speckles

The Bible was not made to be THAT type of science book. Job clearly teaches that the earth is round, and it seems that this was known from the beginning as Job was one of the oldest books. The Bible describes things visually when it comes to geography and celestial science topics. There are four directions (main) therefore there are four corners of the earth. There is also references to God hanging the stars, but nobody in their right mind actually thinks God hung them like laundry. And...animals were described according to their visual characteristics and function. You had birds (flying things) Creeping things (reptiles, bugs, stuff like that) etc And they were also described that way to deal with their spritual symbolism (birds-heaven-air-spirits)(creeping things-cursed ground-sin-evil men and demons and etc)

So, Let's suppose that drayden's hubby is a hypercalvinist. Then what? I mean, how does she follow the scriptural teachings about submission without submitting to heresy? I'm not sure that just submitting in other areas and running off to another church is the answer, cause the scripture also says to submit to an unbelieving husband and wouldn't a heretic qualify?

you can download the talks. YAYAYAYAYAY

What are you dubbing the high risk take down? Running over people with cars or using an APC? As far as the 'running people over with cars' being considered brutal, the scandal isn't the brutality as much as the attitude of the officers doing it. Suffice it to say that the dash cams aren't recording the officers saying "Welp, we've got no choice, Hoss, we gotta knock 'im down before he gets away." That and at least one of the chases involved running through the lawns of local apt complexes where children could have been outside... Last primary they had (I'm not Richland) three people ran against him, which divided the vote to the point that he didn't make a grand majority but won the nomination in a run off election. As I'm not from Lexington County, I can't say if there were write ins allowed or not during the run off. I do not remember the measure by which he won the nomination but it isn't like nobody ever runs or that he's all that popular. Divisions in the party actually keep him there lately. Or that's the way it seems to me. Of course you can only take my word for that because it's not like that gets reported on the news, but people that live here, though, discuss how embarrassing it is to have him all the time. However, it is possible that these individuals also do not vote. I worked for Ron Paul in the primary here. We had a local poll watcher in Lexington County somewhere who reported a turn out of less than 650, in a precinct with over 3000 registered Republican voters. (there was a discrepancy there, which is why I remember the incident). Not just this but, as you may or may not know, SC is a state where you can vote either side of the isle in the primary as long as you only vote once. There were over 100 democrats in that number. All of us were told that this was a very good turn out for that precinct. 600 out of 3000? If that is a good turn out, no wonder unpopular people get elected over and over and over again, people don't take the time to vote!!! But I believe that Lady Raven is taking ALL the police corruption locally and placing it ALL on Lott, probably because he's got a rep here. I know for a fact that most of the cops running people over and beating people up are the state troopers which have nothing to do with Sheriff Lott. As far as BTS goes, just remember that even a broken clock is right twice a day. In some cases there might actually be abuses of power that go on. I know you have no problem with it, but I am right there with her on the overuse of security cameras, RFID and DNA for non-criminals. That to me is not what America should be and it is not what it was when I was coming up. That is what we are allowing terrorists to turn us into and if we change the rugged individualism and privacy values that we have always had, then the terrorists have won. We are no longer who we used to be. And THEY were instrumental in causing it.

That tank looks like a really big insect for some reason.

What in blazes is a potlicker? I'm glad you didn't grow up with a father with a mouth on him. My father was pretty good in the presence of children, but don't put him behind the wheel of a car. Oh boy was that colorful. Of course *I* got my hide tanned with *I* said these things. In the end though, hearing it so often did deaden me to it to an extent. I only really notice it when it's a mile long. And then, to my shame, I'm oddly impressed. I feel badly right afterward for being impressed by something so dirty and stupid, but there you have it.

seeing double. Hey, maybe they will use the tank (er, apc) to intimidate speeding pizza delivery dudes....

I've heard it said that there is language in the Bible, in the original anyway, which would have been considered vulgar at the time. Like when Jesus called people 'dogs' and the OT reference to our righteousness being like filthy rags. Apparently the original was much grosser than what we read in our language. So, it can't just be the word. I think that you can see the difference in the evolution of the *s* word, and the *f* word, which originally wasn't as bad as it is now either. Other words for these things never got used for things other than what they originally meant. Like feces. Who runs around injecting the word feces in a sentence that has nothing to do with human waste like they do the *s* word. I mean, the *s* word means everything from feces to "oh really" (no *s*?) or "I have no words to describe how mad I am" (*S*!!!) or "stuff" (Ok, gather your *s* and lets go) .... Same with the *f* word. Only now it's injected in the middle of things too, like abos --- lutely (Like that makes any literal sense). You can't do that with the word sex, now can you? If the *F* word and the *S* word only meant what they meant and not the other stuff, perhaps they wouldn't be cuss words. But as they are now they express an attitude, one where the value of something is brought down by the use of these words. That seems to be what makes them bad, so in that case, if you find a substitute word and use it the same way, wouldn't you be doing the same thing? I mean, I could (but I won't) write a sentence with the exact same attitude that some people use expletives to describe and everyone would know what I meant and it would be just as offensive. And I also believe it has to do with vulgar conversations that some people like to have, like dirty jokes, constantly laughing about gaseous emissions, burps, etc and just trying to be gross. But I don't believe it has to do with the literary use of strong language if it's the appropriate word. It's hard to describe the difference, but there is one and, unless several of my pastors were wrong, the proof is in the Bible itself.

Oh, you need to have your mouth washed out with soap buddy boy.!!!

Yes I deleted it. I didn't know there was Christian material like that.....I must be naive.....still shocked! There is a popular Christian performer who does that all the time. Mouth like a sewer. I'm no saint in my speech, but I also never want a platform and never put that out there in public either.

Yeah, the family that knew of him used to be neighbors of mine. He was surpized to say the least, but I guess you can relate to that. What I can't believe is that you know him. I suppose somebody has to know him personally, but, that's weird. Is his wife still with him? How is she doing?

Can I get a reference for that accusation? It would seem that a Sheriff's Dept. that was "full of corruption and abuses" would pull up a hit or two for on-going investigations. After all, we are talking about a Dept. that fired a Deputy for being too friendly. It is also commonplace for Depts. to issue media releases of on-going departmental investigations. In this case, the only media release of that nature is for a Deputy arrested for DUI (with other attached charges) who is being investigated. I wasn't able to find anything about deputies running people over with police cruisers. Now I'm not saying it NEVER happened...maybe once...but to imply that a Law Enforcement agency is full of corruption and abuses and that they routinely run people over for no reason with no evidence seems just like typical cop bashing. BTW...in my digging I found that Sheriff Lott had been accused of Abuse of Power and the County was sued (and lost) a $150,000 judgement. Thing is...it was one of his own deputies that Lott had arrested for corruption. Because of Lott's investigation though, the Deputy was convicted on Federal weapons charges and sentenced to 18 months in prison. I'm not saying there is no corruption in the Richmond Sheriffs Dept. but I don't see it. I am VERY pro-law enforcement...but I will stand in line to condemn corruption as is evidenced by my stance on Campeon and Ramos (Border Patrol Agents) and more recently Trooper Wooten of Alaska. It doesn't seem like Sheriff Lott, or his department, has that type of reputation. The locals here are pretty frustrated, but it probably isn't on the news much. But it's not all Leon Lott. In fact it is possible that people just mush all the problems in the various county, state and local police into one. And most people here regard Lott as an embarrassment and a laughingstock, but that is not reported on the news. The dash cams of police mowing over fleeing suspects are not just Richland County, I believe there as a recent case in Aiken county today, or maybe yesterday. There were also state troopers involved in things like this, in fact, I believe the ones we've been watching on TV were almost all state troopers and not Richland County police. But just because you cant google it or search it on the news pages does not mean it doesn't exist and wasn't reported. One of my friend's husband used to work for Papa John's Pizza. Just before he quit, one of his colleagues, a driver, was arrested for multiple counts of sexual assault on both minors and grown women at two of the local walmart stores. WISTV for some reason didn't carry the news on its website, though it reported it almost nightly until he was caught on its broadcast. I never saw a thing about it on WLTX, but then there was an article on the website about it. If you google, there is very little about it and at least the last time I tried, you had to know his name. But it was BIG news here. He was going around walmart grabbing people's butts for months (Nothing else, just grabbing butts) and nobody caught him. He was labelled "the walmart groper" locally and had a bit of notoriety until he was caught. The reason I asked for verification is that sometimes a story is blown up or changed when it makes the national news, I wanted to know the real story.

Actually there is such a thing as too big of a risk for the level of threat. And there are always practical concerns. For instance, I mentioned the APC at work, one of our cooks is ex Army. He said he knew the county had one, but said most likely it would never be used because it would be ridiculously expensive to the county. Those tracks would mess up the streets, Richland County is not countryside, it's not like they will be plowing through the woods and cornering moonshiners or nests of militia nuts. They would be using it on the roads and tearing them up. The fuel for this thing is ... not cheap. And did anyone bother to actually procure the rounds for it? Not all people in government run on logic, especially around here, so who knows? And if they ever bothered to fire the thing it would, provided it hit the criminal, explode his head, penetrate the door behind him, run through the house and possibly, if its tract housing, into the neighbours house where people who are minding their own business might be shot. That's a lawsuit ready to happen and dead innocent bystanders are heavy money. What Richland county needs is more training on drug busts and more officers with better armour, not a giant humvee that looks like something out of Starship Troopers and could decimate a suburban area in a matter of seconds.

They have been quoted, right at the places of their heresies, repeatedly throughout this thread. And periodically you jump in and defend them until we ask you which of these points you believe are not heresies and then you have backed up and said you didn't agree with them. The idea that Jesus death was not enough to save us, that Jesus had to be Born again in hell is a heresy and the quotes are right there in the post I was responding to. Such a belief is heretical because they change the nature of Christ. In order to be born again, one must first have sinned or have had a sin nature. Jesus did and had neither of these, and he could not have accomplished his work on the cross if he HAD these, the sacrificial lamb was to be sinless, without spot or blemish. And, one must also place faith in the atoning work of Christ at the cross in order to be saved. So this means that Jesus had to have faith in himself? That is not only heretical its illogical.

Ok lets start with the first one. Hope these are enough for you. [1] Jesus death was not enough to save us. Kim Clement (Doctrinal Statement September 26, 2001) "When Jesus cried, 'It is finished!' He was not speaking of the plan of redemption. There were still three days and nights to go through before He went to the throne...Jesus' death on the cross was only the beginning of the complete work of redemption." Kenneth Copeland (Jesus -- Our Lord of Glory, Believer's Voice of Victory Magazine 10, 4; April 1982, p. 3) "Jesus had to go through that same spiritual death in order to pay the price. Now it wasn't the physical death on the cross that paid the price for sin, because if it had of been any prophet of God that had died for the last couple of thousand years before that could have paid that price. It wasn't physical death anybody could do that."? Kenneth Copeland (What Satan Saw on the Day of Pentecost, audio tape #020022) "The Spirit of God spoke to me and He said, "Son, realize this. Now follow me in this and don't let your tradition trip you up." He said, "Think this way -- a twice-born man whipped Satan in his own domain." And I threw my Bible down... like that. I said, "What?" He said, "A born-again man defeated Satan, the firstborn of many brethren defeated him." He said, "You are the very image, the very copy of that one." I said, "Goodness, gracious sakes alive!" And I began to see what had gone on in there, and I said, "Well now you don't mean, you couldn't dare mean, that I could have done the same thing?" He said, "Oh yeah, if you'd had the knowledge of the Word of God that He did, you could have done the same thing, 'cause you're a reborn man too." Kenneth Copeland (Substitution and Identification, tape #00-0202, side 2) "Every prophet that walked the face of the earth under the Abrahamic covenant could have paid the price if it were a physical death only. When He said 'It is finished' on that cross, He was not speaking of the plan of redemption. The plan of redemption had just begun; there were still three days and three nights to be gone through." Kenneth Copeland (What Happened from the Cross to the Throne, 1990, audiotape #02-0017, side 2) "Then, without warning, there came the sudden thud of a hammer. The nails that pounded into Christ's hands and feet that day 'injected' Him with every blatant iniquity, every subtle sin, every vile act that mankind had ever or would ever commit. Hanging from those nails, Jesus was also deliberately infected with all manner of sickness and sin, so to bring about salvation and healing, through His divine, immunized blood." Rod Parsley (The Backside Of Calvary, Results Publishing, Columbus, OH, 1991, p. 46) "And you've got to really glean some things out of the Word of God to really get hold of what He [Jesus] did for you during those three days. Jesus said, 'It is finished.' And He meant the Old Covenant. The job He had to do was just getting started. He really did the job the three days and nights that He was in hell. That's where the job was done." Joyce Meyer (What Happened from the Cross to The Throne? audio) "There is no hope of anyone going to heaven unless they believe this truth I am presenting. You cannot go to heaven unless you believe with all your heart that Jesus took your place in hell" Joyce Meyer ("The Most Important Decision You Will Ever Make", 1991 pg. 3) "Do you think that the punishment for our sin was to die on a cross? If that were the case, the two thieves could have paid your price. No, the punishment was to go into hell itself and to serve time in hell separated from God -- Satan and all the demons of hell thought that they had Him bound and they threw a net over Jesus and they dragged Him down to the very pit of hell itself to serve our sentence." Fredrick K.C. Price (Ever Increasing Faith Messenger June 1980) "Christ's physical death on the cross was not enough to save us." "Why did He need to be begotten or born? Because He became like we were - separated from God. Because He tasted spiritual death for every man. And His spirit and inner men went to hell in my place. Can't you see that? Physical death wouldn't remove your sins. He's tasted death for every man. He's talking about tasting spiritual death. Jesus is the first person that was ever born again. Why did His spirit need to be born again? Because it was estranged from God."? Kenneth Hagin, Sr. ("How Jesus obtained His Name" audio tape #44-H01) Kenneth Hagin, Sr. (How Jesus obtained His Name, Tape 44H01) So they believe that Jesus suffering in hell after His death on the cross is what redeemed us. I have heard worse beliefs than that that are much more widely accepted. Sound like semantics to me. They still believe Jesus paid the ultimate price for our salvation and that it is through believe on Him is how we get saved. Outside of Benny Hinn I do not have a problem with any of the rest of these preachers and I am very piticular about who I listen to. Those beliefs are heretical because they change the nature of Christ and they manipulate the plan of salvation at points. These are things one must not change in order to be within the realm of orthodoxy, to change them makes one a heretic. It is not semantics, it's about a right and correct system of belief. And all of these preachers teach heresy.

Thanks, I dont normally hang out at reason.com. I googled and got nothing. Even when I mentioned the State newspaper.

Actually, she posts funny stuff too, like monkeys getting married ...

Reminder #2

Some things have already been discussed.

Call me a skeptic but, being from this area, and being a person who watches the local news for hours (it's on from 5-730 here), I do not ever remember hearing about this. So, I read the story. I also googled it. I found references on blog after blog, and on reason, boing boing and that cred site, but nothing in the State newspaper, or anything local... Where is the original story that everyone is reporting from? Not saying there is no tank, but where is the story?

This is neither historically or theologically a correct statement. These are the hallmarks of hypercalvinism and all of them are antithetical to true Calvinism. They are not perversions or stretches of Calvinist teachings, nor are they logical conclusions based upon them. 1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR 2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR 3. Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect 4. Denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal, OR 5. Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR 6. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect. "Hyper-Calvinism" is not actually a proper theological term or a proper name for a heresy. Most titles for theological systems or heretical deviations tend to relate to the person who described it (Calvinism, Arminianism...or Marcionism), a dictionary definition of a concept (predestination vs free-will or...gnosticism) or a time in history (Reformation theology). The term Hyper-Calvinism is instead a pejorative term. It alleges a semblance of Calvinism, but the problem is that it has nothing whatever to do with Calvinism. To non-Calvinists, Calvinism is a pejorative term in and of itself, and there is so little understanding of what Calvinism actually teaches that when a new teaching arose among a minority group of English Particular Baptists in the mid 1770s, people named it "hyper-Calvinism." In fact, this theological system should have been named Skeppism, Particular Proclamation or something similar and has as much to do with Arminianism as it does to Calvinism at it's base. While the hyper-Calvinist and the Calvinist would agree that Romans 3:10-18, John 3:19-21, and Romans 8:6-8 teach that man, in his natural fallen state is completely unable to understand, desire or accept the salvation that he would need in order to love God and attain eternal life, the hyper-Calvinist and the Arminian would agree (against the Calvinist) that man's ability and responsibility are related so that if you are responsible, you must be able. If you do not have the ability to do something, you have no duty to it. Men like John Skepp, Lewis Wayman, John Brind and Joseph Hussey began teaching that one should not teach or call unbelievers to repent and believe the gospel because they are unable and thus not obligated to do so. Article 26 of the "Articles of Faith of the Gospel Standard Aid and Poor Relief Societies (Leicester, England: Oldham & Manton Ltd., n.d.). states, "We deny duty faith and duty repentance

Drayden, Hypercalvinism is heretical, yes. However, it might be a bit harsh to start treating your husband as an unbeliever right now. He just started paying attention to this stuff. I would use the socratic method to deal with him. I use it with unbelievers all the time, but I also use it to debate, sorta... Study, study, study until you know his side and your side inside and out. Especially concentrate on the things that make hypercalvinism different from the regular brand. Then just ask him questions. Start doing it one at a time and write the answers down. Most men would regard this as interest and an attempt to understand him at the very least and possibly even a desire to learn from him. He will not be offended if you ask him things and ask for the scriptures he uses and then write them down to study on your own. Then research what he says and ask a related question from that, headed in a direction which will either lead you to understand him (if he's a believer) or lead him to repent of his doctrine because he will see that it is wrong (if he's not). EIther of these things would be good and peace would descend upon your household once again...er... if that's all that was wrong anyway....

Personally, FloatingAxe, I liked the notes you posted, and when I'm not connected to a local body I feel dry. Two thumbs up for the OP. As far as the rest, some people haven't learned to use a small brush when painting word pictures. Not all churches have extraneous things in the sanctuary (if one were to buy the idea that they were idols in the first place), and just because you haven't found one that doesn't and that bothers you doesn't mean that there isn't a place out there for you.

The belief your husband holds to is a part of the calvinist teaching and it is dark and not biblical, but they insist they are right and are very aggressive towards those that do not hold to their false teaching. Just know that your husband is not atypical of other calvinist but are in line with their views an attitudes. It is probably not his fault but how he was raised to believe. Perhaps you should learn a little more about Calvinism. What the OP is talking about is not, in fact, how Calvinists believe. Not to turn this into a calvinist argument but it is what they teach. Calvinist teach predestination that some are predestined to heaven (the elect) and others are not those that are not predestined cannot accept Christ. this is exactly what drayden is referring to. Like i say I am not trying to turn this into a calvinism debate, all I am saying is drayden husbands beliefs are from the calvinistic teaching of predestination. This is what her husband believes: "My spouse belives we make no desisions ,we are prestined or we are not. That we can not accept christ .I have tried attending church,but he believes all that we have attended are false teachers. His belielfs are so dark and discouraging. If i diagree with him he says i disagree with the bible and do not believe the word of god.Or that i do not have ears to hear." Just because something has an element to something else, that does not make them the same. Just like we are warned against many false doctrines that resemble Christianity; we cannot accept them just because they may have elements of the truth. Likewise, do not confuse a false doctrine with elements of Calvinism with true Reformed theology. I realize that the OP is vague, and so it is possible things could have been misconstrued, but it seems unlikely that a true Reformer would refuse to attend church because of "false teachers". Isn't there a Presbyterrian church or a Reformed Baptist church or a Conservative branch of a Lutheran church he could attend? Are you trying and say the calvinist do not teach predestination? That is the main hinge that their entire belief comes from. Calvinists do teach predestination, but the description you gave of predestination is not accurate. Calvinists do believe in choice. The difference between calvinism and arminianism is that in calvinism, the unbeliever will not choose Christ without the work of God beforehand, he cannot and will not understand or accept the gospel without his ears being opened beforehand. Once the ears are open, they will accept. Both states, accepting or not, are what the individual WANTS at the time, due to their spiritual condition and a choice that an individual voluntarily makes. Hypercalvinism teaches that not only are your choices predestined, but they are made for you. It doesn't matter what you want, you dont make any decisions at all. God controls you and you have no volition at all. This is not predestination, this is fatalism, kismet, fate...heresy.

The belief your husband holds to is a part of the calvinist teaching and it is dark and not biblical, but they insist they are right and are very aggressive towards those that do not hold to their false teaching. Just know that your husband is not atypical of other calvinist but are in line with their views an attitudes. It is probably not his fault but how he was raised to believe. The way this was described was not typical calvinist belief. If it was described accurately, it is beyond Calvin and into something called hypercalvinism. Calvinists belive that men make choices that they wish to make. My family is rife with calvinists. I'm a 4 pointer myself (Dont do the L). I've sat under reformed/calvinist teachings for years. What you say is inaccurate. It's no better than accusing a arminian of holding to 'easy believism' or 'universal salvation.' Hypercalvinism is heretical. Note that she says "that we cannot accept Christ." It is very much a part of Calvinist teaching that you must accept Christ or you will go to hell.