Is it God’s right to kill us whenever he sees fit?

[BreezeWood]

We all have sin

speak for yourself ... the religion of the Almighty - The Triuph of Good vs Evil - speaks differently than what you believe and try to convince others especially the innocent, your favorite victims.

It's not me but God who has said we all have sin and the wages of sin is death. Otherwise, the believers would not die. You're just making arguments up when the Bible has stated as such.

It states God punished humans with death for Adam's sin and punished Eve further by making childbirth painful. Of course, you don't believe it, but like I said you will after you die. This is further evidence of creation.

Why Is Human Childbirth So Painful?

.

It's not me but God who has said we all have sin and the wages of sin is death.

we all have sin ...


Noah was not a sinner and was capable of dying in purity as is the price for Admission to the Everlasting and is the basis and reaffirmation of the Religion of Antiquity, it is your 4th century version that goes to far - your signature:


Jesus answered, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.


is a forgery as many found throughout your 10000 pg. book, there are no confirmations by the primary participant for a reason, the spoken religion of Antiquity was never in question in the 1st century.

>>BW: Noah was not a sinner and was capable of dying in purity as is the price for Admission to the Everlasting and is the basis and reaffirmation of the Religion of Antiquity<<

See, you make up ridiculous lies to make an argument. It is reductio ad absurdum fallacy.

.

See, you make up ridiculous lies to make an argument. It is reductio ad absurdum fallacy.

really what lie ...

Noah was not a sinner and was capable of dying in purity as is the price for Admission to the Everlasting and is the basis and reaffirmation of the Religion of Antiquity, it is your 4th century version that goes to far -

you simply do not have an adequate response.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It is reductio ad absurdum fallacy.

That's not a fallacy, it is a method of argument. You shouldn't use terms, when you don't know what they mean. You embarrass yourself to do so.

Sez the person who uses ad hominem attacks and fallacies as argument. BW's posts are not even an argument, but blabber.

That's a nice bit of crybabying.

Nevertheless, you used the term incorrectly and clearly have no idea what it means.

Not I, but you who clearly has no idea of either fallacies. Can you even make an argument? Instead of assertions and innuendo.

This is one way you embarrass yourself. You make idiotic errors and say false. things. when you are corrected, you not only do not correct your own errors, you repeat them.

 

[james bond]

We all have sin

speak for yourself ... the religion of the Almighty - The Triuph of Good vs Evil - speaks differently than what you believe and try to convince others especially the innocent, your favorite victims.

It's not me but God who has said we all have sin and the wages of sin is death. Otherwise, the believers would not die. You're just making arguments up when the Bible has stated as such.

It states God punished humans with death for Adam's sin and punished Eve further by making childbirth painful. Of course, you don't believe it, but like I said you will after you die. This is further evidence of creation.

Why Is Human Childbirth So Painful?

.

It's not me but God who has said we all have sin and the wages of sin is death.

we all have sin ...


Noah was not a sinner and was capable of dying in purity as is the price for Admission to the Everlasting and is the basis and reaffirmation of the Religion of Antiquity, it is your 4th century version that goes to far - your signature:


Jesus answered, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.


is a forgery as many found throughout your 10000 pg. book, there are no confirmations by the primary participant for a reason, the spoken religion of Antiquity was never in question in the 1st century.

>>BW: Noah was not a sinner and was capable of dying in purity as is the price for Admission to the Everlasting and is the basis and reaffirmation of the Religion of Antiquity<<

See, you make up ridiculous lies to make an argument. It is reductio ad absurdum fallacy.

.

See, you make up ridiculous lies to make an argument. It is reductio ad absurdum fallacy.

really what lie ...

Noah was not a sinner and was capable of dying in purity as is the price for Admission to the Everlasting and is the basis and reaffirmation of the Religion of Antiquity, it is your 4th century version that goes to far -

you simply do not have an adequate response.

Why do I need to respond? I just pointed out your fallacies. Before that, I provided the logical and scientific argument.

 

[james bond]

It is reductio ad absurdum fallacy.

That's not a fallacy, it is a method of argument. You shouldn't use terms, when you don't know what they mean. You embarrass yourself to do so.

Sez the person who uses ad hominem attacks and fallacies as argument. BW's posts are not even an argument, but blabber.

That's a nice bit of crybabying.

Nevertheless, you used the term incorrectly and clearly have no idea what it means.

Not I, but you who clearly has no idea of either fallacies. Can you even make an argument? Instead of assertions and innuendo.

This is one way you embarrass yourself. You make idiotic errors and say false. things. when you are corrected, you not only do not correct your own errors, you repeat them.

More ad hominem fallacious statements. Can you make one single worthwhile argument? No. I didn't think so.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

More ad hominem fallacious statements.

Huh? You're doing it again... that was not ad hominem, as it was a direct criticism of your methods. Nor was it "fallacious", nor could you even attempt to explain why it was, if your life depended on it.

I would call you a pseudo-intellectual... but you're not that smart...

 

[BreezeWood]

.

Why do I need to respond? I just pointed out your fallacies. Before that, I provided the logical and scientific argument.

Why do I need to respond ...


you do respond, just without any content to refute the claims made - your signature is a forgery - the Religion of Antiquity, Noah refutes your 4th century 10k pg political agenda disguised as a religion - there is no scientific evidence you as refer to - the innocent:

are your religions primary targets - being sinners was never a subject matter of the 1st century ... disguise for yourself your responses you give all you want as recorded history alone is enough to prove the illegitimacy of 4th century christianity, a proven religion of evil.

 

[Unification]

Is it God’s right to kill us whenever he sees fit?

“And taking life whenever He sees fit, however He sees fit, which is absolutely His right.”

http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/do-you-think-it-odd-that-your-god-never-acknowledges-you-is-that-rude.698104/page-17#post-20430365

SweetSue92 gave me this reply but I have hear many Christians echo this thinking which basically says that the law maker does not need to follow the law he dictates for the rest of us. I paraphrase, do as I say and not as I do.

This was in response to our chatting about the many times, as in the genocide of Noah’s day, the murder of Egypt’s first born and the 6 day torture of King David’s baby, all because God was angry with the parents. God kills us when he could just as easily cure us and picks the innocent to kill instead of the guilty.

Is do as I say and not as I do moral or immoral thinking?

Regards
DL

Well, given that nature apparently takes life whenever it sees fit, whether via disasters such as earthquakes, tornados, natural causes such as old age and illness, etc.

Then why should anyone "care about their planet" when it's clear their planet doesn't care about them?

If global warming destroyed the world, for example, then maybe that would just be human's way of getting revenge on nature for how much harm it's callously enacted on them, he he

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Then why should anyone "care about their planet" when it's clear their planet doesn't care about them?

Because...humans have the abity to understand physical events and plan for the future, while the third stone from the sun does not....?

 

[Unification]

Then why should anyone "care about their planet" when it's clear their planet doesn't care about them?

Because...humans have the abity to understand physical events and plan for the future, while the third stone from the sun does not....?

It is nonetheless irrational to care about the planet and "nature", given the planet cares not for humans, and has killed more people than any mythical god has.

Which is why said arguments about "God" are equally absurd, to claiming that nature is "evil" for containing the existence of death or natural calamities such as earthquakes.