Would Ernie Chambers, the man who sued God, have had more luck if God actually existed?
Lacks capacity to sue, yet, ‘miseo’ is written regarding mystery miseries that sometimes; God forbid; are evident among our species. Not excluding the consumption of other animals in general. The under the Command was Agapao which is we have a sharp division concerning something; yet love was maintained such as the glory of the Martyr as the victory, yet, what are the multitude of sacrifices to Me if I Desired them I would have asked. For all things belong to Me who divides properly among the elect and woe to those who counsel Me in what I should Do With My children for they were purchased at a Great Price and He foresaw that it was Pearls and hid them in sleep/places and bought that land. We all have fallen short of glory due to sin is the wages due sin, make peace on the way to win over ones neighbors so that one may enter eternal places with debts less for I Desire Mercy triumph over decisions is Gospel. For is not glory to be eternal?
This god character hasn’t exactly been the most law-abiding bloke ever, darling, at least not according to the stories about him, so I doubt he’d have showed up for the trial…even if he existed. If he’s omniscient, he would have known about the court action, and if he had any respect for the law, he’d have answered it. The fact that no defendant appeared could mean that there are multiple gods and they couldn’t figure out which one was cited, or it could mean that the god referenced in the suit is not omniscient or not powerful enough to respond, or that he’s a scofflaw, or that he’s non-existent. I think Occam’s Razor applies here… The “Christian” answers to this question were very, very interesting.
