Search results

Does God love the inanimate molecules enough to preserve them through destruction (the death of a molecule, I suppose)? Yes. But wasn't it important enough that God provided it? I'm not saying why it was important, only that it was. Genesis is not a HUGE postulation to build a theology off of...

The same church He said He would build, but there are multiple churches. So He is the head of the church, without continuing to be the head of the church of Laodicea, where He has to knock to be let in.

I'd count myself a dispensationalist, but not mid-Acts. But I don't think I need an excuse for anything. Jesus sent letters to 7 churches. And the movement wasn't called a church movement, it was called the Way. If you group together to worship God for providing salvation from death through...

I didn't know the date for Calvin's assumption. Thanks.

That's for all those Catholic Calvinists.

Your question is "What does one gain from Open Theism". I said, "Meaning". You said: This is, imho, a way to avoid the conversation, despite it being your thread. If you say, "meaning is of no importance", then your thread is of no importance. But by saying, "meaning isn't important, only...

I just don't like it importing curses. Sounds like it would destroy life instead of create it. It should import blessings.

Maybe tomorrow.

On what way do you think we are made in the image of God? Do you think the battery is a temporary infusion of God's characteristic(s) that express His image? Was that a good or a bad thing? If God has freewill, isn't it a good thing?

Nope, just turtles all the way down.

You're avoiding the question by bringing it into the conversation. Ok. Not if He decided you would hate it, as He must have with some in that theology . Truth. You're the one that put limits on immutability.

No.

Meh. If God's will is the only thing, and He can perform it with robots, it's meaningless to us. Then it would only be necessary to list one. Yet we regularly speak of 3. And I've heard some add omni-benevolent and all-seeing (not sure what the omni is for that, omnioptical?) Who's talking...

"All power" doesn't have to mean nobody else can do anything, but it can mean "able to do anything". We recognize limits on what that can include, like logical impossibilities (married bachelors). That's why omniscience is OK with me, too, leaving out the logically impossible, such as knowing...

Meaning. But you lose meaning. What value is your version of omniscience if it means that your life was all predetermined. Your choices are meaningless, because even your choice to find meaning is predetermined. Or your choice to despair of meaning in life is meaningless. I don't think most...

Thanks! Did I say we know absolutely nothing about our future choices? I gave an option of fruitloops vs raisin bran, which is a major narrowing down from all possible cereals. Any narrowing of options is positive information about the final choices. Yes, and none of it is more than God knows...

Huh?

My point, and the point of your link's #4, was that unless God made someone with a sin nature, which goes against His character, then it is possible to be tempted without having a sin nature. And, as you have acquiesced partially, human nature is not the same as sin nature, as Jesus had a human...

This one handles my response: "Further, the theory states that sin nature is not necessary for sin to occur. Neither Adam and Eve nor the angels had a sin nature, yet they were tempted." More later...

No issues with any of that, but you were suggesting that one can have a sin nature and still not sin, as you said here: Are you saying you meant "human" nature?