Providing reproductive health services in Anchorage, Sitka and Soldotna.

Providing reproductive health services in Anchorage, Sitka and Soldotna.

kent@ccountry.net wrote:

> In fact Hebrews 11:1 claims only that:
> a part of faith is the conviction of things not seen.

No. The verse doesn't give two aspects of faith, it
gives the same aspect twice. The two clauses are
restatements of each other.

Things hoped for are not seen, so to say that
faith is the assurance of things hoped for it's the
same as saying it's the conviction of things not seen.

So it turns out that what I said Scripture says is
exactly what it says.

Try out:

Romans 8:24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that
is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has?

There's no way you can hold to your bizarre "experiential"
theology and to Scripture at the same time (without
committing horrid illogic.)



((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

linkh@bigfoot.com wrote:
> I Corinthians 8 does not deal with the issue of eating blood.



Perhaps Mark Chapter 7:14-19 will cover blood, when used as a food?


14: And he (Jesus) called the people to him again, and said to them,
"Hear me, all of you, and understand:
15: there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile
him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him."
17: And when he had entered the house, and left the people, his
disciples asked him about the parable.
18: And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do
you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile
him,
19: since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?"
(Thus he declared all foods clean.)


((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

Matthew Johnson wrote:
> In article <123.26.10.05.614273000@srcbs.org>, Bart Goddard says...

>
> It amazes me, Bart, that someone with an advanced graduate degree in
such a
> logical discipline, mathematics, can so arrogantly sweep aside an
entire field
> of a similarly logical discipline, philosophy, without giving it even
a fraction
> of the consideration it deserves. Yet this is _precisely_ what you
have done
> with your breezy and WRONG description of Theodicy, saying "by using
words of a
> different connotation, they make thmselves feel better".
>
> But wait! What am I saying? You are a mathematician. I must have
suppressed the
> unpleasant memory of my past association with mathematicians that
reminded me so
> vividly so often that mathematicians all lov