Should be, yes, I agree.
Well good; it seemed to be at least somewhat what you were saying... or the effect of what you were saying, anyway. If unintended, then good. But that's been part of the problem in this exchange, your... Well, I'm not going to say your "lack of communication skills," which is just silly, as many do on this board. But because of... some things apparent in your manner... a good bit of the things you have said have been very... well, at various times ambiguous (like here), and, um... how's a nice way to put this?... overly lofty, so much as to be, well, non-communicative, really. The prophets of old never did this...
He's a deceiver, yes.
<eyeroll>
In your opinion, yes, and I'm not at all surprised by that.
Hmmm...
Right back atcha (again).
It is, yes.
It seemed to be what you were saying, and I never called you any name.
Ah, now this is a bit picky, but important; rather than "worked this way," I would rather say "used these things." The former implies that He sins (at least from time to time), and the latter that He uses sin sinlessly. And you may actually mean the latter, in which case I would agree.
Ah, now here you are more explicit in talking about the sending, actually saying it's by Him, so I would ask you about the nature of that sending, what He has supposedly sent you to do. And from what you've said, I think I know, and have alluded to before, and you didn't deny it, which is... a bit troubling...
<eyeroll>
Always meant in the way of Paul, Peter, and John throughout the New Testament. Always. I think you thinking that is just pride and indignation... and self-absorption. And anger, obviously. But yeah, none of which are good...
Ah. I see. As if I didn't long before now...
Grace and peace to you, Scott.
