[does he believe in predestination]

really?  you may be right, but i'd like proof.  as far as i know (and
i am not a div school student!) the catholic church does not seem to
accept predestination.  my chaplain told me "beware of greeks bearing
gifts" with reference to this doctrine: it seems to have the curious
result that human beings are not held responsible for their own
actions!  i'll answer how you deal with this in a minute.


right.  that doesn't really seem like predestination to me, but i'll
continue with what you're saying....


this is really confusing to me, especially since i still believe that
christ jesus died for ALL of us.  preknowledge of obstinacy seems
like an awfully convoluted way to account for a couple of verses.  but
then, i am not really biblically supported in this opinion -- or am i?
others?


so God uses grace like margarine: he only spreads it where it's needed
and not where it isn't?  and so there are the saved and the not-saved,
and nothing in between.  hmmmm.


although i realize this doctrine was not originally intended to cause
social problems, it ends up doing just that -- if there is supposed to
be some sort of "sign" that someone is elect, like lots of children or
success at work, then those who have a good life on earth will go
around thinking that those who don't are doomed to hell.

in a way, though, this sounds like the opposite idea -- those doomed
to hell will have a great life on earth.  that's almost like the
converse of what i believe -- responsibility for what we do now will
be punished after we die.  you're saying what we get after we die has
a direct bearing on how we live now?  strange....
 

so sin is either punished now or later -- and not both?  what if it's
 sort of half-punished?  are there any grey areas in this doctrine?

 [my stuff deleted]
 >We should stop the slaughter of the innocent (cf Proverbs 24.11-12), but
 >does that mean that Christians should support a war in Bosnia with the
 >U.S. or even the U.N. involved?  I do not think so, but I am an
 >isolationist, and disagree with foreign adventures in general.  But in
 >the case of Bosnia, I frankly see no excuse for us getting militarily
 >involved, it would not be a "just war."  "Blessed" after all, "are the
 >peacemakers" was what Our Lord said, not the interventionists.  Our
 >actions in Bosnia must be for peace, and not for a war which is
 >unrelated to anything to justify it for us.

 the idea (well, my idea) would be that you would intervene to
 establish peace and stop the atrocities.  i'm not suggesting wwIII.  i
 don't really understand what you mean by a "just war".  of course i am
 not an isolationist, although i see some merit in not jumping in at
 the first opportunity (can you say kuwait?).  we happen to be a big
 country with a lot of resources (as well as a lot of debt), and this
 gives us some responsibility in the world, whether we like it or not.
 flashbacks of wwII, as well as vietnam, should be haunting us.

 yet another difference of opinion.  so be it.

 >Andy Byler

 thank you for answering; i hope you don't take any of my comments as
 flames, but instead as expressions of interest.