Search results

So, it's no wonder why no one cannot have a substantive discussion with @Gary K about rational issues where actual arguments are made and evidence is presented. He's a delusional lunatic who thinks himself to be a later day prophet who's family is harassed by demons. I'm officially done with...

Saying it doesn't make it so, Gary! Why not at least try to make the argument? What not at least put some kind of effort into establishing such a claim?

What does that have to do with what I said about the term 'satan' as used in the book of Job? The term satan, AS USED IN THE BOOK OF JOB, is not a proper name, it is a title. The Hebrew word simply means "adversary". There was no teaching or tradition in ancient times of Lucifer being called...

Glad to see that we agree on something.

FYI: The satan in Job is likely not THE Satan, (i.e. the fallen angel formerly known as Lucifer). The term "satan", as used in Job, is a title, not a proper name. It means "adversary" or "accuser". It isn't IMPOSSIBLE that it was Lucifer but there's good reason to think it wasn't, not the least...

So, first of all, I just want to say that it did not go unnoticed that you threw in the little ad hominem/guilt by association jab with the mention of Mormons. It's just another pathetic example of you throwing stones at a caricature of Open Theism. Open Theists do not reject the Omni's per se...

Well there is no such thing as "outside of existence". Anything that is "outside of existence" does not exist, by definition. Aside from that, I have no issue with the rest of what you'd said here except to say that I'd have to see the actual argument that purports to establish this logical...

The etymology of a term doesn't always convey its meaning in normal usage. The way it is most often used, especially in formal theological circles, implies a meaning that goes well being "all powerful". It's used as almost a synonym of their exaggerated concept of sovereign where nothing...

Well, "Almighty" is, it seems to me, a more accurate term than "omnipotent". El Shaddai - "God Almighty" or "God The Sufficient One". The idea behind the name being that God is the most powerful, not that God can perform the absurdities that modern theologians imply by the term "omnipotent".

T = You answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge] If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past] It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]...

So, because Paul was called as an Apostle, you're an Apostle too? I know that you don't actually believe that but it is what your claim here would imply. What is true in a particular case cannot be rightly applied to every case. It's called a "hasty generalization" fallacy. What's true of a...

Not only that but... Gary's claim that we can't understand God implies that his own understanding of God is superior to ours, otherwise he could make no distinction between our position and his own. How could he know this if his claim that God cannot be understood is correct? By what means did...

I have not insulted you. On the contrary, it was you who insulted me. To which I responded by asked you a serious question which you'd do well to think through and respond to even if that response is never posted on this website. You're over reacting and I don't care whether what I say hurts...

No, you are the one reading into scripture! There isn't any power or means by which a man can hide from God precisely because God is able to be everywhere He wants to be at once!! What are you even doing here, Gary? Seriously! What exactly is it that you feel like you're accomplishing? Are...

There were lots of babies being born in those days, Gary. God is perfectly well capable of reading the genetic code which He Himself invented and can know a very great deal about all the babies that have yet to be born and can pick and choose from those who would make excellent candidates for...

God is present everywhere He wants to be and nowhere else. No, they do not demonstrate any such thing. What it demonstrates is God's ability to accomplish that which He sets out to do.

The problem for Calvinists is precisely the fact that they do not believe God is responsible for all things. That is to say that they do and they don't at the same time! Out of one side of their mouth that say that God is in absolute meticulous control of every event that takes place and out...

Sorry, that sentence does not make sense to me. You could not hope to maintain such a position rationally. Is the God of scripture, Vishnu? Is the God of scripture a murderer? No? There's two limitations. That took me three seconds to think of. There are probably ten billions things that God...

What is it that you think has changed so much in the last 2000 years? What is it that you think counts as "the greater understanding of this age"? The greater understanding of what?

Derf is looking for a way to read Genesis 18:20-21 in a manner consistent with the idea that God has perfect, totally complete knowledge of the past and present. I don't see how what he's proposed doesn't contradict itself. Does that answer your question or were you asking something else?