Not everyone other than you in the world is me, ironically enough.
>That's fine not every joke has to land all the time
Well, that( it didn't land)'s why I explained it.
>For good, or for malice, or benignly, unless you believe St. Paul that everything not done for good is done for malice instead.
Everything not perfectly good is not perfectly good, yes.
>I thought your whole argument was that if God made thing, and knew it would do another thing, then his intent was both to make thing and to do another thing. I'm saying that knowledge of the intent does not mean that the intent was shared.
God doesn't have intent. God doesn't have a temporal frame of reference. God doesn't (just) create a man, who will go on to do a thing. He creates the man, and the man doing the thing, and the thing ("the thing" in the context of this conversation being sin/evil).
Intent is descriptive anyhow, it is observation, it isn't prescriptive. Describing the intent of the man is, as you say, a problem of language. The point is that evil exists, God is the (sole) creator, so God created evil. God is omniscient and omnipotent (apparently two things you don't believe), so there isn't any sort of applicable context or causality to this. God created evil, so God isn't all good. I don't see how this argument could not be airtight or how you could possibly struggle to grasp it (unless you're doing so intentionally, e.g. because you don't believe God is omniscient and/or omnipotent but want to claim you do through rhetorical trickery, and are simply floundering around failing to do so).
>If you agree with the former, then you share in agreement with North Korea and other places where they put the parents of a dissident in the dock because they mentally raised the dissident to be that way and the guilt is for harboring a fugitive.
I agree with the metatheory that if you engineer a situation you are responsible for that situation, yes. If I shoot you with a gun you'd seek redress against me because doing so is purposeful, whereas redress against the firearm or the bullet or the powder is less so.
The issue with the NKs is the execution. I don't partake in their motivation regardless because I don't share their goal (which is, I presume, the continuation of the present state of their state and it's power structure etc.) but they also lack e.g. a useful means of determining what actions to take to futher that goal anyhow.
>I'm saying that God made you and, unlike in the literal creation mythology, anticipated your rebellion but wasn't mad, merely disappointed that you didn't seem capable to rewrite your own programming immediately
How can God be dissapointed? He got what He wanted because He made it exactly as it is and in no other way for His own purposes. There's no variability here.
>rewrite your own programming
Unambiguously, this (that this could be possible) is a claim that the glory of man is greater than the Glory of God. Which really does seem to be your platform.
If I extend the benefit of the doubt and pretend that that isn't what you just said, then you're claiming that He was disappointed that we did the thing that He created us to do exactly as He created us to do, in precisely the way and at the time that we were created doing so, so why is He disappointed?
>but must do so out of communion
If we pretend that this statement means anything, then that we must is His work and His design in every regard.
>Even if he fuckin knew
Which he did.
>His grace as it were is of a paternal variety i.e. "do better".
Why do you insist on ascribing the properties of the created to the Creator?
His grace is of the variety of being the basis of all things. The things that we do are the things that He makes us do, no others.
>I think the reason he
>I think the reason he called you a fresh 'n' easy is because you rely on these simple logic puzzles that don't even disturb a man
I think the reason he was a disingenuous faggot is because he's a disingenuous faggot. But unlike yourself he's just trolling and/or a federale, rather than huffing his own farts.
>But if I'm wrong on these points
You haven't made any points, except claiming that man can do what God can't.
>then how come society, which is ABSOLUTELY wrong and has and will lie to you before and repeatedly;- how come they absolutely agree with what you agree with?
What the fuck is this even supposed to mean? Who is this society? What do they agree with?
Sure, most people if pressed will admit to casual deism. Is your platform that you so rebelliously cling to that there is no divine creator?
>If you're right, how come you're fine on having agitprop parity with them lot?
Why wouldn't I be? The use of e.g. valid syllogisms as a tool of reasoning isn't something I have any reason to abandon just because some wankers also happen to partake of the same manner of reasoning.
>I'm austere protestant anon.
It's bizarre that you claim this when your platform seems to be more like Moses', with a failable God you can argue with (and win arguments with) rather than a perfect creator. You're a pagan. You're not a protestant, you're not even a christian.
Alternatively, as said, you're fundamentally incapable of reasoning and are just the equivalent of a hacked out autocomplete.