1. You wrote, "I apologize for you thinking I am being unkind". You're apologizing here for something I'm doing, which is a little difficult to understand. I'm sorry if I'm being obtuse here. Did you mean something like "I apologize for writing something you think is unkind?" Or something else?

2. You asked me, "Are you getting senile on us?" I responded "... and you're not being very kind." Do you think you were being kind here? Do you think my saying, "and you're not being very kind" is an unfair observation? Since I'm a biased observer here, you could get the opinion of someone else, but it is my opinion that asking someone "Are you going senile on us" is not very kind, and I don't think my pointing this out is accusatory.

3. Have I in any way been uncivil to you? Or rude? If so, if you will point out where, I would be happy to apologize. I try very hard not to be rude. I almost always read over my posts before sending them, and check specifically for tone. Of course, I'm fallible, so if I've in any way been rude to you, please point it out.

4. I didn't comment on your intention. I simply pointed out that asking "Are you going senile on us?" was not being very kind. I didn't know what your intention was, and wasn't even thinking about that. I believe what you said in this post I'm now responding to, and am glad you were not intending to be unkind.

You may accept the apology, or reject it. It's your call.

I said something, you took it completely wrong, and I apologized for the confusion. If that's not good enough for you, then that is your problem, not mine.

I'm surprised that you would answer an attempt to clarify an apology with "If that's not good enough for you, then that is your problem, not mine."

Ordinarily when one apologizes, one apologizes for something one has done, not for something that the person being addressed has done, which is why I asked for clarification. You will notice I wrote, "I'm sorry if I'm being obtuse about this."


Originally Posted By: Tom Ewall
2. You asked me, "Are you getting senile on us?" I responded "... and you're not being very kind." Do you think you were being kind here?
About as unkind as you telling Rosangela that her comment "is about as fine an example of faulty logic that one is apt to find."

What does a post I wrote to Rosangela over 6 months ago have to do with your asking me an insulting question?

I comment that you've stated a number of times that if God foreknew the future perfectly and knew exactly what will happen in the future, then you claim that the future would have to be fixed. And from my usage during the past couple months (if not longer) of the phrase "knowing the future perfectly" or "with perfect clarity", you had to know I mean that He knows perfectly what WILL HAPPEN(not what might happen ... not what could happen ... but what will happen) But then you claim you never said that by saying, "This has not been asserted."

I'm not following you here.

But then yesterday you turn around and post the same concept that you had just denied having ever made:

Originally Posted By: Tom Ewall
Given that God knows exactly what will happen, it is not possible for something to happen which is different than what God knows will happen, correct? So there is only one possible thing which can happen in the future, which is that which God knows will happen. To say there is only one possible thing that can happen in the future is to say that the future is fixed. They mean exactly the same thing. If you preferred, I could exchange "the one possible thing that can happen" for "fixed." This is a bit wordy, but it means the same thing.


So, first you make an assertion. Then you deny having made that assertion, and right on the heals of denying it you make the assertion again.

I was expressing an argument from your perspective. That is, if your perspective were correct, then the things I said would follow. Sorry if it wasn't clear what I was doing.

So you tell me why that is.

Perhaps it's because you are not reading carefully enough. Perhaps it's because I was unclear in what I wrote. Maybe someone following the thread, like MM, could clarify if what I wrote was clear or not. If I wasn't clear, I'm sorry about that.

I am not being unkind; I simply would like to know. Are you forgetful? Are you getting senile? Are you playing games with us?

Prefacing unkind remarks with the comment "I am not being unkind" does not make the remarks unkind. Surely you must realize the misunderstanding could be on your end. Instead of asking insulting questions, why not ask clarifying questions. You could say something like "This is what I'm hearing you say. However, this doesn't make sense to me because of ..." There's no need to be insulting.

Why would you make an assertion, then later deny having made said assertion, and then right after make that same assertion yet again?

Why indeed. It's surely much more likely that you've misunderstood something than that I am forgetful, or senile, or playing games with you. Recognizing that, why not ask for clarification regarding what it is you are misunderstanding?

Originally Posted By: Tom Ewall
it is my opinion that asking someone "Are you going senile on us" is not very kind, and I don't think my pointing this out is accusatory.

I never characterized "your pointing this out" as accusatory. I said your assessment on my "tone" and your resulting commentary and reprimand was accusatory.

I looked and the only think I found that it looked to me that you could be referring to was this:



You think this is "accusatory"? Or was it some other comment I made?

Let me remind you again, determining someone's tone, as you've unsuccessfully attempted to do here, is not an easy thing to do in written communication.

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing where I wrote something that determined your tone, unless you have in mind the above comment where I wrote that I would appreciate it if you were kinder in tone. Is that what you have in mind?

You don't have the benefit of eye contact, body language, and voice inflection as when you communicate verbally in person, or on the phone even (of course, eye contact doesn't apply when communicating via phone).

It is precisely for this reason that I would appreciate it if you were kinder in tone. I *don't* have the ability to see your body language, or hear your voice, which is why I'd like things toned down.

It is very easy to misinterpret and end with the wrong assessment of someone else's "tone" (just as you have done here) when you have only written comments to go by.

So, it's your call: Do you wish for us to be civil and continue the discussion at hand? Or are you more interested in bickering? If you want to bicker, I'm out. If you want to discuss the topic at hand, I'm up for it as time affords.

You wrote, "Are you being senile?" I don't see why you would think that your reader would not take this as an insult. I responded by saying that you weren't being very kind. I don't understand how this is "bickering".

I'm simply responding to your posts. I wrote a long post responding to your arguments, which dealt at length with the points that you made. I made two incidental comments, one that I didn't think you were being very kind in asking if I was senile, and the other that I would appreciate it if you would tone things down.

What we talk about is up to you. If you wish to keep talking about this, we can talk about this. If you wish to discuss the other items in my post, we can talk about that.

1. It was assumed that the many possible future outcomes you talk about include God playing an active part.

2. From God's perspective, the future is history. It has already happened. When He reports on what will happen, it is identical to someone reporting on what will happen in a movie he has already watched.

3. Such reporting does not rob the actors of their freedom or ability to choose as they please. It simply reports the choice they made after the fact.

1. It was assumed that the many possible future outcomes you talk about include God playing an active part.

I'm not understanding why you're making this point.

2. From God's perspective, the future is history.

No, from God's perspective, the future is the future, something which has not yet happened. The future is different than the past. God perceives things as they are. The future really is different than the past, and God's perceptions are in tune with this reality.

It has already happened.

No, the future has not already happened. The past has already happened.

When He reports on what will happen, it is identical to someone reporting on what will happen in a movie he has already watched.

No, it must be different. If it weren't, if it were like a movie that already happened, as you are suggesting, then someone in the movie could not do anything different than what the movie shows, correct? Then free will goes out the window, since someone being observed would have no more ability to do something different than what has been observed than the movie character.

3. Such reporting does not rob the actors of their freedom or ability to choose as they please.

In the sense of logic, it does. Clearly the movie characters cannot do something different than what they have already been observed to do.

Let's say you were observed to eat broccoli tomorrow, and you were told that you had been so observed. Could you do anything about it? Could you choose not to eat broccoli? Clearly not, because you have been observed to do something that has already happened, according to your scheme of things, so for you to choose not to eat broccoli would be for you to change something which has already happened. So unless you want to assert that it's possible to change the past, you're stuck here. That is, logically, your assertion is unsound.

It simply reports the choice they made after the fact.

I wrote - In other words, you believe God knows perfectly the many different ways the future could play out, right? And that He doesn't know in advance which one of these many ways it will play out, right?

In response to this, you wrote - It's not quite that simple, but that's the basic idea. One reason it's not this simple is because God is involved in the future.

Which is something I assumed. It goes without saying. Of course it involves God's active participation.


I like what C.S. Lewis says about it in Mere Christianity (taken from the chapter entitled - Time and Beyond Time):

"[God] does not 'foresee' you doing things tomorrow; He simply sees you doing them: because, though tomorrow is not yet there for you, it is for Him. You never supposed that your actions at this moment were any less free because God knows what you are doing. Well, He knows your tomorrow's actions in just the same way - because He is already in tomorrow and can simply watch you."


God isn't talking about what will happen tomorrow, rather, He is talking about what did happen. As such, the actors have no foreknowledge of it, nothing to complicate their options. They simply do what they please, without the burden of foreknowledge. And, God simply reports the facts as they truly are, not necessarily how it will be.

I wrote - In other words, you believe God knows perfectly the many different ways the future could play out, right? And that He doesn't know in advance which one of these many ways it will play out, right?

In response to this, you wrote - It's not quite that simple, but that's the basic idea. One reason it's not this simple is because God is involved in the future.

Which is something I assumed. It goes without saying. Of course it involves God's active participation.

That fact impacts how one puts things. It's one of the reasons it's not quite as simply as you put it, which is why I pointed that out. Obviously if God is actively participating, He knows which of the ways He foresees that the future will play out.

Regarding C. S. Lewis, I like him a lot. I think he had a very positive view of God's character. In particular, I like his view on why Christ had to die.




Here you didn't address my argument, which demonstrates the logical problem with what you're saying here. Rather than just repeat the argument, I'll ask you to please consider it.

By the way, MM, I'm sorry to ask this again, because I know I've asked it several times, but what is your answer to the question as to why God chose to create a being He was certain to sin over one He was certain would not sin. I know you've set that it did not deter Him from establishing His throne in righteousness, but that doesn't really answer the question. Saying this only addresses that God was not deterred, but not suggest a positive reason as to why God would make such a choice.

You would agree that God could have created a different being, other than Lucifer, correct? Why choose Lucifer over some other being? I'm not understanding this.