Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
reply
Line 12: Line 12:  
The argument "God could have destroyed us but he didn't so we should love him" is like saying "My husband could have beaten me but he doesn't so I should love him"  
 
The argument "God could have destroyed us but he didn't so we should love him" is like saying "My husband could have beaten me but he doesn't so I should love him"  
 
In other words, your love for god is based on threats that he may destroy you.
 
In other words, your love for god is based on threats that he may destroy you.
And the statement made by FranK confirms why Creationism is not scientific.
+
And the statement made by FranK confirms why Creationism is not scientific. {{unsigned|YesisLol}}
 +
:Wrong, your argument is baseless. God, didn't destroy us but could have IS NOT love him or fear him. It is God loves, in the natural order of the world, you love somebody when they love you back. It is a bond of love, a reciprocating love. Unless an atheist, then you just love yourself and your supposed brilliant mind. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:32, 19 May 2009 (EDT)
Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
20,682

edits

Navigation menu