This post is in rebuttal to an argument posted by Sarah Yeldell on her website, onto which I stumbled a few days ago.  Her words are in italics.

While I didn't to go into detail with this argument, having only commented briefly on her site, I feel I probably should, for she seemed to misinterpret my first comment.  Also, I did it to prove a point, that often, people place responsibility into the government's hands that it is simply ill-equipped or inefficient at doing, if it can at all.  Every time something bad happens in the world, the people want the great judge to preside over all and change things so that bad things won't happen again when the government simply can't change fundamentally flawed human behavior.  Instead, we have created a government that places unreasonable, expensive expectations that stifle creativity in free markets and intrude into people's personal lives, cutting off their freedom for the "good" of all—or better yet, in reality, the good of the few elite.  In the end, this kind of thinking is ignorant idealism in a world where bad things happen and where life simply isn't fair.

One other point I'd like to make before I start is that statistics are only as good as the conclusions you draw from them.  I can selectively choose the statistics I want to prove my point, but I refuse.  I also refuse to see only one side of a percentage to make a glib judgment call with far-reaching effects that I may not see at the time.  You must see that your own perspective greatly influences any statistic you use.

When it comes to guns, I find myself firmly against American civilians owning and possessing firearms.

AKA I want the government to legislate away gun ownership so that we are forced to rely on them even more for things we need and end up paying more money than we should for it.

I guess I have ask, "And then what?"  Do you not believe serious changes would have to be made, such as additional police? You have to see beyond to the ramifications of such a decision.
Furthermore, why can't they? 

It's unjust to regulate all of America on the problems of a few,
yet according to your own statistics and words, that's what you want to do.

I wasn't always. My father taught me how to shoot and I've even contemplated buying a gun of my own at one time or another. But as I've gotten older, I just can't seem to see the sense in it. Logically, it just doesn't add up.

I'm sure someone who has defended themselves with a firearm would disagree.

Does your father believe in gun ownership rights?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

"My gun is for self-defense."

In my experience, this is the most common argument made for owning a gun. Self-defense sounds fairly reasonable (and oh so satisfying), and sometimes it even happens.

Not only that, but self-defense is a realistic possibility.
The other most common argument for owning a gun is that the founding fathers believed in it enough to write it in the Constitution.

According to the US Department of Justice, between 1987 and 1992, an average of 22,000 victims (including police officers) per year defended themselves against a criminal who also had a firearm. Another 61,000 per year defended themselves against offenders who were either unarmed or armed with weapons other than firearms. That's 83,000 people per year who successfully or unsuccessfully used their gun in an attempt defend themselves, their family, and/or their property. (Stats)

In crimes that were reported.  Also, it's helpful to note that USDOJ BJS started to completely redesign its methodology in 1992, but it claims to have adjusted for the figures before that time for the new methodology.  Also, I've found other sources that disagree with
those numbers.  In 1994, the USPOF conducted a survey in which it found that 44 million Americans owned guns (http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt).  It also concluded that defensive gun uses were hard to calculate and that the numbers it received were more than likely wrong due to contradictions with other evidence (its study calculated 1.5 million DGUs per year, an improbable number compared to the amount of actual crime).

But the number of gun owners in the United States of America is estimated at around 80 million.

By whom?  The NRA?  The USDOJ?  I mean, who's doing the estimating and how?  Do they all own them legally?  How many of them committed a felony and were still able to purchase the gun?

So, by the USDOJ statistics, only 0.1% or so of gun owners have actually employed their firearm for defense.

Never mind the prevention of crime possibly caused by gun ownership or the knowledge thereof.  Never mind the numerous places where guns are banned so that, even if a legal person wanted to use one in self-defense, they probably couldn't.  Never mind that firearm-related crime experienced all-time lows between 1993 and 2005 (from the same site) for some unknown reason (possibly because USDOJ actually started crunching numbers correctly after 1992).  Finally, never
mind that, in 1992, approximately 50 out of every 1,000 people were the victims of a violent crime, crimes that could have been prevented if the victim had had a gun.

Another consideration is, who is being hurt most by gun ownership?

You mean another biased consideration.  You never intended to explore the advantages.

Between 1999 and 2001, the USDOJ reports that 161,569 were intentionally killed by guns (homicide).

I think you added the wrong numbers.  According to the site, the number of homicide deaths by guns between 1999 and 2001 is actually 33,570, much different from the number you gave.  Also, the number of suicides in that same period is 50,054.  I'm thinking you added more years than just 1999 to 2001, for the whole chart spans 1991 to 2001.  The number of total homicides during that period is approximately 52,500 (averaging 7 per 100,000 per year with a population of 250 million).  So total, the number of gun owners who have used their guns for homicide successfully in that period of time is close to 0.07% (from your quoted number), which is smaller than that percentage of people who used their guns for defense from 1987 to 1992.  In other words, your argument's prepotency is being nullified. Additionally, it's really not a correct procedure to compare statistics from 1987 to 1992 to ones from 1999 to 2001, unless you assume the 0.1% is consistent for a decade.

In that same time period, 196,113 people committed suicide using a firearm. People possessing guns were killing themselves more than they were killing other people. This, of course, doesn't include accidental deaths. (Stats)

Again, you have the wrong number for the time period, and accidental deaths by firearms adds very little to 50,054; in fact, the number of accidental deaths by firearms from 1999 to 2001 is 2,042, 0.003% of total gun owners.  Number of suicides comprises 0.06% of gun owners.  Either way, from 1999 to 2001, more people killed other people than people killed themselves with a firearm.  According to WHO (http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/unitstates.pdf), the number of suicides in 2000 was about 26,000.  According to the USDOJ site, the number of those caused by firearms was 16,586, which is about 2/3 of the total number, assuming both sources' numbers are congruent.While it remains true that the majority of homicides and suicides in this country occur via firearm, none of these statistics proves one thing one way or the other in the issue of whether to ban guns.  There are simply too many other variables to consider.

For instance, how many crimes were perpetrated by handgun-carry permit holders with their firearm actually involved?  How many crimes involving firearms period also involved someone who obtained illegally or outside the process of state gun control laws?  What effect has the price of guns (about $400+ per gun) had on crime: in other words, has the market not curbed much of the crime by cost alone, especially in poorer areas where crime is more prevalent?

Also, your bias prevents you from seeing that the far majority of gun owners use their guns responsibly, and I would say it's a fair bet to say the majority of those who use them irresponsibly obtained them through illegitimate means.

You also act as if suicide is somehow expedited by guns, when suicide is a completely different matter altogether.  The solution to mental illness includes medical changes—better, cheaper health and less bureaucracy (doctor shifts) and less humiliation—as well as cultural changes—holding those who propagate paranoia accountable and helping people recognize warning signs.  Guns are often chosen because they are quick and painless, but banning guns will not solve suicide across the board.

To be sure, I'll fight anyone who ever threatens me or mine (I'm no pacifist), but the likelihood of me ever needing to use a gun is low.

Well, it's equal to the chances of your being victimized in a crime.

The likelihood of getting to wherever it is stored (whether loaded or unloaded) in time to any good is lower.

With the numerous laws prohibiting people's carrying guns, how can you say this with a straight face?  This is a chicken and egg argument (Which came first?) gun control or gun ban advocates pose as a detractor, when they themselves caused it, not the presence of guns in society.  They caused responsible people to have to store away their own guns: you can't use this particular issue to argue your case, when your case wanted such gun control laws in the beginning.  In this sense, gun control advocates are begging the question: they are arguing that a circumstance they create is proof enough to further their conclusion.  Responsible people aren't going to risk trying to break the law so that, if you enforce laws to ban guns from certain areas, the only ones listening are the responsible people!The possible pros don't come close to outweighing the cons.

You haven't come close to making a justifiably thorough side-by-side comparison!

"If you outlaw guns, the only people who will have them will be the
criminals!"

Maybe, but currently most violence is carried out without a weapon. Between 1993 and 2001, 65.9% of non-lethal violence and 26.6 % of lethal violence was carried out without a weapon of any kind. By comparison, only 9.5% of non-lethal and 3.8% of lethal violence was carried out using a gun. That's 5,863,750 crimes committed without a weapon of any sort, as compared to 846,950 committed by gun-wielding criminals.

I believe it's kinda ironic how this paragraph actually serves to deflate your argument further and contradict your earlier and later arguments.  To me, this information states several things.  First, guns are doing much less bad than we think.  Second, the alleged all-access pass to firearms right now for criminals is not as bad as gun control advocates would have us believe.  Third, more law-abiding citizens' circumstances would definitely be improved by the ability to carry a gun in any violent crime.

If guns were only available illegally, it's hard to believe that number would go up. (Stats)

That's the problem.  You don't realize the impact a law will have until it comes around full circle.  The knowledge that no good citizen has a gun may galvanize would-be criminals.  You have no proof to justify your last statement in this paragraph.  You could take, for instance, the impact of marijuana on society as well as since the beginning of its illegalization and the "war on drugs," as well as the impact on its price, accessibility, and potency.  Or you could just use prohibition.  I doubt either will suit your purpose.

"Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

I couldn't agree more. But I don't understand fighting for the right for people to kill other people faster and more efficiently.

According to your statistics, criminals don't follow your logic.  They're not killing people faster and more efficiently.

When was the last time someone burst into an office or a school and bludgeoned thirty people to death in ten minutes with a baseball bat?

This example's beside the point.

Outlawing guns might not do a lot for one-on-one violence, but it would significantly reduce the number of casualties in crowd situations. Today, if you want to kill a lot of people, you go home, get your guns, drive down to the mall/office/school and open fire.

How many massacres occur in a year?  How many "crowd situations" ever occur?  How many crowd situations occurred in places where guns are prohibited?

Without guns, people would still find ways to kill large numbers of other people, but why give them the option of a firearm?

Wow, that's amazing: you just pointed out your argument's own flaw.  They would find other ways of killing people, such as a bomb (or several), which aren't that difficult to make to destroy a bus filled with people.Also, firearms exist: criminals have had that option since their invention and refinement.  The only people we would take away the option from are the law-abiding citizen.

Why make it easy for them?

We aren't.   You are, for reasons I've already reiterated.

"Guns are fun!"

Yes, they are. I think it has to do with our reverence of violence. There's just something about firing a gun that makes you feel good. But there are a lot of fun activities out there that don't involve pretending to KILL things. Maybe we should focus on those instead?

Keeping that in mind, why don't we ban guns from television, or video games, or even from speech?

"Hunting is fun!"

You know I worry about a culture where we feel compelled to watch things die. I worry about a culture where killing things is thought to be fun. Hunting isn't a necessity, it's a hobby, and really, killing things should never be a hobby.

It's not a necessity…anymore.  How people use their guns legally is really none of your concern.  I hate cats, but I'm not going prohibit people from owning them.

"You don't need to worry about the law-abiding citizens."

My friend killed his wife, their friend, and then himself using his legally purchased firearm, a gun he bought for self-defense. When he bought his gun, he wasn't crazy, he wasn't a criminal, he wasn't someone the system would have caught.

What about 9/11?  And quite frankly this isn't even a crowd situation: he probably could've done the same amount of damage with something else.  Again, banning guns isn't the solution to mental illness.

The idea that gun control works is laughable, because how can you know when someone might be pushed past their breaking point?

And here your personal experience totally sways your argument, especially since so few gun owners are "pushed past their breaking point," statistically.

How can you know whether or not your law-abiding citizen (or their child) will do something unlawful? There is no way the law can do anything but react after someone commits a crime.

How would that change after you ban guns?

There's no legal gun violence prevention aside from banning guns entirely. (Article)

What does that even mean?

I know outlawing guns isn't an option, but I'm not sure why that is. It seems obvious that the pros of guns are far outweighed by the cons.

Been there, argued that….

So why, as a nation, are we so enamored with them? The sole purpose of a firearm is to kill something. Why do we want to keep them?

It's necessary that we have a few for an organized militia, even you believe that.  It's freedom that civilians have them.  Since when has the nation been enamored with them? According to that USPOF study, the number of gun owners was on the decline in 1994.  I don't see us being enamored, unless you want censor out guns from entertainment.

Is it because, as a culture, we LIKE death? Is it because, as a country, we want the option of killing our neighbors open to us? Why?

More pseudo-philosophical nonsense.  This is about freedom to defend on your terms.

Under scrutiny, your arguments just don't add up to the same conclusion when you change your presuppositions on the matter.  It's unfair and unjust to hold society as a whole accountable for the misdeeds of a few.

Another question I have is how would someone go about enforcing a total gun ban?  What would be the penalty for gun possession, or gun sale?

For as long as I've "blogged," I've always assumed that I'm really the only reading what I've written.  Every now and again, I'll get a remark, especially after something controversial, but nothing I've written has been consistently remarked, especially since I have had a vice of making/breaking relationships.

But this post is a sort of description...of me...with one statement:

I am not the same person I was a year ago.


Things aren't true because someone asserts them: they must have proof.  And likewise, I give you myself as that proof.  Your prayers, if you had any for me in the will of God, have been answered.  In fact, read my posts from a year ago and you'll see.  Of course, I still struggle with things, but I'm not the same person.  God has changed me: I believe that with all my heart.

In the same way, I believe that God is faithful to do the same work in you all that He has done and continues to do in me.  I came back to this area and found that many people I loved were in bad situations--bad spiritually, bad emotionally, bad physically, bad socially, bad what-have-you--and I was crushed by that fact.  I asked God why, but I know this same work, the work of which I'm testimony, can occur in your lives if you let it.  Also, I know that conquering these issues will provide a clear reason as to why you are having bad experiences now.
There are specific people I could name, people who, without just cause, have become ensnared or trapped by the enemy, the world, or even themselves, but I won't name these individuals.  I just hope that you won't let past sins (whether yours or someone else's) destroy your future.  God has a plan for your life, a plan of victory, if you would take and make it your own.  Thank you for reading...

So, it turns I'm helping my little sister with her drama solo, and it's harder than it looks.  While badgering her to memorize the skit solidly, I fear that I won't be able to guide her in the right direction.  The biggest issue, right now, is editing and adding motions to the drama enough to involve the audience throughout the entire drama.  I think we can do well though.

And He will answer my prayers for those of you for whom I've interceded.  Even those I've forgotten, may God bless you and grant you peace.

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...