Please read carefully. I think this may get at the heart of one difficulty in the general debate.

Consider these statements:

One being can cause, ordain, or will that another being do something, without in any way communicating with it. And it might be that the first being will cause the other to do something that the first being thinks is bad. And the second being is still responsible for doing the bad thing.

If God were to come in a way that you believed it was him and tell you these were true, that the first being was God and the second, you – could you believe it, even if it went against what you thought was possible? Or would you say, ‘Nope, You are wrong.’

I’m not asking ‘Do you believe it?’ or ‘Is it Biblical’ (which are both very important questions), I’m asking ‘Can you believe it?’

In other words, is it possible that something that seems illogical or inconceivable to you is nevertheless true?

If your answer is no, then you can stop reading my ‘both ways’ stuff. We are at an impasse. If Vox believes the answer is no, then our argument subject matter scope is greatly limited.

If your answer is yes, however, that limits the complaints that you have about my other statements.

For example – questions and qualms about God pretending to command or faking anger at disobedience should not be brought into the argument unless there is Biblical warrant for it, i.e. a bible verse that says God doesn’t ordain (choose to have happen) something that he is against. Same with :”Well, if God made me do it, It’s not a sin.”
Note: I am not saying that I have proven anything here, I am merely pointing out what is not proof against the omniderigent view.

To conclude and repeat: Saying (in response to a statement about God) ‘that doesn’t make sense to me’ isn’t a viable argument.

Someone tell me where I am wrong here.

I’m saying this because the above statements are very hard to grasp. But the Bible presents other apparent paradoxes – why not this one?