12 Apr 20
@dj2becker saidWhy did you post a reply to me on this thread using an account called mariekeXIV?
If you believe that the account belongs to me personally and has been used by me illegally by all means report it to the administrators.
12 Apr 20
@dj2becker saidWhat "legal" use of the mariekeXIV ~ an account used to make just 2 chess moves a decade ago - were you making when you used it to post a message replying to me on page 7?
If you believe that the account belongs to me personally and has been used by me illegally by all means report it to the administrators.
@dj2becker saidBut I explained my use of John W. Booth ten or eleven years ago when that occurred and even apologized publically and also to Russ, the website owner at the time. So what's your explanation for using mariekeXIV to reply to me on this thread?
It’s really fascinating that you continue to pursue this with your history as a multiple account holder.
13 Apr 20
@dj2becker saidHow do you explain your history as a multiple account holder?
It’s really fascinating that you continue to pursue this with your history as a multiple account holder.
13 Apr 20
@kellyjay said"And that's just what we do find inside us.”
“If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe -no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house. The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside us as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. And that's just what we do find inside us.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Case for Christianity
Unbeknownst to the unbeliever.
But the universe(creation) is evidence for a creator. "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" Romans 1:19,20
Unbelievers are in denial of the reality of the existence of God, to the extent, and as a result of their own willful denial of the obvious, "because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God"(Romans 1:21), that "God gave them over to a reprobate mind"(Romans 1:28).
Nothing more can be expected out of the unbeliever.
13 Apr 20
@secondson saidIf the existence of the particular God figure that you depict and worship were, as you claim, "obvious", then I would believe in it too.
Unbelievers are in denial of the reality of the existence of God, to the extent, and as a result of their own willful denial of the obvious, "because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God"(Romans 1:21), that "God gave them over to a reprobate mind"(Romans 1:28).
13 Apr 20
@secondson saidYes, this may be so. But it doesn't necessarily follow that this creator being has revealed himself to humanity in the ways Jews and Christians and Muslims [and adherents to other religions] claim.
But the universe(creation) is evidence for a creator.
13 Apr 20
1 edit
@secondson saidThe use of the word "unbeknownst" is just wordplay and typical C.S.Lewis prattle.
"And that's just what we do find inside us.”Unbeknownst to the unbeliever.
Unbelievers simply don't believe it. The "influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way", as you well know ~ or perhaps it is unbeknownst to you despite there having been umpteen discussions about it ~ does not have to have a supernatural explanation. There are competing beliefs.
The word "know" in conjunction with subjective assertions based on beliefs regarding supernatural things is the stuff of singing to the choir, pure and simple.
13 Apr 20
@fmf saidObviously that's not true.
If the existence of the particular God figure that you depict and worship were, as you claim, "obvious", then I would believe in it too.
What is true is that you choose not to believe in the face of the obvious.
All that exists is irrefutable evidence that there is a creator.
Your "particular God figure" depiction is irrelevant to that point.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121464
13 Apr 20
@secondson saidIf having The existence of God was “obvious” why does if require a supernatural intervention for man to believe in him?
Obviously that's not true.
What is true is that you choose not to believe in the face of the obvious.
All that exists is irrefutable evidence that there is a creator.
Your "particular God figure" depiction is irrelevant to that point.
John 6:44
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.”
13 Apr 20
@fmf saidWhat may or may not "follow" as a result of the acknowledgment of there being a creator as evidenced in and by creation is beyond the point of my post above, and therefore irrelevant.
Yes, this may be so. But it doesn't necessarily follow that this creator being has revealed himself to humanity in the ways Jews and Christians and Muslims [and adherents to other religions] claim.
13 Apr 20
@fmf saidThe fact that you need to take three posts to answer one is a demonstration of an impudent and shrill personality. Especially since you feel the need to introduce irrelevancies that obviously reveal your disdain for what others hold sacred.
The use of the word "unbeknownst" is just wordplay and typical C.S.Lewis prattle.
Unbelievers simply don't believe it. The "influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way", as you well know ~ or perhaps it is unbeknownst to you despite there having been umpteen discussions about it ~ does not have to have a supernatural explanation. There are competing bel ...[text shortened]... ased on beliefs regarding supernatural things is the stuff of singing to the choir, pure and simple.
"Particular God figure" is FMF prattle.
13 Apr 20
@secondson saidOnce again, if it were obvious, then I would see it and believe it too.
Obviously that's not true.
What is true is that you choose not to believe in the face of the obvious.
All that exists is irrefutable evidence that there is a creator.
Your "particular God figure" depiction is irrelevant to that point.