Edit History

10 hours ago, FullBusinessSuit said:

I think what you mean to say is that God exists whether one chooses to believe in him or not, and not believing doesn't absolve you from consequences for obeying or disobeying him.

 

The rest of your comment seems like garbled contemporary political propaganda, and I don't know how to respond to that.

I can decide what I mean for myself, thanks, I don't need petulant children to do it for me. Even if you did, God thinks you're wrong. She thinks there's zero consequences for not believing in her.

I know this because she told me in a dream once. How is that reason any less valid than your angry whining? How do you know the things you think you know, and if it just takes the blind dogma that you're peddling to get there, why are you pretending to ask for people's "reasons" for anything?

10 hours ago, FullBusinessSuit said:

I think what you mean to say is that God exists whether one chooses to believe in him or not, and not believing doesn't absolve you from consequences for obeying or disobeying him.

 

The rest of your comment seems like garbled contemporary political propaganda, and I don't know how to respond to that.

Actually, God thinks you're wrong. She thinks there's zero consequences for not believing in her.

I know because she told me in a dream once. How is that reason any less valid than your angry whining?

10 hours ago, FullBusinessSuit said:

I think what you mean to say is that God exists whether one chooses to believe in him or not, and not believing doesn't absolve you from consequences for obeying or disobeying him.

 

The rest of your comment seems like garbled contemporary political propaganda, and I don't know how to respond to that.

Actually, God thinks you're wrong. She thinks there's zero consequences for not believing in her.

I know because she told me in a dream once. How is that any less valid than your angry whining?