Local network for parenting resources and community support. Provides local activities and message boards.

Joint venture effort for teens in Fayette and surrounding counties to create a 30 second commercial telling of the dangers of underage drinking. Public will vote on their favorite commercial.

Contains contacts for organizations within the state, plus information and news about the state federation.

State agency established to identify, preserve, and protect the cultural resources of the state. Information about programs and sites.

State agency which maintains updated inventories of historic structures and archaeological sites and nominates properties to the National Register of Historic Places.

Saves endangered Kentucky sites by finding new owners for old buildings, and through the use of revolving funds, purchase options, tax credits, and preservation easements. Details how to join, items for sale, and past projects.

In article <178.41.13.05.396198000@srcbs.org>, Bob Felts says...
>
>Matthew Johnson wrote:

[snip]

>> >> >Then by basic English, either you are in the peanut gallery
>> >> >(something I am willing to grant),

>> >> Too willing, obviously.

>> >Except that, for some strange reason, I haven't granted it yet.

>> Then why _were_ you willing to grant it? And why are you even
>> _talking_ about being willing to grant it? 'Fess up, Bob. There cannot
>> be a good motive for doing this.


>There is an excellent reason for doing this.

So you love to say, but your so-called 'excellent reason' below was no
reason at all. It was only a massive failure to establish your case. See below.

> There are several places
>in Scripture which talks about God desiring/willing something that we
>know (at least, if we aren't universalists) doesn't happen in all cases.

True. That is why the Fathers -- and even the Scholastics -- made the
distinction between "antecedent will" and "precedent will" of God.

If only you understood this distinction, you would then also realize
that no, it is NOT an "excellent reason" for what you do and claim.

>The free will camp will use this as proof that it is the free will of
>man which thwarts the desire/will of God.

You prejudicially incomplete and misleading statement of the "free
will camp" shows you have no interest in honest debate, only in
repeating 'Reform' propaganda, buttressed by sophomoric fallacies.

It show this because you are repeating the same fallacies you have
been rebuked for so often here: the fallacy of composition and the
"straw-man" argument. Perhaps there are even others.

Since you have already been rebuked so often for these, I will list
your fallacies only in a brief form: there is NO one "free will camp"
that uses this in the same way as "a proof" that the free will of man
thwarts the will of God, they do not _even_ all use it to claim that
man 'thwarts' God. And those who DO use it do not use it as _you_ claim they do,
as a "proof-text".

Thus it is both fallacies: composition and straw-man.

> But the non-free will
>position says no, it isn't because man has free will, but because God's
>desires are more complex than free willers allow.

And as has already been pointed out this runs into its own
troubles. But you just shut your eyes and plunge ahead.

> Yet you make the case
>for me.

No, I do no such thing. You continue to make this patently false claim
only because you misread me as badly as you misread Scripture.

> If the free willer case were correct,