Calf Producers Association

State chapter of this group which supports the exhibition of show cattle. Member details, cattle for sale, show information.

Focus Sports LLC

The basketball program. Provides programs and contact information.

Georgia Air Hockey Association

Offers game rules, gameplay, an extensive Table Locations database, Tournament news, and discussions.

Georgia Air Hockey Association

Offers game rules, an extensive table locations database, tournament news, and discussions.

Georgia Figure Skating Club

Services and assistance for skaters. Site includes newsletter, testing information, and related links.

Georgia Lacrosse Foundation

Provides news on sport, message boards, photo gallery and feedback form.

Georgia Netball Association

Contains information on events, committee, goals and a history of netball in the Atlanta area.

Georgia Netball Association

Promoting the game in Georgia and surrounding states. Events, trophies, history, contact information.

Georgia Racquetball Association

Tournament information, results, and rankings. Player profiles and tournament sign-ups.

Georgia Racquetball Association

Racquetball information for Georgia. Tournament information, results, and rankings. Player profiles and tournament sign-ups.

wrf3@stablecross.com wrote:


>> I'd say, rather, that you were _convinced_ of the truth.
>>
>
> That presupposes that someone is able to be convinced of the truth.
> Which goes counter to scripture since there are those who are "ever
> learning, but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth". [2 tim
> 3:7]

Several things:

1. At no point did I say that all would be convinced.

2. In my example, of course, the particular person _is_
capable of being convinced.

3. By "convinced" here, I didn't necessarily mean "intellectually
argued into". I mean "convicted" in the sense we Christians
use it.


4. I could give an airtight, mathematical proof (actually, I
can think of 3 or 4 proofs) of the fact in my scenerio. But
I chose to have the subject be "convinced" by preponderance of
data, rather than by argument. The fact I gave happens to
be true, but perhaps if I'd have chosen a statement which is
false, but for which the first counter-example is astromically
huge, it would have been better. (There are a couple famous
examples in number theory.) My choice of "preponderance of
evidence" over "proof" was to get away from "convince" in
the intellectual sense. A person goes about his life and
things happen to him. The preponderance of evidence convinces
him that that lady is his mom, that gravity is a good model for
some of physics, that Brussels sprouts shouldn't be eaten, etc.
At no point is he argued into these convictions. He doesn't
choose them, nor are the forced upon him (in the usual sense
of "force.") No one comes to him and says "Choose who you
think your mom is" or "I'm going to slug you till you agree
that this is your mom."


Steve says that my point "may just be semantics". He mostly
right, but semantics are the point here. (And I'll respond to
him about that.)

Bart



((( 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. )))

Gary McNees wrote:
> Robert Sutherland wrote:
>
> >
> > (5) This understanding of original sin makes sinlessness difficult
for
> > all human beings but not impossible. Jesus is said to be one such
> > human being who, through a continuous reliance on God, led a
sinless
> > life. Job may be presented as another such human being. In any
event,
> > God provides all human beings with sufficient common grace to do
all
> > that he requires of them.
>
> Robert, I found this post to be very informative, BUT, I do not
> agree that anyone except Jesus led a sinless life.

How