If it's crucial for our salvation, why doesn't god give us proof of his existence constantly?

a reply to: borntowatch

Being my OPINION means it is up to me to decide what is relevant to me, thank you. Hence the "in my opinion" statement.

Cool. Then you won't mind if we don't take your answer as the end-all, be-all of this thread. One more drop in the ocean, so to speak.

If you can find a well reasoned response amongst all the catty fighting in this thread, please point it out

I dont really need you to point it out, I am not here to argue with people who differ in their respective views, on topics or about my short comings

So first, you want me to point it out, then you tell me I don't need to. Backpedaling much?

In my opinion, I havnt seen a valid answer that replys succinctly to the question

I think we've already established that that's not saying much.

You know AI, I dont think you contribute much around here, mostly just an opinion that you try very hard to force on others with great zeal and arrogance, how religiously zealoty of you.
Evangelical atheist? Is that hypocrisy?

So now we're moving on to personal attacks. I guess you've run out of relevant comments to make.

originally posted by: Jesuslives4u

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: Jesuslives4u

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: Mammasawakenow
The point is faith he wants us to have faith. He's real and he loves you and wants to have a relationship with you today all you have to do is pray and ask him into your life and forgiveness of your sins

x

And all I ask is that he come down from his mighty throne, have a cup of coffee with me, and spend a few hours answering my questions. I mean, if you had an opportunity to patch things up with an estranged relative whom you loved more than even yourself, what would you stop at to make it happen? What would you give up to spend just five minutes with them, even if it didn't work out in the end? Just to tell them how you feel, knowing what the alternative is - namely, knowing that you had a chance and never even tried. That you loved someone so much and literally just sat by and let it slip through your fingers. Why? Because you're afraid? Or lazy? I'm not a god - that is to say, in any life but my own - but it seems to me that for someone so powerful and omnipotent, it's a small price to pay for reconciling with your child whom you supposedly love more than anything else. But I guess it's still too great a price. Which is odd, considering how compelling the stories have always made him sound.

He will come to you but you don't believe in him and this stops him from visiting you.

If that is truly the case, then he is of no use to me anyway. I don't believe in things just because I want to. I like to keep fantasy and reality separate. Tends to keep my head in a rational place.

First you want to sit down with God and ask numerous questions over a cup of coffee; now you call it fantasy.

You can not have it both ways.

Are you deliberately being obtuse? One leads to the other. Since he has not come down to have coffee with me and a nice long chat about his role in the universe, I have no rational alternative but to consider him a fantasy. Otherwise, he would have heard/read/foreseen this entire conversation and made haste to be part of my life. I mean, if I'm at all important to him. Doing something so effortless for something so valuable, seems a fairly obvious course of action to take, on his part. I left the door open because I'm not worried about what will come through it. And so far, no sign. None at all. I guess he's a coward...or he doesn't exist.

Well, after skimming through this last page I have drawn the conclusions:

Dyed in the wool religious types apparently believe our existence is proof of god. They (as a rule) believe their religion is the only right one, and that this is evident because they say so, or at least because someone said t was so during the bronze age. Obviously this leads to the conclusion that all the others must be wrong.

They won't acknowldge (as a rule) that a real god could easily have prevented a false prophet speading toxic beliefs. If someone has addressed that here I missed it.

I've not really seen any evidence that the religious posters here have tried to address the logic flaws in a belief system where a diety allows most of the people on the planet to be misinformed to the point where they don't go to heaven. This certainly isn't evidence of a kind, loving god.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Antigod

You seem to be a little bitter that things don't go your way. Let me ask you a question. Instead of criticizing God why not criticize your mom and pop? Aren't they the ones that decided to bring you into this mess that you are in? God did not create you directly. You have a belly button so that makes you pro created doesn't it?

I'm not bitter, my life is peaceful and I'm one of life's survivors. I'm baffled by the concept of a kind god who'll let people fail in a spiritual quest that's meant to be the meaning of existence because he won't tell them what's real and what's not.

If you were God what would you do right now? You say that God should be visible all the time so people would simply look up and mind God. Right

I don't care if they mind god or not, the point was if that if their eternal soul was at stake they should be entitled to correct verifiable information on which to base their decisions. Whichever religion is the 'true' one (if any), there's too much contradiction from apparent scientific facts, and other religions, to make the 'correct' choice possible.

God gave people this world to take care of and live in it rent free with all the food they need and no need to worry about bad guys

Famine, war etc. People starve to death in and die in natural disasters all the time. This is not some fluffy friendly world put here to protect us. There are some exceptionally nasty human specific diseases. A nice god put them there?

a reply to: Antigod

The Father in heaven does not willingly afflict the children of men. Man suffers, first, from the accidents of time and the imperfections of the evil of an immature physical existence. Next, he suffers the inexorable consequences of sin — the transgression of the laws of life and light. And finally, man reaps the harvest of his own iniquitous persistence in rebellion against the righteous rule of heaven on earth. But man’s miseries are not a personal visitation of divine judgment. Man can, and will, do much to lessen his temporal sufferings.

a reply to: UB2120

When God said, let's make mortal man in our own image, that means our souls, not our bodies.

That's in Genesis 1:26.
It just says "man", meaning mankind.
You added the "mortal" part.
The "soul" thing comes up in Genesis 2:7,
Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
(2011 NIV)
In this translation it uses "being" rather than soul as in the King James, where 400 years ago "soul" had a different connotation than it does today.
I meant it in the modern sense, as an essence of a person beyond the purely physical.
Genesis doesn't go into the specifics of that unless it is the idea that all the souls that would ever exist on earth were already somehow in existence within the first two people.

God the Father is the only uncaused cause, meaning the only pre-existent being in all the Universe. He is the First Source and Center. All life from the Eternal Son down are a result of God's volition.

I would be very happy to be enlightened on that as soon as you give the biblical citations for it.

a reply to: Seede

The kingdom of heaven is actually the New Jerusalem and that is the house of many mansions that Jesus preached. I could easily believe that by God's foreknowledge the New Jerusalem has only room enough for the saved and once that is filled up then the gates will be closed.

"The kingdom of heaven is at hand" was the gospel that Jesus preached.
It officially started after Jesus ascended into heaven.
It exists now and was made evident after the old kingdom was destroyed along with the Jerusalem temple in 70 AD.
The New Jerusalem is in Revelation and is the figurative description of Christianity.
This goes along with my earlier statement on the kingdom, that they are one and the same, and has existed and in use for close onto two thousand years.
The "many mansions" is the same thing as the city of New Jerusalem, just an earlier and more direct sort of reference that the ones in Revelation.
We, the members of the kingdom, literally, the church, are the dwelling places of God's spirit, as opposed to the one place that was earlier claimed by the Jews, the Jerusalem temple.
There is no "filling" of the city as if it was a physical thing.
There is another meaning that can be applied to the original Greek word for "filled", which is to make complete, which is something that happened long ago when the gentiles of the world were added to the original concept of a "kingdom".

God gave people this world to take care of and live in it rent free with all the food they need and no need to worry about bad guys. Meanwhile He builds us a new place to live forever.

How do you reconcile these two things?
Would you sit there for one minute to ponder that?
My suggestion to you is to read the earlier part of my post and see if you can refute any of it out of the Bible, then once you realize that you can't, to take the next step which is to consider letting go of your cult brainwashing that tells you that this universe is so much trash to be disposed of, and to take personal responsibility for how you live your life in it, as if it will be around yet for generations beyond your own current life.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I believe in the eternity of the soul, and that we all sprang from the Source.
No punishment required. Just lots and lots of experience and learning...from lifetime to lifetime to eventual release and realization that we are all connected and part of the Overarching Unity that simply 'is.'

You seem to already have the "realization".
So what do you have to learn?
Could you conceive of the idea that there really isn't anything beyond this existence except how we can make it better for everyone?
I mean in the reverse sense, there was a unity, so why go back, unless it is to form a new unity where we are?

a reply to: Antigod

They won't acknowldge (as a rule) that a real god could easily have prevented a false prophet speading toxic beliefs. If someone has addressed that here I missed it.

The nature of our current existence is an ocean of false prophets.
Would you like to just somehow cease to exist, along with everyone else?

I've not really seen any evidence that the religious posters here have tried to address the logic flaws in a belief system where a diety allows most of the people on the planet to be misinformed to the point where they don't go to heaven. This certainly isn't evidence of a kind, loving god.

"Go to heaven" may only be a sort of shorthand for something altogether different than what we currently know for sure about.
That people do eventually have access to the pertinent information may be the important thing.
Have you ever hear it said that there are more people alive right now than existed previously over the entire history of the earth?

Edit to add: that may not be statistically accurate but I have heard it brought up to counter the idea of reincarnation, that there is somehow a shortage of souls to be reincarnated.
But the point is that we should fixate our examination onto those alive today and into the future, rather than already passed away.

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: UB2120

When God said, let's make mortal man in our own image, that means our souls, not our bodies.

That's in Genesis 1:26.
It just says "man", meaning mankind.
You added the "mortal" part.
The "soul" thing comes up in Genesis 2:7,
Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
(2011 NIV)
In this translation it uses "being" rather than soul as in the King James, where 400 years ago "soul" had a different connotation than it does today.
I meant it in the modern sense, as an essence of a person beyond the purely physical.
Genesis doesn't go into the specifics of that unless it is the idea that all the souls that would ever exist on earth were already somehow in existence within the first two people.

God the Father is the only uncaused cause, meaning the only pre-existent being in all the Universe. He is the First Source and Center. All life from the Eternal Son down are a result of God's volition.

I would be very happy to be enlightened on that as soon as you give the biblical citations for it.

I used the term mortal because, believe it or not, intelligent life exists on other planets and God created them too. Physically mortal beings on the various worlds will look different, but spiritually we are identical. We are all in the image of God.

a reply to: jmdewey60

Could you conceive of the idea that there really isn't anything beyond this existence except how we can make it better for everyone?
I mean in the reverse sense, there was a unity, so why go back, unless it is to form a new unity where we are?

No, I can't conceive that there isn't anything beyond this existence except how we can help.

Why go back? Because we need to remember the Unity. And more and more people are realizing that it is 'truth'.
The world will be torn/bombed to shreds unless we remember, and act upon it.

Does that answer your questions?

a reply to: UB2120

I used the term mortal because, believe it or not, intelligent life exists on other planets and God created them too.

Hmm . . So what does that have to do with mortal vs. otherwise?
"Image and likeness" it says.
Eikon and homoiosis in the Greek of the Septuagint.
It could mean something appropriate in the physical to match something already existing in some other than physical sense.
The "our" meaning everyone, independent of who is being specifically matched up to these particular bodies at that moment.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Why go back? Because we need to remember the Unity.

I probably don't understand what you mean by that.
Does the "going back" involve something else beyond just the realization or remembering?

a reply to: jmdewey60

I probably don't understand what you mean by that.
Does the "going back" involve something else beyond just the realization or remembering?

No, it doesn't involve anything else.
(Sorry, black cat is lying on my arms AND has his head on my keyboard. LOL!)

I'm not sure I understood what your post meant, either.


Don't we need to realize and remember? That seems like the ultimate collective goal of humanity. To realize and remember....we are all connected. To each other AND to the Source.

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: Seede

The kingdom of heaven is actually the New Jerusalem and that is the house of many mansions that Jesus preached. I could easily believe that by God's foreknowledge the New Jerusalem has only room enough for the saved and once that is filled up then the gates will be closed.

"The kingdom of heaven is at hand" was the gospel that Jesus preached.
It officially started after Jesus ascended into heaven.
It exists now and was made evident after the old kingdom was destroyed along with the Jerusalem temple in 70 AD.
The New Jerusalem is in Revelation and is the figurative description of Christianity.
This goes along with my earlier statement on the kingdom, that they are one and the same, and has existed and in use for close onto two thousand years.
The "many mansions" is the same thing as the city of New Jerusalem, just an earlier and more direct sort of reference that the ones in Revelation.
We, the members of the kingdom, literally, the church, are the dwelling places of God's spirit, as opposed to the one place that was earlier claimed by the Jews, the Jerusalem temple.
There is no "filling" of the city as if it was a physical thing.
There is another meaning that can be applied to the original Greek word for "filled", which is to make complete, which is something that happened long ago when the gentiles of the world were added to the original concept of a "kingdom".

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: UB2120

I used the term mortal because, believe it or not, intelligent life exists on other planets and God created them too.

Hmm . . So what does that have to do with mortal vs. otherwise?
"Image and likeness" it says.
Eikon and homoiosis in the Greek of the Septuagint.
It could mean something appropriate in the physical to match something already existing in some other than physical sense.
The "our" meaning everyone, independent of who is being specifically matched up to these particular bodies at that moment.

You asked why the word mortal was used instead of man. My point was that even though physical bodies of mortals on the various evolutionary worlds of time and space may look different, the souls are the same, in the image of God. The natural tendency is to anthropomorphize God, but God is spirit and we were created in the image of his spirit. We are truly spirits that have a body, not a body that has a spirit.

originally posted by: UB2120
a reply to: Antigod

The Father in heaven does not willingly afflict the children of men. Man suffers, first, from the accidents of time and the imperfections of the evil of an immature physical existence. Next, he suffers the inexorable consequences of sin — the transgression of the laws of life and light. And finally, man reaps the harvest of his own iniquitous persistence in rebellion against the righteous rule of heaven on earth. But man’s miseries are not a personal visitation of divine judgment. Man can, and will, do much to lessen his temporal sufferings.

Well thats waffle.

So let me get this right... you've got no actual physical proof for god or that this diety has ever given us laws etc, but you insist you know what his laws are?

I think that's what bothers me, insisting you have all the answers with absolutely no evidence to support your claims,

Well, here's a answer to you question. Book of Hosea. What I figured out was this. Based on what the Israelites did from the 1st century AD and before what God did was this. God hit them and the world with a 2000 year top level Leviticus 26 curse that's still running. See Hosea 6-2 specifically. Basically this is a world without it's God. But if I have it all figured out correctly it would appear that the curse should be over with by the mid to late 2020's.

But that also means that entire Apocalypse thing is going to happen between now to then.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Don't we need to realize and remember? That seems like the ultimate collective goal of humanity. To realize and remember....we are all connected. To each other AND to the Source.

As long as it doesn't mean reverting to some sort of nebulous blob or something.

a reply to: UB2120

You asked why the word mortal was used instead of man. My point was that even though physical bodies of mortals on the various evolutionary worlds of time and space may look different, the souls are the same, in the image of God. The natural tendency is to anthropomorphize God, but God is spirit and we were created in the image of his spirit. We are truly spirits that have a body, not a body that has a spirit.

I don't exactly feel like being nit picky with your general thesis.
I think I was probably mainly objecting to your method of argumentation.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: bigman88

God is loving, and will work with you and your inequity, but who WILL NOT HESITATE to put a hit out on you and your whole damn pagan country, after all the chances he has given you to turn form these false gods that had the population roast their kids on a fire pit to Baal (satan), public orgies, amoral principles pertaining to debt and business, etc.

He is chilled, he is angry. He does good, and he will do evil to get a point across that he tried the peaceful way before. He wants peace, but he'll make some damn war. Hd want's you to be with him in heaven, but if you are not able to straighten yourself ,your soul is weak, unclean, and is now disposable in his eyes.

Like I said.
A bully and an "ass".

The Biblical God is a farce; you can call me disgusting or filthy hippy or a damned pagan all you want. I won't follow a tyrant. The Bible portrays God as those things: bully, tyrant, ass.

You are right, though, that people don't get what God is. BECAUSE WE CAN'T.
No one can. It's beyond comprehension.

God is not a person, and certainly not a parent. Jealous, hateful, vengeful, and ... well, a crap parent.

Do you have kids?
have you ever spent real time, day in and out, night come and gone, and loved them?
You NEVER GIVE UP on your kid.

THAT is unconditional love.

The God you describe is conditional, and mean. I'm not an atheist. I'm an agnostic Deist.

(And if you do have kids, or influence on any, if you are teaching them fear and shame and self-loathing, you are part of the problem the world has.)

Either rewrite the Bible in view of how far our collective knowledge has come, or shelve it in the archives of dusty old tomes that are, in literary terms, nothing but anthologies of disconnected myths and folklore.

It's a huge problem. I refuse to attribute 'human qualities and frailties' to whatever the Source is. You say I anthropomorphized him - I was making an analogy parallel to adjensen's.

I believe in the eternity of the soul, and that we all sprang from the Source.
No punishment required. Just lots and lots of experience and learning...from lifetime to lifetime to eventual release and realization that we are all connected and part of the Overarching Unity that simply 'is.'

What you also don't think about is that God has a set of rules that he wants us to follow, and the complete opposite of these rules have become such an ingrained part of our daily thought process that we do not see anything out of the ordinary with i; pre-marital sex, homosexuality, simultaneous sex partners, lurid and violent entertainment, wanton divorce, mindless "love", drugs, all that. It is regular because satan has made it so pervasive throughout earth with the allowance of man, that it is now as if all society naturally produces this behavior.

The definition of a "free" life has been molded by man, propped up by man, and the people have acclimated to it over the course of many years.

Jehovah and his ways are viewed as strict to you and many others because you feel it will restrict your enjoyment of life, and that these punishments do not warrant the infraction.

The fact is, that God has decided to chill out a bit, and let people save themselves through Jesus Christ. The ordinances that he had practiced in order to appease him after sinning has been lifted, and people are allowed to work back into his good grace without any reprimand form the past.

What irks you and many others is the perception of restriction that is present. Hence your proposition to change the bible to the way that you think it should be, according to your principles.

You have to come to the fact that God has certain ways he does things, and although people in biblical times would have adhered to it, us today, after being fashioned after mans laws for so many years, will not absorb this very easily, some of us at all.