Ham

Did anybody else hear her acceptance speech?

That sounds like a rewording of an old way belief: "God designed our brain to hold da word"..

I think they are finding it harder to pay the bills with. The arrogance, that is..

Paul quoted Aratas as well. Perhaps in some kind of remote context he considered that "scripture" as well..

I would say that they are too weak to live outside of THEIR "comfort zone".. easy to sit back, well insulated from the rest of the christian world.. comment on how weak the players are performing..

I think we are saying the same thing in a slightly different dialect..

and.. its for lack of better words, a Mexican Standoff. We can't exactly veto Him out of existence.. yet He can't arbitrarily run *us* (Himself) off the map either.. Or was that the other way around..

This calls whole venues of divinity into question.. There are a few opinions I've read here and there... Part of "God" had to die, giving birth to creation.. some think that the Almighty sacrificed (sound familiar?) part of Himself for the "greater Good".. that could be.. but God can't die. Where did his "parts" go? He had everything.. at the beginning.. but it is rather "boring". I mean.. the 20 millionth year, with perfect weather.. I think the Almighty chose to reserve 50 percent of Divinity.. and maybe that's what is "free will"..

Congratulations! Have you come up with a name for the baby yet?

It is basically the foundation for inductive proof or argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-ordering_principle I know its math.. but you were talking logic and proof or the lack of merit thereof.. Anyway.. I don't think that Penworks assertion was not that the bible is NOT inerrant. Just that if one wants to impose an inductive proof or analysis, one has to play by the rules. Is it inerrant, or not? "well, it is, because it says it is.." hardly is a base step for the "proof". Neither is "it can't be". If faith or belief is so important.. isn't it counter-productive to force logic where it does not really apply?

Then you don't accept the well-ordering principle?

and you heard it first, here.. at Greasespot Cafe. and it wasn't even plagiarized..

Which explains why all they seem to have is a loose ex-way affiliation. I would ask though.. what do they consider a "christian spectator" to be? I think its obvious.. one is either mog, stands with, and support da mogs, or they belong to the spectator crowd, the off scouring of christianity, so to speak..

I remember a character who prayed for their pot before consuming it..

Better than not talking to anybody at all.. well, you proved me wrong. Somebody is reading my drivel..

You'd have to "be there" gastrointestinaly.. to appreciate the last statement..

anything would be better than several hundred morning glory seeds..

maybe I just don't know the right people.. One of the things I have noticed about human nature, is the tendency to accept one's own particular sin in one whom one is ordaining, or setting in authority over others.. actually, the debaucherous lecher encouraged it, didn't he? "Loosen up in the sexual categories" or something like that, to *minister* to gawd's people..? and if you find the LSD. Send it to: The Squirrel. New Knoxville, Ohio. I'm sure they will know where to send it.. Even an envelope of ....ty blotter would be ok..

I didn't think they made it anymore..

Actually, inductive reasoning depends on the truthfulness of a base step. Then one shows for any other arbitrary step, one can prove the next one from the last one..

Welcome to the Cafe, Workman. just a thought.. the alternative makes one to force "inerrancy" in the bible, where it does not reasonably exist.. look at the lengths gone to in JCOP.. I don't think its a problem unless one makes it one. I think we were trained in the ministry to regard any other options than the bible being a perfect error free document (supposedly in the *original*) to be an attack from the devil spirit world or something..

Besides pure nuttiness.. I can't think of any other reason.. his claim bears a remarkable resemblance to Leonards "message".

I think the secret to *successful* living is to own one's nuttiness, not the other way around.