How far reaching are God's powers?

[Angrboda]

That's quite the contortionist act.  You claim that you gave me the benefit of the doubt, except for the fact that you didn't because you followed that with a "but" which basically erases what comes before it.  And I'm a bad person for having been hostile in the past, but when you were hostile it was because you had Reasons[tm].  I see how this works.  It's all, "heads I win, tails you lose."  And you think the hostility toward you is a result of their behavior, not yours?  How self-serving.  Maybe you should accept some responsibility for the type of responses your behavior generates.

As to whether I was hostile or not, I was simply pointing out that positing confidence and arrogance as being opposed is a false dichotomy.  You're the one who took it and ran with it into your paranoid fantasies.  Arewethereyet didn't accuse you of anything but having a high opinion of yourself.  And look at all this sauce.

I didn't realize until today who you were under your previous user name, which is why I gave you the benefit of the doubt at first. Now I'm skeptical, but still willing to extend you the courtesy.

I have no interest in avoiding blame if I've been unduly hostile in the past, however I'm not sure I have been. I often think I'm being too harsh with people, but here the dialogue tends to be particularly vile and I think my responses are generally correct and deserved. But I don't have the time or interest to dredge up the past and see who did what or said what in order to properly determine blame.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Are you willing to do the same?

Arewethereyet is a different story. Do you think the accusation he made is a decent way to begin a conversation? What did I say to deserve that response? Not that I care. He can think what he wants to think, but that doesn't mean I have to ignore unnecessary barbs. Seems to me you are enforcing a double standard.

Well, first of all, I'm pretty sure that arewethereyet is a woman. Second, everybody believes themselves to have acted well and the other acted poorly, that's just the default. So saying that you think you have acted well and others acted poorly simply suggests that you are somewhat lacking in insight.

As to myself, I've often used harsh language to call out stupidity or dishonesty in the past, but I generally don't come to a discussion with hostility.

And I have changed in the past year. Pointing out mistakes made by morons is good sport, but it's not where I'm at today.

Jesus had no choice.  He laid down his life because he is morally perfect and doing the morally best thing was dictated by his nature.  Or are you saying Jesus isn't morally perfect?

Of course Jesus had a choice:  "Are you not aware that I can call on My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels?" (Matthew 26:53)

But as He said, the Scriptures must be fulfilled. He fulfilled them not because He had to, but because He chose to lay down His life. God always has a choice, because He is God.

Maybe I don't understand your question, though.

If scriptures "must" be fulfilled then Jesus had no choice because having a choice implies he could have done otherwise, but as you yourself admit, he was responding to a necessity, it wasn't an option. Btw, Alvin Plantinga in his free will defense argues that for a choice to be morally significant or meaningful, the actor must have had the opportunity to behave badly. Do you agree? If so, does God have the option of acting badly, or would that be inconsistent with his nature?