Search results

It's EXACTLY what is under dispute. God's knowledge of the future being infallible is exactly what we're discussing. Or, rather, whether the future is settled (cannot be changed, all actions are predetermined), or open (the future is unknowable, even by God) Because it illustrates the problem...

Secure the borders and welcome the stranger in, requiring them to obey our laws.

If God infallibly knew that the man would choose chocolate, but the man chose vanilla instead, it means that God's knowledge is not infallible (which means, in case you forgot, "incapable of being wrong"). It's a contradiction, and since God is not contradictory, something has to give. Either...

It means that there was never any possibility that the man could choose vanilla, because God infallibly knew that he would choose chocolate. Thus, there is no choice at all. There's no convolution. That's a purely logical argument. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/

By then it'll actually be too late.

In case you've forgotten, I'm a monarchist. Both Re-publicans and Dumbocrats are part of a system that I think is completely broken since its inception. Plenty do. You should too.

Yup. I figured I'd answer a fool his folly. Or both/and.

Nope. I have never demanded that someone adopt an unwanted child. Which is quite different from wanting women who don't want their unborn baby to put their child up for adoption, by the way. There are plenty of people who would love to adopt without being asked to. Republican allies? You...

God puts vanilla and chocolate ice cream in front of a man and tells him that he will choose chocolate. Can the man choose vanilla? Your answer is? Good answer. Well that's the entire crux of the matter, isn't it? If God infallibly knows that the man will choose chocolate, but the man...

So let's be clear here: God puts vanilla and chocolate ice cream in front of a man and tells him that he will choose chocolate. Can the man choose vanilla? Your answer is?

Will you?

It IS hypocrisy for you to demand others to adopt when you haven't adopted any children yourself. It's already a disaster, with all the babies that have been slaughtered instead of adopted. It's already a disaster, with how difficult it is to adopt!

Says the hypocrite who hasn't adopted a single baby. This is what happens when society normalizes the murder of millions of innocent children... our ongoing medical progress becomes stunted or starts to revert. Had we not started killing innocent babies in the womb, women such as her would...

Saying it doesn't make it so. That's what we're asking you about. What does that mean, B57? You showed me nothing.

So why haven't you adopted one yet, User Name? Surely you would be at the front of the line to adopt as many children as you could! What better way to show up those evil "anti-choice women"!

Many of the Elect in the Bible went to hell, because they disobeyed God. Elect doesn't mean saved. It means chosen for a task, just as we today "elect" people in our government, so too God elected certain people in the past to accomplish His will. Some obeyed Him, most did not. If you're...

I figured since you're the one who keeps bringing the subject up, that you would be willing to lead the adoption spree. Was I wrong? Or is there something preventing you from adopting as many kids as you can?

That's what we're asking you about. What does that mean. We're not asking about "before the world began." We're asking about "before time." Actually, this passage doesn't say "before the world began" in Greek. It says "pro chronon aionion." There's no verb "began" there, as most...

So what are you waiting for?! Start adopting!

Nope. I pick option C, Mint flavored! In all seriousness though: In the Calvinist view, it's not possible to pick vanilla, whether you like chocolate or not, or how much you like it. It's "what you WILL DO."