Teenagers: seriously questioning their faith?

[Anonymous]

You may know Jesus as a real person, but he may not seem like that to your kids -- especially if to them a real person is someone currently living or an historical figure for whom there is an abundance of evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's something called the New Testament . ^^
The old deal was trashed. Get with the AD. You are still BC.
Lol

If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why did he mess the rules up the first time and need to change them?

I'm a lapsed Catholic and just started reading the Bible cover to cover. After reading Joshua, it's hard to be sympathetic to the OT God. Not a very good role model. But given that Jesus said in Matthew 5:17 that he came to fulfill the law and not abolish it, it's difficult to discount the petty, vindictive, cruel OT god entirely.

Then there's original sin -- an OT thing from when Adam and Eve ate the apple. Jesus came along to remove the stain -- for those who would believe in him (otherwise, to hell with you).

So there's an important OT/NT tie in there.

[Anonymous]

So there's an important OT/NT tie in there.

There's a lot tying the OT to the NT.

The only time the OT gets considered as being "overruled" is when someone like the PP brings up the fire and brimstones aspects of the OT - then it's not valid. But, on the other hand, when someone wants to cite to the behavioral rules of the OT, or even to Genesis (in the case of creationists), then the OT is "the Word of God" and inviolable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's something called the New Testament . ^^
The old deal was trashed. Get with the AD. You are still BC.
Lol

I've heard some version of this quite a lot lately. I'm guessing it's meant as a soothing, rationalizing answer to the question of what to make of the really horrid stuff in the OT: " Jesus changed all of that." What people tend to overlook is that the God of the OT is Jesus' revered, omnipotent father.

Also, people tend to overlook some of the important connections, discussed above, between the Old and New testaments. Certain beliefs/events from the OT (original sin, the prophesies) are really necessary for the NT to hang together.

However, for those who are seeking to preserve their beliefs, it's easy to accept the simple analysis that the NT overrules the OT.

It reminds me of the (true) story of a couple of kids who confronted their parents with their suspicion that Santa Claus was just pretend and that it was their parents who put the gifts under the tree. When their parents acknowledged that was true, one of the kids then thought to ask about the Easter Bunny, and was satisfied (at least for a while) with their parents' answer that the Easter bunny was real. The kids were ready to give up one belief, but weren't ready to make the logical connection to another belief that they still found comforting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So there's an important OT/NT tie in there.

There's a lot tying the OT to the NT.

The only time the OT gets considered as being "overruled" is when someone like the PP brings up the fire and brimstones aspects of the OT - then it's not valid. But, on the other hand, when someone wants to cite to the behavioral rules of the OT, or even to Genesis (in the case of creationists), then the OT is "the Word of God" and inviolable.

Actually, that's not right. Jesus was very clear that he was overturning certain behavioral rules.

He specificually overturned certain eating rituals: Matthew 17 "Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth enters the stomach, and goes out into the sewer? 18 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. 19 For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. 20 These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile." (NRSV)

He also overturned the OT eye-for-eye punishments: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 38)

And he overturned the OT behavioral injunction to hate your enemies: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[b] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 43)

Jesus offered these two rules: "Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the Law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 Jesus replied, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matthew)

[Anonymous]

OP, just as a cautionary tale - please take care to not push your children too much on this. My husband's parents, who were extremely religious (evangelicals, not Catholics), pushed and pushed and pushed, to the point where his relationship with them has been irrevocably damaged. Ultimately, at 18 they kicked him out of their home because they felt he was "going down the wrong path in life". He came home one day to find the locks changed and his things on the front step. He was no longer welcome, no longer had a way to attend the college to which he'd been accepted, no longer had a family. He didn't speak to his parents for years, and though we have a relationship with them now, he will never get over the hurt they caused - in large part because they still hold just as fast to their beliefs, and still believe what they did was right. They still believe he'll "come back to Jesus one day", and don't recognize that their actions pushed their son to the point of despising Christianity (or at the very least, anything resembling their brand of it). Religion is STILL a contentious topic in our relationship with them.

Be gentle with your teens. Provide whatever kind of opportunities you wish for them to CHOOSE to engage in your chosen faith, but do not push. If you, you may very easily push them away - from your faith AND your family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:God gives free will and second chances .

But at the same time is omniscient, so knows exactly what you're going to choose anyway, and supposedly has a "divine plan" so given that he knows the choices we are all going to make and everything else that is going to happen, the "divine plan" has to be set up to account for those choices anyway or to happen in spite of those choices.

If you think time is linear, yes. Otherwise, this doesn't necessarily follow.

I'm not sure you understand the definition of omniscient.

I'm pretty sure you haven't read C.S. Lewis on this subject. He talks about omniscience in this context, too. Other theologians talk about this subject, but Lewis is very accessible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So there's an important OT/NT tie in there.

There's a lot tying the OT to the NT.

The only time the OT gets considered as being "overruled" is when someone like the PP brings up the fire and brimstones aspects of the OT - then it's not valid. But, on the other hand, when someone wants to cite to the behavioral rules of the OT, or even to Genesis (in the case of creationists), then the OT is "the Word of God" and inviolable.

Actually, that's not right. Jesus was very clear that he was overturning certain behavioral rules.

He specificually overturned certain eating rituals: Matthew 17 "Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth enters the stomach, and goes out into the sewer? 18 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. 19 For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. 20 These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile." (NRSV)

He also overturned the OT eye-for-eye punishments: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 38)

And he overturned the OT behavioral injunction to hate your enemies: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[b] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 43)

Jesus offered these two rules: "Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the Law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 Jesus replied, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matthew)

Fine, but this does not include original sin and does not show that Jesus eschewed the OT.

[Anonymous]

You'd think that if Jesus came to overrule the OT, he would have been very clear about it, saying he was in charge now, and things were different, but instead he invoked his father -- the God of the OT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So there's an important OT/NT tie in there.

There's a lot tying the OT to the NT.

The only time the OT gets considered as being "overruled" is when someone like the PP brings up the fire and brimstones aspects of the OT - then it's not valid. But, on the other hand, when someone wants to cite to the behavioral rules of the OT, or even to Genesis (in the case of creationists), then the OT is "the Word of God" and inviolable.

Actually, that's not right. Jesus was very clear that he was overturning certain behavioral rules.

He specificually overturned certain eating rituals: Matthew 17 "Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth enters the stomach, and goes out into the sewer? 18 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. 19 For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. 20 These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile." (NRSV)

He also overturned the OT eye-for-eye punishments: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 38)

And he overturned the OT behavioral injunction to hate your enemies: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[b] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 43)

Jesus offered these two rules: "Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the Law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 Jesus replied, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matthew)

Fine, but this does not include original sin and does not show that Jesus eschewed the OT.

You didn't read it.

[Anonymous]

We use the term "new covenant" a lot in the New Testament. It's a renewed relationship with God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We use the term "new covenant" a lot in the New Testament. It's a renewed relationship with God.

Yes, but it doesn't overrule the OT -- which prophesized the coming of Jesus, who was needed to remove the stain of the original sin committed by Adam and Eve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We use the term "new covenant" a lot in the New Testament. It's a renewed relationship with God.

Yes, but it doesn't overrule the OT -- which prophesized the coming of Jesus, who was needed to remove the stain of the original sin committed by Adam and Eve.

Of course, I was stating that the new covenant renewed the relationship, didn't abolish the old one. OT and NT are both indispensable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We use the term "new covenant" a lot in the New Testament. It's a renewed relationship with God.

Yes, but it doesn't overrule the OT -- which prophesized the coming of Jesus, who was needed to remove the stain of the original sin committed by Adam and Eve.

Of course, I was stating that the new covenant renewed the relationship, didn't abolish the old one. OT and NT are both indispensable.

Do you then believe in Adam and Eve being responsible for the original sin that Jesus came to redeem us from (as long as we believe in him) by dying on the cross?

[Anonymous]

What on earth does any of this OT vs NT have to do with OP's post? I know this is DCUM and prone to reeling off course but this went WAY off course.