How can I be reasonably sure God still exists?

[Gumph]

Experiential consistency
If the resurrection is true, and there is no evidence to disprove it, then the ancient Scripture is true and one needs to put faith in Christ, which is the only reasonable action available.

Reading your post a second time, this is the section I have the most difficulty with.

I don't agree with the logic. A lack of evidence to disprove something does not mean it happened. Evidence to prove a resurrection (not just a missing body), would be required IMO.

And again the nagging point of worry for me is that we shouldn't even be having to have this investigation. Why doesn't He present proof of existence now, today, every day? Why make it so difficult?

 

[Gumph]

Denying we exist is foolish.

I don't deny we exist. Its the existence of a current Deity that I am suspicious of.

 

[golgotha61]

In the mean time I present an unsubstantiated possibility on why the body was never shown: At the time he was one of many annoyances (to the authorities of the day)claiming to be the messiah. The body was lost or stolen or disposed of and at the time they felt no need to cater to the whims of a small body of followers. They probably regretted that decision in the years that followed.

There were other claims of messiahs in the region and Gamaliel addresses this in Acts chapter five. But for the Jews, Christ was more than an annoyance, He was a threat to the power and control of the Jewish ruling parties. Also, the body of Christ was protected by the Roman government itself at the behest of the Jewish rulers. Which leads one to believe that there was no cavalier treatment of the body of Christ because the claim was known that Christ would come back from the dead. So the threat presented by Christ’s claim was immediate and not something that could be dealt with years in the future. This claim of resurrection is the reason for Roman guards at the tomb and the sealing of the tomb. Again, without corroboration from reputable sources, there is no reason to accept this scenario that you have proposed.

Now I'm pretty sure you have a reason why you find that scenario implausible. Then I could probably come up with a couple more "maybe" scenarios. But it all becomes an exercise in futility because a decent discussion requires you and I to be experts in the civilisation of the time.

We can come to a reasonable conclusions without being experts in the field of Ancient Near East anthropology. With archeological discoveries that have been made over the years and relatively recent ones as well, we already have resources available for the casual Bible student. And I have found that the comparative study method very helpful in understanding the effects of the cognitive environment on Biblical narratives.



Sure it take some time and study but isn’t the discovery of truth worth the journey. And not just an academic truth, but a knowledge of a salvific truth that has an eternal value. This truth demands the energy involved in finding its authenticity.

That remains my main issue: In order to know God exists now, I need to believe in the words written in the Bible. In order to believe the words of the Bible I have to trust testimony from men in a foreign culture who were largely uneducated and lived a very long time ago.

So, what is the age and education limit that you would put on any text from any culture that would deem that text as unreliable? This brings us back to covered ground from earlier posts.

As I have already stated, time has no bearing on truth, cultural differences have no bearing on truth, and education has no bearing on truth. Truth is transcendent and the only way to get out from under the weight of truth is to prove that it is false. This is what your onus really is, the cover off foreign cultures, length time between now and the writing of the text, and educational levels are really false defenses to reject statements of reality. What you need to do is prove that these texts, no matter how old, are false and that can only be done by giving examples of contradictions that are viable.

By the way, your accusation of lack of education does not fit the authors of the Biblical texts. Just for an example; Moses who is credited with authorship of some of the early Biblical texts was highly educated. Now if you are questioning the level of knowledge compared to this present culture; that is an unfair and arrogant position. Two thousand years from now, we will appear as uneducated and ignorant.
It just seems so horribly illogical. Something that appears so incredibly crucial to us here and now, is presented to us in a format that no layperson in off the street, in 2015 can be expected to verify with reasonable ease.

We have to trust the words of others, and yet human lying and false rumour is common place - even if unintentional. Why can't this doubt be removed?

I already gave you the quote from Sir Fredrick Kenyon concerning the authenticity of Scripture in post #43. Now, in Introduction to Biblical Interpretation by William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard Jr., “[e]stimates suggest between 97 and 99 percent of the original NT can be reconstructed from the existing manuscripts beyond any measure of reasonable doubt” (122). The OT percentage is at about 90 percent. This means that the only option that is available to the detractor is to demonstrate the falsity of the text. If one suggests that the Biblical authors or scribes were lying, then there needs to be proof and the same goes for the suggestion of rumor being recorded and not fact.

 

[golgotha61]

Reading your post a second time, this is the section I have the most difficulty with.

I don't agree with the logic. A lack of evidence to disprove something does not mean it happened. Evidence to prove a resurrection (not just a missing body), would be required IMO.

And again the nagging point of worry for me is that we shouldn't even be having to have this investigation. Why doesn't He present proof of existence now, today, every day? Why make it so difficult?

Before I go into this, I need to know something from you. Do you maintain that all that exists is the material? Do you acknowledge a metaphysical existence and reality?

 

[aiki]

Am I not doing just that in this forum? I'm asking, in writing, show yourself, please.

No, I don't think you are. At least, not in the direct way I'm suggesting that you should. Academic inquiries about God are not the same as asking Him personally, straight out, to make Himself real to you. As well, I'm not sure that you would be prepared to accept His revelation of Himself to you. It would mean that you would have to take the lower place relative to Him. You would necessarily have to submit your life to His will. Are you willing to do so?

Selah.

 

[Gumph]

No matter how legitimate things may seem, it's ultimately a matter of faith.

I think you yourself just need to read the bible, do topical studies and just build your understanding of the bible. I think that's when most people find they have enough of a basis to take that leap of faith.

Well, I grew up in a Christian school and community, so have had the opportunity to do a fair amount of bible reading.

I find it a very difficult read I'm afraid. The language is unfamiliar and ambiguities common. Its not unusual for a piece of text to require scholarly clarification and interpretation.

I have a very similar feeling as to when I was expected to read Shakespeare in high school. Many people love Shakespeare. I don't.

The reason I started this thread was in the hope of finding an alternative route to the Bible. Its a book I find totally uninspiring and difficult to read. No offense is intended. That is purely my view and I'm sure most here will disagree.

The problem is that it certainly does not encourage further study of Christianity (for me anyway).

 

[Gumph]

We can come to a reasonable conclusions without being experts in the field of Ancient Near East anthropology.

I tend to agree here. I just don't think that the claim of "rising from the dead" is a reasonable one. I think lost, stolen, destroyed, hidden, etc are far more reasonable conclusions.

With archeological discoveries that have been made over the years and relatively recent ones as well, we already have resources available for the casual Bible student. And I have found that the comparative study method very helpful in understanding the effects of the cognitive environment on Biblical narratives.

You keep saying time is not a factor. We are going to have to agree to disagree on that I'm afraid. We can of course verify that a manuscript really is 2000 years old and was written by a man at the time of Jesus. But we can't verify that what he claims to have seen is true.

What exactly do all these archaeologists discover? Don't they discover writings from the time? Its the content that I doubt, not that they were written so many years ago.

Sure it take some time and study but isn’t the discovery of truth worth the journey. And not just an academic truth, but a knowledge of a salvific truth that has an eternal value. This truth demands the energy involved in finding its authenticity.

Sounds fair enough. But I'm afraid the current information available to me does not exactly make it an enticing journey that makes me want to start that journey.

So, what is the age and education limit that you would put on any text from any culture that would deem that text as unreliable? This brings us back to covered ground from earlier posts.

There is no "limit". They are simply creators of doubt. We differ in opinion on this though I'm afraid.

As I have already stated, time has no bearing on truth, cultural differences have no bearing on truth, and education has no bearing on truth.

I'm sorry. I still have a problem with relying on human testimony that was initially recorded verbally. Even if it can be proved that the texts are complete and exactly what the original tellers wanted to say, the original source remains dubious.

Personally I would like to verify their claims. But I can't. I cannot inspect the crime scene. I cannot interview witnesses. I cannot ask for them to recreate what happened .... mainly because time has passed.

Truth is transcendent and the only way to get out from under the weight of truth is to prove that it is false. This is what your onus really is, the cover off foreign cultures, length time between now and the writing of the text, and educational levels are really false defenses to reject statements of reality. What you need to do is prove that these texts, no matter how old, are false and that can only be done by giving examples of contradictions that are viable.

There are many viable contradictions. It comes down to a matter of opinion as to how likely each scenario was (and there must be dozens). And then just because a scenario is unlikely does not mean it didn't happen.

I cannot see how it can be expected that I should even be able to try and prove that an "out-of-this-world" event did not happen. You may be asking me to proves that something that never happened ... never happened. That sounds very challenging and far beyond my abilities I'm afraid.

By the way, your accusation of lack of education does not fit the authors of the Biblical texts. Just for an example; Moses who is credited with authorship of some of the early Biblical texts was highly educated.

I was under the impression that the people Jesus spoke to were largely uneducated rural folk.

Now if you are questioning the level of knowledge compared to this present culture; that is an unfair and arrogant position. Two thousand years from now, we will appear as uneducated and ignorant.

Only from the point of view that they were probably highly superstitious and also unable to accurately record what happened. Instead they had to rely on verbal records which have their natural problems.

Indeed our future cultures will most likely be very different, and I maintain it will be unfair to expect them to rely on 4000 year old testimonies on how to live their lives. In my mind it would be reasonable to expect an update and a clarification on certain issues.

This means that the only option that is available to the detractor is to demonstrate the falsity of the text. If one suggests that the Biblical authors or scribes were lying, then there needs to be proof and the same goes for the suggestion of rumor being recorded and not fact.

I'm not sure exactly what these guys managed to prove? My issue is the original witnesses themselves. The chain of evidence from someone recording the witnesses story in writing to present day is not yet of concern.

More important is, how can we verify that what the witnesses said was true (or false)? How can we possibly verify any event in the NT? Very very difficult IMO.

The scribes may not have been lying, but we have natural human shortcomings, and information is lost and changed as it passes from a witnesses oral explanation to the writings of a scribe, no matter how careful they are. I simply cannot bring myself to believe that an oral record, decades old, was accurately recorded on paper, nor that important information wasn't left out.

 

[Gumph]

Before I go into this, I need to know something from you. Do you maintain that all that exists is the material? Do you acknowledge a metaphysical existence and reality?

Material stuff is easy for me to verify to my satisfaction, using my five senses. Its all that I have ever experienced.

If by metaphysical you mean supernatural, then I cannot say it doesn't exist, but I certainly have no experience with it.

I do admit that there is lots we cannot explain.

 

[Gumph]

No, I don't think you are. At least, not in the direct way I'm suggesting that you should. Academic inquiries about God are not the same as asking Him personally, straight out, to make Himself real to you. As well, I'm not sure that you would be prepared to accept His revelation of Himself to you. It would mean that you would have to take the lower place relative to Him. You would necessarily have to submit your life to His will. Are you willing to do so?

Selah.

Not sure why it should be necessary to have to ask in the first place, but anyway.

How exactly then do I go about asking him?

Why on earth would I not accept the revelation of a superior being who with all their wisdom and superior knowledge, could convince me beyond any doubt that they exist? If he created me I'm already lower and I'm not sure what submitting my life would entail. I suspect however that knowing the rules of this game we call life would be a lot better than all this guessing.

 

[Gumph]

My summary of what I have gleaned from this thread so far:

- I can only be reasonably sure that God still exists by studying the Bible. There is no other way.
- The Bible does not give me an obvious way to prove to myself that God still exists, but rather implies as much.
- This means to me that one would need to have faith in the content and accuracy of the Bible in order to believe the above message.

 

[Receiver]

My summary of what I have gleaned from this thread so far:

- I can only be reasonably sure that God still exists by studying the Bible. There is no other way.

You missed my point.
Studying the bible may enable you to believe in the existence of the God that it talks about, but you still have no relationship witrh that God, no personal experience, only your own imagination of what that is like, based on your limited human experience of "love", "joy", "peace" etc.

From the disciples onward people found God not by bible study but by meeting people who had God inside, his Spirit, they saw the difference. You should come to a meeting of people that have what all the disciples received in Acts 2, and where the gifts and ministries of the Holy Spirit are operated as God commands, or at least get in contact with the nearest.

If you do meet God's people they will all be a great help to you.
Many are called, many choose not to come, at the end those that did will be God's witnesses against those who did not.

I'll leave you with the first words of Jesus from John 1:

"And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.
Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and says to them, What seek ye?
They say to him, ... Master where do you dwell?
He says to them, Come and see.

When you have done that we can go further.

 

[Gumph]

@Golgotha61

This "time" issue you and I have is worrying me. Perhaps an analogy with something we are familiar with today - a missing persons / murder crime scene. Something that is not too far off the incident we have been discussing.

A domestic violence incident occurs in the suburbs. There is some screaming and shouting and a woman is stabbed to death.

If the police are called to the scene immediately. They can catch a man bundling the body into the boot of his car and cleaning up the mess in the lounge. Evidence can be collected and witnesses interviewed. There is no doubt that its a murder.

If the woman is only noticed to be missing after a month, the crime scene has been 99 % cleaned and the body is missing. Witnesses may have difficulty remembering exactly what happened a month ago, although I suppose still a pretty good idea. Its now not clear whether this is a missing persons report or a murder report.

If a year passes, before the police are alerted, some of the witness neighbours have moved, the man no longer even lives there. The old lady across the road still remembers the night quite clearly, well the bit that she saw anyway. Statement are taken just in case.

Now 50 years later the cold case is opened again. The written statement by the old lady can be verified as being her genuine witness account of the incident. It is not a forgery and is not made up. She genuinely believed she heard screaming, she remembers the young woman sometimes visiting the house, she remembers strange things happening there ...

The fact that the piece of paper was written by the old lady is not really in dispute. We cannot easily prove she was lying, as she is simply saying what she thought she saw. What is now very difficult, is verifying what she says in her witness testimony. We cannot cross question her, we cannot gather physical evidence to support her view. Any reliance on her as a reliable witness now requires us to make deductions based on people who knew her or on looking at records from her life. Not as good as being able to make the evaluation ourselves.

And that is how I see time being an issue. Time affects memories. We make mistakes.

The written statement may not have changed in 2000 years, its our inability to verify the original content that worries me.

 

[Gumph]

@ Receiver

Ok maybe we have an potential alternative here.

How do these meetings differ from normal church activities and sermons? Keep in mind I grew up in a somewhat Christian environment. What makes these meetings any different?

How do I know which groups have the right gifts and which don't? How do I identify someone who has God's spirit inside? I have met many Christians in my life. Some devout, some not so, some nice, some not so. In none have I noticed anything super natural or similar.

What will be explained or shown in these meetings that cannot be done here?

 

[Receiver]

How do these meetings differ from normal church activities and sermons?

Keep in mind I grew up in a somewhat Christian environment. What makes these meetings any different?

How do I know which groups have the right gifts and which don't?

What's normal?
don't bother answering that!
We have spiritual songs "choruses", a personal testimony of someone who has received God's Spirit and enjoys a relationship with God. They will say what was happening in their life before and how God changed what they couldn't change.

All then stand and we have 2 or 3 gifts of tongues, each followed by a gift of interpretation and 2 or 3 prophecies ... all from God, he will give the right words and inspiration for the people present.
(Sundays only we have "communion" & hymn)

We then have the talk, words of knowledge and wisdom from life, bringing out spiritual truths, seeing things as God sees them.

Then we have a prayer line where anyone wanting to pray about something can go forward. Then we close and have fellowship - meet & catch up with people, opportunity for a private chat, prayer or baptism if required, people tend to eat & drink as well.

You will find these things detaild in 1 Corinthians chapters 11 to 14, 14 especially.

I don't really want to go into minute detail, please just do as others do and come once!

How do I identify someone who has God's spirit inside? I have met many Christians in my life. Some devout, some not so, some nice, some not so. In none have I noticed anything super natural or similar.

I knew before I even got to a meeting, the people who spoke in tongues had a contentment and confidence/authority I hadn't seen anywhere else. The meeting was like Jesus talking to me, calling me home. That was 28 years ago!

What will be explained or shown in these meetings that cannot be done here?

See above, also to have a relationship with God is to "walk" with him, love is a doing word, if you want to see God in action and have that LIFE you will want to be involved, but that all comes after you have first received His Spirit.

 

[aiki]

Not sure why it should be necessary to have to ask in the first place, but anyway.

Is He supposed to throw Himself at you? Asking God to reveal Himself to you acknowledges your need of Him. Doing so tacitly acknowledges the relationship of inferior to superior that you are in with your Creator.

How exactly then do I go about asking him?

There are no prescribed phrases or prayers, just a genuine, heartfelt plea to know Him personally. Sincerity is key.

Why on earth would I not accept the revelation of a superior being who with all their wisdom and superior knowledge, could convince me beyond any doubt that they exist?

Because that revelation comes at the price of your illusion of independence from Him.

If he created me I'm already lower and I'm not sure what submitting my life would entail.

The apostle Paul described it as a "living sacrifice." You place all you are and all you possess at God's disposal. You are not your own, the Bible says, therefore you ought to live to glorify God in your body and spirit.

I suspect however that knowing the rules of this game we call life would be a lot better than all this guessing.

Knowing the "rules of the game" is not the sum of what God offers to you. He offers you fellowship with the Rule Maker.

- I can only be reasonably sure that God still exists by studying the Bible. There is no other way.

Well, no, there are other ways. You can know God exists sans the Bible. It's just that who that God is exactly remains a mystery. See the Kalam Cosmological Argument or Liebniz's Argument from Contingency or the many Teleological arguments. None of these rely on the Bible at all.

- The Bible does not give me an obvious way to prove to myself that God still exists, but rather implies as much.

An obvious way? The Bible seems quite an obvious declaration of God's existence to me...

- This means to me that one would need to have faith in the content and accuracy of the Bible in order to believe the above message.

Yes, of course.

Selah.

 

[Gumph]

@Receiver

You actually win this one because I have been offered the opportunity to speak to someone on the phone and/or visit a group of individuals who claim to have the answer. The offer should be accepted if this thread was started by my personal desire to be converted and saved. I'm not there yet, sorry.

The trepidation I face in having to go to a meeting with strangers over something that I find totally alien and difficult to comprehend is .... well, daunting.

Every religious experience I have had to date has been somewhat disappointing. I simply don't want to go through another one. That's my current personal feeling. Others of course are welcome to pursue that avenue.

This post isn't so much about my conversion. Its more about knowledge and understanding. Why and how do 2 billion people claim to be Christian? That question on its own is too vague. Finding out how some of them came to believe and how others could perhaps do the same is part of my gathering of knowledge and satisfying my curiosity.

Make sense?

 

[Gumph]

Is He supposed to throw Himself at you? Asking God to reveal Himself to you acknowledges your need of Him. Doing so tacitly acknowledges the relationship of inferior to superior that you are in with your Creator.

No I don't expect that. But I would expect a Deity to make it obvious that he is around, now. I don't know if I need him yet, I'd be more comfortable figuring out our relationship once I was convinced he was still here.

There are no prescribed phrases or prayers, just a genuine, heartfelt plea to know Him personally. Sincerity is key.

If a God indeed existed now, is it not obvious that everyone would sincerely like to know him? Its the doubt of existence that clouds our sincerity, not a lack of respect should he actually be out there.

Because that revelation comes at the price of your illusion of independence from Him.

I don't see a problem with being dependant on a superior being. I think the idea of a parental figure is pleasant.

The apostle Paul described it as a "living sacrifice." You place all you are and all you possess at God's disposal. You are not your own, the Bible says, therefore you ought to live to glorify God in your body and spirit.

That seems like an awfully significant demand on my one and only life (although I'm not really sure what it actually entails) from someone I cannot see, hear, or feel.

Knowing the "rules of the game" is not the sum of what God offers to you. He offers you fellowship with the Rule Maker.

That doesn't change the fact that these rules are somewhere between non -existent and unclear to me.

Well, no, there are other ways. You can know God exists sans the Bible. It's just that who that God is exactly remains a mystery. See the Kalam Cosmological Argument or Liebniz's Argument from Contingency or the many Teleological arguments. None of these rely on the Bible at all.

Do these prove / argue that a God must exist or do they prove / argue that the Christian God exists? Its the search for the Christian God that intrigues me right now.

An obvious way? The Bible seems quite an obvious declaration of God's existence to me...

A book in difficult language with ambiguities, hidden meanings and symbolism - obvious? Nope sorry I beg to differ. There must be hundreds of more obvious ways.

 

[Receiver]

...The trepidation I face in having to go to a meeting with strangers over something that I find totally alien and difficult to comprehend is .... well, daunting.

Yes, I understand, we've all been there.

If it helps I or someone near you can meet at a local cafe of your choice.
Our UK website has photos of us.
I don't know what a mad ax-murderer looks like but if that's what we are how could we assemble such numbers?

The "Healed by God" section has some video testimonies from our Austrralian brothers & sisters.

Every religious experience I have had to date has been somewhat disappointing. I simply don't want to go through another one. That's my current personal feeling. Others of course are welcome to pursue that avenue.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, you've spent numerous hours with groups that let you down, why not just visit one meeting like the ones detailed in the New Testament, you have freely admitted that you have never been to one, you owe it to yourself.

It's not emotionalism or any other false justification that the "churches" that don't do itthat way use. You can sit next to the exit nd leave whenever you like!

I gotta go to the Weds. evening meeting now.

 

[aiki]

No I don't expect that. But I would expect a Deity to make it obvious that he is around, now. I don't know if I need him yet, I'd be more comfortable figuring out our relationship once I was convinced he was still here.

I don't see that you would be free to do any "figuring out" if God made Himself undeniably evident to you. And this is part of the problem with Him doing so; it removes completely your freedom to choose to interact with Him. If God stood before you, you would have no choice whatever but to drop before Him in awe and worship. But the force of His presence would provoke such a response, not necessarily your own positive desire. God does not want forced fidelity or worship; for such things cannot be forced and at the same time be genuine.

If a God indeed existed now, is it not obvious that everyone would sincerely like to know him? Its the doubt of existence that clouds our sincerity, not a lack of respect should he actually be out there.

It isn't obvious to me at all that everyone would like to know God. He once stood before men and they despised him and nailed him to a cross. God gets in the way; He demands too much; He puts boundaries on our self-gratification. And as so many atheists have said to me, "Who is God to tell me what to do?" No, I don't think it is the natural inclination of anyone to seek after God. We're generally all far too self-centered to want to do so.

I don't see a problem with being dependant on a superior being. I think the idea of a parental figure is pleasant.

Hmmm...I am not sure you quite understand who God is. At least, not the biblical revelation of Him. Yes, God is a Heavenly Father to all who accept His Son as their Saviour, but He remains the Creator and Supreme Sovereign of the Universe. This means, among other things, that our relationship to God is not only that of a child and parent but of creature to Creator and the finite to the infinite. God makes demands of us that no human parent would ever have the right to make. He orders our lives in a way unique to His role as the Ground of all Reality.

That seems like an awfully significant demand on my one and only life (although I'm not really sure what it actually entails) from someone I cannot see, hear, or feel.

Well, you see, you weren't made for time but for eternity. Your time on Earth is not, if the Bible is true, the sum total of your existence. Eternity awaits you on the other side of death.

The fact that God is a Spirit and thus not directly accessible to your physical senses is part of the reason why He calls all who will walk with Him to do so "by faith, not by sight."

That doesn't change the fact that these rules are somewhere between non -existent and unclear to me.

I suppose. But knowing the Rule Maker is a big part of understanding His rules.

Do these prove / argue that a God must exist or do they prove / argue that the Christian God exists? Its the search for the Christian God that intrigues me right now.

While the Kalam Cosmological Argument does not explicitly argue for the God revealed in the Bible, the kind of First Cause that the argument argues for is identical - as far as it goes - to Him.

A book in difficult language with ambiguities, hidden meanings and symbolism - obvious? Nope sorry I beg to differ. There must be hundreds of more obvious ways.

I didn't suggest that there weren't other simpler, more readily obvious ways God could have revealed Himself, only that the Bible, to me, is not an obscure method of divine revelation. But, then, my vantage point on the matter is quite different from yours...

Selah.

 

[Gumph]

I don't see that you would be free to do any "figuring out" if God made Himself undeniably evident to you. And this is part of the problem with Him doing so; it removes completely your freedom to choose to interact with Him. If God stood before you, you would have no choice whatever but to drop before Him in awe and worship. But the force of His presence would provoke such a response, not necessarily your own positive desire. God does not want forced fidelity or worship; for such things cannot be forced and at the same time be genuine.

He can't present himself to me because then I would have no choice. He wants me to have choice, so drops some clues that he exists. I then need to try and piece these clues together to find him and then he will present himself. Fair summary?

I really need the background on why this whole system needs to take place. Why does he feel the need to follow this process? I'm expected to blindly participate in a process without being given the reason why.

Without intending to trivialise the matter, I feel like someone is inviting me on a treasure hunt, but the map is complicated, I'm not sure if its the right map and no one will tell me what the treasure is, just that its wonderful. And most importantly, they can't tell me why the treasure hunt is even there in the first place. If I fail to find the treasure though, there will be trouble.

It isn't obvious to me at all that everyone would like to know God. He once stood before men and they despised him and nailed him to a cross. God gets in the way; He demands too much; He puts boundaries on our self-gratification. And as so many atheists have said to me, "Who is God to tell me what to do?" No, I don't think it is the natural inclination of anyone to seek after God. We're generally all far too self-centered to want to do so.

What happened to "I would have no choice but to bow down in awe of him?

Hmmm...I am not sure you quite understand who God is.

You are so frustratingly right. I have no idea. Why doesn't he just sit down with me and explain who he is, why we are here and what the general deal is? And do so personally in 2015 English. Don't send a fallible messenger, do so personally or at the very least use some super natural method that removes all doubt.

I'm ranting and trivialising a bit. Hope I'm not offending. I do think it illustrates my frustrations though.