Neil wrote:
Strawman: I never said we should argue for God's existence, however fashionable (but mistaken) that may be. Nor did I claim that by reason alone they can be won; by rational argumentation, we glorify God, who alone ordains the outcome.
Atheists need to be told why they are fools (as Scripture says), or else it's mere name-calling.

Neil wrote:
"Gil Rugh said or, wrote..."
"Atheists can listen to Gil on the Internet as much as they want."
Jim, that's hardly germane. How about a "Warning to Atheists" instead? It is surprising that for all the sermons you love to foist on us, you cannot come up with one which answers the common & irrational objections made by atheists. Either you're not paying attention, or Rugh, in almost criminal negligence of the flock, doesn't care about basic apologetics. At least Wilson is trying.

There is no point in arguing with atheists. They cannot be won by reason, although our faith in Christ is quite reasonable. They are fools with darkened understanding. It requires a work of the Holy Spirit before they can hear and see.

San Jose John wrote:
Still, I saw a couple of doccumentaries of Collumbine on the History Channel which focused mainly on the two disturbed young men who perpetrated that massacre.

The case got a lot of attention because the media like to emphasize murder sprees by guns, while ignoring lives saved by judicious use of guns as self-protection, and also ignoring or at least de-emphasizing crimes perpetrated by groups they tend to protect, like homosexuals and crazy arsonist animal rights groups. Most weapons policies at schools were formulated after Columbine.

When I was a kid, we took guns to school to learn how to use them safely. They are, after all, inanimate objects: tools just like hammers, saws, etc. Learning to use them safely takes away the mystery and instills a certain respect for their power.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
After reading some about Doug Wilson, I think we Christians need another champion -- like the Apostle Paul.

Here's something to chew on: If God's perfect law given to his chosen people couldn't make Israel moral, why would we think imperfect laws given to Americans would somehow do better? One of the great tragedies of Puritan theology is the idea that the OT law is a "guide to life" for believers, and this Reconstructionist theology is one of the thorns of that abandonment of Pauline theology.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
As far as Dispensationalists are concerned, we hope the ne adminstration does better than the old one, [URL=http://www.levitt.com/letters/2003-09.html]]]"this is our “Back to School Issue" 2003[/URL].
I can't say too much for Rev. Nyquist's undergraduate school, but Dallas Theological Seminary still holds a fairly good reputation.

John UK wrote:
I do like the idea of a primary and secondary purpose for the vision. Say, Robert, are you anywhere near Sheldon? I hear George Malkmus is building an entire village where Christians can buy property and have all the healthy facilities close by. Here's tickler for you: where do cows get their protein from?

I looked up George Malkmus. I don't find any town named Sheldon in North Carolina - he's located near Shelby, NC, which is about an hour and a half from me. It appears he has built himself a profitable business from the diet.

As to the cows, they can digest things we can't - like grass. They have four stomachs and special bacteria in their guts. There's no real comparison.

As to the discussion on cooking, canning, etc., I have a question: why do we always assume the ancients were less advanced than us? They were certainly much smarter than we are, not dumber. (Just for example, would the ancients have mistaken Hollywood actors for philosophers or politicians?)

John UK wrote:
Jesus under the old covenant would have been limited in his eating as any Jew was. As for Peter, as I said in the other debate, I don't believe the vision was about food at all, but the incorrect attitude of Peter towards non-Jews.
I'm ready to be corrected, but I see not how following the HD can make folks "very ill".

As to Jesus, of course he followed the dietary laws perfectly, since he was under the law during his earthly ministry (at least, before his resurrection).

Actually, the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit is much more than God's power or presence. He is God, and one of the persons of God.

The main thing I glean from this poll (like most polls) is that a lot of people who call themselves Christians are shamefully ignorant of what the Bible says. Small wonder that there are so many heresies abroad.

prince charles wrote:
apart from the shellfish robert Lev 9

Jim Lincoln wrote:
I wonder if the,
Webster Dictionary 1913 wrote:
THUG
Thug /Thug/ (?), n. [Hind. thag a deceiver, robber.] One of an association of robbers and murderers in India who practiced murder by stealthy approaches, and from religious motives. They have been nearly exterminated by the British government.
started this protection of Hindu dignity?

From what I understand, the Hindoos generally oppose Christianity not so much on religious grounds, but on economic grounds, since once the Dalits become Christian, they discover that they are made in God's image and refused to be economically exploited by the wealthy Hindoos. This causes reprisals by the Hindoos in an effort to get the Dalits back in line, working under what amounts to slavery conditions.

John UK wrote:
#5 Those who declined to comment may be considering the effect of diet on health, particularly in America, where sickness is rampant, and illness is nowhere near combatted. But I reckon that on the Hallelujah Diet or similar, some 95% of ailments would be prevented or cured.

I see nothing wrong with abstaining from meat if one is so inclined for health reasons. To require others to do so, or to believe that it is somehow more spiritual, though, is just plain wrong. The vegetarians included in the category of the weaker brothers by Paul. So, let's not offend our brothers, but how many of you are coming from a culture that offers meat to idols, or from the Jewish dietary restrictions?

Brown wrote:
Well I'll be blowed!
He must have been reading Sermonaudio, this is the one I told Obama to go to.

"Do not be alarmed if you don't have 100% faith," he said. "Do not be alarmed if you don't understand everything. It takes time to be a believer."

Mr. Leon, let me help you: Easter, or Resurrection Sunday, is the celbration of the day that Jesus became the first man to be resurrected, never to die again. It is the proof that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God. It is the basis of our hope that his work on the cross was accepted by God, and that we can now be reconciled to God through faith in his son.

Josh Z wrote:
This is the same National Association of Evangelicals that gave the world the likes of Ted Haggard

Imagine Roman prelates frowning upon any ritual! You are right about this, Lance: journalists get it wrong more often than not. Maybe they cribbed this article from the Vatican Press service.

I wonder where these poor, deluded souls ever got the crazy idea that self-inflicted pain and suffering would earn them favor in the sight of God? Surely not from the very prelates who are now embarrassed at the too-public manifestation of the practical outworking of their hellish doctrine?

Jesus paid it all. It is finished. The cross is empty, and Jesus has risen from the dead and ascended into heaven. He's not in a little breadbox, and you cannot pay for your own sins by pretending to be crucified. If you were somehow to come across the actual shroud that Jesus was wrapped in for the short time he was dead, it would still be just a piece of linen with no magical powers to save your soul.

In fact, you can do absolutely nothing to pay for your sins. You will never be good enough! Your only hope is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and what he accomplished on the cross.