What do you believe and why do you believe it?
- Thread starter Spectrox
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
One cannot believe accept they first be called.
One believes or does not believe based on the type or kind of spirit in them. If it is one [a spirit] of God, then they will be able to believe in God. If it is not a spirit of and from God, they won't be able to believe.
Also, one tends to believe what they spend the most time listening to and/or meditating/dwelling on.
Btw, many who think highly of themselves or to be of higher intellect, tend to have difficulty believing.
Again, those who use logic or reasoning to figure out spiritual things, also tend to have difficulty believing.
Mar 4:16 And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground; who, when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness;
Mar 4:17 And have [but the word having] no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word's sake, immediately they are offended (and fall away).
Luk 8:13 They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these [seeds/spirits] have no root [in their heart, because it is stony or hard, preventing the seed/spirit/plant from taking root], which for a while believe, and in time of temptation [a thought or event contradicting the word] fall away [stop believing].
Thoughts like,
Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
But I have a question for you sir.
Who or what am I hearing from or is speaking to me and who or what is answering my prayers?
That is what you say and that is what you did when the record concerning the purchases (plural) of the potters' fields (again, plural) was explained to you. Then, rather than allow truth to settle in your heart where God can bring increase, your response was you just "would not use that example in future to demonstrate a Biblical inconsistency".
Additionally, when the "six days" and the "about eight days" was explained, you rejected truth ("not really convinced that there's no inconsistency") and then accused God of being "inept and bungling sometimes".
You have logged on to a Christian forum . Did you expect believers to be swayed by your logic or intellect and end up being talked out of their faith in God (like what happened to you when you believed what some atheists and ex-christians said)? Perhaps if you had been as steadfast in God when you were talked out of your faith as you are steadfast in your assertion that God does not exist, our conversation would be much more refreshing. Not that I do not enjoy conversing with you ... just that there is more to Scripture than you allow
What "evidence" are you following which would lead you TO God? Any evidence provided is rejected (or accepted but with a caveat that you are not convinced).Spectrox said:
Your beloved Hume also stated "always reject the greater miracle". In other words, as you follow Hume, you will always reject the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ from the dead.
So it does not matter if I go through the resurrection records you seem to believe are so inconsistent. You will always find some reason to reject because you follow philosophies and reasoning of men.
The problem with your reasoning is that no "scientific method" devised by man is able to discern the spiritual realm. Even in this year of 2019, the spiritual realm remains a mystery to those who rely on scientific methods and instruments.Spectrox said:
At most, all you can "see" or "perceive" of the spiritual realm is its effect on the physical. And even then, you will continue to deny the spiritual as you "scientifically" provide your proofs that all occurs in the natural, physical realm.
And don't get me wrong, I believe we all must scrutinize. However, you scrutinize that which the physical is incapable of comprehending and then claim it is nonexistent. Well, your instruments are faulty (imho).
Again, if you want to know God, you must search for Him with your whole heart. Are you capable of doing that? I don't know. What I do know, though, is that if you search for Him with your whole heart, you will find Him.
I will wait for your response to Adstar after your "thorough read" before dealing with these issues.Spectrox said:
I have heard the "multiple trip" theory a few times and I’m not convinced it is a sensible narrative. However, I acknowledge that you did what was asked of you and you may have demonstrated that there is no contradiction between the 4 accounts – a contradiction being that something is both A and Not-A at the same time in the same manner, but I do find it to be contrived gymnastics with explanations that aren’t in the original texts.
Now in your account, you put Matthew as Trip 1 and Mark as Trip 4. If you read the verses below, I don’t see how this is a sensible narrative.
Matthew 28:8 New International Version (NIV)
8 So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples.
Mark 16:8 New International Version (NIV)
8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.[a]
I think you alluded to a reason why they might be filled with joy on Trip 1 and want to tell everyone, and then by Trip 4 they are afraid and tell no one, but it sounds very odd.
There is a major problem with all of this – who is reporting on these various trips that happened in a single day? Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are not considered to be eye witnesses, just the titles of the books. Most Bible scholars believe these accounts were written decades later by well educated Greek scholars. Matthew copies verbatim over ¾ of Mark, Luke copies about ½ of Mark. John is much more independent. Also, it doesn’t take into account that the earliest Christian writings by Paul of Tarsus suggest a symbolic or spiritual; resurrection, not a physical one.
Dying and rising god beliefs were common around this time -e.g. Osiris, Tammuz, Baal, so if you believe this particular resurrection story, what reason would you have for not believing in other ones?
One other problem of note is that Mark ends at Chapter 16:8. Chapters 9 to 20 do not appear in the earliest manuscripts – a fact admitted to in the footnotes of most Bibles – and were probably attached to the end of Mark in the second century.
Biblebrisket.com says
“One point in particular especially seems to be irreconcilable. If Matthew is right, that the disciples immediately go to Galilee to see Jesus for the first time after his resurrection (28:16-17), how can Luke be right that the disciples stay in Jerusalem the whole time, see Jesus ascend near its borders, and stay until the day of Pentecost (24:33-51)? Some will argue that Jesus first went to Galilee and then back along the outskirts of Jerusalem to see him ascend. The problem is, Luke’s Gospel leaves no room for that to happen”
Historians hope for the following when analysing historical claims:
1. Multiple sources.
2. Written very close to the time of the event.
3. Account should be unbiassed and disinterested with no hidden agenda.
4. There should be no collaboration or plagiarism.
5. The accounts should not be at odds with each other.
6. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The 4 gospels arguably fail badly on points 2,3, 4 and 6 and partially fail on points 1 and 5.
This really is a lot of rubbish. No one has clearly demonstrated that Biblical claims are true. And I have given good reasons why I think a lot of it is highly suspect - from a moral standpoint and a factual one. I used to believe but I was shown a lot of mistakes and untruths. That's why I quit.
It's a rational response to an irrational claim, unless you believe the "multiple trips to the tomb" theory which I think is highly contrived as explained in my Post 524. It's not my job to falsify the testimony of witnesses - which witnesses and which claims? This is a shifting of the burden of proof by Christians. After 2000 years, religion is diminishing as we understand the world better. First came the aptly named Renaissance, then the aptly named Enlightenment. Then we developed the scientific method (evolution, astrophysics, cosmology, medicine, critical thinking, etc.) and Christianity is on the retreat.
There are serious consequences that will come as a result of your decision. Consequences that you have not comprehended adequately.
Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
I appreciate your patience with me. To answer your questions:That is what you say and that is what you did when the record concerning the purchases (plural) of the potters' fields (again, plural) was explained to you. Then, rather than allow truth to settle in your heart where God can bring increase, your response was you just "would not use that example in future to demonstrate a Biblical inconsistency".
Additionally, when the "six days" and the "about eight days" was explained, you rejected truth ("not really convinced that there's no inconsistency") and then accused God of being "inept and bungling sometimes".
You have logged on to a Christian forum . Did you expect believers to be swayed by your logic or intellect and end up being talked out of their faith in God (like what happened to you when you believed what some atheists and ex-christians said)? Perhaps if you had been as steadfast in God when you were talked out of your faith as you are steadfast in your assertion that God does not exist, our conversation would be much more refreshing. Not that I do not enjoy conversing with you ... just that there is more to Scripture than you allow
What "evidence" are you following which would lead you TO God? Any evidence provided is rejected (or accepted but with a caveat that you are not convinced).
Your beloved Hume also stated "always reject the greater miracle". In other words, as you follow Hume, you will always reject the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ from the dead.
So it does not matter if I go through the resurrection records you seem to believe are so inconsistent. You will always find some reason to reject because you follow philosophies and reasoning of men.
The problem with your reasoning is that no "scientific method" devised by man is able to discern the spiritual realm. Even in this year of 2019, the spiritual realm remains a mystery to those who rely on scientific methods and instruments.
At most, all you can "see" or "perceive" of the spiritual realm is its effect on the physical. And even then, you will continue to deny the spiritual as you "scientifically" provide your proofs that all occurs in the natural, physical realm.
And don't get me wrong, I believe we all must scrutinize. However, you scrutinize that which the physical is incapable of comprehending and then claim it is nonexistent. Well, your instruments are faulty (imho).
Again, if you want to know God, you must search for Him with your whole heart. Are you capable of doing that? I don't know. What I do know, though, is that if you search for Him with your whole heart, you will find Him.
I will wait for your response to Adstar after your "thorough read" before dealing with these issues.
Judas Death - I conceded defeat on that issue. That doesn't mean I automatically accept all other Biblical claims or think that all problems have been solved.
6 days is not the same as about 8 days. Which is the true figure? What's the error in the measurement? Why not just say "Several days" if you can't get the figure correct? Is God script editing his book at all - that's easy for him surely?
Hume was rational. Do you believe miracle claims today? If so, why? If not, why not?
Until demonstrated otherwise, the Bible is the philosophy and reasoning of men - Bronze Age and Iron Age men.
If the spiritual realm can manifest in reality, then it should be demonstrable. Why doesn't God heal amputees? That would be a good demonstration.
Maybe language is an unreliable form of communication from a divine being to his creations. With the Bible we have to rely on copies of copies of translations of copies, with no originals, in languages that die out, with nuances and semantics.
Why can't God incarnate today as a human? At least we could demonstrate that he existed and verify some of what he says and does.
Depends what you mean by "God" I suppose.
The Euthyphro Dilemma asks: do the gods love good action because it is good, or is good action good because it is loved by the gods?
In other words, God could say that genocide and slavery are correct and basically be a cosmic Mafia Boss - or God could just agree that peace and kindness are good and be a useless middle man.
Thanks for this although I'm not sure you could justify this from the Bible.
That might be true if you could show me:
1. The God of the Bible is real.
2. The God of the Bible is morally good and not morally evil or morally dubious.
Yes. You have suppressed the Truth in unrighteousness because you love your sin. But again, YOU YOURSELF at one time say you believed. This proves that every man knows the Truth because God has shown it to them
You can't squirm out of that point.
You are not following what i said. I was not talking about the bible or incarnation. I only said, humans language (any human language), words and their meaning are enough evidence that a knowledgeable source exists. Words and their meaning can only be taught/learned from knowledgeable source(s), there's no other way of acquiring meaning of words.
What have you done that is good? Who are you to judge Gods actions? Do you know the mind of God?
Job 38:1 ¶ Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
4 ¶ Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
For the cause of Christ
Roger
I know I'm just jumping in here, but couldn't it be said "Your world view starts with an assumption or presupposition that the Bible is not true"?
I mean that's a pretty bold statement telling someone how their worldview starts.
I am a born again, spiritually resurrected and reconciled to our Creator through the blood of the man Christ Jesus, strait up. But my worldview did not come the way you're suggesting. I didn't start with "the Bible is true", at all. In fact it wasn't until after He saved me that I even went to the bible at all.
I agree with you the most logical position to take is one of neutrality, the only thing is I also think neutrality is an impossibility in real day to day life, because our worldview shapes every decision we make every day. I mean why do you behave the way you behave, it all has to do with our worldview. Now that said I know from personal experience that we don't ever think of it this way, but that doesn't stop it from being true. Without God there is no solid reason to do "right", because no matter what reason you create for yourself, or how many people you get to agree with you, it's nothing more than arbitrary thought in the mind of an insignificant speck of accidentally evolved bacteria with no purpose other than to "be". No matter what you tell yourself, or how you try to dress it up, without God nothing ultimately matters, and there is no way to escape these cold hard facts. If you honestly think about it.
This said it always seems to come up that this is suggesting that atheist can't be or do good things. This is false. Any of us can do good and bad, and there are amazingly great atheist out here that do great things, in the worlds eyes, but I'm talking about the ultimate "WHY", why do we do these things? If there is no God, no "mind" before man that creates and defines these things above men, then all you are left with logically is the opinion of man. This is why I think neutrality is a logical impossibility. No one is neutral, and to claim so is just a an excuse for people to be able to stick the screws to the Christian, or anyone else with a solid worldview they stand on, while they get to sit back and claim nothing, they only criticize and have nothing of any substance to put forth themselves. A cowardly stance in my opinion. We all had a worldview, it's just when we take a good honest look at them the weakest is atheism, no one boldly defends atheism as a worldview, they only mock others. Like I said weak, but my point here is that it is impossible not to have a worldview, you see the world a certain way, even though you haven't declared to "believe" anything fully yet, doesn't mean you don't see the world a certain way.
So while I understand what you mean, and even intellectually appreciate your view, I just think it's practically impossible. I can't wait to get your thoughts.
U
UnderGrace
Guest
Let us not side step the discussion, at present we are not talking about the nature of God.
Please answer the question posed, thank you.