I NEED HELP- I'M starting to doubt God

[SeekerOfTruth_2015]

Just a quick reply to let you know I haven't disappeared. A busy work-home life this week.

In short: thank you for your replies, John and David! They make great sense. I wish I would have thought of that. I need to re-read and incorporate these points you make because they make perfect sense. The NT would make absolutely ZERO sense without the OT! Why, I wonder, idly, did my uncles and cousins never bring that point up as I asked that question about the OT? I might have other questions that we can go through slowly and methodically, but as for this one? Solved incontrovertibly. The two, OT and NT are Siamese Twins so to speak. Anyway, back to my re-reading of your finer points. I wish you a good weekend.

 

[Johnnz]

Hi,

Glad you found it helpful.

You might find these two talks interesting - about 25 mins each.
https://www.gci.org/YI131
https://www.gci.org/YI132

John
NZ

 

[Man_With_A_Plan]

Fear not! Sometimes, God allows darkness in order that His presence might shine more brightly.

My first suggestion is that Protestantism is wrong. It may many here to say so, but the Orthodox Church is the true Church of Jesus Christ. Protestants are so used to being their own teachers and living in world of theological relativeness, and this lack of objectivity wears on the soul. It's not natural. Christ would not establish a religion that is contrary to our nature.

If you're looking for the living church, it's the Orthodox Church. It hasn't vanished!

Let me answer your questions.

1.) Is there any evidence of God besides the Bible?

The Protestant religion is based on the erroneous premise that Christianity is supposed to be "based on the Bible." The earliest Christians--for instance, those whom Paul wrote his epistles to--had no "Bible." They may have had various Old Testament books, but there was no New Testament yet. The Church is a living Tradition, preserved in apostolic succession through the bishops and the power of Christ, given the promise by Christ of remaining until He returns, able to bind and loose, to teach and to rebuke, and preserved from error. In other words, the Bible is supposed to be based on Christianity; the Church existed before the New Testament, and it's that church that continues to exist as the Orthodox Church.

Getting to your question, the short answer is no, there's no evidence of God.

The somewhat longer answer is a philosophical one regarding the first cause argument. I'm going to copy/paste the following answer from one of my posts on another site:

Infinite regress and ex nihilo generation are both logically incoherent, and yet the scientific materialist is reduced to this. In my opinion, neither infinite regress nor ex nihilo existence makes sense. The only conceivable solution to the existence of reality is a "brute fact," an uncaused "inherent existence." Maybe this is also illogical, but it's certainly more reasonable to assume that there is a first cause to reality than ex nihilo birth or infinite regress into the past. (One way the scientific materialist might work around this is with "infinite past universes" or some similarly exotic concept, but this still has the problem of infinite regress.)

If this first cause--a brute fact necessarily lacking a cause--does exist, then its existence is reasonable yet unreasonable, logical yet illogical; the unreasonable and illogical is reasonable and logical out of necessity. The great irony that the scientific materialist has to contend with is that the only reasonable and logical origin of reality--a cause without cause--is, in the fullest sense, "supernatural" or "magical" or whatever contentious word one might use.

Scientific materialism is both justified in that there's possibly nothing beyond physical reality, and illogical insofar as it is impossible for scientific materialism to explain the existence of physical reality itself. Physical reality either exists as an impossibly weird, hopelessly unintelligible brute fact without an ontological cause, or it owes its existence to some manner of supernatural immaterial entity which is itself an impossibly weird, hopelessly unintelligible brute fact. Either option is equally bizarre and outside the realm of nature.

The only "logical" conclusion is non-existence. And yet, here we are.

Terence McKenna had an interesting opinion, which I feel is good to quote here:

"The opposition, which is science – well, first let me say this: Every model of the universe has a hard swallow. What I mean by a hard swallow is a place where the argument cannot hide the fact that there’s something slightly fishy about it. The hard swallow built into science is this business about the Big Bang. Now, let’s give this a little attention here. This is the notion that the universe, for no reason, sprang from nothing in a single instant. Well, now before we dissect this, notice that this is the limit test for credulity. Whether you believe this or not, notice that it is not possible to conceive of something more unlikely or less likely to be believed! I mean, I defy anyone – it’s just the limit case for unlikelihood, that the universe would spring from nothing in a single instant, for no reason?! – I mean, if you believe that, my family has a bridge across the Hudson River that we’ll give you a lease option for five dollars! It makes no sense. It is in fact no different than saying, "And God said, let there be light". And what these philosophers of science are saying is, give us one free miracle, and we will roll from that point forward – from the birth of time to the crack of doom! – just one free miracle, and then it will all unravel according to natural law, and these bizarre equations which nobody can understand but which are so holy in this enterprise. Well, I say then, if science gets one free miracle, then everybody gets one free miracle."

The first cause argument can illuminate a bit on the superiority of monotheism (one god) to polytheism (many gods).

If one equates gods with first causes, then the first cause argument dismisses polytheism because it makes more than one first cause extraneous and unnecessary. An uncaused cause, if it does exist, necessarily exists because it exists and is uncaused--otherwise, it wouldn't exist. A first cause is completely simple; it isn't divisible. More than one uncaused cause is unnecessary, and because more than one uncaused cause is unnecessary, more than one is extraneous. More than one uncaused cause doesn't need to exist and therefore wouldn't. (An unnecessary uncaused cause makes no sense.) A true first cause is an "inherent existence," in other words.

If a first cause is the cause of our universe, then I suppose the atheist can make the point that this first cause is not necessarily a god. I'm no philosopher, but I can see how, if starting with the assumption of a totally simple indivisible first cause, one might conclude it has some sort of intelligence or awareness. It probably wouldn't be a perfect argument if made, but I think it would be something to consider.

If one accepts the first cause argument, and if one equates first causes with gods, and if the first cause argument itself rules out more than one first cause and therefore polytheistic religions, then the religious truth, assuming there is religious truth, can only be found in monotheism.

2.) Why does God allow all the terrible things to happen? Why does he allow innocent children to suffer?

That's a good question. One might ask, "who do we blame God for the bad yet forget to thank Him for the good?" That's not really a good answer your question, so another answer might be, "We each have our crosses to carry," and, "Christ doesn't take away our cross; He asks us to carry our cross and to follow Him." But I think the real thing you're wondering about is suffering in the world. I would first say that everyone suffers in their own ways to their own degrees, and I would assume that suffering is good if God allows it. I don't have an exact answer for this particular question, and I don't know who does.

However, it seems that Protestants have a hard time accepting suffering because they believe that salvation is a "one-time" thing. In fact, salvation is a life-long walk with Christ. Baptism is the beginning of the journey, not the end. Suffering plays a significant part in Orthodox Christian (and Catholic) theology.

 

[Man_With_A_Plan]

(continued)

3.) Why doesn't God destroy the Devil, if its the Devil's fault? Why does God throw all the people in Hell, if those people don't believe in him? (you know we should have free will to decide what we want to believe, also some people in Africa can't ever hear of God, because there is nobody to explain them, does this mean they should go to Hell?)

The short answer is that this fire-and-brimstone belief of hell is a western Christian idea. I'll explain that in a moment.

Regarding salvation, the 2,0000-year-old constant belief of the Orthodox Church can be summed up in the following phrase: "We know where salvation is, but we don't know where it is not."

In other words, all salvation is through Christ, through His church. But, at the same time, that doesn't necessarily mean that all those within the Church are "automatically saved" or that those who don't know of Christ are "automatically damned." Whoever ultimately ends up with eternal life, whether within the visible Church or completely ignorant of Christ, will have life because of Christ.

So, the super-short answer is that nobody knows who will have eternal life. To quote a famous saint: "There are many wolves within the Church and many sheep outside the Church."

Going back to the hell question, I'll answer this question with a copy/paste post of mine from another place.

The common perception of Hell is that of a "fiery abode" separate from God, where the sinner and nonbeliever shall suffer unspeakable fear and pain for all eternity. According to western Christianity, all those who are separated from God at the time of death will be deposited to this murky realm of horror and left to rot forever.

But is this what Christianity always taught? Is this what all Christians believe?

To find the answer we need to look at the history of Christianity.

During the first millennium, there was essentially one main Christian orthodoxy, the universal (aka "catholic") faith. Whether you lived in France or India, eastern Africa or central Asia, Christian churches adhered to the same fundamental beliefs and practices. There were priests and bishops, and there were sacraments. The basic doctrines were the same throughout; all believed in the Real Presence of the Eucharist, and all believed in the concept of apostolic succession.

Western Christianity--the church that existed in western Europe--was largely influenced by Latin philosophy. During the early centuries of Christianity, theologians in the west gradually began to take a very legalistic approach to their faith. With the level of meticulousness we might expect in a lawyer today, they worked to define, in the most specific terms possible, various doctrines of faith. (The fifth century St. Augustine, developer of the doctrine of "original sin," is probably one of the more famous examples of this.) It was these Latin theologians who came to the conclusion that Hell must ultimately be what we today in the west think of it as: a realm of fire and torture.

At the end of the first millennium, the western church, which had developed belief that the bishop of Rome (the "pope") was the divinely-ordained head of all Christendom, effectively split away from the rest of the church in an event known as the "Great Schism." From then on, we've been left with two streams of orthodoxy: the western catholic, or "Roman Catholic" Church, and the eastern catholic, now referred to as the "Orthodox" Church.

So, if Orthodox Christianity wasn't influenced by the great theologians of the west (St. Augustine wasn't even translated out of Latin until the 14th century, for instance), then what exactly does the Orthodox faith believe about Hell?

According the website of the Orthodox Church of America (oca.org):

For those who love the Lord, His Presence will be infinite joy, paradise and eternal life. For those who hate the Lord, the same Presence will be infinite torture, hell and eternal death. The reality for both the saved and the damned will be exactly the same when Christ comes in glory, and all angels with Him. so that God may be all in all.(I Corinthians 15-28) Those who have God as their all within this life will finally have divine fulfillment and life. For those whose all is themselves and this world, the all of God will be their torture, their punishment and their death. And theirs will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.(Matthew 8:21)

In other words, the Orthodox faith teaches that all humans, the saved and the damned, will spend eternity in the fiery presence of God. Hell is not some "place" God created. It's something we create with our own free will. The nature of this fire depends not on the fire itself, but on the disposition of the observer. Though there is no "official" teaching about Hell in Orthodoxy (Orthodox thought doesn't require exact answers for these sorts of questions), this concept of Hell has been firmly believed by the Orthodox since the earliest times.

To quote St. Isaac the Syrian (613-700):

"It is totally false to think that the sinners in hell are deprived of God's love. Love is a child of the knowledge of truth, and is unquestionably given commonly to all. But love's power acts in two ways: it torments sinners, while at the same time it delights those who have lived in accord with it... those who find themselves in hell will be chastised by the scourge of love. How cruel and bitter this torment of love will be! For those who understand that they have sinned against love, undergo no greater suffering than those produced by the most fearful tortures. The sorrow which takes hold of the heart, which has sinned against love, is more piercing than any other pain. It is not right to say that the sinners in hell are deprived of the love of God. But love acts in two ways, as suffering of the reproved, and as joy in the blessed!"

Hell as some torture chamber built by a vengeful God is just one of the erroneous teachings that western Christianity has spread into the world. For many of us in the west, even those with no religious affiliation, the legalistic way of thought is so embedded in our culture that it's difficult to think any other way.

4.) Why does God 'hate' Homosexuals, if we are all equal and God created us the way we are?

God hates nobody. Think of the famous passage in the Gospel when the authorities bring forth a prostitute to Christ to test Him. They say, "Moses tells us to stone this woman, but what do You say, Oh great Teacher?"

Jesus said, "He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone."

Also,

To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable:

"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’ But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted."

Remember what He said:

"Therefore be merciful,

Even as your Father is also merciful.

Don't judge,

And you won't be judged.

Don't condemn,

And you won't be condemned.

Set free,

And you will be set free.

Give,

And it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over, will be given to you. For with the same measure you measure it will be measured back to you."

 

[Man_With_A_Plan]

(continued)


5.) There are some stories in the Bible, that just cannot happen in real life, because Physics won't allow it.


One unfortunate misconception the atheists have is that modern readers interpret the Old Testament allegorically in order to account for modern science. This, however, is false. Believe it or not, it was the Protestants of the Reformation in the 16th century who began reading Genesis and other books in the Old Testament like they were science textbooks.

Consider the words of Origen, third century bishop of Alexandria:

"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and

third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and

stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so
foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a

paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and

palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life?

And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was

taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening,

and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that

these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken

place in appearance, and not literally."

And the fifth century bishop of Hippo, St. Augustine:

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that the non-Christian should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about the physical universe in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation."

It's important to understand the Old Testament stories in their original intention, and to separate form from content. The complete Bible (the Protestants don't have the complete Old Testament) features the story of creation throughout, most notably in Genesis1 and 2. It also appears later, especially in the Wisdom literature when the Jews encounter the Hellenistic Greeks. The sacred writers do borrow various images and forms from pagan creation stories. They do this to both rebuke pagan belief and to reinterpret it in Jewish theology. The "six-day" creation story was written against the Enuma Elish, but as deliberate anti-pagan propaganda from a Jewish theological perspective. The Adam and Eve story of Chapter 2, written earlier, is an allegorical critique of the human condition--namely, that the human race chose to separate itself from its life-giving God, and that this separation from life equals "death."

The Old Testament is a varied text of history, theology, literature, and mythology, all of which depicts man's struggle with God and the ultimate fruition of this struggle, which is that "God became Man so that man might become God," to quote St. Athanasius.

6.) Why doesn't he do any of the things the Bible says He should do?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you have any examples in mind?