So, let's say God is all-powerful. That means he can do anything he wants. But then why didn't he prevent Hitler from killing six million Jews? Why didn't he stop 9/11? Why doesn't he just smite all the people who are currently oppressing the Christians?
>If God, why... le badle bad proves God
>>16831723Only if you believe in a bad God, in which case being anti-theist is moral choice.
>>16831711It's weird how dishonest atheists are with their artwork. It just shows they've never even heard the arguments because they can't even mock them accurately.
>>16831711Isaiah 45:7 explicitly states that God creates evil. Most Christians just ignore the ramifications if that verse because they’re uncomfortable.
>>16831711God smote an entire city for bumfucking, why do you imagine he intervenes? If anything it would be to destroy sinful humans, not to save some Jews who deserve it because they cursed Him.
>>16831726You ought to read the Bible if you want to propose some kind of problem with the God of the Bible. Evil existing is no problem for Scripture, it only supports and confirms it to be a true witness.>>16831729Let Scripture interpret ScriptureExodus 32:12 Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people.Jeremiah 18:8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.Jeremiah 18:10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.
>>16831738The Bible contradicts itself constantly so this being another example doesn’t in and of itself refute Isaiah 45:7
>>16831735> God smote an entire city for bumfuckingAnd why did he stopped? Is he out of mana or just became more LGBT-friendly with time? It isn't like there are no cities with bumfucking today.
because God promised He wouldn't to Noahread the Bible you fucking retard
>>16831751>And why did he stopped?He promised Noah He wouldn't do that shit anymore. Then He came to us as Christ to save us from our sinfulness. Right now we're just in the period where we have total freedom to do as we please and at the end of time (whenever that is) Christ comes down to live with us and everyone gets resurrected and judged in the Final Judgementif you retards just read the Bible you'd know that
>>16831758Noah didn't know about Hitler and Holocaust though.
>>16831759ok and? what does that matter?
>>16831744>The Bible contradicts itself constantlylet me guess, you read this on epicatheismftw.com and didn't actually read the Bible yourself?
>>16831763If Noah knew about that then he himself would've asked God to intervene.
>>16831758>He promised Noah He wouldn't do that shit anymore.Promise he broke by doing so anyway as attested by Sodom a Gommorrah.Even by the time of christ he was just killing people on the spot, supposedly
>>16831777again, you haven't read the Bible, or you wouldn't say something so stupidNoah is long after Sodom and Gomorrah you imbecile
>>16831777> just killing people on the spotThat wasn't God, that was Holy Spirit.
>>16831768I studied it at seminary lol. That’s where I lost my faith, digging deep into just how convoluted and contradictory the texts really are. https://ia801303.us.archive.org/31/items/ContradicitonsInTheNewTestament/194ContradInNt.pdf
>>16831783I’m >>16831797not this anon >>16831777just for clarity’s sake
>>16831785>commits literal heresy in one post
>>16831711omni-potent necessarily means all-doing without limitation and also implies the impossibility of being a concious actor over in our plane of existance>are christians le wrongyes>are atheists le wrongyesfuck off reddit
You should solve your own problems instead of asking God to clean up your mess.
>>16831711>oppressing>ChristiansI fail to see how the worlds most dominant religion is being oppressed
>>168317971. Where is the contradiction in the first one?2. Luke 1:26-31 says what the angel told Mary, Matthew 1:18-21 says what the angel told Joseph. The former doesn’t contradict the latter and vice-versa3. The statements don’t contradict each other, Luke 2:48-50 doesn’t talk about Jesus’s greatness4. The angel talking to Mary doesn’t mean he didn’t talk to Joseph and vice-verse. Why can’t he talk to both?5. Matthew talks about the generations betweem Abraham to David, to deportation of Babel, from Babel to JesusLuke goes all the way back to Adam(Luke counts from Adam to Jesus)(Matthew counts from Abraham to Jesus)Are the first 5 clear?
>>16832112The wording of Matthew 1:17 has caused some to suggest that David’s name is included in both the first and second grouping of generations. Notice, "So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations..." The writer does not express his intent to reveal 42 generations from Abraham to Jesus, but rather three segments of Jewish history, each comprised of 14 generations. It is plausible that David’s name being mentioned twice (v 17) indicates his inclusion in both the first and second groupings. If so, then the first begins with Abraham and ends with David, 14 generations; the second begins with David and ends with Josiah, 14 generations; and the third begins with Jeconiah and ends with Jesus, 14 generations.
>>16832112>>168321316. Joseph has an adoptive and geonological father7. Emmanuel isn’t his literal name, it is just one of his titles (like the ones mentioned in Isaiah 9:6)8. In Matthew it goes this way Day 1: >Then Herod secretly called for the magi and determined from them the exact [e]time the star appeared. >8 And he sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the Child; and when you have found Him, report to me, so that I too may come and worship Him.” >9 After hearing the king, they went on their way; and behold, the star, which they had seen in the east, went on ahead of them until it came to a stop over the place where the Child was to be found. >10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy. >11 And after they came into the house, they saw the Child with His mother Mary; and they fell down and [f]worshiped Him. Then they opened their treasures and presented to Him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. >12 And after being warned by God in a dream not to return to Herod, the magi left for their own country by another way.The Escape to Egypt>13 Now when they had gone, behold, an angel of the Lord *appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Get up! Take the Child and His mother and flee to Egypt, and stay there until I tell you; for Herod is going to search for the Child to kill Him.”This all happened in one dayIn Luke it says Jesus was circumcised on the 8th day, Matthew doesn’t mention when Herod died, he could have died within these 8 days9. Mark 1:13>13 And He was in the wilderness for forty days, being tempted by Satan; and He was with the wild animals, and the angels were serving Him.Mark 4:2-3>2 And He was teaching them many things in parables, and was saying to them in His teaching, >3 “Listen to this! Behold, the sower went out to sowI think you misquoted the verses
>>16831783No it isn't. Open your bible and read Genesis again. Abraham participates in the history of Sodom and Gomorrah.Abraham postdates Noah by at least several centuries. Abraham is a descendant of Shem, who was a son of Noah.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham%27s_family_tree
>>1683214910. Luke is the more chronological here and that Matthew changes the order for a theological reason, to move from small to large scale. First, there is the individual temptation of the stones vs. bread, the wider-scope Jewish temptation associated with the Temple second, and then the universal-scope temptation regarding the kingdoms of the world Or could be this way: > 1 turning the stones to bread, >2 Luke’s “worship the devil” after Jesus being taken to an indeterminate place, >3 the pinnacle of the temple “throwdown”, and >4: Matthew’s “worship the devil” after Jesus being take up to a very high mountain.
>let me post verses whose meaning I will twist trice per post to proof my faithLole
>>1683217011. “He has nothing in regard to me” doesn’t mean he isn’t interested or even so what do you mean by interest?He still wanted to tempt him12. John's reference to fire here may have referred to a purification that would come with Messiah's baptism.It adds something, but doesn’t cancel the other
>>16832184Are you the same guy who sent the “contradictions”
>>16831768Where is it that Legion told not to go?
>>1683218613. there is no contradiction. First, notice that Matthew’s account never says specifically what John knew of Jesus’ identity. Matthew’s account only indicates that John had great respect for Jesus’ righteousness. John was baptizing for the forgiveness of sins, so when John says, “I have need to be baptized by you,” he was simply acknowledging Jesus’ superior position in terms of righteousness. This acknowledgement doesn’t necessarily mean John knew Jesus to be the Messiah prior to His baptism.
>>1683220714. Mark 1>14 Now after John was taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God,Jesus came into Galilee after John was arrested John 3>22 After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea; and there He was spending time with them and baptizing. >23 Now John also was baptizing in Aenon, near Salim, because there was an abundance of water there; and people were coming and being baptized— >24 for John had not yet been thrown into prison.Jesus came into Judea before John’s arrestThese are different events at different times
>>1683221715. Where is the contradiction? Jesus saw the spirit descending and so did John16. The heavenly voice addresses Jesus in all 3 verses.>17 and behold, a voice from the heavens said, “This is [a]My beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”>11 and a voice came from the heavens: “You are My beloved Son; in You I [a]am well pleased.”>22 and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came from heaven: “You are My beloved Son, in You I am well pleased.”17. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist as described in Mark 1:9–11. He then immediately spent 40 days in the wilderness where He was tempted by Satan. After that, He returned to the area where John was baptizing. John 1:29 states that Jesus returned and the day after John the Baptist was questioned by the Jews. John the Baptist identified Him again as the Messiah using very similar language, as we would expect for a prophet referring back to ideas written by previous prophets. John is saying what happened, it isn’t written what is happening at that moment
>>16831728You dont know anything about geologyOpen an actual book on geology, not propaganda from answers in genesis
>>1683224618. John doesn’t say that Jesus didn’t go to Bethpage and BethannyHe just said that they went to Jerusalem the next dayThis doesn’t mean they didn’t go to Bethpage and BethanySame applies for all the different verses in this “contradiction”None of them deny what happened in the other
I answered enough contradictions whoever wants more can research it themselves
>>16832199Strange that no one ever answers this question. Should be easy if there aren't any contradictions in the Bible... Oh well...
>>16831723>If God, why... le badHe says, as though priests and theologians haven't grappled with this problem for thousands of years
>the guy who insists he is right and everyone else is going to burn for ever in magic lava can't even get the basic timeline of his favorite lore right.
>>16831783Average christian's education.
>>16832427This doesn’t contradict anything in the BibleWhat is your question?
>>16831797>I studied it at seminary lol. That’s where I lost my faithMany such cases.
>>16832265>no actual arguments>"open a heckin book CHUD!"Geology, fossils, and dinosaurs prove the flood.
>>16831744>doesn't interpret scripture by scripture>claims it has contradictions by his eisegesisSneed.
>>16832819>Geology, fossils, and dinosaurs prove the flood.No, they don't.The flood never happened retard
>>16832449I know. My point wasn't that the fact nobody was answering was contradicting the Bible. It was that the Bible contradicts itself.
>>16832834>>Geology, fossils, and dinosaurs prove the flood.>No, they don't.They do thoughbeit.>The flood never happened retardIt did however, you are simply willingly ignorant.
>>16832847>aggressively misunderstanding>can't actually prove his claims
>>16832876>They do thoughbeit.No, they dodon't.,Post any reason why you think they do. If you post shit from answers in genesis you're retarded>It did however, you are simply willingly ignorant.It has been proven to be physically impossible (the heat and energy would turn the world into a ball of plasma, the development of sedimentary rocks dont happen fast enough, and many other proofs), on top of the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever for a worldwide flood taking place 5000 years ago. There isn't even enough water to cover the earth if all the ice on the planet melted.You've never opened a book on geology or archeology in your life
>>16832901>I outright reject anything from anyone who believes anything in tthe Bible>why can't I find any evidence proving anything in the Bible true?It's a mystery.I could give you dozens of links from people other than AiG to all types of content, and you'd reject them as well because you reject Christ. Literally all you guys ever do is remain willingly ignorant, recite mantras, and then attack the character of anyone who doesn't goosestep to your brainwashing and indoctrination. You're not even willing to listen or hear to any arguments and you made that clear.You guys can't even explain why there's no erosion or channeling between layers of rock you claim are millions of years apart. You can't explain why the layers are parallel in most places. You can't explain the peculiar formations where parallel layers warped around each other in some places. You can't explain sea shells and sea creature fossils at the tops of mountains. You can't explain why there hasn't been more erosion into the ocean. You can't explain why the Grand Canyon walls haven't collapsed. You can't explain how the river in the Grand Canyon could carve a river going uphill. You can't answer polystrate fossils protruding through layers you claim are millions of years apart. You can't explain why every link in the chain is missing. You can't explain the cambrian explosion. You can't even explain how fossils form since you think they form over millions of years: why don't wolves in the wilderness or fish dying in the sea form fossils? Because they need to be rapidly buried in sediment, i.e. during a flood. I could go on and on and on. Why don't you actually look into this instead of being so embarrassingly ignorant and foolishly proud?
>>16832847Rephrase your original question, it structurally doesn’t make sense
>>16833015>You guys can't even explain why there's no erosion or channeling between layers of rock you claim are millions of years apart. You can't explain why the layers are parallel in most places. You can't explain the peculiar formations where parallel layers warped around each other in some places. You can't explain sea shells and sea creature fossils at the tops of mountains. You can't explain why there hasn't been more erosion into the ocean. You can't explain why the Grand Canyon walls haven't collapsed. You can't explain how the river in the Grand Canyon could carve a river going uphill. You can't answer polystrate fossils protruding through layers you claim are millions of years apart. You can't explain why every link in the chain is missing. You can't explain the cambrian explosion. You can't even explain how fossils form since you think they form over millions of years: why don't wolves in the wilderness or fish dying in the sea form fossils? Because they need to be rapidly buried in sediment, i.e. during a flood. I could go on and on and on.Because all of these can be explained and you've never opened an actual book on geology for the answers. Meanwhile the flood is literally impossible based on how rock formation and heat work.You were told that these are smoking guns by people at answers in genesis instead of actually trying to ask actual geologists. You're being disingenuous I bet you literally think radiometric dating doesn't work.
>>16833044Thanks for proving me right.
>>16831729That's not talking about moral evil though. Get educated, anon.
>>16831944In Galatians 3:22, the Bible says this: "But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe."And in John 3:16 the Bible says: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
>>16831711>why doesnt the referee just declare his favorite pick wins everytime
>>16833091I didn't "prove you right". I very clearly said that all those pseudo questions have answers. You can look up any one of those gish gallop questions and find an answer by a geologist under the standard model. You refuse to do this because you're disingenuous. Meanwhile the flood hypothesis is literally physically impossible as I already explained. You can, again, very easily find no go theorems and proofs that the flood isn't physically possible.Stop reading answers in genesis and look up the actual scientific explanations. They're all there. You're just ignoring them
>>16833015>Literally all you guys ever do is remain willingly ignorant, recite mantras, and then attack the character of anyone who doesn't goosestep to your brainwashing and indoctrination. You're not even willing to listen or hear to any arguments and you made that clear.Proven by evolution schizo.>You guys can't even explain why there's no erosion or channeling between layers of rock you claim are millions of years apart. You can't explain why the layers are parallel in most places. You can't explain the peculiar formations where parallel layers warped around each other in some places. You can't explain sea shells and sea creature fossils at the tops of mountains. You can't explain why there hasn't been more erosion into the ocean. You can't explain why the Grand Canyon walls haven't collapsed. You can't explain how the river in the Grand Canyon could carve a river going uphill. You can't answer polystrate fossils protruding through layers you claim are millions of years apart. You can't explain why every link in the chain is missing. You can't explain the cambrian explosion. You can't even explain how fossils form since you think they form over millions of years: why don't wolves in the wilderness or fish dying in the sea form fossils? Because they need to be rapidly buried in sediment, i.e. during a flood. I could go on and on and on.Unrefuted by evolutionschizo.
>>16833496I refuted all those claims
>>16833526You just asserted that you did, you never did. >>16833044And you followed up your unproven and baseless assertions with your typical insults because you evolutionschizos are cowards and liars.
>>16833561Every one of those gish gallop claims has an explanation from the field of geology. Literally look it up and you'll see it. You just deny this because you have no argument
>>16833526>>16833573You still haven't refuted any of those arguments. All you have is logical fallacies and your typical evolutionist schizo zealot babble.>>16833015You guys can't even explain why there's no erosion or channeling between layers of rock you claim are millions of years apart. You can't explain why the layers are parallel in most places. You can't explain the peculiar formations where parallel layers warped around each other in some places. You can't explain sea shells and sea creature fossils at the tops of mountains. You can't explain why there hasn't been more erosion into the ocean. You can't explain why the Grand Canyon walls haven't collapsed. You can't explain how the river in the Grand Canyon could carve a river going uphill. You can't answer polystrate fossils protruding through layers you claim are millions of years apart. You can't explain why every link in the chain is missing. You can't explain the cambrian explosion. You can't even explain how fossils form since you think they form over millions of years: why don't wolves in the wilderness or fish dying in the sea form fossils? Because they need to be rapidly buried in sediment, i.e. during a flood. I could go on and on and on.
>>16833610I already said to you, every single one of those questions has answers by geologists. You can just look it up. I'm not going to spend the time copying and pasting every question and then copying the url into the post for each one while on my phone (I'm phoneposting).Your gosh gallop is not an argument. Every one of those statements has an answer that isn't young earth creationism. You're projecting your lack of interest onto me. If you actually wanted to know what geologists say you'd look up their explanations but you don't. You only want explanations from creationists
>>16831711>oh yeah well if god is really all powerful then why doesn't he adhere to my personal theory of objective morality which all of a sudden i believe exists?A tale that began when the fist caveman tripped and hit his head on a rock, and will continue until all forms of brain damage are cured.
Mount Saint Helens is an example of real-time and modern observed geology that demonstrated catastrophism (rather than uniformitarianism, which was invented for evolution iirc and is required by it)
>>16831728Creationism is a heresy invented by Satanists to promote incest, pedophillia, and hatred of God.
I'm the super duper everything
>>16831711Why would he?
