Questions in my faith

[6Jesus6Lover6]

My mom said Jesus and God never existed. Is she right?

 

[Chilaha]

No, she is wrong. But, I can't prove anything to be honest. It's a matter of faith.

 

[Barricade24]

You should kill her just like the old testament says you should! Hail satan err... I mean god!

I know that is meant to be a joke but I don't remember God ever saying he wanted us to kill nonbelievers. God calls us to love one another and not to hate or harm each other and there is absolutely nothing to hail Satan for.

But back on topic here: One cannot prove that God exists nor can they disprove it. It is completly a matter of faith like Chilaha said. Your mother tends to believe They do not. What do you believe?

 

[Asvin]

My mom said Jesus and God never existed. Is she right?

Several things to ask her:

1) How did the universe come into being?
2) Does she believe that nothing created the universe?
3) Does she believe in Objective morality, which is to say that there are some things that are absolutely good and absolutely evil?

When I had doubts, the work of Dr. William Lane Craig was the most helpful. Take a look at his website, Defending Biblical Christianity | Reasonable Faith and look at the writings section if you like to read, or the media section if you want to view his debates and lectures. I hope you get your questions answered!

 

[Asvin]

1. the big bang. How did that occur? Several theories like a white hole, some says its infinite, some say it just somehow happened. Ask this how did god come into existence?

The universe is not infinite. There is overwhelming evidence that is began to exist about 13 billion years ago. Even secular physicists agree with this. Take a look at the Kalam Cosmological Argument. God never began to exist, so he does not need a cause.

2.Do you believe that nothing created god? Same question..

Kalam Cosmological Argument

3. Most morality comes from your environment and common sense. Also, why is that about 95% of prisoners are christian and about 1% are atheist?

HOW does morality come from the environment and common sense? Can you explain? Can you link me to the study showing this statistic?

 

[Theofane]

I dont actually worship Satan, but in the bible Satan kills 10 people, while God kills about 2 million people.

God kills whom He will, and He alone is righteous.

But did you know He so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life?

(I'm shining the bright light of the Word in your eyes.)

 

[Asvin]

Here is Dr. Craig refuting Dawkins' fallacious arguments:

Richard Dawkins’ Argument for Atheism in The God Delusion | Reasonable Faith

Also, care to explain what your links have to say? I assume you can summarize them, unless you haven't viewed them yourself!

 

[Asvin]

He is saying that the world would be better off without religion and there is also growing evidence that religion appears to have little clear positive benefit on society, and there is a case to be made that it is, in fact, very detrimental. Although there have certainly been many individuals from a religious perspective working tirelessly to promote good, there have been atheists doing the same, and the cumulative damage done by religion seems to far outweigh any societal benefit.

The world would be better off without religion? Do you even know of the many important contributions of Christianity to the norms of civilizations that exist today? What is the reason that he says the world will be better off without religion? By pointing out there are hypocrites, liars, thieves, murderers, etc. in the Church? So what? They exist outside the Church too! The Bible says all of humanity is sinful. So, what do you expect? I agree that atheists have done good things for society. There are good atheists. That has nothing to do with the existence of God or objective morality. One doesn't require God to live a good life. But, without God, does objective morality exist? I don't think so. Can you point me to the study that says Christianity, not religion, has done more bad than good, or has done more bad than atheism?

 

[Asvin]

So, let me get this great even though god kills millions of people you love him because he gave up his son to live with him in eternal paradise?

You create a robot and then you destroy it because it starts hurting little kids. Are you a bad person?

 

[Asvin]

Correct me if I'm wrong but what your link is saying is that the creator needs no creator, but if that is true why did god take so long to make the universe and if god is all knowing why is the bible so scientifically flawed?

Did you even take a look at the Kalam Cosmological Argument? It says that whatever begins to exist has a cause! God never began to exist. So, he doesn't need a cause!

 

[DMMullinax]

Does morality exist? Yes. Every sane person knows that killing, kidnapping, etc. is wrong. Empathy is a human emotion not something caused by religion. More people have killed in the name of god and Allah than anything. The people who are atheists who are killing people are most likely psychopaths. How is the religion bad well it condones slavery ( However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT) It says women are inferior to men.(I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet." (1 Timothy 2:12) It talks about killing others in the name of god."Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses." (1 Samuel 15:3) It says homosexuals should be killed. Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Need I say more?

I don't think you seem to understand anything about the Old Testament and Israel. You can't read the Old Testament out of context. The ancient Near East is a lot different than 2012 western America. Plus these rules apply to Israelites, and if they didn't like them they were welcomed to leave the country.

As well, "slaves" in Israel were more indentured servants paying off debt so that they could get to state of monetary independence. As well, yes, women are to be submissive to their husbands, but how is this a bad thing and where does it state that they are unequal. Nowadays the term authority and submissive have been distorted to negative terms. He also tells them to love their wives like Christ loves the Church, giving himself up for her. Doesn't sound like he's a power-monger to me, and sounds like it's a good, respectful relationship, with roles. The Canaanite killings take explaining, which I can after this message. And again, homosexuality was condemned, because Israel was to be holy like God, and there was an agreement in the Mosaic Covenant that these rules had to be followed or there would be severe punishment. Again, they didn't have to live there. Ancient Israel was a country in a different, barbaric time where this type of covenant was put in place to work Israel to a point that they reach in the New Testament where the New Covenant is put in place. You can't look at the Old Testament and Leviticus narrowly and out of context. There are explanations behind these laws.

 

[Asvin]

I understand that but why would it take him until 13.5 billion years ago to create the universe?

It didn't take him any time. He chooses when he wants to create anything. As for why that amount of time ago, I don't know! The Bible itself says that we can't know everything about God! Our minds can't even begin to fathom the things he can do!

 

[DMMullinax]

I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet." She must be quiet? How is that not expressing inequality? Also Jesus clearly says to not ignore the old testament. ) Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)) Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark.7:9-13 "Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB) Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)Peter says that all slaves should “be subject to [their] masters with all fear,” to the bad and cruel as well as the “good and gentle.” This is merely an echo of the same slavery commands in the Old Testament. 1 Peter 2:18 “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17)....the scripture cannot be broken.” --Jesus Christ, John 10:35

And again that is all from the new testament. A lot of it was said by Jesus.

You mention I Corinthians 14. Paul said instead of speaking they should be in submission, which implies the women in the church at Corinth were speaking in an inappropriate way, like chit chat or calling from the audience. In Chapter 11 Paul mentions women being allowed to pray and prophesy, so obviously there was a time that they could speak. We obviously weren't there and we don't know the complete circumstance he mentions this for, but it's not a slam against women. Again, women are to be submissive to husbands (not all men necessarily). It's not bad though. I would say children and parents are equal as humans, but obviously there are character roles there, as children they have different ones, the same for women. This isn't negative or hint at inequality.

I didn't say to ignore the Old Testament, far from it. I did say that it had to be read in context, and that many of the laws do not apply to us anymore because we aren't in the same covenant. Jesus did come to fulfill the law and prophets, you're right, and that means that he is the perfect sacrifice for sin (animal sacrifice was set until Jesus was crucified, but it wasn't a perfect sacrifice) and he was the ultimate prophet (bringing the new covenant and truly reaching the people). The whole point of the law was to show how much the Messiah was necessary, and to identify sin. It was temporary to get them to the point where Jesus comes and fulfills all of it, which he did. The Law is still in place, but the force of it is taken away. The point of it, the meaning and the symbols and the moral law still apply, even the ceremonial law can still be seen in it, but the force and the punishment is different as we see by his death and in the book of Hebrews.

Jesus did condemn children for cursing their parents. In the context of this verse he's talking of how the Pharisees added these superstitious laws and man-made things to God's laws, and how they were rejected the original commandments. Many of the grown adults had elderly parents, and were helping them to some extent, but washing-their hands of them past a certain age, instead of honoring them and caring for them. They deserved to die because they didn't care for their parents and were seeking ways to be rid of them. They weren't showing love for them. Jesus wanted them to honor and show love to them. See, you can't just pick a verse like that and not read the rest to understand the meaning.

The slavery in Rome and surrounding provinces was different than that of the indentured servitude in Israel. He's telling the Christians that were slaves, that even though they were slaves, to respect and submit to their masters. I don't see how respecting people who are bad to you is unloving. I don't really get your point for mentioning that verse. And again, you paint the Old Testament servant laws in a poor light, they were meant to help people in debt, and many laws were in place to make sure servants were not mistreated or treated unfairly.

You ask some good questions, but I still don't think you're looking at these verses in context. I hope I've explained these clearly to show you that life in Christ is not a "religion" or a feel good thing or was established to seek power. It's all about Christ in relation to us humans, and how God is working to redeem and restore us. The same message throughout the Old and New Testaments.

 

[DMMullinax]

Jesus said that the sscripture cant be broken. Meaning no matter what it cant be broken.

It can't be, I totally agree, His words and statutes are everlasting because they reflect God's nature. But there is a shift that happens in the New Testament that we can't overlook. The shift from and Old Covenant with Israel to a New Covenant with all of the world.

God told Abraham in Genesis that he would bless His descendants and all the world through them. This is where that comes to fulfillment because salvation comes to all through Jesus and his death, not just the Jews.

I'm sincerely trying to tell you that this isn't doing away with scripture, but a fulfillment and perfection has come to it. That doesn't mean we disregard it, but it's recognized differently. The purity which was the point of the food laws is still there, the sacrifice of the animals for sins was accomplished in full through Jesus's death, the same restrictions of sexual immorality are still there and recognized throughout much of the New Testament. It's all there, but the penalty is different, and many of the laws are not upheld because they physically do not apply in the New Covenant anymore, like ceremonial laws and sacrificial laws and food laws. The symbolism is still there though, and that's the point. We have to still recognize the point of these laws, because they haven't changed, and that's why Scripture won't pass away.

Hebrews deals much with the subject of the Law. I suggest reading that because Paul is addressing the Jews who are still trying to live under it. I completely understand if this is all kind of confusing, but it does make sense and it's possible to see the connections back from Genesis through to Revelation and our generation today. I wouldn't be following Christ if He didn't have a logical basis or was irrational. There is much faith to it, but God provides a ridiculous amount of evidence in many realms, even outside the Bible.

 

[CalledOutOne]

Are you sure you cant fathom it or does it become illogical?

I'll tell you something illogical. How a universe can exist that is in need of constant energy with no supplier.

If I were to walk away an Atheist today, I would walk away denying that a universe existed.

 

[DMMullinax]

Jesus did condemn children for cursing their parents. In the context of this verse he's talking of how the Pharisees added these superstitious laws and man-made things to God's laws, and how they were rejected the original commandments. Many of the grown adults had elderly parents, and were helping them to some extent, but washing-their hands of them past a certain age, instead of honoring them and caring for them. They deserved to die because they didn't care for their parents and were seeking ways to be rid of them. They weren't showing love for them. Jesus wanted them to honor and show love to them. See, you can't just pick a verse like that and not read the rest to understand the meaning.


Okay I hate my dad because he is a hypocrite cheated on my mother, alcoholic, has hookers stay at his house, etc. So I do not like him, honor him, or will I take special care of him as he is older. ANd that means I should die?

No, you should not die. I'm not saying that. The Pharisees in this passage are putting fault on Jesus for allowing His disciples to eat without washing their hands and how this is was dishonoring the "tradition of the elders". Jesus responds to their malice by basically saying "These rituals you make up are not God's command, and they miss the point. God's command states that you must honor your father and mother, but you make up regulations that bypass this so you do not have to care for them and uphold their burden." And again, you have to realize that he is speaking to Israelites and their religious teachers here. If you had lived in the same time period, but were a Greek, you would not be under the same law code. The 10 commandments and the Law was in the Mosaic Covenant with the Israelites, which is what Jesus is referring to, the 5th commandment.

That form of punishment and regulation was for a specific time period, and a specific people group. He's saying if anyone deserves to die, it's you for dishonoring your parents and adding to God's laws.

Again, no one is under this form of punishment anymore, that ended at Jesus' time. So why would I be saying that you should die for habitually dishonoring or disrespecting your parents when that punishment doesn't apply?

 

[DMMullinax]

But the new testament is Jesus' rules it doesnt change over time. You are changing it since it isnt moral now when it was considered moral then and Jesus agreed.

The New Testament is not "Jesus' rules" though. The New Testament is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy in that the Messiah came and established a new covenant and brought salvation not only to the Jews, but to all the nations of the Earth. That latter half are letters to churches in the surrounding areas meant to encourage and teach. Following Jesus is not about rules and legalism, that's what it is avoiding.

I'm telling you man, I'm not changing what is moral. You have to realize though, that there is an obvious shift with a New Covenant. It says in in the Old Testament book of Jeremiah:
“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. (Jeremiah 31:31-33)

The New Covenant is not to be physical anymore. He says it right there. Its to be a change of heart, where the Law will be written on their hearts. Everything to that point was a physical representation: Food laws, ceremonial laws, physical punishment- because that was that covenant. It was not meant to be permanent, but it was to be expressive and bring the Israelites to a point where they wouldn't need that external representation, but it would be internal change, where they wouldn't be under the law that no one could be perfect under, but would be in God's grace and salvation through the Messiah- Jesus and His new covenant. Do you see what I'm saying. There isn't a change of moral law, but there under a new covenant there is not physical punishment anymore. This is not changing Jesus' words. He said He came to not do away, but fulfill.

Do you see how this is fulfilling it? It's become a better covenant.

 

[DMMullinax]

Maybe. Good discussion though.