An Open Letter to All Young Christians - Please Convince Me.

That sounds like a reality tv show
"My Satan Life"

 

Then please stop telling people they'll go to hell for something you can't even explain

That's not really a dumb question, more of a misunderstanding of technicalities.

 

I apologize for the hell thing, I hope that someday your eyes will be opened to the truth. With that, I am leaving this thread.

 

Ok Mr. 12 year old, I'm sure you used your vast life experiences and knowledge to determine that it is the truth.

 

Before I leave, you ask me to prove that God exists right?
Well, can you prove that God doesn't exist?

 

Prove I am not God.
Please refrain from debating if you cannot understand the very basics, such as the burden of proof.

 

You didn't answer my question. Prove that God does not exist.
And, (this is for evolution) where are the transitional fossils? You can show me the fake ones all you want, but there are truly not any.

 

...
...
...
If you don't believe fossils are real
Hard pieces of evidence that people dedicate their lives to study
and they date them using all sorts of methods, such as carbon dating, sulfur dating, etc
AND they're able to piece together whole skeletons
As well as things from different periods
Then there's no way to get you to believe that they are real.

Similarly, there's no way that @SirGiggly can prove to you that God doesn't exist. Or that you can prove that He does.

 

Okay listen to me carefully. To have a productive and worthy debate there have been set rules. A very basic rule is the burden of proof, this states that the burden to prove something falls on the shoulder of the one making the positive claim. If this was not true, then I am God and you have no reason to not believe that. Anything is proven if the burden falls on the disprover.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

 

Then why debate there is no God if you can't prove he isn't there? I will no longer look at this thread. Goodbye.

 

Please at least look at my last post.

 

Can you prove He is there, with a concrete and absolute ability?
Nope.
That's why it's called "faith". While we can theorize and rationalize all we want, there is not necessarily much scientific evidence for the existence of God. Yes, unanswered questions lean toward that possibility. So does the design of our universe etc etc. But the truth is, there just isn't a way to completely prove either side.

 

I believe that a man called Jesus existed, but that he was not the son of god and was not a prophet and performed no miracles and was just a man, and that he was nothing special.
Do you believe that he was the son of god?

 

Me does

(Pls halp i bored)

 

Question was directed towards Miro but w/e

Why do you think that?

 

Oops.
I guess I missed the alert that showed you responded
Surry D;
You know what's weird though is that no one ever actually asks that
Like, it's always "Do you believe in God" or "Why do you believe in God" not "(Why) do you believe that Jesus is the son of God?"
Bizarre. So I've never had to answer this one before. Please excuse my roughness of argumentation, then

Anyway, I think it's because I believe the Bible, which tells about Jesus' miracles. That's pretty much it. He was a brilliant person, whether he was the Son of God or not, because he promoted peace, love, etc, and not violence and hatred. It's surprising, though, now that I think about it, how little outside-of-the-Bible-evidence there is for Jesus' being the Son of God (well, that I know of. There's probably more, I need to look into that!).
Thanks for that though... it's very interesting.

 

Sorry, where are you getting the sticks and stones thing?

 

The old testament.
Well, really it's just stones.
(also, it's a troll post, ignore it)

 

I know that, and when he responded to me I was gonna talk about the levitical law being put down and the new one put up

 

Okay, so this thread has grown a lot since I first started working on my response! I'll reply to the OP first, and then maybe tackle some other things that were brought up.

LOL, I remember pestering my mom with the first part of your question. "If you believe some parts of the Bible and not others, then why believe any of it at all?" I don't get how people can just dismiss certain things in the Bible as bad and not from God, and just accept others as... well... gospel. It's too convenient. But I do disagree with some things described in the Bible, and I have trouble understanding how some of it could be considered good (I'll get into that more in another question). How do I reconcile this, and why does that lead to following some parts of the Bible and not others? My short answer: Context matters.

My longer answer: Even the most arbitrary-seeming Old Testament law had a reason behind it - health (especially the food restrictions), hygiene (your body is a temple after all), setting the people of Israel apart from the cultures that surrounded them, relationships with others, and relationships with God. While it was forbidden to trim your beard or wear clothing of mixed fabrics, it also was forbidden to reap the edges of your field (so the poor could gather food) or to unfairly delay payment of an employee's wages. There are different types of laws (some ceremonial, some civil, etc.) written in Scripture, and many of them were very specific to Israel during a certain period of time. It's not that it's universally bad to cut your facial hair or to wear a wool and linen blend, it's that this certain group of people wasn't supposed to do those things. I believe that they don't apply to us today who live in radically different cultures, because they wouldn't have the same meaning. Then, of course, there are more universal laws of morality that most Christians recognize as valid - like the Ten Commandments.

The New Testament doesn't just erase all of that. To me, there are two key things Jesus says about this according to the Bible. The first is that Jesus himself came to fulfill "the law," not abolish it. The second is that all the laws are based on two commandments: "Love the Lord your God" and "love your neighbor as yourself." Everything else flows out from these. That's why Jesus didn't have a problem healing people on the Sabbath, for example, or "one-upping" the Ten Commandments by teaching that lust is adultery and hatred is murder. It seemed like he disregarded some Jewish laws and made others a lot stricter. But if the law as a whole is really about love - for God, for others, and for yourself, in that order - then those examples make total sense to me.

I've never liked the idea that science and religion are enemies, or that they have to oppose each other. I value both. There was an introduction to my biology textbook that said it perfectly to me: Science seeks to answer "How?" while religion seeks to answer "Why?" (Both can reveal truth, and both can also lead to false conclusions.) Sometimes they can challenge each other, and it's hard to reconcile them. But if they directly contradict, I think that one (or both) is usually overstepping its bounds. It's a myth that you can't accept evolution - even Darwin's Theory of Evolution - and also accept the Bible. There are also ways of reconciling the two that still give weight to what we have learned through science, but stop short of fully accepting certain scientific explanations.

Much of the Old Testament is written in a very poetic style (it's great literature), using words and phrases that can have many layers of meaning. The Hebrew word "yom," meaning "day," was used to mean a literal 24-hour day... but it was also used to mean a less defined time period, like "age." It's kinda like how our modern English word "season" can refer to a literal cycle of environmental change... or it can mean a "phase," a period of time. The creation stories in the Bible say that God created the world in six days (seven, if you count the day of rest), but what does that mean? Could it mean multiple things at once? I wouldn't go so far as to say Bible stories in general are metaphors that we shouldn't take literally. But when the language of certain parts point to a more layered and metaphorical meaning... why should we read a book of poetry as if it's a history or science textbook?

For those who question ALL evolution, I want to make it clear that there is nearly universal agreement and solid evidence for microevolution. That's when differences and changes develop within a species through evolution. The controversy is about applying that idea across species, which is called macroevolution, especially when people like Charles Darwin use it to explain the origins of humanity and life as we know it. There is still evidence, but not as much - this part of evolution is what people are talking about when they say there are "gaps in the fossil record," and things like that.

If you'll allow me to quote Scripture (not as an argument or proof, just to help explain what I mean)... "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." - John 1:1 (KJV, but it's pretty much the same in most English translations.)

Later, John writes "the Word became flesh," referring to Jesus Christ. The Greek word that's used for "the Word" is "Logos." It can also mean reason or discourse, and it's where we get our word "logic." That's not a coincidence - it would have meant something specific to the theologians and philosophers of the time. Critical thinking cannot include faith, in the same way that the scientific method cannot include religion... but that doesn't mean that they can't co-exist. Blind, ignorant faith avoids critical thinking. Open, honest faith goes beyond its limits. There are also elements of trust and humility to it. When someone has faith, they are acknowledging that they don't know everything, and they may never know everything (at least, in this life), and that's okay. If it is a religious faith, they are believing in someone or something bigger than themselves. I'm sure you've met someone, at some point, who had a faith so strong and solid that they didn't have to talk about it much (or at all) for it to be seen clearly. The people like that who I have met are usually quite humble, yet stable and secure in themselves... they just exude this peace... like a version of the peace you might feel when you can fully trust someone you love and who you know loves you.

I believe that hell exists, but I'm not sure how to answer the question of whether it is "literal." In the Bible, what we traditionally think of as "hell" is described both as a place and a state of being, which makes sense when you consider that there are actually four different words being used. (Deinen already talked about those.) It seems clear from Scripture that there is an eternal destination for some souls that is NOT heaven or "paradise," separated from God, and it also seems clear that there is some kind of eternal punishment/consequence in store for some souls. Heaven is described as perfect communion with God, where people enter based on their relationship with God and are rewarded according to the good they have done in life. So I think of hell as a mirror image of that. I'll address the "infinite punishment for a finite crime" thing in your last question.

As far as the question about whether anything God does is moral... I believe the answer is yes, but you've pinpointed the problem with that. There are things in the Bible that disturb me - violence that seems unjust and yet is supposedly sanctioned by God, certain things that are said that seem to be immoral and wrong. I'm still struggling to understand it. Some of these things can be explained by context, as I've mentioned earlier. For example, some things said about women in the Bible are sexist by my standards, but they were actually quite egalitarian for the time they were written. Other puzzling advice is given to specific people and churches at specific times - remember that many of the New Testament books are letters. I try to consider the message that God was giving in the context that it was being given, and THEN consider what that would mean for us today. But other things are much, much harder to think about. I mean, God sees and knows a lot more than we do, so there are certain things we might disagree with, but He still has a good and moral reason for them. But genocide and the killing of children? I have a hard time accepting that the God I know would sanction those... and I don't really have a good answer for why He seems to.

I do believe in the power of prayer, but there are many different types and purposes of prayer, and you're talking about a narrow range of it. Prayer is about communicating with God - including listening, not just talking. Common elements of Christian prayer include praise, thanksgiving, confession, request, and meditation/contemplation/reflection (whatever you prefer to call it). And while I do believe God has a master plan of sorts... I don't believe he has our lives planned out to the last detail, to the point where we can't make our own choices or that our lives are left up to "fate."

But the Bible and Christian tradition do tell us, many times, "ask and you shall receive." I can name things in my life and others that I would say were answers to prayers. So I don't know what to make of those prayer studies (which are fascinating, by the way - I've looked them up before). If we're going to say that praying for someone causes something to happen that wouldn't otherwise happen, you'd think we would be able to measure that somehow. I think the best answer I can give is that prayer isn't a consistent variable. It might be like studying the effectiveness of cold medicine by giving people all different types and doses of it, and trying to draw a useable result from that. God's answers aren't necessarily consistent, either, because He sees and knows things that we don't.

I don't think you're gonna like my answer to this one. I love paradoxes like this, even when - sometimes especially when - I can't find a way to reconcile them. I think they are beautiful and can have profound meaning. We're also dealing with a divine being who I believe we will never fully understand, at least not on our power. Yes, I believe God is perfectly just and perfectly merciful, and the apparent conflict between those two things is resolved in Him. I'll come back to this in your last question, because you've actually set it up quite nicely.

I don't know. My best guess is that we still may not recognize him. You mention the story of Thomas. According another story, when God wanted to convince Egypt to set the Israelites set free from slavery, Moses turned a river to blood and announced that God was bringing several other widespread plagues just before they happened. Pharoah's response to most of them was basically, "Cool parlor tricks. Your 'almighty god' is lame." And in the New Testament, when Jesus was healing people on his travels, there were always critics (ironically, the religious people) saying something like, "That's nice, but you're breaking the Sabbath and God doesn't like that." Signs and miracles won't convince the willfully ignorant... but I don't know why God doesn't reveal himself more directly to honest doubters.

I do have conversations with God. I don't hear him audibly, but a few people I've trusted and known to be in sound mind say they have (they describe it as something rare, strong, and fleeting). When I "hear" God's voice, it's usually a combination of feeling/sensing His presence and becoming aware of something internally. I'll speak to Him (in my head or out loud), and sometimes a "conversation" will continue and other times I'll feel like I'm talking to myself. Most Christians I've talked to about this describe something similar, and it usually happens (but doesn't have to) during prayer or while reading the Bible.

As for knowing whether people have REALLY heard or seen God... we can't know for sure. But that doesn't mean there is no way to tell. I believe Christians have some ability to discern this by comparing the "revelation" to what we already know of Him. If someone says that God told them something - that they should murder someone, for example - that seems to go against what we know of God from the Bible, Christian teachings, reason, and past experience, then it most likely did not come from God. If all of those things seem to support the experience, then it's possible that it was Him. Another thing I've noticed is that when people I trust say that God told them to DO something (whether audibly or not), they also often talk about wanting to argue with Him. ("But that doesn't make sense! Why should I stop and talk to this person I don't even know?" ... "I can't move to Kenya to work as a medical missionary! I'm not cut out for that.") That happens a lot in the Bible (see Moses and his over 9000 excuses). God speaks to us through the Holy Spirit not just to confirm our beliefs - but also to challenges them.

I had an experience like this a couple weeks ago, actually... I might share it eventually, because it's related to MeepCraft (or more accurately, the people I've met through MeepCraft), but I'm still kinda figuring it out.

Hmm. Agree with your premise, disagree with your conclusion? It might apply more to the younger people here, and it also probably would have more relevance to the past when there was less cultural exchange and communication. If I didn't think that Christianity held any truth-value then I wouldn't believe it. I believe that many - if not most - of the religions I've studied have some truth in them, but that Jesus is THE truth. (It's hard for me to directly explain why. I find it easier to talk about different aspects of my beliefs, which come together to explain the whole. Which is kinda what we've been doing here. ) Does that mean that if I grew up in a Muslim family in a Muslim-dominated culture, that I still would have become a Christian? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. (Not gonna get into predestination and all that jazz right now.)

Okay, this is where a lot of these things are gonna come together. I'm going to talk like it's fact just to keep things simple, but feel free to mentally insert "I believe" before everything here, lol. Let's start with the premise that God, for whatever reason (we can get into that later if you want), wanted to create beings that could enjoy his creation and live in communion with him. He would love these beings, but if they were incapable of CHOOSING to love Him and each other... well, I think C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity (great book) describes the problem better than I could:

"God created things which had free will. That means creatures which can go either wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong; I cannot. If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata—of creatures that worked like machines—would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they must be free.

. . . If God thinks this state of war in the universe a price worth paying for free will—that is, for making a live world in which creatures can do real good or harm and something of real importance can happen, instead of a toy world which only moves when He pulls the strings—then we may take it it is worth paying."

So here we come back to your earlier question. God is perfectly just, so he cannot tolerate evil or wrongdoing - it must carry a punishment (justice), and it eternally separates us from communion with Him (because God is also perfectly good). But He is also perfectly merciful. So how could he extend forgiveness and mercy to us while still preserving justice and our free will? By solving this paradox with another one. Part of Himself joined humanity, but still remained God, in the person of Jesus Christ. "The Word" - His reason, discourse, communication with us - "became flesh." Jesus lived the life we were meant to live but couldn't, loved us so much that He died the death that we collectively deserved and He didn't, and was resurrected.

God had been guiding humans toward Him (and our own goodness) through the Scriptures and the prophets, and He had been showing us the bits of evil and wrongdoing in ourselves so that we could turn away (repent) from it. People were sacrificing animals to cover their "finite crimes," and as a reminder that sin has a cost, but that didn't solve the problem of infinite separation from God. Jewish people tried to follow the law, and to be good people who were worthy of being with God, but it wasn't enough. We weren't really getting the justice we deserved or the mercy we needed. Of course, God would have known this, but it would take some time for the world to be ready for the solution. When that time came, Jesus did for us what we couldn't do for ourselves. He lived a human life that was not only sinless but actively good, and in his innocence he died a death that paid the price for our guilt. He was resurrected to show God's victory over evil and death, and then the Son rejoined the Father in heaven. Through a relationship with God and the power of His Holy Spirit, we get the chance to participate, in a sense, in all three of these things. If we know and follow Jesus, the Holy Spirit leads us to righteousness that we couldn't achieve on our own (but that Jesus already did). When we go astray, we are prompted to confess and turn away from our sin, which restores our hearts and turns us back toward God, who has already both paid the cost of our sins and forgiven them. And after we die here on earth, we too can reunite with God in heaven. So from an eternal perspective, God's divine justice is satisfied and his mercy is extended to anyone who accepts it.

Sorry if that part got a little preachy... that's why I gave the "I believe" disclaimer.

As far as the symbol of the cross being a torture device - yes, we know! One of the major themes of Christianity is redemption - of humanity, of creation, of individual people, and even of things like symbols. The cross became a reminder of God's love, the price Jesus paid for us, and God's ultimate victory over sin and death. We still recognize its nature as a device for torture and execution... the Bible uses it as a metaphor for "dying to sin" (repentance), and refers to "taking up your cross" as a metaphor for the struggles we may have to endure to become more like Him (in other words, to be better people). But it also reminds us that He already bore his own cross and died for us. God has already won. We are loved, and redeemed, and free.

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 22, 2015, Original Post Date: Feb 22, 2015 ---

Also wanted to add...

Christians believe we have an important part to play, that's about more than avoiding things that are bad, or even "being good." Because God doesn't often show Himself to us directly, we become Jesus to the world - we live out God's love. Someone else posted that God will speak to us through others and will show Himself through their compassion and goodness... and that's very true. That's the role we're meant to play if we are truly following Jesus.