ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Nang]

We agree that God has a plan of redemption to mitigate sin and evil. He opposes it; He does not affirm it as His will. God did not desire nor intend evil to disrupt the tranquility of the Godhead and universe. He responded to it when it became a reality; He did not decree it for a higher good.

Then why does Scripture say God created evil?

"I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil; I, the Lord do these things." Isaiah 45:7


Except that evil (bad fruit) is the consequence of wickedness (bad trees). Sinners are consigned to evil calamnities (i.e. death, etc.) as the wages for their sins. (Romans 6:23)

It was the will of God to establish judgments against sinners according to their wickedness; evil results and consequences manifest God's justice against His enemies.

God imposing evil is the opposite of God bestowing grace.

God was prepared to manifest sin through evil events before He created. God was prepared to execute justice against sin, even before He created the man who would cause the darkness of sin and death in His good creation.

God created light to dispel darkness. God created the world to manifest sin and wickedness. God sent light into the world through His Son, Jesus Christ, to work victory once for all over all His enemies; including Death and Hades. (Rev. 20:11-15)

"Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee. For behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and deep darkness the people; but the Lord will arise over you and His glory will be seen upon you." Isaiah 60:1&2

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Packer and AMR believe in antimony, which is a fancy name for contradictory, illogical assumptions.http://www.amazon.com/God-Blame-Moving-Answers-Problem/dp/0830823948

Don't be sloppy when you make statements about what folks believe.

Review and get things straight in your mind: here. See words in red highlighted just for you.

After you review have the decency to come back and admit that you either (1) believe in antimonies (as defined in the link), or (2) you have never encountered anything that appeared, upon cursory reflection, to be an incompatibility between two apparent truths.

I mean if what's his name could agree, even without liking it, I assume you can.:chew:

 

[Delmar]

Then why does Scripture say God created evil?

"I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil; I, the Lord do these things." Isaiah 45:7


Except that evil (bad fruit) is the consequence of wickedness (bad trees). Sinners are consigned to evil calamnities (i.e. death, etc.) as the wages for their sins. (Romans 6:23)

It was the will of God to establish judgments against sinners according to their wickedness; evil results and consequences manifest God's justice against His enemies.

God imposing evil is the opposite of God bestowing grace.

God was prepared to manifest sin through evil events before He created. God was prepared to execute justice against sin, even before He created the man who would cause the darkness of sin and death in His good creation.

God created light to dispel darkness. God created the world to manifest sin and wickedness. God sent light into the world through His Son, Jesus Christ, to work victory once for all over all His enemies; including Death and Hades. (Rev. 20:11-15)

"Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee. For behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and deep darkness the people; but the Lord will arise over you and His glory will be seen upon you." Isaiah 60:1&2

Because you quoted from a translation that conforms to your theology.

Isaiah 45:7 (New King James Version)


7 I form the light and create darkness,
I make peace and create calamity;
I, the LORD, do all these things.

 

[Nang]

Because you quoted from a translation that conforms to your theology.

Isaiah 45:7 (New King James Version)


7 I form the light and create darkness,
I make peace and create calamity;
I, the LORD, do all these things.

In my post, I used the words "evil" and "calamity" interchangeably for they both come from the Hebrew word, "rah."

This word "rah" also denotes adversity, affliction, and bad (consequences and events), displeasure, distress, grief, harm, heavy, hurt, sorrow and trouble.

Please note: The Hebrew "rah" does not mean sin. God did not create sin. The Hebrew word mostly used for sin, is "chattah."

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

In my post, I used the words "evil" and "calamity" interchangeably for they both come from the Hebrew word, "rah."

This word "rah" also denotes adversity, affliction, and bad (consequences and events), displeasure, distress, grief, harm, heavy, hurt, sorrow and trouble.

Please note: The Hebrew "rah" does not mean sin. God did not create sin. The Hebrew word mostly used for sin, is "chattah."

You had me worried for a nanosecond, Nang. Whew! But I knew what you really meant. Thanks for clarifying your post. Good!

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Lee: So let’s not have people saying “the future can’t be known because it hasn’t happened yet”? And I think a free choice that will be made is definite knowledge of the future.

Muz: Except that it isn't free.

God is only able to bring about his will in human choices when choices aren’t free? Well, I am too.

Lee: in this verse, there is a sense of condemnation for not doing what they ought to have done, this would seem to require the Open View state that God was indeed seeking to bring about repentance.

Muz: I don’t know why.

Revelation 9:20-21 The rest of mankind that were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the work of their hands; they did not stop worshiping demons, and idols of gold, silver, bronze, stone and wood-- idols that cannot see or hear or walk. Nor did they repent of their murders, their magic arts, their sexual immorality or their thefts.

You are saying there is no idea here that they should repent? Clearly the point is that in spite of all the judgments, they did not repent, implying we should marvel at this.

“The commission which these horsemen had was against idolaters; and though multitudes of them were destroyed, yet the residue continued their senseless attachment to dumb idols…” (Adam Clarke)

Lee: And yet these choices, made by people, are known.

Muz: Not each individual.

How do you know, may I ask? But grant the point, most of them did not repent, how can this be known, if these are free choices?

So, if God changes His mind, is He still righteous in your eyes?

Not if he says he won’t take back his words.

Isaiah 31:2 Yet he too is wise and can bring disaster; he does not take back his words.

Lee: So “takes away the sin of the world” is “takes away the sin of believers”? But I think Jesus came to do more than simply stop some sinning.

Muz: He came to take away the consequences of our sin with respect to being under the judgment and wrath of God. That's what it means.

That would be turning aside judgment and wrath (i.e. propitiation), but not taking away sin. “Takes” we may note, is the verb, “sin” is the object, we can’t be rewriting Scripture like you have done here. And this exemplifies Jesus succeeding (he does not try to take away the sin of the world, he does it), succeeding in destroying the devil’s work. Note also, “the devil’s work,” singular, so this would not mean just some of the devil’s works, Jesus came to destroy his work, as he came to take away the sin (not sins, and not some sins) of the world.

Muz: Yes, all the Devil's works will fail to achieve the Devil's purposes.

Agreed.

John 10:10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.

Colossians 2:15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

John 16:33 "… take heart! I have overcome the world."

Lee: But was the cross man’s will, and also not God’s will? The Open View is simplistic, it involves a denial of plans that God has of even pain and suffering, for a purpose for good.

Muz: Calvinism says that the rape of a 9 year old girl is God's will and He makes it good. I don't find that either biblical or acceptable.

Muz, answer the question, please. Was the cross man’s will, and also not God’s will? And again, Calvinism does not say this, it may be satisfying to knock down a straw man, but it’s not very satisfactory.

Lee: … Paul’s thorn in the flesh—given to him to keep him humble.

Muz: First, we don't know exactly what it was.

But this doesn’t matter, correct?

Second, God probably wasn't the direct cause of the thorn. God simply refused to remove it.

But who gave him the thorn so that he would not be exalted beyond measure?

"This is the same lesson we learn from 2 Cor. 12:7 where Paul says that his thorn in the flesh was a messenger of Satan, and yet was given for the purpose of his own holiness. 'To keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me – to keep me from exalting myself!' Now, humility is not Satan's purpose in this affliction. Therefore the purpose is God's. Which means that Satan here is being used by God to accomplish his good purposes in Paul's life." (John Piper)

Muz: Calvinism says that God causes evil so that He can do good from it.

As in the cross, yes—OVT says God did not act in any way to bring about the cross?

John 13:26-27 Jesus answered, "It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish." Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon. As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him. "What you are about to do, do quickly," Jesus told him.

OVT says that man commits evil, and God, in his goodness, grace, and mercy, brings good to those who seek His face through it.

Yet God has no such plan from the start in each instance? This is all damage control?

Zechariah 13:9 This third I will bring into the fire; I will refine them like silver and test them like gold. They will call on my name and I will answer them; I will say, 'They are my people,' and they will say, 'The Lord is our God.'

Lee: But how is creating a world with real, regrettable evil not having the end justify the means?

Muz: That's the Calvinist problem. OVT says that God created a world without evil.

So let me rephrase, how is creating a world in which you knew there may well be real, regrettable evil as a result of man’s sin, how is this not having the end justify the means?

Blessings,
Lee

 

[RobE]

It has become apparent to me that either you lack the intellectual capital to grasp these concepts, or you're being deliberately obtuse to avoid the obvious conclusion that you're wrong. Either way, I think all that needs to be said has been said.

Muz

I appreciate the dialogue. It's helped me understand you alot better. Despite your failure to reply to the objections against yourself; it wasn't a waste. Thanks.

"Excuse me sir, I don't mean to disturb your repose, but I must flip this little lever.":execute:

It really is baffling. I think all that needs to be said has been said ... at least a dozen times. Stars in your crown, Muz. :king:

I was going to reply to this, but I realized the game is over; so now it is time for cheerleaders to enter the field. Good job!:chuckle:

 

[RobE]

Consider this....

The only way to prove the validity of doing otherwise is to assume foreknowledge.

A great point has been made in saying that we are unable to know for sure that we did other than A if A is unknown. For example, I assume that I will wash my car, but then I don't. The assumption of what I foreknow I will do proves the validity that I did otherwise.

If doing otherwise is only able to be validated if the action is assumed to be foreknown, then.....

Either;

LFW's definition is untrue because it is unverifiable because of the lack of the assumed foreknowledge,​

or

LFW's definition assumes that foreknowledge is present and therefore is able to make the statement 'able to do otherwise' and rejects a conflict between foreknowledge and free will as being true.​

Please don't be too hasty in coming to a conlusion on this. This requires some thought.​

Consider this....

The only way to prove the validity of doing otherwise is to assume foreknowledge.

This is true. Thus, we must rely upon our logical conclusions, rather than trying to demonstrate it.

It would appear that the ability of doing otherwise is logically unproveable without definite foreknowledge as well. Is Libertarian Free Will in need of a new definition: One, perhaps, that includes definite foreknowledge?

Doesn't LFW need to overcome the coercive forces which surround the individual? Things(causes) such as nature, demonic forces, and their own natural proclivity to sin(original sin). Grace is the method and only means to escape these influences and become truly free. Isn't it true, that some of us need more graces than others, to achieve this? Through the use of foreknowledge, Our Lord is able to tailor the graces that each individual needs in his/her own life. Graces which allow us the opportunity to act outside of our own natures and become in a sense supernatural and therefore, free.

So, what might we do with the definition of Libertarian Free Will, that will take grace into account; foreknowledge into account; and will also be a proveable, sustainable definition?

Rob

 

[Lon]

If exaggeration doesn't work ... minimize and diminish?

If it is accurate.

 

[Philetus]

Given the basic flowchart of choice, down the scale there are many, BUT it starts and ends with a very basic premise in which there is but one choice depending on who we are. The downline multilevel peramid isn't as important to our conversation as the upline (no I'm not into Amway). The point being that only the top point is needed for discussion. The rest all proceeds from the top premise. If we are believers, we have but one choice, the ability is rather the propensity and decline to do otherwise (sin). Our desire is but one choice, to follow after Him and have what was lost be restored. I really don't care to argue about any other decision or choice. In my mind the rest is nickels and dimes and pennies. Those choices don't make any difference at all. It doesn't matter what I eat or drink or wear, that is all in His hands. After the top of the flow chart is dealt with the rest is gravy.

Blessings

Lon

If it is accurate to say: “If we are believers, we have but one choice …” how many choices does an unbeliever have?

What you eat, drink or wear (etc, etc,) are ‘all in His hands’ … means what exactly?

Philetus

 

[godrulz]

In my post, I used the words "evil" and "calamity" interchangeably for they both come from the Hebrew word, "rah."

This word "rah" also denotes adversity, affliction, and bad (consequences and events), displeasure, distress, grief, harm, heavy, hurt, sorrow and trouble.

Please note: The Hebrew "rah" does not mean sin. God did not create sin. The Hebrew word mostly used for sin, is "chattah."

A holy God does not create or condone moral evil (Hitler kills Jews). He can and does send righteous judgments (so-called natural evil like Noahic Flood).

You have added an interpretation barrier by using archaic English, which you are not a master of (cute used to mean bow-legged).

Lame Calvinistic proof texts such as this have been answered by those who know Hebrew and do not have a preconceived filter.

 

[RobE]

A holy God does not create or condone moral evil (Hitler kills Jews). He can and does send righteous judgments (so-called natural evil like Noahic Flood).

You have added an interpretation barrier by using archaic English, which you are not a master of (cute used to mean bow-legged).

Lame Calvinistic proof texts such as this have been answered by those who know Hebrew and do not have a preconceived filter.

Even as the rush of water, so is the heart of a king in God's hand; He will turn it in whatever way He shall choose." Proverbs 21:1

Second, God probably wasn't the direct cause of the thorn. God simply refused to remove it.

"And David said to Abishai, and to all his servants, Behold, my son, which came forth from my bowels, seeks my life: how much more may this Benjamite do it! Let him alone, and let him curse; for the Lord has bidden him. It may be that the Lord will look on my humiliation, and will requite me good for his cursing this day." 2 Samuel 16:11-12

Because you quoted from a translation that conforms to your theology.

Isaiah 45:7 (New King James Version)


7 I form the light and create darkness,
I make peace and create calamity;
I, the LORD, do all these things.

"This I do, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which you have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went. And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which you have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I am the Lord, says the Lord God, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes. For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. Then will I sprinkle you with clean water, and you shall be clean: from all your own filthiness, and from all your idols will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and the stony heart shall be taken away out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and will cause you to walk in my statutes, and you shall keep my judgments, and do them." Ezekiel 36:22-27​

This scripture points out that man's will is completely malleable to God's will. Did Abram asked to be chosen from all those on earth to receive God's graces? A better question --- Was Abram more worthy than all others?

"The will is prepared by the Lord." Proverbs 8:35​

"The steps of a man are ordered by the Lord, and his way does He will."​

"It is God who works in you, even to will!" Philippians 2:13​

"I will make you to walk in my statutes, and to observe my judgments, and to do them." Ezekiel 36:27​

"It was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that they might be exterminated." Joshua 11:20​

"And David said to Abishai, and to all his servants, Behold, my son, which came forth from my bowels, seeks my life: how much more may this Benjamite do it! Let him alone, and let him curse; for the Lord has bidden him. It may be that the Lord will look on my humiliation, and will requite me good for his cursing this day." 2 Samuel 16:11-12​

the Lord appointed to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel, to the intent that the Lord might bring all evils upon Absalom." 2 Samuel 17:14​

"Now tarry at home; why do you challenge me to your hurt, that you should fall, even you, and Judah with you?" 2 Kings 14:10​

"Even as the rush of water, so is the heart of a king in God's hand; He will turn it in whatever way He shall choose." Proverbs 21:1​

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections;" Romans 1:26
But not to evil, right?​

"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient." Romans 1:28​

"For as you, in times past, have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief; even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy; for God has concluded them all in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all." Romans 11:30-32​

"I the Lord have deceived that prophet," Ezekiel 14:9​

"And Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also; neither would he let the people go." Exodus 8:32​

Romans 9:22 (New King James Version)
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,​

 

[Nang]

Even as the rush of water, so is the heart of a king in God's hand; He will turn it in whatever way He shall choose." Proverbs 21:1



"And David said to Abishai, and to all his servants, Behold, my son, which came forth from my bowels, seeks my life: how much more may this Benjamite do it! Let him alone, and let him curse; for the Lord has bidden him. It may be that the Lord will look on my humiliation, and will requite me good for his cursing this day." 2 Samuel 16:11-12

"This I do, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which you have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went. And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which you have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I am the Lord, says the Lord God, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes. For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. Then will I sprinkle you with clean water, and you shall be clean: from all your own filthiness, and from all your idols will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and the stony heart shall be taken away out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and will cause you to walk in my statutes, and you shall keep my judgments, and do them." Ezekiel 36:22-27​

This scripture points out that man's will is completely malleable to God's will. Did Abram asked to be chosen from all those on earth to receive God's graces? A better question --- Was Abram more worthy than all others?

"The will is prepared by the Lord." Proverbs 8:35​

"The steps of a man are ordered by the Lord, and his way does He will."​

"It is God who works in you, even to will!" Philippians 2:13​

"I will make you to walk in my statutes, and to observe my judgments, and to do them." Ezekiel 36:27​

"It was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that they might be exterminated." Joshua 11:20​

"And David said to Abishai, and to all his servants, Behold, my son, which came forth from my bowels, seeks my life: how much more may this Benjamite do it! Let him alone, and let him curse; for the Lord has bidden him. It may be that the Lord will look on my humiliation, and will requite me good for his cursing this day." 2 Samuel 16:11-12​

the Lord appointed to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel, to the intent that the Lord might bring all evils upon Absalom." 2 Samuel 17:14​

"Now tarry at home; why do you challenge me to your hurt, that you should fall, even you, and Judah with you?" 2 Kings 14:10​

"Even as the rush of water, so is the heart of a king in God's hand; He will turn it in whatever way He shall choose." Proverbs 21:1​

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections;" Romans 1:26
But not to evil, right?​

"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient." Romans 1:28​

"For as you, in times past, have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief; even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy; for God has concluded them all in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all." Romans 11:30-32​

"I the Lord have deceived that prophet," Ezekiel 14:9​

"And Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also; neither would he let the people go." Exodus 8:32​

Romans 9:22 (New King James Version)
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,​

Excellent post, RobE

Scriptures instead of "probablies!"

:thumb:

Nang

 

[godrulz]

There are alternate understandings to these proof texts. Bringing a preconceived bias to them to retain a certain theological worldview is not good exegesis.

God responds to and mitigates moral evil; he does not desire, cause, purpose it (it is contrary to His holy nature).

 

[Nang]

There are alternate understandings to these proof texts. Bringing a preconceived bias to them to retain a certain theological worldview is not good exegesis.

So why don't you exegete them for us?

Without showing any bias on your part, of course.

 

[godrulz]

So why don't you exegete them for us?

Without showing any bias on your part, of course.

I have, as well as other published academics like Gregory Boyd and John Sanders.

 

[RobE]

There are alternate understandings to these proof texts. Bringing a preconceived bias to them to retain a certain theological worldview is not good exegesis.

God responds to and mitigates moral evil; he does not desire, cause, purpose it (it is contrary to His holy nature).

1 The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD,
Like the rivers of water;
He turns it wherever He wishes.​

A holy God does not create or condone moral evil (Hitler kills Jews). He can and does send righteous judgments (so-called natural evil like Noahic Flood).

"And David said to Abishai, and to all his servants, Behold, my son, which came forth from my bowels, seeks my life: how much more may this Benjamite do it! Let him alone, and let him curse; for the Lord has bidden him. It may be that the Lord will look on my humiliation, and will requite me good for his cursing this day." 2 Samuel 16:11-12

 

[godrulz]

1 The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD,
Like the rivers of water;
He turns it wherever He wishes.​

"And David said to Abishai, and to all his servants, Behold, my son, which came forth from my bowels, seeks my life: how much more may this Benjamite do it! Let him alone, and let him curse; for the Lord has bidden him. It may be that the Lord will look on my humiliation, and will requite me good for his cursing this day." 2 Samuel 16:11-12

So, a holy God caused Hitler to kill millions of Jews, Bush to bomb Iraq, David to commit adultery and murder, Bundy to rape women?:kookoo:


Your proof text interpretation is flawed in light of the rest of Scripture. God can influence and orchestrate kings to bring His purposes to pass, but He never causes moral evil that is contrary to His holiness and the good of Himself and others.

There is a big difference between God allowing Hitler to kill himself and go crazy in a bunker and helping allies achieve victory and God intending, desiring, causing Hitler to reject His Word and will and do heinous evil, contrary to God's intentions and desires.

 

[Lon]

If it is accurate to say: “If we are believers, we have but one choice …” how many choices does an unbeliever have?

What you eat, drink or wear (etc, etc,) are ‘all in His hands’ … means what exactly?

Philetus

In the flowchart of choice, the unbeliever also has but one choice and he was born into it. All the other ensuing decisions are constrained by that one choice.

Mat 6:24 No one can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.
Mat 6:25 Therefore I say to you, Do not be anxious for your life, what you shall eat, or what you shall drink; nor for your body, what you shall put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?
Mat 6:26 Behold the birds of the air; for they sow not, nor do they reap, nor gather into barns. Yet your heavenly Father feeds them; are you not much better than they are?

1Co 10:31 Therefore whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.

 

[Clete]

I conceded a person need not have the quality of 'goodness' to have authority. In the sense we were speaking of this is correct. But an unrighteous person might have a 'good' quality such as the quality of being knowledgeable, powerful, etc.....

I know what you conceded Rob because, unlike you, I actually read the things posted by those I'm debating and respond based on what they actually say.

There is more than one sense of the word 'good' here. There's good as in righteous which is what you have insisted that I respond to and there is good as in favorable or valued.

You responded using the term "quality person" Rob. You knew exactly what we were talking about when you conceded the question.

Isn't it good to be knowledgeable, powerful, etc..... even though those are not required for 'goodness'?

I never suggested otherwise and you know it. You've lost Rob. Just be a man and admit it. It's not like you're going to die or something. Knight isn't going to ban you because you showed up and got your butt handed to you in a debate. Just get over it and move on!

The latter definition would maintain that one quality isn't better than the next. With respect to 'goodness' as in righteousness; of course only personal qualities which bolster righteousness would apply.

I really don't know why you feel like it is necessary to repeat yourself here Rob but far be it from me to keep you from conceding the debate as many times as you like!

This doesn't answer the question of where your proof is that righteousness take precedence over authority as a good quality, though.

Are you schizophrenic or something? You just answered this question!

You can have more power than another without being better (in anyway) than that other person but you cannot be more righteous than another without being better than they are (in every way).

A point you have repeatedly conceded!

Because when we examine it quantitatively(which is required to establish precedence) it uses the term 'good' as in which is better, not as which is more righteous.

We're probably debating different issues again. I'm debating what proof is there that establishes one attribute takes precedence over the other?

A question which you agree with me on the answer too and thus conceded the issue! :bang:

I really do think, without an ounce of sarcasm at all, that the problem we are up against is that you are simply stupid and are incapable of stringing more than about two thoughts together at a time. Unbelievable!

Perhaps a third party who has been following this discussion would be willing to do the work it takes to go through and do a play by play, quoting each of us as the discussion progressed showing where you conceded my answer to the very question that you have know explicitly stated is the issue being debated but as far as I'm concerned my job is done here for now.

Resting in Him,
Clete