[CCWoody]

Yawn.

You have, by couching the question in such a manner, intellectually checkmated yourself, because to introduce 'blasphemy' into the equation is assuming a predetermined set of conditions already exist, thus assuring from the beginning that all contentions are, by default, skewed in favor of one outcome. ~ Pahuanui

Yawn!

Did you know than not a single non-Calvinist has been able to answer the quesions. Why, because they know that their god is unable to have his desire and so they strut like a rooster for a moment and then head off stage.

So, my questions stand and all the world knows that the questions remain unanswered or even unchallenged in any meaningful way. One tried once. He babbled on about Prevenient grace, but was unable to tell me how His god can't factor in free will in his pathetic desire to save all.

Good day and thanks for not answering...

Woody.

[Pahuanui]

Did you know than not a single non-Calvinist has been able to answer the quesions.

Since it's clear that the nature of my reply was well over your head, I'll simplify it for you.

If your questions were answered or not is irrelevant. Their very nature (and the fact that you asked them) presumes conditions that bias any reply towards your own position.

So, my questions stand and all the world knows that the questions remain unanswered or even unchallenged in any meaningful way.

Your questions are as laughable as your inability to understand why they discount the possibility of any meaningful exchange of ideas.

[irishtenor]

Hey Woody, ask them if Mary could have said "NO".