What do you believe and why do you believe it?

[billymorgan]

What spirits? Angels?

I have seen the spirits coming down one by one they came down from the open heavens going about laying hands on all who were in the church, I felt a touch by one of the sprits as he passed and then behold great miracles and wonders appeared right before my eyes.

 

[Adstar]

“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”

First point i use and trust in the KJV as my source of the Word of God.. I do not trust in the NIV..

Matthew 28: KJV
16 "¶ Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them." 17 "And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted."

There is no ""they went there immediately"" in this verse... It simply states that the eleven did go to Galilee.. It took some convincing to cause them all to believe without doubt.. A man coming back from being dead and buried was kind of a new thing..

Also i forgot to provide another link for you to look over.. This one features a Jewish chalander software that reveals the passover dates back into ancient history.. The passover date that matches up with the account of the week of the exicution of Jesus happened in the year 30ad.. And as many scolars believe Jesus was actually born around 2 BC it aligns with the report that Jesus was about 30 years old when He started his Ministry.. Anyway i hope you find some interesting information in the link below..

Reasurection When..

 

[Spectrox]

You failed to answer, at least the last part of my post. Post 522.

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?

If it's not too personal, would you be able to write a rough, brief transcript of a communication you had with God? Was it an actual voice or a feeling?

About 15 years ago, Professor Russell Stannard carried out research into the effectiveness of prayer in a properly controlled scientific study. It found that prayer did not work.

 

[Spectrox]

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.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying about the "6 days versus about 8 days" possible inconsistency - is it not describing the same journey with the same starting and end points? Is that clear from the text? If it's not describing exactly the same journey then maybe you are right? There is still the problem of who is observing these events as they happen but that does not relate to any alleged inconsistency. It only relates to the truth of whether the event took place or whether it's made up.

One final point that I am interested in your opinion on - it's not another alleged inconsistency, it's something that reads like an outright error and it bothered me a lot during my deconversion. Matthew Chapter 16.

24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.
25 For whoever wants to save their life[f] will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it.
26 What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?
27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.
28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

Jesus is talking to his disciples and it reads like he is referring to Judgement Day and his Second Coming, yet he appears to be saying that that will happen within the lifetime of his disciples, which is clearly wrong because we are still here in 2019.

 

[Spectrox]

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.

Strictly speaking, every single claim I am exposed to I should not believe it, unless it has been demonstrated to some degree. This is the null hypothesis. Obviously practically speaking, we have insufficient time, complex relationships with other people, so we fall into bad habits and just seem to accept everything we are told, which is the other extreme. Not all claims are created equal. A huge claim about what happens to my soul when I die if I don't believe an old book does not compare to a trivial claim about whether or not I actually ordered a medium-rare steak on Tuesday. So it has to be about prioritising and trying to achieve a sensible balance. Does that answer your question Jimbone?

 

[Spectrox]

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 try to be a good, caring person and do my best not to cause harm. Maybe that's enough? At least I haven't supported genocide or slavery or Hellfire and damnation for the "thought crime" of disbelief.

 

[Spectrox]

First point i use and trust in the KJV as my source of the Word of God.. I do not trust in the NIV..

Matthew 28: KJV
16 "¶ Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them." 17 "And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted."

There is no ""they went there immediately"" in this verse... It simply states that the eleven did go to Galilee.. It took some convincing to cause them all to believe without doubt.. A man coming back from being dead and buried was kind of a new thing..

Also i forgot to provide another link for you to look over.. This one features a Jewish chalander software that reveals the passover dates back into ancient history.. The passover date that matches up with the account of the week of the exicution of Jesus happened in the year 30ad.. And as many scolars believe Jesus was actually born around 2 BC it aligns with the report that Jesus was about 30 years old when He started his Ministry.. Anyway i hope you find some interesting information in the link below..

Reasurection When..

The Nearly Infallible Version?!
I will look at the link. There is a possible problem with the birth of Jesus in the Bible in terms of dating.
From Infidels.org: The Gospel of Luke claims (2.1-2) that Jesus was born during a census that we know from the historian Josephus took place after Herod the Great died, and after his successor, Archelaus, was deposed. But Matthew claims (2.1-3) that Jesus was born when Herod the Great was still alive--possibly two years before he died (2:7-16). Other elements of their stories also contradict each other. Since Josephus precisely dates the census to 6 A.D. and Herod's death to 4 B.C., and the sequence is indisputable, Luke and Matthew contradict each other.

 

[Spectrox]

Je suis une femme

Is man the measure of moral reasoning and if so which man?

I am conscious that I have very little time left on this thread. However, I will try to answer your question.
Let's be honest about our starting points concerning morality.

Mine is this - a moral action is one in which we strive for optimum net wellbeing, which means minimising harm. This can be measured empirically and collectively by the Social Sciences. It's not perfect but it's demonstrably better than what was sanctioned in the past.

Your moral starting point, which you have chosen yourself, is that everything you need to know about what's morally good or bad comes from the God character in The Bible. God condones slavery and genocide and other morally cruel positions. And the problem you have is how to justify this to yourself.

Obviously, people can choose to ignore the Wellbeing Standard, but there are consequences for that, which is why the World is a bit rubbish for all of us. But also why we have Politicians, Psychiatric hospitals, Courts, Prisons, Rehabilitation Programmes, Counselling Services, etc. to try to solve these problems. I think it's obvious that there is an optimum wellbeing that can be reached in society and it should be the duty of every human to strive for that end result in all that they do.

My starting point comes from an understanding of reality rather than an appeal to an outdated authority.

 

[Spectrox]

It appears that Job has taught you nothing. You would rather follow some dreadful professor who is laden with sin and transgression into the valley of death.

The sovereignty of God is displayed in Job. Man, good or evil is always subject to Gods authority. If we examined your morality I'm quite certain you would fair no better than Job or his friends who came and accused him.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

I don't follow any dreadful Professor but when intelligent, informed people speak, we should at least listen.

Job is terrible from a morality point of view. God basically allows Satan to torment Job by messing up his life and killing his children. And the "moral" at the end of the story basically says that God has restored everything back to Job, making him wealthier and giving him some new children, as if that makes up for what he had to go through! Pathetic.

 

[Spectrox]

You know you are just as guilty of everything you just accused him of? The same exact thing can be applied to you, like the cheating husband accusing the wife of cheating. It's so obvious from my point of view. The same exact way we believe in Jesus you believe in "big bang+evolution=magic existence", the difference is yours is a blind faith in man's intellect, and ours is a direct revelation from our creator.
You are (anyone is) blind in the dark without Jesus.

I don't wish to fall out with you Jimbone, because I think we have got on ok during this thread - but anyone can read what I've written and the justification for my beliefs is totally different from the justification that Christians have provided. The difference is a consideration of what constitutes reliable, repeatable evidence.

 

[Spectrox]

God is love, light and life. These are traits not associated with mafia bosses.

Sometimes the God character in the Bible reads less like God the Father and more like The Godfather.

 

[UnderGrace]

I am conscious that I have very little time left on this thread. However, I will try to answer your question.
Let's be honest about our starting points concerning morality.

Mine is this - a moral action is one in which we strive for optimum net wellbeing, which means minimising harm. This can be measured empirically and collectively by the Social Sciences. It's not perfect but it's demonstrably better than what was sanctioned in the past.

Your moral starting point, which you have chosen yourself, is that everything you need to know about what's morally good or bad comes from the God character in The Bible. God condones slavery and genocide and other morally cruel positions. And the problem you have is how to justify this to yourself.

Obviously, people can choose to ignore the Wellbeing Standard, but there are consequences for that, which is why the World is a bit rubbish for all of us. But also why we have Politicians, Psychiatric hospitals, Courts, Prisons, Rehabilitation Programmes, Counselling Services, etc. to try to solve these problems. I think it's obvious that there is an optimum wellbeing that can be reached in society and it should be the duty of every human to strive for that end result in all that they do.

My starting point comes from an understanding of reality rather than an appeal to an outdated authority.

Please provide links to this empirical research.

Validate your claims.

Define harm?

Whose definition of "harm" is valid?

Whose definition of "well being" is valid?

What is the objective moral standard upon which these concepts can be universally defined?

 

[UnderGrace]

Sometimes the God character in the Bible reads less like God the Father and more like The Godfather.

Your bias is showing.

This means you are not objective.

 

[Lightskin]

Sometimes the God character in the Bible reads less like God the Father and more like The Godfather.

Oh yeah, God is also just.

 

[DesertRunner]

I don't believe, I KNOW. My question to you is are you a ninja Christian or just a lost soul?

 

[UnderGrace]

I am conscious that I have very little time left on this thread. However, I will try to answer your question.
Let's be honest about our starting points concerning morality.

Mine is this - a moral action is one in which we strive for optimum net wellbeing, which means minimising harm. This can be measured empirically and collectively by the Social Sciences. It's not perfect but it's demonstrably better than what was sanctioned in the past.

Your moral starting point, which you have chosen yourself, is that everything you need to know about what's morally good or bad comes from the God character in The Bible. God condones slavery and genocide and other morally cruel positions. And the problem you have is how to justify this to yourself.

Obviously, people can choose to ignore the Wellbeing Standard, but there are consequences for that, which is why the World is a bit rubbish for all of us. But also why we have Politicians, Psychiatric hospitals, Courts, Prisons, Rehabilitation Programmes, Counselling Services, etc. to try to solve these problems. I think it's obvious that there is an optimum wellbeing that can be reached in society and it should be the duty of every human to strive for that end result in all that they do.

My starting point comes from an understanding of reality rather than an appeal to an outdated authority.

. This can be measured empirically and collectively by the Social Sciences.

Are you trying to say that psychopathology is the standard by which we measure well being?

 

[Jimbone]

Strictly speaking, every single claim I am exposed to I should not believe it, unless it has been demonstrated to some degree. This is the null hypothesis. Obviously practically speaking, we have insufficient time, complex relationships with other people, so we fall into bad habits and just seem to accept everything we are told, which is the other extreme. Not all claims are created equal. A huge claim about what happens to my soul when I die if I don't believe an old book does not compare to a trivial claim about whether or not I actually ordered a medium-rare steak on Tuesday. So it has to be about prioritising and trying to achieve a sensible balance. Does that answer your question Jimbone?

Not really, to be honest I am having a hard time connecting this to what I said. I agree that we shouldn't accept everything we are told, that would just be stupid, and if you think I've in anyway suggested someone should do this, then there has been a miscommunication. I thought I have been pretty clear that I'm with you on the whole rejection of the "I believe this because an old book says so", argument. I reject that and have tried to explain to you how my experience with our Creator went about as opposite of that as you can get. What you are not taken into accountability is life. Everything you want to look at or consider is "on paper". It's like "I'd believe in God, ... if He turned the sky yellow and I heard an audible voice from heaven say "I am God, I exist", but no you wouldn't, even if that happen you could easily say something else caused it. See that's the point the problem here isn't evidence, or lack of, the problem is right in your chest, we are the problem that ONLY Jesus can repair. You can't "prove" the things of the Spirit by studying the physical creation (the flesh). This is the hangup, you reject these things offhand, and think you're open minded.

 

[Magenta]

I don't wish to fall out with you Jimbone, because I think we have got on ok during this thread - but anyone can read what I've written and the justification for my beliefs is totally different from the justification that Christians have provided. The difference is a consideration of what constitutes reliable, repeatable evidence.

That is not the difference at all. The difference is whom you consider to be reliable. You can read history books and perhaps believe what is said about Alexander "the great" even though it was written hundreds of years after he lived, but reject outright history that was written within a lifetime of another person simply because of who is writing and Whom is being spoken of. God has repeatedly revealed Himself to people you consider to be unreliable simply because you reject the idea of God.

 

[Chester]

The only squirming I've witnessed on this thread has come from Christians. I used to believe in Santa Claus up to age 8. Then I received new information and my reasoning improved until I could no longer believe. Would you say I squirmed out of that as well? You come across as profoundly brainwashed.

And where did your "reasoning" come from? . . . Instead of objectively answering the question - you begin to insert things like "Santa Claus, brainwashed, etc. . . . If you would listen to PennEd, he is one of the most gently loving people you will run into here on CC . . . or you can keep going down your lines of reasoning and science that have no basis for morality at all . . .

 

[Jimbone]

I don't wish to fall out with you Jimbone, because I think we have got on ok during this thread - but anyone can read what I've written and the justification for my beliefs is totally different from the justification that Christians have provided. The difference is a consideration of what constitutes reliable, repeatable evidence.

First, just to make very clear, I am in no way offended by you, or feel any ill will what so ever. In fact this is one of the best conversations I've had in a while. I love this stuff man, and if you understood for one second how much I have hated the God I claimed I didn't believe in, and how my view of Christianity was "made up by the power elite to control the weak minded", then you would very much understand that I will not be easily offended, I understand you are blind to these things as I was, and that they are foolishness to you. I get it, this "old book written by men", says the same thing, but see I was reborn THEN went to His word, this is why I have to testify of His saving power, even when I look foolish to the lost, Jesus Christ is King of everything brother, and He is calling you to Himself. That is why you're even here, you don't need "evidence", you need to hear the truth, you need to hear Jesus loves you and gave everything so we might be reconciled to truth, THE truth, go to Him man, He is calling.