It wasn't until the 30s when they became really hostile to the outside world

Japan is a weird one. China is as well.

Yep

Like an upside down backwards parallel world

https://youtu.be/ZBELgO3MVY4

Rev up those crosses

Meh it's stil going to go bac k adn forth, rep to dem

the fact hillary is starting to go to rallies (outside her breathing treatmetns) is proof

If Hillary loses 2 times in a row to Trump she is finished

Better off waiting till 2024

This is why I don't take Atheist pages seriously.

Nowhere, in the passage, does it indicate that God was "confused." What is indicated in the passage is that God heard that some crazy shit was going down in Sodom and Gomorrah and, just to make sure things were, indeed, correct, he went down there to see for himself.

Basically, it's kind of like hearing about a pretty nasty car accident on a nearby interstate. So, you're curious to see if the story is actually completely true and you check to see what was going on. That, in no way, indicates "confusion," but rather curiosity and the need for confirmation.

atheist republic is a page for cucks

if they actually understood anything about God, they would know you cannot actually apply human-like characteristics to God -- they are merely a tool to help *us* understand Him

Also, Atheists are clearly leftists because they don't know how to meme.

Honestly, this is one arguing point I have come to hate because it is based entirely on feelings and ignorance than actually thinking about the issue in question and the issues an omnipotent god would face.

It isn't about whether the immediate action, itself, should be stopped, but rather the totality of the possible effects that would be altered by simply changing one event, which fundamentally results in the question becoming one of such complexity that no human could answer it without the answer being based on pure ignorance.

Stopping the action could actually be more detrimental than letting the action occur because the action, in question, could end up resulting in two radically different timelines that could both result in either a net positive or a net negative change. If you were a god and you had the omnipotence that a god has, then the decision would be much clearer because you would know every single result of the action down to the tiniest detail. In such a case, it depends on what results in a net positive overall if you are a benevolent god.

If God existed, he would be so gay

you're gay, manthot

I needed that meme.

For that Sodom one if God is omniscient why did he not already know about it or that they were telling the truth?

For the rapist one thats just stupid. God doesnt make anyone do anything just observes. Free choice and all that.

But that sodom one really makes it sound like god was an advanced life form or Demiurge rather than an omnipotent omniscient being

it probably is written in a way to invoke the seriousness of the situation in Sodom, rather than to accurately describe God's reaction to it

It breaks omniscience on 3 levels. 1 God had to be told, 2 God didnt simply know and 3 God needed to go there.

On top of that why would you lie about your Gods reactions to something? Its one thing to lie but to me it seems like quite another to misattribute actions to your God whose core tenets is to be truthful in their holy scripture.

This brings up 2 problems. God is not omniscient and the book is factual or that the writers took liberty and wrote in a way that would inspire awe. This means that God either isnt truely god like or the nature of God is uncertain because the book is untruthful.

why would you *know* God's immediate reaction

God's nature is incomprehensible

a book, no matter how insightful, isn't going to be able to accurately portray that

the Bible is a book written by humans for humans

God is omniscient, but, as it is a concept founded in something as abstract as knowing all things at all times, you're not going to get a truly accurate representation of that

Then the book forsakes the commandments put forth by their God about bearing fasle witness and cannot be trusted.

This would mean that the nature of God, to include its very existence, is uncertain even when referencing the very book written to exalt it.

I'm not saying they knew the immediate action but if God was all powerful none of those actions would have happened. Furthermore if NONE of those actions happened its a book of lies and brings the whole religion into question.

That the source calls God all powerful is untrustworthy, untruthful, immediately brings accounts of other things into doubt. Things like there being a heaven or hell could be grossly untrue and things like Jesus' miracles could be exaggerated or never happened.

1. Omniscience does not imply just because God knows everything He acts on it beforehand. Do not try to act like you can understand God's motives or logic.
2. There is a fundamental difference between "bearing false witness" and drawing parallels to humanlike emotions, actions, and things that can be understood more easily by humans to the incomprehensible nature of God. As I have said prior, you cannot put what is infinite into a finite container. You cannot fully encapsulate or acknowledge what is infinite, because our understanding of all things is limited. You can not describe the true nature of God, but you can help to understand some, limited version of Him through applying relatable things, such as human emotions (i.e. God is angry), or physical features (God's Hand) -- because that helps us, as humans, understand Him better, even though we can never truly begin to understand His TRUE nature. That is not "bearing false witness".

Under the pretense of God's omnipotence, He cannot exist within the confines of Creation -- within the limitations of the Universe. To be the creator of all things, He has to exist outside of space and time.

You are looking at this far too rigidly and must look at it from a non-black and white point of view. It is not something simple that is "either, or" -- it is something more complex than that.

now i am going to sleep soon

1. It does mean that he would know when it did happen, that if people knew about it he would to, and that he would not need to travel to see if it was true and to what degree.