Religion II

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You're not feeling my "love and respect"? How much more can I love you when I keep on telling you that your heart is self-deceived and that a true disciple of Christ believes everything God says.

Your idea of love is if I don't listen to you, I'm going to Hell. Rrrriight.

Originally Posted by boxcar

So, tell us more of this "true salvation" of yours which is "internal". From what, specifically, were you saved internally?

I was saved from the illusion of this life.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Tell us: What have you learned from them directly?

Everyday God and Jesus teach me new lessons. Each one brings me closer to my true self.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And since you think the kingdom of God is "within in", then surely you must believe the Holy Spirit is within you as well, right? After all, it is written:

Rom 14:17
17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
NASB

So, do you think you have the Holy Spirit living within you?

I know where you are going here and am not interested in discussing the Trinity thing. Because you can look at God as the Trinity, but I experience God as one. You cannot experience them separately and say this experience is the Holy Spirit, and that one is God etc. There is only one.

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Oh...I know it's not because you lack answers; for, as the "enlightened" one, you believe you have them all.

I am not that enlightened. I learned that when I became enlightened.

Originally Posted by boxcar

But I do like the "reason" you gave for all your non-replies, so that I can use that the next time someone accuses me of ducking some issue.

Well the reason I feel things go nowhere with you is because you change what I say. You do that with everyone. Then you make a case against that person for saying something they didn't say. They say "What?" You say "Who"? etc. It becomes so confusing its like a cat chasing its own tail.

And at the end you think you won and God was on your side. But it's more like insanity is on your side.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Oh...yeah, one more thing: Please jog my memory on what you think "sin" is. If memory serves, you believe that sin is a necessary ingredient in our lives, for it brings pain and suffering which is absolutely necessary for spiritual growth. Have I captured the essence of your belief about this topic?

See, you're doing it again. Misrepresenting my views here ^^^. Either you are somewhat senile or this is your defense mechanism to win discussions. To make the person sound like an idiot in the first place. Like why would I believe "sin is necessary"? That's insane and that comes from you not me.

So I drop the discussion here usually because I get tired of correcting you. Even when I do correct my views to you over and over, you act like i never said a word. And this is what I mean about this going nowhere. You don't listen and make your argument on what I actually said. You make it on some twisted idea of what I said. Too much work for me, so I drop it.

[Actor]

#8988

Picking up where I left off in post #8977 I now had three dates: 1000 B.C. for the date of the Exodus according to Cecil B. deMille, 4004 B.C. for the creation of the world according to the Blue Ribbon Bible Company, and millions of years B.C. for the dinosaurs according to the World Book Encyclopedia. To me it was obvious that the three dates conflicted.

Could the three be reconciled? Not that I could see. The Biblical account of the creation clearly said that the world was created in six days. Science said that the earth is billions of years old. Clearly one of the dates had to be wrong. Which one? The scientific date could not possibly be wrong since it was based on evidence and mathematics. The Biblical date was based on … what? I didn’t know. I tried to not think about it.


When I was 14 years old my parents sent me to Bible Camp at a Methodist Summer Camp called (believe it or not) Devil’s Canyon. This was largely at my urging since other kids were going and it sounded like fun. It was at the camp that I first encountered the practice of the eucharist. After the preacher explained that the wine (actually Welch’s grape juice) was Christ’s blood (symbolically in the methodist view) and the bread (actually Ritz crackers) was his flesh they had all of us kids come forth and partake. I did not want to do it. Symbolic or not it was cannibalism and I did not want to do it. But I did it because I knew I would get in trouble if I did not. When I got back from camp they wanted to baptize me and I didn’t want to do that either, but I did.


Age 18, college. Oklahoma State University to be exact. The first week I was there I took my laundry to a laundromat a couple of blocks from the doom. As I was waiting for my stuff to dry this other kid came over and introduced himself. Then he said, “Brother, are you a Christian?” “I like to think so,” was my reply. “Well, you can know so,” he said. “Really,” I said, expecting an interesting discussion. But at that point he walked away. I never saw him again.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

Your idea of love is if I don't listen to you, I'm going to Hell. Rrrriight.

And then you talked in you latest post about me misrepresenting your position!? Do hypocrisy much?

But your "best friend" in his inspired word said:

Matt 7:24-27
24 "Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine, and acts upon them, may be compared to a wise man, who built his house upon the rock. 25 "And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded upon the rock. 26 "And everyone who hears these words of Mine, and does not act upon them, will be like a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand. 27 "And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst against that house; and it fell, and great was its fall."
NASB

And,

John 14:23-24
23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him. 24 "He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent Me.
NASB


And,

John 14:15-18
15 "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments. 16 "And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; 17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you, and will be in you.
NASB

]I was saved from the illusion of this life.

]

How do you know your illusion was not an illusion?

Everyday God and Jesus teach me new lessons. Each one brings me closer to my true self.

But your "best friend" said:

Luke 9:23-26
23 And He was saying to them all, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me. 24 "For whoever wishes to save his life shall lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake, he is the one who will save it. 25 "For what is a man profited if he gains the whole world, and loses or forfeits himself?
NASB

The Gospel message is one of dying to oneself (which is what the image of the "cross" above represents),and growing in the true knowledge and grace of Jesus Christ, living unto Him. One of the goals to salvation is growing closer and closer each day to the Lord and Savior who supposedly saved you, but instead your aim is to grow closer to yourself. Your religion is a self-centered, self-absorbed one, with you being at the very apex. It's no wonder you don't worship God publicly or attend a church with true believers -- such acts would surely be an abomination to you.

I know where you are going here and am not interested in discussing the Trinity thing. Because you can look at God as the Trinity, but I experience God as one. You cannot experience them separately and say this experience is the Holy Spirit, and that one is God etc. There is only one.

Since you deny the Holy Spirit, you clearly are not in God's kingdom, according to Romans 14; for
the kingdom is inextricably bound up with the Spirit of Life who causes believers to be born again (John 3), and who delivers God's elect from the kingdom of darkness, which is the evil one's realm.

And why do you balk at the Trinity? Don't you know that your "best friend" taught the doctrine? When Jesus, the Son of God, prayed to the Father, was Jesus praying to himself?

When Jesus said that he came to do his Father's will, did he mean that he came to do his own will?

Do you think Jesus and the Father are one and the same person?

Is Jesus and the Father the very God of God, or is only one them the very God of God?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

I am not that enlightened. I learned that when I became enlightened.

Your "best friend" told some wanna-be enlightened Pharisees once (you know the religious guys who you say had the "kingdom within them"?):

John 9:39-41
39 And Jesus said, "For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see; and that those who see may become blind." 40 Those of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these things, and said to Him, "We are not blind too, are we?" 41 Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains.
NASB


Well the reason I feel things go nowhere with you is because you change what I say. You do that with everyone. Then you make a case against that person for saying something they didn't say. They say "What?" You say "Who"? etc. It becomes so confusing its like a cat chasing its own tail.

This is a patently false accusation.

And at the end you think you won and God was on your side. But it's more like insanity is on your side.


See, you're doing it again. Misrepresenting my views here ^^^. Either you are somewhat senile or this is your defense mechanism to win discussions. To make the person sound like an idiot in the first place. Like why would I believe "sin is necessary"? That's insane and that comes from you not me.

If I'm misrepresenting you, correct me. You balked in no small way when I said that the visible, eternal kingdom in the Age to come (when Jesus returns) would have no pain, suffering, heartaches, tears -- or any sin whatsoever in it. You equated sin with our miseries and suffering and said that if we're in an existence without any sin, there would be no way to grow spiritually. Again...if I'm wrong, then correct me. I am going from memory.

And I also remember that you do not hold the biblical view of sin which is lawlessness. Sin is breaking God's law. You definitely do not hold to that view. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

So I drop the discussion here usually because I get tired of correcting you. Even when I do correct my views to you over and over, you act like i never said a word. And this is what I mean about this going nowhere. You don't listen and make your argument on what I actually said. You make it on some twisted idea of what I said. Too much work for me, so I drop it.

I think you drop discussions because you have no replies to my rebuttals of your foolishness -- or you unwittingly drive yourself to a dead end. For example, not too long ago you insisted that your pantheistic god is not limited by any laws (such as the Laws of Logic, which the God of the bible created). Your god is greater than any laws and not limited by them, yada, yada, yada. But then...I reminded you that since god is all, and all is god, then All is definitely limited by the Laws of Physics. I sunk your objection faster than a lead sinker sinks to the bottom of the ocean.

See what I mean?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I knew you couldn't resist.

The following few posts, from former Reformed, are chock full of scripture, as well as the comments from both sides...

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/tag/justification/

Within my favorite of those postings...

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/201...cholas-batzig/

...former Reformed Bryan Cross presents the paradigms by which presupposition makes one of the two--the impossibility of man to perfectly obey precepts--the only possible choice for the Reformed position. The "agape" paradigm, which I have consistently presented throughout my time here (infused grace, theosis, divine filiation, etc.), well...I seldom quote entire paragraphs, but...

"In the agape paradigm, by contrast, agape is the fulfillment of the law. Agape is not merely some power or force or energy by which one is enabled better to keep the list of rules, either perfectly or imperfectly. Rather, agape is what the law has pointed to all along. To have agape in one’s soul is to have the perfect righteousness to which the list of precepts point. Righteousness conceived as keeping a list of externally written precepts is conceptually a shadow of the true righteousness which consists of agape infused into the soul [emphasis mine]. This infusion of agape is the law written on the heart. But the writing of the law on the heart should not be conceived as merely memorizing the list of precepts, or being more highly motivated to keep the list of precepts. To conceive of agape as merely a force or good motivation that helps us better (but imperfectly, in this life) keep the list of rules, is still to be in the list paradigm. The writing of the law on the heart provides in itself the very fulfillment of the law — that perfection to which the external law always pointed. To have agape is already to have fulfilled the telos of the law, a telos that is expressed in our words, deeds, and actions because they are all ordered to a supernatural end unless we commit a mortal sin. The typical Protestant objection to the Catholic understanding of justification by the infusion of agape is “Who perfectly loves God? No one.” But this objection presupposes the list paradigm."

This is what I clumsily tried to present to Thaskalos--a Person, God Incarnate, whose life and agape love the Christian participates in, and not firstly a list of precepts a founder lays down.

God as my judge is something God does. God as family, Father & Son whose love spirates the Spirit. is who God is in one act of existence. That's the nature I'm called to participate in (2 Pt 1:4. Eph 4:24, Heb 12:10, 1 Jn 3:2).

"God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” ...

https://biblia.com/books/esv/Ga4.6

I completely echo your last sentence back to you. A blessed Christmas to you and those you love.

With all due respect, I don't have time to read volumes on this subject. Suffice it to say, that God is infinitely more succinct and to the point, and I base my belief about the nature of Justification on the basis of this central passage:

Rom 4:3-8
3 For what does the Scripture say? "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works:

7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven,
And whose sins have been covered.
8 "Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account."
NASB

This passage has absolutely nothing to do with with "agape" or "infusion" of grace into one's soul. To be sure God's act of justifying a sinner is an act of grace on His part that involves a legal or forensic transaction. The transaction is this: The sinner's sins are imputed to Christ his substitute, his sin-bearer, while Christ's righteousness is imputed to the sinner (cf. Rom 5:12-21). And this is a one-time transaction. There could be no forgiveness of sins, no mercy granted, no gracious acts whatsoever toward any sinner apart from God satisfying his own justice (righteousness), which Jesus did, of course, on the Cross.

The term translated "reckoned" comes from the Gr. "logizomai" which means impute, reason, reckon, count or suppose. Strong's number is 3049 and this term is used 49 times in the NT. The term is actually an accounting term, which is how Paul could use it as he did in the above quoted passage.

Anyhow...gotta run.

Again, have a great Christmas.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

#8988

Picking up where I left off in post #8977 I now had three dates: 1000 B.C. for the date of the Exodus according to Cecil B. deMille, 4004 B.C. for the creation of the world according to the Blue Ribbon Bible Company, and millions of years B.C. for the dinosaurs according to the World Book Encyclopedia. To me it was obvious that the three dates conflicted.

Could the three be reconciled? Not that I could see. The Biblical account of the creation clearly said that the world was created in six days. Science said that the earth is billions of years old. Clearly one of the dates had to be wrong. Which one? The scientific date could not possibly be wrong since it was based on evidence and mathematics. The Biblical date was based on … what? I didn’t know. I tried to not think about it.


When I was 14 years old my parents sent me to Bible Camp at a Methodist Summer Camp called (believe it or not) Devil’s Canyon. This was largely at my urging since other kids were going and it sounded like fun. It was at the camp that I first encountered the practice of the eucharist. After the preacher explained that the wine (actually Welch’s grape juice) was Christ’s blood (symbolically in the methodist view) and the bread (actually Ritz crackers) was his flesh they had all of us kids come forth and partake. I did not want to do it. Symbolic or not it was cannibalism and I did not want to do it. But I did it because I knew I would get in trouble if I did not. When I got back from camp they wanted to baptize me and I didn’t want to do that either, but I did.


Age 18, college. Oklahoma State University to be exact. The first week I was there I took my laundry to a laundromat a couple of blocks from the doom. As I was waiting for my stuff to dry this other kid came over and introduced himself. Then he said, “Brother, are you a Christian?” “I like to think so,” was my reply. “Well, you can know so,” he said. “Really,” I said, expecting an interesting discussion. But at that point he walked away. I never saw him again.

Popularly attributed to Anglican Bishop James Ussher. He wasn't working feverishly to date the age of the earth according to the bible, but relying on other contemporary sources as well to date the earth for the benefit of all. Stephen Jay Gould defended this in the sense of its contemporary achievement.

Zoologist Michael Smith has a great take about the historical criticism of earlier works. "Inappropriately applying a modern interpretation to historical events distorts our perceptions and generally does more to highlight current biases than historical truths...I think that it is greatly erroneous to blame work from a particular time and place for its accuracy regarding later and fundamentally different disciplines: we must evaluate the work in its proper context."

Seems you have been butting up against Fundamentalism from early on. In light of the above observation, for example, and without surrendering your atheism, you could still allow that the composition of Genesis that deals with creation was a literary tool to make a theological point. Borrow the Mesopotamian myth (Enuma Elish) and introduce the polemic of Israel's monotheism--no origin of the god(s), no cosmic battle, etc.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

With all due respect, I don't have time to read volumes on this subject. Suffice it to say, that God is infinitely more succinct and to the point, and I base my belief about the nature of Justification on the basis of this central passage:

Rom 4:3-8
3 For what does the Scripture say? "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works:

7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven,
And whose sins have been covered.
8 "Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account."
NASB

This passage has absolutely nothing to do with with "agape" or "infusion" of grace into one's soul. To be sure God's act of justifying a sinner is an act of grace on His part that involves a legal or forensic transaction. The transaction is this: The sinner's sins are imputed to Christ his substitute, his sin-bearer, while Christ's righteousness is imputed to the sinner (cf. Rom 5:12-21). And this is a one-time transaction. There could be no forgiveness of sins, no mercy granted, no gracious acts whatsoever toward any sinner apart from God satisfying his own justice (righteousness), which Jesus did, of course, on the Cross.

The term translated "reckoned" comes from the Gr. "logizomai" which means impute, reason, reckon, count or suppose. Strong's number is 3049 and this term is used 49 times in the NT. The term is actually an accounting term, which is how Paul could use it as he did in the above quoted passage.

Anyhow...gotta run.

Again, have a great Christmas.

You've exemplified what I posted and the former Reformed addressed. Work from a presupposition, than find some biblical support. JW's do the same.

Is legal fiction the point of justification, or is God's love poured into our hearts so that ... https://biblia.com/books/esv/Ga4.6 ...?

Calvin's early formation as a lawyer explains much. God bless, and have the last word. I really need to get serious about the ponies in the New Year. If I'm posting often, than I haven't succeeded in quantifying my qualitative descriptions of their capabilities.

Pacem.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I really need to get serious about the ponies in the New Year. If I'm posting often, than I haven't succeeded in quantifying my qualitative descriptions of their capabilities.

Conversing with Boxcar may prove to be the more inexpensive option...financially speaking, of course.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Conversing with Boxcar may prove to be the more inexpensive option...financially speaking, of course.

Yes Thask...they both have their costs.

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

How do you know your illusion was not an illusion?

I already said it was.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Since you deny the Holy Spirit, you clearly are not in God's kingdom...

First prove your senile bullshit you write here^^^

Originally Posted by boxcar

And why do you balk at the Trinity?

More senile bullshit lies.

Originally Posted by boxcar

When Jesus said that he came to do his Father's will, did he mean that he came to do his own will?

Are you the Riddler?

Originally Posted by boxcar

Do you think Jesus and the Father are one and the same person?

What does it matter what I think of this?

Originally Posted by boxcar

Is Jesus and the Father the very God of God, or is only one them the very God of God?

More stupidity^^^

[fast4522]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Yes Thask...they both have their costs.

You never know, Boxcar is said to have some luck at the track.

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

If I'm misrepresenting you, correct me.

I have repeatedly corrected you and you do not listen.

Originally Posted by boxcar

You equated sin with our miseries and suffering and said that if we're in an existence without any sin, there would be no way to grow spiritually. Again...if I'm wrong, then correct me. I am going from memory.

The correction is to substitute the word PAIN for SIN.

Your use of SIN is a frivolous religious concept open to vast interpretation.

PAIN rules this world in a seriously real way and laughs at your SIN because PAIN RULES SIN. SIN IS A SLAVE TO PAIN. SIN IS WHAT YOU DO WHEN PAIN HAS YOU BY THE BALLS. You are as NAIVE as it gets.

The Divine power of Love is the only power that can save us and lift us out of the power that PAIN can wreck on our lives. It is a rigged game in order for us to GROW on a spiritual level we can't even fully comprehend.

Originally Posted by boxcar

I think you drop discussions because you have no replies to my rebuttals of your foolishness --

I stop replying to you because your level of understanding the scheme of things is so beyond stupidity, its not worth a reply.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

You've exemplified what I posted and the former Reformed addressed. Work from a presupposition, than find some biblical support. JW's do the same.

Is legal fiction the point of justification, or is God's love poured into our hearts so that ... https://biblia.com/books/esv/Ga4.6 ...?

Calvin's early formation as a lawyer explains much. God bless, and have the last word. I really need to get serious about the ponies in the New Year. If I'm posting often, than I haven't succeeded in quantifying my qualitative descriptions of their capabilities.

Pacem.

I don't work from any personal presuppositions. I try to make a concerted effort to work directly from divine revelation -- to follow where scripture leads, not vice versa. And the passages I quoted don't have anything to do about "God's love being poured into our hearts". God had to settle the legal issue before anyone could experience the fullness of his love that Christ expressed for his Father's people at Cross. In fact,I believe this is why the peculiar gift of the Holy Spirit was reserved for God's New Covenant people -- this gift not given in its fullness until after the Cross, whereby God demonstrated both his love for his people and his justice.

Also, if Christ's righteousness is not imputed (reckoned, accounted, credited) to his Father's people, then the doctrine of Original Sin crumbles in the analogy of Rom 5:12ff. And if this doctrine is destroyed, then it must be explained how God can be just in allowing any innocent infants or children to suffer the penalty of sin (death) when they have no personal sins for which to account. How could a righteous, holy God permit the innocent to physically die before coming to the personal knowledge of good and evil? For very clearly the scriptures teach that the wages of sin is death --death in both its senses! Yet, no innocent infant or child has any personal sin debt to pay!

But as Romans 5 teaches, Adam, being the federal head of the human race, had his personal sin imputed to all his posterity. Likewise, the Last Adam had his personal righteousness imputed to all his spiritual posterity (inheritance). Sticky problem solved. Therefore, when anyone underage dies who has no true knowledge of good and evil, that death is justified because they "sinned" when in Adam's loins. (Yes, the underage, too, need Christ's salvation!) In a forensic sense, they participated in Adam's sin, the way the Levites participated in Abraham's tithes to Melchizedek when they were in their forefather's loins (Heb 7:8-10).

The way God's people experience God's agape love is by the Holy Spirit being poured out into their hearts. The work of Sanctification is how Gods' people experience God's holiness and love through his gift of the Spirit. It seems to me you conflate all the aspects to salvation -- or at least Justification and Sanctification.

But enough theology...

'Tis a noble thing you seek to do in quantifying as much as raw PP data as you can. I hope your time and efforts will pay off in big dividends for you.

My partner-in-crime (the programming guru of the team) and I had a pretty big breakthrough this year when we were able, with a trio of ratings, to quantify to a fair degree the very important TI (Trainer's Intentions) factor. (It's really great to know when trainer, as well as the horse, is well placed, according to today's race conditions and raw PP data.) So, now in addition to our sizeable arsenal of qualitatively-based racing angles, we will be adding some quantitative muscle to this factor, as well, which is kind of exciting.

I, too, hope to get more time in this year playing the flying manes and tails -- but God only knows if that will come to past. There never seems to be enough time in a day for me.

I wish you the very best for the upcoming New Year.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I don't work from any personal presuppositions. I try to make a concerted effort to work directly from divine revelation -- to follow where scripture leads, not vice versa. And the passages I quoted don't have anything to do about "God's love being poured into our hearts". God had to settle the legal issue before anyone could experience the fullness of his love that Christ expressed for his Father's people at Cross. In fact,I believe this is why the peculiar gift of the Holy Spirit was reserved for God's New Covenant people -- this gift not given in its fullness until after the Cross, whereby God demonstrated both his love for his people and his justice.

Also, if Christ's righteousness is not imputed (reckoned, accounted, credited) to his Father's people, then the doctrine of Original Sin crumbles in the analogy of Rom 5:12ff. And if this doctrine is destroyed, then it must be explained how God can be just in allowing any innocent infants or children to suffer the penalty of sin (death) when they have no personal sins for which to account. How could a righteous, holy God permit the innocent to physically die before coming to the personal knowledge of good and evil? For very clearly the scriptures teach that the wages of sin is death --death in both its senses! Yet, no innocent infant or child has any personal sin debt to pay!

But as Romans 5 teaches, Adam, being the federal head of the human race, had his personal sin imputed to all his posterity. Likewise, the Last Adam had his personal righteousness imputed to all his spiritual posterity (inheritance). Sticky problem solved. Therefore, when anyone underage dies who has no true knowledge of good and evil, that death is justified because they "sinned" when in Adam's loins. (Yes, the underage, too, need Christ's salvation!) In a forensic sense, they participated in Adam's sin, the way the Levites participated in Abraham's tithes to Melchizedek when they were in their forefather's loins (Heb 7:8-10).

The way God's people experience God's agape love is by the Holy Spirit being poured out into their hearts. The work of Sanctification is how Gods' people experience God's holiness and love through his gift of the Spirit. It seems to me you conflate all the aspects to salvation -- or at least Justification and Sanctification.

But enough theology...

'Tis a noble thing you seek to do in quantifying as much as raw PP data as you can. I hope your time and efforts will pay off in big dividends for you.

My partner-in-crime (the programming guru of the team) and I had a pretty big breakthrough this year when we were able, with a trio of ratings, to quantify to a fair degree the very important TI (Trainer's Intentions) factor. (It's really great to know when trainer, as well as the horse, is well placed, according to today's race conditions and raw PP data.) So, now in addition to our sizeable arsenal of qualitatively-based racing angles, we will be adding some quantitative muscle to this factor, as well, which is kind of exciting.

I, too, hope to get more time in this year playing the flying manes and tails -- but God only knows if that will come to past. There never seems to be enough time in a day for me.

I wish you the very best for the upcoming New Year.

IMO...we owe this man a debt of gratitude. If it weren't for his meanderings...how else would we get reminded of the ludicrous speculations and superstitions upon which organized religion is hinged? When the human mind gets brainwashed enough...even the death of a CHILD can be deemed readily justified.