What do you believe and why do you believe it?

[Victor1999]

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.

 

[FollowHisSteps]

I don't believe that substitutional atonement constitutes justice. It's just unnecessarily bloodthirsty. If God wanted to forgive us, why not just say it? In fact, why didn't God write the Bible in the first person and take responsibility for every word - instead of others writing about Jesus in the third person? This makes Jesus seem more mysterious and powerful like Dr Watson writing in the first person about Sherlock Holmes in the third person.

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

 

[UnderGrace]

Control of the masses by religious leaders.

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

 

[FollowHisSteps]

Here are the 2 quotes in full. Reads like a contradiction to me.

Luke 9:28-36 New International Version (NIV)
The Transfiguration

28 About eight days after Jesus said this, he took Peter, John and James with him and went up onto a mountain to pray. 29 As he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became as bright as a flash of lightning.

Matthew 17 New International Version (NIV)
The Transfiguration

17 After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2 There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light.

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.

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.

 

[preston39]

From Wikipedia
"The Cambrian explosion or Cambrian radiation was an event approximately 541 million years ago in the Cambrian period when most major animal phyla appeared in the fossil record. It lasted for about 13–25 million years and resulted in the divergence of most modern metazoan phyla. "

I'm not an expert in the above, so you're asking the wrong person. As far as my understanding goes, this was a relatively rapid period of evolution, although there have been other rapid periods referred to as punctuated equilibria.

What's your point?

Do you accept the science from the fossil record that says it occurred 541 million years ago - if so, how does that tally with the Genesis account?

Does it prove that a deity exists?

Does it prove that the Christian God did it?

"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.

 

[stonesoffire]

How does someone become an ex-Christian?

"I had my doubts after several months as a result of speaking to atheists and ex-Christians"

This is the problem.
You wanted to leave the faith, so you went ONLY to those people who would make arguments AGAINST it.
You did NOT go to people who could make arguments FOR it.

I hear this from people all the time.
It is very disingenuous.

You ALREADY wanted to leave the faith, so you went looking for excuses... you went only to people who would give arguments against Christianity to soothe your conscience.

Happens every day.

I have NEVER heard an ex-Christian say, "I was having doubts, so I read books by Christian scholars and apologists who could give me good, solid, scholarly, Christian answers."
I have NEVER heard ANY ex-Christian say that.

Because that isn't what they want.
People who leave the faith do so because they WANT to leave the faith - and because they WANT to leave the faith, they go LOOKING for arguments AGAINST it to justify themselves.

When they go looking ONLY for arguments AGAINST God, guess what?
They find some.
Shocker.
If they LOOKED for arguments FOR Christianity, and for logical answers to DEFEND the faith... they would find that instead.

Ex-Christians NEVER start by looking for good, logical, Christian answers to their questions.
They don't want good Christian answers... they don't want proofs for the existence of God, or logical Christian explanations.
They look only for arguments against God, because that is the only thing they desire.

I hear this stuff every single day.

It's very common, and very predictable.

..

I believe you nailed it.

 

[UnderGrace]

Not sure. It was in my notes from years ago. Probably a Rationalist site. I think the criteria are pretty sound. They limit the number of bogus claims considerably. Otherwise, I could say that yesterday I ordered a medium-rare steak in a restaurant and half an hour later it arrived in front of me - have I fulfilled prophecy?

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

 

[Nehemiah6]

...most of the arguments being presented in favour of your God belief are really, really poor.

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.

 

[UnderGrace]

objective optimum wellbeing that could in theory be measured.

Define "well being"

That will be your subjective definition

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

 

[UnderGrace]

I originally posted this message in the New Member Intro section but a member said I should post it here. So here goes...

Colloquially speaking I am an agnostic as I don't know whether or not a god exists. Technically I am an atheist as I don't believe any god claim I have heard. Although I used to be a Christian. I was brought up in the Church of England but properly self-identified as a Christian in my twenties and believed I was saved. I had my doubts after several months as a result of speaking to atheists and ex-Christians. Some things in the Bible stopped making sense to me. Some of the Bible was immoral, some of it was inconsistent and some of it was not credible. I prayed for answers but no answers came. I now consider myself to be an ex-Christian. Every so often I like to challenge my beliefs as I think it is healthy. In that spirit I would like to ask all Christians here what do you believe and why do you believe it?

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

 

[Chester]

The best line in "A Few Good Men". I am the only atheist on this thread who is tackling challenges from over a dozen Christians, who allegedly have the Creator of the Universe on their side. All things considered, I think I'm doing ok because most of the arguments being presented in favour of your God belief are really, really poor.

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?

 

[PennEd]

The best line in "A Few Good Men". I am the only atheist on this thread who is tackling challenges from over a dozen Christians, who allegedly have the Creator of the Universe on their side. All things considered, I think I'm doing ok because most of the arguments being presented in favour of your God belief are really, really poor.

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.

 

[Chester]

So now we have the "Something can't come from nothing" canard.

What do you really by "nothing" or "nowhere"?
All we have is examples of "something coming from something". We don't have any examples of "something coming from nothing" so how can we make any assessment of it?

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.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

Here are the 2 quotes in full. Reads like a contradiction to me.

Luke 9:28-36 New International Version (NIV)
The Transfiguration

28 About eight days after Jesus said this, he took Peter, John and James with him and went up onto a mountain to pray. 29 As he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became as bright as a flash of lightning.

Matthew 17 New International Version (NIV)
The Transfiguration

17 After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2 There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light.

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).

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

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.

Post #166

 

[unworthymessenger]

I originally posted this message in the New Member Intro section but a member said I should post it here. So here goes...

Colloquially speaking I am an agnostic as I don't know whether or not a god exists. Technically I am an atheist as I don't believe any god claim I have heard. Although I used to be a Christian. I was brought up in the Church of England but properly self-identified as a Christian in my twenties and believed I was saved. I had my doubts after several months as a result of speaking to atheists and ex-Christians. Some things in the Bible stopped making sense to me. Some of the Bible was immoral, some of it was inconsistent and some of it was not credible. I prayed for answers but no answers came. I now consider myself to be an ex-Christian. Every so often I like to challenge my beliefs as I think it is healthy. In that spirit I would like to ask all Christians here what do you believe and why do you believe it?

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!

 

[TLC209]

The above is a really good example of why I left Christianity. For the record I am heterosexual, not that that should really matter. I was right about TLC in my earlier post. When his arguments have hit a brick wall, he becomes profoundly nasty because he has nothing else to offer.

I think he should consider changing his username to TLCD (The Lowest Common Denominator).

I shall be ignoring his posts until he rediscovers his humanity.

Right, I'm off for a shower. I feel contaminated.

Prove it.

 

[TLC209]

Here are the 2 quotes in full. Reads like a contradiction to me.

Luke 9:28-36 New International Version (NIV)
The Transfiguration

28 About eight days after Jesus said this, he took Peter, John and James with him and went up onto a mountain to pray. 29 As he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became as bright as a flash of lightning.

Matthew 17 New International Version (NIV)
The Transfiguration

17 After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2 There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light.



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.

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?

 

[TLC209]

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.)

 

[FollowHisSteps]

The best line in "A Few Good Men". I am the only atheist on this thread who is tackling challenges from over a dozen Christians, who allegedly have the Creator of the Universe on their side. All things considered, I think I'm doing ok because most of the arguments being presented in favour of your God belief are really, really poor.

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

 

[Spectrox]

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.

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.