The Doctrine of Double Predestination in Peter

[dannno]

Could it be possible that you are a sexual pervert? I ask in the most respectful way possible.

No, sexual perversion would be defined as abnormal sexual behavior whereas sexual behavior is normal. If anything prudes are sexual perverts because they are sexually abnormal.

[acptulsa]

No, sexual perversion would be defined as abnormal sexual behavior whereas sexual behavior is normal. If anything prudes are sexual perverts because they are sexually abnormal.

And what do you normally substitute for your penal member...?

[Sola_Fide]

No, sexual perversion would be defined as abnormal sexual behavior whereas sexual behavior is normal. If anything prudes are sexual perverts because they are sexually abnormal.

So according to you, sexual mores are determined by the society and time that you live in. What if sexual mores were determined by some other standard?

[Sola_Fide]

People who are fallen but not reprobate can respond to God. Tell me this. You keep asking questions but you lack the decency to give a straightforward answer. Why do you think there is no difference between the state of mind of men before God gave them over to a reprobate mind and the state of mind after? That makes no sense. Either there is something wrong with God or there is something wrong with Paul or ther is something wrong with you. I personally think God and Paul are fine.

But the verse in Romans 1 is talking about ALL men. This culminates in the *conclusion* to Paul's line of thought in Romans 3:

Romans 3:9-11

What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God.

The *conclusion* to Paul's line of thought from the preceding 2 chapters is that ALL men, Jew and Gentile, are alike under the power of sin and no one seeks for God.

Your use of "reprobate" doesn't even appear in most versions. Most use the word "depraved". There is no textual support for the ridiculous separation you are making.

[acptulsa]

And what do you normally substitute for your penal member...?

You know, danno, when most of us hear the phrase 'penal system' it triggers an aversion to orange jumpsuits.

We don't generally look at our crotches and scratch our heads.

[dannno]

So according to you, sexual mores are determined by the society and time that you live in. What if sexual mores were determined by some other standard?

I think they are determined by our biological imperatives and the associated risks involved.

Religion was man's first method of birth control - convince everybody that their base instincts will send them to hell because they are sick and tired of looking after some slut in their tribe or village's kids who she can't take care of since she is out sleeping with dozens of other men constantly and none of them wanted anything to do with her kids...and it's probably their grand kids that they are taking care of and their daughter is probably the slut.

Now we have actual birth control that works pretty well, I think religion has become largely obsolete with regards to sex. Although there is some merit to preaching against deceit, stealing and violence, I don't know if that is the best way to convey those things.

[acptulsa]

I think they are determined by our biological imperatives and the associated risks involved.

Religion was man's first method of birth control - convince everybody that their base instincts will send them to hell because they are sick and tired of looking after some slut in their tribe or village's kids who she can't take care of since she is out sleeping with dozens of other men constantly and none of them wanted anything to do with her kids...and it's probably their grand kids that they are taking care of and their daughter is probably the slut.

Now we have actual birth control that works pretty well, I think religion has become largely obsolete with regards to sex. Although there is some merit to preaching against deceit, stealing and violence, I don't know if that is the best way to convey those things.

There is, however, still no cure for hepatitis. Or herpes...

[dannno]

And what do you normally substitute for your penal member...?

I think it brought up some type of gang bang scenario.

[otherone]

And what do you normally substitute for your penal member...?

[Sola_Fide]

I think they are determined by our biological imperatives and the associated risks involved.

Religion was man's first method of birth control - convince everybody that their base instincts will send them to hell because they are sick and tired of looking after some slut in their tribe or village's kids who she can't take care of since she is out sleeping with dozens of other men constantly and none of them wanted anything to do with her kids...and it's probably their grand kids that they are taking care of and their daughter is probably the slut.

Now we have actual birth control that works pretty well, I think religion has become largely obsolete with regards to sex. Although there is some merit to preaching against deceit, stealing and violence, I don't know if that is the best way to convey those things.

Yes I know you think that. What if sexual mores were determined by some other standard?

[dannno]

There is, however, still no cure for hepatitis. Or herpes...

Ya but that is still like maybe 5-10% of the risks you had 100 years ago, if that.. I mean, pregnancy is a pretty big deal, I'd say at least 50% of the total risk right there.

[dannno]

Yes I know you think that. What if sexual mores were determined by some other standard?

Then they would be imposed against reality.

[Sola_Fide]

Then they would be imposed against reality.

Reality or nature can't tell you how you ought to live. This is the is/ought fallacy. So arguments from nature are not sufficient.

If we were to accept your argument, then murder would be right because it is in our nature to murder and we see it all around us.

[Sola_Fide]

Then they would be imposed against reality.

We see murder and statism all around us, so why do we need some other ethical system to tell us how it should be different? Murder and statism is the reality, so it must be the way we should live, right?

[otherone]

Reality or nature can't tell you how you ought to live. This is the is/ought fallacy. So arguments from nature are not sufficient.

If we were to accept your argument, then murder would be right because it is in our nature to murder and we see it all around us.

Pavlov.dog.bell. The SF Trinity. Beautiful, in it's way.

[Sola_Fide]

Pavlov.dog.bell. The SF Trinity. Beautiful, in it's way.

Murder and statism is our reality, isn't it? So if the nature of things determine what we accept as right, murder and statism would be right.

I'm simply pointing out the fallacy in the thinking there.

[dannno]

Reality or nature can't tell you how you ought to live. This is the is/ought fallacy. So arguments from nature are not sufficient.

If we were to accept your argument, then murder would be right because it is in our nature to murder and we see it all around us.

I see no reason why a person would have it in their nature to murder if they lived in a compassionate society.

Remember, I did say that sexual mores should also be determined by relative risks which means that we may consciously go against our nature at times - it's just that we would do so using reason rather than convention.

I believe in karma, the universal version, that putting out positive energy leads to more positive energy in the universe and putting out negative energy leads to more negative energy in the universe (I don't believe in karma that good things will automatically happen to people who do good things or vice versa). Therefore we can consciously make decisions to do positive things and positively affect the universe in order to help combat the negative energy that some others consciously or unconsciously are putting out.

[otherone]

Murder and statism is our reality, isn't it? So if the nature of things determine what we accept as right, murder and statism would be right.

I'm simply pointing out the fallacy in the thinking there.

Yes you did. Nice job. The world is a fallacious place; you have your work cut out for you.
Speaking of controlling our naughty natures:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers

[RJB]

Yes you did. Nice job. The world is a fallacious place; you have your work cut out for you.
Speaking of controlling our naughty natures:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers

Wow.

Turnover was high; the group reached maximum size of about 5,000 full members in 1840,[49] and/or 6,000 believers at the peak of the Shaker movement. There were only 12 Shaker communities left by 1920.[50] The Shaker communities continued to lose members, partly through attrition, since believers did not give birth to children, and also due to economics; hand-made products by Shakers weren't as competitive as mass-produced products and individuals moved to the cities for better livelihoods.

The only remaining active Shaker community in the United States is Sabbathday Lake Shaker Village in Maine, which as of 2012 had only three members: Sister June Carpenter, Brother Arnold Hadd, and Sister Frances Carr.[51][52][53]

[dannno]

We see murder and statism all around us, so why do we need some other ethical system to tell us how it should be different? Murder and statism is the reality, so it must be the way we should live, right?

It's up to humanity to recognize these flaws and work to correct them. That's what we are trying to do here at this forum and within this movement. It's a conscious decision. Some of us are religious, some aren't. Some of our enemies are religious, some aren't.

I don't think sex is a flaw. It's healthy and largely necessary for most people to engage in with some frequency in order to function properly and maintain psychological, mental, physical and spiritual stability.

It's only been the last 100+ years that society decided that young adults should stop having kids at around age 14-17 and wait until they are 18 or even much older by essentially imposing mandatory education until age 18 and now it is being extended to 22 and beyond. That is really what has screwed up society, people haven't started having sex at a younger age, they are failing to commit at a young age because they are told it is too early for them to commit. They can't support a child until they finish their education.

I'm not against monogamy, I'm against the concept of telling 16 and 17 year olds, or anybody who isn't married to wait to have sex until marriage and especially for younger folks, not to get married for several years to come. That's a really $#@!ed up thing to do if you've ever been that age and had a strong libido, male or female. It's like putting a person in a cage and starving them of food. But realistically, it was probably birth control that allowed society to make that transition since it probably would have completely failed before birth control.

So since the reality of society entails that we go to school and not commit to somebody before we graduate, it is reasonable to use birth control in the mean time.

[Sola_Fide]

It's up to humanity to recognize these flaws and work to correct them. That's what we are trying to do here at this forum and within this movement. It's a conscious decision. Some of us are religious, some aren't. Some of our enemies are religious, some aren't.

I don't think sex is a flaw. It's healthy and largely necessary for most people to engage in with some frequency in order to function properly and maintain psychological, mental, physical and spiritual stability.

It's only been the last 100+ years that society decided that young adults should stop having kids at around age 14-17 and wait until they are 18 or even much older by essentially imposing mandatory education until age 18 and now it is being extended to 22 and beyond. That is really what has screwed up society, people haven't started having sex at a younger age, they are failing to commit at a young age because they are told it is too early for them to commit. They can't support a child until they finish their education.

I'm not against monogamy, I'm against the concept of telling 16 and 17 year olds, or anybody who isn't married to wait to have sex until marriage and especially for younger folks, not to get married for several years to come. That's a really $#@!ed up thing to do if you've ever been that age and had a strong libido, male or female. It's like putting a person in a cage and starving them of food. But realistically, it was probably birth control that allowed society to make that transition since it probably would have completely failed before birth control.

So since the reality of society entails that we go to school and not commit to somebody before we graduate, it is reasonable to use birth control in the mean time.

Danno, I pray that the Lord opens your eyes to your perversion. I say that in the most respectful way possible. Deep down, I know that you already know what I am talking about.

[jmdrake]

But the verse in Romans 1 is talking about ALL men. This culminates in the *conclusion* to Paul's line of thought in Romans 3:




The *conclusion* to Paul's line of thought from the preceding 2 chapters is that ALL men, Jew and Gentile, are alike under the power of sin and no one seeks for God.

Your use of "reprobate" doesn't even appear in most versions. Most use the word "depraved". There is no textual support for the ridiculous separation you are making.

Sola_Fide, it's really simple. Romans 1 clearly states that the men Paul was talking about had a change of mind from whatever state they were in to a reprobate state. You can prevaricate all you want to about this, but you are just making yourself look foolish. Answer the question that you are afraid to answer. What changed in the men in Romans 1 when God gave them over to a reprobate mind? Nothing? That's just ridiculously illogical.

Being under the power of sin != being reprobate. When the men "Knew God but did not worship Him as God and were not thankful" they were already under the power of sin but they were not reprobate. If they were they God wouldn't have given them over to a reprobate mind because they already would have had a reprobate mind.

[jmdrake]

Danno, I pray that the Lord opens your eyes to your perversion. I say that in the most respectful way possible. Deep down, I know that you already know what I am talking about.

Dannno, for all his faults, doesn't prevaricate. You always know where he stands.

[dannno]

Danno, I pray that the Lord opens your eyes to your perversion. I say that in the most respectful way possible. Deep down, I know that you already know what I am talking about.

I still don't think you know what that word means..

The alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended.

Sex was meant to be pleasurable and we weren't meant to engage in it for survival reasons. More people in your tribe meant more protection and kids could help with hunting, gathering and chores. It didn't matter who the father was so much as how many people were pitching in and able to help defend the tribe.

As societies changed and grew, the tribal unit shrunk to a smaller family unit because the family had protection from a larger force that would defend the town or country. More people became in impediment to growth in some cases where they could not support themselves, namely because a woman was not desirable to men if she had children without a commitment. That is why religion was born and why morally it was largely focused on reproduction. Now we have birth control so women can engage in sex without commitment. Men didn't like being responsible for their family and not getting sex from his wife then having to take care of kids she had with other men, thus religion has laws against adultery. There are reasons all these things in religion came about.

But today, things are different than 100 years ago. I explained why, and that should tell you a lot about why society is the way it is. If anything, we are a sexually repressed society, not over-sexed.

[heavenlyboy34]

I still don't think you know what that word means..



Sex was meant to be pleasurable and we weren't meant to engage in it for survival reasons. More people in your tribe meant more protection and kids could help with hunting, gathering and chores. It didn't matter who the father was so much as how many people were pitching in and able to help defend the tribe.

As societies changed and grew, the tribal unit shrunk to a smaller family unit because the family had protection from a larger force that would defend the town or country. More people became in impediment to growth in some cases where they could not support themselves, namely because a woman was not desirable to men if she had children without a commitment. That is why religion was born and why morally it was largely focused on reproduction. Now we have birth control so women can engage in sex without commitment. Men didn't like being responsible for their family and not getting sex from his wife then having to take care of kids she had with other men, thus religion has laws against adultery. There are reasons all these things in religion came about.

But today, things are different than 100 years ago. I explained why, and that should tell you a lot about why society is the way it is. If anything, we are a sexually repressed society, not over-sexed.

You know I love ya dannno, but your making a critical error here. You confuse "is" and "ought". Just because we can have orgies and such doesn't mean we should. This isn't even a uniquely religious concept. Among the "endeavours" of Buddhists(as it was explained to me) is "I shall endeavor not to abuse my sexuality". They understood that there is a powerful mind-spirit-body connection, and being destructive to any one of these damages the others.

[acptulsa]

Answer the question that you are afraid to answer.

I asked him about these two in another thread.

He hasn't posted in it since.

12 But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.

13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

But considering he thinks a publican collects taxes, we probably expect too much.

[otherone]

I still don't think you know what that word means..

That's an interesting idea, one could argue that it's a perversion to not have sex.
IRT tribal society and sex, I don't believe you can say that primitive cultures always made a connection between intercourse and pregnancy...the aboriginal Australians did not, it may be fair to say that other primitive matriarchal societies did not as well; the power of women being demonstrated by their seeming parthenogenetic magic. Patriarchism occurs when the fellows realized they had a magic part to play, too.

[jmdrake]

I asked him about these two in another thread.

He hasn't posted in it since.





But considering he thinks a publican collects taxes, we probably expect too much.

God uses the simple things to confound the wise. 1 Corinthians 1:27. And this is really really simple. If everyone was "totally depraved" then nobody could ever become "more depraved." So God couldn't give someone over to a reprobate mind because that would be a condition they were already in. SF wants to confound that as to saying "Paul says nobody is good." That's true. Being good implies perfection. Nobody is perfect. In fact, nobody is perfectly evil. though some try real hard to reach that. Here is the deal. God is trying to reach everyone. He does things to cause all to seek Him. (Acts 17:26-27)

[acptulsa]

Here is the deal. God is trying to reach everyone. He does things to cause all to seek Him. (Acts 17:26-27)

Exactly. Which is the second reason I argued Paul's 'what if' doesn't mean that God's sole purpose is to glorify Himself (the first being that Paul's 'what ifs' hardly trump Jesus' hard facts, and to focus on the inferior over the superior is to desperately try to prove an agenda).

17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

God, for whatever reason, doesn't make a habit of doing Public Announcements to the whole world, probably because He seems to prefer we come to Him through faith rather than fear. This does not mean He doesn't want us to hear His words. So, if He sets up Pharaoh as His bully pulpit, that certainly doesn't glorify Himself as much as having a Worldwide Burning Bush Network, but it obviously got the job He wanted done done.

[Sola_Fide]

Back to the OP (when it says that the elect were appointed as well as the disobedient ones), remember that the word "appointed" is also used in other places to denote prededtination:

Acts 13:48

When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

Notice that it is the appointment to eternal life that is the reason the Gentiles believed. There were some comments in this thread that said "appointment" could mean something other than predestination, but it is clear from other places in the Bible that "appointment" does mean predestination.