@kellyjay saidI started this thread because of your deceit on that other thread. Now I know that you have read this OP, I will call you out for the same deceit every time it comes up again, as surely it will. You cannot pretend you haven't read the OP
No, I'm telling you what I see when I read what you write. I have taken your words to
mean exactly what you have said, and you don't like my interpretation of your
change of mind concerning Jesus Christ. You have also said you once held the same
views as I do now, which is that Jesus Christ is the Word of God. He calls us, we
receive Him, and He comes into our lives lite ...[text shortened]... e on my part, and it is the only way what you have
said can be interpreted as far as I'm concerned.
@kellyjay saidI know that you think this.
I call your Christianity false because of your convoluted description of yourself now
as you deny the faith, which means that it is not true now for you, and back then, it
was only an opinion that you later acknowledged as false.
But it's not relevant to this thread.
@kellyjay saidyour convoluted description of yourself now
No, I'm telling you what I see when I read what you write. I have taken your words to
mean exactly what you have said, and you don't like my interpretation of your
change of mind concerning Jesus Christ. You have also said you once held the same
views as I do now, which is that Jesus Christ is the Word of God. He calls us, we
receive Him, and He comes into our lives lite ...[text shortened]... e on my part, and it is the only way what you have
said can be interpreted as far as I'm concerned.
It isn't "convoluted". It's really straightforward.
@fmf saidI'm not going to waste my time playing word games with you.
What is the point you think you've made or question you think you've posed? As far as I can see, you have not comprehended the OP. If you have something that I need to address, out with it
I replied to your OP. You all but ignored it, and diverged into deflection and subtlety of innuendo.
You abuse this forum.
@josephw saidYou posted this:
I replied to your OP. You all but ignored it, and diverged into deflection and subtlety of innuendo.
If, for you, "the extraordinary nature of the universe and human consciousness" "is the best evidence", then why can't you find, or see, its reflection in the reality of this world? You admit there is evidence. Extraordinary evidence. Surely it must manifest itself in reality somehow? I'm trying to cut through your way of thinking > you say you think the best evidence is extraordinary in support of the existence of God, yet you see no manifestation of the acts or actions of God on creation. Is that a good summary of how you're thinking?
I did reply to it; I did not ignore what you said. Is there some further point you wish to make?
@fmf saidOK
I am an agnostic atheist ~ and perhaps even a borderline deist [indeed, I have started several threads about it] ~ who has an open mind about the existence of a creator entity based on the extraordinary nature of the universe and human consciousness ~ and who, unlike adherents to "revealed" religions, does not find any credible reason to believe that such a creator entity has communicated with us.
1 edit
@fmf saidBy not allowing for whatever changes might occur in a man after the death of a child, you have shown yourself to be an inconsiderate imbecile and an overgrown teenager.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
By pretending that it's a stance that's too difficult for you to understand, you are demeaning yourself, KellyJay.
Edit: It was inconsiderate of me to write such a thing. It's possible that many fathers (possibly including you) do have lifelong concerns about the conditions and fates of their children.