Kland, you agree with my summary of your view.

Is that a command?


If it is a question, then, I did not agree nor disagree. I only went with what you were saying. You seem overly confident that you are absolutely correct in knowing what APL believes and yet just as overly confident that APL is wrong about what you believe. It would not be out of line to think you believe the same about me. So why argue. I just meet you where you are.

If you wish to substitute in one definition for another, what do you say to those who object that God is siding with Satan's "right" to cause evil?

Kland, I accurately summarized your view. You believe Jesus withdraws His protection and permits evil men and evil angels to cause death, disease, and destruction. There is no doubt about it. You have made your view too clear to misunderstand.

You also believe Jesus allows evil men to hurt innocent women and children. You have not explained why.

You objected when I said you believe Jesus respects the freewill of evildoers more than He does the freewill of their innocent victims.

You think my definition of freewill misses the mark. I disagree with your assessment. People are free to choose. Jesus does not prevent it. But He does work to manage the outcome of choices.

For example, an evil man decides to murder an innocent child. Jesus respects the decision process. The evildoer is free to choose. Jesus does nothing to prevent the decision process. Nevertheless, Jesus is free to manage of the outcome of his choices. Jesus is free to protect the innocent child. He respects the wishes, prayers, desires, choices of the child and her parents. Their continual prayer is - "Deliver us from evil".

Jesus is free to intervene and, without violating freewill, work to ensure the innocent child escapes unharmed. There are millions of ways He can intervene without violating freewill. He can persuade the evildoer to change his mind. Or, He can impress someone to show up at the right moment. Or, He can impress the dog to force him to flight. Or, He can send an angel to intervene. Or, He can cause his health to fail. Jesus can do any one of these without violating freewill.

I find that entertaining.

And you agree with it. I have explained it before, and APL and Tom have explained it in depth. Repeatedly.


Exactly what are you saying here? Are they free to choose, or only to a certain extent?

And how is any of this in opposition to what you say I believe?

And can Jesus do nothing, and the innocent child does not escape unharmed, and the criminal does not get caught? This happens often. Is that still without violating freewill?

Well . . . do you agree or not?

I suspect you believe Jesus does not intervene because He respects freewill. He leaves evildoers free to do as they please. He does not work to prevent them from following through with their evil desires, choices. For example, if they choose to murder an innocent child they are free to do so. Jesus will not work to prevent it. The freedom to choose includes the freedom to follow through with their evil desires, choices.

I, on the other hand, do not believe Jesus forbids Himself from intervening and working to prevent evildoers from following though with their evil desires, choices. I believe He has every right to intervene and work to prevent it. He is also free not to intervene. He is not obligated to intervene. He is free to intervene and free not to intervene. He does or does not intervene for reasons that make sense to Him. As such, therefore, the outcome of choices is up to Jesus. He decides whether or not to intervene. If He chooses to intervene - the innocent child escapes unharmed. If He chooses not to intervene - the evildoer murders the innocent child.

What you say about what I believe falls short of being correct.

But either way, how is what you just said any different? Do you see both ways of what you said are really the same?

No. They are not the same. Do you think they are?

Ummm....

Why would you ask that question?

They are not the same. Don't know what you think about it.