28
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 92:
Line 92: + + + + + + + + + +
Breach of commandments?
:: Yes, I meant that he has not clearly stated his existence so to result obviously present to us. I think we should write of his choice not to ever been proven [[User:Dandus|Dandus]] 11:53, 25 January 2008 (EST)
:: Yes, I meant that he has not clearly stated his existence so to result obviously present to us. I think we should write of his choice not to ever been proven [[User:Dandus|Dandus]] 11:53, 25 January 2008 (EST)
::: I believe that He has made His existence quite clear, but my point was that because some people won't believe no matter how clear He makes existence known, so there's no point is saying that He could have made it clearer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:08, 26 January 2008 (EST)
::: I believe that He has made His existence quite clear, but my point was that because some people won't believe no matter how clear He makes existence known, so there's no point is saying that He could have made it clearer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:08, 26 January 2008 (EST)
== Breach of commandments? ==
"Everything you post must be true and verifiable."
I don't know how any of the article as is follows this rule. The most flagrant violation being
"God exercises eternal and righteous judgment of the wicked in hell, because of an inherent problem in the human heart, namely Sin."
How is this even remotely verifiable?