Why does God not present himself to us more openly?

[Gumph]

.. which I have offered as an example of a point of view given by Jesus (assumed to agree totally with God), that there is a proper way to enter. If someone does not enter the proper way, Jesus describes them a thief and a robber. These words are quite descriptive. Can you think of why these words might apply in this context, to someone who wants to enter into the kingdom of God (or heaven), but without doing it the proper way? Why do you think that I would suggest for you to consider, that someone doing this is a thief and a robber, and do you think it is or is not necessarilly right?

I'm still stuck on this meaning there is a certain way in which you have to do this process. I cannot for the life of my see the link to why it shouldn't all be obvious to everyone. Maybe he wants it to be hard and not take the easy route. Fair enough, I see the logic in entering a difficult mountain race as opposed to a flat race through fields. But in both cases I want to see the race organisers and marshals.

 

[bling]

It would be helpful to me if he was more obvious about it.

Since there is something, and not nothing, than there could be a god?

Every living thing is evidence of a god, if you allow that to be evidence.

I'm still not sure I understand yet why faith is a necessary part of this whole process. I recall some answers earlier, but none resulted in a "light bulb" moment.

Let us work backwards here:

God (who is totally unselfish) wants to gift you with the greatest gifts possible which includes being like God himself.
God cannot force these gifts on you nor can you just instinctively have them, since that would be either robotic or unloving to force it on you.
You have to accept these gifts out of a true free will choice (a choice with likely alternatives so it is truly your choice). Since they are purely charitable gifts they must be humbly accepted as gifts.
The easiest way to obtain this little humility that is need is through the humility needed to trust (faith) in the existence of a benevolent Creator. The lowliest person on earth can humbly trust in the existence of a benevolent Creator.
There is no great “knowledge” you need over anyone else to trust in a benevolent creator so it is a completely fair/just way to provide these gifts to one over another. The person refusing these gifts is doing so out of pride (self-reliance) for the most part.

 

[oi_antz]

I'm still stuck on this meaning there is a certain way in which you have to do this process. I cannot for the life of my see the link to why it shouldn't all be obvious to everyone. Maybe he wants it to be hard and not take the easy route. Fair enough, I see the logic in entering a difficult mountain race as opposed to a flat race through fields. But in both cases I want to see the race organisers and marshals.

Ok I will try to explain to you in my own words, but please grant that my words may have some incapacity to get my understanding across in a single statement, because mainly it relies on you receiving what I am sending (it is often the problem).

There are so many examples in the bible that God is looking to have a community of people who are of a specific character. I imagine this is important, because in Christian beliefs, the next life for those who are resurrected to everlasting life, is one where we do not die. Jesus has said that the greatest on earth will be the least in heaven and vice-versa. God said in the very start once Adam and Eve had sinned "look, the man has become like us, knowing good and evil! What will happen if he is allowed to reach out and eat of the tree of life and live forever?". So the inability for human to perfectly handle the knowledge of good and evil is an obvious concern to God. I expect it is to you too. I expect it is to everyone. But Jesus has said that "whoever overcomes, I will give fruit from the tree of life which is in the paradise of God". He didn't say exactly what we must overcome, and I expect this again is some criteria for those who would seek to justify themselves for this.

To summarise that, a certain type of person will contribute positively to an everlasting community, and a certain type of person will not.

There is also a slight clue in that last sentence too, where we can compare those who justify themselves by law and those who justify themselves by faith. If someone is justified by faith (that means they are certain within themselves that they have satisfied God, regardless if they are accused of applying or breaking a given law), then they are justified by God (to themselves). Comparatively if someone is justified by law, that they know the law they are applying will not convict them, then they are justified by their logic and that of their peers. This is why Jesus said "you Pharisee's are careful to polish the outside of the cup, but inside you are foul".

I expect that God's decision to provide opportunity to doubt (which is what we are saying when we describe His decision to not be blatantly obvious), gives us the ability to make a free choice, whether we will seek to justify ourselves with Him through faith, or whether we will seek to justify ourselves to ourselves and our peers by the application of some law (i your case, you are doing this by applying a law "If God does not give me a sign to prove Himself, then I cannot be expected to believe He exists").

So on the other hand, if He was to be that undeniable omniscience you imagine, He would end up with people who do obey Him, but resent Him for it. It would probably in fact cause those who do obey Him willingly to be affected by the negative attitude. Maybe you can look for some parallel meaning in the arable of the wheat and tares (where the weeds were sown while the farmer slept).

Please let me know if this has helped, and whether you can see a bit easier some sense in the decision for Him to allow and facilitate doubt. I think that just making sense will do for this, because you just need to understand it sufficiently that you can stop making an excuse of it, then progress. In comparison, sometimes just making sense is not enough to resolve the issue, and even if we believe something that isn't true, only because it makes sense, it can cause us to progress with a fault in our basis of understanding.

Also, please notice that it is not so much a "certain way to do a process" (I have no idea where you got that impression), but more that if we want to obey Him, we need to accept what He tells us.

 

[Gumph]

Since there is something, and not nothing, than there could be a god?

Every living thing is evidence of a god, if you allow that to be evidence.

I think you may have enlightened me as to where I am explaining myself poorly.

I can accept that every living thing is evidence of a "god". The evidence that I would expect to be presented in an obvious way is that the Christian God exists here and now.

Every living thing is certainly quite effective in initiating our interest and getting us to ask questions, but is no where near a proof or even satisfactory evidence.

You have to accept these gifts out of a true free will choice (a choice with likely alternatives so it is truly your choice). Since they are purely charitable gifts they must be humbly accepted as gifts.

Doesn't seem unreasonable.

The easiest way to obtain this little humility that is need is through the humility needed to trust (faith) in the existence of a benevolent Creator. The lowliest person on earth can humbly trust in the existence of a benevolent Creator.

This is the bit of logic I'm struggling with at the moment. You seem to be describing a request to be gullible. Why can one not be humble after being presented with all the facts? I don't see how trust/faith equates to being humble.

There is no great “knowledge” you need over anyone else to trust in a benevolent creator so it is a completely fair/just way to provide these gifts to one over another. The person refusing these gifts is doing so out of pride (self-reliance) for the most part.

I think there is a requirement to have special insight with the current arrangement. It doesn't seem fair to me at all. We have to rely on the message being spread by humans, and the message does not get to everyone and the messages vary.

Wouldn't it be far fairer to present evidence which was easily accessible to all and right there for each of us to evaluate on an individual basis?

 

[Gumph]

To summarise that, a certain type of person will contribute positively to an everlasting community, and a certain type of person will not.

That seems reasonable.

I expect that God's decision to provide opportunity to doubt (which is what we are saying when we describe His decision to not be blatantly obvious), gives us the ability to make a free choice, whether we will seek to justify ourselves with Him through faith, or whether we will seek to justify ourselves to ourselves and our peers by the application of some law (i your case, you are doing this by applying a law "If God does not give me a sign to prove Himself, then I cannot be expected to believe He exists").

You have summed up my dilemma nicely there

I don't see how his decision to not be blatantly obvious equates to the ability to make a free choice. Surely one still has free choice once given all the information? It appears to me rather that he is asking us to make decisions without being provided sufficient facts.

So on the other hand, if He was to be that undeniable omniscience you imagine, He would end up with people who do obey Him, but resent Him for it.

Surely he would be able to tell the difference?

And, how do the two scenarios differ?
1) Make the decision to obey him based on faith?
2) Make the decision to obey him after being presented with all the facts?
Why would (1) result in any less resentment than in (2), not that I fully understand why there would be any resentment in either case?

Please let me know if this has helped, and whether you can see a bit easier some sense in the decision for Him to allow and facilitate doubt.

Your efforts to answer my questions are greatly appreciated. We do seem to still have a way to go I'm afraid.

Also, please notice that it is not so much a "certain way to do a process" (I have no idea where you got that impression), but more that if we want to obey Him, we need to accept what He tells us.

Hence my frustration as to the Biblical texts being ambiguous and using symbolism. The story gives the indication that you can only enter the house through one place - the doorway. Is it not reasonable to interpret this as being a specific instruction i.e. a certain way, and no other?

 

[bling]

I think you may have enlightened me as to where I am explaining myself poorly.

I can accept that every living thing is evidence of a "god". The evidence that I would expect to be presented in an obvious way is that the Christian God exists here and now.

Every living thing is certainly quite effective in initiating our interest and getting us to ask questions, but is no where near a proof or even satisfactory evidence.

What is “satisfactory evidence” for me may not be for you?

The only “satisfactory evidence” for some would be proof positive beyond the shadow of doubt, but that would also eliminate any need for any faith.

If you have a personal burning need to believe in God that would hugely change your life toward the good if you had such a trust, then you will trust.

If the God you “want” is not the true God and you have no desire to change than “knowing” the Christian God exist would do you more harm than good.

Doesn't seem unreasonable.

Good

This is the bit of logic I'm struggling with at the moment. You seem to be describing a request to be gullible. Why can one not be humble after being presented with all the facts? I don't see how trust/faith equates to being humble.

First off: truth/faith do not “equate” to humility, but are humbling acts in themselves. Wisdom and knowledge tends to puff up the individual and are not humbling activities. The person that has been brought down (humbled) can then be lifted up by God with Godly knowledge and wisdom.

I agree this takes lots of thought and reasoning. Intellectual individuals do not like the idea: “wisdom and knowledge would not be fertile ground for humility”. If you are presented with the facts and understanding you just cruelly and intentionally murdered the greatest person that ever lived you might be grievously humbled by that knowledge, if you accepted that truth, but that is for a later realization and not the initial surrendering.

This messed up world with selfish human nature and tragic conditions can and should be humbling to anyone if they allow the situation to humble them. We have this growing burden in our conscience from acts that have hurt others in the past that cannot be relieved by drugs, good deeds, or distractions. The person brought down finds it much easier to turn to the hope in a benevolent Creator than the person perceiving themselves to be self-reliant (having knowledge and wisdom).

The “quest” is to be realistic about: ourselves, the world and what we would really desire. If that desire does not include being Loved unconditionally than we will not be seeking an unselfish Creator.

I think there is a requirement to have special insight with the current arrangement. It doesn't seem fair to me at all. We have to rely on the message being spread by humans, and the message does not get to everyone and the messages vary.

Wait just one minute here. The message “taking” is the privilege and honor of the carrier of that message, who gets to share in God’s glory by being present when God is glorified and it is not the problem with those being saved that never here about Christ. They are “saved” by humbly seek what they trust would be a benevolent creator and willingly freely accepting His help. Yes, some people may never mature to the point of being able to seek and receive, so they would enter heaven with only a child for wonderful parent type love.

Wouldn't it be far fairer to present evidence which was easily accessible to all and right there for each of us to evaluate on an individual basis?

Explain to me practically how all people could have a real choice (one with likely alternatives to go either way) in which the choice to go to God was made only because they wanted to be Loved unselfishly and unconditionally and not to be “loved” for how they wanted God or others to perceive them to be?

God is doing that right before your eyes.

 

[oi_antz]

That seems reasonable.



You have summed up my dilemma nicely there

I don't see how his decision to not be blatantly obvious equates to the ability to make a free choice. Surely one still has free choice once given all the information?

I suppose so, then free choice might have been a bit sloppy. I guess what I am describing is a contrast between someone who will choose to worship Him because they love to do that vs someone who will choose to worship Him because it is a means to achieve something else. Since the greatest commandment according to Jesus is "love the Lord your God", if someone is forced to believe that God is real, it isn't going to cause them to love Him. Conversely, those who do love God will freely choose to believe that He is real.

It appears to me rather that he is asking us to make decisions without being provided sufficient facts.

Can you please explain this a bit more? I would like to know what decisions He is asking you to make, and why you think you don't have sufficient facts to make a properly informed decision.

Surely he would be able to tell the difference?

Yes, but those being judged could argue that He was not being fair. At least this way they have openly stated their preference. You could look carefully at what is said in John chapter 3 verses 16 to 21, whereby Jesus describes how people's own response supports the judgement.

And, how do the two scenarios differ?
1) Make the decision to obey him based on faith?
2) Make the decision to obey him after being presented with all the facts?
Why would (1) result in any less resentment than in (2), not that I fully understand why there would be any resentment in either case?

This seems like a strawman argument. IMO, sufficient facts exist, but ample opportunity is given to doubt, if that is so desired.

Your efforts to answer my questions are greatly appreciated. We do seem to still have a way to go I'm afraid.

Ok.

Hence my frustration as to the Biblical texts being ambiguous and using symbolism. The story gives the indication that you can only enter the house through one place - the doorway. Is it not reasonable to interpret this as being a specific instruction i.e. a certain way, and no other?

Using symbolism is using comparisons. The words "for example" do this all the time. Only thing is that when this is done in the bible, it is already assumed that the symbolism will get the point across. If you aren't seeing the point then there is a problem. It could be that you are not used to this manner of communication. It could be that the speaker has overestimated your ability to understand the point he is making. It could even be that you don't like the point and you think there is a viable argument to be made about the way the point is being conveyed. You should probably reflect on that, because only you can improve. The statements have already been made, they canot be altered now.

FWIW, the door has been used in a couple of different examples between you and I now. There is the narrow gate in comparison to the broad road, which few people find; there is similarly the narrow door that many people try to enter but are not able; there is the door that Jesus is knocking on and inviting you to open. Each of these should be addressed in their correct context. I assume your comment here refers to all three, but the understanding you are reflecting really only aplies well to one (the door that many people try to enter). Let me explain before I have to get on with the day:

The dor that Jesus is knocking on is the one that separates you from Him. In very popular Christian rhetoric, it is like the chasm of sin that separates a person from God. Jesus (the cross) is placed on that chasm as a bridge, allowing mankind to approach God. In Jesus' statement, He is saying that He will not just barge in and make Himself at home, but instead He will just stand there and let you know that He wants to come in and eat with you. It is your decision then whether you will respond. Every person who has responded will believe that He is right there and that the individual has the responsibility to decide whether they will open the door. This is why I said earlier that you do have enough facts. It seems instead that you lack understanding, and that is what you would get from Him when you invite Him in "for dinner".

The narrow gate which few find is like saying that many people think salvation is about getting something (eg, they have a ticket to heaven, or they have an identity as God's warrior etc). But that desire can distract them from what they really should be doing, which is obeying Him. Because these people do not demonstrate obedience to Him, it makes them unfit for everlasting life in a kindgom where God rules (see above where you said it sounds reasonable). Yet, these people might be very educated, helpful, loving etc, anything that you think a CHristian should appear to be, and for all intents and purposes, a fine Christian example. But even so, if they will not submit to Him, then they are submitting to someone else (perhaps their pastor or peers or even their own sense of pride or self-worth). In this sense, they have traveled the broad road (that which many people take, eg esteem from church and peers, good reputation in the world etc), because they thought that was the right way to go. However, Jesus says many go that way, and it leads to destruction.

Finally, there is the narrow door where many tried to enter but were not able. Again I think this is describing a person's ability to obey Him and to love Him, worship and serve Him. Speaking from experience, it is easy enough to open the door to Him and to have that meal (you only need to make one decision), and when He is eating with you, you can be so impressed that He really is the truth, you will make up your mind to follow Him. However, there is more time in life to follow, and during that time, we are easily led into sin. When this happens, it is the same as it ws before, except that we have an understanding of the truth that we didn't have before, so we are much more easily deluded to believe we are ok. Seriously though, Jesus gave warnings about being complacent and there is also another reference to this "I never knew you" - and that really drives it home. That at some point we can see that we have backslidden (become consumed by our own interests), and we need to ask Him to come back for that meal.

So thinking about this symbolism, it would seem that someone who Jesus says He knows, is one who opens the door for Him regularly and has a meal quite often.

Thanks for that, it has been good to think about

 

[Gumph]

What is “satisfactory evidence” for me may not be for you?

The only “satisfactory evidence” for some would be proof positive beyond the shadow of doubt, but that would also eliminate any need for any faith.

Yes, I am beginning to see that that seems to be the general Christian feeling - based on posts on this forum anyway. Does it not concern you that so many people fail to see or accept the current level of "evidence"?

I still can't get my head around why faith is a necessary ingredient.

First off: truth/faith do not “equate” to humility, but are humbling acts in themselves. Wisdom and knowledge tends to puff up the individual and are not humbling activities. The person that has been brought down (humbled) can then be lifted up by God with Godly knowledge and wisdom.

Why would having wisdom and knowledge still not allow you to be humble if you were presented with a being with even more superior wisdom and knowledge?

Why does God require humility anyway, wouldn't it be a natural reaction to an awe inspiring revelation?

The person brought down finds it much easier to turn to the hope in a benevolent Creator than the person perceiving themselves to be self-reliant (having knowledge and wisdom).

How different is "desperate" to "humble" in this situation?

Wait just one minute here. The message “taking” is the privilege and honor of the carrier of that message, who gets to share in God’s glory by being present when God is glorified and it is not the problem with those being saved that never here about Christ. They are “saved” by humbly seek what they trust would be a benevolent creator and willingly freely accepting His help. Yes, some people may never mature to the point of being able to seek and receive, so they would enter heaven with only a child for wonderful parent type love.

I'm going to need this explained some more I'm afraid. I can't quite follow your explanation. The original point being: "I think there is a requirement to have special insight with the current arrangement. It doesn't seem fair to me at all. We have to rely on the message being spread by humans, and the message does not get to everyone and the messages vary."

Explain to me practically how all people could have a real choice (one with likely alternatives to go either way) in which the choice to go to God was made only because they wanted to be Loved unselfishly and unconditionally and not to be “loved” for how they wanted God or others to perceive them to be?

He could appear to each individual in person, physically and have a discussion with them, much like a teacher. He would of course need to show that he is not just another human and so some super natural effects would be helpful. He could appear as a giant image in the sky for all people to see and verify simultaneously. I could go on if you want?

The choice remains with the individual, but now they can at least ask questions that they find important and necessary to make their decisions. I think I'm struggling with the concept of why its necessary to be so vague and mysterious. This doesn't increase you ability to choose, it reduces it by not allowing an understanding of what you are choosing.

Instead of being a carefully thought out decision it currently seems to be more of a gut feel hunch. Does this not raise suspicions on what is being hidden?

God is doing that right before your eyes.

Perhaps, but the eyes he gave me are not allowing me to see it. Hence this thread.

 

[Gumph]

I guess what I am describing is a contrast between someone who will choose to worship Him because they love to do that vs someone who will choose to worship Him because it is a means to achieve something else. Since the greatest commandment according to Jesus is "love the Lord your God", if someone is forced to believe that God is real, it isn't going to cause them to love Him. Conversely, those who do love God will freely choose to believe that He is real.

I still don't see why taking a leap of faith allows you to love God any more so than if you made the decision based on all facts being presented. In fact I would guess it could be less so. What if you made assumptions about God when making the leap of faith, that turned out differently when you eventually came to him. Would that not run the risk of disappointment and perhaps a loss of love?

Can you please explain this a bit more? I would like to know what decisions He is asking you to make, and why you think you don't have sufficient facts to make a properly informed decision.

As mentioned in other posts recently, I think many Christians are prepared to accept a lower level of evidence or a different type of evidence, than what the rest of the world is prepared to accept.

The main decision is whether to believe he exists or not.

I have never experienced God in any certain way. I cannot touch him, feel him, see him, hear him. I cannot see empirical evidence of anything he has done. I have no idea what his rules are and why he has made us, what our purpose is and where we may end up.

It isn't actually a matter yet of whether I have sufficient facts, its a matter of I have no facts at all.

Christians find all the above answers in the Bible. I however cannot bring myself to believe in messages and stories delivered by men who make some outstanding claims that I cannot personally verify. That does not necessarily make me right. It just leaves me in the land of doubt.

This seems like a strawman argument. IMO, sufficient facts exist, but ample opportunity is given to doubt, if that is so desired.

I had to Google that Can you perhaps let me know how I have summarised incorrectly. Again we arrive at the subjective term "sufficient".

Using symbolism is using comparisons. The words "for example" do this all the time.

The words "for example" normally follow a specific statement. The Bible only seems to use the examples without the preceding specifics. Yeah, my "specific" is different to yours I'm sure.

Only thing is that when this is done in the bible, it is already assumed that the symbolism will get the point across. If you aren't seeing the point then there is a problem. It could be that you are not used to this manner of communication. It could be that the speaker has overestimated your ability to understand the point he is making.

Its a very brave assumption IMO. I am certainly not used to that manner of communication - one of my biggest issues on why God chooses to sue the Bible as his only means of communication. We quite simply don't speak like that anymore.

It could even be that you don't like the point and you think there is a viable argument to be made about the way the point is being conveyed. You should probably reflect on that, because only you can improve. The statements have already been made, they canot be altered now.

In most cases I can't make a call as the symbolism can have several interpretations.

I thank you for the door interpretations. They are interesting, but far from simple. It also illustrates my confusion which is based on how complex bible interpretation can become.

Your explanations seem to be stories that explain that God is waiting to be accepted by us. They don't seem to explain to me why it has to be so vague and mysterious. I think the answers are being addressed in other posts at the moment.

 

[oi_antz]

I still don't see why taking a leap of faith allows you to love God any more so than if you made the decision based on all facts being presented.

I don't think that is true. I think I have been expressing that it requires us to love Him, rather than allowing us to love him.

In fact I would guess it could be less so. What if you made assumptions about God when making the leap of faith, that turned out differently when you eventually came to him. Would that not run the risk of disappointment and perhaps a loss of love?

It is very possible. But consider who He is to us, what can we do? (perhaps you can advise me, it sounds like you have a lesson in mind).

As mentioned in other posts recently, I think many Christians are prepared to accept a lower level of evidence or a different type of evidence, than what the rest of the world is prepared to accept.

The main decision is whether to believe he exists or not.

Christians accept evidence that others don't. They sometimes reject evidence that others accept, if it conflicts with evidences they have accepted.

Here is a good qustion for you: Why do you view your position as one needing to be convinced that He is real rather than one having to be convinced He isn't?

I have never experienced God in any certain way. I cannot touch him, feel him, see him, hear him. I cannot see empirical evidence of anything he has done. I have no idea what his rules are and why he has made us, what our purpose is and where we may end up.

Me too. I have ideas in mind to these things that seem most likely, though it is only speculation. The part I underlined is ignorant, since the world exists and has no better explanation. It is more indicative of Him than not, because of that, and could be viewed as the primary purpose of all religion (besides social control).

It isn't actually a matter yet of whether I have sufficient facts, its a matter of I have no facts at all.

I know you do though. Maybe you are thinking of them as something other than fact.

Christians find all the above answers in the Bible. I however cannot bring myself to believe in messages and stories delivered by men who make some outstanding claims that I cannot personally verify. That does not necessarily make me right. It just leaves me in the land of doubt.

You can't verify everything, especially when you are so many many generations apart from the origin of the information. But, you can decide whether it is possible and likely, or not. Plus, you seem to be saying that if you are not satisfied with one statement then you are dissatisfied with all statements. That seems like a wrong thing to do.

I had to Google that Can you perhaps let me know how I have summarised incorrectly. Again we arrive at the subjective term "sufficient".

Mainly I say it is strawman because no human has enough capacity to know all facts. Lifetime is too short for one thing, mental comprehension is even more limiting. For this reason I use the word "sufficient", and I say you do have sufficient facts, because you have the same finite collection of material as anyone else who has faith has (and more in fact than some of them).

The words "for example" normally follow a specific statement. The Bible only seems to use the examples without the preceding specifics. Yeah, my "specific" is different to yours I'm sure.

That is actually the real verification though, isn't it? If two do not agree on what the point is, someone is bound to be wrong and they will both know it. Jesus said "whenever two or more are gathered in my name, I am there in the midst of them". Then if two people are studying the truth and claiming to study in His name, He will be there to enforce the truth. This is why rules are not as important as obedience, as I have been explaining, because following rules but not obeying is taking the broad road. Only by making every effort to obey (despite if there is no rule to force us), we remain on the narrow path.

Its a very brave assumption IMO. I am certainly not used to that manner of communication - one of my biggest issues on why God chooses to sue the Bible as his only means of communication. We quite simply don't speak like that anymore.

I don't know why you have assumed He only speaks through the bible. Also, in making this assumption maybe you have been in error. Jesus did not address you in these verses, He actually was speaking to other people, an audience with an understanding He appears to have gauged (as we all do). I am certain that when you come to speak with Him, He will be very accurate to you.

In most cases I can't make a call as the symbolism can have several interpretations.

But the point of each interpretation can be judged for it's relevancy and the truth it contains. Not everyone enjoys thinking though, and if you don't, but you don't like to be spoon-fed, then maybe biblical study is something that you just won't like.

I thank you for the door interpretations. They are interesting, but far from simple. It also illustrates my confusion which is based on how complex bible interpretation can become.

Oh! I quite enjoy it, and I thought it was a rather simple point. If you think it might help, I can explain it more, but have a think about it first. Maybe it won't really help in the long run. You know, one thing that is said in the bible is this:

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

King Soloman wrote that. If we consider what this really means, we can see that if you don't have any knowledge of God, then you will not be able to understand [Him]. I wonder whether you could learn more about who He is, His nature as a person, and that might help you to understand better what people say about Him (eg, the bible authors). This is something we take for granted when we are brought up by people who already know and understand Him, for example a Christian home. My church had fantastic Sunday School programme when I was a child, I am now able to appreciate that more.

Your explanations seem to be stories that explain that God is waiting to be accepted by us. They don't seem to explain to me why it has to be so vague and mysterious. I think the answers are being addressed in other posts at the moment.

I don't believe it is vague and mysterious, but that there is a lot of confusion and misunderstanding in the world, caused by people who don't know Him or represent Him well. This results in the confusion rubbing off and propagating. For example, you can observe cultural differences everywhere, where poverty propagates poverty, ambition propagates ambition. Abuse propagates abuse and love propagates love. Just as it is with those behaviours, truth propagates truth and untruth propagates untruth. What more is there to godliness than truth and love? I suggest obedience, but I reckon the right application of truth and love should lead to obedience. (Notice this paragraph has not been based on the bible. I can think of a bible verse that might have a relevant point though - about picking grapes from thistles or something).

 

[bling]

Yes, I am beginning to see that that seems to be the general Christian feeling - based on posts on this forum anyway. Does it not concern you that so many people fail to see or accept the current level of "evidence"?

I still can't get my head around why faith is a necessary ingredient.

Who would find it easy to trust (have faith in) a benevolent Creator and who would find it difficult?

Why would having wisdom and knowledge still not allow you to be humble if you were presented with a being with even more superior wisdom and knowledge?

I think wise smart people like CS Lewis could humbly accept a benevolent Creator and accept His charity, but it was not made “easy” by his wisdom and smarts.

Why does God require humility anyway, wouldn't it be a natural reaction to an awe inspiring revelation?

If I obtain an “awe inspired revelation” that I have obtain “knowledge” others do not have and I can take “pride” in what I have accomplished.

You might go back to the book of Exodus and see how Pharaoh handled the knowledge of God and see if you feel other people in a similar condition would automatically react better?

Look also at the Pharisees while Christ was on earth who could not help but come to the realization that Jesus was the Messiah (God on Earth).

The “issue” is God is not like who you might think He should be like.

God’s “awesomeness” is really found in His Love and people just do not like unselfish type Love. Would you be awe inspired by a huge show of unselfish type Love or would you say to yourself: “that is not for me”?

To “accept” God’s Love is to accept His charity (humbly).

How different is "desperate" to "humble" in this situation?

Read the Prodigal son story (Luke 15:11-32) especially this: 13 “Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living. 14 After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. 16 He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything. 17 “When he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! 18 I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired servants.’ 20 So he got up and went to his father. “But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.


We are all in or have been in a “desperate” situation especially when we see down the road where we are heading. That does not mean we will repent, since we can be very macho and be a man and take the punishment we fully deserve. We can also realize we totally do not deserve anything from God, so why bother God with our problem. It takes humility to accept charity.

I'm going to need this explained some more I'm afraid. I can't quite follow your explanation. The original point being: "I think there is a requirement to have special insight with the current arrangement. It doesn't seem fair to me at all. We have to rely on the message being spread by humans, and the message does not get to everyone and the messages vary."

This is no small subject, so I may not get this across to you.

People in distant places, do not have to “rely” on human to get some “message” to them in order to go to heaven or be condemned to hell.
There are those that never become mature adults to the point of making the free will choice to accept or reject the Creators help (Love/mercy/grace/charity/forgiveness). That is sad, but they would go on to heaven with a child for parent type love (not Godly type Love).

There are those that never hear about Christ, but have come to their senses at some point in their lives realize they are burdened in their conscience by doing bad stuff in the past that has hurt others and cannot find relief. They can turn in hopes of a benevolent Creator to forgive and help them (which God will do). These are saved, but it would be great news to them to know how it all happened.

He could appear to each individual in person, physically and have a discussion with them, much like a teacher. He would of course need to show that he is not just another human and so some super natural effects would be helpful. He could appear as a giant image in the sky for all people to see and verify simultaneously. I could go on if you want?

First off: God is not looking for people to just “acknowledge” His existence and then feel really scared of Him and flee from Him.

The choice remains with the individual, but now they can at least ask questions that they find important and necessary to make their decisions. I think I'm struggling with the concept of why its necessary to be so vague and mysterious. This doesn't increase you ability to choose, it reduces it by not allowing an understanding of what you are choosing.

The idea of God becoming man and sitting with you one on one is exactly the way it is to work with God living in and through sincere true Christians, but what are you wanting from the show of miraculous power? Would that really take the choice away from the person, making it like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun?

Think about if you set down with God Himself and you realize He has the power from Him showing you (no faith needed to believe that) and this time together is for you to make a choice would you not ask the consequences of not accepting His Love, with the answer being hell? What kind of “choice” is that? Is that not putting a gun to your head?

The idea is for you, of your own free will, to want Godly type Love.

Instead of being a carefully thought out decision it currently seems to be more of a gut feel hunch. Does this not raise suspicions on what is being hidden?

Your described system would not work, if you think about it.

 

[doomsayer2]

Let's say if God suddenly "revealed" Himself to hardened Atheists in the same manner He has for believers,what exactly would they do with this new found knowledge? I mean,saying it was still just a matter of faith alone but we all suddenly had the same measure of it. But what if we do all have at least some measure of it,but only some have buried it do deep and allowed their intellects to replace that faith.
Or would they require MUCH more than that alone? I'm thinking that the only definitive proof of existence for many would have to be a physical manifestation,period. So lets say then that comes to pass,then what?
Would you suddenly trust or even love God as much as believers,or maybe be looking for a way around this strange new revelation? Maybe as long as you can still go to heaven in some way or another. But i'm just speculating here and not really sure myself how I will react when I meet God/Jesus face to face. But I do know I will not be shocked or terrified by this Entity that i had never believed in,as many will.
So maybe the real question is,would the REAL God please stand up!? But then again,what would you do if He did,assuming you still had free-will to accept Him as He truly is or hope He would just let you go your own way with no consequences for rejecting Him. But again i am only speculating and not really sure how the unbeliever thinks on these matters.

 

[Gumph]

I don't think that is true. I think I have been expressing that it requires us to love Him, rather than allowing us to love him.

That doesn't change my confusion though. Why is faith even part of the recipe or requirements? I don't see how it strengthens any potential bonds. All it seems to do is create hesitation for many.

It is very possible. But consider who He is to us, what can we do? (perhaps you can advise me, it sounds like you have a lesson in mind).

No I am in no position to give lessons. I am finding this very confusing I'm afraid.

Here is a good qustion for you: Why do you view your position as one needing to be convinced that He is real rather than one having to be convinced He isn't?

How can one possibly be expected to prove (or convince) that something does not exist? That seems very unreasonable to me. Instead, people have come to me and said "God exists". My question is now "Really, that's interesting. Tell me how you know this?"

The part I underlined is ignorant, since the world exists and has no better explanation. It is more indicative of Him than not, because of that, and could be viewed as the primary purpose of all religion (besides social control).

Hang on, the world around us certainly does lead us to think that some superior race / deity / being / force, may have created everything. The bit I'm having a problem with is why so many people believe it was specifically the Christian God who did so?

I know you do though. Maybe you are thinking of them as something other than fact.

Nope sorry, no facts at all. The main reason I'm on this forum is to find some facts about the current existence of god. What am I missing?

You can't verify everything, especially when you are so many many generations apart from the origin of the information. But, you can decide whether it is possible and likely, or not. Plus, you seem to be saying that if you are not satisfied with one statement then you are dissatisfied with all statements. That seems like a wrong thing to do.

Exactly. That is my main issue with using the Bible as the sole (?) source of information. The possible / likely issue brings us back to a level of evidence which each individual feels is acceptable. I think its more of a case of how do I know which statements to believe and which not to.

I don't know why you have assumed He only speaks through the bible. Also, in making this assumption maybe you have been in error. Jesus did not address you in these verses, He actually was speaking to other people, an audience with an understanding He appears to have gauged (as we all do). I am certain that when you come to speak with Him, He will be very accurate to you.

I didn't initially assume that, I have deduced that from discussions on this forum. I have been looking for an alternative to the Bible. There does not seem to be one though, other than personal experiences. I suppose its down to waiting patiently now?

But the point of each interpretation can be judged for it's relevancy and the truth it contains. Not everyone enjoys thinking though, and if you don't, but you don't like to be spoon-fed, then maybe biblical study is something that you just won't like.

The thought of biblical study makes me zone out. I lump it with high school Shakespeare and Latin The very fact that its open to interpretation actually worries me greatly. This is where extremists find their perhaps incorrect justifications. Surely a book by God would be clear and unambiguous?

 

[Gumph]

Who would find it easy to trust (have faith in) a benevolent Creator and who would find it difficult?

Is it not a personality trait? I'm not really sure.

I think wise smart people like CS Lewis could humbly accept a benevolent Creator and accept His charity, but it was not made “easy” by his wisdom and smarts.

Still not seeing why wisdom interferes with being humble or even why humility should even be a requirement.

You might go back to the book of Exodus and see how Pharaoh handled the knowledge of God and see if you feel other people in a similar condition would automatically react better?

Look also at the Pharisees while Christ was on earth who could not help but come to the realization that Jesus was the Messiah (God on Earth).

I think your point has bypassed me I'm afraid. I don't see how these explain the necessity of humility.

It takes humility to accept charity.

Or desperation.

The idea of God becoming man and sitting with you one on one is exactly the way it is to work with God living in and through sincere true Christians, but what are you wanting from the show of miraculous power? Would that really take the choice away from the person, making it like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun?

I like this analogy. Let me expand:

1) I sit down with my girl (and her folks), who has a pregnant belly and the foetal scans and pregnancy tests to verify our predicament. We sit down together and discuss the pros and cons of getting married and make our decision based on this.

or

2) My girl's friend comes to me and tells me that she is pregnant, and that I should marry her or else her father will shoot me with his shotgun. I have no evidence if there is a pregnancy or even if her father is still alive, as I have never met him. How can I make a decision on marriage based on this?

Think about if you set down with God Himself and you realize He has the power from Him showing you (no faith needed to believe that) and this time together is for you to make a choice would you not ask the consequences of not accepting His Love, with the answer being hell? What kind of “choice” is that? Is that not putting a gun to your head?

But is this not what Christianity does, intentionally or not? "You will burn in hell if you don't love God" As it stands I have mortal humans who are making the threat on behalf of God. Would it not be better to come directly from God in person, so that I can verify the details of this contract?

If Christians are right, the message will be the same. Its a threat of eternal damnation. Free will remains, I can choose to follow or not, regardless of who brings the message. All I'm asking is that the messenger be God himself, and not a mere human.

 

[Gumph]

Let's say if God suddenly "revealed" Himself to hardened Atheists in the same manner He has for believers,what exactly would they do with this new found knowledge? I mean,saying it was still just a matter of faith alone but we all suddenly had the same measure of it. But what if we do all have at least some measure of it,but only some have buried it do deep and allowed their intellects to replace that faith.
Or would they require MUCH more than that alone? I'm thinking that the only definitive proof of existence for many would have to be a physical manifestation,period. So lets say then that comes to pass,then what?
Would you suddenly trust or even love God as much as believers,or maybe be looking for a way around this strange new revelation? Maybe as long as you can still go to heaven in some way or another. But i'm just speculating here and not really sure myself how I will react when I meet God/Jesus face to face. But I do know I will not be shocked or terrified by this Entity that i had never believed in,as many will.
So maybe the real question is,would the REAL God please stand up!? But then again,what would you do if He did,assuming you still had free-will to accept Him as He truly is or hope He would just let you go your own way with no consequences for rejecting Him. But again i am only speculating and not really sure how the unbeliever thinks on these matters.

Some good questions. If a god presented himself to me, I expect my reaction would go something like this:

1) Check for hidden cameras and work our whether or not my mates are playing a joke on me.
2) Look for alternative explanations as to how this may not be God. This in my view is reasonable. Optical illusions, dreams and magician tricks have all fooled me in the past. This test phase may take time, as repeatability would be a crucial factor in my decision making.
3) Accept the God, and begin asking questions about why we are here, what is expected of us, and what exactly are the various consequences.
4) Make future decisions based on the answers in (3).

I suspect that "hardened Atheists" are a very small minority. The group of people generally falling into the "Atheist" category are simply those that say: The evidence is insufficient, provide more or better.

I am not sure why this theme of "intellect buries faith" keeps arising. Why does intellect interfere with a search for God? If anything it seems essential to me, because the sole source of evidence most people have is the Bible, and that is an incredibly difficult book to understand. It requires years of study ... and intellect.

 

[oi_antz]

That doesn't change my confusion though. Why is faith even part of the recipe or requirements? I don't see how it strengthens any potential bonds. All it seems to do is create hesitation for many.

Two things:

You expect it to "strengthen any potential bonds" - but compared to what?

You think that creating hesitation for many is not an intended thing - why is that? It seems to me that since it is like a gate, that it is more likely intended to have this effect. That seems different than what you have thought God should want. If so, why do you believe that?

No I am in no position to give lessons. I am finding this very confusing I'm afraid.

Confusion indicates that you have accepted things that you haven't understood. I will point at one below.

How can one possibly be expected to prove (or convince) that something does not exist? That seems very unreasonable to me. Instead, people have come to me and said "God exists". My question is now "Really, that's interesting. Tell me how you know this?"

I was asking though why you assume He dosen't exist rather than assuming He does. Your next comment kind of provides more information.

Hang on, the world around us certainly does lead us to think that some superior race / deity / being / force, may have created everything. The bit I'm having a problem with is why so many people believe it was specifically the Christian God who did so?

What is "the Christian God" and how is this any different than "God" that Christianity records, studies and follows? Are all these options you consider possible, equally likely to be capable of producing exactly what we have? For example, if they belong to what we have, then why assume that they are not subject to a different creator (eg, the "superior race").

Nope sorry, no facts at all. The main reason I'm on this forum is to find some facts about the current existence of god. What am I missing?

Jesus was crucified because some people could not tolerate what He was saying and that He was refusing to cooperate with them. Do you consider that a fact?

Exactly. That is my main issue with using the Bible as the sole (?) source of information. The possible / likely issue brings us back to a level of evidence which each individual feels is acceptable. I think its more of a case of how do I know which statements to believe and which not to.

I could find statements in the bible which you will believe. Then the issue is really with statements in the bible that you won't believe. When you encounter those statements, do you notice the reasons you are choosing to rely on, for justifying your decision to not believe them? I am just wondering, if we can identify your resons for doubting, we might be able to identify a fault (missing information, wrong information, logical fallacy, personal objection etc) and we might even agree that it doesn't seem sufficiently reasonable to believe it (eg, Noah's flood).

I didn't initially assume that, I have deduced that from discussions on this forum. I have been looking for an alternative to the Bible. There does not seem to be one though, other than personal experiences. I suppose its down to waiting patiently now?

"deduced" - what does this mean? (This is one thing I can see you have accepted but not understood).

The thought of biblical study makes me zone out. I lump it with high school Shakespeare and Latin The very fact that its open to interpretation actually worries me greatly. This is where extremists find their perhaps incorrect justifications. Surely a book by God would be clear and unambiguous?

Why "surely"? Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life". He also said "you diligently study the scriptures because you think that in them you have life, but the scriptures point to me! Yet you refuse to come to me to have life". Author of John says "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (that means that Jesus is the Word of God). The Word of God was with God in the beginning (before the bible was written), and author of John says "in Him is life, and the life is the light of men". Jesus said "if your eye is good, your body is full of light, but if your eye is bad then your body is full of darkness. If the light you think you have is actually darkness, how deep that darkness must be". So there is a lot of metaphor to be put together in this paragraph, and if you are able to then you will see how it can come together and form the solution to the problem you have explained here. I hope you can. I get that you struggle with biblical study, and I think that your problem is that you aren't listening to Him. You seem to be more willing to ask the people on this forum to help you. But you should go to Jesus, because He is the only one who can give you all the truth and can inject it right into your understanding. And if you want it, you will get it. None of us can do that for you though, because we are not Him. BTW, not everyone can listen to Him. Some people don't recognise Him, some people dishonour Him. Jesus said "my sheep listen to my voice. I know them, and they follow me". I expect this will cause you to think about whether you are one of His sheep.

 

[Gumph]

You expect it to "strengthen any potential bonds" - but compared to what?

Between the scenario where you love God based on faith and the scenario where you love him based on evidence. You guys are telling me it strengthens the bond if a leap of faith is involved. I'm the one asking why this would be so.

You think that creating hesitation for many is not an intended thing - why is that? It seems to me that since it is like a gate, that it is more likely intended to have this effect. That seems different than what you have thought God should want. If so, why do you believe that?

I used "hesitation" in a poor attempt to be diplomatic. I probably mean "a wall or barrier". It turns many people away, not because they want to, but rather because they can't see whats on the other side. That seems unfair to me.

What is "the Christian God" and how is this any different than "God" that Christianity records, studies and follows?

Same thing I would say, just quicker to type.

Are all these options you consider possible, equally likely to be capable of producing exactly what we have? For example, if they belong to what we have, then why assume that they are not subject to a different creator (eg, the "superior race").

I have so little information (none) that I could not possibly come up with an answer as to which option is the most likely. Then you lost me a bit in the second part. Are you saying who created the creating entity?

Jesus was crucified because some people could not tolerate what He was saying and that He was refusing to cooperate with them. Do you consider that a fact?

I am unable to determine if its fact or not. It does seem quite likely to me though that men at the time were crucified for those very reasons, so the story could be true - although one of many similar ones.

I could find statements in the bible which you will believe. Then the issue is really with statements in the bible that you won't believe. When you encounter those statements, do you notice the reasons you are choosing to rely on, for justifying your decision to not believe them? I am just wondering, if we can identify your resons for doubting, we might be able to identify a fault (missing information, wrong information, logical fallacy, personal objection etc) and we might even agree that it doesn't seem sufficiently reasonable to believe it (eg, Noah's flood).

The primary issue is whether the book itself is collection of stories, with advice on how to live life, or whether it is a set of instructions from God. Whether I "believe" certain statements are true in the Bible is difficult to say. The content of the book is largely irrelevant to me if they appear to be nothing more than traditional stories on life, passed down through the ages. There will be parts of the advice I agree with, others not, but that can be said of almost any book. The crucial bit is, who is the author? How can I trust the content of a self help book of this magnitude without knowing the author?

That said, from the top of my head the bits I have difficulty with include, amongst others:

- That Jesus rose from the dead.
- Jesus walked on water.
- Mary was a Virgin.
- Angels appearing.

Pretty much all the super natural stuff I suppose.

"deduced" - what does this mean? (This is one thing I can see you have accepted but not understood).

It means that I came to that conclusion based on what people have posted on the forum. The Bible seems to be the only source of information. I have accepted that there does not seem to be any alternatives, I have not yet accepted that it is a reliable source.

Why "surely"? Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life". He also said "you diligently study the scriptures because you think that in them you have life, but the scriptures point to me! Yet you refuse to come to me to have life". Author of John says "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (that means that Jesus is the Word of God). The Word of God was with God in the beginning (before the bible was written), and author of John says "in Him is life, and the life is the light of men". Jesus said "if your eye is good, your body is full of light, but if your eye is bad then your body is full of darkness. If the light you think you have is actually darkness, how deep that darkness must be".

Well "surely" is of course my opinion. I cannot see the point of making us rely on complicated texts to make decisions in our lives. These quotes make my brain want to explode in confusion. Why can't we provided with literal, specific steps to follow? Then perhaps we can "come to him" - whatever that entails.

It seems really unfair to me that only those that are able to understand mysticism and spirituality should be allowed to go to heaven, while the rest of us who rely on literal specifics, get to go the other way.

. You seem to be more willing to ask the people on this forum to help you. But you should go to Jesus, because He is the only one who can give you all the truth and can inject it right into your understanding. And if you want it, you will get it.

Well, I'm asking people on this forum to explain how and why they come to their set of beliefs.

I've been told this on a few threads now, but how exactly does one "go to Jesus"? Dumb it down as much as possible. For the literal minded folk.

I suppose my degree of want is not high enough yet.

 

[oi_antz]

I would like to make comments on your other ideas later, but right now I have questions about this bit.

Well "surely" is of course my opinion.

This is something I really don't get. I think it could be useful for your quest with going about why humbleness matters. Obviously it is safe assumption that God has more understanding, wisdom etc than we do, yet instead of saying "I wonder why He makes it ambiguous" you are saying "it would be better if He did not make it ambiguous". What I observe in this fact is that really, all you are doing is complaining. But why complain? If it is ambiguous, the reasonable response to expect is "OK, so it's ambiguous" and move toward understanding something. Maybe the understanding you move to could be why it is ambiguous. But you are stuck on this objection to a decision that God has made. This is why pride gets in the way and humbleness allows you to progress, and why humbleness is a necessary component in a faith based life.

I cannot see the point of making us rely on complicated texts to make decisions in our lives.

You have confused me now! Can you please explain why you have said this? You have said four things that I am confused by:

* We must make decisions in our lives based on texts - I don't known why you believe this.
* We must rely on texts to make decisions in our lives - ditto.
* The texts are complicated - I don't know why you would say that, the ones I show you are pretty simple.
* If you stand by the above still, then you have assumed there is a point to it. I guess I just don't know why since it is based on a premise I have not understood or accepted. That might become clearer after explaining three above.

These quotes make my brain want to explode in confusion.

I am worried by this. The only way I can imagine what led to this response, is that you must have read it and gone "arrgghhh there it [metaphor] is again, and it's all like that! Run!!!" - and if that was your reaction then all I can see is that your sense of taste is causing you to respond in disgust and that is blocking you from actually looking at what is being said. If that sounds pretty accurate, then you know that only you can fix it. I don't really speak to you that way (sometimes I might), same goes for others around you. So Jesus is the one who spoke that way and what He said is already said. I guess if you want Him to reword it, you will just need to ask Him to. At least you can

Why can't we provided with literal, specific steps to follow? Then perhaps we can "come to him" - whatever that entails.

Christianity is the pursuit of truth. It requires honesty, and this method enforces that. You can come to Him whenever you want, only person stopping you is you.

 

[oi_antz]

Gumph, I made a note of this for you a couple of Sundays back. I just remembered it:

Romans 8:24,25

 

[oi_antz]

Duplicate