Jesus is King of Kings yet happens to be the most inept leader that's ever been conceived. Most of the people he supposedly rules over don't even believe he exists, let alone recognize his authority. Some king.

By that definition, I'm omnipotent. By that definition, my water bottle is omnipotent. It's incoherent for a water bottle to make potato salad, therefore the water bottle does not have the ability to do that. My water bottle does have the ability to hold water though. This fits your definition. Omnipotence has become impotent, just as I predicted.

He's NOT punished for having sex before marriage. He's punished for taking a woman's virginity without her father's permission. The verse specified an unmarried man, not a virgin man. You're either dishonest or genuinely lack reading comprehension.

Daniel once again shows that he is confused as to what a moral obligation is. First off... P1 is redundant. You're basically saying "if we have moral obligations, then we have moral obligations". But what IS a moral obligation? A moral obligation is something we have a reason to do, all things considered. This is true in virtue of the fact that if we have no reason to do X, we couldn't possibly be obligated to do X. Moral obligations trump all other obligations. It's simply what you have most reason to do. Beings have authority only insofar as they give others a reason to act. If I have no reason to obey Yahweh, how could I possibly be obligated to obey him? If literally no one cared about what Yahweh wanted, in what way could you substantively say that he has authority over us?

If I want to be extra safe, I would believe in Islam and Judaism and Christianity and Mormonism and Hinduism simultaneously. Intelligent people manage risk 😏

Even if we granted there’s a moral law within Christianity, why on earth would we expect to accurately have knowledge of it within an Christian worldview? Truly bizarre. Skeptical Theism is all you've got.

See here's the thing. I think that if I genuinely deserve hell then it would be unjust for me to not go to hell. It would also be unjust for you to not go to hell if you also deserve hell... If your God is perfectly just and we both deserve hell then I'll see you in hell Daniel.

Christians: "I'm justified in believing God exists because I have faith!" Also Christians: "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist!" You're faith to justify your own beliefs while simultaneously using it to discredit someone else's.

Atheism makes one single conclusion... and if you had any functioning braincells you'd know that the conclusion is not "there is nothing morally wrong with hypocrisy".

Saying: Fully human AND Fully God ≠ Fully human Is like saying: A square that's both a rectangle and a rhombus isn't a rectangle. P2 of my argument "Jesus was fully human" explicitly DOESN'T say "Jesus was ONLY a human". You're rejecting a premise that wasn't even in my argument, because my argument doesn't require Jesus to be exclusively a human. How are you not understanding something this simple? By rejecting P2 of my argument you've conceded that the premise "Jesus was fully human" is false. The law of Identity states that A=A and nowhere have I broken that law in my logic.