You're right.
But, that begs the question: why do all translations insert an 'it'? It must be necessitated grammatically.
--
I don't think he was being sarcastic. Good and evil are on a spectrum (remember that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil had a single fruit). God is the only...
And, maybe you're right.
But, the it in 'it was good,' is singular each time, despite there being multiple things being created. So is it appropriate to say, for instance: 'Three rocks were rolling down a hill, and it stopped at the bottom'?
--
Elsewhere, Jesus sought to fulfill 'all...
The 'good' IMO refers moreso to His actions, i.e. what He does is good.
But also, because everything was literally given forth out of the Word of God, all things are indeed degrees, or portions, of His (nevertheless, infinite) goodness. You can see that from His designation, that the totality...
I agree with much of what the OP is saying.
Alcoholism is an epidemic. It always has been. It's entirely too easy to form an addiction.
And, I don't think it a coincidence that Jesus acknowledged the common perception that he was a glutton and a drunkard. These people saw something- something...
Is there anything not born of the Word of God?
There are an infinite number of things acting on one another. Many infinities. -- Scientists are still wrestling with General Relativity's local realism in relation to Quantum Physics' nonlocality, partly for this reason.
It's very hard to...
Why did you associate 'non-existence' with 'illusion'?
It exists, but not as perceived by perspectives within time's constraints. It certainly serves its purpose.
The perception however exists only alongside ignorance; in the absence of ignorance there is only what was, what is, and what will...
Genesis is an allegorical history. The 'first man' and 'original sin' ideas are allegorical.
Unfortunately, there are some that consider them literal historical facts.
Two equal forces pushing against each other don't move. That's called a 'deadlock.'
If there is nothing to break the deadlock, there is no decision made. You need something to break the deadlock, whether that be some factor that determines a greater force, or spontaneity.
You're missing the point here:
Why choose one "rational choice" over the other(s)? If there is a reason, that's determinism. If there is no reason, that's spontaneity. Which is it? There is no third option.
How would you (or a compatibalist) define 'free will'?
You only have but two options: either cause and effect, or some degree of spontaneity, neither of which describe freedom.
"They often advanced conditional accounts of alternatives (eg, the agent can do otherwise if, were she to want to do otherwise, she would)."
I'm not sure what this means to you, but....
That's not a description of free will. It's a description of will being determined by varying factors.