Garrett Link

[Garrett Link @GarrettLink14]

@JMScott47129224 @JohnDaltonQuinn @paleochristcon He was in this plain of existence talking to his apostles after his resurrection. He appeared in the old testament as the angel of the Lord. Christ isn't of another plain of existence. He's fully God, fully man

[Garrett Link @GarrettLink14]

@JMScott47129224 @JohnDaltonQuinn @paleochristcon He literally resurrected you fucking idiot. And I already gave the answer, he actually in fact did stop the healing, and was resurrected. The theology is he is very much living, and an eternal being.

[Garrett Link @GarrettLink14]

@JMScott47129224 @JohnDaltonQuinn @paleochristcon This doesn't contend with what I just said. It's also a category error. Like charge what? Can we go around healing people magically from leprosy like Jesus can? And Jesus can heal those with sickness, yet he doesn't do it, meaning he fucking cut access dummy

[Garrett Link @GarrettLink14]

@AtheistTakes @doofgeek4011 Well without Christianity or religion in general I might say, we wouldn't be more advanced on account of there wouldn't be any fucking people, because secular societies can't keep a replacement level birthrate, and is just a slow dying nation filled with Elderly

[Garrett Link @GarrettLink14]

@JMScott47129224 @JohnDaltonQuinn @paleochristcon Jesus cut health care, he literally banished humanity from the Edanic paradise and eternal life. As well it says "feed the poor yes" but conservatives don't just want to cut assistance in general, they don't like snap because of the way it's handled and administrated.

[Garrett Link @GarrettLink14]

@hell_line0 I've searched and found no credible evidence that this is actually a real story, so maybe a link to the actual story would be nice

[Garrett Link @GarrettLink14]

@WomenBeingAwful This is called an argument from authority fallacy, which you might call an invalid opinion

[Garrett Link @GarrettLink14]

@Katie1797375 @BasedMikeLee OMG, this Facebook post....also known as "not the bill" said this untrue thing ...therefore it is true.

[Garrett Link @GarrettLink14]

@Hitchslap1 So just a slippery slope fallacy

[Garrett Link @GarrettLink14]

@Rach4Patriarchy @syd_bee3 These are the same people who tell you "Jesus said not to judge" when you are pointing out degeneracy, but if a man is attracted to an adult woman who is younger.....boy do they immensely judge

[Garrett Link @GarrettLink14]

@Rothmus ......further more, within that population, it's only about 1/5th of black men who ever actually commit a crime. Meaning 20% of the population commits 100% of the crime in that group. We already know the logistical possibility. Fewer people, committing greater amounts of crime.

[Garrett Link @GarrettLink14]

@Rothmus I'll break it down for Tariqtard. Biggest idiot on the planet. Out of 100 people in a room, only 1 is a criminal, this has happened before, meaning 1% of that population, committed 100 percent of the crime. Blacks make up 14% of the population, 50% of the population is black.....

[Garrett Link @GarrettLink14]

@shanianottwain2 @trueonpurpose Men who have this standard are generally for things like banning porn, so it's really not a wrong comparison, but it's just not actually clear what your point is. Many men would find your terms here acceptable

[Garrett Link @GarrettLink14]

@shanianottwain2 @SNE72420886 Thats only if you don't count sex fantasies which is one of the biggest literary genres of our time. And this comparison is not necessarily wrong, but it doesn't refute the original statement. It's like yeah, women should be careful about who they marry just like men.

[Garrett Link @GarrettLink14]

@ErichKays @JWS846893322695 @DeeWaynee94 Not an answer, you haven't demonstrated the reason or logic, saying "reason or logic shows it" is just the equivalent of saying "because it logically follows" and you haven't demonstrated how your conclusion logically follows from the premise. Again, you're just asserting this

[Garrett Link @GarrettLink14]

@ErichKays @JWS846893322695 @DeeWaynee94 Yeah but it doesn't follow from this that he explicitly determined every choice were would make, simply because he had infinite knowledge. So if you could quit making the exact same assertion with different phrasing, that'd be a start

[Garrett Link @GarrettLink14]

@ErichKays @JWS846893322695 @DeeWaynee94 No this is not an argument, you're just making the same non sequitur, and now just asserting "because reason and logic say so"
So make an actual argument, not a vague appeal to logic. You haven't demonstrated how perfect knowledge contradicts free will.

[Garrett Link @GarrettLink14]

@ErichKays @JWS846893322695 @DeeWaynee94 Explain how this

And god made every one of them, the weather, and everything else with the knowledge of how it would turn out.

Automatically means this
Therefore they would have no choice but to do what he knew they would do

[Garrett Link @GarrettLink14]

@ErichKays @JWS846893322695 @DeeWaynee94 You're just asserting that. And I'm asking you to make an actual argument for how foreknowledge necessarily means every choice was determined. All you have now is just special pleading, and there's no reason for me to accept the assertion

[Garrett Link @GarrettLink14]

@ErichKays @JWS846893322695 @DeeWaynee94 Yeah your arguments is
God knew what happened
Therefore, he determined every decision you make.
This isn't up for debate, the syllogism you gave, has a conclusion that doesn't follow from the premise. Your argument is non sequitur. Prior knowledge doesn't mean no free will.