Search results

That's true but we've never had any disagreement that was based solely on the completely obvious meaning of a single word like "mortal". That's a level of stubbornness that cannot be rationally explained. As you say, why would it matter to him? He doesn't deny that Jesus died and so what...

He will not answer. No need to let the facts get in the way of a pet doctrine!

If Jesus did not die we are all still in our sins and are the most pathetic of all men. Yeah! That's "My Father loves me because I voluntarily choose to die so that I might rise from the dead." If He did not rise from THE DEAD then He cannot. That may be why we are mortal but death was not...

Told ya you wouldn't even try! I know that if you were a prophet you wouldn't be stupid. I know that prophets told kings their dreams without having been given any clue as to what the dreams was even about. You are a lunatic if you actually believe that your a prophet of God. Liar! This is...

@Gary, If you're a prophet, prove it. Tell me the name of my new grandson. There isn't anyway in a million years you could get it right by guessing. If all you do is get the first name correct, I'll be amazed! I will make a prediction! Call it a prophecy, if you like! You won't even make...

So now, the fewer people buy into your delusions the more convinced you are that your delusions are true and the people who created this website are all going to Hell if they don't take your word for it. Someone please explain to me why we're enabling this lunatic?

I took what he said to be a joke.

Imagine a prophet that can't refute a single argument presented against his doctrine! :unsure:

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...