Ephesians 1-3

[wolfpurplemoon]

Those that are blessed were predestined to be saved, God chose them before the foundation of the world.

Everyone near and far has been preached to in peace and are therefore no longer foreign to each other as they are fellow citizens in God's household.

Paul had the divine secret made known to him by revelation, a secret not disclosed to any previous prophets, that everyone can be saved rather than just the chosen few (though they have to have been predestined as it said in the previous chapter). Paul's calling is to reveal this secret plan to everyone after it was hidden for ages.

The love of Christ surpasses all knowledge so you can be filled up to the fullness of God, you don't want knowledge filling up space that could be used for God.

Comments

Re: Zen

[blesserbeing.livejournal.com]

The main reason for that was b/c it is a link in the long chain of evolution theory. Also, I'm just going to conclude that worldwide it is accepted as false, though I'm sure a few scientists still wish to hold on to it. I also forgot to mention the fact that we all have the Law of Human Nature (morals). But of course this is somehow disproved (for some people) with evolution theory.

Re: Zen

[blesserbeing.livejournal.com]

On that note, I'd like to hear what you guys think about the origin of morals or a conscious. Am I correct in assuming you think we evolved into a sense of morals so as to get along with eachother, since without them, basically anything would go? (death, destruction, bla bla, bad stuff) I don't plan on arguing anything, just interested if thats the basic theory.

Re: Zen

[wolfpurplemoon]

Sounds about right to me.

Re: Zen

[wolfpurplemoon]

What theory of the origin of life is being studied now if abiogenesis has been 'accepted as false' (worldwide no less)? Because if a theory is proved false scientists don't just abandon study of that area and say 'oh well, God must've done it'.

Re: Zen

[blesserbeing.livejournal.com]

Alright cool thx. And you do have a good point on the abiogenesis subject, though that doesn't mean its necessarily correct. I'm sure there are scientists experimenting and trying to prove abiogenesis correct still. Though I'm sure you have more knowledge on this subject than me.

One thing that really irritates me though: The fact that with many important things, there are always two sides to the problem. A person could just as easily accept one side as the other. I was in debate this year and each team would always have evidence going directly against the other teams' evidence. This doesn't make sense, since one of them had to be correct, but it always happens nonetheless.

So whenever there are two equally good sides to an argument, I see no point in continuing. (Unfortunately, in debate you HAVE to keep arguing)