Hart Silver Lake Mears Chamber of Commerce

Vistor information.

Oceana Adult and Community Education

Offers help with high school completion, adult basic education, and English as a second language classes.

Oceana County

County Clerk Office.

Oceana County Government Online

Offers information about local administration and services.

Oceana County Historical & Genealogical Society

Research library for cemeteries, obituaries, Oceana County American Natives, family genealogies. Queries answered by volunteers.

Oceana County MSU Extension

Programs and educational offerings.

Oceana County, Michigan - MultiMag

Oceana County: Wikipedia

Census, geography, and demographic information for the county provided by Wikipedia. Includes links to cities and regional areas.

matthew_member@newsguy.com wrote:


>>This is not a logical contradiction. You're using an
>>axiom which says "A being can responsible only if he has
>>freedom." I don't agree that the axiom is a good one.
>
> True. But if you did accept it, as Gary and many lurkers do, then it
> IS a contradiction.

So? Who really cares if one's doctrine contradicts someone
else's contradictory doctrine? If Bob holds to predetermination,
and Gary holds to free will, then does it score any points
against Bob that Gary's doctrine contradicts him? And vv?


> Besides: we _know_ you don't accept it. What we
> don't understand is why you think this is a good idea.

Here's why it's a good idea (not to accept it.) First,
it leads to excuse making. A person can sin and when he
contemplates his action, he might discover that he didn't
commit the action "willfully" and therefore it wasn't a
sin and he's not guilty of it. (Does that remind you
of Harold a bit?) Our only answer to sin is Christ's blood.
It can never be "I didn't mean to" or "I didn't know better"
or "I tried as hard as I could".

If I sin accidentally, (meaning I harmed someone without
freely willing to) I don't get to call it "not a sin" or
claim that God won't count me guilty by dint of my ignorance.
The _only_ way we get counted "not guilty" is by Christ's
blood.


>>I can't think of any reason why it ought to be true,
>
> I can.

> "...Haec eis excusatio tollitur, quando
> praeceptum datur, vel scientia non peccandi manifestatur.

Very strange that you cite something that says "no one has
an excuse" when "your" side of the argument is proposing
that we can, indeed, excuse ourselves.


>>and I can think of several examples of a person who doesn't have
>>control but are still considered to be responsible.
>
> In _what_ legal or ethical system? Perhaps only in one that is badly
> in need of reform, such as the Texan system;)

Pretty much any legal system holds people guilty for
acts which they didn't commit by exercise of free will.
If my tree by my cabin on Lake Winnepesaki rots and
falls over on my neighbor's cabin, then I'm responsible
for not taking care of the tree, even though I haven't
been to the cabin for three years, had no idea the tree
was dying, and had had financial difficulties so that
it was impossible for me to get from Texas to New Hampshire
and check on my property, but had been trying in vain
to sell it for several years.

I'm walking in a supermarket and a lady behind me drops a
jar of pickles. Without willing to, but simply because
I'm startled, I turn around. In doing so, I cease to
watch what's in front of me and I crash into a kid and