Derf
Well-known member
Hi Lighthouse. I thought you may have put me on ignore. If you did, please let me know,
as I'm trying to understand a message in the quotes tab.
as I'm trying to understand a message in the quotes tab.
You're mincing words unnecessarily. At the very least, there were 2 trees in the middle of the garden, so even if there were no other trees "in front of her face", the tree of life was there.The tree was available, but it wasn't right in front of them unless thy went up to it.
Of course there is some disagreement about Jesus' ability to disobey, mostly coming from His own prayers that the Father's will be done over His own. If His own will was at any point different from the Father's, and Jesus had full authority given Him from the Father, then it sure seems like He had the capacity to disobey.Man was created with the ability to disobey. Otherwise they never would have. Jesus never had that ability.
Yes, but we will still be human. Thus "human" nature doesn't of necessity include "sin" in it.We won't be sinful because our sin will be removed.
Nope.Did you mean "nondescript"?
There were at least some infants that were not guilty of capital crimes, I would wager. Surely in a nation as big as Egypt there had to be some infant firstborns. You seem like you are grasping at straws.Not equatable to dying of an illness. And what makes you think the child was innocent anyway?
This is getting old...Either is an argument from silence. There well may have been no infant firstborns at tat time. You don't know. And why are you assuming the were innocent?
Well, yes, you did. And no, you don't seem to be leaving that argument to the liberals, as you employed it (the argument, not the guns), and still seem to be doing so, on the issue of David's son.I didn't say he wasn't responsible?
And I'll leave the argument that guns kill people to the liberals.
and older...Why do you assume they were innocent?
Again, if one assumes that because all have sinned and thus all are guilty and therefore worthy of death, and if one uses that argument to justify random killings, one is justifying murder. You'll have to read back through the posts to see that that is what you are suggesting.How does that lead to it being OK to murder? You're being illogical.
That is not logical at all.
I have no idea what "being on the spectrum" means. But it seems like you have no difficulty at all thinking illogically. Or maybe it's that you aren't using the same meaning of the words--that you're equivocating.Actually, being on the spectrum, it's very difficult for me to not think logically.