Search results

Everything you've said about Open Theism. False. See #278, Arguments 1-5, 11, 12, and 17. See #278, Arguments 6 and 23. See #278, Arguments 16 and 17. Already answered in #283 and in #278, Argument 23. Already answered in #283 and in #278, Arguments 6 through 8 and 11. False. See...

Then you need to check your starting premises. First: How does God describe Himself? Second: Which of your beliefs come directly from Scripture, and which come from an interpretation of Scripture? The belief that God must possess exhaustive knowledge of everything presently occurring...

I misread what you said. I apologize. Please forgive me. To address what you actually said: I am defending the proposition that a king does not cease to be the lawful holder of the office merely because he commits a crime. His guilt does not, by itself, vacate the throne or create in another...

It does not make such a situation impossible. Civil disobedience is not limited to government officials. The regime still depends upon soldiers, judges, workers, suppliers, taxpayers, and ordinary subjects. The king may replace resisters, but widespread noncooperation can still obstruct his...

You have created a caricature of Open Theism, and have not identified any instance of eisegesis. You have merely applied the label to interpretations you dislike. See post #278, arguments 9 and 23. See #278, arguments 1 through 5. Genesis 22:12 is Scripture, and its words must be accounted...

Yes, the murder is an injustice. No human system can ensure that every injustice is corrected in this life. But good wins in the end, and so the king will receive justice at least by Judgment Day, even if he escapes earthly judgment. Bob’s arrangement therefore teaches a lesson that your...

He remains king. If the attack is still occurring, those present may defend the general up to lethal force. Afterward, killing the king would be revenge rather than defense. The king is guilty of murder, but no domestic court has jurisdiction to prosecute, sentence, or depose him. Accomplices...

I'm not sure how what I said was dishonest. Pressing the argument is not dishonest. Pointing out the flaws in your position is not dishonest. Answering your objections is not dishonest. What exactly was dishonest? How exactly was I dishonest? My arguments stand unanswered.

The only regress is within your own position. My arguments have been developed. That they overlap and branch into one another demonstrates their consistency, which is a mark of a sound argument. Now you're being inconsistent, Clete. In post #492, you wrote: You therefore acknowledged that...

Agreed that the rule of law is now the central issue. We agree that the Constitution defines the king’s office, limits his jurisdiction, and determines the legal consequences of exceeding those limits. Our dispute is whether those limitations count as law only if a higher domestic authority may...

So quit acting like a petulant child, and have the maturity to recognize what I'm talking about. Do you think that the verse you gave somehow contradicts the one I quoted? Oh, and let's not forget that Jesus called people names.

The New Covenant was made between the same two parties as the Old Covenant: God and Israel. That did not change with Paul. The cut-off branches are unbelieving Israel. They will be grafted back in again, upon the fullness of the Gentiles having come in. Sorry, what? That makes no sense...

:think: At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means...

The ability to recognize patterns is not dependent on how long someone has been a member of a site.

You're not the only one, though it's very rare these days! Some clarification is in order, then. I am aware that you are not proposing a standing body of men whose continuous occupation is watching the king and waiting for an opportunity to remove him. By a “permanent institution,” I mean...

Never heard of it. Doesn't matter. Guilt by association is a fallacy. Even demons believe there is one God. That does not make monotheism demonic. Make an actual argument from Scripture.

Reference Post: W2G’s Arguments and Where They Have Been Answered W2G, you have repeatedly returned to arguments that have already been answered, frequently without addressing the answers. To prevent the discussion from becoming an endless cycle of repetition, I am consolidating your arguments...

You missed what the last verse said, Idolater. And this I say for your own profit, not that I may put a leash on you, but for what is proper, and that you may serve the Lord without distraction. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians7:35&version=NKJV The law is a heavy...

:think: :doh:

Or you've simply entrenched your worldview in "whatever the mainstream media says" (ie corporatized media). Try taking what is said at face value rather than just dismissing it out of hand simply because "it comes from X."