13 yr olds need your help defending Christianity to atheist peers

[KindredSoul]

Last post? Okay… I lied.

Yeah, the forums really have a way of drawing you back into a discussion even though you could’ve sworn it was already over. Happens to all of us…or at least me.

This is tempting to some degree. Alas, I’m just not there yet. My intellectual issues right now outweigh that part of me that wishes. I desire certitude. I desire everyone in the world to know the truth about this area, whatever it may be: no gods, one god, multiple gods, evil gods… whatever it may be, I want the whole world to know and be unified.

Ah…I understand this, and how deeply I empathize may surprise you. I have long admired the idea of a world in which everyone is truly convinced of the same ultimate truth. I have longed for certainty, absolute certainty, for a long time now. Even finding Chrsitianity as the most convincing possibility, this does not mean I don’t have doubts, or that sometimes the margin by which Christianity wins me over isn’t thin sometimes. Depending on my brain’s mood, sometimes I am not even as convinced of Christianity as I have been during this discussion. Faith can be difficult, even for one so willing to fight for it as I. That’s exactly what I look forward to in Heaven: An eternity of absolute certainty, the day when I will not need faith anymore, for I will know. Everyone will know. That unity of belief, that knowledge of the truth on the part of every last soul, will exist. You might only imagine how much I crave it; it is one of the major reasons I look forward to Heaven, only slightly behind the hope of a blissful eternal life for me and my loved ones and entering the Beatific Vision. In desiring certainty, we are alike, you and I, although our common desire definitely affects us in different ways.

The strange thing is, that unity will, realistically speaking, never be ours if Atheism is true. There is nothing that could possibly, even conceivably, settle the question of Atheism being true for an absolute 100% certainty that would convince the whole world–or even the grand absolute 90%+ majority, since a universal negative in the natural world can at best be “proven” to only relative certainty. And as long as room for doubt remains in the least, no matter how small, a significant portion of people will most likely (based on how humans tend to behave and think) reject Atheism and opt for a more optimistic reality in which there is something more. Indeed, who can fault them, even if they are mistaken? So your hope for total unity can, realistically speaking, never be realized in that world. You would have no choice but to bid farewell to [practically] the very possibility of it. I’m not arguing against or criticizing Atheism with these words, just making a realistic prediction based on human behavior and the nature of universal negatives.

It is most likely true that your only hope for that unity is if a religious type of reality exists, especially one with some form of Eschatology in which, in some age to come, God (or whatever other deity) will reveal Himself definitely. If our religion, for example, is true, then one day the unity of belief and total certainty you wish for will come, guaranteed. It’s just a matter of waiting…and waiting can be hard, especially when the wait may literally be until beyond the grave and when the world as a whole may have to outwait one’s own personal lifetime. But such a reality is not merely our only hope for eternal happiness, it’s most likely our only hope even for your own dream to come true. And even though it may only commence after this mortal lifetime, in view of eternity the wait will definitely be worth it if such happy certainty is our reward. That thought is one more thing to encourage me to persevere in faith even when absolute certainty is lacking.

I would like nothing more than to have an opportunity to ‘bend my knee’ should Jesus be real. If he exists, I want to know that truth. Were I to be unable for whatever reason (personality, my criteria for belief, etc.) to bring myself to belief but my life was one of service and love to my fellows, I suppose I don’t exactly expect a god to allow me the opportunity to worship, but the hypothesis strikes me as fair. I have loved his creatures well and therefore would like the opportunity to love him if he exists.

My heart goes out to you. It is my prayer that, no matter what the odds, you may seize upon just that opportunity. I don’t know how or when, but I pray that time will come.

CONTINUED…

 

[KindredSoul]

Very true and I appreciate this last recognition significantly. I’m 26. Married. 1 daughter and one on the way. This is agonizing to varying degrees, depending on the day and situation.

Ugh, the twenties…I’m directly in the middle of mine too, at 25. Such a turbulent point in life, intellectually, is it not? Or so that’s my experience. Though I have faith, I have struggled more in the past couple of years than ever before. It is indeed different depending on the situation and my mood…my brain literally seems to be wired differently sometimes, so that I wonder if I’m the same person but working with a different brain. At times Atheism could totally not make sense to me…as in even if I tried my best to believe it, there would be no use trying to convince my intellect of it, and I literally cannot see how anyone could believe anything besides Christianity even if I did my very best to see why by the most meticulous and careful study. At other times, it’s a struggle to hold to Christianity, and I must hold on by sheer faith and will (I am ultimately always willing to fight, even if after a struggle, thanks be to God). At this moment I’m somewhere in between; though I’m certainly convinced in favor of Christianity, faith is necessary too. On either extreme end of this intellectual dissonance scale, I cannot comprehend what I was thinking on the other end. When I’m somewhere in between, I cannot comprehend how either extreme claimed me. It’s literally like the impasse between me and you, only between me at one point and time and me at another point in time! I’ve heard of mood swings, but total intellect swings?!!

I love math. Why? There is one answer. That’s it. It’s lovely. Yet the maker of math, should he exist, cannot be obtained, studied, understood, perceived directly, etc. It’s an awful state for me.

If God’s real, there is one answer. I guess it’s just that we don’t know it yet in the observable and demonstrable way that we can know math, so faith is necessary if we’re to even have a chance. But even math hasn’t always been that way, to my knowledge. I’ve heard of theorems and equations that were controversial until proven somehow. All the people for whom math was their passion who lived previously had to just deal with it being a mystery, for despite their efforts many of them died without getting even one step closer, just as we deal with mystery in the religious arena now and must usually be willing to exercise faith if we want to believe pretty much anything with real commitment. Now, on the other hand, it’s difficult for us to imagine a time when anything mathematical was a mystery: It just seems so obvious (though that’s not to say easy–I myself don’t like math, though I can be Grade-A good at it with practice) that math is what it is just because it is, that we take it for granted, not fathoming that there was a time when [at least some of] these things were not as self evident. I would think that eternity, as we envision it, will be that way. We will find it hard to reflect back and imagine that there was ever a time when we didn’t know with mathematical certainty that God was real, because like Math it’ll then just be a fact of life, a no brainer. That certainty, again, will be the fulfillment of your hope, though I understand what it is to wish we could have it sooner, in this life.

I just want the truth. If I have to give up some hope or happiness in this lifetime for it, so be it. I truly mean that. I’d rather have a foundation of truth than the hope of something that might not be real.

I suppose there is a technical but real difference between us there. I do not want a falsehood, and insofar as that is true I want the truth (since anything not true is falsehood). However, between truth and hope, I value hope infinitely more. Hope can only exist, however, where there is a chance that the hope could be true, so that takes us back to the fact that I do not want a falsehood. I guess you could say that I would not believe in something I knew to be false (where’s the hope in that?!) but that I am willing to take a risk at being incorrect if that risk represents the greater hope to me than playing it intellectually safe and only sticking with what I can absolutely know and sense empirically.

As I said before, if our religion is true, you will definitely have your wish one day: All will know the truth with complete certainty. Whatever happens, I sincerely hope that not only will you know the truth, but that you will bask in it happily on the Heavenly side of eternity. I’d like that, and judging by all you’ve said I know you would too.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[greylorn]

Last post? Okay… I lied.

This is tempting to some degree. Alas, I’m just not there yet. My intellectual issues right now outweigh that part of me that wishes. I desire certitude. I desire everyone in the world to know the truth about this area, whatever it may be: no gods, one god, multiple gods, evil gods… whatever it may be, I want the whole world to know and be unified. Religion as it stands is about the most divisive force I can think of. I doubt it intends to be such, and many believers would not cringe slightly inside to find out someone they knew at work was an atheist or Muslim or what-have-you… but nevertheless, there is a clear recognition that beliefs differ. We take this extremely personally. I have felt this cringe myself simply in finding out that a very holy friend was not Catholic but Protestant. No objective reason to have that, but I just recognized this sadness about him that was not there before – almost like an instinct.

Good points (snipped the rest):

• I realize that Catholicism doesn’t damn people who don’t know because they haven’t heard
• I do have some issues with even the idea of hell at least as how William Lane Craig explains it. I also have issues with the Church Fathers’ writings about it; namely that those in heaven will be overjoyed while watching the suffering of others down below. Awful.
• Should I become an atheist (I don’t even know what to call myself at present), I wish to live my life in a morally beneficial way. I would like to exemplify everything that Christians believe defines a ‘good’ person, minus the prayer time, Church time, dogma, etc. At the heart of it all, the golden rule is a human theme (altruism), not a Jesus-only theme.
• I would like nothing more than to have an opportunity to ‘bend my knee’ should Jesus be real. If he exists, I want to know that truth. Were I to be unable for whatever reason (personality, my criteria for belief, etc.) to bring myself to belief but my life was one of service and love to my fellows, I suppose I don’t exactly expect a god to allow me the opportunity to worship, but the hypothesis strikes me as fair. I have loved his creatures well and therefore would like the opportunity to love him if he exists.

Very true and I appreciate this last recognition significantly. I’m 26. Married. 1 daughter and one on the way. This is agonizing to varying degrees, depending on the day and situation. I don’t necessarily perceive the same hope situation that you do (as in, without Christianity, there is none), though it is more of a ‘hopeless’ situation for me to know that neither stance about god can be proven, at least at present. This is quite frustrating. Of all the answers to know and cherish, this one is extremely illusive. I love math. Why? There is one answer. That’s it. It’s lovely. Yet the maker of math, should he exist, cannot be obtained, studied, understood, perceived directly, etc. It’s an awful state for me.

I will continue on. Debate and discussion are helpful, probably mostly as a way for me to express my insides vs. actually proving one thing to myself or anyone else. At the end of the day, it probably comes down to Pascal’s famous saying: ‘The heart has reasons that reason cannot know.’ Typically this is applied to why believers believe. For me right now, I would state that it is perhaps why I do not believe. Though the same evidence is present, I am not satisfied and others are. On the whole, the world is far more unconvinced than convinced, but it’s never really been about numbers to me. I just want the truth. If I have to give up some hope or happiness in this lifetime for it, so be it. I truly mean that. I’d rather have a foundation of truth than the hope of something that might not be real.

How is any of this yammering helping the OP’s 13 yo kid?

What good is any “foundation of truth” if a 13 year old cannot defend the so-called truth against her peers, who read quasi-science?

Please, try to contribute something to the point of the OP, or start a thread to deal with your personal agendas.

 

[siothrun]

i’ve heard from people who have attended catholic schools who weren’t catholic themselves say that the catholics are just as badly behaved as non’s. this is true of adults too, but its just another “reason” why they don’t look for something deeper.

 

[jinminn]

How is any of this yammering helping the OP’s 13 yo kid?

What good is any “foundation of truth” if a 13 year old cannot defend the so-called truth against her peers, who read quasi-science?

Please, try to contribute something to the point of the OP, or start a thread to deal with your personal agendas.

Interesting response for several reasons:

• At 13 years old, I doubt the OP’s kid can be helped in this situation. The children on either side of the debate almost certainly believe because they have been informed what to believe by their respective parents. This is the case for some 90% or more of the world’s population.
• Without defining what you mean by ‘quasi-science’, you can’t really setup a false ultimatum, positing that the only two alternatives are ‘quasi-science’ and ‘so-called truth.’ The OP didn’t even discuss scientific arguments against Christianity; they all had something to do with either ‘Why does god allow bad things to happen to good people’ or ‘why does the devil have reign in some cases’ or ‘how does free will work’? Either way (in not defining quasi-science and in being unrelated to the OP), your comment serves no purpose.
• A ‘foundation of truth’ would be extremely useful. Use this opportunity to get the 13 year old interested in epistemology and philosophy. Teach things on a child’s level where necessary/possible. I’m an engineer; my degree didn’t afford me time to take a lot of classes in philosophy and such. Start this individual young. It will lead her to a quicker grasp of coming to her own conclusions sooner:

— If her reasoning allows her to conclude that Christianity is true, then you now have someone who is more capable of ‘owning their faith.’ She will be able to truly live it because she will have both an experiential component and the intellectual component necessary to not require another party to post on a forum to get all of these questions answered. I’m not insulting the poster or the child; we all need to wrestle with these questions sooner or later… my point is that the sooner this girl can wrestle with the questions, the sooner her path will be her own rather than that of her parents’.

— If her reasoning leads her to conclude that there is poor evidence for Christianity, people should support that finding if it is made via sound reasoning and much searching. Continue suggesting alternative considerations, but let her be free.

• Lastly, I began my posting discussing my personal experience with questions like this and my comments about how interesting it is that the same ‘evidence’ looks so differently to different people. KindredSoul and I began posting back and forth and the discussion went where it went.

— My experience has been that sometimes people enjoy reading through the various discussions that spin off of topics. I suppose your case illustrates that others do not.

— Also, though eventually our discussion diverged from the specific nature of the original post, it still discussed many relevant issues that this 13 year old might likely encounter as evidence for/against Christianity. The poster is free to pass the two sides on to his/her son/daughter as he/she wishes.

— Lastly, I find it odd to be reprimanded by someone who prefaced his/her post with a ‘big entrance’ about hating the lower emotions and then went on to post an analogy about how the Church needs to drop its dogma and re-learn fundamentals… No suggestion was made as to what these fundamentals would be or how anyone could extract any substance from that analogy.
----- Then he/she defended criticism on the basis of little sleep
----- Then he/she continued using football analogies. Care to explain how the original poster will benefit by telling his/her son/daughter that they need to relearn how to ‘block, tackle, rush’ and such? How in the world will that help this 13 year old?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

i’ve heard from people who have attended catholic schools who weren’t catholic themselves say that the catholics are just as badly behaved as non’s. this is true of adults too, but its just another “reason” why they don’t look for something deeper.

I often hear this argument. In my eyes it is just an immature denial of something that one those not like. Christianity makes moral demands that we would rather not keep to; even Christians feel hard done by in following their faith. So, the obvious scapegoat is to point out that some Christian has done wrong in the name of their faith and thus their faith cannot possibly be true. But you don’t follow a faith because of what other people are doing or feeling. You follow a faith because it makes sense of the world we live in and our value as people. That’s like saying that because a Nazi came in my house and murdered my children, that therefore 2+2 cannot possibly be 4. I won’t believe it because a Nazi couldn’t possibly be telling the truth and murder my children at the same time.

A mature person does not judge a faith by the people that follow it, but rather, you judge a faith according to its teachings.

 

[R_Daneel]

A mature person does not judge a faith by the people that follow it, but rather, you judge a faith according to its teachings.

Why not both? A teaching which is not followed by its adherents is not worth to judge. And, of course, I heard many times just how wonderful the teachings of Christianity are, after all, look at A, B and C, they are devout Christians and look how wonderful their behavior is… You can’t claim the good stuff and sweep the bad stuff under the carpet. Well, you can try, but you will not be taken seriously.

Furthermore: “by their fruits we shall know them”… seems to me that I heard this before

 

[KindredSoul]

Why not both? A teaching which is not followed by its adherents is not worth to judge. And, of course, I heard many times just how wonderful the teachings of Christianity are, after all, look at A, B and C, they are devout Christians and look how wonderful their behavior is… You can’t claim the good stuff and sweep the bad stuff under the carpet. Well, you can try, but you will not be taken seriously.

Furthermore: “by their fruits we shall know them”… seems to me that I heard this before

I guess the answer would be similar to this: If (strictly for the sake of argument) Vegetarianism was supposedly healthier than omnivorism, you couldn’t judge that based on the lousy health of so-called vegetarians who had steak dinners three times a day. Their health could be the result of betraying their vegetarianism, not the vegetarianism itself. If someone said to you: “Look how wonderful the health is of vegetarians!” you shouldn’t logically look at the “vegetarians” who are eating pounds upon pounds of meat daily and conclude: “Doesn’t look like they’re so healthy to me.” It is to be an understood part of the first sentence that by “vegetarian” the person means someone who actually lives like a vegetarian should live. It’s the same with the person who says “Look how wonderful Christian behavior is!” It’s an understood part of the sentence that they mean someone who lives in line with Christianity, not someone who simply calls themselves Christian.

“By their fruits we shall know them,” was specifically saying that by the fruits of an individual’s life you would know if that individual was living a Christian lifestyle. It is the individual, not Christianity itself, to whom those very wise words apply when Christian individuals do very unChristian things.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[MindOverMatter2]

What is the most simple, easy-to-understand way to address these questions that are being discussed by a group of 13 year olds?

1. Why does God allow innocent children to be abused?
2. Why does He allow them to suffer?
3. Why does He allow the devil to possess innocent people, especially children?
4. We know that He gives us free will, and that bad things are caused by sin, but why does He allow other people’s sins and free will hurt an innocent child? Why doesn’t He protect them - they didn’t choose to sin - it was others who sinned. They should be the ones suffering for their own sins.

Help!!!

Heaven is that which ought to be the case. Good is that which ought to exist.
To do good to some person is to wish them the greatest good that is heaven. If there is no heaven, then there is no such thing as good. Good is defined by the fact of heaven, which is absolute perfect moral goodness and everything that those words entail. Thus to do good is to give somebody heaven or to direct them toward heaven.

If their is an absolute goodness that is love, and its goodness and love is identical to its being and that being is the root of all possible realities, then it follows that to exist is a good thing; since being is objectively good. To be a good being is to express being. Thus such a being could never decide that it was not good to create something or bring something in to being on the basis of suffering, because that would mean that under some circumstances being is not good; which is a contradiction to the fact that being is objectively good. The reason that suffering is perceived as a contradiction to good is because people mistakenly think of good in terms of feelings; and they thing of good as being analogous to pain and pleasure. But a good act is not determined by a measure of pain but rather it is determined by the “destination” to which some act is directed.

Now, imagine that God knows that to create something would necessarily create the possibility of evil and suffering. God would create the beings anyway, because God is the root of all moral fulfillment, and to deny somebody’s existence on the account of suffering would be the same as denying them moral fulfillment. Also, such a being would know that to deny the existence of potential reality would also be a contradiction because its would mean that love is selfish; which is impossible.To not share ones love is to be selfish which would be a contradiction to being because love and goodness is identical to the being that is God. Thus Gods nature is to share Gods love.

Now we must understand that to be God is to act for the greatest good. And this act is heaven to any being that potentially participates in that act for the greatest good, since love and being is the root of all good things. But if a being does not participate in that act they will continue to have being but they will not experience the heaven that is contained in the perfect act of God. We must also understand that love cannot be forced on other beings, since this is a selfish act. Love must be freely chosen. God cannot force us in to a loving relationship, since love is as such that people must be free to choose it. Otherwise it is not love. It is slavery. Thus it will follow that in order for created beings to experience God in this fashion they require a degree of freedom that will allow them a length of time in which they are able to choose between selfishness and perfect love, and it may be that in order for the “greatest good” to be achieved, that therefore all of humanities destiny must be intertwined in so far as choice is concerned, since love and choice concerns a human beings actions within a community of other living human beings. Thus one persons bad actions has the potentiality to effect everybody else.

God wants to give every opportunity for love and repentance. God values all human beings the same in so far as they have the potentiality for good. Since God views all human beings with the same value, it could follow that humans will do great wickedness to each-other and God will not interfere or take sides; unless its necessary for the salvation of human souls and only God can determine when it is necessary to intervene. Gods wants to save all souls and this is evident by the very fact that we exist. But Gods ultimate concern is the greatest moral good, since without the greatest moral good there is no heaven and therefore no existence; which is logically impossible. The greatest good could quite possibly involve the permission of great evil, for the simple fact that if God does interfere then that greatest good will not be achieved and the greatest good is providing everybody the potentiality to freely participate in the eternal moral act that is Love. To experience the heaven of God we must freely choose to love God, and we must see it as our vocation to endure suffering for the sake of the greatest moral good which is Heaven. Otherwise we do not truly love heaven if we would allow evil to take it from us. Also God would not be good if he denied us heaven on the basis that we could suffer. Without the possibility of evil, beings like ourselves (creatures with freewill) cannot possibly exist.

Thus evil exists because God is good. The devil tries to cloud our minds with suffering and pain so that we forget the true goal of existence. The goal of our existence is not pleasure, but rather the goal of our existence is to participate in the eternal moral act of love, and until we fulfill our choice in the here and now, we will not see a world where there is no suffering, because a world with no suffering is the world that we must choose; and in order to have it we must be willing to participate in the Greatest Moral Good.

 

[R_Daneel]

I guess the answer would be similar to this: If (strictly for the sake of argument) Vegetarianism was supposedly healthier than omnivorism, you couldn’t judge that based on the lousy health of so-called vegetarians who had steak dinners three times a day. Their health could be the result of betraying their vegetarianism, not the vegetarianism itself. If someone said to you: “Look how wonderful the health is of vegetarians!” you shouldn’t logically look at the “vegetarians” who are eating pounds upon pounds of meat daily and conclude: “Doesn’t look like they’re so healthy to me.” It is to be an understood part of the first sentence that by “vegetarian” the person means someone who actually lives like a vegetarian should live. It’s the same with the person who says “Look how wonderful Christian behavior is!” It’s an understood part of the sentence that they mean someone who lives in line with Christianity, not someone who simply calls themselves Christian.

The trouble with your line of reasoning is that vegetarianism is very simple to define, while Christianity is not. Without going into details about the Vegans (who do not consume any animal product) and the “simple” Vegetarians, the definition is obvious, and simple. If someone professes to be a vegetarian and does not follow the “rules”, he is not a vegetarian. This is not so simple when one comes to evaluate who is a “true” Christian and who is not. If one is careful, one can select certain passages of the Bible to support pretty much anything and everything. So it is impossible to separate the goats from the sheep. The slaveholders (just an example) believed that they are “real” Christians, and were able to select the verses of the Bible to support their view. Maybe you say that it is only the Catholic Church that is “qualified” to make such an evaluation. The trouble is that not everyone will agree with you.

“By their fruits we shall know them,” was specifically saying that by the fruits of an individual’s life you would know if that individual was living a Christian lifestyle. It is the individual, not Christianity itself, to whom those very wise words apply when Christian individuals do very unChristian things.

In my opinion, both uses are legitimate.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

In my opinion, both uses are legitimate.

Only because you want it to be.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Why not both?

Okay, 2+2 is not 4, because the Nazi murdered all my children. That really rational.

 

[KindredSoul]

The trouble with your line of reasoning is that vegetarianism is very simple to define, while Christianity is not. Without going into details about the Vegans (who do not consume any animal product) and the “simple” Vegetarians, the definition is obvious, and simple. If someone professes to be a vegetarian and does not follow the “rules”, he is not a vegetarian. This is not so simple when one comes to evaluate who is a “true” Christian and who is not. If one is careful, one can select certain passages of the Bible to support pretty much anything and everything. So it is impossible to separate the goats from the sheep. The slaveholders (just an example) believed that they are “real” Christians, and were able to select the verses of the Bible to support their view. Maybe you say that it is only the Catholic Church that is “qualified” to make such an evaluation. The trouble is that not everyone will agree with you.

But until you yourself know which version of it you believe to hold the real teachings of Christianity (just as we believe about Catholicism), you cannot blame Christianity itself for the bad behavior of its members when you yourself don’t even know if those people are adhering to the true teachings–because you haven’t decided what those teachings are. You can judge on a sect by sect basis, perhaps. E.g., you can say that the KKK’s interpretation of Christianity is rotten fruit or that some other sect’s interpretation is good fruit. But unless you believe that the KKK’s “Christianity” is definitely the authentic one, you can’t blame it on Christianity itself, because that implies that racism is as integral to Christianity as Christ…that’s clearly and obviously false.

Even if you are of the opinion that there is no one true Christianity, so that every sect is equal in having a legitimate claim to the title, then you must still only judge Christianity sect by sect, and not as a whole, since that would mean that KKK “Christianity” and Catholic Christianity are in fact two different religions, just two different religions with certain central similarities (belief in Christ, etc.) and which both in your opinion have a right to call themselves the same name. Therefore, you could not judge every religion which calls itself “Christian” by the KKK version of it…you could only judge KKK Christianity in particular by what KKK Christianity teaches and Catholic Christianity in particular by what Catholic Christianity teaches. You could not judge either by the other. If KKK Christianity is rotten, this has absolutely no logical connection to whether or not Catholic Christianity is good. And the same applies for all the different beliefs which call themselves Christian.

You must either know what you define to be the one true Christianity (so that you can judge Christianity by what you believe to be its one true set of teachings), or you must not judge all Christianity at all by what one member does or what individual sects teach.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[greylorn]

Interesting response for several reasons:

• At 13 years old, I doubt the OP’s kid can be helped in this situation. The children on either side of the debate almost certainly believe because they have been informed what to believe by their respective parents. This is the case for some 90% or more of the world’s population.
• Without defining what you mean by ‘quasi-science’, you can’t really setup a false ultimatum, positing that the only two alternatives are ‘quasi-science’ and ‘so-called truth.’ The OP didn’t even discuss scientific arguments against Christianity; they all had something to do with either ‘Why does god allow bad things to happen to good people’ or ‘why does the devil have reign in some cases’ or ‘how does free will work’? Either way (in not defining quasi-science and in being unrelated to the OP), your comment serves no purpose.
• A ‘foundation of truth’ would be extremely useful. Use this opportunity to get the 13 year old interested in epistemology and philosophy. Teach things on a child’s level where necessary/possible. I’m an engineer; my degree didn’t afford me time to take a lot of classes in philosophy and such. Start this individual young. It will lead her to a quicker grasp of coming to her own conclusions sooner:

— If her reasoning allows her to conclude that Christianity is true, then you now have someone who is more capable of ‘owning their faith.’ She will be able to truly live it because she will have both an experiential component and the intellectual component necessary to not require another party to post on a forum to get all of these questions answered. I’m not insulting the poster or the child; we all need to wrestle with these questions sooner or later… my point is that the sooner this girl can wrestle with the questions, the sooner her path will be her own rather than that of her parents’.

— If her reasoning leads her to conclude that there is poor evidence for Christianity, people should support that finding if it is made via sound reasoning and much searching. Continue suggesting alternative considerations, but let her be free.

• Lastly, I began my posting discussing my personal experience with questions like this and my comments about how interesting it is that the same ‘evidence’ looks so differently to different people. KindredSoul and I began posting back and forth and the discussion went where it went.

— My experience has been that sometimes people enjoy reading through the various discussions that spin off of topics. I suppose your case illustrates that others do not.

— Also, though eventually our discussion diverged from the specific nature of the original post, it still discussed many relevant issues that this 13 year old might likely encounter as evidence for/against Christianity. The poster is free to pass the two sides on to his/her son/daughter as he/she wishes.

— Lastly, I find it odd to be reprimanded by someone who prefaced his/her post with a ‘big entrance’ about hating the lower emotions and then went on to post an analogy about how the Church needs to drop its dogma and re-learn fundamentals… No suggestion was made as to what these fundamentals would be or how anyone could extract any substance from that analogy.
----- Then he/she defended criticism on the basis of little sleep
----- Then he/she continued using football analogies. Care to explain how the original poster will benefit by telling his/her son/daughter that they need to relearn how to ‘block, tackle, rush’ and such? How in the world will that help this 13 year old?

I apologize to the OP, for telling her that by posting to the CAF philosophy thread, she had posted to the right place.

She has posted to a home for irrelevant nits more occupied with their personal need to be right (e.g. normal) than to actually do anything useful.

With folks like you as allies, the kid might as well grow up in U.C. Berkeley, or in a mosque.

 

[R_Daneel]

But until you yourself know which version of it you believe to hold the real teachings of Christianity (just as we believe about Catholicism), you cannot blame Christianity itself for the bad behavior of its members when you yourself don’t even know if those people are adhering to the true teachings–because you haven’t decided what those teachings are. You can judge on a sect by sect basis, perhaps. E.g., you can say that the KKK’s interpretation of Christianity is rotten fruit or that some other sect’s interpretation is good fruit. But unless you believe that the KKK’s “Christianity” is definitely the authentic one, you can’t blame it on Christianity itself, because that implies that racism is as integral to Christianity as Christ…that’s clearly and obviously false.

Even if you are of the opinion that there is no one true Christianity, so that every sect is equal in having a legitimate claim to the title, then you must still only judge Christianity sect by sect, and not as a whole, since that would mean that KKK “Christianity” and Catholic Christianity are in fact two different religions, just two different religions with certain central similarities (belief in Christ, etc.) and which both in your opinion have a right to call themselves the same name. Therefore, you could not judge every religion which calls itself “Christian” by the KKK version of it…you could only judge KKK Christianity in particular by what KKK Christianity teaches and Catholic Christianity in particular by what Catholic Christianity teaches. You could not judge either by the other. If KKK Christianity is rotten, this has absolutely no logical connection to whether or not Catholic Christianity is good. And the same applies for all the different beliefs which call themselves Christian.

You must either know what you define to be the one true Christianity (so that you can judge Christianity by what you believe to be its one true set of teachings), or you must not judge all Christianity at all by what one member does or what individual sects teach.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

I agree that it would be unfair to blame the Catholics for the KKK’s interpretation of “Christianity”, each variant should be blamed for they believe. I am saying that there is no “true” Christianity - only a hodgepodge of widely different interpretations of what Christianity is “supposed to be”. And even the believers themselves cannot agree on a “true” Christianity.

 

[tonyrey]

I desire certitude. I desire everyone in the world to know the truth about this area, whatever it may be: no gods, one god, multiple gods, evil gods… whatever it may be, I want the whole world to know and be unified.

That would defeat the purpose of life - which is to choose for ourselves what to believe and how to live.

At the heart of it all, the golden rule is a human theme (altruism), not a Jesus-only theme.

Universal love is a Jesus-only theme because He alone told us to love our enemies.

I have loved his creatures well and therefore would like the opportunity to love him if he exists.

He also told us that if we love His creatures we love Him.

Yet the maker of math, should he exist, cannot be obtained, studied, understood, perceived directly, etc. It’s an awful state for me.

Jesus is a historical person who can be obtained, studied, understood and perceived directly in His teaching, life, death and, above all, His love…

I just want the truth. If I have to give up some hope or happiness in this lifetime for it, so be it. I truly mean that. I’d rather have a foundation of truth than the hope of something that might not be real.

What is truth - or goodness, freedom, beauty or love? They are intangible aspects of the Ultimate Reality which are more important than anything else… and indestructible…

 

[jinminn]

The strange thing is, that unity will, realistically speaking, never be ours if Atheism is true. There is nothing that could possibly, even conceivably, settle the question of Atheism being true for an absolute 100% certainty that would convince the whole world–or even the grand absolute 90%+ majority, since a universal negative in the natural world can at best be “proven” to only relative certainty.

I hear you, though you might be leaning toward a false dichotomy – either religious belief is universally accepted or nothing. Atheism doesn’t entail ‘one path’… it simply entails a lack of gods. From then would be discussions of epistemic methods, scientific theories, moral systems, etc.

I think you will find that even if the world was reduced to just one religion, these same discussions and debates would continue on. Though everyone would be Christian, the general denominations still disagree on morality, biblical interpretation, doctrines of concurrence (how free will + omniscience align), etc.

Hope that made sense.

In either case, though, it sounds like neither of us will get his wish in this life. Either atheism is true and I will press on with it given that it’s my understanding of the best explanation of the evidence, or the same with Christianity. If atheism, I’ll just never know… if Christianity, I’ll never know until I die and might have the same result as atheism.

I just add this to state that in terms of hope for universal alignment of a world view, I think there actually is an equal shot. Either god exists or he doesn’t. The evidence is present to all who want to stare it in the face and make a choice.

Thanks for the continued discussion! I truly appreciate where we’ve been able to meet

 

[jinminn]

Ugh, the twenties…I’m directly in the middle of mine too, at 25. Such a turbulent point in life, intellectually, is it not? Or so that’s my experience. Though I have faith, I have struggled more in the past couple of years than ever before.

I wonder about that too. My dad was into Eckankar (a somewhat ‘new age’ religion) and raised my half brother in it. My brother commented when we were talking about my recent ‘crisis of faith’ that he went through a deconversion from Eckankar at about this point exactly. My dad (who no longer follows that religion) also commented that it’s at this age that the brain is approaching full formation.

I would think that eternity, as we envision it, will be that way. We will find it hard to reflect back and imagine that there was ever a time when we didn’t know with mathematical certainty that God was real, because like Math it’ll then just be a fact of life, a no brainer. That certainty, again, will be the fulfillment of your hope, though I understand what it is to wish we could have it sooner, in this life.

Very possible… or it could be the other way around and we’ll wonder how we didn’t know with mathematical certainty that god didn’t exist. Either way, I think it’s a potential.

I suppose there is a technical but real difference between us there. I do not want a falsehood, and insofar as that is true I want the truth (since anything not true is falsehood). However, between truth and hope, I value hope infinitely more. Hope can only exist, however, where there is a chance that the hope could be true, so that takes us back to the fact that I do not want a falsehood. I guess you could say that I would not believe in something I knew to be false (where’s the hope in that?!) but that I am willing to take a risk at being incorrect if that risk represents the greater hope to me than playing it intellectually safe and only sticking with what I can absolutely know and sense empirically.

Interesting points and I wonder if they come down to some differences in disposition. Clarification:

• though I say that I’m willing to give up hope for truth… I actually don’t presently sense that a lack of hope is entailed. I’m not currently troubled by the possibility that god isn’t true. I’m actually fine with living my one life as best I can and still being amazed and in awe of the fact that I’m here and the awesome playground that nature has created. Einstein had much the same view – he though of ‘the unknown’ as ‘god’, but in a deist (at best) sense. Anyway, the point is that it’s another potential false dichotomy: religion = hope; atheism = less of that. I disagree and think it’s more what the believer perceives when imagining giving up the hope he currently has in his belief.
• I also am not overly concerned with the ‘risk’ factor typically put forth in Pascal’s wager. Given the number of denominations and the number of religions, it’s actually possible that some other religion is true and everyone else (including you and I) will go to hell. Keep in mind that you have the same confidence in your religion as others do in theirs. Though you may believe Christianity is more objectively true given a particular set of facts, believe me that apologetics is not a Christian invention!
• In any case, I believe that a life lived in pursuit of the truth can’t land me in hell. I sought god and he’ll know that one way or the other. If he’s just concerned purely with belief for the sake of belief then I guess I bet and lost. A benevolent god, however, who made me how I am, has witnessed the nurture elements that formed my personality, and who has monitored my mind and heart through this could very well give me the chance to bend my knee after my death should I have looked and concluded that there was not sufficient evidence.

Whatever happens, I sincerely hope that not only will you know the truth, but that you will bask in it happily on the Heavenly side of eternity. I’d like that, and judging by all you’ve said I know you would too.

Indeed I would.

 

[jinminn]

I apologize to the OP, for telling her that by posting to the CAF philosophy thread, she had posted to the right place.

She has posted to a home for irrelevant nits more occupied with their personal need to be right (e.g. normal) than to actually do anything useful.

With folks like you as allies, the kid might as well grow up in U.C. Berkeley, or in a mosque.

So… let’s get this straight:

• you criticize my post (and not that of KindredSoul who was also helping ‘derail’ things with me – I’m grateful for that, actually).
• then I explain where the posting began, how it was pertinent and went from there
• I also point out that you did little to help the OP and were told so directly by others

And your response is some type of reverse psychology childish pouting tactic? I don’t understand a criticism of someone’s allies when you hardly paint the picture of an attractive alternative posse.

Religious forums are going to attract opponents. Atheist blogs I frequent have their healthy share of religious posters who help offer other opinions and correct poor atheistic arguments. It’s a good thing.

Would you rather have a false representation of the world and have only homogeneous viewpoints?

 

[jinminn]

Heaven is that which ought to be the case. Good is that which ought to exist. To do good to some person is to wish them the greatest good that is heaven. If there is no heaven, then there is no such thing as good. Good is defined by the fact of heaven, which is absolute perfect moral goodness and everything that those words entail. Thus to do good is to give somebody heaven or to direct them toward heaven.

Aquinas supports your view:

"With regard to heretics there are two points to be observed, one on their side, the other on the side of the Church. As for heretics their sin deserves banishment, not only from the Church by excommunication, but also from this world by death. To corrupt the faith, whereby the soul lives, is much graver than to counterfeit money, which supports temporal life. Since forgers and other malefactors are summarily condemned to death by the civil authorities, with much more reason may heretics as soon as they are convicted of heresy be not only excommunicated, but also justly be put to death.

**But on the side of the Church is mercy** which seeks the conversion of the wanderer, and She condemns him not at **once, but after the first and second admonition**, as the Apostle directs. Afterwards, however, if he is still stubborn, the Church takes care of the salvation of others by separating him from the Church through excommunication, **and delivers him to the secular court to be removed from this world by death.**" (ST II:II 11:3)

We have all the elements of your ideology and the rational conclusions that can be drawn:

• No ‘good’ exists without heaven
• Therefore to bring someone to heaven defines the ‘good’
• Conversely, preventing someone from attaining heaven would be the greatest absence of good
• It is just to kill someone who might prevent the greatest good and lead (heaven) to the greatest absence of good (hell)

Aquinas even addresses your statement about Jesus’ mercy. He allows the Church, “Christ’s body on earth”, to provide three whole warnings prior to excommunication and death.

The ironic part is this is an exact replica of Jesus’ execution! He was convicted a blasphemer (akin to excommunication) and then delivered to the secular court to be removed from this world.

Brilliant.