Nonpartisan network of 522 cities, towns and villages in North Carolina.

Lists of city, town, and village websites with its corresponding county.

Cities and towns list with links to sites describing locations.

destiny wrote:



> You won't want to miss a simgle segment of this webcast stream, as it
> has absolutley VITAL information for your very survival!


I think you have gone a bit overboard. You sound like one of those
fellows on TV who demonstrates some gadget and tells us, "This is
something you MUST have! Order now!"

Why don't you calm down and write a nice short little paragraph in your
own words that gives us an abstract of that "absolutely VITAL
information".




((( 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:

> Bob Felts wrote:
> > Gary McNees wrote:
> >
> >
[...]
> >>
> >>All these so-called texts which you all are using to try to assert
> >>no free will, all assert free will.
> >>
> >
> >
> > They assert will. The addition of freedom or the subtraction thereof,
> > from these passages are exegesis.
>
> Didn't you mean eisegesis?

Yes.

> >
> > God sovereignly chooses the elect, a choice not based on human will or
> > effort.
>
> God sovereignly chooses all that occurs, including every FREE
> will choice that everyone makes.
>

If election is not based on human will or effort, then how can man be
said to be free in this respect?

((( 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. )))

Ludwig77 wrote:
> lsend...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >However, experience can be falsified, can it not?
>
> I'd say that experience can be misinterpreted. For instance, one could
> experience a hallucination and only later realize it was such. I
> wouldn't call that the *falsification* of experience.
>
> If God allows experience to be universal, then basing truth on
> experience will not invalidate the absolute and universal quality of
> truth that we both espouse.
>
Wait a minute, you appear to be twisting this a bit. It was not my
intent to disqualify general revelation.
>
> Great points on truth coming from the revelation of God and truth being
> independent of the existence of falsehood. My definition of truth as
> that which counters falsehood is incomplete and only applies in a
> fallen world.
>
Then you would agree that experience, i.e. general revelation, does not
provide men with the ability to discern truth for they never correctly
orient themselves to the Truth, as having origin in God alone. You
seem to be advocating some sort of empiricism. Is this a correct
assessment?