Search results

Why not both?

That is a retreat. First you said, “If this is correct, then the unity-of-the-Trinity problem is resolved.” Now you say, “I do not claim to have solved the problem. I only presented a theory.” Fine. Then Clete’s point stands. The article proposes a theory, but it does not establish that the...

That's a convenient way of saying you can't answer it. Then it should be easy for you to defend it. But you still have not. You keep repeating the caveat as though repetition turns it into a principle. It doesn't. No one disputes that children are less developed than adults. What you...

Did God want Adam and Eve to partake of the tree? Or did He want them to love Him? The tree is the knowledge of good and evil. The knowledge of good and evil is the law. The strength of sin is the law. The sting of death is sin. Love is the commitment to the good of someone. So yes, if a...

For context (Warning: foul language ahead):

By the way, from what I'm hearing, the Angel Studios version of "Animal Farm" is absolutely terrible and no one should watch it. And on top of that, Angel attacked the fans when they received backlash for it not being faithful to the original story. Angel went public and have now destroyed any...

Essentially, yes, with important caveats. Unlike Arthur, however, I’m happy to actually explain those caveats rather than just wave around ‘common sense,’ emotion, and current custom as though that settles anything. Some of those yes, others no. Let's back up a moment, so we have a better...

You still have not answered the question. You say the issue is “which interpretive horizon best does justice to the nature of Scripture?” Fine. By what standard do we judge that? You say your participatory, sacramental, medieval-style reading does better justice to Scripture. But that is the...

Fair enough. But that still means your earlier claim that he “passed untouched” was not established. And here is another video, from someone who does not even agree with my conclusion, showing the contact from a couple different angles: I disagree with some of his analysis, but I respect...

You still didn’t answer. “Medieval Christians read Scripture differently” is not a standard. It is a historical claim. Were they right? Were they wrong? Could they be corrected? And by what standard? That is the question you keep dodging.

Fair enough. But that's a very different claim from what you said before. You said he was “far enough away to pass untouched.” Now you’re saying the footage is not conclusive. So your earlier claim wasn't established. Or he moved because the vehicle was moving into him. That's the point...

True, by itself. But that cuts both ways. Open Theists are not “denying Scripture” merely because we refuse to accept the Classical Theist interpretation of passages where God repents, relents, tests, investigates, responds, or says “now I know.” The accusation was that Open Theists deny...

I have no problem with these numbers. In fact, they are evidence for my position, not against it. Let's be clear here. The system we have currently is NOT the system I am advocating. I am not defending the modern prison state. I am opposing it. Locking people up like animals for years is...

No one claimed to read with no assumptions whatsoever. The point is that words still mean things, context still matters, grammar still matters, genre still matters, and bad interpretations can still be falsified. If your point is merely that readers have presuppositions, fine, that's obvious...

That you can't recognize the difference between [keeping a law that says "do not murder"] and simply not hating your fellow man is a glaring issue with your paradigm.

Yes. Impeding law enforcement investigations. If the footage shows him being struck by her vehicle and pushed several feet, would that change your verdict? Because that's what the footage shows. Timestamp: 16:49 So no, he did not “pass untouched.” And if your conclusion depends on Ross...

No. I got it only after several pages of evasion, and even now you are still hiding behind the same caveat rather than defend it. Calling it “common sense” does not prove it is either common or sensible. It is just another label doing the work of an argument. Then start arguing rationally...

“Darby” is not an argument. “Nineteenth century” is not an argument. “Heresy” is not an argument. “Political fatalism” is not an argument. If dispensationalism is false, refute the distinctions from Scripture. Otherwise you are just denouncing the label because you cannot answer the verses...

Because you say so? Genesis 2:19 does not say God brought the animals to Adam as a “teachable moment.” It says He brought them to Adam “to see what he would call them.” That is the reason the text gives. You don't get to change the reason to suit your beliefs. Because you say so? God...

He definitely said amoral. Captions are wrong. But they are definitely immoral, irrational, and devoid of values, too.