If god is all powerful why does he allow sin?

veya_victaous wrote:So Jesus... (or Joshua more likely)
just another monotheist terrorist...

Seems to be the way with these damn monotheists  ::dedhrs::

Maine coon lover wrote:Its not easy to understand without the help of the Holy spirit, believers have the Holy spirit . Its pointless trying to understand the word of God when all you have is your own self righteousness

smelly_bandit wrote:Hf is smashing it up

It's ALWAYS hilarious watching atheists waffling on about religious theology

Bizarre that people not to believe in god spend so much time talking about him

It's almost like they HAVE to dismantle him to justify their disbelief

 :D 

PhilDidge wrote:

Maine coon lover wrote:Its not easy to understand without the help of the Holy spirit, believers have the Holy spirit . Its pointless trying to understand the word of God when all you have is your own self righteousness

Again a copout answer, as I was raised a Christian and once firmly believed also, so to say I do not understand is complete gobbledygook. What you are unable to do is look at something as objectionable and that is your own failing!

smelly_bandit wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Again a copout answer, as I was raised a Christian and once firmly believed also, so to say I do not understand is complete gobbledygook. What you are unable to do is look at something as objectionable and that is your own failing!

You were raised as Christian - that means nothing it certainly doesn't make you an expert

From what I've seen didge, you've never picked up a bible in your life and instead rely on websites like the evil bible.com for the soundbites that form the bulk of your arguments

When you're pressured to go in depth and expand your argument you either divert the conversation or you simply repeat your post

smelly_bandit wrote:Hf is smashing it up

It's ALWAYS hilarious watching atheists waffling on about religious theology

Bizarre that people not to believe in god spend so much time talking about him

It's almost like they HAVE to dismantle him to justify their disbelief

 :D 

Raggamuffin wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:Hf is smashing it up

It's ALWAYS hilarious watching atheists waffling on about religious theology

Bizarre that people not to believe in god spend so much time talking about him

It's almost like they HAVE to dismantle him to justify their disbelief

 :D 

Yes! I like that last bit. It's what I think too - either that or they're determined to convinced those with faith to lose their faith.

Raggamuffin wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:Hf is smashing it up

It's ALWAYS hilarious watching atheists waffling on about religious theology

Bizarre that people not to believe in god spend so much time talking about him

It's almost like they HAVE to dismantle him to justify their disbelief

 :D 

Yes! I like that last bit. It's what I think too - either that or they're determined to convinced those with faith to lose their faith.

Maine coon lover wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes! I like that last bit. It's what I think too - either that or they're determined to convinced those with faith to lose their faith.

agree with you , must be because they are jealous of people with faith its all it can be

What some of our more arrogant "experts" decry as silly fiction and myth has been proven to be amazingly accurate. A group of people who can recall precise events that happened 10 000 years ago will likely be able to tell us more.

An interesting aspect of aboriginal myth is that while there are more than 400 different groups, tribes and languages of indigenous people, they all have common themes within their mythological history. Not only do almost all of them feature a variation of the “rainbow serpent” as a cultural hero

the aborigines are not the only people to have a “rainbow serpent” in their Mythology. The rainbow serpent is also known to various african tribes or the african Bantu religion. In fact, maybe it is no coincidence that Harvard scientist Wade Davis book on Haitan Voodoo and Secret Societies of the West Indies (which originate in Africa) is called "The Serpent and The Rainbow". Neither would it be the only account that somehow associates human origins with Serpents. We are reminded of the ancient biblical tale of the serpent in the garden of Eden, ancient Chinese tails of flying dragons, ancient germanic tales referring to the “Lindwurm” which, according to mythology was a flying dragon who shaped the earth, or even of the ancient egyptian tale called “The Shipwrecked sailor” which refers to a beautiful garden that sunk in a flood after being inhabited by very colorful serpents. An excerpt from this ancient egyptian text:

"Suddenly I heard a noise as of thunder, which I thought to be that of a wave of the sea. The trees shook, and the earth was moved. I uncovered my face, and I saw that a serpent drew near. He was thirty cubits long, and his beard greater than two cubits; his body was as overlaid with gold, and his color as that of true lazuli. He coiled himself before me. "Then he opened his mouth, while that I lay on my face before him, and he said to me, "What has brought you, what has brought you, little one, what has brought you? If you say not speedily what has brought you to this isle, I will make you know yourself; as a flame you shall vanish, if you tell me not something I have not heard, or which I knew not, before you.'

When describing the serpent the ancients always referred to it with the most beautiful colours or mixes of colour.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Maine coon lover wrote:
agree with you , must be because they are jealous of people with faith its all it can be

Yes. I have made that observation myself elsewhere. They can't believe but they wish they could - something like that.

Maine coon lover wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes. I have made that observation myself elsewhere. They can't believe but they wish they could - something like that.

which is why I wont debate with phildidge , he admitted he only does it for fun so to me what's the point

Raggamuffin wrote:

Maine coon lover wrote:

which is why I wont debate with phildidge , he admitted he only does it for fun so to me what's the point

There is no point. You believe what you believe, and nobody is going to change your mind. It's why I don't talk about my faith very much on forums. I don't mind discussing religion and faith in general, but nobody is going to convince me to change my mind, so they needn't bother trying.

Raggamuffin wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:Hf is smashing it up

It's ALWAYS hilarious watching atheists waffling on about religious theology

Bizarre that people not to believe in god spend so much time talking about him

It's almost like they HAVE to dismantle him to jus
tify their disbelief

 :D 

Yes! I like that last bit. It's what I think too - either that or they're determined to convinced those with faith to lose their faith.

smelly_bandit wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Again a copout answer, as I was raised a Christian and once firmly believed also, so to say I do not understand is complete gobbledygook. What you are unable to do is look at something as objectionable and that is your own failing!

You were raised as Christian - that means nothing it certainly doesn't make you an expert

From what I've seen didge, you've never picked up a bible in your life and instead rely on websites like the evil bible.com for the soundbites that form the bulk of your arguments

When you're pressured to go in depth and expand your argument you either divert the conversation or you simply repeat your post

Raggamuffin wrote:

Maine coon lover wrote:

which is why I wont debate with phildidge , he admitted he only does it for fun so to me what's the point

There is no point. You believe what you believe, and nobody is going to change your mind. It's why I don't talk about my faith very much on forums. I don't mind discussing religion and faith in general, but nobody is going to convince me to change my mind, so they needn't bother trying.

PhilDidge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

You were raised as Christian - that means nothing it certainly doesn't make you an expert

From what I've seen didge, you've never picked up a bible in your life and instead rely on websites like the evil bible.com for the soundbites that form the bulk of your arguments

When you're pressured to go in depth and expand your argument you either divert the conversation or you simply repeat your post

It certainly does if you knew what I had to study.

Really you think that and yet can never counter anything I post which is funny, I mean why do I know exactly what to counter with on any given points on the bible, if I as you claim use websites, I would still have to know exactly what I was using in the context of the debate, showing it is yourself that has not the first scooby dooo

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

It certainly does if you knew what I had to study.

Really you think that and yet can never counter anything I post which is funny, I mean why do I know exactly what to counter with on any given points on the bible, if I as you claim use websites, I would still have to know exactly what I was using in the context of the debate, showing it is yourself that has not the first scooby dooo

the points you try to make show no real understanding of the bible, even basics of covenants, I have no idea who you studied the bible with perhaps it was the mormons or perhaps there is study and real study..

smelly_bandit wrote:You haven't studied anything


You were once upon a time as adamant about your knowledge of Islam which you insisted taught the concept of a pantheon of gods which is polytheism

You didn't even know Islam was a monotheistic belief system and yet like now  you continue to paradise yourself as an all knowing oracle

If I recall correctly you publicly admitted I was right on that occasion

The funny thing is that your knowledge of Christianity as shown by your shallow arguments is even worse than your knowledge of Islam

PhilDidge wrote:Plus you were the idiot smelly who claims the OT does not count.

That one was priceless

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:Plus you were the idiot smelly who claims the OT does not count.

That one was priceless

i don't think smelly said that at all but the OT reveals what has to come and much of it was it's specific time and of cause the old laws were fulfilled, so in a way smelly is quite right but i'm sure you missed that point completely.

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

i don't think smelly said that at all but the OT reveals what has to come and much of it was it's specific time and of cause the old laws were fulfilled, so in a way smelly is quite right but i'm sure you missed that point completely.

No he argued that there is Christian Bibles without the OT, which there is but using this as a bases that this scripture is not required by Christians, even though as stated within the NT Jesus did not come to change the law or the fact the Prophets of the Old Testament hold also great meaning to Christianity.

What he was doing was trying poorly to excuse violence in the OT also stupidly thinking there is no violence or bad in the NT

That is his poor limited knowledge on Christianity, just like yours where again you fail to acknowledge your errors or answer my post

Tad easy for me    

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


No he argued that there is Christian Bibles without the OT, which there is but using this as a bases that this scripture is not required by Christians, even though as stated within the NT Jesus did not come to change the law or the fact the Prophets of the Old Testament hold also great meaning to Christianity.

What he was doing was trying poorly to excuse violence in the OT also stupidly thinking there is no violence or bad in the NT,

That is his poor limited knowledge on Christianity, just like yours where again you fail to acknowledge your errors or answer my post

Tad easy for me    

the Gideons among other produce NT bibles, it is not an attempt to excuse the OT violence at all but you must remember when Jesus fulfilled the law things changed greatly, as you have been told countless times many things of the old testament were for that specific time and place and not meant for all time such as the need for animal sacrifice.

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

the Gideons among other produce NT bibles, it is not an attempt to excuse the OT violence at all but you must remember when Jesus fulfilled the law things changed greatly, as you have been told countless times many things of the old testament were for that specific time and place and not meant for all time such as the need for animal sacrifice.

You miss the context of the previous debates, clearly as seen he tried to excuse having to follow any of the Old testament based on Non-OT bibles and thus would not be a Christian in the eyes of Jesus according to the scriptures


Well I am waiting for you still to show me what commandments he changed.

I can show you plenty his followers changed, but what laws did Jesus change?

Still think the Jews killed him also?

You keep avoiding that gaff you made, why is that?

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

You miss the context of the previous debates, clearly as seen he tried to excuse having to follow any of the Old testament based on Non-OT bibles and thus would not be a Christian in the eyes of Jesus according to the scriptures


Well I am waiting for you still to show me what commandments he changed.

I can show you plenty his followers changed, but what laws did Jesus change?

Still think the Jews killed him also?

You keep avoiding that gaff you made, why is that?

he changed the need for the believer to follow the ten commanments in regards to salvation, he changed the need for animal sacrifice, he stated the two commands that are important..
 ://?roflmao?/: Really show me the verses that state to change the laws or do you need more time to phone a friend?

the OT is not necessaary in regards to the NT believer as the new covenant given through Grace stops the need for the OT rules for salvation, so Smelly is quite right, this is very basic theology, i would have thought you would have known this.

Eilzel wrote:So back to this Holy Spirit that you guys have and we don't- why is that, why does the Holy Spirit, and by default God, pick favourites and damn the rest?

The reason we atheists oppose religion by the way is due the problems is causes and fact they defy logic- not God btw, I'm talking specifically of religion.

Maine coon lover wrote:

Eilzel wrote:So back to this Holy Spirit that you guys have and we don't- why is that, why does the Holy Spirit, and by default God, pick favourites and damn the rest?

The reason we atheists oppose religion by the way is due the problems is causes and fact they defy logic- not God btw, I'm talking specifically of religion.

When you accept Jesus you have the Holy spirit none believers do not have the Holy spirit . God does not have favourites but his word is very clear believe on his Son and you will be saved .

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

he changed the need for the believer to follow the ten commanments in regards to salvation, he changed the need for animal sacrifice, he stated the two commands that are important..
 ://?roflmao?/: Really show me the verses that state to change the laws or do you need more time to phone a friend?

the OT is not necessaary in regards to the NT believer as the new covenant given through Grace stops the need for the OT rules for salvation, so Smelly is quite right, this is very basic theology, i would have thought you would have known this.

Hilarious and also balderdash as nowhere does Jesus state that either that the OT is not necessary. I seriously love how Born agains just make it up as they go along

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:
Hilarious and also balderdash as nowhere does Jesus state that either that the OT is not necessary. I seriously love how Born agains just make it up as they go along

my goodness, can anyone lend me some crayons, i really think pictures would help didge understand..
No counter utter waffle

Until Jesus came the law was the standard that believers were given to attain for their salvation, when Jesus came, he fulfilled the law, Grace was the new covenant, with the free gift of righteousness or right standing with God coming with that, instead of the standing by the law they received their standing through the son and his righteousness..
So no laws changed

so as you see the OT laws were the standard for believers but now grace through Jesus is the standard, thats the NT, do you see how that changed, clever isn't it, but the law still exists for non believers as the standard God will judge them by..
So no laws changed

why do you think the bible says you are dead to the law..and you were once slaves to the law but now you are slaves to righteousness...
So no laws changed

in the OT it was required to take a sacrifice to the high priest for sins, the high priest would check the sacrifice for blemishes, notice he didn't check the person who brought the sacrifice, the person who brought the sacrifice would touch the animal, the sins of the person transferred to the animal, the innocence of the animal transferred to the person...
Where is the law on this and where is the new law introduced?

In the NT  through Jesus, jesus becomes the perfect sacrifice once and for all for sin, it doesn't have to be repeated every year, once for all people for all time..

can you see that is different.

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

my goodness, can anyone lend me some crayons, i really think pictures would help didge understand..
No counter utter waffle

Until Jesus came the law was the standard that believers were given to attain for their salvation, when Jesus came, he fulfilled the law, Grace was the new covenant, with the free gift of righteousness or right standing with God coming with that, instead of the standing by the law they received their standing through the son and his righteousness..
So no laws changed

so as you see the OT laws were the standard for believers but now grace through Jesus is the standard, thats the NT, do you see how that changed, clever isn't it, but the law still exists for non believers as the standard God will judge them by..
So no laws changed

why do you think the bible says you are dead to the law..and you were once slaves to the law but now you are slaves to righteousness...
So no laws changed

in the OT it was required to take a sacrifice to the high priest for sins, the high priest would check the sacrifice for blemishes, notice he didn't check the person who brought the sacrifice, the person who brought the sacrifice would touch the animal, the sins of the person transferred to the animal, the innocence of the animal transferred to the person...
Where is the law on this and where is the new law introduced?

In the NT  through Jesus, jesus becomes the perfect sacrifice once and for all for sin, it doesn't have to be repeated every year, once for all people for all time..

can you see that is different.

Nope as seen you gave a load of waffle from your preacher, which I knew you would go skulking to and fail to answer a single law that has been changed by Jesus

try again

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Nope as seen you gave a load of waffle from your preacher, which I knew you would go skulking to and fail to answer a single law that has been changed by Jesus

try again

so the believer is now saved by Grace not the law is that a change or not...ddderrrr

animal sacrifice no longer required...change or not...derrrrrr

you reaally are special and no nothing about the bible.. :D 

Eilzel wrote:HF your arrogance regarding reading and understanding the Bible is overwhelming. You alone cannot claim to have full understanding of scripture above all others; and even as you do it is meaningless with so many claiming the same, to name a few: Anglicans, Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, Evangelical Pentecostals, Lutherans etc all claim as you do to understand how to live a life as God intends according to your book, and there are even disagreements among those individual variations. You don't have a better understanding than a Methodist (to take just one) nor they than you. All those variations show up however is just how self contradictory your book is and must be. Sorry but yours us a lousy corner to be fighting here

Eilzel wrote:HF your arrogance regarding reading and understanding the Bible is overwhelming. You alone cannot claim to have full understanding of scripture above all others; and even as you do it is meaningless with so many claiming the same, to name a few: Anglicans, Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, Evangelical Pentecostals, Lutherans etc all claim as you do to understand how to live a life as God intends according to your book, and there are even disagreements among those individual variations. You don't have a better understanding than a Methodist (to take just one) nor they than you. All those variations show up however is just how self contradictory your book is and must be. Sorry but yours us a lousy corner to be fighting here

PhilDidge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:HF your arrogance regarding reading and understanding the Bible is overwhelming. You alone cannot claim to have full understanding of scripture above all others; and even as you do it is meaningless with so many claiming the same, to name a few: Anglicans, Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, Evangelical Pentecostals, Lutherans etc all claim as you do to understand how to live a life as God intends according to your book, and there are even disagreements among those individual variations. You don't have a better understanding than a Methodist (to take just one) nor they than you. All those variations show up however is just how self contradictory your book is and must be. Sorry but yours us a lousy corner to be fighting here

I suppose I can lay off, he has had a hard few days.

 :D 

There was a point to all this though which I will see if he can figure out

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


I suppose I can lay off, he has had a hard few days.

 :D 

There was a point to all this though which I will see if he can figure out

please carry on, i enjoy seeing just how stupid you always look didge..

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

please carry on, i enjoy seeing just how stupid you always look didge..

What where I just made you look so, when you claimed all sins were forgiven to then say they were not.

Mate try and understand why I did this, it may help you

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


What where I just made you look so, when you claimed all sins were forgiven to then say they were not.

Mate try and understand why I did this, it may help you

re read my answer just because you are to dumb to understand it does not make it so... :D 

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

re read my answer just because you are to dumb to understand it does not make it so... :D 

Epic fail, you stated clearly god forgives sins then will not forgive a sin, to then confuse yourself, if the sin of not believing in him is not forgiven, then  not all sins are forgiven.
That is plain for a simpleton even like you.
This is why people who die not believing in him according to the scriptures are sent to hell because they are not forgiven, otherwise all would go to heaven dummy.

 :D 

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Epic fail, you stated clearly god forgives sins then will not forgive a sin, to then confuse yourself, if the sin of not believing in him is not forgiven, then  not all sins are forgiven.
That is plain for a simpleton even like you.
This is why people who die not believing in him according to the scriptures are sent to hell because they are not forgiven, otherwise all would go to heaven dummy.

 :D 

Again if God can forgive any sin if you believe on Him, how can any sin be unforgivable.... :/pwn://: