What do you believe and why do you believe it?

You're playing mind games with us and fooling yourself with complex logical operations. The truth is simple but you would never accept a simple solution. You go the long way because you're so sober and wise! The more you search the farther you move from God, because His Words are near the heart, and a healthy conscience testifies to their truth. The murderer's blood stains testify - even through the devil Christ is revealed! If God was not God, then who does the devil resist? When I was an atheist I was also far from God as you are, but the influence of the devil on this world couldn't be hidden, it stinks too much to go unnoticed. I am saying this for your sake.

I agree. I do not believe in one understanding of substitutional atonement.
Imagine this, I say I love you. I say I really love you. And you say, yer, prove it.

So God says He is love. He says we cannot face Him, or we will die. The only way is to find Him, and learn
a walk that will finally lead us back to Him. It is complex and difficult, but possible, and God says it is worth
it.

Sacrifice and blood is about the cost of rebellion and its consequences, death. Jesus could only show it ultimately
by letting sinful men kill Him, even though they knew He stood for love, and nothing else, totally innocent yet worthy
of death, and even possibly God the creator Himself. Do you understand how mind blowing this is? On any level we
must be in a very bad place for the Lord to have to do this to give us any chance at all.

Jesus said seeing Him doing this is our healing, it is love that changes us, makes us something different, empowers us
into eternity, into His Kingdom, into the impossible, into Holiness, purity, righteousness. So odd, so unexpected and so
powerful. So profound, to just grasp this, men died, rejoicing in His name. Love unbroken, unbowed, unstoppable, the
power of heaven, yet the ways of man oppose and want to destroy it. God made man.

Could God communicate this to us another way? I do not think so, because it had to be a society built outside
His authority, where every alternative could be taken, but if love has been planted and and taken root, then those
people will hear and come, come not just here on earth but into eternity. And those few are worth everything else,
which in eternity are a blink. And this book, the bible, a theme of thousands of people yet one thread, love and
righteousness, truth and humbleness, power shown in behaving appropriately. That is a God who I love, Amen

Yes we do see a lot this, I would agree.

I like this contradiction, thanks for bringing it out.
Matthew and luke are relying on memories of people about incidents years before.
To them eight days or six days are the same thing. No one was counting the time as it went by.
Knowing it was about a week, not a month or a day, the time is pitched.
The real story is Jesus went with 3 disciples and was changed. That is what was stunning to them, the
exact time almost irrelevant. Now this part of the story is the Kingdom of God coming to earth.
Moses and Elijah appear and talk with Jesus. God the Father speaks and says

"This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him" matt 17:5

Now that is a wow moment. They were blown away by it, it was small in time, yet Jesus says this
was a foundational point in history. Many believers do not even recognise how significant this time
was. Praise the Lord for His grace, Amen.

"Rapid period of evolution"....what?

Let me help you; ......what is significant about the report is that all of a sudden evidence of ....state of existence..... became apparent...not over a long period of time as evolution would exhibit...by progressive changes.

This renders the concept of evolution to the dung heap.

"Christian God did it ?". What other alternative are you now introducing to the discussion?

"...."that a deity exists"? This is a spin. If no progress with one thought spin the discussion into another direction. Doesn't work that way. Stay on topic.

I believe you nailed it.

Criterion must be validated
If it has not been validated it is not useful

That's to be expected. No one can be convinced of the existence of God if he is wilfully blind. However, the person who wants to see the hand of God simply has to look at Nature closely and carefully, and all that exists around us. And that is why the Bible says that no one has a excuse of not believing in God.

Define "well being"

That will be your subjective definition

There is no way around that, but if you can demonstrate it..... I am listening.

Please provide a rational compelling reason for you to be ethical and what is your point of reference?

What is your basis for saying you are "doing OK"? Do you have an objective provable position? Or is this too based on your starting point of thinking and logic?

Ha Ha Ha!

Dude! You are NOT doing ok! As for the "only atheist on this thread" You DO realize this IS a Christian site? You came here of your own accord.

Drop me in the middle of an atheist website, and then after trying to deal with TRUE hatred, insults, and probable expulsion, I would do 100 times better than you are here! Or at least THINK I was. But likely wouldn't make any headway.

And yet you have received virtually NO animosity, NO hatred, only sincere desires for you to be saved.

Instead of just throwing more rhetoric back at me, why don't you just answer my point! I never said "something comes from nothing" -- I was asking where does your starting point of "thinking and logic" come from?

Are you trying to say you believe that "thinking and logic" came out of nowhere and just appeared as the starting point for all reality?

And before you try to say I believe that "something came from nothing" - I will assure you that is not what I believe . . . I believe this:
My God has always been
All creation has its source from Him and His Word

Of course you do not have to agree: I am fine with that - but I am not ashamed to give my source and my starting point.

okay … so they weren't going to Capernaum as you stated.

And, again, an apparent contradiction is easily rectified once you read what is written in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Hopefully, you will see there is no inconsistency in the record.

Both Matthew (17:1) and Mark (9:2) state after six days Jesus went up to the mountain with Peter, James and John.

Luke 9:28 states about eight days after Jesus went up to the mountain with Peter, James and John.


So both Matthew and Mark are consistent in claiming it was six days later.

Luke is not as emphatic in his reckoning of time and claimed it was approximately eight days later.


There is no inconsistency or contradiction. There is an approximation of time in Luke … so give or take a couple of days. I could understand your confusion if Luke had indicated some greater period of time … a month or more. But a couple of days? Appears you're straining at a gnat in your effort to use these records as a reason to not trust Scripture.

Some commentaries indicate that Luke includes portions of days that are excluded by Matthew and Mark (i.e. that Luke includes the days in which Jesus stated what He said in Luke 9:23-27 and the day Jesus took Peter, James and John up to the mountain whereas Matthew and Mark counted only the 6 days between).

Spectrox said:

reneweddaybyday said:

Why do you believe I am not trusting "the correct ideology/conception of God"?

Click to expand...

That's a shifting of the burden of proof. I am not making a positive claim about what is the correct conception of God because I don't know. You, however, are making a positive claim.

Click to expand...

Post #166

What I believe is simple. I believe in faith. I believe in putting that faith to work by following the teachings of Christ and the commandments of God. You speak of things you saw in the Bible and heard in the church and read in the Bible. Since you don't mention the things that you read that led you to your conclusions, I'll simply say that the churches are full of misnomers and that's why we should have faith in God and not a church and should follow the teachings of Christ and not a church!

Prove it.

Quote "About 8 days"... and Quote "after 6 days"... sounds like anything after 6 days could be about 8 days?? Did I miss something? Basic math?

PSALMS 119
98 Your commands make me wiser than my enemies,
for they are my constant guide.
99 Yes, I have more insight than my teachers,
for I am always thinking of your laws.
100 I am even wiser than my elders,
for I have kept your commandments.
101 I have refused to walk on any evil path,
so that I may remain obedient to your word.
102 I haven’t turned away from your regulations,
for you have taught me well.
103 How sweet your words taste to me;
they are sweeter than honey.
104 Your commandments give me understanding;
no wonder I hate every false way of life.

TITUS 3
9 Do not get involved in foolish discussions about spiritual pedigrees or in quarrels and fights about obedience to Jewish laws. These things are useless and a waste of time. 10 If people are causing divisions among you, give a first and second warning. After that, have nothing more to do with them. 11 For people like that have turned away from the truth, and their own sins condemn them.

..And on that note. The Word of God is the final Authority. Theres absolutely no use discussing with someone hell bent on refusing the Truth. We have all tried our best to steer him in the right direction.

"You can lead a horse to water, but you cant make him drink." - Russell Bertrand (or whoever. Whatever.)

The truth is God is next door, patient and waiting. If you listen and follow you will learn. If not you will stay as you are convinced you are right.
Many here in there faith are equally isolated. We choose life or our position, it is on us, God bless you

I could say exactly the same thing about God or the God you believe in. Where does that get us? You are just invoking a mystery to appeal to another mystery which is useless. Or engaging in special pleading.

Extrapolating back to my base assumptions we get Munchausens Trilemma.

The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other (i.e. we repeat ourselves at some point)

The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum (i.e. we just keep giving proofs, presumably forever)

The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts (i.e. we reach some bedrock assumption or certainty)

The least disatisfying one of these 3 is the axiomatic argument. So I came up with the following as a starting point.

1. I as a thinking entity exist.
2. The Laws of Logic are self-attesting truths due to the impossibility of the contrary.

That's my foundation to build on. Yours in highly complex and contrived.