not just a little], John 6:63.
Anne wrote: Wow. Again, how very monk-ish; interesting perspective though; wrong, but still interesting.
Monk-ish? Whose monks? Certainly not Roman Catholic, for they believe just as you do, that man needs visual aids for worship & edification. Thomas Aquinas himself was a monk, a Dominican friar.
My position doesn't imply that blind people have an advantage, so your attempt at Reductio Ad Absurdum collapses. It is your position which puts blind people at a *disadvantage*, for they can't enjoy all the benefits you claim for the visual senses. No fake Arks for them!
Further, Jesus never said Thomas wasn't saved. And just because senses are useful doesn't mean we should give them any emphasis in spiritual affairs. We are to flee from idols, 1 John 5:21.
Anne wrote: â€¦ there is something to be said about experiencing something with your senses.
Of course you do; so did Doubting Thomas, who insisted on touching Jesus before believing He was bodily resurrected (John 20:25). Jesus counts it a blessing to believe WITHOUT seeing!
Yet reliance on the senses is the essence of Roman Catholic doctrine (that man needs his senses in order to believe, per Thomas Aquinas) & worship â€“Â contemplating statues of Jesus & the saints, Smells & Bells, pipe organs, relics, Holy Sites, & the rest. â€śPopâ€śÂ Christianity, not so traditional, with rock-concert style services that overwhelm people with ear-damaging, 100-decibel music, is nevertheless in principle the same.
The last thing ChristiansÂ want today is mere words & ideas.
BWS wrote: Are you kidding? John Brown absolutely did not hold to traditional Calvinistic teaching!
Even non-Christian historians with no theological ax to grind say otherwise: Brown was a Calvinist, though a murderer like Cromwell (with whom he was compared). Southern chattel slavery was Biblically indefensible. Take a Scots Presby's word for it: www.covenanter.org/McLeod/negro.htm
GSTexas wrote: I was thinking the same thing Neil. How are the answers of 2200 Americans representative of 300+ million Americans?
Statisticians may have a pedantic answer for that, but I still don't know why we should believe them. Plus, in this case we have no information regarding the survey's methodology; absent that, it's not worth repeating.
For all we know, some respondents may have been putting them on, as a lark, for asking questions like that which insult their intelligence.
Yet another British story about Those Stupid Americans. Maybe it helps them feel better about themselves.
Anyhow, just how â€śscientificâ€ť is this survey? 1) AAAS has an agenda which is reinforced by it, so it's liable to Conflict of Interest; 2) The sample size is .0007% of the U.S. population (2200/313e6*100). How's this for Hasty Generalization?
Back in the Gaslight era, heroin, cocaine etc. were available from Sears et al. They also sold patent medicines like panaceas for "Female Complaints" as well as more respectable herbals like "Slippery Elm."
As the article says further down, racial fears ("drug-crazed, sex-mad Negroes"; "Negro cocaine fiends") were used to justify regulation.
Mike wrote: They need cease seeking irs approved status. If you believe in your principles, it may require not getting an exemption. Will they ever learn?
The article points that out too, way down.
Here's an old essay I just discovered so incendiary that it may still scare NSA snoops, esp. Chs. V & VI. As a countermeasure, it's got thick Puritan prose not readily digested by impatient modern minds. If that's a â€śShortâ€ť Treatise, I wonder how big a â€śLongâ€ť one might've been?
The Internet has indeed been a gift of God, for the more Catholic official doctrine I read, the worse it looks, e.g.: www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html
This also means Protestants have less excuse for ignorance about the Roman Church-State â€“ Know Your Enemy.
pennned wrote: "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" Romans 1:20
If this was intended to refute what I said, it does not. Contrary to what numerous Bible commentators think, the only way this verse can avoid absurdity is if "clearly seen" means understood by the mind absent any action by the eyeballs or optic nerve. This isn't at all forced, since even in everyday speech, we use sight as a metaphor for understanding.
Man's understanding of God is innate, "hardwired" by our Maker, with no sensory input required. Otherwise a blind & deaf person might have an excuse for unbelief.
interesting read wrote: â€śThe Roman Catholic â€śManhattan Declarationâ€ť .. affirmed that human reason apart from and independent of Scripture was the ultimate and final Judge of truth and morals. It was an affirmation of Catholic Natural Religion, Natural Theology, and Natural Law.
VERY good point, one I didn't expect to hear outside the Trinity Foundation. The myth of Natural Law & the so-called reliability of independent reason & the senses are basic tenets of Catholicism (via Thomas Aquinas), which one hears all the time in Rome's language. It travels well because one doesn't have to be a Catholic to believe it. In fact, that's the whole point.
But the strange thing is, few Protestant laymen I meet, even zealots, seem to recognize this, so no surprise that leaders are deceived as well.