auggybendoggy

Anyone gonna see this one?

 

I'm dying to see it, Chris walken is my fav actor!

 

Aug

before I beging back on this subject,

I'd like to thank Fatty and gang for getting the board back up...

Man, I clicked on my MMMM button for about 2 or so weeks and it went from "server is down" to NO PAGE AT ALL!!!

 

I thought, man IT"S GONE! MMMM IS GONE!!!

LOL! I was sad

 

I met you all some 4-5 years ago and had some great nights CSing with you all, yea I sucked and I'm no better than that first day I played. But I gotta say I've met some GREAT people and still hope to meet some of you some day.

 

I'll pick back up mine and darks conversation on this subject..

 

Just wanted to say thanks Fats and all who do work on the forum.

 

Aug

Dark, ROCK ON!!! Camp Maint? hahahah you'll meet some college counselor chick and you'll be married before you know it hahahaha hah aha hah!!!!

 

I can appreciate your position, although I'm sure your well aware I will argue that scripture comes first but we ALL must do with what we can do.

 

I'm completley disastisfied with christians saying, Well God is God so if he wants to sin and say it is not sin then it can be so.

or If God hates esau then it must be so.

 

Scriptures OFTEN say 2 things of which you seem to find a NON reason to ignore one.

1) God will cast men into eternal lake of fire to be sepretated from him forever.

2) God was pleased to have reconciled unto himself through his son ALL THINGS whether it be in heaven or on earth.

 

So will God reconcile (to bring back into perfection before God - literally) ALL THINGS

or will God reconcile some things (depending on what they choose, though their born blind for someone elses sin).

 

I believe fully that this destroys anyones ability to IN TRUTH, say "God is Love". For if you believe he is also hate and that he may hate the very man you speak to, like Esau, (perhaps he's predestined unto eternal torment) then you cannot FULLY believe he is love. You may say that scripture says he is love but it also shows he is violent.

So you will believe he is love and hate.

He is patient and impatiend

he is kind and brutal

he is forgiving and judgemental

he is humble he is prideful

he is giving he takes only for himself (his own pleasure)

 

I find this to be a leak of Taoism in our ideaology.

 

When I say God is love and loves all men, Calvinists say "Gods ways are higher than ours so he can MAKE THEM FOR HELL and still love them fully" MAKES NO SENSE.

 

Paul indeed puts a GREAT importance on "sound doctrine" to timothy. Therfore I feel logic does play a part in understanding scripture. Indeed I would not say it's a "normal" logic (like reading tom sawyer). Rather it's a spirit given logic from God to open our minds to the scriptures (like Jesus does to the disciples at the end of Luke, it implies their minds were closed to the scriptures).

 

So simply saying, Reconciliation doctrine is wrong simply becuase the bible says God will commit a eternal massacre on his creation is to say "I don't care to think there might be another way of viewing these scriptures (metaphors) concerning God's wrath".

 

So I find it totally valid to say if One loves God fully it's because he is in his mind FULLY convinced that he is loved perfectly (it casts out all fear). And if he is fully convinced it is becuase he sees and understands who God is.

If he cannot understand God (3d) in his world (2d) then it should be noted to find God in the 2d world.

 

Thats why Jesus' coming is wonderful, NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN GOD....

UNTIL JESUS CAME.

 

NO ONE UNDERSTANDS GOD...

until Jesus Came.

 

For if you see Jesus you see God (the Father).

 

So now the 2D people can BEGIN to understand the 3D God.

 

And if they cannot understand him and cannot with full conviction say "God loves me" then they cannot Love him in return and if one does not love God then they do not obey his teaching and they remain in their wickedness.

 

I find this completley reasonable and as Mcdonald wrote,

If something looks dark to you STAY AWAY.

 

I find the statement "you cant understand God so follow me" to be Dark and I'll take that path that looks like light.

God loves all men (I dont find dark)

God can save all men (I dont find dark)

Every knee shall bow and confesss, pledge alegience literally (I dont find dark)

He did it all to save me from my deadness (I dont find dark)

God is perfect in love (I dont find dark)

LOVE -- God never fails (I FIND ABSOLUTELY BEAUTIFUL)

 

and if someone says to me scripture really says

God loves some men (I find dark) clavinist

God cant save all men (I find dark) arminian

Every knee will bow and confess him as lord W/O the Holy Spirit (I find dark)

His loving you DEPENDS on if you love him (I find dark)

God is perfect in love BUT justice is in opposition to love (I find dark)

Love - God fails to same most he wants to save (I find dark)

 

I am convinced Talbott is correct and thouth not every detail is worked out, I find the conclusion and the means to be sound.

 

So yes I agree with you dark, Logic to me is not an enemy of knowing God but rather when God opens our eyes to the truth of his word, it fits logically and WILL ALWAYS CONCLUDE GOD IS GOOD.

 

Aug

Welcome back from your summer beach house dark : )

what is the difference of Biblical vs. Systematic.

 

If I understand the labels, I would argue biblical will be systematic (logical). Now if something is illogical like calvinism

God loves some men and God loves all men then I'll reject it.

 

I find Arm. illogical as it wants to affirm that God is trying to save ALL men (as he loves them all) but fails to do so.

When the word "failure" is used they then regress to "God is not trying to save men, but he offers salvation to all".

Now the his love for them is restrictive and he is not "trying" to save them at all. This is done to avoid "love fails"

when cor 13 clearly state LOVE NEVER FAILS. Also God is perfect, and if he attempts something that does not work out in the end, his perfection is tainted.

 

Thus I find no reason to follow either system.

 

Now if God is pleased to have reconciled ALL THINGS unto himself via his Son who made peace by dying on the cross then perhaps our understanding of the metaphors of hell should be re-thunk.

 

Anyhow, dark what is the difference between bib and sys theology. Can you define them so I might understand you better.

 

Aug

part 4:

Free will (libertarian)

 

When most people speak as "free will" or "the right to choose" it is usually spoken of as "libertarian free will" meaning the creature is able to choose between two or more options.

 

Talbott makes a (reformed) like analysis of our choices we make.

 

In the mind of the arm. God allows man to choose his ultimate eternal destiny by fashioning him with Free will.

God presents himself a sacrifice and mercifully offers salvation unto ANYONE who might choose him over sin.

 

Int he mind of the calv. God does not allow man to choose anything at all. God, by his own good pleasure and his own

counsel, before time destined (pre-destined) some (elect) unto eternal life with God and a great many unto everlasting destruction (reprobate). Man is destined to fullfill one of these two categories of which they were assigned by God and NOTHING ELSE.

 

Most peole side with the arm.

 

However Talbott raises some difficulties with free will and God allowing men to choose.

 

His reformed like position seems to make it's start by stating that NO MAN IS RATIONAL according to scripture.

What he means is that if any person is infected with sin then he is irrational and cannot see clearly.

 

Thus God does not allow men to freely choose a eternal destrcution that they are bent for, for they had no choice in

being a sinner but we're born that way.

 

A URist would point to scriptures like Rom 11:

For God has bound all men over to disobedience.

 

If a man should choose God, it is because he has become rational and understands that it is better to be blessed by God than to be burned alive.

 

The person then has a rational mind that he can now choose between God and sin.

 

HOWEVER

 

If a man should choose sin it is ALWAYS becuase is is IRRATIONAL and does not know God's goodness NOR does he know the destruction of sin.

 

Now from my opinion, Talbott is correct, but I stand more as a determinist (calvinist) in the sense that I believe God does not allow men to choose. I agree with Talbott that we do not have the rational mind APART of God breathing life into us and then our blind eyes can see the truth. Now if we see the truth then truly we will ALWAYS choose God.

 

Similarly.

 

When Isreal was in the wilderness many were bitted by venemous serpents. God told Mo to put a brass serpent on his staff and raise it over all of Isreal and to tell them that if they were bitten they could look upon the serpent and not die.

 

If this news was clearly communicated throughout Isreal

 

Then my guess is, Talbott is right, in that EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO KNEW OF THIS ANTIDOTE, LOOKED UPON THE SERPENT.

Accordingly, if a man KNOWS he is a sinner and is dying (infected and irrational) and he knows the antidote for his sin (Christ)

he will look up to the Cross and be healed.

 

If the man does not look up to the cross it's either because of one of 3 things.

1) the news has not been communicated to him that he can be healed.

2) he does not realize he is going to die if he does not look upon the serpent raised up

3) he wants to die and is suicidal

 

in the case of 1) this is the most common reason we reject God which stems from no. 2

We don't believe in the antidote because we don't believe we have a problem (we are irrational)

 

in the case of no 2) this is ABSOLUTELY universal and mans death is universal

for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

just as the many dies under the 1 act of unrighteousness of the first adam...

Men beleive they are not sick and fail to look upon the serpent and thus die due to the venom in their vein

Their lack of belief means they are irrational

 

in the case of 3) he is irrational and believes that death is a better alternative to the everlasting love (God).

 

Now, when a man looks upon the serpent he is healed due to the fact, he is rational about the cure.

He then is able to be healed and cured completely.

 

so it follows,

 

If God subjects us to irrational minds and we are bent for sin (born into sin) with a nature to rebel against God then how can we make a "free" choice to serve him. Indeed we are bound to our sin.

 

UR then makes it's move:

Christ did it ALL for you and for me. He died for our sins (not only for our sins but the sins of the whole world) and thus we who are irrational (every single man and woman) HE WILL BRING TO A PLACE THAT SEES THE DIFFERENCE OF GOOD AND EVIL (THE TREE OF LIFE).

 

Talbotts view is that EVERYONE who is rational will look to Jesus (look up to the serpent raised up above Isreal).

Just as Jesus notes that event and then says...

The Son of Man will be lifted up from the earth and I WILL DRAW ALL MEN UNTO MYSELF.

 

Meaning , all men will be saved... (Now many declare this means all types of men such as go ye unto all nations but talbott is arguing that due to the irrational nature we are born with, he seeks to bring every single person to a rational state so that the person may choose fairly and freely [the truth shall set you free]) and we will always choose God when we are rational.

 

19For as through the one man's disobedience (AM)the many (AN)were made sinners, even so through (AO)the obedience of the One (AP)the many will be made righteous.

 

the many (all men) died under Adam (the first adam)

the many (all men) will be made alive under Jesus (the second Adam)

 

This irrational issue Talbott raises is a difficulty for "free will" thinkers as they seek to justify why God send men to hell for

an eternity.

 

They assume that man has within himself the capability to know good from evil (we all do) AND BE ABLE TO CHOOSE GOOD

when we are dead.

 

I agree with the reformed here that:

NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER UNLESS THE FATHER DRAWS HIM.

 

The softening of the heart is Done by God (see rom 9) not us.

 

And therfore if a man is irrational (thinks sin is not all that bad) and rejects God, his heart is hard and he is irrational.

if the man is irrational then how can it be "fair", "just" or "capable" of making a right descision.

 

Now if God softens his heart and gives him sight that he sees Sin is TERRIBLE then will the man make a fair descision

betweent he goodness of God and the destruction of sin. And when a man sees this he will always choose God.

 

Aug

part 3...

Talbotts view in The Inescapable Love of God, is that Gods wrath is not the sympton of a Skitzophrenic God.

to explain the skitzophrenia I'll use the Evangelical universalist - chapter 1

 

"A hell of a problem"

 

Mcdonald opens up his book with this title and argues that in the traditional view of Justic and hell, there is an inherint problem for the traditionalist.

 

there is laid out a 3 premise argument (from talbotts book)

1) God wants to save all men

2) God can save all men

3) Most suffer eternal torment in hell away from God

 

As stated in post 1 the calvinist denys no 1

the armenian denys point 2

the UR denys point 3

 

The hell of a problem is that the two views have to abandon a natural understanding of certain meanings.

 

THE CALVINIST:

the Calv. denys point 1 because they sacrifice the Love of God for all men and cling to a discriminating love.

They claim (bruce ware in perspectives on election 5 views - calvinist) that God in one sense loves all men but not in a saving sense. His electing love is upon the elect and his generic love is upon the reprotbates (those he destined for Hell).

 

THE ARMENIAN:

the Armenian denys point 2 and sacrifices the ability of God to bring everyone to their knees in repentance and thus they sacrifice God omnipotence.

 

These become problematic becuase it makes God look like he's got a problem he can't resolve.

 

1) God wants to save all men

2) God is Just and must punish all who do not repent

 

so in one hand God wants desperatley to save some and on the other God's justice is going to get them.

Thus Gods conflict is within himself where his Love (wants to save everyone) but his justice (stops the love and judges the rebellious).

 

The calvinist resolves the matter by denying no 1 and says God has no conflict, he's just a discriminator and theres nothing we can do. Deal with it and praise God that he loves some.

 

In the UR view Gods wrath is used not because God wants to get rid of the baby, but ONLY the bathwater (sin).

Thus Gods wrath is upon all who are in rebellion and it is to humble them and bring them to repentance.

This results that God has mercy on all men and all things are reconciled unto him. His justice then is not to

stop love from achieving it's goal but to ENSURE LOVE ATTAINS IT"S GOAL.

 

The UR view thus holds that Hell is an extension of God's love. It's designed to be a refiners fire that drives people back to the cross and bring them to their knees.

 

So the conflict that the traditionalist holds is not so for the UR view. Since his justice and love are in unison on reconciling his lost children back unto himself.

 

Aug

on to part 2...

 

If Jesus has the power to forgive sin then did he?

 

What does he mean when he prayed upon the cross "father forgive them, for they know not what they do"?

a few interpretations are held.

1) Jesus prayed for all sinners (all mankind), as it is for our sins of which he died (reaching beyond bounderies of time); you and I are responsible and he is praying for everyone

 

2) Jesus is praying for the elect. He knows that they are going to respond to him and thus is asking God to forgive the elect but not the reprobate (those destined for hell).

 

3) Jesus is praying for the immediate men who nailed him upon the cross since they are soldiers they don't understand that they are nailing a innocent man to death.

 

4) Jesus is praying for the ones responsible for his crucifixion. He is praying for the sanhedrin, Judas, Pilate, roman soldiers who are directly responsible for his death.

 

The UR argues that no 1 is true. It holds that we are all bound to disobedience which is why he went to the cross (see John 3:16).

it's also argued that God did indeed forgive them and will forgive the world via the peace his Son made on the cross (see col 1)

it is argued that Jesus has the power to forgive sin himself (being God)

it is thus concluded that Since Jesus reserves the power to forgive sin and he is REQUESTING his Father in heaven to forgive them (whoever them is) it is logical to conclude that Jesus himself forgave those whom he is praying for.

 

So God is going to do exactly as Jesus requested as Jesus himself forgave them.

For God was pleased having his fullness dwell in him and having made peace by shedding his blood on the cross, and through him to reconcile ALL THINGS, whether it be things in heaven or on earth.

 

The UR view handles Jesus in more dynamic ways. The atonement has been debated for years as to the mechanics of it.

 

Talbott argues that Jesus died not so God would overlook our sin, but to change us. He argues that it was not to aswage God's anger and thus the cross changed God, but rather that Jesus' death is to change us and make us holy. He argues we need to be reconciled to God not God reconciled unto us.

 

This view is further expanded by stating that the atonement is not only subjective but also objective as well.

This means that objectively he did it all and therfore all sin he died for are atoned for.

 

The subjective part is that Jesus is demonstrating the way for us; it's the path we must take to be reconciled unto God.

 

Thus it is not

You can enter the kingdom of heaven even if you don't take up your cross

you can enter the kingdom of heaven even if you don't die to yourself.

you can be my disciple even if you dont forgive others.

You can enter Gods kingdom even if you don't ressurect.

 

The atonement view thus means Jesus IS DEOMONSTRATING OUR PATH back to God.

 

Tension:

1) No other sacrifice is needed, for he died for all sins once and for ALL.

2) unless you take up your cross (crucifixion) and follow you cannot be my disciple.

 

The view holds that God is reconciling ALL MEN unto himself (col 1) and that when the Father (Abraham) put the wood upon his son (the cross) and bound him (all men have been bound to disobedience) he laid him upon the altar.

 

Jesus finishes the work and becomes the ONLY way for us to get back to God.

 

For all who get back to God have the following:

1) created by God (gen 1)

2) bound to disobedience (rom 11)

3) take up their cross (gospels- crucifixion)

4) ressurect (we will not all sleep but first the dead will be raised see cor 15, 1 thess 2)

5) reconciliation (back to God) (roman 11 - so that he may have mercy on them all)

 

This is Jesus' pattern as well

1) First born son of God

2) numbered among the transgressors and is overcome by death (for a period)

3) crucified (took up his cross)

4) raised from the dead (overpower death)

5) ascension (act 1-) raptured to heaven (see rev 12, the child is SNATCHED up to his throne and rules with an iron sceptre)

 

Thus if we are to be reconciled back to God, it must be this pattern and his teaching is what gets us there.

Love God and love others (this will take you to a cross)

Imagine your own daughters or sons needing you to die for them....MOST WOULD DO IT IN A HEARTBEAT.

This is how we should be with all men. All men are God children (descendents of adam) created in his image.

Not spiritually at one time but each in his own time (the church, like Christ, are the first fruits)

 

So God really does love the world, even the most vile. Realizes they are sick and MOVES to reconcile them and prescribe an anditdote (Jesus) for their sin.

 

Other parts to follow...

 

Aug

Guys,

I've read and read on this viewpoint and now I'm like 99.9 (hahahah minus the .1 percent) converted.

 

I'll lay out the view point in as basic way as possible and let me know your thoughts.

 

I'll first encourage everyone to buy 2 books

1) Thomas Talbott "the Inescapable Love of God"

2) Gregory Mcdonald "The Evangelical Universalist"

 

I've read other materials mostly between Arminian and reformed views which leave me very unsettled and unsatisfied.

However the UR view becomes stronger in my mind as time moves and my bible reading increases.

 

the view is that God will somehow (via the work on the cross) reconcile all of mankind unto himself and that he already has done so.

 

There are a number of ways to start (philosphically or scriptually) I will start with Scripture.

 

1) tensions

There are a great many tensions in scripture that seem to somehow fly below the radar in our view or they inherit seeminly absurd renderings or interpretations.

 

For example

 

a) You are saved by Grace via Faith APART FROM WORKS. (paul in Eph 2)

we see that a man IS NOT JUSTIFIED BY FAITH ALONE but also by what he does (james in james 2)

 

usually people will conclude a few things from this...

James is ONLY saying that works are a manifestation of true faith and not a means unto salvation or justification, FOR WE ARE JUSTIFIED BY FAITH ALONE.

 

The obvious tension is between the rendering of

MAN IS NOT JUSTIFIED BY FAITH ALONE... (and)

WE ARE JUSTIFIED BY FAITH ALONE.

 

the next move is to say James is speaking of justification, Paul is speaking of salvation; 2 different concepts.

 

Not acceptable (even to Martin Luther), for James is on the very topic of salvation, for ver 14 and 15 the question is raised by james...

"can such faith save them" this is the same faith that does not justify alone according to James.

 

Now before everyone gets a bug up their cheecharonnees, I'm not endorsing salvation by works.

 

I'm simply showing that there is a tension that is embedded here. This lead me to opening up to different Ideas that may explain these things better.

 

Now there are ALOT of these tenstions all over the scripture, Predestination vs. Freewill

You can lose your salvation (heb 6) "it is impossible to bring them back to repentance"

You cannot lose your salvation (1 John 3:9) "he will not, he cannot continue to sin for he has been born of God"

 

Choose you this day

You did not choose me, I chose you

 

God loves the world,

God hates Esua (malachi)

 

God wants to save all men

Most go to hell for eternity

 

God chose Isreal

God shows no favoritism

 

and the list could go on and on...

 

Indeed some are solved with a bit of study but some are not solvable, under normal interpretation.

 

Heres how I explained it in sunday school:

if I read one verse and build a doctrine, most would argue that I should read the verses surrounding it to get it's context.

If I read a few verse before and after that one verse, most would argue that I should read the whole chapter to get it's context.

If I read the whole chapter, most would argue that I should read chapters surrounding it to get it's context.

If I read the whole book (single book) one would say read the all the books to get it's context.

 

And there is where we start.

Rather than constructing doctrines based on single isolated texts the UR constructs it from a WHOLE (at least as much as poss).

 

THE BEGINNING:

God creates his children

his children fall (sin)

God loses his children (out of eden they go)

God locks the gate and gaurds the tree of life.

 

THE END:

God settles all things

those who are washed are his children

God gains his children back (back into eden)

People have access to tree of life.

 

Now of course people will read rev and say what about those who are cast into the lake of fire. We'll get to that.

 

Is there scriptures that "imply" or state in a salvation of all men. Yes.

 

 

(A)

ALL THINGS ARE RECONDILED UNTO HIM (col 1)

Evern knee will bow, Every tounge confess (Isa, phil)

 

now obviously theres the tension

1) all things are reconciled unto him

2) most are damned to eternal chainsaw massacre

 

thus the paradox is raised of how to settle matters. Most people conclude that vs 1 is not "all things" but "some things" for all does not always mean "all". and every tounge confessing Jesus as Lord is a forced confession.

 

 

(

God wants all men to be saved and come to a knoweldge of the truth (Tim, peter)

God gets what he wants (the whole bible hahahah seriously)

 

another tension is raised

1) God wants all men to be saved

2) God is either satisfied or dissappointed that MOST are lost forever.

 

The people of the earth are regarded as nothing, God does as he pleases.

 

We would normally conclude that God indeed will greive as most are lost, but this is nowhere to be found in scripture in the end.

Rather a more brilliant and glorious ending is stated.

 

This raises the most debated question in the world of christianity,

Calvinism vs. Arminism.

they resolve the issue raised by Talbott and others

 

The issue:

1) God Loves all men

2) God can save all men

3) most suffer eternal torment in the lake of fire

 

The Calvinist:

The calvinist denies no. 1 and says God does not love all men but only the elect, those predestined for glory, those whose names are written in the book of life, those who belong to him of which none of them he loses.

In doing so they protect 2 things. Gods soverignty and his perfection. Unfortunatley his love is sacrificed for the doctrine.

 

The Armenian:

the Armenian denies no 2 and sayd God cannot save all men becuase he has fashioned "free" will upon mankind and therfore man kind controls his destiny as to whether he inherits God's kingdom.

In doing so they protect 2 things. God justice (God does not make men for hell but lets them choose), Mans responsibilty. In doing so they sacrifice 1 thing...God perfection.

 

No neither side concedes to these two objectsion.

The calvinist says God's love is discriminating so we are not sacrificing anything, it's always been that way; a remnant will be saved.

The Arm says God is perfect in that it was not his attempt to save everyone but rather a universal OFFER to everyone, but his perfection is intact as he does not try to save all men but he does offer to all men.

 

the obvious is true.

The calvinist meanin of "love" is lost.

The Arm of "wants all men to be saved" loses it's meaning as God does not attempt to save anyone even though they admit "God draws men to repentance".

 

What if God Can save all men and Col 1 is literal.

"he made peace when he died and shed his blood upon the cross and to reconcile unto himself all thing, whether it be things in heaven or things on earth."

The all things is earlier stated "all things were created by him, for him, and through him"

 

In the UR view GOD DID IT ALL upon the cross. Our coming to salvation is bades TOTALLY upon his mercy and compassion BUT UR maintains he wants to save all men, tries to save all men, accomplishes his attempt (goal) to bring every lost sheep to himself.

 

Heres one for you to chew on..

 

Models:

Isreal in bondage to egypt. (God has bound all men over to disobedience)

Moses (type of Christ) delivers Isreal from the bondage of Egypt (no one come to the father but by me-Jesus)

who is Egypt?

 

while most argue they are the sinful world, UR is arguing that Egypt is "sin". Isreal is "all men"/mankind who has sinned and been bound to sin by God (rom 11). For all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God.

 

thus at the death of the first born son and the slaughter of the lamb Isreal (all men bound to disobedience) are released from sin.

 

BUT Gods goal as stated in rom 11 is for one purpose...

 

So that he may have mercy on them all

 

Aug

I think I agree with dark that it is a "chicken or the egg" type of argument. I favor we would know simply because I feel "nature" is a real beast to dissolve if you believe we are only taught morals.

 

It seems (note I say seems) that "nature" or "natural instincts" can be sharpened or dulled but not created; like energy.

If you had no mother or father to teach you what is right and what is wrong, would you be capable of being hurt or edefied?

I think you could, you may be ignorant that you do wrong to others (believing you are doing well) but if you are hurt then it's a moral code against your system which was devoloped lacking any teachers. Thus I feel we are all ingrained with a life giving ability to learn w/o teachers (influences).

 

perhaps I'm just crazy, I think I am cause I know NOTHING on this stuff : )

 

aug

fox raises a valid question that I have not really wrestled with.

 

I've argued in favor of the athiest having morals but I am not sure about it myself. For example well known Sam Harris (atheist) if I understand his argument, finds that people can have morals without a belief in a external higher source. I think most atheists argue this.

 

I have heard it argued against the atheist that if there is no higher being then there can be no moral value for doing what is good.

 

I'm not sure about all the dynamics but I'd like to hear fox expand on it a bit.

 

Aug

allanon,

agreed, religion is often used for evil (controlling others) rather than for doing good.

 

I myself am in a very similar boat but I feel throwing out the baby with the bathwater is not necessary. I do believe there is a very high being who loves us all. While people die and bad things happen, I believe it's all for the progression of good...

 

God has bound all men over to disobedience

 

for one purpose...

 

To have mercy on them all.

 

I love this fact, that though we all have different hardships and life is for many, terrible, Gods goal (which he will achieve) is to bring restoration to a fallen world which EVERY SINGLE person partakes in.

 

Aug

I guess to bear on the subject a bit more constructively I would argue that someone

to say God does not heal amputees needs more proof.

 

I don't know that he doesn't, nor do I know that he has not.

 

I think the position of the atheist here, is that out of all these "supposedly" healings we see (like benny hinn) we don't see any of real visual (no questiosn asked) miracles. thus it looks bogus. I agree.

 

Benny hinn and the likes are full of smack in my opinion and don't do the gospel much justice.

 

Tristan,

if you want a great book, which touches on the porblem of evil try "The inescapable love of God" by Thomas Talbott.

Hes a christian philosopher who goes into a bit of that but he leaves the traditional thought and CLEARLY endorses the view that God does indeed love all men and WILL SAVE all men.

 

It's a PROVOCATIVE book and he's really the first in our time to have the guts to stand up in the theological world and shout out good news that Jesus died for the whole world. I'm sold on his view, it took a lot of debating and arguing but I finally cried uncle and since have found that the view of UR (universal reconciliation) is an incredible story that leaves me hungry for more.

 

Anyhow, he does go into the problem of evil as he was challeneged by his own atheism in his life and found it a dead end and embraced a view of God that is incredible (from my perspective).

 

anyhow, good topic. I love talking about God, even if the person says they don't believe.

 

Aug

who says he doesn't heal amputees?

Admitted, I've never seen it but I've never met Abrham Lincoln either but I'll assume he did live.

 

I read the links and watched the videos and the atheist who made the video simply does not understand scripture.

 

HOWEVER, I'll agree with him that from a traditional point of view he is challenging. Most people read with FAR too much lliteral interpretation which makes his arguments valid.

 

But for those who do not hold to literal it's meaninless talk.

 

I don't believe the earth is 6000 year old nor do I find adam being made from 100% dust AT ALL IMPORTANT.

 

so the links did nothing to move me away from my belief.

 

Aug

it is an intel thing and it is speed stepping technology.

 

M2 says keep it off. I'll do that until someone makes a good case to turn it on.

 

Aug

Guys,

in my bios is a stepping that is disabled???

 

Should this be enabled? I'm using a e6600

 

Aug

I like the case myself. Sleek look.

 

I still like Nvidias case on their website store more but still 0 it's a very nice case.

 

Aug

guys,

I looked at what I bought and it says it's 1.9v which explains why 90% of my software runs smooth as silk and the system has no lockups or shutdowns...

 

HOWEVER I want your wisdom on this...

 

On the mfg website it says

Tested at JEDEC-standard latency

settings (4-4-4-12) at 1.9V

SPD programmed at JEDEC standard

5-5-5-15 values

 

so should I set my timing to 4-4-4-12 or 5-5-5-15?

 

I have it set to 4-4-4-12 right now.

 

I think I'll keep this memory since it is 1.9v which is supported by my MB. I looked at (I think) the same memory on newegg which showed it as being 1.8v which made me think it was not totally compatible. But I'm now convinced it is.

 

I think my software issues are more about the e6600. Kind of like running win98 on a p4 3.2 northwood HT which make 98 crash in about 2 months and the longer you use it the more blue screens.

I've purchased gigastudio 3 hoping it will be more comptaible with the newer chips.

 

Guess I'll find out.

 

Sincerely,

Aug

sarge,

man it's been a long time since I've seen you in source (I havent played CS in like a year)

but I did that this morning so I'll let you guys know how that goes.

 

I have a 30 day return at mwave so I'll wait till like 20 days,

if it does not resolve, then I'm running with ZD's advice.

 

Aug

guys,

ive got a 3 partition boot drive.

 

1) xp 64 70 gb primary

2) xp 32 home 50 gb primary

3) xp 32 home (fat 32) with drive image7 and partition magic and boot magic which creates back images of 1 and 2

 

one problem I GET ALL THE TIME is that gigastudio has encoutered an error...would you like to disable all drivers associated with giga studio.

 

However, with that said, I tried installing hex 2 on parittion 3 which has no gigastudio install and hex 2 did not install correctly.

 

I don't know why it does sometimes and why it does not...

 

my only thought is perhaps the ram is messing something up?

 

Gigastudio is a KNOWN CRAPPER on it's stability. GREAT PROGRAM but finikey!

 

 

now I've got ZD saying get the rated ram and 2 people saying don't bother....

ZD can you make a case why. I really want to resolve my issues.

 

Auggy

Guys,

I bought my stuff and MOST is well.

 

the MB (asus p5n-e sli) rates memory voltages from 1.9-2.?

 

the memory I bought is rated for 1.8

 

Everthing except about 2 installs went good. Hexagon 2 (3d modeler) stalled half way installing and would not install correctly until I did a system restore and it went. Then Carrara 5 (3d rednerer, modeler, animator) did the same. I went through about 4 system restored till finally they both installed correctly now everything is running fine.

 

Now I did read that hex2 is not dual proc freindly. So perhaps this had something to do with it?

 

My question is this...

should I return the 1.8v ddr2 dual channel and get 1.9 or higher since all the bios settings start at 1.9 on up?

Or stick with is cause it's not the problem but rather the software confllicts with core2duo e6600?

 

I'm not sure,

my gut says the 1.8 is working fine but my logic is saying it may be the problem?

 

Aug

cuj,

I mean when I overclock...I'm using the auto oclock in asus' bios. I don't do anything except change it from standard to 5% or higher. If that doesnt work then going manual is out of my leauge. So in that sense I don't know what to do.

If you tell me to do it manually, heak I'm not sure where to start except I know the voltage/vcore and multiplier menus but dont know much about em.

 

Cuj the 6600 sounds like a good choice for me so I'm gonna go with that.

 

Thanks a TON for the help,

If I get a easy oc board that works you won't hear back from me. If I get one that requires manual settings then you'll hear back from me.

 

I'll be buying in about a month as I'm prepping to now research audio gear (wireless mics, flash recorders, microphones).

 

Aug

ok I read the site and wow was that helpful....

 

I'm sold ont he E6400 which is almost always better than the 5000

 

Granted for a few dollars less the 5200 is a bit faster than the 5000

but when looking at the rendering speeds of lightwave and pov Intel DEMOLISHED amd there and

that worries me since I'm doing 3d animations for wedding videos.

 

I'll change it out from a 5200 to a 6400 and go with that with 4 gb of ram...

I just cant afford 8 gb of ram?

 

Aug

cuj,

how will these fair on video rendering (sony vegas) or 3d (cararra)?

 

I see your saying to go with the e4300 or e4400 and oc (I dont know how to oc ;(

so why not get a e6400 and overclock to e6700 speed???

 

Can you give a bit more advice here and why?

 

Thanks for this help, I will stick with intel just help me make the right choice on the chip.

 

Aug

I did my reading on it and indeed intel owns right now...

however

it's alot more expensive.

 

for example the e6700 alone is 500 bucks

 

so I thought I'd go with a 5200 x2 for 209.

 

I'm not made of money and out here in california it doesnt grow on trees : )

 

Aug

boiler, I got that part (thanks anyways) I'm asking what the difference is between the

dual channel 1 and 2 are?

I know there are single sided and double sided rams so I want to make sure thats not what it means?

 

love that av by the way boiler

 

one other question on ram...

 

is 800mhz a major diff vs 667?

 

or even 533?

 

it does get cheaper for the lower mhz.

 

is this worth the money or is 667 good enough?

 

Aug