What do you believe and why do you believe it?

[Magenta]

Spectrox was deceived when he started thinking he had a lot invested in his belief.

We know it is the pride of life that underlies unbelief... I find it interesting that someone can experience God's forgiveness through the shed righteous blood of Jesus Christ, acknowledge it came from God, believe in God and all that entails, and then decide... what? That they were wrong? That they imagined something happened that and then decided it didn't really? One reason I find it interesting is because I profoundly experienced the forgiveness of God through the cross of Christ long before I became a believer, and I treasured the experience of knowing I was loved and forgiven, but rejected the idea that it came from the Biblical God. In other words, that one experience did not make me a believer. It did, however, over time, become one of many times God revealed Himself to me... and I had to eventually lay down my rebellious opposition to Him because honestly, I looked for answers to my questions of things I had experienced (including those already mentioned), and found none outside the Bible that could truly satisfy. It took me quite a few years to get to that point, though, because I was stubbornly set in my willful rejection of all things religious and Biblical.

 

[Nehemiah6]

What's your starting point definition of truth? I have often found that Christians have a tenuous grip on the concept.

Truth is everything that comes from God alone, and Christ alone, because He Himself is truth. God cannot and will not lie for the simple reason that He is Truth. And no one can properly comprehend God's truth without the New Birth, since it is understood by the spirit. It is spiritual (metaphysical). But if you don't even believe God exists, then you will delve into Philosophy, which is vanity.

According to Philosophy (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/)
"Explaining the nature of truth becomes an application of some metaphysical system, and truth inherits significant metaphysical presuppositions along the way...
The basic idea of the correspondence theory is that what we believe or say is true if it corresponds to the way things actually are – to the facts... The correspondence theory of truth is at its core an ontological thesis: a belief is true if there exists an appropriate entity – a fact – to which it corresponds. If there is no such entity, the belief is false... As with the correspondence theory, it will be useful to recast the coherence theory in a more modern form, which will abstract away from some of the difficult features of British idealism. As with the correspondence theory, it can be put in a slogan: A belief is true if and only if it is part of a coherent system of beliefs.

Christianity is a coherent system of beliefs and their origin is God (Truth) Himself. Now it is up to you to either humble yourself before God and come to Him as a little child, or go on your merry way and face divine judgment.

 

[Journeyman]

We know it is the pride of life that underlies unbelief...

That's for sure. It can take a while to discover that people aren't investing their own wealth. Some people never learn this.

I find it interesting that someone can experience God's forgiveness through the shed righteous blood of Jesus Christ, acknowledge it came from God, believe in God and all that entails, and then decide... what? That they were wrong? That they imagined something happened that and then decided it didn't really? One reason I find it interesting is because I profoundly experienced the forgiveness of God through the cross of Christ long before I became a believer, and I treasured the experience of knowing I was loved and forgiven, but rejected the idea that it came from the Biblical God. In other words, that one experience did not make me a believer. It did, however, over time, become one of many times God revealed Himself to me... and I had to eventually lay down my rebellious opposition to Him because honestly, I looked for answers to my questions of things I had experienced (including those already mentioned), and found none outside the Bible that could truly satisfy. It took me quite a few years to get to that point, though, because I was stubbornly set in my willful rejection of all things religious and Biblical.

Thank God for his longsuffering.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

Thank you for that. What you've said does make sense. There may not be an inconsistency afterall.

So now you tentatively agree there is a slight possibility that there is no inconsistency? Why are you so reluctant to believe Scripture?

I still think there is a narrative problem by having 4 accounts. Are they real observations, if so by whom? How do we know the stories are not just made up or part-plagiarised with the author's own spin put on it?

Once you get over your "narrative problem", you might want to understand there is a reason why God's Word is written the way it is and rather than turn away from it in disbelief, you could embrace the manner in which it is written and learn about the life of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I would be interested in a brief explanation of Matthew 16 though, if you have time, as part of our final exchange. It does read very much like Judgement Day being within the lifetime of the disciples.

I would again suggest that you turn your heart to the Lord. He leads us and teaches us. You have much to learn and all will be revealed as you seek Him with your whole heart.

I know you believe something occurred in 1994. Yet by the end of 1994, you were already "deconverting" because you thought you were just "talking to yourself". Did you allow enough time to develop a relationship with God, to grow up and mature in Christ? You know, there is a maturation process we go through in our walk of faith. We start out as "babes in Christ" and as we feed on the milk of the Word of God, we start to mature spiritually. Look at the various stages in the physical realm ... infant, toddler, child, teen, adult. Spiritually, the same holds true ... we start out as "babes in Christ" desiring the milk of the Word. Then as we learn and grow, we are able to feed on more meat of the Word of God. And when we reach full maturity, we continue to feed on the Word of God. Our physical bodies remain at optimum level as we eat healthy nutritious food. Same with our spiritual walk. As we continue to feed on God's Word, it nourishes us spiritually.

I have seen you refer to God as "Santa Claus" and you've referred to the Word of God as "stories" which are "just made up or part-plagiarised with the author's own spin put on it". Until you see God as the Creator of the heavens and the earth and all that is therein, and God's Word as the source in which mankind can learn about this God Who created, your knowledge and understanding will be limited to the physical realm.

 

[Spectrox]

So now you tentatively agree there is a slight possibility that there is no inconsistency? Why are you so reluctant to believe Scripture?





Once you get over your "narrative problem", you might want to understand there is a reason why God's Word is written the way it is and rather than turn away from it in disbelief, you could embrace the manner in which it is written and learn about the life of the Lord Jesus Christ.







I would again suggest that you turn your heart to the Lord. He leads us and teaches us. You have much to learn and all will be revealed as you seek Him with your whole heart.

I know you believe something occurred in 1994. Yet by the end of 1994, you were already "deconverting" because you thought you were just "talking to yourself". Did you allow enough time to develop a relationship with God, to grow up and mature in Christ? You know, there is a maturation process we go through in our walk of faith. We start out as "babes in Christ" and as we feed on the milk of the Word of God, we start to mature spiritually. Look at the various stages in the physical realm ... infant, toddler, child, teen, adult. Spiritually, the same holds true ... we start out as "babes in Christ" desiring the milk of the Word. Then as we learn and grow, we are able to feed on more meat of the Word of God. And when we reach full maturity, we continue to feed on the Word of God. Our physical bodies remain at optimum level as we eat healthy nutritious food. Same with our spiritual walk. As we continue to feed on God's Word, it nourishes us spiritually.

I have seen you refer to God as "Santa Claus" and you've referred to the Word of God as "stories" which are "just made up or part-plagiarised with the author's own spin put on it". Until you see God as the Creator of the heavens and the earth and all that is therein, and God's Word as the source in which mankind can learn about this God Who created, your knowledge and understanding will be limited to the physical realm.

Just because there may not be an inconsistency between 2 accounts, this does not make them automatically true. However, if there had been a clear inconsistency between the 2 accounts, then at least one would be false.

Are you able to explain what Jesus said in Matthew 16 - it does look like an obvious error?

 

[Spectrox]

Truth is everything that comes from God alone, and Christ alone, because He Himself is truth. God cannot and will not lie for the simple reason that He is Truth. And no one can properly comprehend God's truth without the New Birth, since it is understood by the spirit. It is spiritual (metaphysical). But if you don't even believe God exists, then you will delve into Philosophy, which is vanity.

According to Philosophy (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/)
"Explaining the nature of truth becomes an application of some metaphysical system, and truth inherits significant metaphysical presuppositions along the way...
The basic idea of the correspondence theory is that what we believe or say is true if it corresponds to the way things actually are – to the facts... The correspondence theory of truth is at its core an ontological thesis: a belief is true if there exists an appropriate entity – a fact – to which it corresponds. If there is no such entity, the belief is false... As with the correspondence theory, it will be useful to recast the coherence theory in a more modern form, which will abstract away from some of the difficult features of British idealism. As with the correspondence theory, it can be put in a slogan: A belief is true if and only if it is part of a coherent system of beliefs.

Christianity is a coherent system of beliefs and their origin is God (Truth) Himself. Now it is up to you to either humble yourself before God and come to Him as a little child, or go on your merry way and face divine judgment.

I don't believe the God of the Bible is fit to judge anyone. One Christian on this site said that the unfaithful would die, i.e. non-existence. Given the choice between annihilation and spending eternity with someone I don't like ... the latter really would be Hell for me. Give me annihilation anytime.

 

[Spectrox]

This is very interesting Mr. Spectrox, and I am sure social scientists can create a valid and reliable measurement tool for "well being" much like the ADDOS is the gold standard for diagnosing autism, however you fail to provide a rational moral reason for the well being scale to begin with?

You see Mr. Spectrox in the area of "moral philosophy" science has its limits, I would dare science cannot answer the questions of moral philosophy for if it were so, moral philosophy would be a finished area of thought and the book would be closed.
You can challenge on this and I can give an example.

So please which are we speaking about?

I am trying to stay on topic so far I have not mentioned the Bible, can you stay on topic?

I agree up to a point. Pure science cannot really explain or account for morality, but neither does the Bible, even though it claims to. Meanwhile, I'll stick with maximising wellbeing for everyone and you can stick to trying to rationalise why God supports genocide or slavery.

 

[UnderGrace]

I agree up to a point. Pure science cannot really explain or account for morality, but neither does the Bible, even though it claims to. Meanwhile, I'll stick with maximising wellbeing for everyone and you can stick to trying to rationalise why God supports genocide or slavery.

Proportionally speaking you have far more to "rationalize" as a secular humanist.

There is only one religion that speaks of man being created in the "image of God" and it is not secularization and the truth is that while your social science group can develop a scale to measure/define "well being" they have no power to confer "well being" onto another person in any true sense. Only the creator has that power.

 

[UnderGrace]

I don't believe the God of the Bible is fit to judge anyone. One Christian on this site said that the unfaithful would die, i.e. non-existence. Given the choice between annihilation and spending eternity with someone I don't like ... the latter really would be Hell for me. Give me annihilation anytime.

And the good news here is God gives you the choice.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

Just because there may not be an inconsistency between 2 accounts, this does not make them automatically true.

So even though you have been shown there is no inconsistency in the three accounts, all three are not true. Got it.

However, if there had been a clear inconsistency between the 2 accounts, then at least one would be false.

As you have been unable to show a "clear inconsistency" between the accounts, are you willing to agree the accounts are true?

Are you able to explain what Jesus said in Matthew 16 - it does look like an obvious error?

Do you believe anything in Scripture is without error? Please provide one example from Scripture which you believe is true.

 

[Lisann]

The Nicene Creed

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.
Amen.

 

[Spectrox]

Proportionally speaking you have far more to "rationalize" as a secular humanist.

I would like to see you try and demonstrate that. The theist has the burden of proof. Please dont attempt to shift it. A God that cannot demonstrate that he is real is indistinguishable from one that does not exist.

 

[Spectrox]

The Nicene Creed

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.
Amen.

This was written around 325CE at The Council of Nicea when the Bible was finally put together. How do you know it accurately reported events from 300 years previously?

 

[UnderGrace]

I would like to see you try and demonstrate that. The theist has the burden of proof. Please dont attempt to shift it. A God that cannot demonstrate that he is real is indistinguishable from one that does not exist.

I think you misunderstood.

If the Christian believer is faced with the task of rationalizing the acts of God in the old testament/new testament, surely the

secular humanist has a lot more to rationalize in terms of crimes against humanity within the 20th century alone executed by those who maintained a secularist view.

Do you care to take that on?

 

[dcontroversal]

I would like to see you try and demonstrate that. The theist has the burden of proof. Please dont attempt to shift it. A God that cannot demonstrate that he is real is indistinguishable from one that does not exist.

Can you prove that he does not exist?

 

[Spectrox]

So even though you have been shown there is no inconsistency in the three accounts, all three are not true. Got it.





As you have been unable to show a "clear inconsistency" between the accounts, are you willing to agree the accounts are true?





Do you believe anything in Scripture is without error? Please provide one example from Scripture which you believe is true.

You aren't being logical here. Consider the following 2 statements:

Abraham Lincoln is your father
Abraham Lincoln is my father

These 2 statements are consistent with each other and could in theory be true. But we know the basic premises are flawed.
I don't believe everything in the Bible is in error. Read my gumball analogy. The problem is I don't know what's true and what's false. Apart from miracle claims. They are highly likely to be made up.
In terms of Matthew 16, don't worry. I couldn't honestly make sense of it either.

 

[Spectrox]

So even though you have been shown there is no inconsistency in the three accounts, all three are not true. Got it.





As you have been unable to show a "clear inconsistency" between the accounts, are you willing to agree the accounts are true?





Do you believe anything in Scripture is without error? Please provide one example from Scripture which you believe is true.

You aren't being logical here. Consider the following 2 statements:

Abraham Lincoln is your father
Abraham Lincoln is my father

These 2 statements are consistent with each other and could in theory be true. But we know the basic premises are flawed.
I don't believe everything in the Bible is in error. Read my gumball analogy. The problem is I don't know what's true and what's false. Apart from miracle claims. They are highly likely to be made up.
In terms of Matthew 16, don't worry. I couldn't honestly make sense of it either.

 

[Spectrox]

Can you prove that he does not exist?

Can you prove that he does not exist?

Just having asked a Christian not to shift the burden of proof, another apparently irony-free Christian, yes you've guessed it, shifts the burden of proof! This is comedy gold!

 

[dcontroversal]

Just having asked a Christian not to shift the burden of proof, another apparently irony-free Christian, yes you've guessed it, shifts the burden of proof! This is comedy gold!

You know pal......in the first couple of pages I gave you proof that the BIBLE is UNIQUE among all the books ever written, you did not even respond......I made at least two posts that you skimmed right over and did not really acknowledge with any honesty whatsoever at all......and the burden of proof you lay on us to PROVE he exists is equally SHARED.....you are here trying to PROVE or settle in your mind that he does not exist because YOUR prayers were not answered.....SOUNDS like a lack of faith to me......we can cite example after example of how HE has worked in our lives, answered prayer requests, sick kids on death beds delivered, and on and on and on and YET no matter HOW MUCH proof we give you from experience you will still peddle your disdain, claim of contradiction, rejection of the truth, and a denial of the reality of GOD.....

MAN up and prove he does not exist or quit lip flapping!

 

[Spectrox]

I think you misunderstood.

If the Christian believer is faced with the task of rationalizing the acts of God in the old testament/new testament, surely the

secular humanist has a lot more to rationalize in terms of crimes against humanity within the 20th century alone executed by those who maintained a secularist view.

Do you care to take that on?

Stalin and Pol Pot were not secular humanists. They were totalitarian monsters who relied on the gullibility of the masses. They were probably atheists but did not commit their crimes in the name of atheism just like Christians did not commit their crimes in the name of theism. Crimes were committed as a result of dangerous idealistic dogma.