Why the riddle?

dlofnep

If God exists, then why not show himself to the masses. Surely then, everyone would be aware of his existence and would have reason to believe, adhering to his moral standards. Why the need for faith? It makes no sense whatsoever.

It would make perfect sense that if you were a God, you would prove your existence, instead of this long-winded episode of murder she wrote. The mere fact that religion requires faith, is in itself redundant.

Here's a scenario.

God appears to everyone. Tells them to forget their petty squabbles, live a good life and return have a bus pass to heaven. Surely God in his infinite wisdom can see that a 2000 year old story requires a stretch of the imagination to believe in, and it would make much more sense to have re-occuring appearances every couple of decades. This would result in a much ore peaceful world. And surely as a God, he would prefer this?

Riddle me that.

robindch

dlofnep wrote: »

If God exists, then why not show himself to the masses.

There's a very good reason that we never see god, but The Charter's rule #3 stops me from saying what this reason is

dlofnep

I am also of the same opinion Rbindch. It's just a theoretical question that I want the christians here to answer.

PDN

dlofnep wrote: »

If God exists, then why not show himself to the masses. Surely then, everyone would be aware of his existence and would have reason to believe, adhering to his moral standards. Why the need for faith? It makes no sense whatsoever.

It would make perfect sense that if you were a God, you would prove your existence, instead of this long-winded episode of murder she wrote. The mere fact that religion requires faith, is in itself redundant.

Here's a scenario.

God appears to everyone. Tells them to forget their petty squabbles, live a good life and return have a bus pass to heaven. Surely God in his infinite wisdom can see that a 2000 year old story requires a stretch of the imagination to believe in, and it would make much more sense to have re-occuring appearances every couple of decades. This would result in a much ore peaceful world. And surely as a God, he would prefer this?

Riddle me that.

The Bible records that God has appeared to the masses in various ways and at various times. What happened? People still disobeyed. This demonstrates that the problem is in our own desire to disobey and to do what pleases us rather than to any lack of evidence.

It would make no difference whether He made His appearances every 5000 years, every 5 years, or every 5 hours. Human nature being what it is, people will still stick two fingers up at Him.

oobydooby

“I should like balls infinitely better,” remarks Caroline Bingley, in Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, “if they were carried on in a different manner…it would be much more rational if conversation instead of dancing made the order of the day.” To which the reply: “Much more rational, my dear Caroline, I dare say, but it would not be near so much like a ball.”

dlofnep

PDN wrote: »

The Bible records that God has appeared to the masses in various ways and at various times. What happened? People still disobeyed. This demonstrates that the problem is in our own desire to disobey and to do what pleases us rather than to any lack of evidence.

The last time being?

PDN wrote: »

It would make no difference whether He made His appearances every 5000 years, every 5 years, or every 5 hours. Human nature being what it is, people will still stick two fingers up at Him.

On the contrary - I think it would make a huge difference because people would have concrete proof of his existence. I doubt we would be "sticking our fingers up" at him.

Don't you see the problem with not revealing himself to us? It makes it near-impossible to have faith in him. And if he exists, him being the creator of us all should be well aware of the mentality of man and what is required from us in order to believe in something.

So I think it would make a HUGE difference on whether he appeared every 5000 years of 5 years.

PDN

dlofnep wrote: »

The last time being?

The last time to the masses all at one time? Depending on how you define that it could be 2000 years or so.

However, millions of people believe He has revealed Himself to them in the last few years.

On the contrary - I think it would make a huge difference because people would have concrete proof of his existence. I doubt we would be "sticking our fingers up" at him.

I think you flatter this generation as somehow being less silly than previous generations. Why should we suppose this generation would refrain rejecting God's ways despite evidence - unlike the Israelites, Pharisees, etc?

I vividly remember a case in a church where I was involved about 15 years ago. A few members of a family came running into the church while we holding a prayer meeting. A baby in their family was critically ill - could we pray for them? We started to pray, unaware that the baby had actually already been pronounced dead at the local hospital. At the same time as we were praying the baby revived. Now, we can argue all day about whether a miracle actually occurred (and let's face it - we know you'll search for any excuse to deny that a miracle took place). So let's skip the discussion of whether a miracle actually occurred. The key point for this thread is that the baby's parents were 100% certain that God had raised their baby from the dead. They came to the church to tearfully thank us for our prayers, and even stated their certainty that a miracle had occurred in a front page article in the local newspaper.

Yet, despite being 100% certain that God had done something great, the parents continued to live the same lifestyle as before. They refused to become Christians because they knew that would mean them giving up their rather lucrative profession of dealing drugs.

I honestly believe that many profess to be atheists not because they can't believe - but because they won't believe. Just look at the thread in the A&A forum which asked what it would take for them to believe. Some posters actually stated that even if God parted the Atlantic Ocean they would prefer to ascribe it to extraterrestials.

Don't you see the problem with not revealing himself to us? It makes it near-impossible to have faith in him. And if he exists, him being the creator of us all should be well aware of the mentality of man and what is required from us in order to believe in something.

I love these atheist faith statements you are making. How about comparing them with the evidence?

If it is 'near-impossible' to have faith in Him, then how come the majority of the human race manage to achieve a near-impossible feat? The evidence demonstrates that most people do not find it near-impossible to believe in God. To the contrary, they seem to find it fairly easy to believe in Him. They might disagree as to what God is like - but they certainly believe in Him.

In fact, judging how many people believe in God worldwide, it looks as if He's well aware of the mentality of man and what is required in order to believe something.

JimiTime

dlofnep wrote: »

On the contrary - I think it would make a huge difference because people would have concrete proof of his existence. I doubt we would be "sticking our fingers up" at him.

Well, Some time ago I asked such a question on the A&A forum. The general consensus was just that. They don't like the christian God, so if he revealed himself, they still would not want to worship him.

Don't you see the problem with not revealing himself to us? It makes it near-impossible tofor me to have faith in him.

Fixed that. There are plenty who have faith in him based on the accounts of his revealing himself to us. Maybe it doesn't work for you, but it certainly works for some.

So I think it would make a HUGE difference on whether he appeared every 5000 years of 5 years.

Maybe it would convince of his existance, but thats really irrelavent to God. Most atheists express almost a hatread of God. believing he's not worthy of worship, evil, insecure etc etc. So for most, his existance is irrelavent anyway.

His people have faith in him though, without him having to come down on a cloud every 5 years. By faith I mean both trust and belief.

dlofnep

PDN wrote: »

I love these atheist faith statements you are making. How about comparing them with the evidence?

What? It was perfectly reasonable to suggest that people have a hard time in believing the existence of God when he hasn't shown himself to the masses in 2000 years.

PDN wrote: »

If it is 'near-impossible' to have faith in Him, then how come the majority of the human race manage to achieve a near-impossible feat?

I am of the belief that alot of people "believe" in him out of fear. They don't like the idea of nothing after death and delude themselves into believing he exists. I know this, because I was one of them. I also believe that the more scientific we become as a species, the less realistic the idea of a God becomes. People believed the world was flat not so long ago - With science comes understanding, and with understanding comes cutting loose ideas like religion.

PDN wrote: »

The evidence demonstrates that most people do not find it near-impossible to believe in God. To the contrary, they seem to find it fairly easy to believe in Him. They might disagree as to what God is like - but they certainly believe in Him.

I don't think as an educated person anyone could find it "easy" to believe in him. It is not easy to believe in something you have never seen or touched and base your beliefs upon a 2000 year old book. It may be easy for you to believe, but I assure you - it's not for everybody.

dlofnep

JimiTime wrote: »

Most atheists express almost a hatread of God. believing he's not worthy of worship, evil, insecure etc etc. So for most, his existance is irrelavent anyway.

Erm, I think you misunderstand what an atheist is? Atheists don't hate God. Why? Because we simply do not believe that he exists. How can we hate something that we do not believe exists?

PDN

dlofnep wrote: »

What? It was perfectly reasonable to suggest that people have a hard time in believing the existence of God when he hasn't shown himself to the masses in 2000 years.

No, it would only be reasonable to suggest that if a majority of people didn't believe in God. As it is your suggestion wish is contradicted by the available evidence.

I am of the belief that alot of people "believe" in him out of fear. They don't like the idea of nothing after death and delude themselves into believing he exists. I know this, because I was one of them. I also believe that the more scientific we become as a species, the less realistic the idea of a God becomes. People believed the world was flat not so long ago - With science comes understanding, and with understanding comes cutting loose ideas like religion.

And, of course, the key word there is belief. You are making a faith statement - which of course you are entitled to do so in a pluralistic democratic society. I personally find your faith statement to be erroneous and lacking in evidence, but I will defend your right to believe it - just like I do for the Creationists and the Jehovah's Witnesses.

I don't think as an educated person anyone could find it "easy" to believe in him. It is not easy to believe in something you have never seen or touched and base your beliefs upon a 2000 year old book. It may be easy for you to believe, but I assure you - it's not for everybody.

Do you really want to get into an argument as to whether I am educated or not? I am fairly well educated, and I do find it easy to believe in God. So do millions of other very well-educated people. Therefore your opinion is contradicted by the evidence of our very existence.

However, I certainly agree with you that "it's not for everybody". There are those who will refuse to believe irrespective of the evidence or lack of evidence. Jesus actually told a parable nearly 2000 years ago to demonstrate that "it's not for everybody":

He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'
Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'
'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'
He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' (Luke 16:27-31)

gramlab

JimiTime wrote: »

Well, Some time ago I asked such a question on the A&A forum. The general consensus was just that. They don't like the christian God, so if he revealed himself, they still would not want to worship him.

If you give him credit for the good stuff then you need to give him credit for all the bad that happens. Definitely a good reason not to worship something.

JimiTime wrote: »

Fixed that.

So I assume you wont mind if anyone changes your posts?

JimiTime wrote: »

Most atheists express almost a hatred of God.

Should probably fix this one as well then. Speaking for most atheists. How nice of you. (forgive me fixing the typo)

Isn't it amazing how an omniscient god prefers to make his presence known by performing minor miracles (one childs life would be minor to him wouldn't it?) and appearing in fruit and veg, and so on.

And the "none of you would believe anyway" is a complete cop out. If he appeared to me and did something that only a divine creator could do I'd definitely, probably think about the whole worship thing. Maybe.

dlofnep

PDN wrote: »

No, it would only be reasonable to suggest that if a majority of people didn't believe in God. As it is your suggestion wish is contradicted by the available evidence.

What are you even on about? What does it matter if the majority believes in god. I stated PEOPLE have a hard time believing in god because he hasn't shown himself in 2000 years. I did not state "everyone". So you're 100% utterly and totally incorrect.

PDN wrote: »

And, of course, the key word there is belief. You are making a faith statement - which of course you are entitled to do so in a pluralistic democratic society. I personally find your faith statement to be erroneous and lacking in evidence, but I will defend your right to believe it - just like I do for the Creationists and the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Do you ever stop going on about "faith statement". You are a CHRISTIAN. Don't talk to me about faith. You're entire life revolves around it. And secondly, it wasn't a faith based statement. It was an accurate statement to suggest that many people believe in him out of fear - I did, as did many atheists I have spoken to. So therefore it is not a faith based statement, but a totally accurate statement. Now please, stop with this faith nonsense. Pot, kettle, black etc.

PDN wrote: »

Do you really want to get into an argument as to whether I am educated or not? I am fairly well educated, and I do find it easy to believe in God.

As an educated person, you really lack in ability to read. Where did I attack your education? I stated "I don't think as an educated person anyone could find it "easy" to believe in him."

Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that it is not easy to believe in God.

PDN wrote: »

However, I certainly agree with you that "it's not for everybody". There are those who will refuse to believe irrespective of the evidence or lack of evidence. Jesus actually told a parable nearly 2000 years ago to demonstrate that "it's not for everybody":

It is your belief that Jesus told something 2000 years ago. It is not fact.

PDN

dlofnep wrote: »

What are you even on about? What does it matter if the majority believes in god. I stated PEOPLE have a hard time believing in god because he hasn't shown himself in 2000 years. I did not state "everyone". So you're 100% utterly and totally incorrect.

If you want to debate with other people then I would advise you to try to remember what you post. Your exact words were "It makes it near-impossible to have faith in him.". If a majority of people do indeed have faith in him then your statement is clearly wrong.

Do you ever stop going on about "faith statement". You are a CHRISTIAN. Don't talk to me about faith. You're entire life revolves around it. And secondly, it wasn't a faith based statement. It was an accurate statement to suggest that many people believe in him out of fear - I did, as did many atheists I have spoken to. So therefore it is not a faith based statement, but a totally accurate statement. Now please, stop with this faith nonsense. Pot, kettle, black etc.

I'll tell you what. I'll stop going on about faith statements when you stop making faith statements.

BTW, this discussion will go much better if you keep calm and DON'T SHOUT. The drama queen stuff doesn't really impress me very much.

Yes, as a Christian I do indeed make faith statements, as do you as an atheist. Indeed the Christianity forum would seem a very suitable place for a Christian to make faith statements.

However, your OP appeared to be trying to present a logical difficulty that Christians should respond to. All I am saying is that such an approach would require you to produce some kind of evidence or logic to support your position. Just stating your opinion may be therapeutic for you, but it hardly merits a thread in the Christianity forum.

Maybe a little illustration can help you here. Imagine if I posted on a thread on the A&A forum challenging atheists as to how they can believe such nonsense. If all I offer to support my case is stuff like, "Well I believe X and Y" then the atheists and agnostics would (quite rightly) attack me for offering a challenge based solely on my personal beliefs and not on any evidence or a logical/philosophical principle.

Sauce. Goose. Gander.

As an educated person, you really lack in ability to read. Where did I attack your education? I stated "I don't think as an educated person anyone could find it "easy" to believe in him."

Pot. Kettle. Black.
I never said you attacked my education.

My point is that I am an educated person and that I find it easy to believe in Him. Therefore, since I qualify under the term of 'anyone', my very existence is a rebuttal of your statement. Therefore, logically, you would appear to have three options.
a) Admit that you are wrong.
b) Accuse me of lying when I say I find it easy to believe in God.
c) Challenge my description of myself.

Now, option (a) is statistically unlikely since I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I have seen atheist posters on this board admit it when they are wrong.
Option (b) would be a bad idea since it would earn you an infraction.
Therefore I thought that option (c) was the more likely way for you to go. I don't think it would be a smart way to go, so I asked you if you really wanted to go that route. If not then there is no problem.

Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that it is not easy to believe in God.

No-one is arguing with you there.

The points that I was disputing were two of your statements:
(i) That it is almost impossible to have faith in God - contradicted by the evidence
(ii) That as an educated person no-one could find it easy to believe in God - again contradicted by the evidence.

It is your belief that Jesus told something 2000 years ago. It is not fact.

Yes, it is my belief. However, my point in quoting the Scripture passage was to show the Bible agrees with you that faith is not for everybody. However, if it avoids offending your sensibilities and your faith position, I can rephrase it thus:
The author of the Gospel of Luke represents Jesus as telling a parable nearly 2000 years ago to demonstrate that "it's not for everybody"

There, is that better? I'm always happy to cater to the feelings of the more sensitive souls in our little flock of posters.

JimiTime

dlofnep wrote: »

Erm, I think you misunderstand what an atheist is? Atheists don't hate God. Why? Because we simply do not believe that he exists. How can we hate something that we do not believe exists?

I think you misunderstand. Atheism means diferent things to different people. There was a big thread on it in A&A some time ago. I didn't say that Hating god was intrinsic to being an atheist. I said most atheists (that I have known or dealt with anyway) also say that they would not worship God even if he did exist. They think even if he did exist, he's evil etc.

JimiTime

gramlab wrote: »

If you give him credit for the good stuff then you need to give him credit for all the bad that happens. Definitely a good reason not to worship something.

I'm not arguing. And the above is a good example of what I said. Its not about belief, its about faith. Satan believes God exists, but chooses not to follow him.

So I assume you wont mind if anyone changes your posts?

stop being a plonker. I edited it to make a point. the point being that it not impossible for us to believe. just because he finds it impossible, does not mean everyone does. So whats your problem?

Should probably fix this one as well then. Speaking for most atheists. How nice of you.

Most atheists I've dealt with.

(forgive me fixing the typo)

Don't point out the splinter in your brothers eye when there's a plank sticking out of your own. any chance you learned how to use the quotation function properly:pac: I'm joking btw, just in case you think I'm having a go. You seem to be sensitive.

and appearing in fruit and veg, and so on.

?

And the "none of you would believe anyway" is a complete cop out. If he appeared to me and did something that only a divine creator could do I'd definitely, probably think about the whole worship thing. Maybe.

i don't recall saying anything about 'you wouldn't believe anyway'. I said you wouldn't follow. You'd want to be pretty dumb to say God didn't exist if he came down on a cloud for all the world to see. Though I'm sure there'll be those.

philologos

dfolnep: If you really want to get a decent response it would be helpful if you weren't so confrontational. Like you, Christians are seeking answers about the world, we may go about it in a different way than you.

As for the existence of Christ, there is a general consensus that he did exist amongst theologians. It's something not many dispute.

kelly1

dlofnep wrote: »

Here's a scenario.

God appears to everyone. Tells them to forget their petty squabbles, live a good life and return have a bus pass to heaven. Surely God in his infinite wisdom can see that a 2000 year old story requires a stretch of the imagination to believe in, and it would make much more sense to have re-occuring appearances every couple of decades. This would result in a much ore peaceful world. And surely as a God, he would prefer this?

Riddle me that.

Here's another scenario. Someone walks into a room and sees money lying on a table, has a look around to check that nobody is there and then pockets the money.

On the other hand, if God were there looking over your shoulder, would you still go ahead and steal the money? Not likely.

So when God is not visibly present, our real intentions and desires are revealed. God wants us to be mature spiritually and not act like children. We're never going to grow up if He has to hold our hands all the time. God invisibility is His means of testing and purifying us.

dlofnep

Whatever helps you sleep at night. God isn't testing us. If he existed, he would prove it to us and not expect us to fall back on a 2000 year old story. It only seems sensical that a God would prove his existence to us.

Btw: I'm not disputing that Jesus existed. Infact I think he was a real person, who probably did alot of good in his life. A mother Theresa type character. As for being the son of God? Unless Joseph's nickname was God, then I doubt it.

kelly1

dlofnep wrote: »

Whatever helps you sleep at night. God isn't testing us. If he existed, he would prove it to us and not expect us to fall back on a 2000 year old story. It only seems sensical that a God would prove his existence to us.

Btw: I'm not disputing that Jesus existed. Infact I think he was a real person, who probably did alot of good in his life. A mother Theresa type character. As for being the son of God? Unless Joseph's nickname was God, then I doubt it.

Do you really believe that St. Joseph was Jesus' father or that the bible says so?

philologos

dlofnep wrote: »

Whatever helps you sleep at night. God isn't testing us. If he existed, he would prove it to us and not expect us to fall back on a 2000 year old story. It only seems sensical that a God would prove his existence to us.

Well considering that God has revealed Himself constantly through prophets, and He works through the Christian people each and every day.

I personally think, if you actually considered seeking Him, and more importantly if you really wanted to find Him, you will. You have to look to the Bible and other Christian books with an open heart for that to happen though.

Of course it's sensical that God has proved his existence to us. It's there clearly in His creation. You have no excuse:

Romans 1:20 wrote:

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature,have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

dfolnep wrote:

Btw: I'm not disputing that Jesus existed. Infact I think he was a real person, who probably did alot of good in his life. A mother Theresa type character. As for being the son of God? Unless Joseph's nickname was God, then I doubt it.

Unless you are suggesting Joseph was actually literally Jesus' father. Although the Jews preferred to regard Jesus as Yeshua ben Panthera, and said that Mary had an affair. Either way, I don't believe those claims.

JimiTime

dlofnep wrote: »

If he existed, he would prove it to us and not expect us to fall back on a 2000 year old story. It only seems sensical that a God would prove his existence to us.

Well, i think thats the crux of it for you isn't it.

'I believe X'.

Fair enough, you believe in your opinion. So what exactly is it you are wanting to discuss with the folk who don't believe in your opinion?

Phototoxin

I'm just reading this and would like to make some observations ;

it doesn't seem very chrisitan

it seems to be disjointed and rambling.

it also seems to be extremely argumentative.


my €0.02 would be that if god existed displaying himself would eliminate the need for faith.. yet the people who are the most faithful have had the most proof which in itself is paradoxical.

Biro

dlofnep wrote: »

On the contrary - I think it would make a huge difference because people would have concrete proof of his existence. I doubt we would be "sticking our fingers up" at him.

Don't you see the problem with not revealing himself to us? It makes it near-impossible to have faith in him. And if he exists, him being the creator of us all should be well aware of the mentality of man and what is required from us in order to believe in something.

So I think it would make a HUGE difference on whether he appeared every 5000 years of 5 years.

If He appeared to keep the like of you happy, it would piss me off something serious. How about that for childish human weakness that exists in me for ya?

MrPudding

Biro wrote: »

If He appeared to keep the like of you happy, it would piss me off something serious. How about that for childish human weakness that exists in me for ya?

Yes, very christian of you.

MrP

philologos

Phototoxin wrote: »

my €0.02 would be that if god existed displaying himself would eliminate the need for faith.. yet the people who are the most faithful have had the most proof which in itself is paradoxical.

God has revealed himself to many people throughout history, it's why we have the Bible. I don't happen to think demanding of God to display Himself to you is going to make it happen though, personally I'd probably say He'd find it highly arrogant. Don't take my word on it though.

Biro

MrPudding wrote: »

Yes, very christian of you.

MrP

I'll say it's not Christian of me at all, but it's not for you to say.
Can you point out where I have claimed to be the perfect human with no issues or ill-feelings? You can't? Oh... does that mean I'm not a Christian cause you say so?
You can be very childish at times too, as comments like that suggest.

Phototoxin

well if that's the case then why be selective ?

MrPudding

Biro wrote: »

I'll say it's not Christian of me at all, but it's not for you to say.

You effectively said it, I was simply agreeing.

Biro wrote: »

Can you point out where I have claimed to be the perfect human with no issues or ill-feelings? You can't?

No I can’t, and I don’t believe I said I could.

Biro wrote: »

Oh... does that mean I'm not a Christian cause you say so?

Did I say you were not a christian? No, I don’t think so. I merely said that the particular trait that you pointed our yourself was unchristian. I have met a lot of people who say they are christians but behave, in certain respects, in very unchristian ways. I am not going to say they are not christians, but I think it is perfectly reasonable to say a certain behaviour is not christian like.

Biro wrote: »

You can be very childish at times too, as comments like that suggest.

Yes, I know, it is a weakness, but I have been trying very hard recently to curb it. Do you think it is unatheist of me?

MrP

Fanny Cradock

Biro wrote: »

I'll say it's not Christian of me at all, but it's not for you to say.
Can you point out where I have claimed to be the perfect human with no issues or ill-feelings? You can't? Oh... does that mean I'm not a Christian cause you say so?
You can be very childish at times too, as comments like that suggest.

Don't worry about it too much. This is a standard MrP response.

Biro

MrPudding wrote: »

... but I think it is perfectly reasonable to say a certain behaviour is not christian like.

I have problems with an athiest saying what is and isn't Christian - not because you don't know, but because you don't want to know.

MrPudding

Biro wrote: »

I have problems with an athiest saying what is and isn't Christian - not because you don't know, but because you don't want to know.

What makes you think I don't want to know? What you call christian behaviour I call simple human decency and good manners. If you prefer I can call it "not very nice" or something like that?

MrP

CerebralCortex

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm not arguing. And the above is a good example of what I said. Its not about belief, its about faith. Satan believes God exists, but chooses not to follow him...

In fairness how did the creator of the universe get into that mess.

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

Here's another scenario. Someone walks into a room and sees money lying on a table, has a look around to check that nobody is there and then pockets the money.

On the other hand, if God were there looking over your shoulder, would you still go ahead and steal the money? Not likely.

So when God is not visibly present, our real intentions and desires are revealed. God wants us to be mature spiritually and not act like children. We're never going to grow up if He has to hold our hands all the time. God invisibility is His means of testing and purifying us.

Kelly1 you speak of this god like he's a software test and validation engineer not an omnipotent all knowing god. There are far simpler ways of knowing someones true nature than what you describe if you are pure unlimited power. No?

philologos

Testing is for the benefit of humanity, not for the knowledge of God. Through our lives events can make us stronger people, and can lead us towards faith. If we pray and seek to submit ourselves to be of God's will and not our own, that involves us gradually growing with Him to be the people He wants us to be.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

Testing is for the benefit of humanity, not for the knowledge of God. Through our lives events can make us stronger people, and can lead us towards faith. If we pray and seek to submit ourselves to be of God's will and not our own, that involves us gradually growing with Him to be the people He wants us to be.

Sorry that doesn't make much sense could you elaborate? This still seems to be a creation step in the creation process of a human what does god do to those who don't find themselves led towards faith? This stuff is very difficult to get even after 16 or 17 years of acceptance of religious teaching.

PDN

MrPudding wrote: »

What makes you think I don't want to know? What you call christian behaviour I call simple human decency and good manners. If you prefer I can call it "not very nice" or something like that?

Speaking as a mod, rather than as a poster, I think that would be better.

Many years ago, shortly after I became a Christian, a guy saw me on the street. I'd had a few run-ins with him prior to my conversion and the last one had left him with a fat lip. This time he ran up and punched me in the face saying, "Ha! Now you have to turn the other cheek!" Unfortunately, as a new Christian, I was imperfectly sanctified so, in direct contravention of the words of Jesus, I gave him a good kicking. I can still see him lying on the ground, blood running out of his mouth, saying, "Huh! And you call yourself a Christian!"

We have had some unfortunate incidents on this board where some non-Christian posters think they can verbally attack and bully Christians and, if the Christian argues back, they say, "That's not very Christian of you."

If you play nice then others should play nicely in return. If you try to presume on the turning the other cheek stuff then you will find that the Bible also says "He who lives by the sword will die by the sword."

So, if you feel someone is unduly aggressive then just tell them that's not very nice of them, - or any other rebuke that is neither too insulting nor loaded with religious connotations. If its OTT then report the post.

But let's avoid you accusing anyone of "not being very Christian" and in turn I will avoid accusing you of "not being very atheist".

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Sorry that doesn't make much sense could you elaborate? This still seems to be a creation step in the creation process of a human what does god do to those who don't find themselves led towards faith? This stuff is very difficult to get even after 16 or 17 years of acceptance of religious teaching.

Sure. God puts us through situations, to help us learn more about ourselves and to learn how to do things better in the future. For example, we are in a given situation, and we fall to sin. We feel bad, we change our ways, and hopefully change our behaviour in the future to more fully conform to what God expects of us. Do you ever wonder why in the Bible it gives us several accounts of people falling against God's will? This is to set a precadent. Examples, Noah getting drunk, Lot getting drunk and having incestual relations, King David committing adultery, St. Paul persecuting Christians, Jonah running away from God when He had called Him to preach. The same kind of events happen in our lives on a spiritual level, or so I would argue anyway.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

Sure. God puts us through situations, to help us learn more about ourselves and to learn how to do things better in the future. For example, we are in a given situation, and we fall to sin. We feel bad, we change our ways, and hopefully change our behaviour in the future to more fully conform to what God expects of us.....

That makes sense but isn't that just using god to explain away difficult situations that we inevitably come across and we learned to deal with our selfs anyway correctly or incorrectly. The difference being christians reward themselves mentally by "saying I'm closer" to this idea of god because of the way (perceived as correct) they're going to deal with a similar situation in the future.

Jakkass wrote: »

Do you ever wonder why in the Bible it gives us several accounts of people falling against God's will?.....

No not really.

MrPudding

PDN wrote: »

Many years ago, shortly after I became a Christian, a guy saw me on the street. I'd had a few run-ins with him prior to my conversion and the last one had left him with a fat lip. This time he ran up and punched me in the face saying, "Ha! Now you have to turn the other cheek!" Unfortunately, as a new Christian, I was imperfectly sanctified so, in direct contravention of the words of Jesus, I gave him a good kicking. I can still see him lying on the ground, blood running out of his mouth, saying, "Huh! And you call yourself a Christian!"

My question would be, "you call yourself a member of civilised society?" but then what do I know.

PDN wrote: »

We have had some unfortunate incidents on this board where some non-Christian posters think they can verbally attack and bully Christians and, if the Christian argues back, they say, "That's not very Christian of you."

That is not really what happened here though is it? Biro said something, which he himself said was not very nice. I simply pointed out that that it was not very christian. Are you trying to say that because I am not a christian I don't know what christian behaviour is? Do you have to be a professional sportmans to pass comment on a particular game? Do you have to be a film director to know whether or not a movie is good?

I spent years being told what christian behaviour is. I have seen people posting over and over again on this thread what christian behaviour should be. I am reasonably intelligent, believe it or not , and am perfectly capable of working out if a particular behaviour is correct for the way of life that person claims to follow.

I meant no offense to Biro, and was simply pointing out what he already effectively admitted himself. If he takes offense at being told by an athiest that something he said was unchristian then perhaps he is a bit sensitive. Would it have been OK if a christian said it?

I don't see what the problem is to be honest. Everyone, christian or otherwise, knows what christian behaviour is. It is not like it is a secret or anything. Anyone that knows what christian behaviour should be will be capable of comparing observed behaviour with required behaviour and working out if it is christian or not. I am not passing judgement on his behaviour or calling his faith into question, simply pointing out what was very obvious.

PDN wrote: »

If you play nice then others should play nicely in return. If you try to presume on the turning the other cheek stuff then you will find that the Bible also says "He who lives by the sword will die by the sword."

Sure.

PDN wrote: »

So, if you feel someone is unduly aggressive then just tell them that's not very nice of them, - or any other rebuke that is neither too insulting nor loaded with religious connotations. If its OTT then report the post.

I did not think he was being aggressive or OTT. He said:

Biro wrote:

If He appeared to keep the like of you happy, it would piss me off something serious.

Not particulary aggressive, not very nice. I think if you went out on the street and asked a random sample of people if they thought this was a christian thing to say we know what the answer would be, and they would not need to be a christian to answer it.

PDN wrote: »

But let's avoid you accusing anyone of "not being very Christian" and in turn I will avoid accusing you of "not being very atheist".

I will try, but I do object to the fact that you and others on this board are of the opinion that the only people that are clever enough to work out if something is christian behaviour or not are christians.

MrP

PDN

MrPudding wrote: »

My question would be, "you call yourself a member of civilised society?" but then what do I know.

I wouldn't at that point have called myself a member of civilised society. I was a homeless, formerly atheist, drunk who had just recently trusted in Christ to have his sins forgiven and was trying to work out how to live a new lifestyle. After a few years of living on the streets I had a long way to go to achieve anything resembling civilised.

Having said that, the guy who attacked me was probably even less civilised than I was! If he had even used a phrase such as 'civilised society' I think we would both have been astonished.

That is not really what happened here though is it?

And if you will read my post carefully you will see that I never claimed it was the case with you. I am simply explaining the context behind atheists trying to tell Christians what is 'Christian' or not and why that is likely to be offensive.

Biro said something, which he himself said was not very nice. I simply pointed out that that it was not very christian. Are you trying to say that because I am not a christian I don't know what christian behaviour is? Do you have to be a professional sportmans to pass comment on a particular game? Do you have to be a film director to know whether or not a movie is good?

Christians disagree among themselves as to what constitutes Christian behaviour - and to label something as 'unChristian' is, for believers, a very value-laden term.

Also, any group will resent an outsider trying to enforce his or her definition on them. It is like an American tourist coming to Ireland and telling me I'm not really Irish because I hate fiddley-hi music and don't have red hair. I find the idea that I should be judged by his cheesey idea of Oirishness to be pretty offensive.

If you think that we're being over-sensitive on this then try lecturing a Muslim or a Jew on whether their behaviour is sufficiently Islamic or Jewish.

I am reasonably intelligent, believe it or not , and am perfectly capable of working out if a particular behaviour is correct for the way of life that person claims to follow.

Congratulations - you're obviously much better at this stuff than I am. I frequently encounter ethical dilemmas where I am unsure what is the correct behaviour for a Christian.

I will try, but I do object to the fact that you and others on this board are of the opinion that the only people that are clever enough to work out if something is christian behaviour or not are christians.

Nobody is saying that - but object away as much as you like if it makes you feel better.

I'm simply trying to keep the peace on this board so we can have constructive discussions and hopefully understand one another's faiths better.

MrPudding

PDN wrote: »

I wouldn't at that point have called myself a member of civilised society. I was a homeless, formerly atheist, drunk who had just recently trusted in Christ to have his sins forgiven and was trying to work out how to live a new lifestyle. After a few years of living on the streets I had a long way to go to achieve anything resembling civilised.

OK, you win that one.

PDN wrote: »

Having said that, the guy who attacked me was probably even less civilised than I was! If he had even used a phrase such as 'civilised society' I think we would both have been astonished.

I actually laughed out loud at this one.

PDN wrote: »

And if you will read my post carefully you will see that I never claimed it was the case with you.

I know you didn't, I was simply clarifying my position.

PDN wrote: »

I am simply explaining the context behind atheists trying to tell Christians what is 'Christian' or not and why that is likely to be offensive.

OK, a bit touchy, got it.

PDN wrote: »

Christians disagree among themselves as to what constitutes Christian behaviour - and to label something as 'unChristian' is, for believers, a very value-laden term.

I would have thought that in some cases it was obvious.

PDN wrote: »

Also, any group will resent an outsider trying to enforce his or her definition on them.

I was not forcing my opinion, I think it was fairly obvious.

PDN wrote: »

Congratulations - you're obviously much better at this stuff than I am. I frequently encounter ethical dilemmas where I am unsure what is the correct behaviour for a Christian.

Please. Take a look at the line I commented on. Hardly an ethical dilemma.

PDN wrote: »

Nobody is saying that - but object away as much as you like if it makes you feel better.

It does, thanks.

PDN wrote: »

I'm simply trying to keep the peace on this board so we can have constructive discussions and hopefully understand one another's faiths better.

Cool enough.

MrP

dlofnep

Jakkass wrote: »

Testing is for the benefit of humanity, not for the knowledge of God. Through our lives events can make us stronger people, and can lead us towards faith. If we pray and seek to submit ourselves to be of God's will and not our own, that involves us gradually growing with Him to be the people He wants us to be.

That sounds like something, someone who is trying to make excuses for the lack of proof of God. So what - he waits every 2000 years to say hello, and then fades off into the darkness for another couple of 1000 years?

It seems to me that you're REALLY reaching to explain your faith. It's not a test. He doesn't need to test you. If he exists, he already knows what man is capable and isn't capable of.

GLaDOS

The problem as I see it is, by not appearing himself, God puts the matter of faith in human hands, who are by nature sinful. How can we be expected to be faithful when we only have what other humans tell us? You could argue that the Bible is Gods word, however it has been translated by humans, taken from eyewitness accounts etc. In the end it all comes back to taking the word of others.

Certainly in my life, I have seen no reason to be faithful, I only have the preaching of priests and the Bible. If I'm to belive the Bible, why not the Qur'an aswell? Just as much reason to have faith in that.

Soul Winner

dlofnep wrote: »

If God exists, then why not show himself to the masses. Surely then, everyone would be aware of his existence and would have reason to believe, adhering to his moral standards. Why the need for faith? It makes no sense whatsoever.

It would make perfect sense that if you were a God, you would prove your existence, instead of this long-winded episode of murder she wrote. The mere fact that religion requires faith, is in itself redundant.

Here's a scenario.

God appears to everyone. Tells them to forget their petty squabbles, live a good life and return have a bus pass to heaven. Surely God in his infinite wisdom can see that a 2000 year old story requires a stretch of the imagination to believe in, and it would make much more sense to have re-occuring appearances every couple of decades. This would result in a much ore peaceful world. And surely as a God, he would prefer this?

Riddle me that.

Maybe He doesn't want everyone to be saved. Ever think of that? Maybe He knows that those who He doesn't want to be saved will start believing in Him once they've seen the hard evidence and He just wants to avoid this.

"The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?" He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. This is why I speak to them in parables: Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand." Matthew 13:10-14

"Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you." He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here." Matthew 12:38-41

God knows even if He did split the Atlantic Ocean it wouldn't save a fly. He has determined that it is by His grace that we are saved, through faith, nothing else. Faith in what He says not just in what He does. I can absolutely guarantee you that unless His spirit is drawing you then you cannot come to God. Those who are drawn by His spirit don't need huge miracles in order to be convinced that He exists.

Those who need huge miracles will always need huge miracles and God is not going to keep dishing them out just so you will believe in Him. Believe it or not, and this might come as somewhat of a shock to you, but God doesn't really care if you believe in Him or not. Despite the traditional view that Jesus is outside your hearts door, hat in hand begging for you to accept Him. If the Bible is true then it is you who needs Him, not Him who needs you. I know, a shocking thought to the modern mind. Would it ever occur to you that God hates your guts? Well He does. He hates every single sinning particle of you. You are nothing but dead men’s bones to Him, as am I.

That’s why the only way we can be saved is to be covered by the blood of Christ and to be in-filled with His spirit which will lead us to His salvation. You get this by trusting Him with your life, not by seeing huge miracles. Now you can hate God or not believe in Him because He doesn’t dish out miracles all day long if you like but just so you know, He really doesn’t care. If He exists at all then He is not trial, we are. If the mind can even begin to grasp this concept then there is a glimmer of hope.