Free will vs Omniscience

Stop saying you "would argue" when all you ever do is assert. And stop using the No True Christian PRATT. Again, that's not an argument. It's pretty clear you don't have one. Yes they are. Science shows us that your version of spiritual belief is no different from the thousands of other versions of spiritual belief. Stop lying about me.

As I have told you before, you should assume that I have had the same experiences as you.The difference is that you have interpreted them incorrectly. You use the believe-everything-the-apologists-tell-you method. I use the nothing-is-true-without-good-reason method. The difference is that I had no reason to stay while you had no reason to leave - i.e. the apologists hadn't told you to leave.

You don't know that. I see things all the time that I can't explain. I don't assume that nobody can explain them.What you see is not "unexplained". See Tangle's explanation. The problem is that you reject the explanation.

That's what I said. And your anything is no different from anybody else's anything.

Stop using that silly metaphor. We've been through it. There is no baby in the bathwater.

1. Why should anybody have to explain God's choices to you?2. Why should God's choices make sense to you?3. Why don't you ask Him yourself during your "communion"?4. Why would He only choose only the apologists and you?5. Why don't you answer the questions people ask you?

I said, "God's CHOICES." What makes you so arrogant as to think you can explain God's choices? There's no evident difference. Then why are you so clueless? You should be able to answer all of those unanswered posts with no problem. Maybe that's His point. Maybe He's using jar and me to try to drum some critical thinking into you. How can your team be winning if you can't answer the questions? How can you score at all when you keep running away from the ball?

And the fact that Judaism exists means what? And the fact that Islam exists means what? And the fact that Buddhism exists means what? And the fact that Mormonism exists means what?

My questions were directly related to what you posted. Even my phraseology directly mirrored yours. You gave a ten-dollar response that didn't answer a ten-cent question. You'll save yourself a lot of trouble if you just debate in good faith instead of whining about how other people debate. You've told me yourself in other threads that I ask good questions. Try to get your story straight.

The evidence doesn't support that. But you reject almost everything that Jesus said.

I'm telling you that the evidence doesn't support your claim that your "communion" with God gives you special knowledge. The evidence does not support that assertion. If it did, you would be providing the evidence instead of constantly scoffing at the idea of evidence. We can all become more like Jesus. Right.

It is true. You reject what He told the rich young ruler. You reject the prodigal son parable. I'm not applying anything. I'm directly quoting what He said. Jesus was a humanist.You're just using "socialist" and "humanist" as buzzwords without the dlightest understanding of what they mean.

That teaching is a lie. See the story of the prodigal son.Edited by ringo, : Fixed quote.

You are, yes. I would remind you that I wasn't taught anything. I just read what the text says. I have tried to get you to do more than assert it but you never do. AND you refuse to discuss the lies that YOU have learned. And that contradicts your claim that your theology is mainstream. He said that He came to save ALL of us. He tried to tell YOU that YOU aren't going to make it if all you do is mouth Lord! Lord! You're contradicting Jesus. The snake said no such thing. He said Adam and Eve would not die the same day that they ate the fruit. And they didn't. The snake told the truth. You're just making up your own story. The story of the prodigal son says the exact opposite: The father accepted the prodigal son unconditionally. The prodigal son was valued above the obedient son. The entitled bozo was the obedient son, like you. The father DID kill the fatted calf for the prodigal one. It says that at plain as day. No. That's not what the story says.The father saw his son far away and went to meet him and welcome him home. He had no way of knowing whether or not the son had repented. WE don't know whether the son repented. It isn't important to the story.It's getting very frustrating listening to you lie through your teeth about the Bible.

It is when you've been shown repeatedly that it isn't true. It isn't a "claim". It DOES say what it says. Anybody who reads it can see what it says. No they won't. You might get one or two very minor deviations but you won't get the exact opposite like your claims. The snake said they wouldn't die and they didn't. Anybody who reads that will read it correctly - unless they have been indoctrinated in apologist lies. YOU stop and think. I have challenged you before to go back and answer your unanswered posts. If you actually THINK instead of just regurgitating what you have been spoon-fed, maybe you'll be able to discuss the topic honestly. If that was true, there would be no point in us ordinary peons reading the Bible at all. But if the peons aren't smart enough to read the Bible, how can they tell whether the apologists' interpretations have any merit? It isn't harmful to me. It's harmful to you. It's the equivalent of taking your life savings in return for a bottle of snake oil.