If all things are possible with God, doesn't that mean God could make himself edible if He wants? Isn't that a compliment, then?
2007-10-05 06:53:55
·
answer #1
·
answered by Doc Occam 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
whilst God created guy and lady, He endowed them with the will potential to compliment/pick what's stable and undesirable (character)). It became no longer needed for God to intervene with the alternative-making potential of guy/lady each and every 2d of their lives previous that. God might relatively see their characters bloom as they progression for the duration of the try of life which God became waiting to bless abundantly for their faithfulness. God had warned Adam already with regards to the threat of disobedience in ingesting the fruit. The onus became on Adam to deseminate the warning or information to Eve. the guy entrusted with the job to tell failed. subsequently, the lady fell into temptation.
2016-10-10 08:58:54
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
it was me that ate the flying spaghetti monster and posted the question. all the answers were amusing including yours !! I did not report any body though so I hope you are not blaming me. please keep coming here in your quest to find God. do not ever stop your search for God until you are a FORMER atheist like me. and to answer NO your answer was NOT violation worthy so like i said i did not report it. please remember that ANYBODY that reads the question can abuse the red button.
P.S. the fsm needed more oregano !!!!
just in fun
ttyl
2007-10-05 08:55:23
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Well it is strange as Christians are well know for eating their own god. I'd appeal the notice and include the link to the original question.
Perhaps it's good that the question remains as it shows what type of person he is.
2007-10-05 06:56:10
·
answer #4
·
answered by Pirate AM™ 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Meh, these Violation Notices are sent out on a whim. Don't worry about it. My advice is to create and use multiple accounts. That way, you don't have to worry when they shut one account down. Also, you get past that stupid 20 question per day quota.
2007-10-05 06:53:11
·
answer #5
·
answered by Madame Morticia 2
·
2⤊
1⤋
I think it's ok to say you ate someone else's god only if you actually did eat their god. Otherwise, you would be making stuff up and expecting others to believe you even though you can't show it to them because it's been eaten. ;-)
2007-10-05 06:59:10
·
answer #6
·
answered by Fu Quan 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
Are you mentally ill? Next, what are you talking about.\? I know of no religion that has a god they worship that is edible.
General criticism of members who practice their choice of religious philosophy is simply rude. If their religion is one which encourages general moral behavior, then what is the problem with that. Religions which encourage and promote dishonor, rejection, and violence against people of other color, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and other religious beliefs are not acceptable to me. My choice is to just not associate with those who participate in these practices.
2007-10-05 07:05:50
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
I find this ritual to be the craziest idea ever. I don't care that Jesus said," this is my body, given for you." It doesn't mean we should imagine we are to eat him, it means we are to share with others our bread, as his teachings are parables, not literal. This literal interpetation is just another one of the Churches errors.
2007-10-05 12:14:23
·
answer #8
·
answered by Marcus R. 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Well maybe the reason his question is valid and your response was a violation is because God is someone real (to us) who we worship, and spaghetti is a dinner entrée.
2007-10-05 07:27:40
·
answer #9
·
answered by kaz716 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
it's not a violation, theophagy is a very respectable and traditional method of worship.
2007-10-05 08:44:09
·
answer #10
·
answered by joe the man 7
·
1⤊
0⤋