(November 11, 2020 at 10:54 am)Angrboda Wrote: 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.
Fair enough, I suppose. I see no reason to argue this point any further.
(November 11, 2020 at 10:54 am)Angrboda Wrote: 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?
Jesus Christ saving Himself from a wrongful execution wouldn't have been "behaving badly." It would have been perfectly within His right, being our Creator and innocent.
Many think of Jesus Christ as being part of a trinity, which is pagan nonsense. He IS the Father, therefore He made the choice before He was ever born as a man.