Be better then.

>>18719088
This is zeus?

I wonder if the guy who posts these threads even knows what the word God means?

>>18719088
>Makes man in his image, but with the free will to choose
>Retard thinks that because God did this that it absolves him of making evil decisions
lol lmao

>>18719128
My god is blue. So what?

>>18719142
And my god is a jew. So what?

File: 1658620143799239.png (520 KB, 800x800)

520 KB PNG

>>18719129
>DID YOU JUST... EAT... A FUCKING APPLE?
>TIME TO DIE!!!!

Christians are the biggest pushovers man, anyone with standards can clearly see that the God of the Bible is kind of a dogshit person, they insist that God can only be righteous, but if the average person treated eachother the same way God treats his own creations they'd be sent to hell by those standards. Why the fuck would anyone volunteer to worship this guy?

>>18720339
name some examples. do you object to the handling of sodom and gomorrah? what about the midianites?

File: bear-2kings.jpg (156 KB, 755x334)

156 KB JPG

>>18720540
How do you even begin to justify insane shit like this?

File: against-the-stones.jpg (46 KB, 942x194)

46 KB JPG

Or this?

File: cow-dung.jpg (66 KB, 1080x470)

66 KB JPG

Or even this?

>>18719129
No because according to Christianity we are NOT free to choose. We are doomed to sin. Our free will is fundamentally broken.

>>18720339
Its okay anon. I too was 15 once and had an edgy atheist phase. You will grow out of it someday

>>18720559
Justify this:
>>18720541
>>18720542
>>18720544

God could still exist, it doesn't have to be this one.

>>18720560
Do you deadass think you are the first person to have ever stumbled upon those verses? Or that christians are unaware they are in the bible? Its obviously not as straightfoward as it seems. The first one with the bears is actually a mob of young adults and they were about to lynch the prophet. The one about dashing infants is the lament of some guy lamenting the sorry state of his nation after it was defeated by his enemies. Its not an endorsement. Its just a way to show you how hard he was seething and begging God to do something. And cow dung is used as fuel in some rural areas to this day. Maybe not so in civilized countries but that wasnt unusual during those days, whats wrong with that?

>>18720574
>Do you deadass think you are the first person to have ever stumbled upon those verses? Or that christians are unaware they are in the bible?
Nope, now are you going to actually justify them or are you going to continue making excuses for Yahweh?

>>18720574
>The first one with the bears is actually a mob of young adults and they were about to lynch the prophet.
Made-up apologetics cope. Where is that in the text?

>>18720574
Where's your excuse for God telling Jews to smash Babylonian infants heads against rocks?

>>18720541
what's the problem? 42+ youths(likely men of marriageable age)harassing a prophet of God and then some of them getting mauled?

>>18720542
what is wrong with the infants of the Edomites who looted, destroyed, enslaved and also killed the children of the Israelites being destroyed?

>>18720544
God showing mercy and concessions and you're mad about it? lol

>>18720554
you have the choice to choose or reject God, though.

File: 1758510697326106.jpg (69 KB, 660x682)

69 KB JPG

>>18720580
>God showing mercy and concessions and you're mad about it? lol
This is a troll post lmao

>>18720576
And I just did, do you have some sort of reading comprehension issue or what seems to be the problem?

>>18720578
>for God telling Jews to smash Babylonian infants heads against rocks?
Are you retarded? I literally said it was some guy, and not God.

>>18720577
In the original language

>>18720586
reminds me of the hitler quote about the jew the day after, who does not recall how he was proven wrong.

>>18720591
that anon wasn't proven wrong. read the hebrew and then reconcile 42+ of them getting mauled. it's incredibly obvious these were teens or older trying to lynch Elisha.

>>18720593
... but the chronicler was unable to say so in clear words. I remember that the main christard cope in that debacle was to desperately ignore the modifier 'little' that turns 'youth' into 'children' in the text, but I won't invest any more effort into it.

>>18720586
>>18720593
>>18720596
From the NET's note on the verse
>The word נַעַר (naʿar), here translated “boy,” can refer to a broad age range, including infants as well as young men. But the qualifying term “young” (or “small”) suggests these youths were relatively young.
"They were young men" is a cope unsupported by the text, which is why basically every translation translates it as "children", "young boys" or "small boys". "They were going to lynch Elisha" just straight up isn't in the text at all.

>>18720597
You'd also assume that if a lynching were on the cards, it would be the main thing the text mentions, rather than insults about baldness

>>18720596
>>18720597
>>18720598
you all are in agreeance that, at the very least, 42 children were harassing Elisha. this is absurd in itself, but let's get to the word "naar". in genesis 37, the very same word is used for Joseph who is 17 years old. in 1 kings, Ahab defeated the Armeans with an army lead by 232 of this same word.

>>18720601
Nta but are you a bot? This doesn't at all respond to the point >>18720597 is making about the word being modified by the preceding one.

>>18720601
yeah, ignoring the modifier as I said here >>18720596 and then anon detailed here >>18720597
christards gonna christard, although this could be a jew, given he defends the old testament. but jews aren't bothered by this passage, "yes they were children and had it coming".

>>18720603
>>18720607
Sure anon, I am sure God send those bears to maul little children instead. Anything to fuel your hateboner for Christianity I guess.
>muh modifier
Or maybe that modifier is meant instead to denote social status, ever thought about that? Qatan doesnt necessarily mean "little" just in size. Why are atheists so disingenuous?

>>18720618
>Sure anon, I am sure God send those bears to maul little children instead.
That's just the plain reading of the text. Idk why you even think it's out of character for a god who explicitly commands the slaughter of children elsewhere in the text to slaughter children via bears.

>>18720618
>Sure anon, I am sure God send those bears to maul little children instead.
I have no idea why this would be unreasonable? God kills children all the time. I'll even give you the text only says "maul", so it's possible I guess the bears just fucked them up and didn't kill them.
>Or maybe that modifier is meant instead to denote social status, ever thought about that? Qatan doesnt necessarily mean "little" just in size.
Do you have an example of when it is used this way elsewhere?

>>18720618
god does not exist. the topic is the twisted morals of christians who either have to approve this revenge fantasy in their holy book or lie about it like you do.

>>18720622
>Do you have an example of when it is used this way elsewhere?
Yeah, plenty.
>1 Samuel 15:17
>1 Kings 3:7
>1 Chronicles 25:8
>1 Chronicles 26:13
>Jeremiah 6:13
>Esther 1:20

File: 1767820682206.jpg (136 KB, 1280x637)

136 KB JPG

>>18720623
>god does not exist
Midwit alert

>>18720628
Half of the people on the left believed in literal magic.

File: 1769682595569.jpg (94 KB, 743x1024)

94 KB JPG

>>18720621
>That's just the plain reading of the text.
Are you aware that the bible was not originally written in english?

>>18720584
So the bible is not the word of god? Okay.

>>18720632
When did I say that's the plain reading of the text in English?
You also didn't answer my question (for obvious reasons lol).

>>18720634
Based retard

>>18720626
Perhaps the question was unclear. Do you have an example of when qāṭān is used as a modifier for the word na'ar to mean a man of lower social status? The only time in these examples it is used as a modifier for na'ar at all is in 1 Kings 3:7, where it is also translated as "little child"

>>18720635
>When did I say that's the plain reading of the text in English?
Well its not the plain reading in the original language.
>>18720622
>God kills children all the time. I'll even give you the text only says "maul", so it's possible I guess the bears just fucked them up and didn't kill them.
Because in the other instances, those children are tragic victims of war.
>I have no idea why this would be unreasonable?
In 2 Kings 2:23 those "little boys" were slaughtered... just because they called someone bald? That doesnt make much sense.

>>18720642
It is rare. But 1 Kings 11:17 also uses that word and modifier to refer to Hadad. And Hadad gets his own land once he arrives in Egypt as an exile. He is old enough to be taken seriously as a young prince, and not a literal little boy. There is also 1 Kings 3:7 where Solomon refers to himself as naar qatan despite being married and in his twenties.

>>18720644
>Because in the other instances, those children are tragic victims of war.
I'm not sure what instances you are referring to. As far as war is concerned God on multiple occasions tells his people to just kill everyone, including children, so it's not like they're collateral or something, they're targets. Outside of war, God kills all the first born of Egypt which would include at least some children, when he floods the earth he kills everyone, and presumably some children are part of "everyone". He kills 70,000 people to punish David for taking a census(that he made him take), again seems like at least some of those 70,000 would be children. He killed David's child with Bathsheba, and not even quickly. He made it sick for week before it finally passed, David praying for him to stop the entire time. He's perfectly comfortable killing children.
>In 2 Kings 2:23 those "little boys" were slaughtered... just because they called someone bald? That doesnt make much sense.
He's a petty God. The defense here is usually more about the seriousness of mocking one of God's prophets.
>>18720650
I don't know why I wouldn't read Hadad as being a child. He literally was a prince and was treated as such. "Child" and "young boy" are how the verse is regularly translated. As I said, 1 Kings 3:7 also uses child in most translations. Solomon is being metaphorical, but he is not saying he is of low standing, he is saying he is like a child.

>>18720658
>I'm not sure what instances you are referring to. As far as war is concerned God on multiple occasions tells his people to just kill everyone, including children
Bur thats my point. And you said it yourself, more often than not those children are as included as part of an "everyone". He doesnt command people to go to a town, and only murder the children then go back. You make it sound like he enjoys killing children or something. When it happens its always part of a bigger group and they are caught in the middle.
>David's son.
I am just a guy, I dont have the answer to every little thing God does. I always give Him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to situations like these, while you just zero in and just call him evil without thinking He might have some other motive. Me personally I choose to think He spared David's bastard son from further horrors. There are always worse things that can happen to someone other than death. The main point here is that you have to cherrypick hard to trying to link this happening to God sending bears to seemingly maul innocent little children.
>He's a petty God. The defense here is usually more about the seriousness of mocking one of God's prophets.
I guess you are entitled to your opinion.
>I don't know why I wouldn't read Hadad as being a child. He literally was a prince and was treated as such.
He was treated as a political figure. Old enough to be given a land for himself to look after and granted an audience with the pharaoh as soon as he arrived to Egypt. You wouldnt do that if Hadad was an elementary child.
>"Child" and "young boy" are how the verse is regularly translated.
I care more about the original wording. Translations are often hit and miss and can change the meaning of passages over time.
>Solomon is being metaphorical, but he is not saying he is of low standing, he is saying he is like a child.
Ill grant you that one is not as strong as Hadad's case. Goes both ways. Depends on how you want to read it

>>18720669
>You make it sound like he enjoys killing children or something. When it happens its always part of a bigger group and they are caught in the middle.
He doesn't have to enjoy it, he's just doing it. I'm not attaching some emotional intent here. And again they aren't "caught in the middle". He could order them to spare them but he doesn't, in some cases he makes it very explicit he wants the children killed alongside the adults. In the cases where he sends out pestilences or just instantly kills people like in the case of the first born, he could also choose to spare children but there is no indication or reason to believe he does.
>Me personally I choose to think He spared David's bastard son from further horrors. There are always worse things that can happen to someone other than death.
As I said, he doesn't just kill him, he causes him to get sick and he suffers for a week before dying. This is also literally a punishment for David, there is no notion God is trying to spare the child from anything.
>The main point here is that you have to cherrypick hard to trying to link this happening to God sending bears to seemingly maul innocent little children.
I mean it's pretty easy, those examples were all just off the top of my head. And they aren't innocent, they were mocking his prophet. If you think that shouldn't justify them being attacked by a bear then their ages shouldn't even matter.
>He was treated as a political figure. Old enough to be given a land for himself to look after and granted an audience with the pharaoh as soon as he arrived to Egypt. You wouldnt do that if Hadad was an elementary child.
Because he was a political figure. He was a prince. You would in fact do all of these things to a young prince.
>I care more about the original wording. Translations are often hit and miss and can change the meaning of passages over time.
I don't know why anything about the original wording or meaning would suggest it is not talking about young boys.

>>18720716
Well, if you are going to take a town, its only makes sense you get rid of everyone. You cant leave the young to fend off by themselves among the ruins can you? Is it not more merciful to grant them a swift death instead of letting them starve to death or leaving them to die to wild animals?
>inb4 why didnt they take the young ones with them
Maybe they didnt have enough food for that many mouths.
>And they aren't innocent, they were mocking his prophet. If you think that shouldn't justify them being attacked by a bear then their ages shouldn't even matter.
It is heavily implied by the context that the mob was old enough to fuck him up, and they were about to lynch the prophet.
>Because he was a political figure. He was a prince. You would in fact do all of these things to a young prince.
Thats one way to see it.
>I don't know why anything about the original wording or meaning would suggest it is not talking about young boys.
I dont know man, I gave plenty of examples of why it could be that they were young men, and you gave examples of the contrary. The problem is that the text is not explicit enough (in the original language) to make it clear that they are little kids. Verses like these have been debated for centuries. There is no clear answer.

>>18720773
>maybe they had enough food for the virgin girls but not the virgin boys
>btw god couldn't feed the male toddlers with manna, you see the only option was obviously for the jews to stab them in the face repeatedly
kek

>>18720580
the infants didn't do anything though
they are literally as innocent as one can be and killing them is wrong

>>18719129
>making evil decision
Biblically wrong since Adam and Eve didn't know good and evil. Nice heresy, retard.

Christians will engage in all kinds of mental gymnastics to prove that their fairy tales are true, despite the fact that there is not a single shred of evidence that anything from Christian doctrine is true aside from the singular book that says it's true.

>>18719089
fpbp. Personal responsibility and self-ownership is foreign to posters like OP.

>>18720773
>Well, if you are going to take a town, its only makes sense you get rid of everyone.
Why? Like it clearly doesn't because that isn't the rule when you take every town, just some of them.
>It is heavily implied by the context that the mob was old enough to fuck him up, and they were about to lynch the prophet.
None of this was implied and it doesn't matter. God thinks worshipping the wrong Gods, your ancestors doing something wrong, or even just being born in the wrong place justifies you being killed, why wouldn't mocking one of his prophets also get the death penalty?

>>18720554
according to the bible there is no free will because god is in control of every single action or event

>>18720339
Religion is a mental illness akin to stockholm syndrome

>>18720541
Those were not children but most likely a gang of adolescents. They started harassing Elisha after he purified the water source of the city they were from. It is very likely they made profits by controlling the water sources and Elisha destroyed their business, else they had no reason to start harassing him

>>18719088
Atoms and laws of physics seem alright. Entropy is not that great but else shit would probably blow up so the current setting is good for normal shit to be set in motion and happen. Shit gets scrawny with larger phenomena and larger objects getting set in configurations that cause deterioration contrary to their purpose but it is also possible for shit to not be like this. And when it comes to the fruit thing in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve could really do better than listen to a creepy fucking reptile rather than God who gave them what was necessary to them.

>>18720574
>The first one with the bears is actually a mob of young adults
Yes yes that's why every single translation renders the word as 'children' and why every commentary on that for the past 2 millennia understood the term to refer to children

>>18721270
>Those were not children but most likely a gang of adolescents.
This has already been addressed >>18720597
>It is very likely they made profits by controlling the water sources and Elisha destroyed their business, else they had no reason to start harassing him
lmao

>>18720628
god-believers are at the level of savages dancing around a totem pole. they are stupid as fuck. are we clear on this?
now get back to the topic. the topic is now generalized to the point that your holy book requires mental gymnastics in order not to conflict with itself and common sense.

>be God
>want other people to talk to
>can create other people
>don't want talking automatons without free will
>but don't want faggot sinners he has to hang out with for eternity
>put people on Earth
>see which ones naturally go towards Jesus without being forced to

Atheists still can't comprehend this at all.

>>18721482
>what do you mean in his presence??? thats such bullsh-
please, just listen to ANYTHING about Christianity's actual text

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iyx4XiT2wgw

>>18721471
holy reddit

File: 1763451733176.jpg (43 KB, 500x500)

43 KB JPG

>>18721024
>le bible is a singular book

File: IMG_6309.png (333 KB, 760x540)

333 KB PNG

>>18721498

>>18721492
you really have nothing, right?

>>18721482
>don't want talking automatons without free will
why not?
before you start bleating about how one version is better than the other, keep in mind that the posited omnicreator god made the rules according to which one thing (a companion with free will) is better than the other.

>>18721482
>>want other people to talk to
An omniscient and all-powerful being wouldn't need to socialize anon

>>18721516
>why not?

Why are you on 4chan at all then? Just open up notepad and have convos with yourself, you narcisstic fag.

File: 1783674304675.png (282 KB, 1280x1600)

282 KB PNG

>>18721510
I have plenty of responses, but pretty sure they are all going to fly over your head. So why bother with you.

>>18720339
I love how Christians still don't have a response to this lmao

>>18721482
none of this is in the bible btw

File: Epi kyrios.jpg (33 KB, 320x542)

33 KB JPG

>>18719088
What are you going to do about it?

>>18721524
that's all you have?

>>18721528
so, nothing. not that I expected much from you.
you have lost. you have no argument.

>>18721536
Because its a very stupid take? Not sure what kind of response you are looking for.

>>18721558
If it's a stupid take then surely Christians would have a valid response by now (considering how stupid you are and all)

>>18721566
Anon. If you walk around babling about a flat earth, most people will just roll their eyes and avoid you. Especially if you pepper your nonsense with ad hominems. Most people really don't care about educating random ass holes. You get more attention on 4chan, because trolling and being rude is expected, but your argument here isn't sound, and everyone knows it. The only reason I'm even addressing it with you, is because your not even funny. If your insults were funny, I could respect the lulz, but it's just boring at this point. Do better.

>>18721581
>Anon. If you walk around babling about a flat earth, most people will just roll their eyes and avoid you.
There are plenty of science communicators out there addressing flat Earthers, guess I expected a little bit too much from Chrismonkeys

>>18721581
>If you walk around babling about a flat earth, most people will just roll their eyes and avoid you.
Because all flat earth arguments have been refuted trillions of times. Meanwhile, the most superficial, intuitive rebuttals to Christian divine command stand undefeated.

File: 1790245236310.jpg (92 KB, 953x940)

92 KB JPG

>>18721566
Okay buddy, lets suppose cells in your body had consciousness, just like you and me. And one day you realize that some of those cells have turned cancerous. So logically you decide to destroy the cells to prevent further damage to the rest of the body. Then some other healthy cell witnesses this event (without getting the whole picture) and says. "If I treated other cells the way you treats us, I'd be sent straight to hell!". Do you see it now? Really I dont know how else to explain it to a stupid person like you, but thats the core principle. Its essentially akin to a child condemning his own father while not understanding anything. You think you know better than God. Its seriously retarded.

>>18721587
There are plenty of churches you can go to and have your questions answered, but your hanging out in mos eisley writing messages on the bathroom stall.

File: 1756769173835171.png (63 KB, 482x498)

63 KB PNG

>>18721592
>So logically you decide to destroy the cells to prevent further damage to the rest of the body. Then some other healthy cell witnesses this event (without getting the whole picture) and says. "If I treated other cells the way you treats us, I'd be sent straight to hell!"
That sure would be dumb wouldn't it!

Unfortunately for you, we aren't doing that, we're actually just extrapolating based on what we can read in the Bible (the Christians sole source of divine evidence) so your argument doesn't really hold much water does it!

Christmonkey's really aren't sending their best...

>>18721594
we do not have questions. we have gotchas religiotards cannot counter. deal with it.

>>18721591
>Meanwhile, the most superficial, intuitive rebuttals to Christian divine command stand undefeated.
Maybe you havent looked hard enough. Ever thought about that you moron? Im pretty sure flat earthers think in the exact way that you do. Also the hilarity to imply your rebuttal isnt superficial lmao.

>>18721592
The cell would be wrong. Destroying cancer is good. Same can't be said about killing innocents.

File: 1774895990963.jpg (56 KB, 878x1024)

56 KB JPG

>>18721598
Really wish you spent more time formulating an actual response, instead of whatever the fuck you just posted. Its hard for you to think in hypotheticals isnt? It seem you are having some trouble coming up with an actual rebuttal. How unfortunate.

>>18721601
OK. Keep hanging out in the bathroom stall then I guess. I'm right here with you, so who am I to judge. I was just hoping for some better material. My bad. I should have just rolled my eyes and walked away.

>>18721604
>(without getting the whole picture)
Thats why I added this. What if the cell was not aware the other cell was cancerous? You just killed a random innocent cell for no reason from his pov. That would make you look like a monster from his perspective.

>>18721603
I have actually. So I've been searching and asking for years, and I noticed two things:
1. Christians are some of the pettiest, most vindictive people imaginable and turn unbelievably obnoxious and overconfident every single time they feel a discussion is erring into their comfort zone;
2. Despite point 1, the very few explanations for how laughably evil the Christian god is per his own standards are Trump-tier retarded.
And thus I've come to a more reasonable explanation: that 2000 years of the best of the best theologians Christianity could muster haven't been able to come up with anything.

>>18721609
See. This is funny material. I actually laughed at this.

>>18721615
Projection.
Hubris leads to nemesis Anon.
If you toss around ad hominems, people are not going to be all lovey dovey to you. It's 4chan, so they trolling is expected, but come on. You can't call someone a stupid monkey, and not expect them to potentially be rude back.
You're manifesting it.

>>18721614
I'm not talking about God killing people who are innocent from my perspective. I'm talking about God killing people who are innocent from God's perspective. Try again.

>>18721615
I love how Atheists still don't have a response to this lmao >>18721592

File: 1758568403251122.png (483 KB, 1400x2228)

483 KB PNG

>>18721630
God told you to smash babies heads against rocks, he even agreed to bless you for doing so, he holds the weak skulls of babylonian infants to a double standard to other infants, and he also holds himself to a double standard to his own creations. The only person who needs to come up with a serious response is YOU. Even if you argue it's God's prerogative to hold his own creations to double standards, if you admit this, you must also admit that God is not just

>>18719088
Blame is an idea created from the English language though which is also historically recent, how could the English phrase and the idea of blame have anything to do with the thoughts of the mind of god which is probably math anyway

>>18721628
When you're done clutching your pearls at how an atheist was uh-so-meaaan to you by treating you with 1/1000th the rudeness you treat them when you post 20 "lulz shittheists got raped lmaolz roadkill fuck xDDDDDDDDD," will it still be too much to ask to simply provide an explanation? This is after all the only way to prove me wrong.

>>18721630
The response is available in this post: >>18721604. Looking forward to you proving Christians can act like grownups and puke out negative IQ retarded takes like judging God by his own "objective" standard being subjective.

>>18721629
Pretty sure some innocent non-cancerous cells are going to get killed as collateral damage when trying to kill the cancerous cells. Its a tragedy. The book of Job goes further on this. Sometimes you can get fucked over despite not doing anything wrong. The mature response is to understand and accept this truth, instead of seething like some unruly child at Him. You are the same as that cell. You dont have the full picture. He is omniscient and you are not.

>>18721637
Lol
This is exactly my point.
Hubris leads to nemesis.
Psalm 137 is not encouraging people to smash babies heads into rocks, it's saying that if you go around smashing babies heads Into rocks, other people will be happy to see your babies heads smashed into rocks in response.
In other words, if you go around calling people stupid monkeys, they are probably going to be rude back to you.
Again.
You're manifesting it.

>>18721637
>God told you to smash babies heads against rocks
Why are you so retarded? That was talked about already in this thread>>18720574. This has to be some sort of mental condition at this point. Atheists are literally brain damaged, too much seethe has destroyed their capacity to think clearly. Nothing else explains this. (Very cool bait though)

>>18721654
>implying God thinks two wrongs make a right
lmao, you are not getting out of this one dude

>chinkspammer thread

File: 3y1hde.jpg (10 KB, 250x205)

10 KB JPG

>"I have no issues with God telling me to use cow shit to bake bread"
Do you guys think Christards are even capable of feeling shame?

>>18721664
He would be spamming the thread with every recorded instance of a christian woman fucking or marrying a non-christian if he was ITT

>>18721650
>Pretty sure some innocent non-cancerous cells are going to get killed as collateral damage when trying to kill the cancerous cells.
And this is where the analogy falls: people who design or use cancer treatments never pretended to be infallible. Either God is infallible and thus not worthy of worship, or he has no excuse for any collateral damage resulting from him killing evil people.

Pro tip: if you want to win an argument against someone, using talking points they haven't thought about more than you is a good start.

>>18721644
Pythagoreans believe that god is math. Christians, however, believe that god is a being with thoughts and feeling, who exposed himself to moses and has an epithet of himself reincarnate as a jewish man, only to be brutally murdered by jews and romans.

>>18721663
Anon. I'm really not going to debate this with you.
The psalm doesn't say that it's right, or good. Its just warning you that it happens.
Hubris leads to nemesis.
Deal with that.
Its your life, not mine.
The people around you in your life are reacting to your behavior.
Be good and do better.

>>18721592
>us. So logically you decide to destroy the cells to prevent further damage to the rest of the body.
an omnipotent god, on the other hand, snaps his fingers and turns cancer cells back into healthy cells. then he sits and thinks very hard about how and why he made more work for himself when he decided the fate of those cells before they even existed.

>>18721672
>epithet of himself reincarnate as a jewish man
I cannot figure out what word are you confusing with 'epihet'.

>>18721671
>Pro tip: if you want to win an argument against someone, using talking points they haven't thought about more than you is a good start.
This is about the pursuit of truth, I could give less than a fuck about "winning" an argument. Thats for sophist faggots. We are all anons here, genuinely who gives a fuck about that?
>more than you
And there you go assuming things like a moron again, im starting to see a pattern here, you seem to think you know better than anyone else (a very childish trait), and then you go ahead and even dare to say you know more than the creator of the universe. You are not going to understand shit with an arrogant attitude like that. Humilty is the beginning of understanding
>Either God is infallible and thus not worthy of worship, or he has no excuse for any collateral damage resulting from him killing evil people.
I dont see why He would need to bend to your will. You dont have the full picture remember? You seem to think death is the worse thing that could happen to someone, how naive. But I havent met an atheist who wasnt terrified of death. So you can be excused for that.

>>18721676
Jesus is an epithet through which god is revealed, just like zeus has different epithets describing the same deity. In christianity, jesus is the son within the trinity, distinct in person but fully god alongside the father and the holy spirit.

File: IMG_7664.jpg (394 KB, 882x704)

394 KB JPG

>>18721686