Recent content by JudgeRightly

A six year old shot his teacher with a gun he stole from his mother's purse, then when the police arrives, verbally (and vulgarly) abuses both the cops and the teacher (counselor?) who is holding onto him so he can't go back to pick up the gun.

@way 2 go bump: Post in thread 'On the omniscience of God' https://theologyonline.com/threads/on-the-omniscience-of-god.55271/post-1931480

Simply presenting evidence isn't enough. You have to show that the evidence supports your position. You have yet to do so. Straw man. You've been corrected on this repeatedly. Attributing an argument to me that I haven't made doesn't refute anything I've said. Yes, God has foreknowledge...

Saying it doesn't make it so. God can know generally what a group of people will do within a given set of circumstances. That does not establish exhaustive infallible foreknowledge of every future free choice. Begging the question. You're assuming that whichever choice ultimately occurs...

There are no "mechanics," because nobody is claiming that knowledge somehow exerts a physical or causal force upon your will. You keep trying to turn a logical contradiction into a mechanical one. The issue is necessity, not causation. If God infallibly knows that I will choose A, then not-A...

Restating your claim does not magically make it come true, W2G. What I said above: ... has not been rebutted. You simply repeated the claim that the choice is free without addressing the contradiction. No. Open Theists read Revelation 9:21 as 100% true and accurate too. What we reject is...

Your position is unfalsifiable as you've framed it. (And no, that's not a good thing.) You're trying to have it both ways. Either the future is settled or it isn't. If God's infallible foreknowledge means the future is already settled, then the past that contains God's infallible knowledge is...

And this is you being intellectually dishonest and not engaging in good faith argumentation. Simply calling an argument a "personal opinion," "begging the question," "selective literalism," or an "ad hominem" does not demonstrate that it is any of those things. You have to actually show where...

John was shown a vision of what God intends to bring about. That vision is not prewritten history. The Bible shows us that God can look at the current circumstances and the trajectory of current events, and extrapolate far into the future, because He is wise, and his understanding is infinite...

You don't seem to be grasping the point of contention.

Most of his arguments have been addressed repeatedly by myself and others. Across at least two different threads. https://theologyonline.com/threads/on-the-omniscience-of-god.55271/post-1931362

Unto, not into.

Granted. No one has said otherwise. What we've said, repeatedly, is that infallible knowledge of a future choice necessitates that choice be made exactly as it is known. There is no alternative, because that would defeat the knowledge being infallible. No alternative means the choice is not...

Try again:

I'm not seeing how it bookends Paul's letter. (Maybe you're seeing something I'm not?) Matthew 4:15-16 is quoting Isaiah 9:1-2, and Matthew explicitly says that what happened was in fulfillment of what Isaiah had prophesied. So the sequence is: Isaiah prophesied it → Christ fulfilled it...