And Can It Be wrote:
Cosmo has always pointed its readers to find love at church. Most times these also track in a little pagan birth control. But that's okay. Luckily most deacons' wives keep their medicine cabinets stocked. It's the best of both worlds: Total salvation plus a little guilt-free sensuality. What a blessing He gave us. Take up your Pill and follow me. You've come a long way, baby!

Mike wrote:
Maybe this will be called the No Child Move Ahead of Another Act. Equal mediocrity for all.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Oh, there is some room for disagreement with the professor's statement. Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, and even Jimmy Carter could have been considered more Christian from their personal testimonies anyway. I would also say, Howard Taft and William McKinley might also be said to have been better Christians. The test for being a President was not if he were a Christian or not, however. Some of the best ones, e.g. George Washington were not Christian.

Last Christmas I noticed my brother (raised "Christian" but now apostate) reading a book called "Meditations for the Humanist: Ethics for a Secular Age". Critical reviewers of the book on Amazon's website said it was "leftist" and "slammed" religion and Christianity in particular while attempting to define and promote a man-centered ethos.

Years ago I made a birthday card for my sister claiming I wanted to be "original" and go out of my way to give her a gimmick-free card, to which she (laughing) replied, "Your card's gimmick is that it claims to be gimmick-free!".

Subjectivity can be so incredibly blinding.

Neil wrote:
Peter Schiff pointed out something...

Jim Lincoln wrote:
There was nothing wrong with her warnings, in fact it is biblical.
Proverbs 23:1 When you sit down to dine with a ruler, Consider carefully what is before you;
2 And put a knife to your throat, If you are a man of great appetite.
3 Do not desire his delicacies, For it is deceptive food.---[URL=http://www.lockman.org/nasb/nasbcmp.php]]]NASB[/URL]
Yes, sugar of almost any type is bad for you--it is better to put it into your car as gasohol. (hence the government sponsorship of supporting corn/maize production) Q.v., [URL=http://dailyhealtharticles.com/sugar-is-harmful/]]]Sugar Is Harmful as Alcohol and Cigarettes![/URL]

But the passage you used is better reserved for Christians who might otherwise be naive enough to think that "help" from any kind of benefactor does not come with strings attached. Reminds me of the trouble the Catholic church is in now, trying to push away unwanted government influence (the whole free birth-control thing) because they previously accepted government help in the past. Or when Abraham refused to take anything from the King of Sodom, lest he say "I have made Abraham great!".

Mike wrote:
If God is sovereign in the manner we say, nothing is outside his "work." Man is a created being. All men. If we believe God is in sovereign control of everything, should we not conclude that him doing nothing about something is an active choice to do nothing? Take it back to the beginning, where the choice was made that an unrepentant sinner be created by God in the first place. Is it not then that God actively chose him for damnation?

John UK wrote:
I'm right with you on this, John. I see every sinner as responsible for his own sins, even for original sin...

Long ago God convicted me that had I or any other person been in Adams place, I/they would've eventually fallen just as surely as he did. Adam's fall validated mankind's inevitable need for a savior.

It never ceases to blow me away that God cares SO much that he'd go to so much trouble to start with NOTHING, and from that make a universe, and from that make dust, and from that make a man, and from that to continually work what--even for God himself--is an unbelievably tremendous amount of work required to elevate us to such an incomprehendable level to where we can and will be able to actually relate with Him on the most intimate level.

John UK wrote:
Nice post John, and right on the button. The key words are "leaving others in their sin", which runs contrary to Sproul who imagines that God creates some men (most men, that is) who are predestinated unto damnation.

Very perceptive of you to notice that I DO in fact still have trouble with the so-called "double-predestination" doctrine. Using my admittedly flawed analogy, I like to think the "cars" were not wrecked by "the mechanic" just so he could show off his technical prowess, but that they were wrecked by themselves (by their drivers).

I used to think God could/would maximize/complete his glory by saving everyone or condemning everyone, but instead he saves some while leaving others in their sin.

It's like the unknown mechanic with 2 broken cars who wants to make a name for himself. He can either fix both cars and say "look what I can do!". Or he can leave both cars broken and say "look what happens when I don't do anything". OR he can fix one car and leave the other broken in order to maximize the contrast of outcomes when he performs his works and when he doesn't.

God's the mechanic (potter) while we are the cars (clay). Unless we "know our place" according to scripture we're never going to know God's.

Rabbi Lapin wrote:
Orthodox Rabbi Daniel Lapin:
"Roughly when do you think the [cultural] deterioration began? Wouldn't you agree that most people would say sometime in the 1960s?...

But it's also true that the incredible success of the homosexual movement is due to their ability to successfully re-package themselves from being considered "deviant" to being now seen as a legitimately "down-trodden" segment of society, like African-Americans and women, and thus perceived to be in need of significant "redress".

Shamah wrote:
I do not disagree with all 5 points of Calvinism. There are some Calvinist preachers that I enjoy listening to. Although I do have a real hard time with Limited Atonement.

Some years ago an Iranian pastor guest-speaking at our church said that the Iranian government would routinely do whatever it could to provide "aid" to Christian churches in hopes of eventually getting them to be dependent on this "aid" (most often in the form of facilities, utilities, buildings, etc.) in order to gain control of them by either expanding or contracting the "aid" when the church could least afford to not have it.

Bruce wrote:
Sure this another Obama appointee if it were possible she should be struck of the bench, thanks a lot Barak, and you GOP and others who voted for Barak we wormed you it's not 4 years we worry about its the lifetime of the justices, don't vote for him again