lol - Wrong religion ;-) Need an ImmamObama. Or maybe we don't need anything at all. He did a swell job all by himself with his own acceptance speech of nomination at the "Greek, Roman, Oval Office, Temple"...

Christian democrat = Oxymoron

paross - Interesting. Thanks for posting. It still seems more severe than in other cases in the OT. For instance, Abraham and his wife / the sister lie. Or how about Jonah, in comparison?

STR Article: Death by Design

...............................................................


Death by Design by Greg Koukl
by Greg Koukl

I went to Washington for a few days this week and we went to a flower
garden in Victoria, British Columbia. I was watching a bumble bee on a
flower and I suddenly knew for certain that there was physical death
before the Fall.

Let me set this up for you because it's important that you understand
where I'm going with this. There is some considerable debate in
Christian circles about the age of the earth. There are those who are
literal 24-hour day creationists who are committed to the notion of a
young earth. There are other Christians that are compelled by what seems
to be substantial scientific evidence for an old earth, and also what
seems to be a legitimate reading of Genesis 1. And they believe that the
earth is ancient and the animal and plant kingdom is ancient, though man
may have been created relatively recently.

A significant factor in this debate has to do with the question of
physical death. Was physical death part of the Fall, as Scripture seems
to indicate? Or was it part of the natural created order with an added
element after the Fall? On the one hand, if there clearly was no
physical death of any kind before the Fall, then it seems impossible for
there to be any significant time gap between the creation of living
creatures, and the creation and fall of man. In other words, it happened
in a very short time--just a couple of days--which is the point of view
of those that hold to a young earth creation. However, if the Scripture
leaves open the possibility of some form of physical death before the
Fall, and if Scripture doesn't explicitly disallow this, and if there is
scientific evidence for it, then it seems that an ancient creation with
a recent advent of humans is a legitimate possibility.

The key fact to remember here is: if all physical death was a result of
the Fall, as some hold--especially 24-hour creationists--then in the
original creation God never intended even for animals to die. So if we
can show that God intended for animals to die before the Fall then it
seems a pretty good argument that there was at least animal death before
the Fall.

Now as I've reflected on this and I've argued it a particular way in the
past I've argued this other view. I've argued that the earth was
ancient, and the living realm was ancient, and there was death before
the Fall. The 24-hour view which doesn't allow for any death prior to
the Fall has always troubled me. Did God really intend for all creatures
to multiply and fill the earth but never die? Was this His plan? Because
if it was, as those who hold to a seven day creation argue, then I'm
reminded of Malthus' theorem which some called the "Dismal Theorem".
Malthus observed population increasing as animals multiply in a finite
space. He observes that they multiply in a finite space. They increase
in numbers but because they have finite resources they increase to such
a point that they use up all of the resources and then the population
curve drops to zero. That's why it was the dismal theorem because it
seemed like everything was going to consume everything and pretty soon
everything would die. It seems to me that if God intended gross
multiplication of beings with no death you would run into that problem.
In addition, larger animals inadvertently eat smaller animals when
they're trying to eat vegetation. I've got tomato plants out in my
backyard. You know what they are covered with? Aphids. You know what an
aphid is? It's a one centimeter long green bug that thrives in packs on
your vegetables. And there are other little critters that crawl
around--insects and worms. All of these things are small. Now if an
animal bent over to eat this vegetation guess what they are going to get
a mouth full of? Other insects. So it seems even vegetarian animals are
inadvertently going to cause the death of smaller animals. Single-celled
organisms that thrive in a pond get ingested when another creature
drinks. Large animals like dinosaurs just walking around are going to
kill many of these smaller organisms. It seems hard to envision a
natural realm that has this wide variety of animals that never die, that
never inadvertently even kill each other. I've always thought about that
and it seemed to be a problem, and that's why I've looked for another
answer.

I have argued in the past--feeling confident that there is strong
natural revelation (read, "scientific evidence") for an ancient earth,
yet I'm deeply committed to the authority of the Scriptures--I've argued
that the death spoken of in Genesis 3is a spiritual death of man, not
necessarily a physical death. God said that in the day that Adam and Eve
would eat they would die. Yet when Adam and Eve ate they didn't die
physically the day that they ate, as God said, though it's clear they
died spiritually. So it seems reasonable to argue that the death that's
in view here in the Fall is a spiritual death not a physical one. Romans
5seems to make the same point.

My argument was that physical death was part of the natural order, even
for man, and had no sting until spiritual death resulting from the Fall
became part of man's experience. This seemed to be an explanation that
would fit the evidence of both the Scripture and natural revelation. So
it is theoretically possible that, given the Biblical text, man
experienced physical death as part of the natural order, but that
spiritual death--separation from God--was the particular death that
resulted from the Fall.

Then I read something in St. Athanasius on the incarnation last week
which suggested something else to me that I became convinced of when I
looked at this bee on the flower. I was reading a piece by St.
Athanasius entitled St. Athanasius on the Incarnation, (New York: SVS
Press [St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary], 1993). Athanasius
was a fourth century Christian theologian who was very instrumental in
defending the notion of the trinity against the Arians. There was
something he wrote about in this book, though is not related to the
trinity per se but talking about the Fall of man, that caught my
attention.

Regarding men, Athanasius wrote, "But if they went astray and became
vile, throwing away their birthright of beauty, then they would come
under the natural law of death and live no longer in Paradise, but,
dying outside, continue in death and corruption." (p. 29)

This phrase "natural law of death" caught my eye. I thought that he was
suggesting that death is a natural part of the natural world, though it
became unnatural when it comes to man. So I read a little further and he
continued, "For, as I said before, though they were by nature subject to
corruption, the grace of their union with the Word made them capable of
escaping from the natural law, provided that they retained the beauty of
innocence with which they were created. That is to say, the presence of
the Word with them shielded them even from natural corruption." (p. 30)

Did you follow that folks? It seems that Athanasius' view of the Fall
was that death was an appropriate part of the physical world. He calls
this the "natural law" and "natural corruption," but apparently man was
exempted from that by God's grace until the Fall, and then the Fall
interrupted the grace and so man became capable of death as well. The
point is this: even if we were to argue that death came through sin and
that death was not just spiritual death but physical death, Athanasius
seems to think that it applied only to man and not the rest of the
natural order for which death was a natural thing. Meaning that there
was natural death before the Fall, and if there was this removes a
significant theological objection to the idea that the earth is millions
and millions of years old and also the rest of creation, though my view
is that the creation of man is recent.

That objection is removed and this brings us to Victoria Island, Buchart
Gardens and the bumble bee. I was bending over looking at the flowers
and I saw the bumble bee. It was such a beautiful calm wonderful
environment you almost felt like reaching out and touching the bee in
this benevolent atmosphere. And it occurred to me that bees have
stingers--or most of them I guess So I asked my friend, "Do you think
this bee has a stinger?" And just then the thought struck me: Where did
he get that stinger? Well, he got it from God, of course. God gave him
the stinger. Then it occurred to me, what was the stinger for? Its
purpose is protection. That's obvious. Protection from what? And in a
flash of insight I knew there was physical death before the Fall, at
least animal death, because God had actually designed some animals as
predators and designed others--like the bee--with defense equipment.
Now think about it for a moment. When one is confronted with the
teaching that there was no death of any kind before the Fall, he
generally wonders how all of the carnivorous animals survived before
there was any death. "Wild cats and other carnivores could eat
vegetables. That's the answer. Remember, "the lion will lay down with
the lamb"? It's true. It seems that canine teeth could serve reasonably
well at tearing vegetables as it does tearing flesh. But that strains at
the gnat and swallows the camel. The camel being this: God has designed
many creatures with features meant solely for taking life or solely for
defending against deadly assault.

Think of a spider. Do you think God taught him to spin a web so he could
catch leaves? And spiders have poison in their mouths. What's the poison
for prior to the Fall?

Spider webs were not meant to capture leaves.

Think of the scent glands of the skunk. Why does the skunk has a scent
gland? So that he can fight away predators. Ever heard of an angler
fish? This is a fish that looks like muck, muck and vegetation. It opens
its mouth and way back in the throat of its mouth it's got the glottis
hanging down there, kind of like we have, and it opens its mouth and
wobbles this thing back and forth. Now if you are looking from the
outside you don't see the camouflage, which is also a part of the
program. All you see is this opening in the back of which is this little
worm dangling down wiggling. A fish swims inside the cavernous opening
to eat the worm and guess what? Gobble, gobble. He's lunch for the
angler fish.

Now where did the Angler fish get this dangling worm in his mouth and
all the camouflage if he wasn't meant to eat other fish with it?
Archer fish can also shoot a stream of water up into the leaves to knock
insects off a tree into the pond so they can eat them. Where did they
get that ability?

Amoebas are designed to physically engulf their prey, destroying it prey
in the process.

These are all design features that are all complex and have one purpose
and one purpose only: the destruction of other living things.
Virtually every carnivorous animal has highly specified behaviors and
equipment that are specifically for the purpose of killing--instinctive
attack behavior, instinctive killing modes, stealth and crouching, and
all of that kind of stuff. You see cats out in the yard doing it. Where
did they get that? Where did they get these retractable claws? What are
they for? For climbing? They don't need to climb. They don't need to
climb to anything or away from anything. The grass is on the ground,
remember? The natural realm is overflowing with examples of particular
things that were designed specifically with the capture and killing of
prey in mind, therefore they must have been part of the plan in my view.
They aren't an evil part of the plan because God made these things, and
then having done so with all the creatures of the world, looked at it
all and said that it was a good thing. So the natural law of death that
must have been in place before the Fall is not bad, it's a good thing
created by God.

There is a possible objection--actually two of them--that could be
raised against this.

I'm talking about this question of whether it's possible there could
have been animal death before the Fall; and it's an important question
because if there could be, then it leaves open the possibility of an
ancient earth without at the same time causing theological havoc with
the theological nature of the Fall of man. It seems that Athanasius is
arguing this way.

There were two things that I noticed as I looked at this bee and the
rest of the natural realm and reflected. One, the presence of design
features specifically for capturing and killing; and two, the presence
of designed defense mechanisms to protect creatures from being captured
and killed. It seems there is no explanation for these things if there
was no physical death in the animal kingdom before Adam's Fall.
Now, when I'm toying with a new idea I try to anticipate the objections
to test the strength of my own ideas. As I reflected on this I can think
of only two possible objections to this and I'll give them to you and
show you why I don't think they work.

One way to object to my point is to say that after the Fall God created
these mechanisms in animals in order to enable them to both capture food
and survive. But I don't think this objection really works. First of all
you'd have God creating after He was finished with creation, which seems
to create a problem. Secondly, why would God need to alter anything at
all? If all living things were created with the capacity to survive on
vegetable matter, nothing keeps them from continuing to be vegetarians
after the Fall. The Fall only requires death, not carnivorous eating
patterns. It doesn't follow that just because natural organisms now are
subject to death that members of the animal kingdom will now start
eating each other. So there is no need for God to add something to the
program after the Fall (except maybe morticians). This response just
strikes me as an ad hoc explanation to save the hypothesis. It's
obviously reaching.

One might suggest that these things developed naturally afterwards. But
that's an unusual rebuttal from a 24-hour creationist because it would
depend for its force on the capability of chance working with matter
over time through natural selection to develop complex physical and
instinctual systems that enable them to forage for living prey. In other
words, it requires evolution to be true. So I don't imagine a 24-hour
creationist would use that as defense.

The other way to argue my point is to say that God designed these things
beforehand in anticipation of the Fall. This also seems a strange
argument. If death in the natural realm is cruel and evil in itself, as
is argued, how is it that God designs things with the intent of
inflicting this cruel and evil result? It would also mean, by the way,
that God would have created destructive mechanisms, agencies of death,
before the Fall and then call them good, as He did seven times in the
first chapter of Genesis.

Finally, it seems that some creatures--say a spider, for example--have
no option of being omnivorous. It can't eat plants. In that
circumstance, because some creatures can function only as predators, the
creature would have to wait around for the Fall of man until it could
have its first meal.

So the only way out that I can think of, other than saying that it
evolved after the Fall which isn't going to work, is that God either
created it beforehand or created it afterwards. Both seem problematic to
me. If God created it beforehand--though there was no death,
anticipating death afterwards--then He designed agencies of death and
called them good when death is bad. Or He created after the Fall, and
then I wonder why He needs to create these carnivorous animals when they
could continue eating plants as He originally created them. And then, of
course, you have God creating after the seventh day which is another
problem. So neither of those rebuttals seem to work.

It seems to me that a 24-hour creationist is going to have a hard time
arguing against this because they're going to have to say that all of
these things were added later, either evolved or created. But they
weren't created, because after the seventh day God rested. And we know
they haven't evolved because natural mechanisms can't produce that kind
of new detail. That means they must have been in place before the Fall.
My simple question is, For what purpose? (Because God creates for a
purpose.) My answer is that it seems pretty obvious that from the outset
God intended for living creatures--not necessarily man here--but living
creatures to prey upon each other. If He intended that then there was a
natural law of death that was operating quite nicely as part of the
system before the Fall of man which makes it entirely possible that
there were millions and millions of years of this natural law operating
in the natural realm before God created Adam and Eve.

Stand to Reason - www.str.org - Training Christian ambassadors in the
areas of knowledge, wisdom, and character

Satellites track Mexico kidnap victims with chips

By Mica Rosenberg

QUERETARO, Mexico - Affluent Mexicans, terrified of soaring kidnapping rates, are spending thousands of dollars to implant tiny transmitters under their skin so satellites can help find them tied up in a safe house or stuffed in the trunk of a car.

Kidnapping jumped almost 40 percent between 2004 and 2007 in Mexico, according to official statistics. Mexico ranks with conflict zones like Iraq and Colombia as among the worst countries for abductions.

The recent kidnapping and murder of Fernando Marti, 14, the son of a well-known businessman, sparked an outcry in a country already hardened to crime.

More people, including a growing number of middle-class Mexicans, are seeking out the tiny chip designed by Xega, a Mexican security firm whose sales jumped 13 percent this year. The company said it had more than 2,000 clients.

Detractors say the chip is little more than a gadget that serves no real security purpose.

The company injects the crystal-encased chip, the size and shape of a grain of rice, into clients' bodies with a syringe. A transmitter in the chip then sends radio signals to a larger device carried by the client with a global positioning system in it, Xega says. A satellite can then pinpoint the location of a person in distress.

Cristina, 28, who did not want to give her last name, was implanted along with seven other members of her family last year as a "preventive measure."

"It's not like we are wealthy people, but they'll kidnap you for a watch. ... Everyone is living in fear," she said.

The chips cost $4,000 plus an annual fee of $2,200.

Most kidnappings in Mexico go unreported, many of them cases of "express kidnapping" where the victim is grabbed and forced to withdraw money from automatic cash machines.

GROWTH INDUSTRY

Official statistics show 751 kidnappings in Mexico last year, but the independent crime research institute ICESI says the number could have exceeded 7,000.

Xega, based in the central Mexican city of Quererato, designed global positioning systems to track stolen vehicles until a company owner was kidnapped in broad daylight in 2001. Frustrated by his powerlessness to call for help, the company adapted the technology to track stolen people.

Most people get the chips injected into their arms between the skin and muscle where they cannot be seen. Customers who fear they are being kidnapped press a panic button on an external device to alert Xega, which then calls the police.

"Before, they only kidnapped key, well-known economically successful people like industrialists and landowners. Now they are kidnapping people from the middle class," said Sergio Galvan, Xega's commercial director.

Katherine Albrecht, a U.S. consumer privacy activist, says the chip is a flashy, overpriced gadget that only identifies a person and cannot locate someone without another, bigger GPS device that kidnappers can easily find and destroy.

She said fear of kidnapping was driving well-off Mexicans to buy a technology that had yet to prove useful.

"They are a prime target because they've got money and they've got a worry and you can combine those two and offer them a false sense of security which is exactly what this is," she said.

President Felipe Calderon has come under heavy pressure to stamp out violent crime. He hosted a meeting on Thursday of security chiefs and state governors.

Outside of Mexico, U.S. company VeriChip Corp uses similar radio-wave technology to identify patients in critical condition at hospitals or find elderly people who wander away from their homes.

Xega sees kidnapping as a growth industry and is planning to expand its services next year to Brazil, Colombia and Venezuela.

Blogger

"Gentlemen, comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about Glasnost and Perestroika and democracy in the coming years. They are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal changes in the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep. We want to accomplish three things:

One, we want the Americans to withdraw conventional forces from Europe. Two, we want them to withdraw nuclear forces from Europe. Three, we want the Americans to stop proceeding with Strategic Defense Initiative."

Quote by: Mikhail Gorbachev (1931- ) General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the last head of state of the USSR (1985-1991) Date: November 1987 Source: speech to the Soviet Politburo, November 1987

For controversial Turkish President Abdullah Gül, the recent war in Georgia signals a "new world order" that will emerge from the rubble of South Ossetia and force the United States to share its power, The Guardian

Gül said America's inability to prevent Russia's invasion shows that the US can no longer shape world politics as it once did.

"I don't think you can control all the world from one centre," Gül said. "There are big nations. There are huge populations. There is unbelievable economic development in some parts of the world. So what we have to do is, instead of unilateral actions, act all together, make common decisions and have consultations with the world. A new world order, if I can say it, should emerge."

The geopolitical turmoil in the Caucusus -- a region between Europe and Asia that includes the nations of Georgia and Turkey -- has placed Turkey in a between pleasing its neighbor Russia and not hurting its relationship with the US.

The conflict in Georgia proved Turkey's tenuous position regarding energy when Russian tanks cut the flow of oil to Turkey from a pipeline running through Georgia, Reuters

Turkey's energy problems have forced it to seek gas from Russia and Iran, prompting an outcry from Washington.

Gül spoke to The Guardian shortly before a meeting with Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The US warned Turkey on Thursday against striking an energy deal with Iran after learning of the two presidents' meeting, Financial Times

US officials claim the deal will undermine international efforts to curb Iran's nuclear program.

"Such a deal by Turkey with Iran would send the wrong message at a time when the Iranian regime has repeatedly failed to comply with its UN Security Council and IAEA obligations," the US state department said.

Gül said he doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, but he "doesn't want to think about" the United States attack on Iran.

"I don't want to think about that. Everybody should take a lesson from what happened in Iraq," he said. "Diplomatic solutions are always better than hard solutions."

The Justice Department has proposed a new domestic spying measure that would make it easier for state and local police to collect intelligence about Americans, share the sensitive data with federal agencies and retain it for at least 10 years.

The proposed changes would revise the federal government's rules for police intelligence-gathering for the first time since 1993 and would apply to any of the nation's 18,000 state and local police agencies that receive roughly $1.6 billion each year in federal grants.

Quietly unveiled late last month, the proposal is part of a flurry of domestic intelligence changes issued and planned by the Bush administration in its waning months. They include a recent executive order that guides the reorganization of federal spy agencies and a pending Justice Department overhaul of FBI procedures for gathering intelligence and investigating terrorism cases within U.S. borders.

Taken together, critics in Congress and elsewhere say, the moves are intended to lock in policies for Bush's successor and to enshrine controversial post-Sept. 11 approaches that some say have fed the greatest expansion of executive authority since the Watergate era.

Supporters say the measures simply codify existing counterterrorism practices and policies that are endorsed by lawmakers and independent experts such as the 9/11 Commission. They say the measures preserve civil liberties and are subject to internal oversight.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said the administration agrees that it needs to do everything possible to prevent unwarranted encroachments on civil liberties, adding that it succeeds the overwhelming majority of the time.

Bush homeland security adviser Kenneth L. Wainstein said, "This is a continuum that started back on 9/11 to reform law enforcement and the intelligence community to focus on the terrorism threat."

Under the Justice Department proposal for state and local police, published for public comment July 31, law enforcement agencies would be allowed to target groups as well as individuals, and to launch a criminal intelligence investigation based on the suspicion that a target is engaged in terrorism or providing material support to terrorists. They also could share results with a constellation of federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and others in many cases.

Criminal intelligence data starts with sources as basic as public records and the Internet, but also includes law enforcement databases, confidential and undercover sources, and active surveillance.

Jim McMahon, deputy executive director of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, said the proposed changes "catch up with reality" in that those who investigate crimes such as money laundering, drug trafficking and document fraud are best positioned to detect terrorists. He said the rule maintains the key requirement that police demonstrate a "reasonable suspicion" that a target is involved in a crime before collecting intelligence.

"It moves what the rules were from 1993 to the new world we live in, but it maintains civil liberties," McMahon said.

However, Michael German, policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the proposed rule may be misunderstood as permitting police to collect intelligence even when no underlying crime is suspected, such as when a person gives money to a charity that independently gives money to a group later designated a terrorist organization.

The rule also would allow criminal intelligence assessments to be shared outside designated channels whenever doing so may avoid danger to life or property -- not only when such danger is "imminent," as is now required, German said.

On the day the police proposal was put forward, the White House announced it had updated Reagan-era operating guidelines for the U.S. intelligence community. The revised Executive Order 12333 established guidelines for overseas spying and called for better sharing of information with local law enforcement. It directed the CIA and other spy agencies to "provide specialized equipment, technical knowledge or assistance of expert personnel" to support state and local authorities.

And last week, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey said that the Justice Department will release new guidelines within weeks to streamline and unify FBI investigations of criminal law enforcement matters and national security threats. The changes will clarify what tools agents can employ and whose approval they must obtain.

The recent moves continue a steady expansion of the intelligence role of U.S. law enforcement, breaking down a wall erected after congressional hearings in 1976 to rein in such activity.

The push to transform FBI and local police intelligence operations has triggered wider debate over who will be targeted, what will be done with the information collected and who will oversee such activities.

Many security analysts faulted U.S. authorities after the 2001 terrorist attacks, saying the FBI was not combating terrorist plots before they were carried out and needed to proactively use intelligence. In the years since, civil liberties groups and some members of Congress have criticized the administration for unilaterally expanding surveillance and moving too fast to share sensitive information without safeguards.

Critics say preemptive law enforcement in the absence of a crime can violate the Constitution and due process. They cite the administration's long-running warrantless-surveillance program, which was set up outside the courts, and the FBI's acknowledgment that it abused its intelligence-gathering privileges in hundreds of cases by using inadequately documented administrative orders to obtain telephone, e-mail, financial and other personal records of U.S. citizens without warrants.

Former Justice Department official Jamie S. Gorelick said the new FBI guidelines on their own do not raise alarms. But she cited the recent disclosure that undercover Maryland State Police agents spied on death penalty opponents and antiwar groups in 2005 and 2006 to emphasize that the policies would require close oversight.

"If properly implemented, this should assure the public that people are not being investigated by agencies who are not trained in how to protect constitutional rights," said the former deputy attorney general. "The FBI will need to be vigilant -- both in its policies and its practices -- to live up to that promise."

German, an FBI agent for 16 years, said easing established limits on intelligence-gathering would lead to abuses against peaceful political dissenters. In addition to the Maryland case, he pointed to reports in the past six years that undercover New York police officers infiltrated protest groups before the 2004 Republican National Convention; that California state agents eavesdropped on peace, animal rights and labor activists; and that Denver police spied on Amnesty International and others before being discovered.

"If police officers no longer see themselves as engaged in protecting their communities from criminals and instead as domestic intelligence agents working on behalf of the CIA, they will be encouraged to collect more information," German said. "It turns police officers into spies on behalf of the federal government."

Civil liberties groups also have warned that forthcoming Justice Department rules for the FBI may permit the use of terrorist profiles that could single out religious or ethnic groups such as Muslims or Arabs for investigation.

Mukasey said the changes will give the next president "some of the tools necessary to keep us safe" and will not alter Justice rules that prohibit investigations based on a person's race, religion or speech. He said the new guidelines will make it easier for the FBI to use informants, conduct physical and photographic surveillance, and share data in intelligence cases, on the grounds that doing so should be no harder than in investigations of ordinary crimes.

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said that updating police intelligence rules is a move "in the right direction. However, the vagueness of the provisions giving broad access to criminal intelligence to undefined agencies . . . is very troubling."

Staff writers Joby Warrick and Ellen Nakashima contributed to this report.

Sigh. Well.............

 What do you all think of Obama?

paross.. Is this a memory thing - I'm thinking awfully hard over here and not tying it together. Moses. Ten commandments. Not apart from the law. Moses strikes rock and like soothing said, did "get" to see the promised land, obviously a good thing as she stated, but at the same time, very extreme in comparison to God's patience with others. "Why" didn't he get to step foot in the promised land? I thought about what Val said, but even if Moses had not been told that he couldn't step foot there, and had gone in and died a week later, it wouldn't have changed Joshua's position as far as I understand things?

Bases are full - bring us home.. :-)

Hmmm.. Never thought about it like that Val that could be. The only other case I can think of that was "this" extreme was the guy who tried to stop the ark of the covenant from falling, touched it and died over it...

 Know of any others? Even Soddom & Ghamorra (sp?) wasn't destroyed until it was filled with nothing but wickedness...

THANKS! Good to have you with us :-)

Here's my problem with that verse being about unbelievers doing harm to believers:

Context. Check out the verses around the one in question. It starts all the way back at verse 8. (Who is talking to whom?)

1Cr 3:8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.

1Cr 3:9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, [ye are] God's building.  

Paul is talking to other believers.

1Cr 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

1Cr 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

1Cr 3:12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;

We're still building upon the foundation of Jesus. This can't thus far include unbelievers.

1Cr 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

1Cr 3:14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reard.

1Cr 3:15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.  

The work mentioned here is a continuation of thought. Would unbelievers be building upon anything Paul says, or upon the foundation of Christ? And then we slam into this Scripture....

1Cr 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and [that] the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? 1Cr 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which [temple] ye are.

 1Cr 3:18 ¶ Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.

1Cr 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

1Cr 3:20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

1Cr 3:21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours;

Paul seems to have completely taken off in a different direction after the Scripture in question! The thought regarding building upon the foundation of Christ and the continuation of that goes on until we hit 3:18...

I just don't know yet - I'm really reachin for this one! We went from building upon the foundation of Christ, to man not thinking himself to be wise, to not glorying.

Somehow I think this might have to do with Jewish custom and the differences between the Jews and the Gentiles, but I still can't quite put it all together. If you go on reading past even 21, this is what happens to the context:

1 Cr 3:22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come: all are yours

1 Cr 3:23 And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's. 

That is the last verse in chapter 3, and chapter 4 appears to be a brand new thought.

??? .... strange .... What else ya got... need more input...

Is the U.N. advocating homosexuality and pedophilia? Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 8/11/2008 8:00:00 AM

The United Nations has granted consultative status to two homosexual activist groups. For at least a decade now, activist groups have hammered away at the United Nations for recognition -- and they have finally won.

Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel finds that unacceptable. "They are associated with pedophile groups like NAMBLA and others, and have advocated lowering the age of consent to levels that would essentially foster pedophilia," he explains. Barber believes it is wrong to equate homosexual behavior with the color of one's skin, or their gender, and give them special status. "For the U.N. to side with radical homosexual activists, in this case, has only served to further discredit the U.N., and I think it's problematic in further damaging their reputation," he contends.

Activists, according to Barber, will be trying to use the United Nations and the International Court to force their agenda on an international level, including imposing it on Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin.

I've highlighted the Scripture in question below the others.. 

And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, [even] as unto babes in Christ.

1Cr 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able [to bear it], neither yet now are ye able.

1Cr 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas [there is] among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

1Cr 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I [am] of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

1Cr 3:5 ¶ Who then is Paul, and who [is] Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?

1Cr 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

1Cr 3:7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

1Cr 3:8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.

1Cr 3:9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, [ye are] God's building.

1Cr 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

1Cr 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

1Cr 3:12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;

1Cr 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

1Cr 3:14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.

1Cr 3:15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.  

1Cr 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and [that] the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? 1Cr 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which [temple] ye are.

 1Cr 3:18 ¶ Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.

1Cr 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

1Cr 3:20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

1Cr 3:21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours;

1Cr 3:22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours;

1Cr 3:23 And ye are Christ's; and Christ [is] God's.

How do 3:16,17 fit into the context of the rest of what Paul says in these Scriptures? Defile "how"? Does "ye" are the temple imply individuality, or the church as a whole? KJV says ye are "the" temple. NAS says you are "a" temple. Both say if any man destroys "the" temple.... What's up?

Moses has a near miss death as a baby, is sent away, grows up away from the parents that he knew, raised by a stranger, kills a guy defending him, is chased off into the desert, spends 40 years away from the now second family that he had to leave behind, then is called by God, has to leave yet a third family behind, leads the people out of Egypt, deals with constant unbelief all around him yet presses on, then .... he strikes a rock to get water for the people who finally drive him nuts, and for that one thing, God disallows him from setting foot into the promise land that he went through all of this for, and dies.

 Why?

Thanks for your response paross. Much appreciated.

"he was really good at explaining biblical Christianity."

 Nothing at all wrong with that. Still, God is better at it. :-)

 "People are wowed."

Yeah. That's what concerns me. I guess I'd much rather people were wowed by Scripture and the God who imparted whatever wisdom and knowledge that Calvin ended up with. I'm sure there are some mature believers who are able to be wowed by Calvin and others like him whilest never leaving the truth that without God, Calvin too was nothing. My concern would be more toward those who are not ready to (safely) venture off into such things where apparently idolization is a real danger, without shortly thereafter considering themselves and declaring themselves to be "Calvinists".  Myself included! I don't know that any of us are "idolization-proof" - It can happen.

"One of the things that serious Christians learn is that we are not alone. Other serious Christians have gone before us and have had a lot of helpful things to say about faithfulness and God's Word. We stand on their shoulders and are better Christians ourselves for it. So, I wouldn't want to lose Calvin's contribution because it has been so helpful to me."

 Absolutely and I totally agree that there is much, much to be gained from those who have gone before us. I think the danger lies in that not "all" who have gone before us even came close to getting it right even if they thought they had - and we sure don't want to be learning from them wherever that is true! So how could we even know whose shoulders "to" stand on, without our "reliance" being in God's Word/s alone?

I very much appreciate your choice of words regarding Calvin's "contribution". This is a right view not just of Calvin, but of anyone who has ever written anything at all about the Lord. They are contributions. We can and should learn from those who have not left sound doctrine who have gone before us.

Sound doctrine however, takes us right back to God's Word alone. Contribution is a right term because infallibility does not exist outside of God's Word and outside of Jesus Christ while we are still in the flesh. Every contribution must - must must must be taken back to Scripture itself to be judged right and true. A lot of men have great wisdom given to them from the Lord. A lot of men have a ridiculously awesome way of explaining things that we do not understand. But only One has the full and complete Truth, and that is God Himself - the Word - Himself. If Calvin is fallible, it is impossible that he is 100 % correct about 100 % of the things he's ever said.

I know very well that you yourself are centered regarding the issue. But I still say this guy gets way more attention than he should by the majority. I think a lot of people have been wowed all the way into "duh". It's not good.