Can Atheists go to Heaven?

[pat]

[quote]kamui wrote:
a few things :

-the darkness of the dark ages is vastly overrated.
It has been heavily revised by the most recent historiography.
[/quote]
Agreed. Much technology did actually come out of the supposed dark ages.

-the cosmological argument is basically right.
But it may very well be a correct answer to a wrong question. (ie : in itself, it is not enough to disprove radical scepticism which is a theoretically valid position, yet a practically untenable one).

You can’t get rid of skepticism unless you get rid of skeptics. But the fact that there are skeptics doesn’t affect the correctness of the argument.

In other words : the only way to refute it is to deny the existence of causality itself.
Which can be perfectly be done.
One must simply be aware of the “cost” of such a position.

I don’t think it cane be done. If you have an example I’d like to see it. However, you are sooo right on the cost. Most of the people do not realize that if you undo causation, not only is God not know able. Nothing is knowable. All knowledge is gone and there are no answers to questions. Answers cannot be known because the answer to any question is then completely random. ‘What started the French Revolution?’ Squirrel!

-there is two very different ways to understand the concept of a first cause.
It is either uncaused (ie transcendant)
or self-caused. (ie : immanent)

Christian believe it’s the former. I believe it is the latter.

By definition it’s the former. Even if it was self caused, then that makes it caused, which an uncaused-cause cannot be. It would be then a self-caused-cause.

[sufiandy]

[quote]pat wrote:
There cannot be another uncaused-cause, because the act of regression does not allow for that. You’d have to divide the causal chain, which isn’t possible.
[/quote]

I get that it can’t be divided. But referring to it as a chain indicates there is a beginning and end, how do you know that is true?

[Tiribulus]

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote-there is two very different ways to understand the concept of a first cause.
It is either uncaused (ie transcendant)
or self-caused. (ie : immanent)
Christian believe it’s the former. I believe it is the latter.
[/quote]Understood correctly I say it’s both. The Father is uncaused, the Son is eternally begotten of the Father and the Spirit proceeds from both.
[/quote]Fair enough.
I was thinking about the Father, specifically. And oversimplifying. [/quote]That’s fine. You are aware, I know, that my solution to the problem of the one and the many is right here. We should keep that in Chris’s thread or get back to the epistemology one though.

[kamui]

You can’t get rid of skepticism unless you get rid of skeptics.

Cædite eos. novit enim dominus qui sunt eius.^^

[quote]
I don’t think it cane be done. If you have an example I’d like to see it. However, you are sooo right on the cost. Most of the people do not realize that if you undo causation, not only is God not know able. Nothing is knowable. All knowledge is gone and there are no answers to questions. Answers cannot be known because the answer to any question is then completely random. ‘What started the French Revolution?’ Squirrel! [/quote]

Basically, yes.
But this pure, meaningless chaos is still a possibility.

In practice, no one can really believe this.
But we can still conceive it, theoretically.
And we can’t give an hard absolute proof that it is not the case.

Granted, most contemporary philosophies acknowledge that causality is a transcendantal principle. But that’s the best we can do after Hume.
And it does not mean it is an ontological/objective reality.

So, you need a “leap of faith” to affirm it.
If one refuse to make this “leap of faith”, one will not be “touched” by the cosmological argument in any way. But as i said, the cost is extremely high.

[quote]
By definition it’s the former. Even if it was self caused, then that makes it caused, which an uncaused-cause cannot be. It would be then a self-caused-cause.[/quote]

Obviously, but the cosmological argument does not require a uncaused-cause.
It only implies that, at some point, the regress is stopped.
A self-caused first cause definetely do that.

[pat]

[quote]kamui wrote:

You can’t get rid of skepticism unless you get rid of skeptics.

Cædite eos. novit enim dominus qui sunt eius.^^

I don’t think it cane be done. If you have an example I’d like to see it. However, you are sooo right on the cost. Most of the people do not realize that if you undo causation, not only is God not know able. Nothing is knowable. All knowledge is gone and there are no answers to questions. Answers cannot be known because the answer to any question is then completely random. ‘What started the French Revolution?’ Squirrel! [/quote]

Basically, yes.
But this pure, meaningless chaos is still a possibility.

In practice, no one can really believe this.
But we can still conceive it, theoretically.
And we can’t give an hard absolute proof that it is not the case.

Granted, most contemporary philosophies acknowledge that causality is a transcendantal principle. But that’s the best we can do after Hume.
And it does not mean it is an ontological/objective reality.

So, you need a “leap of faith” to affirm it.
If one refuse to make this “leap of faith”, one will not be “touched” by the cosmological argument in any way. But as i said, the cost is extremely high.

My only problem with it is that chaos, true chaos, requires something to happen for no reason, which in essence is something from noting. It’s more than a practical problem.

[quote]

By definition it’s the former. Even if it was self caused, then that makes it caused, which an uncaused-cause cannot be. It would be then a self-caused-cause.[/quote]

Obviously, but the cosmological argument does not require a uncaused-cause.
It only implies that, at some point, the regress is stopped.
A self-caused first cause definetely do that.

The self-caused entity could do that, but the self caused entity is a circular position.

[pat]

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
There cannot be another uncaused-cause, because the act of regression does not allow for that. You’d have to divide the causal chain, which isn’t possible.
[/quote]

I get that it can’t be divided. But referring to it as a chain indicates there is a beginning and end, how do you know that is true?[/quote]

It would be more a branching structure. And it can have a beginning and an end, it can have a beginning and no end, but it cannot have neither a beginning or an end. The reason is that it would require an infinite regress. Infinite regress is a fallacy because it’s circular, it begs the question. The only way to avoid that is to regress it to a beginning.

[sufiandy]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
There cannot be another uncaused-cause, because the act of regression does not allow for that. You’d have to divide the causal chain, which isn’t possible.
[/quote]

I get that it can’t be divided. But referring to it as a chain indicates there is a beginning and end, how do you know that is true?[/quote]

It would be more a branching structure. And it can have a beginning and an end, it can have a beginning and no end, but it cannot have neither a beginning or an end. The reason is that it would require an infinite regress. Infinite regress is a fallacy because it’s circular, it begs the question. The only way to avoid that is to regress it to a beginning.
[/quote]

What is wrong with infinite regress in this case? I’m not trying to prove or disprove anything so a logical fallacy is not a problem here. It seems the assumption of a beginning was only added in the first place so the argument could be turned into a logical one.

[pat]

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
There cannot be another uncaused-cause, because the act of regression does not allow for that. You’d have to divide the causal chain, which isn’t possible.
[/quote]

I get that it can’t be divided. But referring to it as a chain indicates there is a beginning and end, how do you know that is true?[/quote]

It would be more a branching structure. And it can have a beginning and an end, it can have a beginning and no end, but it cannot have neither a beginning or an end. The reason is that it would require an infinite regress. Infinite regress is a fallacy because it’s circular, it begs the question. The only way to avoid that is to regress it to a beginning.
[/quote]

What is wrong with infinite regress in this case? I’m not trying to prove or disprove anything so a logical fallacy is not a problem here. It seems the assumption of a beginning was only added in the first place so the argument could be turned into a logical one.[/quote]

The infinite regress has the problem that it begs the question. In the regress, you will necessarily get to a point where has an ‘is because it is’ scenario. This cannot be either in argument form or in reality. Logic is the boss of reality, it’s the ultimate law. If something is illogical it cannot be correct in anyway. So no the regress cannot be infinite, period.

Yes, the conclusion solves the problem. That’s the simple elegance of deductive arguments. There can be one solution to one problem. It’s also is Achilles heal. Where inductive arguments can with stand an anomaly, deductive arguments are wrong. If one thing with in the argument is a little off, the whole argument is wrong.

[sufiandy]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
There cannot be another uncaused-cause, because the act of regression does not allow for that. You’d have to divide the causal chain, which isn’t possible.
[/quote]

I get that it can’t be divided. But referring to it as a chain indicates there is a beginning and end, how do you know that is true?[/quote]

It would be more a branching structure. And it can have a beginning and an end, it can have a beginning and no end, but it cannot have neither a beginning or an end. The reason is that it would require an infinite regress. Infinite regress is a fallacy because it’s circular, it begs the question. The only way to avoid that is to regress it to a beginning.
[/quote]

What is wrong with infinite regress in this case? I’m not trying to prove or disprove anything so a logical fallacy is not a problem here. It seems the assumption of a beginning was only added in the first place so the argument could be turned into a logical one.[/quote]

The infinite regress has the problem that it begs the question. In the regress, you will necessarily get to a point where has an ‘is because it is’ scenario. This cannot be either in argument form or in reality. Logic is the boss of reality, it’s the ultimate law. If something is illogical it cannot be correct in anyway. So no the regress cannot be infinite, period.

Yes, the conclusion solves the problem. That’s the simple elegance of deductive arguments. There can be one solution to one problem. It’s also is Achilles heal. Where inductive arguments can with stand an anomaly, deductive arguments are wrong. If one thing with in the argument is a little off, the whole argument is wrong. [/quote]

What is the “is because it is” scenario in the infinite regress here? There is no reason time cannot be infinite in both directions and we are just sitting in the middle of that timeline. When you go backwards to find the beginning you never get there so there is no point in asking questions about something that we don’t know even exists.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< So, I have heard the answers before, but I would like to get a clear, hopefully concise one, to this question:

What was going on before your were graced with the power of the Holy Spirit (you personally or generally, doesn’t matter)? >>>[/quote]I was dead and damned and would have gone to hell had I died or Jesus returned during that time.
That however was not the decree of God. Being one of those that the Father had given to the Son before the foundation of the world, it was not possible that either would happen.[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< I’m sure you know that we, as Catholics, kind of snort at the idea that someone who proclaimed Jesus as his Savior with his mouth, then lived an ostensibly Christian life, then fell off the wagon hard, was not really graced at all. >>>[/quote]Frankly I don’t know that. It may be doctrine, but it is absolutely NOT practiced. I understand your point though and I’ll give it to you for the sake of this exchange.[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< What do you think about this, and also what happens if he comes back into the fold and stays that way? What was going on up to then? What if he goes back and forth a whole bunch (as many do) but finally spends the last portion of his life living ostensibly as a Christian would? He was granted grace only at the very end, or perhaps not at all, right? >>>[/quote]I know the following things for certain(as concisely as I can be):
John 6:37-40[quote]37-"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. 38-"For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39-"This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40-"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.[/quote]Ephesian 4:30[quote]30-Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.[/quote]1 John 2:19[quote]They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, in order that it might be shown that they all are not of us[/quote]There are OODLES more. Those who wind up in heaven were given to the Son by the Father. ALL of them WILL come and NONE will be eternally lost, but will be raised on the last day. If someone is lost they were never saved. The parable of the sower (Matt. 13:18-23) elaborates on this in some detail. The thief on the cross who was being executed for crimes he admitted to being guilty of at that moment in which he was being executed for them and about to die, was told by Jesus Himself that that day he would be with Him in paradise despite a life of sin up until his last few hours.
Here’s the sticky part. We are not directly privy to the heart of another as God is. I have absolutely NO certain knowledge of the eternal election of any person other than myself. I don’t know when or if somebody else is saved. I can, in many cases, know for sure and so can you that they are not presently under grace and therefore living in new life in Christ. A person who lives a flagrantly sinful life or proclaims fatally heretical doctrine in a decidedly unrepentant manner is deluded if they think Jesus has saved them. I’m not talking about somebody who is struggling like Paul talks about in the 7th of Romans. I’m talking about people who are in open immorality or think that Jesus the Christ is the divine spark in all of us for instance.
On the other hand we have the prodigal son who was living in horrific rebellion and carnality and yet upon repentance is welcomed back by his father. Much to the chagrin of his brother I might add. How bout the guy in Corinth (1st Corinthians 5) who was in publicly known adultery with his step mother? Paul told them to put him out along with anyone else matching a list of sins he catalogs there. Don’t even EAT with them he says. Why? Because if they belong to the Lord, isolating them from the fellowship of the saints will break their heart and drive them to repentance and it did. In the 2nd epistle he tells them to restore the man and be merciful to him as he had repented and shown his heart to be raised in Christ. This is where Rome has less than ZERO credibility(another topic, but I couldn’t help it)
Bottom line? ALL of the elect will be infallibly saved in the end. Some will stumble in grotesque glaringly public fashion along the way. Some will look every bit the believer as true ones and will not have been. (Lord Lord, did we not… I never knew you. Matt 7). God alone knows who the elect are and He alone discerns these people aright.[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< Finally, if grace is not ours to accept or resist, >>> [/quote] This is a one sided way to characterize sovereign grace. We ARE responsible for accepting or rejecting it, but faith itself is the gift of God(Ephesians 2:8-9) of which Christ is both author and finisher (Hebrews 12:2). “It is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure”(Philippians 2:13) [quote]Cortes wrote:<<< what then is the role of Satan in all of this? Isn’t he just like a spooky backdrop of a creepy forest and some ominous organ music until we are finally thrown into the lake of fire where he will actually start doing something? >>>[/quote]Satan is absolutely governed by God himself. This is everywhere evinced in the bible from Genesis to Revelation. He had to ask permission before attacking Job for instance (Chapter1), but he also goes about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour(1st Peter 5:8). He and his disguise themselves as ministers of righteousness(boy do they ever today) because Satan Himself appears as an angel of light(2 Corinthians 11:12-15). Clearly he is “the god(small g) of this world {who} has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe”(2nd Corinthians 4:4). He, just like absolutely EVERY other fact of reality is so ordered by God as to bring glory to His holy name. Yes, ALL of his evil accomplishes the purpose of the God who CANNOT fail. So much for concision, but I really tried. I did not want to let this post go and honestly. I could write a 16 part(at last) sermon series and matching study guide for the topics you have brought up. Lemme know how I did =]

[Cortes]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote-there is two very different ways to understand the concept of a first cause.
It is either uncaused (ie transcendant)
or self-caused. (ie : immanent)
Christian believe it’s the former. I believe it is the latter.
[/quote]Understood correctly I say it’s both. The Father is uncaused, the Son is eternally begotten of the Father and the Spirit proceeds from both.
[/quote]

That’s pretty cool, actually. I never thought about the phrase “eternally begotten of the father” that way until now.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote-there is two very different ways to understand the concept of a first cause.
It is either uncaused (ie transcendant)
or self-caused. (ie : immanent)
Christian believe it’s the former. I believe it is the latter.
[/quote]Understood correctly I say it’s both. The Father is uncaused, the Son is eternally begotten of the Father and the Spirit proceeds from both.
[/quote]

That’s pretty cool, actually. I never thought about the phrase “eternally begotten of the father” that way until now. [/quote]That is also absolutely the solution to “the problem of the one and the many”, which I believe will occupy the upcoming chapter between Kamui and I to a large degree. I need a week off work to do nothing but write posts to people here if I ever plan to catch legitimately up. That’s actually not an exaggeration.

[pat]

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
There cannot be another uncaused-cause, because the act of regression does not allow for that. You’d have to divide the causal chain, which isn’t possible.
[/quote]

I get that it can’t be divided. But referring to it as a chain indicates there is a beginning and end, how do you know that is true?[/quote]

It would be more a branching structure. And it can have a beginning and an end, it can have a beginning and no end, but it cannot have neither a beginning or an end. The reason is that it would require an infinite regress. Infinite regress is a fallacy because it’s circular, it begs the question. The only way to avoid that is to regress it to a beginning.
[/quote]

What is wrong with infinite regress in this case? I’m not trying to prove or disprove anything so a logical fallacy is not a problem here. It seems the assumption of a beginning was only added in the first place so the argument could be turned into a logical one.[/quote]

The infinite regress has the problem that it begs the question. In the regress, you will necessarily get to a point where has an ‘is because it is’ scenario. This cannot be either in argument form or in reality. Logic is the boss of reality, it’s the ultimate law. If something is illogical it cannot be correct in anyway. So no the regress cannot be infinite, period.

Yes, the conclusion solves the problem. That’s the simple elegance of deductive arguments. There can be one solution to one problem. It’s also is Achilles heal. Where inductive arguments can with stand an anomaly, deductive arguments are wrong. If one thing with in the argument is a little off, the whole argument is wrong. [/quote]

What is the “is because it is” scenario in the infinite regress here?
[/quote]
That’s the ultimate result of an infinite regress, it’s circular.

There is no reason time cannot be infinite in both directions and we are just sitting in the middle of that timeline.

First, infinite time is not an infinite regress, and neither is going back in time. Second, time is not relevant to the issue. Third, time is only a function of relative measure either against another object, or space. If everything in the universe simultaneously stops, things exist and there is no time. In metaphysics, the lack of physical objects means its an existence with out time. Time is not a relevant issue to the argument. You remove time, you still have causation.

[quote]
When you go backwards to find the beginning you never get there so there is no point in asking questions about something that we don’t know even exists.[/quote]

Going backwards isn’t necessarily what a regress is, though it’s implications seem that way. It’s more like peeling the layers of an onion to get to it’s core. For every step in regress, you are removing a wrapping of properties from a selected object, be it physical or not.

Quit worrying about time and things become much more clear. Time is just a measurement, it’s exists as a function of physical objects moving or changing.
Also understand that these ‘infinite’ space, times, universes, stuff are just possibilities, not known realities by any stretch. They are possibilities only because they haven’t been eliminated, yet. As far as real world, physical infinity, no such thing exists, at all. This universe we live in is quite finite. If it were not, it would be almost impossible to measure and therefore know anything about it.

[Makavali]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< So, I have heard the answers before, but I would like to get a clear, hopefully concise one, to this question:

What was going on before your were graced with the power of the Holy Spirit (you personally or generally, doesn’t matter)? >>>[/quote]I was dead and damned and would have gone to hell had I died or Jesus returned during that time.
That however was not the decree of God. Being one of those that the Father had given to the Son before the foundation of the world, it was not possible that either would happen.[/quote]

So much for clear and concise.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< So, I have heard the answers before, but I would like to get a clear, hopefully concise one, to this question:

What was going on before your were graced with the power of the Holy Spirit (you personally or generally, doesn’t matter)? >>>[/quote]I was dead and damned and would have gone to hell had I died or Jesus returned during that time.
That however was not the decree of God. Being one of those that the Father had given to the Son before the foundation of the world, it was not possible that either would happen.[/quote]

So much for clear and concise.[/quote]He understood. Good to see your smiling feline face around here again Mak.

[Cortes]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< So, I have heard the answers before, but I would like to get a clear, hopefully concise one, to this question:

What was going on before your were graced with the power of the Holy Spirit (you personally or generally, doesn’t matter)? >>>[/quote]I was dead and damned and would have gone to hell had I died or Jesus returned during that time.
That however was not the decree of God. Being one of those that the Father had given to the Son before the foundation of the world, it was not possible that either would happen.[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< I’m sure you know that we, as Catholics, kind of snort at the idea that someone who proclaimed Jesus as his Savior with his mouth, then lived an ostensibly Christian life, then fell off the wagon hard, was not really graced at all. >>>[/quote]Frankly I don’t know that. It may be doctrine, but it is absolutely NOT practiced. I understand your point though and I’ll give it to you for the sake of this exchange.[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< What do you think about this, and also what happens if he comes back into the fold and stays that way? What was going on up to then? What if he goes back and forth a whole bunch (as many do) but finally spends the last portion of his life living ostensibly as a Christian would? He was granted grace only at the very end, or perhaps not at all, right? >>>[/quote]I know the following things for certain(as concisely as I can be):
John 6:37-40[quote]37-"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. 38-"For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39-"This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40-"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.[/quote]Ephesian 4:30[quote]30-Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.[/quote]1 John 2:19[quote]They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, in order that it might be shown that they all are not of us[/quote]There are OODLES more. Those who wind up in heaven were given to the Son by the Father. ALL of them WILL come and NONE will be eternally lost, but will be raised on the last day. If someone is lost they were never saved. The parable of the sower (Matt. 13:18-23) elaborates on this in some detail. The thief on the cross who was being executed for crimes he admitted to being guilty of at that moment in which he was being executed for them and about to die, was told by Jesus Himself that that day he would be with Him in paradise despite a life of sin up until his last few hours.
Here’s the sticky part. We are not directly privy to the heart of another as God is. I have absolutely NO certain knowledge of the eternal election of any person other than myself. I don’t know when or if somebody else is saved. I can, in many cases, know for sure and so can you that they are not presently under grace and therefore living in new life in Christ. A person who lives a flagrantly sinful life or proclaims fatally heretical doctrine in a decidedly unrepentant manner is deluded if they think Jesus has saved them. I’m not talking about somebody who is struggling like Paul talks about in the 7th of Romans. I’m talking about people who are in open immorality or think that Jesus the Christ is the divine spark in all of us for instance.
On the other hand we have the prodigal son who was living in horrific rebellion and carnality and yet upon repentance is welcomed back by his father. Much to the chagrin of his brother I might add. How bout the guy in Corinth (1st Corinthians 5) who was in publicly known adultery with his step mother? Paul told them to put him out along with anyone else matching a list of sins he catalogs there. Don’t even EAT with them he says. Why? Because if they belong to the Lord, isolating them from the fellowship of the saints will break their heart and drive them to repentance and it did. In the 2nd epistle he tells them to restore the man and be merciful to him as he had repented and shown his heart to be raised in Christ. This is where Rome has less than ZERO credibility(another topic, but I couldn’t help it)
Bottom line? ALL of the elect will be infallibly saved in the end. Some will stumble in grotesque glaringly public fashion along the way. Some will look every bit the believer as true ones and will not have been. (Lord Lord, did we not… I never knew you. Matt 7). God alone knows who the elect are and He alone discerns these people aright.[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< Finally, if grace is not ours to accept or resist, >>> [/quote] This is a one sided way to characterize sovereign grace. We ARE responsible for accepting or rejecting it, but faith itself is the gift of God(Ephesians 2:8-9) of which Christ is both author and finisher (Hebrews 12:2). “It is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure”(Philippians 2:13) [quote]Cortes wrote:<<< what then is the role of Satan in all of this? Isn’t he just like a spooky backdrop of a creepy forest and some ominous organ music until we are finally thrown into the lake of fire where he will actually start doing something? >>>[/quote]Satan is absolutely governed by God himself. This is everywhere evinced in the bible from Genesis to Revelation. He had to ask permission before attacking Job for instance (Chapter1), but he also goes about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour(1st Peter 5:8). He and his disguise themselves as ministers of righteousness(boy do they ever today) because Satan Himself appears as an angel of light(2 Corinthians 11:12-15). Clearly he is “the god(small g) of this world {who} has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe”(2nd Corinthians 4:4). He, just like absolutely EVERY other fact of reality is so ordered by God as to bring glory to His holy name. Yes, ALL of his evil accomplishes the purpose of the God who CANNOT fail. So much for concision, but I really tried. I did not want to let this post go and honestly. I could write a 16 part(at last) sermon series and matching study guide for the topics you have brought up. Lemme know how I did =]
[/quote]

Thanks for the response, Tirib. I am pretty pressed for time, myself. I’ll try and get to my own response later today or tomorrow. Hopefully.

No promises.

I know you understand.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< I know you understand. ;)[/quote]Indeed I do my friend. Sometimes I work on posts a little at a time in a txt document before posting it because I don’t have time. I’ve got at least one I can remember goin rght now. Whenever you can.