Search results

Consider the history of the valley of Gehenna, instead of the Dead Sea.

He said He was going to destroy Nineveh in forty days. At the end of the forty days, Nineveh wasn't destroyed. Was God lying, or is there something else in play here that might explain it?

My position just as easily explains why Jesus said what he said, without requiring God to be irrational, in that He knows infallibly the future while He still allows men to chose. Have you never said to yourself that there's something important to do, and then you see or hear something later...

Now the word of the Lord came to Jonah the son of Amittai, saying,“Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry out against it; for their wickedness has come up before Me.”But Jonah arose to flee to Tarshish from the presence of the Lord. He went down to Joppa, and found a ship going to...

You didn't answer this when I asked it of you: If Peter had not denied Jesus the second time, but instead acknowledged that he was part of Jesus' posse, do you think Christ would have been mad that what He said didn't come about? OR do you think He would have been glad that Peter didn't deny...

So then... Does what Jesus said sound more like like Jesus was making a prophecy of what the future would be, or does it sound more like Jesus is telling Peter He knows him well enough that He knows Peter will deny him?

https://babylonbee.com/news/retiring-dr-fauci-to-be-honored-with-21-booster-shot-salute

Only if God knows they do...

And the rooster! Cock-a-doodle-doo!

That trailer is the only thing keeping the truck from going over, due to leverage...

I never said you were. That's simply what you're defending. See post #366. Yes it does. It's as simple as that. And I've shown the logical argument as to why it does. You have yet to present any fault with it other than bald assertion.

All Jesus needed to know for this was Peter's personality (which was somewhat of a coward), and then once he denied Him, making a rooster crow isn't all that difficult... If Peter had not denied Jesus the second time, but instead acknowledged that he was part of Jesus' posse, do you think...

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...