Links to newspapers and other news sources from Mississippi.

Serving the state of Mississippi through public and educational radio and television broadcasting, including a full online schedule.

News on Mississippi continually updated from thousands of sources around the net.

Daily updated links to stories of interest in Mississippi.

I found an uncommon Bible with a Chinese translation. Sikimming through
it I found in 22 that there is another number used by the people once
the Kingdom of God is installed on Earth. Is this the same number of
the Beast or another number? I had never before noticed it, but it may
be an ommissio on my part after a dense writing or a special edition.
According to this, both the Beast and the Christ will ask us to use a
number! Can somebody help me with this doubt?

((( 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_member@newsguy.com wrote:

>>> > "There is no cooperation possible.
>>>
>>> And yet:
>>>
>>>
>>> > and so when a decision is secured for Christ, in
>>> > the individual he exercises his own will apart form even the
>>> > shadow of constraint.
>>>
>>> How can this not be "cooperation"?
>>>
>>
>>You point out the contradiction, I point out the contradiction, but
>>they just don't want to see it.
>
> No, it is because the contradiction really isn't there. And the
> fallacy both of you rely on to claim that it _is_ there is different
> in each post!
>
> But Bart is especially without excuse here. He of all people should
> know that until he can reduse it to A => ~A, he has no grounds to
> claim there is a contradiction. Yet EVERY time he supposedly has this
> opportunity, he refuses, taking refuge in a false dichotomy or
> post-scholastic causality.
>
> EVERY time!

Yeah, I have an ex-girlfriend who called everything she couldn't
understand (which covered a very wide scope of knowledge) "stupid."

But even she could look at Gary's first statement which says "no
cooperation" and then my response to Gary's second statement
which says "cooperation" and see that, if we let A="cooperation"
then surely the thing we're getting at here is "A and not A"
(rather than A -> not A).

The only thing left is to make the connection between Gary's
second statement and the word "cooperation". Certainly, in
my and Bob's definition, if man is acting, as Gary says "apart from
even the shadow of constraint", then man is cooperating.

Yet, I give Gary the chance to explain how someone can work with
someone else of their own free will toward a common goal, and
not have it be called "cooperation". If he can't respond sensibly,
then he has certainly said "A and not A".

So you're right in saying I'm "without excuse", but you're wrong
about the reason I'm without excuse. The reason I'm without excuse
is that I need no excuse for being correct.

Bart




((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((