Canaletto, Alnwick at Northcumberland Castle (1752)
Reformed Theology and Providence
PhD edit
Philip Edgcumbe Hughes explains that through God’s providence the world is dependent, for if God did not maintain it, it would cease to exist. Hughes (1990: 45). In Law of Nature, Edwards explains that providence is the means by which God governs the world as the supreme judge of the universe. Edwards (1731-1733)(2006: 553).
Within ‘The Doctrine of Creation’ in Church Dogmatics, Volume III, Karl Barth defines God’s providence as dealing with the history of created beings, in the sense that in every way through this entire span of time, this providence takes place under the care of God the creator. This includes those that are in Christ in the covenant between God and humanity. Barth (1932-1968: 3). It is God’s fatherly Lordship over the entire world. Barth (1932-1968: 28). Natural events that take place are very personal for God. Frame (2002: 52). God’s providence includes the ‘superior dealings of the Creator with his creation, the wisdom, omnipotence and goodness with which He maintains and governs in time this distinct reality according to the council of his own will.’ Barth (1932-1968: 3). God knows all things appropriately and therefore acts in a proper way in relation to each and every creature. Barth (1932-1968: 5). In the act of creation, God associates himself with his creature as the ‘Lord of its history’ and acts in the appropriate manner. Barth (1932-1968: 12). Both the creator and creation possess types of freedom, and this does not simply leave God’s creatures with a type of freedom but causes the creature to share in the divine glory and the opportunity to serve God. Barth (1932-1968: 12). Schelling, although not noted as a Christian theologian, within Of Human Freedom states that all earthly creatures are dependent on God. Schelling (1845)(1936: 11). If God ‘withdrew his power for an instant, man would cease to be.’ Schelling (1845)(1936: 11). There exists ‘nothing before or outside of God.’ Schelling (1845)(1936: 32).
Hume is skeptical of this concept of God’s providence. Hume (1779)(2004: 50). People throughout the world view certain evils, which may be rectified in other regions of the world or in the future, and understand these good events as being connected to general laws and the existence of a good deity. Hume (1779)(2004: 50). Hume suggests that these are superstitions, and questions whether in many cases a ‘cause can be known but from its known effects?’ The idea is then presented that if God is benevolent his providence should lead to a world without suffering and wickedness. Hume (1779)(2004: 50).
Sanders writes that the Calvinist view on providence is meticulous providence that assumes nothing can stymie God’s will, and that God is in control of every detail. Sanders (1998: 212). Compatibilists (soft-determinists) deny meticulous providence prohibits significant human free will, but Sanders, as an incompatibilist, rejects the compatibilist argument concerning providence. Sanders (1998: 215). He instead suggests that a risk model of providence is a better idea. Within the risk model, God does not control everything that happens, but controls many things. Sanders (1998: 215). God alone is responsible for completing his divine plans and these will be completed in a general sense, but that does not mean every specific event is within his plans. Sanders (1998: 215-217). There is a difficulty with the fact that he states God controls some things and not others. If God’s control of all things in a Calvinistic/Reformed model is rejected because it would force people to do things, according to Sanders, then how can God control some things? Does God not influence significant human freedom at some specific points in time in order to bring about his ultimate plans, such as saving rebellious persons? If God influences significant human freedom at some points in time in order to guarantee that his ultimate plans occur, such as a culminated Kingdom, is this not in the end a form of compatibilism/soft determinism?
BARTH, KARL (1932-1968) Church Dogmatics, The Doctrine of Creation: Volumes 1 and 3. Translated by J.W. Edwards, Rev. O. Bussey, and Rev. Harold Knight, Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark.
EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1731-1733)(2006) Law of Nature, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.
FRAME, JOHN M. (2002) The Doctrine of God, P and R Publishing, Phillipsburg, New Jersey.
HUGHES, PHILIP. (1990) A Commentary On The Epistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
HUME, DAVID (1779)(2004) Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Digireads.com/Neeland Media LLC, Lawrence, Kansas.
SANDERS, JOHN (1998) The God Who Risks, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.
SCHELLING, F.W.J. (1845)(1936) Schelling, Of Human Freedom, Translated by James Gutmann, The Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago.
I eat at McDonald's probably twice a year and Burger King once a year. I do not have a strong anti or pro fast food agenda. My preference would be Dairy Queen and I do take my sweet ol' Mother out to Dairy Queen a few times during the Spring and Summer for an ice cream.
I admit to finding McDonald's and Burger King related satire amusing and perhaps thought provoking concerning Western society.
Comments?
Ronald vs. Burger King
Another appearance from Ronald McJoker...
Apparently the first Ronald McDonald television ads were from 1963-1965.
Dubai
Hey, from the first Ronald McDonald commercial video, I want one of those magic trays, where, when you take a hamburger away, another one appears! I wonder if they come with the option of steak instead of hamburgers...
ReplyDeleteGod knows all things appropriately and therefore acts in a proper way in relation to each and every creature.
ReplyDeleteSo, do you think it is possible that a person was supposed to fulfill some role or profession (i.e., becoming a preacher or missionary), and yet did not fulfill it, thereby being in disobedience to God's will? And, if so, then does God choose someone else to fulfill that role?
McDonald's and steak? Not in this present realm. Perhaps in the Twilight Zone.
ReplyDelete'So, do you think it is possible that a person was supposed to fulfill some role or profession (i.e., becoming a preacher or missionary), and yet did not fulfill it, thereby being in disobedience to God's will? And, if so, then does God choose someone else to fulfill that role?'
ReplyDeleteThere is a perfect divine will and there is a permissible divine will.
There is limited human free will (compatibilistic).
I reason at times God allows human disobedience within his permissible will.
As well...
I reason a Christian should fear that by living in fear and not reasonable faith, disobedience and not obedience that he or she can miss out on a greater particular blessing in this realm.
This still leaves God willing all things.
McDonald's and steak? Not in this present realm. Perhaps in the Twilight Zone.
ReplyDeleteI was thinking in terms of the 'magic tray' being available as an independent item from McDonald's, but in any case, it is still nevertheless fantasy, no matter how you look at it.
From the article:
There is a difficulty with the fact that he states God controls some things and not others.
I agree. I would think that it's not that He does not control some things, but that He allows certain things to happen that are outside of His perfect will, yet at the same time, those things do not prevent His ultimate will and plan from taking place.
If God’s control of all things in a Calvinistic/Reformed model is rejected because it would force people to do things, according to Sanders, then how can God control some things? Does God not influence significant human freedom at some specific points in time in order to bring about his ultimate plans, such as saving rebellious persons? If God influences significant human freedom at some points in time in order to guarantee that his ultimate plans occur, such as a culminated Kingdom, is this not in the end a form of compatibilism/soft determinism?
Excellent point. In order for God to accomplish His will, He has to control some things. And, if He can control some things, then why can't He control other things?
'McDonald's and steak? Not in this present realm. Perhaps in the Twilight Zone.
ReplyDeleteI was thinking in terms of the 'magic tray' being available as an independent item from McDonald's, but in any case, it is still nevertheless fantasy, no matter how you look at it.'
I was answering in humour.:)
'Excellent point. In order for God to accomplish His will, He has to control some things. And, if He can control some things, then why can't He control other things?'
Agreed. He can control all things, and in my view does control all things. But, this control is not force or coercion of creatures that in my view have significant but limited free will.
I state that God does not force or coerce his creatures but admit that God, for example, can allow that a person be drugged and think and do things not morally significant that he or she would not be held accountable for.
So, in regard to morally significant thoughts and actions, God does not force or coerce creatures.
Cheers, Jeff.:)
I like an egg mcmuffin once in a while.
ReplyDeleteHere are some funny jokes I came across...
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One cannibal turns to the other and asks, "This taste funny to you?"
Why did the cowboy buy a dachshund?
Someone told him to get a long little doggy.
What's the last thing you usually hear before a redneck dies?
"Hey, y'all... Watch this!"
Three things you'll never hear a redneck say:
* The tires on that truck are too big.
* I thought Graceland was tacky.
* Duct tape won't fix that!
You might be a redneck… if you think the last words to "The Star-Spangled Banner" are "Gentlemen, start your engines."
Two nuns, a penguin, a man with a parrot on his shoulder, and a giraffe walk into a bar. The bartender says, "What is this? Some kind of joke?" [Strangely, this was the only one to provoke me to LOL]
The nurse said to the doctor, "There's an invisible man in the waiting room." The doctor replied, "Tell him I can't see him now."
God's providence according to Barth in your article was compared to a "Fatherly Lordship" over the world. I like this description of God because it makes God more personal and relational.
ReplyDelete-Infatuated with Theology-
-
McDonalds, aah what propaganda!!
ReplyDeleteDraw the kids into a restaurant chain full of unhealthy food with the aid of a clown, an Evil Clown!
-Grimmis-
That Dubai photo looks like a fantasy painting.
ReplyDelete'God's providence according to Barth in your article was compared to a "Fatherly Lordship" over the world. I like this description of God because it makes God more personal and relational.
ReplyDelete-Infatuated with Theology-'
True.
However, personally I need to avoid infatuation.
'McDonalds, aah what propaganda!!
ReplyDeleteDraw the kids into a restaurant chain full of unhealthy food with the aid of a clown, an Evil Clown!
-Grimmis-'
Is Ronald related to the clown from It?
'That Dubai photo looks like a fantasy painting.'
ReplyDeleteIt looks like an amazing fantasy.
Russ, your evil twin's blog site link is HERE, along with mine and also SanctiFusion.
ReplyDeleteThanks, I know. The site is reciprocally linked with satire and theology (indirectly). The deal was that this blog was supposed to be linked with the site too, but when they did not I removed the link from here. I did message them and was ignored.
ReplyDeleteNo freebies. I am in ministry too.
The evil twin has me beat in traffic and Facebook followers. I have him beat in Technorati ranking, links and looks as my header will now alternate between the original dark red and the present alternate black.
Black is back.
He simply has white with dark blue trim. But it is admittedly much better than that previous mediocrity he could not overcome.
that D.K. Joker pic is awesome !
ReplyDelete=)
- Jimmy M. Espana
Cheers, Jimmy.
ReplyDeleteReal Madrid.
Russ,
ReplyDeletePer our brief conversation over on my blog, I realize you have no current interest in a long, drawn-out, time-consuming debate with a JW. It seems to me that your interests lie primarily with theology, and after that, philosophy; whereas mine would be primarily evangelism, and after that, apologetics. Whereas I think you would likely prefer to be a professor in a seminary, training future Pastors, I would prefer to be among the heathen, trying to shine a light in the darkness. However, I have always been the sensitive type, so I am not quite like Rick. Also, I am a homebody who does not like to travel, and does not feel comfortable in unfamiliar surroundings, so I do not have the natural qualifications of a foreign missionary.
In a war, I think you would be like a trainer of leaders (like a high-ranking officer); Rick would be the guy on the front lines, in the heat of battle, either in the infantry, or a tank division, or something like that; and I might be like some kind of tactical strategist, or a covert operative in espionage.
Or maybe I've just been playing too much R.U.S.E., Day of Defeat and CounterStrike... : )
Reasonable points, Jeff. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteI like theological apologetics as well.
My evangelism approach is often one of the philosophical discussion.
I would have to fire a weapon some of the time.
I stated on your blogs:
Hi Jeff,
I glanced at the comments. I respect you for the ministry work you do.
I am as you know willing to deal with anyone on my blogs (I have debated JWs, LDS, atheists, and non-Reformed in person as well).
I have debated British academics at University.
You know I am willing to put some time into these things, on and offline.
Heck, I have debated with you a couple of times.
But to be honest in general terms, I do not have the time and patience to debate someone I disagree with and will think is largely wrong, for 171+ comments or close. Well before then I would think we would be going in circles.:) It is a reason I do not spend much time on the 'Interested' blog of Rick's friend, and a reason I do not scan the web for blogs that are non-Reformed, JW, LDS, Roman Catholic, atheist, agnostic, satanic, occultic, and that feature scientism and other, looking for debates.;)
I think I need to do other things in life more...soon.
So I will leave it to what happens. I am glad I helped somewhat with research.
Over on Rick B's food blog:
Rick B:
'This type of person is usually over-sensitive and can't deal with raw truth.'
thekingpin68:
The Church of Last-Day Decaf?
Rick B:
Thats funny.
Thanks my friend.
Further:
ReplyDeleteI think from experience and reason that generally people that go on long debates that are in false worldviews are more interested in apologetics for their own side than they are being evangelized.
I think usually effective evangelism is for more open-minded folk that are willing to see the errors of their worldview/movement, and there always are errors. Some are more serious than others, even with Christian ones.
That is a main reason I will debate someone for a short time only. If the he/she is closed it is up to the Lord to change he/she and if it happens it will probably be on more contemplative terms as opposed to in a heated debate.
Ego is a huge factor and this is less when a person has time for self-reflection.
My take:)
Yes sometimes debating can be futile and unproductive, but in other instances it can be quite rewarding especially if both participants come away with a better understanding of one another's positions and world views.
ReplyDelete-Debating Rating-
I wish that fast food chains could create more healthy foods so parents would feel better about their children eating in restaurants with Red Headed Happy Faced Clowns staring at them as they bite into their quicky meals!
ReplyDelete-Hammumbler-
Thanks Chucky for the jokes, they made me Chuckle, is that why you are named Chucky??
ReplyDelete-Curiousity Fits Me-
'Yes sometimes debating can be futile and unproductive, but in other instances it can be quite rewarding especially if both participants come away with a better understanding of one another's positions and world views.
ReplyDelete-Debating Rating-'
This is possible, especially when people wish to learn. But, I stand by my general statements. I have learned more by reflecting on debates and doing later research as opposed to long debating.
'I wish that fast food chains could create more healthy foods so parents would feel better about their children eating in restaurants with Red Headed Happy Faced Clowns staring at them as they bite into their quicky meals!
-Hammumbler-'
Our friend that previously worked at McDonald's stated this was virtually impossible with the Big Mac (special sauce). I respect his opinion but I have my doubts. I think you have a good point.
Thanks, Hammbooger.
'Thanks Chucky for the jokes, they made me Chuckle, is that why you are named Chucky??
ReplyDelete-Curiousity Fits Me-'
It came from his time back at Chuckbeat Magazine back in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
>It came from his time back at Chuckbeat Magazine back in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
ReplyDeleteAh yes, my days as a "teen idol"...
Re: making McDonald's healthy,
that is kind of tough, it would require a change in the whole fast food culture mindset. The current stand-alone fast food joint is centered around fatty, rich burgers, oversalted fries and sugary soft drinks.
There are some fairly healthy fast food joints, e.g. Japanese stir-fry outlets in the food court, or Roasty Jack's (also only in food courts).
I think there is now enough acceptance of foreign cuisine that a kind of "Asian fusion" fast food concept could work. At least in Greater Vancouver.
"American fast food, what a stupid way to die." --Randy Stonehill
Well stated, Cardinal Chucklins (formerly of Chuckbeat Magazine).
ReplyDeleteThe act could be cleaned up but would take a new culture.
One more point in regard to long debates:
Attempts at winning and proving points to self can be negatives in long debates.
How to have an argument
ReplyDeleteExpensive.
ReplyDeleteRip-off Britain, even then.
A better than average Monty Python presentation.
Hello author.. I found your blog useful to my visitors... I wish to exchange our blog links... I putted up your blog link (http://thekingpin68.blogspot.com/)in my page at http://2daynewsupdates.blogspot.com/ . I request you to review add my blog link in your blog list.. I updating my blog regularly... I you do so, i feel more pleasure... Please consider my request.... Thank you
ReplyDeleteWe are linked reciprocally. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteRuss:)
A couple years ago, I did a blog article HERE on some of the archaic Chinese characters, being pictographs, showing the Genesis account in the Bible.
ReplyDeleteEven "Answers In Genesis," a Christian website, mentions some of the Chinese characters showing the Genesis account from the Bible HERE.
However, HERE they take a closer look at it, and, after some examination, they conclude that this information cannot be completely validated, since we cannot know for sure.
I e-mailed similar information (but which I got from a different website) to a Facebook Friend who speaks Chinese, though I have no idea what his level of knowledge is, because I really don't know him very well. The parts below in quotes are what I wrote, and the parts in Italics are his replies to me.
"I've heard that some of the Chinese characters reflect what is told in the Bible. Though I heard the same thing originally from an oriental friend, and I've also seen it elsewhere on the Internet, the information below comes from a woman who is a professional linguist, Chinese language instructor, and e-learning specialist for TutorChinese, who has her Masters in translation."
DLim: Analysis of words hardly has anything to do with translation.
"For example, with the Chinese word "Chuan," which in English means "boat" or "ship," the Chinese characters represents 8 people on a boat, the same number that was on Noah's Ark."
DLim: Yes. But remember this is post-engineering. We have no way of knowing how ancient words were made. Also, not all words are found linked to the Bible stories.
"With the word "Fu" in Chinese, which in English means "blessing," the characters show God creating a garden. This reminds us of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, which was a blessing from God."
DLim: Not true. The left part or radical is “god” or representing “all things attributing to God or any god. The right side is 1, mouth, field. There is marked difference between a field and a garden. The word may speak of personal contentment of having a field to feed 1 mouth, which is given by God.
Another explanation is 1 field given by God to live on. There is no indication of any couple, husband and wife, or 1 male with 1 female.
"Zao," which in English means "creation," has the characters of dust, breath, life, and walk. Adam was from the dust, and God breathed into him the breath of life, and then Adam was given life and movement and was able to walk. Genesis 2:7 says, "the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."
DLim: No. The word is more like construct or make.
Taking the word for creation, there is 1 mouth in the left radical; and the right part could be a knife. A little pushed to take the mouth for breath, though it is feasible.
The word for construct has a mouth on the right part and a boat part. Boat part usually signifies travel or transport.
It is pushing using mouth to signify breathe.
"Lan" in English means "to covet or desire." The Chinese character can be deciphered as 'woman' and 'trees,' which pictures a woman making a decision between two trees. In Genesis 2:8-9, it says there was a tree of life and a tree of knowledge of good and evil."
DLim: I do not know what word that is referring to.
The word “want” has a woman at the bottom but I fail to see 2 trees.
(cont.)
(cont.)
ReplyDelete"And of course Mormons believe that God is made of flesh and bone like us, and if God were to walk among us, He would look just like a man. Mormons also believe that a good Mormon has the potential to become a God and create His own universe, and the babies that he and his wives will have will be the spirits that inhabit the bodies on the planets that he creates. Mormons do not accept the Trinity in the same way that Christians do (they don't believe that God is a spirit, and they don't believe the Holy Spirit is a Person). They also don't believe in salvation by faith alone. So, Mormons basically believe in billions of gods, but they won't tell you that. They say they only worship one God, and that's because they worship the God of THIS universe."
DLim: Just like any religion after years of development, it has broken down to many denominations in the passage of time. The original form is no longer the only form and no longer representative of it all.
There is 1 branch of Mormons that turned Evangelical and teach with reasoning Theology very close to traditional Evangelicalism. Like traditional Evangelicalism there was a split down the passage of time into 2 sections or denominations; one being anti-Charismatic and the other being Charismatic.
It is so wrong and evil to retain the name and revere the origins of the Religion or Cult when almost everything has been changed to Christian format. I favored Transformed Faith and not Reformed Faith. Being Born Again is not having a makeover sometime in the past. A progression to closeness with God through life or living is Liberalism; not being acceptable. But people are not perfected completely in this life, and it is a change of heart and the desire to surrender all to Christ that I would be concerned with. I also would like to see the remaining evil discarded. So, I would give some of such Evangelical Mormon probation and conditional acceptance as Christian denominations. But I would in no time let my churches receive them as Biblical Christians and brethren without problems holding to Christian traditions from the very beginning(they simply are not). They have not renounced those who are simply evil and unbiblical through and through. Same treatment I offer to Evangelical Catholics and Charismatic Catholics. They are not alright; and they are not parts of my denominations, not gathered to me or my churches.
(cont.)
ReplyDelete"Jin" in English means "forbidden" (adjective) or "to warn" (verb). The Chinese origin character demonstrates again how God asked Adam and Eve to choose between the two trees in the garden, and consists of segments that represent 'trees' and 'the command of God,' meaning "God made a commandment about the two trees."
DLim: 2 trees on top. Yes.
"In the movie "The God Makers," which is also a book that I own, they claimed that "Mormon" in Chinese means "Gates of Hell."
DLim: Yes.
It also sounds like touching or rubbing the door. So, we make jokes in teaching disciples that these evangelists come to your doors and massage them.
"Well, years ago, at a company I used to work at, there was a Chinese guy (from Hong Kong or China, I don't remember) who spoke Chinese, and I asked him if that were true, After thinking about it for a few minutes, he drew me a diagram and told me what all the pieces meant, and I labeled the pieces as he told me what they meant. I just now found the paper from years ago where he drew out the different characters for "Mormon" for me. It's 3 characters stacked on top of each other. If I understand it correctly, the top two characters mean "Mormon," and all three mean "Mormon Chow." The top one translates as "Mor," which means "magical tricks,"
DLim: Correct.
"and the bottom half of that piece translates as "ghost." The entire thing means "Hell."
DLim: I do not see that.
"He told me that Mormon missionaries to China changed the written form of the Chinese characters to mean "praying hands," since the Chinese would not accept them, since "Mormon" means "Hell,"
DLim: It can mean “evil subject” or “gate of evil”.
"and it is also a place in China where they practice voodoo, black magic, etc."
DLim: OK.
(cont.)
Good to provide balance, Jeff.
ReplyDeleteBravo.
'There is 1 branch of Mormons that turned Evangelical and teach with reasoning Theology very close to traditional Evangelicalism.'
ReplyDeleteThe name?
Thanks, Jeff.
'There is 1 branch of Mormons that turned Evangelical and teach with reasoning Theology very close to traditional Evangelicalism.'
ReplyDeleteThe name?
I wrote back to him and said, in part:
"I have studied the beliefs of the Latter-Day Saints/Mormons on and off for years, and have worked
with a couple of them and have had some discussions with them. I have never heard of Evangelical ones such as you are talking about, but I know there are splinter groups. All the ones I have talked to and studied about are definitely not Christians. They deny salvation by faith alone. When I was a volunteer for Big Brothers/Big Sisters, the family of the "little" or "little brother" that was assigned to me had a framed painting on the wall in their house, of Jesus and God. God was pictured as a man. It also had a dove, which represented the Holy Spirit. All the Mormons I have ever talked to believe that Christians do not have the truth."
His reply to me, in part, was:
There are good books on Chinese words related to Christianity. Some great Evangelical preachers also preached the Gospel using the words. One of such video program is made by SOBEM, in Toronto, Canada. Try contacting this organization via internet. Just get to some big Chinese Christian Bookstore and you are very likely to discover some of such work.
I came across Evangelical Mormons years ago in debate sites on the internet.
BTW, I did not tell him this, but also, in the book, "The God Makers," on pp. 72-73, it says, "Opening a copy of Anton La Vey's Satanic Bible to the page listing "Infernal Names," Ed says, "Look at this. The god of the ghouls is named 'Mormo.' His followers would be Mormons." "That's just the kind of conclusion we can't jump to!" retorts the older attorney sharply. "It could be just a coincidence." "Except for the fact," adds Ed, "that Mormons are obsessed with genealogies and Temple rites and rituals for the dead, who they believe can visit the living, and who can convert to Mormonism even in the grave."
In addition, Wikipedia says this:
"In Greek mythology, Mormo (Greek: Μορμώ, Μορμών, Mormō) was a spirit who bit bad children, said to have been a companion of the goddess Hecate. The name was also used to signify a female vampire-like creature in stories told to Greek children by their nurses to keep them from misbehaving. This reference is primarily found in some of the plays of Aristophanes."
Wikipedia also says (which is the same thing "The God Makers" says):
"According to Anton LaVey, in The Satanic Bible, Mormo is the "King of the Ghouls, consort of Hecate."
Wikipedia mentions this as well:
"Joanna Scanlan plays a character called Mormo in the 2007 movie Stardust, which is based on a novel by Neil Gaiman. In this movie, Mormo is an evil witch who lives with her sisters..."
In addition, Wikipedia mentions this:
"The Horror at Red Hook by H. P. Lovecraft, 1925, describes an inscription to Hecate, Gorgo, and Mormo, found in the raid of Red Hook."
I looked up "The Horror at Red Hook" and found this line:
'O friend and companion of night, thou who rejoicest in the baying of dogs and spilt blood, who wanderest in the midst of shades among the tombs, who longest for blood and bringest terror to mortals, Gorgo, Mormo, thousand-faced moon, look favourably on our sacrifices!'
'I came across Evangelical Mormons years ago in debate sites on the internet.'
ReplyDeleteSounds 'iffy'. I am skeptical.
Thanks, Jeff.
Hank Hanegraaff speaks with Dr. Tom Woodward about his newest book, Darwin Strikes Back, and discusses other items pertaining to intelligent design
ReplyDeleteWoodward Wiki
I listened to the last 45 minutes of this discussion and Woodward seemed to know his material, even though he is more of a theologian than a scientist based on his degrees. As much as I do not agree with Hanegraaff in regard to Reformed theology and compatibilism and disagree with his continual radio marketing of his books and others CRI sells at the expense of noting other scholarship, I admit Hank's book on evolution 'The Face That Demonstrates The Farce of Evolution', although introductory, seemed well-researched.
In the discussion, I liked the differentiation between creationism and intelligent design which I have seen explained before. The former having more of a Biblical emphasis.
MMMMMM...
ReplyDeleteAloha from Hawaii my Friend!
Comfort Spiral
Yes, Hawaii is on my future vacation list.
ReplyDeleteThanks.
Russ:)
If you want to see a funny yet GRAPHIC Roland vs the King video, type or cut and paste this link to you tube.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=md_zhBZfnd0&feature=related
I thought it was super funny, but it is not for the faint of heart. It last about 10 seconds and it is on a loop for over a minute.
It is a drive by shooting of the Burger king shooting Roland Mc donald. Rick b
It looks like ketchup.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Rick.
Russ and Rick,
ReplyDeleteCheck out this MMA fight HERE.
Boring fight until the terrific bunch of punches.
ReplyDeleteI am not much into MMA or boxing but I do take something from this fight, lesson wise.
The military/agent type trainers teach to go for the 'kill' as in knockout as soon as possible, if one is forced to fight, especially since on the street one could be facing weapons and/or multiple opponents.
Mir fought defensively and perhaps hesitated and paid a huge price. May I not that make that mistake as I did in Manchester. I won the fight against 2-3 on 'points' but was bottled unexpectedly. A boring, defensive fight can escalate in the level of violence quickly.
Thanks, Jeff.