Search results

Let me cut to the chase here, and identify the loop we're in for you. I promise, I'm not dismissing what you've said here, but until we resolve the following, discussing those things is akin to arguing over "should we circumcise or not" without first settling the principle that determines the...

I get what you're trying to say, but even after all these years of being on here, I'm still learning things. It's incredibly distracting when of the two members whom I'm trying to understand the argument between, the one whom I disagree with on the matter is being polite and resectful (if a bit...

A little bit of grace would be appreciated here, RD.

Correct. Israel's governmental relationship with God was unique, but the principle remains: even the highest human ruler is still under God's jurisdiction. Nor was that jurisdiction peculiar to Israel. Paul says Gentiles remain accountable to God's moral law and will be judged by Him without...

I'm trying to explain my reasoning rather than merely assert my conclusions. Sometimes that takes more words than usual. I agree that a king guilty of a capital crime deserves the just punishment for that crime, but Saul presents a rather striking problem for your claim that keeping such a...

Addendum, since you edited this portion before I replied: I am not arguing that deserved punishment becomes undeserved merely because the offender is king. The issue is whether another domestic authority possesses rightful jurisdiction to impose that punishment upon him. Deserving punishment...

Not without defining “enforcement.” If you mean that civil law involves the rightful use or threat of force, then yes, broadly speaking. But force and enforcement are not identical. The moral right to use force in a particular circumstance does not automatically establish jurisdiction to...

Yes, I see that our disagreement has reached the level of foundational premises (finally!). What remains disputed is which premise is correct. Calling the disagreement axiomatic identifies where our reasoning diverges. It does not establish your premise as true or place it beyond challenge. As...

You're not listening to what I'm saying. Read what I said again.

Your theology turns God into a liar, you blasphemer! In those days Hezekiah was sick and near death. And Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, went to him and said to him, “Thus says the Lord: ‘Set your house in order, for you shall die, and not live. ’ ”...

Saying it doesn't make it so. We're done. Believe whatever you want. I'm never going to convince you otherwise.

Was my prediction in post #301, which you fulfilled in #305 and I pointed out in #306, “exhaustive divine foreknowledge”? No. It was an accurate prediction based upon your established pattern of behavior. You remained free to prove me wrong by addressing the arguments instead of repeating...

You're welcome. Then you actually accept my first premise. What you reject is my application of it. You identify the rule of law as the higher principle that justifies domestic jurisdiction over the king, yes? If so, that's fine, but the remaining question is whether the rule of law actually...

That's my point. Exhaustive infallible foreknowledge is not necessary to make predictions, including highly accurate ones. My prediction about way 2 go was based upon his established behavior. I expected him to repeat himself, and I was correct. But I could have been wrong. He remained...

Already answered. See #278, Arguments 15-17 and 23. The Revelation claim is already answered. See #278, Arguments 15-17 and 23. God did not make a mistake concerning Hezekiah. God announced what He intended to do. Hezekiah prayed, God heard him, and God changed what He intended to do by...

I had a completely different post typed up for this, but I had a lightbulb moment, and won't be posting it for now. Instead, I think I finally understand why this discussion has kept going in circles, and why you feel that I keep failing to address your position. I have been answering the same...

And there it is. I predicted that you would repeat Revelation 9:20-21 instead of addressing the answers already given, and you immediately did exactly that. Yet you could have done otherwise. You could have addressed Arguments 15-20 in #278. You could have answered Derf’s distinction between...

RD?

I always get this part wrong! :doh:

No, all he can do is repeat himself, and maybe bring up a new favorite-prooftext or two when he remembers it. He is incapable of responding to anything beyond what he's been brainwashed indoctrinated into believing, and will stubbornly cling to it probably until the day he dies. He will never...