Facebook Activity



Teen Ink on Twitter

Home > Forums > Teen Ink Forums > Personal Opinions > DO YOU BELIVE IN GOD WHY OR WHY NOT

Teen Ink Forums

Lively discussions with other teens
   
Next thread » « Previous thread

DO YOU BELIVE IN GOD WHY OR WHY NOT

Mr.packerbear12This teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Nov. 11, 2015 at 1:31 pm

Elisa, could you please provide me verses to back up your opinion? As far as I know if you read it properly we are too follow all of God's laws(however, not the levitcal priesthood, that was replaced, as is spoken of in Hebrews, and many other places, but Hebrews goes the most in depth on the Levitcal and Malkesetic(sp) priesthood).

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
ElisaTheDuckThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Nov. 11, 2015 at 5:52 pm

Romans 10:4 "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." Acts 13:39 "Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses." Romans 3:32 "This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." Galatians 3:24 "So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith." These verses are saying that Jesus remade the law when he died. No longer did you have to follow all the rules, but you only had to put your faith and trust in Christ alone to save you. Paul the Apostle expresses in Philippians 3:4-11 how he had followed the "law", but realized that nothing he ever did could reach perfection: "4 though I myself have reasons for such confidence. If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless. 7 But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8 What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ--the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. 10 I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead." The only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ's free gift of salvation is through faith and trust in him. In God's eyes we are sinful, but Jesus's shed blood acts as a cover of our sins, so all God sees is his son who never sinned. Hebrews 7:25 says "Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them." It is a gift, what Christ did for us. Which means you don't have to try to pay him back for it, because then it isn't a gift anymore. Then we are relying on our own strengths to get to heaven and that is impossible. Revelation 22:17 says "The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life."

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
ElisaTheDuckThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Nov. 11, 2015 at 5:53 pm

I apologize for my lack of paragraphs. Somehow my iPad wouldn't let me.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
NamelessWonder replied...
Nov. 12, 2015 at 4:10 am

@Mr.packerbear12,I was told in church that we just have to use the example of the cross as our guidelines to life and we are fine.The top of the cross to the bottom represntes your relationship with God that we can still have a relationship with him - and that he comes first -and the horizontal part from left to right is your relationship with others(you and others are on the same level,so dont raise their significance in your life higher than yourself,nor think of them as inferior to yourself)

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Dec. 6, 2015 at 11:21 pm

I do not believe in God. I believe in the one and only Lord and savior Satan. And you all will respect my choice of being a Satanist. Thank you. :3

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
ElisaTheDuckThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Dec. 10, 2015 at 5:36 pm

Bella I expected you to invade the forums sooner or later xDD

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
ThisEmilyDa1 replied...
Dec. 11, 2015 at 6:54 pm

Elisa, so, I believe in what you say, but I think you missed a part.
Even in the Old Testament, before the atonement, people could still repent. God gave, and still gives, multiple opportunities for us to accept him. For example, when the Israelites were going into the promised land, God ordered them to utterly destroy everybody in the promised land. Not because God loved them any less than he loves us, or than he loved the Israelites, but because they did not obey his commandments. If you read it, it says that they had denied the prophets and teachers that were given to them.

And you know how everybody was doing sacrifices? Ever since Adam and Eve, people were pretty much sacrificing lambs and stuff. That was symbolic of Christ dying for us. You can see parallels between the two because the lambs had to be male, unblemished, perfect, first born. And Jesus was all of those things too. God allowed his children back then to repent and he allowed them second chances as he does for everyone after the atonement. To say that he wouldn't is like saying that he required them to be perfect, which is...well, impossible, even for the most righteous.

Our untimelt goal is for us to get back to God at the end of this life. To do that we need to be able to repent (be forgiven for our sins). And God loved all of his children in all of history equally and he wanted ALL of us to get back to him, including the people alive before Christ. He wouldn't abandon them without that presious gift, so they were able to repent. And because they were able, technically they did not have to keep all of gods commandments or else they couldn't be saved. But they had to strive to be better, and try to keep the commandments.

It's the same way today, to go back to what packerbear said. We are not required to live under constant pressure of being perfect. And if we make honest mistakes in our lives, we can repent and try again tomorrow. But we also walk this thin line of if we are just using the atonement as an excuse to sin saying "I can just repent later" then it doesn't apply to us. It doesn't because our attitude is wrong and we are not sincerely sorry, or we think that commandment doesn't apply to us, which would be a sin in and of itself. So basically what I'm saying is, that people in the Old Testament did not have to keep ALL of God's commandments to be saved. But everybody, back then and now, have to strive to keep all of them to be saved. And everybody ever could can and will be able to repent in earnesty

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
ThisEmilyDa1 replied...
Dec. 11, 2015 at 7:11 pm

Also, I realize this may contradict your personal beliefs and I'm not trying to start a fight, but I wanted to add something. You said we don't need to get baptized and attend church and things like that. It's about trust. And yes, it is about trust. One hundred percent, but that is only a first step. After all, you can't get baptized if you don't put your full trust in the Lord. But if we trust the lord, we will strive to learn more, and keep the fire burning, seed growing. If you fully trust God and Jesus Christ, then you want to strive to keep their commandments and learn more about them. Which includes attending church and things like that. Saying that all you have to do is trust, but you don't have to go to church or get baptized or anything like that is like this to me: "hey God. I have faith in you, I believe. But I really want to share, just this one time. Also, I don't feel like attending church this week, I'm too tired." But if there's, say for example, a conflict between you and the church, what's to say that God wouldn't take care of that for you? "Sorry God, I can't attend church this Sunday because I'm tired." If you really trust in the God eventually it would be more like "thank thee for the chance to go to church and learn about you. I'm really tired though, please bless that I can be refreshed and stay awake so I can learn more." I do t know how to say all of this, but trust is the first step. Faith is the first step. It is just the embodyment of all of these commandments, if you trust in God and Jesus, you will keep their commandments. But I believe there are other steps after it.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Allen. replied...
Dec. 28, 2015 at 2:20 am

I'm not sure if I posted before... Well, I am a very different person now, anyway, so here we go.
 
I don't necessarily believe in any sort of god. I just don't have enough proof. However, I can accept someone else's belief in religion so long as it hurts nobody. 
 
I suppose that's it, then. Just a 'maybe.'

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
GenghisSwan replied...
Jan. 20, 2016 at 9:17 pm

I believe in a God and Goddess. Why do I believe what I believe? I don't know, I guess it just always felt right.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
WindRunner replied...
Feb. 21, 2016 at 7:35 pm

I firmly belive in the One God, who made heaven, earth, and the stars. I like to argue, Ahem, contradict evolution as the creation of life, once again because of the lack of evidense.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
CNBono17 replied...
Feb. 21, 2016 at 8:57 pm

Ever read the book I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Athiest by Frank Turek? Wonderful, deals very well with the "why God exists" questions. 
 
Big one: is there absolute evil in the world? If so, there has to be an absolute good because nature is naturally in equilibrium. Since no human being is perfect (one exception), then no human being can mentally define absolute good or absolute evil. Someone had to set the standard. Therefore, there is someone out there. That--along with exactly how eerily perfect the universe is for life--leads me to assume that there is god. 
 
Why am I a Christian? THAT is a question of whether a man named Jesus Christ was telling the truth when He claimed to be God in the flesh. And THAT claim hinges on one thing: whether He rose from the dead. Everyone agrees that He was executed via crucifixion; that's no debate. However, there were a few logical reasons to believe that he did rise from the dead. 
#1: those who wanted Jesus dead (and there were a lot of them) would have said something if the disciples had made the claim when His body was still in the tomb. Secular and biased sources alike say that the tomb was empty. 
#2: why the disciples didn't steal the body: if you were knowingly telling a lie--which they would've been if they'd stolen the body--would you die for that lie? All the disciples got was torture, excommunication, and execution. To go through that much, claiming you saw something when you didn't is a bit of a stretch. 
#3: Luke was among the most accurate historians to ever live. Every description he gives whether of places or people or lineages was accurate to the letter. If he was that meticulous in his geography, would he really have made up a story to go along with it? Plus the fact that both of his works (his gospel and Acts) were LETTERS to one person. 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
WindRunner replied...
Feb. 21, 2016 at 9:16 pm

Regarding creationism, Darwin himself said many htings that he could only credit to God. And most people didn't even know Darwin was a christian!

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
CNBono17 replied...
Feb. 21, 2016 at 9:21 pm

Interesting thought: the Big Bang theory actually points to the existence of God. Why? For the longest time, scientists believed that the universe had always been the way it is. With the Big Bang theory, people can agree on one thing: there was nothing, and then there was something. Getting nothing from something is physically impossible. That's where God comes in:) 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
stuntddude replied...
Feb. 28, 2016 at 10:14 pm

"I like to argue, Ahem, contradict evolution as the creation of life, once again because of the lack of evidense."
 
lel. I look forward to hearing your rebuttal to genetics, microbiology, and paleontology.
 
"Since no human being is perfect (one exception), then no human being can mentally define absolute good or absolute evil. Someone had to set the standard."
 
Those are two huge logical leaps you don't justify.
 
"along with exactly how eerily perfect the universe is for life"
 
[citation needed]
 
"And THAT claim hinges on one thing: whether He rose from the dead."
 
Okay, first of all, that makes no logical sense. There are two possiblities this ignores that are objectively just as likely as their respective counterparts:

- Jesus could have risen from the dead by other supernatural means, and simply lied about the nature of his supernatual powers to appear more impressive (assuming one believes he really did rise from the dead).

- Jesus could have been the son of God even if he didn't rise from the dead.
 
"if you were knowingly telling a lie--which they would've been if they'd stolen the body--would you die for that lie?"
 
I just might, if I lived in the first century and the pride of my life's work and the credibility of my religion (the most important thing in my life) were on the line. You act like it's out of the question for someone to be willing to die for a cause they believed in if they were willing to lie for it, but history shows it's obviously not.
 
"Luke was among the most accurate historians to ever live. Every description he gives whether of places or people or lineages was accurate to the letter."
 
[citation needed]
 
"If he was that meticulous in his geography, would he really have made up a story to go along with it?"
 
There are entire genres based around this kind of writing. Have you ever heard of historical or realistic fiction?
 
"Plus the fact that both of his works (his gospel and Acts) were LETTERS to one person."
 
I don't see how this relates to the point you're trying to make.
 
"Getting nothing from something is physically impossible."
 
Assuming you meant the opposite: well, no. Getting something from nothing is "easy", as long as net energy remains the same. Have you heard of Hawking radiation?
 
Granted, one could make a compelling case, based on our current knowledge of the universe, for the existence of a creator outside the universe, but that creator wouldn't be the Christian God, or any theist's god at all. It would be a deist's god.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
CNBono17 replied...
Feb. 29, 2016 at 5:11 pm

Granted, one could make a compelling case, based on our current knowledge of the universe, for the existence of a creator outside the universe, but that creator wouldn't be the Christian God, or any theist's god at all. It would be a deist's god.
These are two different arguments: the argument for A god, and the argument for the Christian God. The natural arguments argue only for an intelligent creator. Arguments for the Christian God depend entirely on the accuracy of Jesus Christ’s claims.
[citation needed] perfection of the universe
I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Athiest, Frank Turek.
Those are two huge logical leaps you don't justify.
There IS a such thing as absolute good and evil, correct? Ever made a mistake? You fall short of a moral standard, then. Where did the moral standard come from?
[citation needed] Luke
The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel, written by an atheist trying to disprove Christianity.
There are entire genres based around this kind of writing. Have you ever heard of historical or realistic fiction?
Yes, I have, but considering that Luke’s Gospel was written within decades of Christ’s death and he interviewed eyewitnesses in order to make it as accurate as possible, plus became a missionary at personal risk, I doubt that was it.
I just might, if I lived in the first century and the pride of my life's work and the credibility of my religion (the most important thing in my life) were on the line. You act like it's out of the question for someone to be willing to die for a cause they believed in if they were willing to lie for it, but history shows it's obviously not.
It wasn’t a religion back then; it was heresy. And it wasn’t just a few people; thousands of eyewitnesses spoke. A better argument: the disciples literally went from these chickens fearing for their lives to—three days later—bold evangelists. All of them.
- Jesus could have risen from the dead by other supernatural means, and simply lied about the nature of his supernatual powers to appear more impressive (assuming one believes he really did rise from the dead).
Evidence?
- Jesus could have been the son of God even if he didn't rise from the dead.
No, he couldn’t have. He said He would, and if He was really the God He claimed to be, He’d have been incapable of that lie.
lel. I look forward to hearing your rebuttal to genetics, microbiology, and paleontology.
All have proven microevolution; there’s nothing concrete for macroevolution.
and: http://www .pbs. org/wgbh/nova/evolution/defense-intelligent-design. html
Assuming you meant the opposite: well, no. Getting something from nothing is "easy", as long as net energy remains the same. Have you heard of Hawking radiation?
1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause apart from itself.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause apart from itself.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
CNBono17 replied...
Feb. 29, 2016 at 5:11 pm

agh, that formatted badly. Sorry if it's hard to read. I'll repost in a sec

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
CNBono17 replied...
Feb. 29, 2016 at 5:15 pm

Granted, one could make a compelling case, based on our current knowledge of the universe, for the existence of a creator outside the universe, but that creator wouldn't be the Christian God, or any theist's god at all. It would be a deist's god.
These are two different arguments: the argument for A god, and the argument for the Christian God. The natural arguments argue only for an intelligent creator. Arguments for the Christian God depend entirely on the accuracy of Jesus Christ’s claims.
 
[citation needed] perfection of the universe
I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Athiest, Frank Turek.
 
Those are two huge logical leaps you don't justify.
There IS a such thing as absolute good and evil, correct? Ever made a mistake? You fall short of a moral standard, then. Where did the moral standard come from?
 
[citation needed] Luke
The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel, written by an atheist trying to disprove Christianity.
 
There are entire genres based around this kind of writing. Have you ever heard of historical or realistic fiction?
Yes, I have, but considering that Luke’s Gospel was written within decades of Christ’s death and he interviewed eyewitnesses in order to make it as accurate as possible, plus became a missionary at personal risk, I doubt that was it.
 
I just might, if I lived in the first century and the pride of my life's work and the credibility of my religion (the most important thing in my life) were on the line. You act like it's out of the question for someone to be willing to die for a cause they believed in if they were willing to lie for it, but history shows it's obviously not.
It wasn’t a religion back then; it was heresy. And it wasn’t just a few people; thousands of eyewitnesses spoke. A better argument: the disciples literally went from these chickens fearing for their lives to—three days later—bold evangelists. All of them.
 
- Jesus could have risen from the dead by other supernatural means, and simply lied about the nature of his supernatual powers to appear more impressive (assuming one believes he really did rise from the dead).
Evidence?
 
- Jesus could have been the son of God even if he didn't rise from the dead.
No, he couldn’t have. He said He would, and if He was really the God He claimed to be, He’d have been incapable of that lie.
 
lel. I look forward to hearing your rebuttal to genetics, microbiology, and paleontology.
All have proven microevolution; there’s nothing concrete for macroevolution.

and: http://www .pbs. org/wgbh/nova/evolution/defense-intelligent-design. html

 
Assuming you meant the opposite: well, no. Getting something from nothing is "easy", as long as net energy remains the same. Have you heard of Hawking radiation?
1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause apart from itself.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause apart from itself.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
WindRunner replied...
Feb. 29, 2016 at 8:10 pm

I'll post more science later when I have more time, but for now I'll post another interesting thought. 'God Spoke. BANG!!!'
There's your Big Bang.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
WindRunner replied...
Mar. 1, 2016 at 7:02 am

Charles Darwin once said; “To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”
 


We are told by evolutionists that a fish wiggled out of the sea onto dry land and became a land creature. So let's examine this idea. OK, a fish wiggles out of the sea and onto the land, but he can't breathe air. This could happen.
Whales keep swimming up onto the beach where they die. Do you think the whales are trying to expedite a multi-million generation plan to grow legs? That concept is stupid, but let's get back to the fish story.
The gills of the fish are made for extracting oxygen from water, not from air. He chokes and gasps before flipping back into the safety of the water. Why would he do such a stupid thing? This wiggling and choking continued for millions of generation until the fish chokes less and less. His gills evolve into lungs so he can breathe air on dry land, but now he is at risk of drowning in the water.
One day he simply stays out on the land and never goes back into the water. Now he is a lizard.
 
 
Giant dinosaurs literally exploded onto the scene during the Triassic period. The fossil record (petrified bones found in the ground as at the Dinosaur National Park in Jensen, Utah, USA) shows no intermediate or transitional species. Where are the millions of years of fossils showing the transitional forms for dinosaurs? They do not not exist, because the dinosaurs did not evolve.
 
Evolutionists line up pictures of similar-looking species and claim they evolved one from another. The human "family tree" is an example of this flawed theory. Petrified skulls and bones exist from hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes, elephants or the Platypus.
 
 
Charles Darwin admitted that fossils of the transitional links between species would have to be found in order to prove his "Theory of Evolution." Well, these transitional links have never been found. We only find individual species.
 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread

Launch Teen Ink Chat
Site Feedback