For those of you who don't know, John Stossel is a libertarian reporter for ABC news.  If you have the time (it's forty minutes long), check out this special he did for 20/20 about public schools....

Stupid In America

One thing I probably can never hope to understand is why people are so reluctant to accept this basic truth: one's actions are predicated upon one's desires.  Vice-versa, we also see that it is easy to determine one's desires from one's actions.  A person will work for something he/she wants, but will not work for something he/she doesn't want.  Actions are also good at determine the amount of desire, or priority, in someone's life.  One would like to do "a," but not by sacrificing "b," which more often than not is their own comfort.

In other words, stop lying to yourself.  If you truly want "a", you would do what was required to achieve "a" goals.  Even the Bible teaches us that, if we love God ("a"), we will keep His commandments ("a" goals/codicil).  We could even say that "a" goals are requirements to achieving "a", or at the very least proving the desire to achieve it.

So, how does this apply to life?  Well, if you care about someone, you make an effort to supply that person's wants and needs.  Basically, you yield your will to theirs.  Also, if you want to do something, say, be a part of a team, you will yield your desires for the good of the team.

Kapeesh?

***All this is is a roundabout way of saying all you people people, socialites at your core, really don't care about the people with whom you associate because, if you did, you would yield to them for a decent relationship.  Instead, tons of people just go around acting as if they have relationships with everyone when, honestly, their relationships consist of very little, save a "Hi" and a hug.  Youth socialites rarely have time-consuming real relationships because they get in the way of several fake relationships which supply nothing to any individual except the excuse of being "busy".  It's an issue of quality over quantity.

Will someone please explain to me why people hate America?

Well, wait, or you might get the wrong idea, not the people from other countries, but homegrown U.S. citizens.  Yeah, them...Why do they hate America?

I know the more leftish of you will say I'm speaking out of turn, but have you really heard what people like Rosie O' Donnell, Maggie Gyllenhaal, and a host of other celebrities have said?  "We're to blame!"

You know, I made the mistake of watching Real Time with Bill Maher. (Bill Maher, of course, has his head stuck up his rectum and claims he's a libertarian [yeah, right].)  On there, was D.L. Hughley stating, "You know, the impression I get from Republicans is that they hate the government...and if you hate what you do, nothing good can come of it."

Really, D.L. Hughley?  The man who struck out on the first of 1 vs. 100 b/c he didn't know the definition of an aristocrat has now stepped up to tell us what he thinks.  But, aside from that is a more pressing observation.  If you hate America, so much, how can you benefit from it and keep a straight face?

I mean, take Johnny Depp for example.  Johnny Depp stated in a interview, "America is dumb, is something like a dumb puppy that has big teeth—that can bite and hurt you, aggressive," along with other various comments about how he hates the U.S., but all his wealth comes from the U.S.!  Listen, Jack Sparrow, how can you bite the hand that feeds you?  Of course, his mainstream fanbase, not concerned with little things like temperment, sanity, and ethical consistency, has not faulted him.

If I worked for the Mafia as a butler or chaffeur, but said that I hated what they did and continually pontificated about how their actions were atrocious and terrible, no one would take me seriously.  I would be serving the mafia, just like these actors and actresses serve the American economy with their...ahem...art.

But, I guess, that when you live in a fantasy world, where you really don't work too much, and every little thing you do is special, that you eventually become full of your own crap and start to believe every bit of bs that comes out of your own mouth.  After all, the paparazzi still loves you...

Just like the title, comment whether you think Janis Joplin, specifically her voice (not the quality of any band she had),  was any good.

Most people will say that the type of wood and the shape of wood used in an electric guitar is important to the sound produced.  My question is why?

I mean, think about it.  The only thing producing a sound is the vibration of the strings at a certain high tension.  In acoustic guitars, since that vibration is difficult without amplification, the wood is shaped so that a sound hole is produced, a great hollow inside the main body of the guitar which amplifies and allows the strings to resonate.  However, the only thing picking up sound in an electric is the pick-ups, which connect to the input on the guitar and, via a cord to an amp, produce a sound.  So why does the wood affect that?

Here's where I'm coming from.  Personally, I maintain the opinion that people who buy Gibson guitars are primarily paying for a name.  Due to my experiences with them, the price customers must pay for them, and the exorbitant buy-in for small businesses (which is why Chambers doesn't carry Gibson), I sincerely believe that they are the most overrated guitar on the market today.  In all fairness, however, I'm trying to understand what makes a good guitar good before that opinion sets well with me.

Also, one could say that something's greatness is the sum of the greatness of all its part.  Do you agree that that rings true for guitars?

Someone posted this joke, and I honestly can't say it any better...

How many guitarists does it take to screw in a light bulb?

11: one to screw it in, and 10 to bitch about how they could have done it better.

Seriously, what is with the overabundance of people on youtube, who, whenever someone posts themselves playing guitar or a band playing, never fail to complain about how that guitarist/band totally blows?  It's ridiculous.  The worst is whenever someone *gasp* starts to "shred".  It's rock, folks; it's supposed to be over the top.

It's frustrating to know that there will always be a substantial majority of the people who refuse to perform in front of people but would rather critique everyone else to the small minority of people who have the balls to put their stuff out there, moreso if they're amateur, obviously.

I've begun a process, a difficult one for me.  Since music has always been one of the centers in my life, getting rid of all the music I have is equivalent to ripping out a piece of my heart; but the further I get into to doing this purge (so to speak), the better it feels to me to do it.

I don't feel that the music I've listened to is necessarily bad altogether for everyone: please don't misunderstand that point.  Metal, however, has been such a focus in my life that I feel it has consumed time away from God.  In doing these things such as trashing music magazines and cds and such the like, I feel like I can release all these things to God.  I'm not getting rid of my guitar, but if God wants me to, I will have to do it.

Furthermore, I don't expect people to understand why this must be, but I believe it's a part God has wanted to do in my life for a long time.

Please explain to me why, every time an older adult (typically 20+ years older than you) gets into an argument or a debate, they use a blanket statement such as "You're too young to understand or make a good point that I'll recognize."  That is the most disrespectful thing I can think of: if you're making a point, you're making a point, regardless of your age.  Get over the fact that some younger than you might actually have something to say of importance.

Today was a rough day...

A problem came to me quite clearly when I was thinking.  How I arrived at the problem is actually kinda funny because I don't remember how my train of thought got to this place.

It goes like this.  You can't impose a human sense of justice onto God for some circumstances and then retract that sense for others.  Actually, most Calvinists circumvent this issue quite efficiently, for no human understanding of God's justice is required as a result of their conception of God's sovereignty.  Most Arminians would agree that God does have the right, but would argue that God does not act unjustly (in the human sense) the majority of the time (i.e. God does not condemn people who can do nothing to avoid their fate).  This problem is not a Arminianism vs. Calvinism problem, though.


Most Christians rebutt the question "Why would God condemn small children?" with the age-old Age of Accountability.  Funny how this concept is almost universally accepted yet biblically unfounded, where biblically unfounded means that no verse in the Bible says that small children will automatically go to Heaven.  In this case, we would all have to agree that some human sense of justice is imposed on God's actions, in that God would not condemn the innocent based on what we believe about God in general; but no specific Scriptural basis can be used for this belief.

Suffice to say, some of the same people who adhere to the "Age of Accountability" will straight-facedly tell you that God will condemn those who have never heard the Gospel eternally with same measure of punishment as Satan himself.  So I have to wonder where is the justice in that?  If you look at Revelation, nothing says that those thrown into the Lake of Fire will burn eternally except Satan.  So, I'm going to assume that the Second Death is just that--the end to those souls.  You cannot impose a sense of justice (the age of accountability) and then retract it (the condemnation and equal punishment of everyone who dies without being saved).  It's flawed reasoning.

Ahhh...so many bands, so little time...

You seem so far away.

You seem like you couldn't care less.

You seem cold to me.

You seem like you think I'm merely an appurtenance along for the ride.

I feel like you don't respond.

I feel like I must intiate every bit of contact.

I feel like I'm trying for nothing.

*Edit*

Yes, it's about someone in particular...

Ok...

From what I can tell you didn't that site very well, or just skimmed through it and thought you read something that you didn't.  The point I think you're talking about is this:

"Interestingly, however, many Calvinists maintain that unregenerate people do possess free wills to some degree. John Piper states,

There is no doubt that man could perform more evil acts toward
his fellow man than he does. But if he is restrained from performing more evil
acts by motives that are not owing to his glad submission to God, then even
his "virtue" is evil in the sight of God (p. 5, prgh 2, emphasis added).

If unregenerate man could perform more evil acts toward his fellow man
but doesn't because he is restrained by some wrong inward
motive (thus the man is restrained by himself, and not some outside force),
then unregenerate man is making a moral decision by his own free will. Piper
also states, "Except for the continual exertion of saving grace, we will
always use our freedom to resist God" (p. 9, prgh. 6, emphasis added).
Note again the affirmation of the free will of regenerate and unregenerate man
("use our freedom"), but Piper believes that unregenerate man will
always use his freedom to resist God, because he is totally depraved."

You said:
"He makes strange assumptions
such as 'because man is doing something that God views as sin, it's
good because he's not doing sin.'"

No, he doesn't make that assumption.  He's saying that by and large people themselves have some quality for good, that by not doing more evil they are, by default, making a choice for good, which would contradict a Calvinistic viewpoint on what "totally depraved" actually means.

Alright, next point...and on to the good stuff...

You said:

Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV says "For by grace are ye saved
through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God: Not of works,
lest any man should boast." Let's dissect this passage:

1. "For by grace are ye saved" - we are saved by God's grace

2. "through faith" - it is because of our faith that we can be saved
by God's grace

3. "and that not of yourselves" - the "that" in this phrase
is a pronoun; its antecedent is the nearest noun "faith." "Faith
not of yourselves" tells us that the faith we have to have in order to
partake of God's grace did not come from us

4. "it is the gift of God" - the pronoun "it" also needs an
antecedent; "faith" is still the closest PROBABLE choice (yourselves is closer, but just doesn't make sense), so it should then be read "faith is the gift of God." Do we ask for gifts (if not slightly spoiled; I know I sure do)? Not typically.

5. "Not of works" - What isn't of works? Time for another switcheroo: "Not of works are ye saved." We are not saved because of anything we do.

6. "lest any man should boast" - Since humans don't do anything, we have no right to brag.

So what do these verses tell us? In a nutshell, Eph. 2: 8-9 say "God saves you, not you, so don't brag." If God does save us, then, do we have the free will to choose Him?

I think at this point I will invoke John 3:16 to prove you wrong.  When talking about works, it's speaking of the redeeming power.  That wasn't as a result of anything we did.  God gives the gift, correct?  However, we have the right to accept that gift or not, but that doesn't mean we are saved because of what we did, but your argument here is that choosing, by default, is a work.  While I disagree that it is, I can see where you're coming from.  It's kinda like Christmas.  If your parents buy you a bike, nothing you did earned that bike, under the traditional Christmas motif; however, it's still your choice whether to accept that bike.  In other words, both views in my opinion can equally justify Ephesians 2:8,9.  With the idea of Occam's razor in mind, let's first figure which is simpler.

On top of that, it's quite interesting to note that the Calvinists I've spoken to, most of whom are on Carm.org discussion boards, say that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.  This is equivalent to saying that, as a Calvinist also said that, you can't believe in that of which you haven't heard.  That creates a problem for the Calvinist then because, by default, God would have to rely on the works of mankind in order to save people.

Like the site says:
"Here is my question to the Calvinist: Why must we preach the gospel in
order for people to be saved? If man plays no part at all in his conversion,
why must he hear the gospel to be saved, as Paul says he must in Romans
10:14? A consistently logical Calvinist could never say that persuasive preaching influences the unregenerate person to yield to God, because the unregenerate
person will always use his freedom to resist God (Piper, p. 9, prgh. 6). Thus
the only way an unregenerate person becomes regenerate is if God sovereignly
bestows upon him His irresistible grace. So all the persuasive preaching in
the world won't make a bit of difference in the saving of anyone. In fact,
to even attempt to persuade someone is an attack on God's supposed
sovereign grace in salvation, because to do so implies that salvation rests,
in part, on the hearer and also rests, in part, on the preacher."

Okay, moving on...

You said:

Romans 9:11 - " (For the children being not yet born, neither having
done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election
might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)" This verse is
talking about how God had chosen Jacob over Esau to continue the Jewish
bloodline. God chose Jacob in a few different ways listed here:

1. "being not yet born" - Jacob was chosen for his purpose before
being born

2. "neither having done any good or evil" – nothing Jacob had done would have affected/recommended him to God for any reason.

We
are then told why: "that the purpose of God according to election might
stand, not of works, but of him that calleth" Many people, when I tell
them God chooses before they're born say things to the effect of
"that's unfair." Paul had the same thing in Romans.

The problem with using this Scripture is that you're taking it out of context.  This is a famous set of Scriptures that Calvinists use, but even Calvinist commentators will say that this section of Scripture is speaking specifically about Israel and the gentiles, where Jacob represents the children of Israel, and Esau the gentiles.  If read the entire chapter, it's the only way to make heads or tails of chapters 8, 9, and 10.  I could go further, but I've already written a lot.

You said: 
It is a generally accepted principle (due to catechisms from multiple
faiths), though I honestly do not have a full scriptural basis on this
one at the moment (I'll have to look into it some more, so bear with me
on this one) that man's purpose is to bring glory to God.  Anyway,
assuming this to be true, then the answer to those questions is similar
to this purpose. God is glorified in both sending people to heaven
(Romans 9:23) AND sending people to hell (Romans 9:22).

Maybe so, but I would contend that God gets little satisfaction from making people love Him and making people hate Him.

You said:
a) Let's assume that God does not know everything.  Then you make sense.  Now,
I'm going to work off of the assumption that God does know everything
(part of being eternal, see above) because that's what I believe is
supported by scripture.  If God knows that something will happen, then it will happen, no?  Let's look especially at prophecies – God says that they're going to happen, so we'd better assume that they will.  This is God setting things in stone (as if they weren't already).  Because
of his vantage point, everything about human existence is set in stone;
we can not change the fate of the world because God already knows what
it is.Now, if God is omniscient, then it stands to reason that He would know of Satan's rebellion and Man's Fall.  Now let's use an analogy.  If
you know that if you light a match in a room filled with natural gas
that the room will explode, and, being in a room which you know is
filled with natural gas, you light the match, did you destroy the
room?  It is very hard to argue that you didn't as you very intentionally did.  If God knew what would happen with His reation, did He not destine/fate/elect/doom His creation to this state?  Sounds very intentional to me.  He knew what would happen, He knew what the repercussions would be, He knew exactly what He was doing.

Now, for a little physics – cold = absence of heat; darkness
= absence of light; evil = absence of good; suffering = absence of…well…non-suffering.  These opposites exist in a realm in which
they are allowed to exist.  There was no suffering until God came down after the Fall and said "Now you're gonna suffer; now you're gonna die," in effect.  I'm tired of this train of thought.  I'm moving on.

I could explain this to you, but I was hoping you wouldn't go here for the sake of time quite frankly, here's what I wrote a while back on the discussion boards...


You all would agree that God is sovereign. The question at
hand, of course, is what does that mean, or require. My argument is
this: God is sovereign in that He is subject to nothing or no one but
Himself. That is, He can limit Himself if He wants to do so. For
instance, Big Bus, you stated that you believed Jesus was not
omniscient during His stay on the earth. Assuming that you believe in
the Trinity, and that Jesus is God, ask yourself this: If God is
incapable of limiting what He will do, why wasn't Jesus omniscient or
omnipresent? Obviously, He is capable of limiting Himself, BUT He does so with a purpose. God limited Jesus (who is also God) to be the humble sacrifice for all mankind; He was a man and God at the same time.

So how does this apply?


Solomon Kane, you made the inquiry as to how beings contingent on
sequential events could place God in a temporal setting. Well, let me
use an illustration. To God, being outside of time and having created
it, the spectrum of past, present, and future events is like an
infinite roll of film spanning backwards and forwards. God can enter or
exit it at any point to influence the way events go, but He can also
choose to let the film run on its own. Thus, He can limit His influence
in the "infinite roll" (if you will) for His purposes, can He not?


Then, we come to the hard part: God has already seen the movie an
infinite number of times (figuratively speaking). He knows everything
that happens, and thus it's easier for us to state that, to God, everything occurs as it has already happened.


My argument here is that, although God knows everything that happens,
simultaneously, He can choose to limit His influence on any part,
regardless of whether He knows it happens or not. It will always happen
as He knows it but happens outside of His influence.


SK, Let's go back to the dice analogy. Don't think of it in literal
terms, but as means to an end of thought. I roll the dice, not knowing
what will happening, but someone, the "viewer", can go forward and
backward in time to see what the results will be. They could influence
the decision, but they don't. They could create the parameters and the
person and know what happens at the end, but did not affect the
decision. The results "prove" that they were right in our frame of time.


Time exists to prove that events happen in complete synchronicity with
God's thoughts on the matter. He may not necessarily influence the
decision, but the decision will always be what He knew beforehand.


BB, Adam and Peter "could" have not failed, but they didn't because they proved God correct. In other words, "ultimate knowledge" and "ultimate potential" don't necessarily mean "absolute influence." God could have created the earth and left it alone knowing all that would happen.


This is a hard concept, and I understand if you disagree.


The best argument Calvinists have against this line of reasoning is
that, if God knows who will get saved and who won't beforehand with
free will in the picture, why does He not just circumvent the entire
process by calling those who would be receptive and condemning those
who wouldn't anyway?


BB, the "robot" argument works b/c it accurately describes, in human
vernacular, what's going on, not because it's necessarily biblical or
unbiblical. God gives mankind a gift that he can take or receive, but
that doesn't mean man works for the gift. It just means that he can
take or receive it. While knowing the result of each man's decision
beforehand, God allows man to make that decision. That decision will
prove Him every time, glorifying God in the process.


God is not weak in these theories; He is simply giving man the chance
to change. That's what He did for Peter. It's all about perspective. If
Peter knew he would deny Jesus, and did so because he was forced to, he
should not have felt guilty. But he did because he knew Jesus told him
to give him a chance to change at that point and save him the heartache.


BB and SK, in your view, God not only does not allow things to happen,
but creates them in response. Why would God, who hates evil, directly
create it? But that's what you and countless others on this website
have said (following your logic, of course).


In the end on this topic, perspective plays a key part. This line of
logic is difficult to draw, with one side as fanatical as the other;
however, I stick with my beliefs on the Bible regarding these things
because I don't believe in a God who doesn't at least give man one
chance to change his/her fate.

And....

These are the points I'm trying to prove

Knowledge of the future does not logically dismiss free will, even it is always right.

Omnipotence and omniscience does not necessarily have to mandate everything.


BB, let's look at things through your perspective. God, being God, is always involved in even the most minute details of everything's existence. God is good, and hates evil.


Well, wait...then God is contradictory. God is good, but He directly created evil. How does that make sense?


Also, not only that, but God creates people, makes them sin, and condemns them as a result. Tell me, how does that make sense? But still, God is good, according to your logic.


Then, to avoid that problem, wouldn't be easier to say that God allows
sin and evil in the world to show His glory by giving people a choice?
By allowing it to be there, we aren't saying that God is too weak to
control it or destroy it because He can in His own timing. Allowing it
means limiting His power, does it not? Would you not agree that it
makes more sense that God would allow something to exist for a time
contrary to what we clearly know He likes to serve the purpose of
glorifying Himself than God directly creating evil and not only that
but also making people sin uncontrollably to serve the same the
purpose? By giving people free will, God is glorified. By making people
sin, how can God be glorified?


But how can we know that God is capable of holding back His
power/presence? Well, easily, Jesus was God, and He was not omniscient
or omnipresent while on earth. So for a time, we see, that God has
limited Himself for a purpose.


So I've proven so far that God can limit Himself to serve a purpose, but that brings up a problem: If
God knows about something in the future, and it will always happen the
way God knows it will, isn't any idea of free will simply an illusion? This is the question my first post in this topic tries to answer.


For example, let's say I'm on a plane, and you come back from the
future and tell me that a terrorist has a bomb, and he will use it on
my flight. Obviously, I know I can change what will happen by telling
the attendant before we take off that you strongly suspect Mr.
Terrorist has a bomb in his duffel bag and change the outcome.

God knows what will happen if He influences the decision and does
not influence the decision, and His decision not to do anything is a
choice He can make as a result of His sovereignty. It does not
contradict it. God knows that terrorist has a bomb, but that the
explosion, however horrific, will ultimately work to His design, so He
lets it happen. Perhaps, people will get saved as a result, and justice
will ultimately be served. Who knows but God?

As you can probably see, I've covered this point in what I believe to be great detail.

You said:

b) Depending on how strongly one holds to Calvinism, they may or not believe that.  You are making a generalization.  Either way…

Exodus 7:3 – "And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the lands of Egypt."  God controlled Pharaoh's reactions directly so that He would be more glorified (see far above).

Exodus 7:13 – "And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the Lord had said."

Exodus 8:22 – "…and Pharaoh's heart was hardened…" and so on
and so forth until Pharaoh died.

Romans 9:15-23 – "For he saith to Moses, I will
have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on
whom I will have compassion.  So then it is not of him that wileth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.  For
the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I
raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name
might be declared throughout all the earth.
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.  Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault?  For who hath resisted his will?  Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?  Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why has thou made me thus?  Hath not the potter power over the
clay; of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?  What
if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured
with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of
mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory."  I'm not going to say anything else on this one for now.

Actually, I'm not making a generalization so much as an observation.  If God is directly involved in everything, He would have to make people sin.  The fact that some say that that's a result of His knowledge makes no difference, and neither does the fact that it wasn't the first sin.

Calvinists often like to use Pharoah as an example because it's one of the few examples in the Bible that seem to prove their point.  I would contend that Pharoah was already in sin before God hardened his heart and that the Arminian doesn't dismiss the right of God to do that.  Actually, Arminianism is only asking the question of why would God do that to everyone now in the grace dispensation if you will.  God does have the right to do condemn whomever He wants, but I'm saying that He doesn't condemn as the Calvinist soteriology believes that He does.  Seeing as how the Pharoah incident was in a different dispensation, I would argue that God no longer does that.  But even if you disagree with that assumption, who's to say God didn't give Pharoah a chance to repent before the time He told Moses these things?

Finally, I think, you said:

(c) As I said before, there is the whole "none that seeketh after God" verse.  Also, we've got the nifty verse talking about how "many are called, few are chosen" and such things.

What's ironic about this is that the Arminian agrees with the first part as well.  No one seeks after God on His own, but God calls everyone to repent.  I believe that, no matter who it is, God gives everyone at least one chance to choose Him.  Whether you agree with that, well, is up to you.
Equally ironic is the "many are called, few are chosen" statement.  I thought all who are called were the elect and that the called were the chosen, according to the Calvinist.

Anyway...that's my argument for now...I implore to read that site a little more carefully...

First of all, check out this link...

Okay, since someone's gotten offended at my saying that Calvinism is stupid, I offer this simple explanation--Westboro Baptist Church.  For those of you unfamiliar with Fred Phelps and WBC, he's the leader of the people who protest that "God hates fags".  They are also Calvinist.

Second of all, I've been berated a thousand times by Calvinists for something that really isn't a big deal except to them.  My thoughts on Arminianism are considered "sickening" (while being much less understood) by many Calvinists I'm come in contact with.

My basic problem with Calvinism is this one thing: God is sovereign to the extent that He mandates everything.  Now, for those of you who really don't understand what that means, according to the Calvinist, God not only created man, and created good, but He also created evil, suffering, and the whole lot.  On top of that, God makes people sin.  (Yes, I'm serious.)  God can choose to save all but instead He chooses to save some and condemn those who can do nothing else to change their fate.  Before God calls those select few, those people were totally rebellious to all things good (in theory) and would never have turned to God.  Thus, the elect are basically robots, seeing as how the love I know is predicated upon choice.

Calvinists will mostly like claim that Arminianism doesn't line up with Scripture, but in reality, it's the Calvinists who can't see the forest through the trees on this issue.  Reformed theology doesn't make sense!

It's my opinion that doctrinal differences spawn from supposed "contradictions" in Scripture; in other words, because man can't make sense of it, the way in which he does causes division.  I see this divide under the same light.

enough said...

I thought of a conspectus
To describe your behavior,
Your character, but still,
It's too easy!  You one-dimensional fiend!
You always seek to remind
Me of my mistakes, my altogether
Consistent, pessimistic mistakes;
And you ram the flesh
Down my own throat.
Is it not I who gives creedence
To my own arch-nemesis
Or the Creator, who sheds mercy,
Even on you, with His blood?
Can I not have the Spirit in peace?
Must I always attempt to abate you,
By catering the diabolical feast on my flesh?

You were most beautiful as the damage and the trauma

Pounding hard with battered wings of destiny

You were my last great war

You were my heaven ablaze

Riddled with faults and fractures

And I spent my last of days burning my oldest of bridges

And I spent my last of nights killing the best of friends

In the company of thieves, liars, beggers and whores

I'll lay waiting, just waiting for my time to come

Give it a rest already!
We've heard it all before.

You're such a bromide,
Repeating endless arguments,
And "pat answers".
But now it's time for your rebuke,
So let's hear it again
For the final time.
What has your thinking done
For anyone: that matters most,
Does it not?
You can't use logic
To defeat applied purpose,
Any more than you can catch
A breeze in your hand.
So you say the supernatural
Comes chimerically, but
Have we explained it all to you?
Do you know enough to suppress
The open-minded, or the leaders
With just cause?
So shut-up, and stop trying to
Bowdlerize everyone's ideas
When you know so little,
And you know so much.

When he/she gets in trouble,

The child of the Arminian household says, "The devil made me do it."

The child of the Calvinist household says, "God made me do it."

I'm having a tremendous amount of difficulty proving or disproving the existence of God.  I personally blame carm.org's discussion boards, but then again, curiosity did kill the cat.

Do I have to submit such a challenge?

Yes, You're sovereign, but are You understanding?

And yes, these pieces are my problem,

If only I could understand them, on my knees,

My mind's a moor, a high place of nothing,

And my pride can only serve me so far.

But to a purpose, well, that only You know;

Am I wrong?  Am I aimless?

None of life makes any sense!

Nothing has lined up and waited for me,

Yet others praise Your name for such glory.

These people don't understand my pain!

They all read these words but don't understand!

I could tell them a thousand times a thousand.

"Well, why don't you understand?" They say.

How do you point to air and say God's there?

I lack the faith!  I need more than this!

I need more than just hope and faint inner voice...

Am I shrewd enough to know

These things called happiness and joy,
Sorrow and grief, and to know them
With the proper respect
Of my world around me,
Of my reality?
What is my purpose, God?
Are You there? Do You care?
Or am I just a hopeless byproduct
Of random genetic tampering
And the supercilious laws of science?
I want to know; I want to see Your face.
I'd pray in earnest if I knew what to pray,
For my fears haunt my rationale
Like a cancerous gloom...

Tickle Me Emo

Mankind is fallible relative to itself.  The easiest way to prove this is to ask anyone this question: "Have you ever purposefully told someone something contrary to what you knew to be true?"  (Of course, we all consider this act to be lying.)  Now, most people have lied sometime in their life, if not all; thus it proves that man is fallible on at least one, and logically the most important, standard: himself.

Seriously, Battle of Mice is one of the best bands I've ever heard.  Ya'll gotta check out their album "A Day of Nights".