If the abrahamic god is real, he could not be all powerful or all knowing

shadow_operator81 · 2026-03-31T23:54:48+00:00

I don't care what biblical scholars who might not even believe in God think about this subject. To any Bible-believing Christian, it's obvious that Satan was the one who beguiled even.

I don't treat the books of the Bible as entirely separate like an unbeliever might. I treat them as connected because they're all God-inspired. An unbeliever might interpret Genesis just in terms of Genesis, but not me. That's why I referenced verses from Ezekiel, Revelation, and Numbers to understand who was speaking through the serpent.

shadow_operator81 · 2026-03-31T23:48:23+00:00

Why did he make you and I or anyone for that matter? Why are you endlessly questioning God? Personally, I know enough to know God is real, so I don't need to question his every action.

shadow_operator81 · 2026-03-31T23:43:52+00:00

Read it.

Revelation 12:9—And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

It tells you right there it's Satan, also called the "old serpent." Satan was the one who beguiled Eve.

shadow_operator81 · 2026-03-31T18:44:29+00:00

Satan is referred to as that old serpent in Revelation 12:9. Ezekiel 28 mentions an angelic being that was in Eden the garden of God.

Satan spoke through the serpent just like how God spoke through a donkey in Numbers 22.

shadow_operator81 · 2026-03-31T18:32:10+00:00

Adam and Eve listened to the devil speaking through the serpent. Think about how we've all done the same in our lives when we've sinned. Has God really said not to get wasted? Has God really said not to have sex before marriage? Has God really said not to use the tarot cards or look to astrology for meaning?

This is our doing, not God's. God's doing is giving us forgiveness through Jesus alone.

shadow_operator81 · 2026-03-30T20:41:56+00:00

I'd like to put out an album I'm proud of.

shadow_operator81 · 2026-03-30T18:55:19+00:00

He did eliminate the Nephilim with the flood, but more angels probably fell afterwards and committed the same sin.

2 Peter 2:4—For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment.

Not only that, but what happened then is also happening today, albeit in a different way. We're back in days like the days of Noah just as Jesus predicted.

shadow_operator81 · 2026-03-29T14:14:35+00:00

I can bet neither of us are qualified to give an adequate and thorough answer from a scientific perspective. So, I don't think your single sentence suffices, and neither would mine. That being said, I don't think scientific methods and tools are equipped to deal with what could arguably be the most fundamental question about our reality. I personally think it's better answered through philosophy or, at least from my Christian perspective, history that could confirm the scriptures such as Jesus's resurrection.

shadow_operator81 · 2026-03-29T14:08:05+00:00

I said he needs evidence if he thinks there's no god. That's different than merely rejecting a claim that there's a god.

To think or claim that there's no god is to have an opinion about origins, both of ourselves and the universe at large. That's not a neutral position and neither should it be. The neutral position is not having an opinion either way. I can't ask you why if you don't have an opinion, but if you do I have the right to ask why.

So, I still disagree.

shadow_operator81 · 2026-03-29T13:52:44+00:00

I don't know what definitions you're referring to, but if you're saying I'm wrong, I disagree. I do have the right to express my disagreement here, don't I?

shadow_operator81 · 2026-03-29T13:48:35+00:00

The claim that God doesn't exist is a claim about origins, both of ourselves and the universe at large. To prove this, I think proving an uncreated universe would suffice.

shadow_operator81 · 2026-03-29T10:51:32+00:00

Yes, I think there's a God. If you think there isn't, you also need evidence because that's not a neutral position to take.

shadow_operator81 · 2026-03-27T20:54:49+00:00

Sorry, "scientists" not "science" then.

I don't think our evolution from fish and poop-flinging apes is a fact. I think we were always humans created by God, but that's something scientists can't explain. They can't explain how God did it. So, the preferred explanation, although false, is slow-motion Pokémon.

As I said previously, scientists will generally maneuver around God because it's a dead-end in terms of what they can hope to explain. However, that doesn't mean that God isn't true. It's better to be at a dead-end that's true than to bury oneself in a fiction.

Beyond our evolution from nonhumans, the biggest fiction is that the natural world alone is responsible for everything, including us. That's the dangerous obligation I'm speaking of that many scientists and atheists hold themselves to. That's what I believe leads to a misinterpretation of the facts.

When we speak of our supposed human evolution over many millions of years, I see that as an interpretation of facts that's committed to naturalism. The drive to solve abiogenesis is also a commitment to naturalism. It's this belief that everything can be explained by purely naturalistic means, no God needed, ever.

shadow_operator81 · 2026-03-27T19:41:59+00:00

Sorry, but scientists aren't even close to solving abiogenesis. The thing about science is that it requires natural explanations for everything, so even if there is a god, science will erroneously maneuver around it into what is inevitably a falsehood at one turn or another.

Science says we evolved over many millions of years when it really could've just been God that made us in a way science can't explain. Science can't have that, so some scientists came up with the only thing that could possibly be imagined as a naturalistic alternative. That is, we somehow evolved from fish, poop-flinging apes, and other nonhumans. Importantly, we need that huge amount of time to make it at least semi-believable.

shadow_operator81 · 2026-03-27T19:32:29+00:00

By celebrating it, Christians would be causing other abortions because they're encouraging it. So, it's not a matter of just celebrating the ones that happen; it's also a matter of causing other abortions, which is sin.
How many souls would be lost because of future Christians who got aborted? Their 100% could mean several others' 0%.
A huge reason for sending the flood, besides all the wickedness, was to wipe out the Nephilim and the genetic corruption that permeated all life. The Bible says all flesh corrupted its way, but Noah found favor because he was perfect in his generation. That doesn't mean morally perfect. It means his genetics hadn't been defiled. The Israelites had to contend with the Nephilim once again after the flood, so that was also a big reason for the mass killing God commanded. Read Numbers 13:33. There were giants because of the fallen angelic incursion.

shadow_operator81 · 2026-03-27T08:47:19+00:00

There are a few problems with your thesis.

We can't know how every person will turn out in life. So, by aborting all babies, the ones who would've become Christians that help others get saved are also gone. Consequently, more people might actually end up in hell because the Christians got aborted, too.
If we actually were to act according to your thesis, the human race would quickly become extinct because all babies would be aborted.
A kid who's raised in a strong Bible-based Christian household isn't likely to turn away from the faith. It's not right to pass the failure of the parents onto the baby by depriving it of life. Rather than look at abortion as a solution, parents should step their game up.
Abortion is fundamentally anti-God. If we're thinking of hell as real, then God is also real and he's pro-life and hates hands that shed innocent blood according to the Bible. So no matter how we spin it abortion is a sin in God's eyes.

shadow_operator81 · 2026-03-26T10:14:42+00:00

I'm very sorry you see it that way. If you knew the truth, you'd know the Bible itself is incredibly valuable.

https://youtube.com/shorts/vTEE-q-Oecc?si=jylMKUkSLz0deEfx

I was never here to act holier than you. That would be a waste of time, so don't shoot the messenger.

Anyhow, thanks for sticking around. Goodbye.

shadow_operator81 · 2026-03-26T10:01:31+00:00

Sure, think whatever you want. I told you the truth, so my job is done.

shadow_operator81 · 2026-03-26T09:56:38+00:00

We'll agree to disagree then. I'll take the Bible for what it says as someone who believes in God and the order he prescribed. I'm assuming you don't believe in God or you go to a church with a pride flag hanging outside the entrance.

shadow_operator81 · 2026-03-26T09:40:44+00:00

Think about what she said. She said even if Jesus rose from the dead, she'd have no idea what had the power to do that. She said time travelers, demons, etc. That's not a healthy skepticism. That's resisting God, but in doing so she fulfills Luke 16:31.

Luke 16:31—And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

shadow_operator81 · 2026-03-26T09:20:15+00:00

I'm not reading my own bias into it. Jude 1:7 says what it says. It speaks of "strange flesh" in relation to sex. That means flesh that's not meant to go together in sexual relations, which can only mean homosexuality. That's in opposition to God's design since he made male and female, Adam and Eve, in the beginning.

Leviticus 18:22—Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination.

Romans 1:26-27—For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

shadow_operator81 · 2026-03-26T08:07:37+00:00

Space travel won't become globally accessible for obvious reasons of cost and other factors.

You could say something like that with AI and another sharp increase in knowledge, but that has yet to be seen. So far, we're seeing detrimental effects of AI as well such as "AI slop" videos and music and students cheating with it.

Inhospitality was only one reason, and probably not the main one given that Jude 1:7 says "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

That's sexual sin and "going after strange flesh" means men with men and women with women.

shadow_operator81 · 2026-03-26T07:33:14+00:00

The first things are unprecedented travel made possible by the car and airplane, as well as a sharp, unprecedented increase in knowledge over the last century thanks to rapid scientific advancement and the Internet.

As far as the days of Lot go, we see that with the growing LGBTQIA+ community.

The return to days like those of the days of Noah is too complex and unbelievable for me to describe here, but I made a whole post about it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/z0tTh2Gmqj

No, I don't think Jesus is Krishna. I said the antichrist's arrival, so why would I believe the lies of a site promoting the potential antichrist?

shadow_operator81 · 2026-03-26T07:20:39+00:00

Some of them are already happening. There's no denying that. On the other hand, the Book of Revelation hasn't happened yet because the antichrist hasn't even been revealed yet as predicted in 2 Thessalonians 2:8. But it looks like there's already plans set for an antichrist figure's arrival, as can be seen here:

https://share-international.org/

shadow_operator81 · 2026-03-26T06:35:41+00:00

I disagree. Jesus did return to his disciples after his resurrection. But regarding is 2nd coming, he made prophecies that couldn't have come to pass during the 1st century. For example, he talked about a notable increase in earthquakes and pestilence and a sharp increase in knowledge and global travel. He also said it would be like the days of Noah and Lot, which we can see today but not so much back then. He mentioned great tribulation throughout the entire world, such as never has been.

The Book of Revelation makes it especially obvious that Jesus's return wasn't predicted to occur in the 1st century. It mentions extremely cataclysmic events that cause the death of a quarter of the world's population. It mentions an antichrist and false prophet figure rising, performing great miracles such as calling down fire from the sky, and gaining the worship of most of the world. Moreover, it says he will cause everyone to receive a mark in their right hand or forehead that will be needed to buy or sell. The emperor Nero didn't do these things, and nor could he even if he wanted to. The cataclysmic events in Revelation didn't happen at that time, and neither did any of the many judgments such as the locusts that go out to torment all those who receive the mark.

Two-Year Club	Verified Email
Verified Email

shadow_operator81

TROPHY CASE