The Epistomological Impact of an Omnitemporal Eternity on Theological Paradigms.

biblicalthology.com ^ | 2000 | J.W. Carter

[Revelation 911]

With all them boxes, has anyone told you that you must be the AmbassawoodychickenSCWsteve yet?

Thats pretty funny given I just pinged ma, x and ftd three minutes earlier to the fact stickywings is still posting-

flip flopping again between accounts I see -LOL

[the_doc]

The omnitemporal stuff is basically correct. But this is elementary theology. Carter makes it seem like a new insight on his part as he explores its implications (or blunders through same).

[CubicleGuy]

I really would like to hear the account of how restornu came to embrace Calvinism and then the specific reasons and process that caused her to embrace Mormonism.

Why do the details matter? It was Absolutely Predestined.

[the_doc]

I guess the Calvinistic answer to your closing question is, You don't.

***

I think it is very, very interesting that in the past 10 years, historians and school teachers have decided that it's time to disparage Calvinists in their lectures. When I was younger, Calvinists were barely mentioned as such.

Thngs are gonna get even more interesting soon.

[CubicleGuy]

So, was this some sort of weak Mormon science fiction? Sort of like "Mormons In Space"?

Larson (creator of BG) was LDS. Yes, BG was our evil plan to brainwash you all and take over the world. Given that you still remember this stuff proves that it worked to a minor extent. ;-)

[restornu]

STUCK TO CITY PLANING! Grammatically and theologically incoherent. Like shooting fish in a barrel, OPie

on top of that your a snob for making fun of my dyslexic! but I would expect that When I hit a nerve!

[drstevej]

Restornu claimed she is an ex-Calvinist. Just probing the facts behind the claim.

[George W. Bush]

Larson (creator of BG) was LDS. Yes, BG was our evil plan to brainwash you all and take over the world. Given that you still remember this stuff proves that it worked to a minor extent. ;-)

No, it merely proves that I keep tabs on science-fiction based relgious cults like the LDS and L. R. Hubbard's Scientology.

[drstevej]

***The most likely explanation for your writing is garden-variety illiteracy or alcohol.***

GWB, that is way out of line. I strongly exhort you to apologize without delay.

[George W. Bush]

GWB, that is way out of line.

No, it's not. It is either true or false.

I don't believe the 'dylexia' excuse for one second. Dyslexia is an induced text cuing problem and there has never been any proof that such a thing as dyslexia exists or is an intrinsic and structural failing of the brain. It is, as so many other psych-based explanations of educational performance, an attempt to disguise the failures of public schools by developing a scientific terminology to impress a gullible public. Much the same with most ADHD cases. Dyslexia is the 'gay gene' of the reading industry to explain their failures to teach reading.

Therefore, since dyslexia does not exist, there is a correct explanation other than dyslexia.

[drstevej]

Even if your understanding of dyslexia is true, your alternate suggestion of alcoholism and illiteracy are speculative and uncharitable.

An apology is still in order.

[George W. Bush]

Even if your understanding of dyslexia is true, your alternate suggestion of alcoholism and illiteracy are speculative and uncharitable.

The truth is rarely "charitable" to anyone.

Go ahead and offer your "sympathy" for her "dyslexia". It will doom her to a lifetime of illiteracy as it has so many millions of other people. The imaginary disorder of "dyslexia" is such bad reputation these days in education circles that no one even mentions it in cases of reading failure among children. We fought this horrible lie of the liberal education establishment for many years. I most certainly will not back down on it at this point in time when no reputable educator still offers "dyslexia" as an excuse for basic illiteracy.

[drstevej]

***The truth is rarely "charitable" to anyone.***

You certainly don't risk being charitable in these posts.

[Revelation 911]

The most likely explanation for your writing is garden-variety illiteracy or alcohol.

that was really uncalled for.

apologize now !

[George W. Bush]

You certainly don't risk being charitable in these posts.

Maybe I have dyslexia.

[restornu]

No, you're not dyslexic. Nothing you've ever posted indicates dyslexia or other text cuing problems.

The most likely explanation for your writing is garden-variety illiteracy or alcohol.

I have had learning diablilies all of my life and struggled with it I so my grammar has suffered greatly. I don't drink and somedays are better than others. It been my affliction all of my life and even those I am very intelligent I had to take low paying jobs for be people would judge me like you do. My folks was not a ware of dyslexia. I discovered this when I was in my twenty for I had trouble reading, a great memory but I have blind spots and a lazy eye.

I was learning about nutrition and wanted to read on it and it was hard for I would fall asleep but as time gone by I was able to over come a lot.

Now days this is common knowledge, but the wrong habits and damage is done.

I could had a career singing opera if it wasn't for this inconsistentcy and unpredictable flair up of this thing. its really hard for me to prove read for it in my mind, and not on the paper. some times you will see words that you have to omit for I thinking a couple of ways how to phrase something and words will be left over from a way I orginal was going to phrase something and re thought but forgot to omit unnecessary words.

THANK YOU STEVE FOR YOUR SUPPORT

[Revelation 911]

of course I will now get accused of killing the thread

[Revelation 911]

Maybe I have dyslexia.

rather, you have our sympathies

[rdb3]

Switching subjects, I see.

Anyway, what I said is the absolute truth, and I will say it again and again and again and again! Your refusal to accept this shows that you only want to serve the god of your mind, not the Revealed LORD of the Bible.

Yes, God preselects some and passes by the rest. What's so hard to understand about that?

God chooses, not man. The natural man is completely incapable of choosing God. Man simply can't. The Bible teaches this over and over and over again. Yet you continue to miss it. Why is that?

Get it, learn it, love it, live it. Your statement about the so-called "clarity" of my statement only shows that you haven't been truly paying attention to what RnMomof7, Jean Chauvin, OrthodoxPresbyterian, Jerry_M, CCWoody, drstevej, Dr. Eckleburg, theAmbassador, myself, and others have been saying all along.

Here, let's see if I can make this point even more clear:

• All of mankind was condemned to hell in the loins on Adam, the first man, because he sinned against God.
• Since Adam, ALL of mankind has been born in sin and iniquity. We are ALL transgressors from the womb and by nature rebels against the Father.
• ALL of us deserve hell. NONE of us deserve Heaven. No, not one.
• God chose those who He would save from the foundation of the world without any imput from man nor with man's permission. The decision as to who was chosen rests solely with God, and man has absolutely nothing to say about it.
• God is All-Powerful and Self-Sustaining. We need Him; He could do without us.
• God owed no man anything at all. The simple fact that He redeemed even one shows His true mercy. Remember, He didn't have to do it.
• All of those predestined God has given to Christ, and all of these shall come to Jesus. Jesus will lose not one.
• Christ only died for the elect. Period. End of story. If a man goes to hell, Christ didn't die for him. If a man enters Heaven, Christ died for him.

Now, a God whose Will can be thwarted by man is not a God worth serving. He's either Omnipotent, or He isn't. There is absolutely no middle-ground on this point.

Also, this is NOT a so-called "Calvinist belief." It is the unadulterated, undiluted, pure Word of God. It's the truth, whether you like it or not. All I can say about the Will of God, and all that it entails is, " Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight."

Now, will you denounce the words of Hank? Yes or no?

Don't bother with a response to me unless you answer that up or down with an unqualified "yes" or "no." It's not unlike those with this mindset to be fascinated with death. There was even one in your camp who said that CCWoody was supposed to kill me on sight if we ever met, and has not apologized yet.