The Canada Road served as the primary link between Lower Canada and Maine from about 1820 to 1860. This byway passes through villages and outposts that are much as they were at the turn of the century.

gkmcnees@comcast.net wrote:

>> Right. You teach that all Jesus did was buy us a "chance" to
>> get saved. This is contrary to a doctrine that says "Jesus
>> saves". I believe Jesus redeemed men, not chances.
>
> I would prefer the word "opportunity" as opposed to chance.
> Like God says, "that He MIGHT have mercy upon all."

So what? You saying that Jesus' blood didn't buy us back,
but only bought an "opportunity" for us. "Might" is not
"mote", especially when God is talking.



>> So your reason is that "it must be reasonable"?
>
> Is it reasonable that an "a" is an "a?"

If you're arguing that "a" is "a" then is the reason
you give "because it's an 'a'"? And since were talking
about the word "reason" itself, your analogy comes down
to:

"Is it reasonable that reasonable is reasonable."

In any case, you haven't answered the question. Where did
you get the idea that "responsibility = ability to respond"?
Especially when you'be been given several examples to
the contrary and you even gave one of your own:



>> How can you say it's not rational to hold someone responsible
>> when they could not have responded, when we do this all the
>> time in our society.


> Actually, this case has happened twice recently here in
> Florida. In both cases the person drove through a red
> light and kill someone.
>
> All the law did was to take away their licsense.
> Big woop.
>
> I think that they should have been guilty of a minimum
> of manslaughter.


So do I and so so everyone else. "Reason" demands that
these people are responsible, even though they had no
"opportunity" to respond. They were oblivious to their
own actions, so there was no free will involved, and
yet YOU and I and everyone else thinks they should
be flogged.




> Quote Bart: " I haven't asserted anything. "
>
> The above IS an ASSERTION.

The above is also in the past tense, so it hardly matters
what it "is".


>> > Whatever evil we do and are responsible
>> > for, we could have responded otherwise.
>>
>> Both Scripture and our own experience shows this is not true.
>
> Where?

Where? You've got to be kidding. You gave an example yourself
from your own experience. From Scripture we have

Luke 17:1 Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible
but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through
whom they come!

It's _impossible_ but that offences come. If it's _impossible_
then how can you say that we always have this magical
ability to avoid offences? It's still an "offence" but
it's _impossible_ but that offences come.


You're not follo