SecondSon vs sonship

Or should it be sonship vs SecondSon?

Either way no such conflict exist that would make you and I adversarial. Naturally though there are undoubtedly areas of opinion and belief where you and I will disagree.

There have been a few cases in the past in this public forum.

But, it appears that there is one individual in particular, that considers himself to be one of the most, if not the most, prolific posters in this forum that has suggested I'm a coward for not confronting you over an assertion made by you and certain others. Quote, "This assertion regarding the supposed motivation of non-believers - for their non-belief - is aimed at non-believers all the time. sonship uses it frequently. KellyJay did too. FreakyKBH did. Romans1009. dj2becker. And others."

"Anger towards God", as asserted by the above named posters, seems to be a point of contention with the author of the thread from which the above quote was taken.

Here's the accusation,

"It's clearly either intended for fellow believers, like a kind of for-the-choir virtue signalling about one's supposed rhetorical pugnacity, regardless of its credibility, or ~ if it's really said in earnest ~ it's simply a non-sequitur".

Whatever. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

So, let me see if I can parse this matter of "anger towards God" out to my own satisfaction.

Does the non-believer harbor anger towards God? First of all what does it mean to be a non-believer? Can one know God exists yet chooses not to believe God? I think yes.

Can one that believes God does not exist be angry towards God? Seems the answer is no, since being angry towards God when one knows God doesn't exist would indicate a severely conflicted conscience. I would not like to be in that place.

Then there's another view. The Bible teaches that man has an innate knowledge of his creator, and that creation itself bears witness to the existence of God. If that is true, then the one that denies the existence of God, but knows innately God exists, deceives himself, and in that scenario can have anger towards God.

On the other hand, a non-believer can simply be indifferent towards God altogether, and channel his anger towards believers for being deluded, and assume people of faith are the root cause of all wars, etc. (There's ample evidence for that scenario.)

Then there's the vast majority of the human race that is completely unaware of this argument altogether, and go about their daily lives without a second thought relative to the existence of God or any knowledge about Him one way or the other.

So, since I believed I have found no occasion to be angry towards God, but instead towards myself and others. I'm still working on that.

But when I was a young boy, before I knew God, I remember clearly being angry towards God. I blamed God for all the evil in the world. I cursed Him.

Well, then I grew up.

Now, no matter what direction this thread goes in I will not accept challenges to my rationale.

We will all stand and give an account of ourselves, whether we loved God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength, or whether we hated Him or were merely indifferent or ever even had a single thought about Him.

I ain't answering for anyone but myself.

@SecondSon

You still “dropping in” and leaving, or is this post something worth reading?

@secondson said
The Bible teaches that man has an innate knowledge of his creator, and that creation itself bears witness to the existence of God. If that is true, then the one that denies the existence of God, but knows innately God exists, deceives himself, and in that scenario can have anger towards God.

@secondson said
it appears that there is one individual in particular, that considers himself to be one of the most, if not the most, prolific posters in this forum that has suggested I'm a coward for not confronting you over an assertion made by you and certain others.

@divegeester said
@SecondSon

You still “dropping in” and leaving, or is this post something worth reading?

@fmf said
This kind of convoluted Lewis Carroll type nonsense is clearly either [1] intended for fellow believers, like a kind of for-the-choir virtue signalling about one's supposed rhetorical pugnacity, regardless of its credibility, or [2] if it's really said in earnest ~ it's simply a non-sequitur.

@fmf said
The clearest example of your cowardice was displayed repeatedly on threads where sonship was explicitly and unswervingly explaining - what I refer to as - his "torturer God ideology" [non-believers being vengefully tortured in burning flames for eternity] and you would studiously NOT address him directly about it, but would instead tell ME the ideology was nonsense and ask ME to back the ideology up with scripture, even on threads where sonship was doing exactly that.

@secondson said
For you it's not worth reading.

You and FMF are providing way too much entertainment for me to leave just yet.

SecondSon verses sonship ?

Its been awhile since we played chess.
I'll see you on the chessboard SecondSon.

@secondson said
If it makes you feel brave to call me a coward, then by all means say whatever it takes for you to build confidence and be a man.

@secondson said
If it makes you feel brave to call me a coward, then by all means say whatever it takes for you to build confidence and be a man.

@divegeester said
Yeah I thought your claims just piss and wind as usual

@fmf said
I'm just calling a spade a spade.

@secondson said
Who cares what you think?

@divegeester said
No, FMF has you bang to rights on this, you wouldn’t address sonship directly. Sonship now wants to “take it offline’ as they say in the worst corporate meetings.