[A.J.Armitage]

No, in other words I have sketched out an ironclad, irrefutable argument, that you somehow still manage to deny on specious grounds.

I don't want what you personally think is an ironclad, ect argument. I want Scripture. You said what God revealed backed up your assertion that He would not demand the impossible. Yet all I get is your human babblings.

I bet you think "Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?" is an ironclad, irrefutable argument too.

I don't think this is going anywhere.

Evidently not, but all you have to do is pony up. Don't realy on emphatic assertion (which is all your "ironclad" argument boils down too), bring on the revelation.

[dsc]

"I don't want what you personally think is an ironclad, ect argument. I want Scripture."

Sorry, but you are being utterly unreasonable.

God has revealed that He is a loving Father. If you think an infinitely loving Father would demand the impossible of His children, then we have no basis for discussion.

If you cannot comprehend that an infinitely loving father would not demand the impossible of his children without a specific citation in the scripture (And then God spake, saying, "Verily, an infinitely loving father wouldst not demand the impossible of His children..."), well, in that case, we're back to utterly unreasonable.

"Yet all I get is your human babblings."

The problem there is in the receiver, not in the transmitter.

And with that, I don't think I care to continue this discussion.