I am VERY curious as to what the awnser to this is.
Instead of just being passive, I will attempt to awnser this myself...hmmm.

He's too good for some of us? JK :D
He may have shown himself to a few people to pass it on, but he must have known there are going to be quacks as well, with such conviction in their beliefs they are willing to kill for it.
Because of the possibilty of being convinced of nearly any matter at hand when relying souly on emotions and the say so of others, even to the point of getting people to kill themselves, reason is our only means of decerning truth from falsehood.
By that fact, if reason is our only means of decerning truth, of acknowleging facts of reality, wh ywould he not prove himself through the only valid way neccesary?
Instead of second hand sources?

Look within you might say.
The only truth I find there is Existence exists, I am conscious, and I can be no other at the same place and at the same time.

Hmmmmm.
The only conclusion I can come to is that IF he exists, he wants us to live through our own efforts. His intention is for us to do our own thinking, come to our own conclusions, to become fully mature and eventually become independant from him.
Of course if he is there/here, he will prefer to be there only when you need him.
In times of despair and severe doubt.
Like a good parent.
All good parents love thier children, but want them to eventually make it on their own.
The success of independance in any offspring should oversee any debt the parent expects from the child.

Would not gods ultimate reward be to see us succeed on our own?
To see us become an independant race?

So to awnser my own question.....he does not want us to see him.
And now for the truth of the matter.... :D

What about the imminent destruction of the world and the salvation of the righteous? The apocalypse is God's welcome home party.

Honestly, I hate to say this, but I think it is the fact that religion and beleif in the supernatural dominates the world, that it is because of this that we are not able to face reality.
Our success as a species comes down to our ability to percieve reality.
This is dependant on understanding that the nature of us being human, dictates that our survival is dependant upon the use of reason.
We are the species that needs to think.

Ever hear of self determinism?
Or the statement..."whether you think you can or can't,your right."?

It is exactly because of what you have just said, the fact that the bible calls for the end of the world as inevitable that I have now just come to the conclusion of just how evil the bible is to mankinds survival.

Believing that the end is out of your control leads predetermines that you have no control over the outcome of the world and allows you to blank out from reality.
Allowing the world to come to shit because it is out of your hands.
It is only because this beleif is so rampant in our society, of course human kind is subconsciously been directed to downfall.
I have no more to say at this time.
I am digusted for the moment.
I may have to look at this another way.

I have more of a Norse belief. Things may be doomed but that does not mean that you have to serve evil. You make a choice with every action that you take; either you help make the world better or you help make it worse. You may not be able to see all the consequences of your actions but you should still try to make it better.

Why doesn't God just show himself?

I'll take a wild guess:maybe b/c it doesnt exist! ;)

and since no one can prove the existence of god,isnt that proof enough it doesnt exist.

Why doesn't God just show himself?

I'll take a wild guess:maybe b/c it doesnt exist! ;)

and since no one can prove the existence of god,isnt that proof enough it doesnt exist.
*************
M*W: God, the common name given to the pure positive life-giving energy that dwells within all living things is quite obvious. All one needs to do is look.

lol@Q25

No prophet, religious fanatic, priest, mullah, rabi, etc has ever come up with a proof of God. I don't know why still it is one of the hottest topics ever discussed by mankind!

I may have to look at this another way.

Yes, most likely.
Imagine: What do you think God looks like?

Exactly, we don't know. He may just be standing behind me, lookng over my shoulder as I am typing this.

We recognize only things that we already know. We most likely see only things that we already know or we see new things in the terms of what we already know.

If you don't know God, it is hard to imagine that you could see him just like that. He seems to be invisible, one may even get the impression that he "doesn't show himself".

[QUOTE=RosaMagika]Yes, most likely.
Imagine: What do you think God looks like?

Exactly, we don't know. He may just be standing behind me, lookng over my shoulder as I am typing this.
*************
M*W: RosaMagicka, I don't think god is looking over you shoulder, it's god doing the typing.
*************
We recognize only things that we already know. We most likely see only things that we already know or we see new things in the terms of what we already know.
*************
M*W: This is true. For most people, it is hard to imagine what god looks like, because whether they are religious or not, humanity has been programmed overtly and covertly by the negative forces (organized religion) so we would imagine that god is somewhere "out there" and is some type of entity who created us but who also punishes us. We can only imagine what our perception is from what we'ved learned.
*************
If you don't know God, it is hard to imagine that you could see him just like that. He seems to be invisible, one may even get the impression that he "doesn't show himself".
*************
M*W: That's the unfortunate impression humans have. We can't see god because we have been taught that we are so lowly and beneath god. We tend to think that god exists "somewhere," but not where we can see god.

I believe what we call "god" is a force of pure positive energy. The energy that created humanity and all creation. The life-giving energy that dwells with us -- our spirit which is the One Spirit of God.

God does show itself (it's not a "him") to the eyes of humanity through EACH OTHER as we are all interconnected and the physical body of god. The body of humanity contains the One Spirit of God which we are all a part of. To see god, just look in the mirror.

I believe what we call "god" is a force of pure positive energy.

There's no such thing as "positive" energy. Energy is energy. Please clarify.

Why god does not show himself?

1st possibility:

Well, perhaps he is already here. Our self-centered minds are just not able to perceive him. Perhaps our eyes look in the wrong direction, the people focus on their selfmade religions and are thus blind to everything else.


2nd:

He just died sometime, perhaps gods are not immortal.


3rd:

God just does not care enough to show himself. Perhaps he just moved on to another existance.


4th:

There just is no god. That´s why he is not here.


5th:

The earth, no the whole universe just IS god. Resulting from that, I would see a part of god when I look at a piece of shit.

haha I agree with Q25
it makes more sense to me

[QUOTE=TheERK][QUOTE=Medicine Woman][QUOTE=RosaMagika]I believe what we call "god" is a force of pure positive energy./QUOTE]

There's no such thing as "positive" energy. Energy is energy. Please clarify.
*************
M*W: I don't claim to be a quantum physicist or anything, but energy is what created the universe. I would say that the sun provided the energy that warmed the earth, melted the ice caps, made the oceans where all life came from.

M*W: I don't claim to be a quantum physicist or anything, but energy is what created the universe. I would say that the sun provided the energy that warmed the earth, melted the ice caps, made the oceans where all life came from.

Are you saying that all life came from the oceans?

Dave

M*W: I don't claim to be a quantum physicist or anything, but energy is what created the universe. I would say that the sun provided the energy that warmed the earth, melted the ice caps, made the oceans where all life came from.

If you claimed that 'energy' created the universe, you would be wrong--nobody knows what created the universe. Claiming that it is 'energy' is practically meaningless. Also, you did not answer the question: what is positive energy?

Also, God is not energy. Energy is energy. Redefining God to be something that you know exists, just so you can claim that God exists, is ridiculous. I might as well claim that God is a pair of scissors.

I might as well claim that God is a pair of scissors.

Please do, maybe you can start a new cult. I'm sure you can find some people who will believe you.

I too have always considered suspect the fact that God refuses to show himself. Nobody's mentioned the most common explanation for this. God requires faith. You can't have faith if God is proven. You must believe in the unprovable to have faith.

Ok, I guess if that was the whole story then I could accept that. The only problem is the ancient hebrews had "proof" that God existed. Most of them didn't see him face to face or anything, but the ark of the covenant shooting lightning bolts would be pretty impressive to me (not nowadays of course; but even so, Tesla never finished his death ray, so it would still be impressive.) The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah would be pretty impressive. Lot's wife turning to salt would be pretty impressive. The parting of the Red Sea would be pretty impressive. Manna from heaven would be pretty impressive.

So the question is if God once showed himself to the world in various ways, why doesn't he do so now? Has he changed his mind? Decided perhaps that it was a mistake to act in such a manner and that blind faith would serve the future generations better?

God's main requirement is that you worship him and fear him. Worship no other gods but him. If so, he could fulfill that requirement pretty easily by some miraculous acts. And I don't mean images of the virgin Mary appearing in reflections and crap like that. Let's see some special effects, god. Did you use up all your production values on the ancient Hebrews?

Don't worry He is going to show himself to all mankind.


Revelation 1

7Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen.
8"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

Thing is you do not want to be a disbeliever on that day.

John 20:29
Jesus said to him, "Thomas,because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

All Praise The Ancient Of DAys

Daniel 7:13



If you don't have faith, what hope do you have? None.

Faith is the hope of the blind.

Speak not of 'God' and faith to me, my fellow blind man. You know him no better than I, and we both know him not in the least.


And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?

Luke 6:39

yeah, it would really mess up that whole "blind faith" think were the deity to show itself.

that and it would probably be a goofy looking blue cowish thing and only answer one of kyle's questions about periods and then disappear for another thousand years.

Posted by InvertNexus
"You can't have faith if God is proven."

A very powerful statement.

Faith is the hope of the blind.

Speak not of 'God' and faith to me, my fellow blind man. You know him no better than I, and we both know him not in the least.


And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?

Luke 6:39

God isn't blind though.


Psalm 23:4

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou [art] with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

He guides us because we are His sheep. As sheep, we have gone astry and He is the Good Shepherd. The Good Shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.

But I am blind to him.

Jesus was the only light to reveal him, but I cannot know if Jesus ever even existed.
All that remains is a silly little book.

On Christ, the book reads:

Who is the image of the invisible God...

Colossians 1:15

Jesus may or may not have been the Way and the Truth, but he is gone.

We are all blind, for he has long passed from this world.

And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

Acts 1:9


He was removed from our sight, even according to Scripture.



We must all live benighted, ignorant of God.

What I don't get is why people describe god as perfect then go on to say he is good or great and then some might say he is bad or really bad

Anyway, purely my take on the subject, if god was perfect he would be in equilibrium. He would be balance. Because if he knows everything he knows good and bad etc. Therefore if we presume he has perfect judgement he has to be balance.

So god is not good, great, bad, or really bad. That would be my understanding of what the christian god might be aiming at, but his insatiable lust for the love of humans dements this (along with all of his freaky deaky acts).

Whoever said “why doesn't god show himself: because he doesn't exist.” I totally agree.

PS anyone understand anti-semitism? I don't. God killed jesus, god chose jews to kill him. Where does anti semitism come from? It seems like misdirected anger at jews because of god for preordaining jesus' death. The catholics that don't like jews are nuts.

But I am blind to him.

Jesus was the only light to reveal him, but I cannot know if Jesus ever even existed.
All that remains is a silly little book.

On Christ, the book reads:

Who is the image of the invisible God...

Colossians 1:15

Jesus may or may not have been the Way and the Truth, but he is gone.

We are all blind, for he has long passed from this world.

And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

Acts 1:9


He was removed from our sight, even according to Scripture.



We must all live benighted, ignorant of God.


Isaiah 6:10-11. The blindness is not everlasting.


Physically removed from our sight.


Read Romans Chapter 1:17-20. Should explain it to you better than I can because it's almost midnight here..

Later.

Posted by InvertNexus
"You can't have faith if God is proven."

A very powerful statement.

The sun has been proven to rise every morning. I have faith that when I wake up tomorrow, the sun will rise.

The sun rising every morning for every day of your life is evidence that it shall continue to do so. You may have faith that the it will rise tomorrow, but it isn't the same as the Faith you have in your god. God has not given you the constant reinforcement of the belief. God's "proofs" lie thousands of years in the past. You take even the "proof" on Faith.

The sun has been proven to rise every morning. I have faith that when I wake up tomorrow, the sun will rise.Why bother with faith? I don’t have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow morning I understand why it happens and know that, baring some catastrophic event, it will rise. It seems to me that knowing and understanding are far more useful and comforting than faith.

~Raithere

You may have faith that the it will rise tomorrow, but it isn't the same as the Faith you have in your god.

Why not?


God has not given you the constant reinforcement of the belief.

This is dependent upon how you see the world. A believer that the world revolves around the sun would see the sun's movement as a token of this fact. A non-believer, however, would believe the sun was truly moving.


God's "proofs" lie thousands of years in the past. You take even the "proof" on Faith.

Unless if you are God, you would know whether that possibility is impossible.

Why not?

Because you have personally seen the sun rise every day of your life. (well, maybe you're not up at sunrise, but the sun's been there every day.) God has not proven himself to you at all. Except for the little "proofs" that all theists claim but which are totally subjective and prove nothing. Have you personally seen any great acts of god? Anything that would make you say "Holy shit, nothing but God could do that. Ok, I believe." And please, no visions or other emotional proofs, humans are prone to see things that aren't there when in a religious frenzy.

This is dependent upon how you see the world.

No matter how you see the world the sun has been there every day of your life. Even if you're blind, you feel the sun's warmth. In fact, your ancestors all the way back to the bacteria have seen the sun rise every day (of course, this is a bit off topic, because one must take it on faith that the world existed before they were born). You don't have to understand solar mechanics to believe the sun will rise tomorrow. I made no mention about what revolves around what.

Unless if you are God, you would know whether that possibility is impossible.

I really don't understand what you're saying here. What I think you might be saying is that one doesn't have access to all the events in the world and therefore can't say that god proves himself or not. Well, I can say that if there were some major events in the world today, such as the parting of the Red Sea or people being turned to salt by god's wrath, I think they would be advertised pretty heavily. The only "proofs" that I do hear about are Catholics seeing the virgin Mary in a reflection or other such nonsense.

God was "proven" to the Israelites. Strangely enough, even with all the proof god laid at their feet, they needed to be reminded over and over again. Then, god was "proven" to the early christians. Since then there has been no "proof." Since then, we've been told that we must have Faith. As I said before, if God was so willing to prove himself in the ancient times, why not now? Has he run out of production values? I suppose he used up most of his special effects and is saving the rest for judgement day. Well, that's just great, so the people that were alive and present at any of his earlier "proofs" were given the opportunity to believe in a god that proves himself to them, but we latter-day humans don't get that benefit. They go to heaven because god proved himself to them, we go to hell because god doesn't think we're worthy of such proof. Not very fair if you ask me. Of course, no one ever accused god of being fair, but that's another topic altogether.

Because you have personally seen the sun rise every day of your life. (well, maybe you're not up at sunrise, but the sun's been there every day.) God has not proven himself to you at all.

Since you are not God, you would not know that.


Except for the little "proofs" that all theists claim but which are totally subjective and prove nothing. Have you personally seen any great acts of god? Anything that would make you say "Holy shit, nothing but God could do that. Ok, I believe." And please, no visions or other emotional proofs, humans are prone to see things that aren't there when in a religious frenzy.

I'm going to avoid being called a schizophrenia but one of the greatest acts of God is hope. I do believe I've heard God and Mary's voice, and I still make many mistakes. I understand too why the Isrealites failed so often. It's within man's power to hide the truth from themselves. If someone does not want to know the truth, they will not know. If someone want to know God, they must want to know more than anything else. By rejecting the everything else, his existence becomes known.


Well, I can say that if there were some major events in the world today, such as the parting of the Red Sea or people being turned to salt by god's wrath, I think they would be advertised pretty heavily. The only "proofs" that I do hear about are Catholics seeing the virgin Mary in a reflection or other such nonsense.

I don't think there's any sure natural explanation for Fatima or Zeitun.


God was "proven" to the Israelites. Strangely enough, even with all the proof god laid at their feet, they needed to be reminded over and over again. Then, god was "proven" to the early christians. Since then there has been no "proof."

What makes you so certain that there's been no proof since then?


They go to heaven because god proved himself to them, we go to hell because god doesn't think we're worthy of such proof. Not very fair if you ask me. Of course, no one ever accused god of being fair, but that's another topic altogether.

The good thing is that you can't really test someone you don't exist. Well, you could read the story of Job and accuse God of not coming up with anything more powerful than our methods of destruction.

Again, remember how I mentioned don't tell me about any visions or unprovable things like that? Assuming that god is proving himself by ways that might be mistaken for madness or gullibility, why did he do it different before? If god wanted to, he could surely come down and do something extreme that would prove his existence to all but the most stubborn. He doesn't do that. Why? (Remember the point of the thread?)

I don't know what Fatima or Zeitun you're referencing are? Are they people who have seen visions of god or something?

And by the way, I have read the story of Job. I, unlike most christians, have read the bible. I don't have it memorized, but I have read it. And there's some nasty stuff in there. But, again, that would be another topic.

Now it is such a bizarrely impossible coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to
see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God. The arguement goes something like this:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promply vanishes in a puff of logic.
Douglas Adams --The Hichhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Again, remember how I mentioned don't tell me about any visions or unprovable things like that? Assuming that god is proving himself by ways that might be mistaken for madness or gullibility, why did he do it different before? If god wanted to, he could surely come down and do something extreme that would prove his existence to all but the most stubborn. He doesn't do that. Why? (Remember the point of the thread?)

God does not just prove themselves as there is some grace to be obtained by searching for him, by rejecting that which tells us he does not exist. This is why Jesus said "blessed are those who believe but do not see," yet gave strict reproach to those who rejected him while seeing his miracles.


I don't know what Fatima or Zeitun you're referencing are? Are they people who have seen visions of god or something?

Fatima is where a series of visions were given to three peasent children in Portugal. The only seer alive is Lucia; she had predicted the other two children would die. These visions culminated in the miracle of the sun that 70,000 witnessed.

Zeitun is a city in Egypt where an apparition of the virgin Mary appeared to muslims and coptic christians and photographs and tv clips of the apparition were taken.

God does not just prove themselves as there is some grace to be obtained by searching for him, by rejecting that which tells us he does not exist....

Oh, so it's about having Faith without proof. That's what I said. So that means that those who lived in times when god was more active, and believed because god proved himself to them, while they are going to heaven are less blessed than those today who believe with no proof. Where does that leave the people who don't believe without proof? SOL? Still doesn't seem fair to me.

Ok, I've heard of Fatima then. It's been awhile, but I vaguely remember hearing that the girls later confessed to lying about it. Could be wrong on that. Weren't their stigmata and the like involved too? And mass visions don't mean anything. If someone says they see a vision of god and you don't see it what are you going to do if you're a faithful christian? Say you don't see it? That'd most likely get you ostracized at the very least, burned at the stake at the worst. And even if they did think they saw something, it could still be chalked up to hysteria. As you say, the desire to believe is very strong. The human mind is quite malleable under certain conditions.

I haven't heard of Zeitun, but again "visions" don't prove anything. Do you have any links to the images recorded? I've seen pictures of "visions" before and saw nothing. While others say "Look, right there, it's there, what are you blind?"

I remember seeing reports on psychological experiments done on college students. The students were brought in to a group of other students. Only one student out of each group was the test subject. The others were in on it. The researcher would show a poster with three lines on it. Two of the lines were the same length and the other was much shorter or longer. The question was which of the lines were equal. The students would answer one at a time. With the test subject answering last. All the students would choose the wrong lines. The lines that obviously were not equal in length. The test subject would look incredulous that these people were so stupid and would pick the right two lines. Then they would do it again. Again, the same response, all the students answered wrong. Eventually, in almost every case, the test subject would "break." You could actually see it in his face when it happened. He started going with the crowd. There must be something he doesn't understand about how he's supposed to answer, so to not look foolish among his peers (or whatever reason) he chose the answer that he knew to be wrong. Carried far enough, he would no longer think the wrong answer was wrong. Peer pressure is insidious. There were a variety of other experiments that followed a similar vein, that's the only one I can recall off-hand though.

If god wanted to show himself, why would he do it to 70,000 people in Portugal and not everywhere in the world? Why to some people in Egypt and not everywhere in the world? Were these people judged by god to be worthy of being shown a vision of his glory? Or actually, by the logic of more grace in believing in that which you don't see, I guess they're cursed by god. When they get to heaven all the believers who saw no vision will jeer and laugh at these guys who needed to see a vision to enhance their belief, even if they already had faith and needed no vision to prove their faith. Hardly fair to those in heaven or hell.

I would say that one reason is trust, if we constantly *knew* God was watching then some of us wouldn't be as honest with our actions as we are ("when the teacher is away" should bring back memories) and we wouldn't feel free to do what we want out of fear from Him, maybe some of us wouldn't dare to do anything...

Another reason may be that belief in something unseen and unknown is needed in life (as simple as that).

Yet another reason may be that everything has a consequence, and God being visible to us may not lead to the right consequences.

I think Life is more than we can imagine, there's alot of big lessons to be learned.

The bible describes it as giving birth, there's alot of suffering but in the end the suffering will be forgotten when we receive the child.

Also, it's my belief that in God's light all of our faults will be visible, and maybe we need more time to heal some of them (and to healing ourselves may in itself be a part of the greater meaning).

Oh, so it's about having Faith without proof. That's what I said. So that means that those who lived in times when god was more active, and believed because god proved himself to them, while they are going to heaven are less blessed than those today who believe with no proof. Where does that leave the people who don't believe without proof? SOL? Still doesn't seem fair to me.

The Bible gives its own definition of what faith is:

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

I know that world has a different definition but i will stick with the Biblical definition. I know God is there is no blind faith with me. I do not need a sign a wonder a miracle to convince me that God is.

The signs and miracles where for a purpose and that was to give authority to the one delivering the will of God to the people. But once the will of God is delivered to the people there is no further need for signs, because the truth can stand on it's own and those who love the truth will hear it and know it is the truth. These people don't need a miracle. As you said yourself God gave many signs to the Jews and others in times past but even those signs could not keep them from going against Gods will. The Messiah said to some of the scribes and Pharisees :

Matthew 12:39
But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.

The prophet Jonah spent three days in a whale and lived The Messiah spent three days in the tomb and came back to life.

But great signs and wonders will be preformed again and many will believe because of them. But these signs and wonders will not be from God for prophecy says:

2 Thessalonians 2
9The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

So if you depend on signs and wonders to bring you to belief you have set yourself up for the great deception. For the antichrist will use them to deceive those who will not receive the love of the truth. The Love of the truth is found in the Message of The Messiah Immanuel, it is in His message that i know God is. There is no blind faith about it. It is the acceptance and love of the truth that gives me "the evidence of things not seen.
"

The Messiah also says:

Matthew 7
21 "Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'

All Praise The Ancient of Days

Ah, the Christian Ad Star eh? Living up to your name.

I have to ask though, I mean you said:

"The signs and miracles where for a purpose and that was to give authority to the one delivering the will of God to the people. But once the will of God is delivered to the people there is no further need for signs, because the truth can stand on it's own and those who love the truth will hear it and know it is the truth. "

So I'm thinking you just shit all over a bunch of Muslims and Hindus, or are you gonna say something about how god works in mysterious ways? If so, then what if "his ways" are so mysterious that from our perspective in the universe, atheism is actually the closest believe to truth? Not possible eh? How about monism sans religion? No? Probably because your book says differently huh? I can feel the bible quotes coming now. *sigh* I see. It's "truth" that you love eh? I saw a lot of truth in my calculus book and I loved it. How about that book. Let us quote to each other the fundamental theorum of calculus, and it shall be good.

Do you even stop to examine what you're saying? It's a bunch of ridiculous, random shit that in your bible-centric perspective may have merit, but that perspective has no basis outside of your taste in exagerated, propagandic collections of folk-lore.

If there was a god it would be absolutely impervious to us. To think that an entity with the ability to create the universe would care whether or not our little species acknowledged it is ridiculus.

Oh, so it's about having Faith without proof. That's what I said. So that means that those who lived in times when god was more active, and believed because god proved himself to them, while they are going to heaven are less blessed than those today who believe with no proof. Where does that leave the people who don't believe without proof? SOL? Still doesn't seem fair to me.

I think you are misinterpreting me. God is fully capable to judge on the basis of knowledge received.


Ok, I've heard of Fatima then. It's been awhile, but I vaguely remember hearing that the girls later confessed to lying about it. Could be wrong on that.

No one confessed to lying.


Weren't their stigmata and the like involved too?



And mass visions don't mean anything. If someone says they see a vision of god and you don't see it what are you going to do if you're a faithful christian? Say you don't see it?

Yes, I would say I don't see it.


I haven't heard of Zeitun, but again "visions" don't prove anything. Do you have any links to the images recorded? I've seen pictures of "visions" before and saw nothing. While others say "Look, right there, it's there, what are you blind?"

http://www.zeitun-eg.org/
There are some photographs here. The photograph quality is not too good, I think, so the testimony of this relies also on thousands muslims and coptic christians who say what they saw.


I remember seeing reports on psychological experiments done on college students. The students were brought in to a group of other students. Only one student out of each group was the test subject. The others were in on it. The researcher would show a poster with three lines on it. Two of the lines were the same length and the other was much shorter or longer. The question was which of the lines were equal. The students would answer one at a time. With the test subject answering last. All the students would choose the wrong lines. The lines that obviously were not equal in length. The test subject would look incredulous that these people were so stupid and would pick the right two lines. Then they would do it again. Again, the same response, all the students answered wrong. Eventually, in almost every case, the test subject would "break." You could actually see it in his face when it happened. He started going with the crowd. There must be something he doesn't understand about how he's supposed to answer, so to not look foolish among his peers (or whatever reason) he chose the answer that he knew to be wrong. Carried far enough, he would no longer think the wrong answer was wrong. Peer pressure is insidious. There were a variety of other experiments that followed a similar vein, that's the only one I can recall off-hand though.

I have heard of this experiement also. But I think your forgetting that the group studied were college students sitting together, and the tendancy of peer presure would have been significantly higher.


If god wanted to show himself, why would he do it to 70,000 people in Portugal and not everywhere in the world? Why to some people in Egypt and not everywhere in the world?

Zeitun is on the path that the holy family took during their exile into Egypt.


Were these people judged by god to be worthy of being shown a vision of his glory? Or actually, by the logic of more grace in believing in that which you don't see, I guess they're cursed by god.

That's dependent on whether they believed before seeing the vision or after seeing it. I don't mean they will be cursed. But there's greater sins a person who knows God can commit verses someone who doesn't.

God is fully capable to judge on the basis of knowledge received.
ARGH.

How the SHIT do you know? I find your lacking reverence of the idea that you embrace as something to be revered, quite self-involved and shallow.

Perhaps you shouldn't go around talking shit about what god can or cannot do or know. It is IMO, despicable for a human to project themselves into the "mind of god" and then speak as if they have assumed the fucking role.

YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT GOD DOES OR DOESN'T KNOW, STOP PARADING AROUND LIKE YOU DO, IT'S DISGUSTING.

EDIT:

Sorry Okinrus. Sometimes I read your stuff and it just makes me insane. I apologize for being a jackass to you aboot it, but I still stand by my comments. It seems to me that it is entirely hypocritical to make comments about god's ability or liklihood of doing this or that. It's god right? If so, then shouldn't you let the fucker speak for himself?

If there was a god it would be absolutely impervious to us. To think that an entity with the ability to create the universe would care whether or not our little species acknowledged it is ridiculus.

I've heard this several times before, but never really thought about it. The problem with this argument is that it assumes God is busy with more important things. However, it's completely incoherent for "God" to be "busy." It is conceivable that God, if it exists, might care about every little species.

Don't base your argument on size or god's priority. Base it on the obvious fact, given the human condition and (divinely) preventable accidents, that no outside force really seems to care about us.

Damn, in "Dogma", there was the line that Jesus supposedly said to Peter: "Whatever you hold true on earth, I shall hold true in heaven" -- meaning that God must obey Christian dogma. Thus God is as Christians say ...

While I could find the quote itself on the net, the online Bibles don't have it!

Where's the trick?

it's completely incoherent for "God" to be "busy." It is conceivable that God, if it exists, might care about every little species.
A god could never be busy, he sees all knows all is all powerful etc, how can he be busy if he's all powerful and has the power to not be busy? why would he want to be busy and leave us to destroy everything? he wouldnt, so why doesnt he show himself or stop us destroying things? because he isnt there.

ah, the "plenary indulgance loophole"? :D

How the SHIT do you know? I find your lacking reverence of the idea that you embrace as something to be revered, quite self-involved and shallow.

Discussion about the capability of God is not commanding, implying, or anything of the sort of what God would do. I'm uncertain where you are going with this, but if God is incapable of judging based upon knowledge we have received, he would neither be all-knowing nor all-power. And I think for the sake disproving the existence of God we would have to assume some qualities of God anway.


Perhaps you shouldn't go around talking shit about what god can or cannot do or know. It is IMO, despicable for a human to project themselves into the "mind of god" and then speak as if they have assumed the fucking role.

When have I done this? All I'm suggesting is that God is capable of judging based upon mitigating factors. Would you be less or more offended if I quoted biblical verses? I think it's reasonable that God could judge someone based upon knowledge received.


YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT GOD DOES OR DOESN'T KNOW, STOP PARADING AROUND LIKE YOU DO, IT'S DISGUSTING.

I've never paraded around like I do know, but if you are suggesting I cannot use reasonable attributes of God that all Christians believe to defend God's existence, your not going to have much of a discussion. After all, how is my claim to any attribute of God any different than an atheist's claime of God's non-existence or unknowable-existence.

In the argument above against God's existence, I could have used any unproven attribute of God to prove it as false because it was based upon whether God could exist. While the attribute remains unproven to some, the fact remains that God could have this attribute, and I think if you read the entirely what I said, you would understand.


Sorry Okinrus. Sometimes I read your stuff and it just makes me insane. I apologize for being a jackass to you aboot it, but I still stand by my comments. It seems to me that it is entirely hypocritical to make comments about god's ability or liklihood of doing this or that. It's god right? If so, then shouldn't you let the fucker speak for himself?

I don't believe it's any more hypocritical than you calling me hypocritical. I often argue attributes of God knowing they might be disproven.

Okinrus,

I think you are misinterpreting me. God is fully capable to judge on the basis of knowledge received.

What does this mean? Of course God would be capable of judging. That's one of his main functions according to scripture. I think that you're arguing that Faith has nothing to do with proof. The verse you use to illustrate this speaks of Grace not Faith, so I'll accept your argument. I can't quote any verses that specifically state why god doesn't show himself. As I said, I've read the bible but not memorized it. The verses that always stick out in my mind are the unspeakably horrible ones. The ones about god acting in ways that show no aspect of fairness. That's my main beef with god, his unfairness. He appears to judge by different standards at different times.

On the subject of Fatima and Zeitun and the experiments I cited, you say that the students were seated next to other students. Weren't the 70,000 next to each other? Weren't the people at Zeitun next to each other? I think the peer pressure of a group of 70,000 people would be far higher than 4 other people. Especially among people who are inclined to believe in such things to begin with.

I checked out the Zeitun site. As you say, the photographic quality is poor. Very poor. Why would god bother proving himself in a way that could be open to claims of fraud? God could prove himself, without a doubt, if he so wished. Adstar states verses that claim that the day of proofs is over. That the antichrist will use these methods to lure people into a way opposite to god's way. If this is so, wouldn't these incidents be more likely the work of the antichrist and not god? Convenient isn't it? It's basically saying the proofs we have seen are from god. Any proofs that come later will be the work of the antichrist. We're right, they're wrong. Again, inherently unfair. And how would one determine if it's the antichrist or the second coming? Seems the only way to know for sure is when you find yourself in heaven or hell. And then it's too late.

What about Saul on the road to Damascus? He didn't believe in Christianity. God showed himself to him and from this the catholic church descended. Is Saul shown less grace because of the nature of his conversion? I bet you'd piss of a few catholics if you said so. Why does Saul get proof of god and I get nothing? Unfair. Even if you are shown less grace because because of the nature of the vision, it's certainly better than hell isn't it? All of us who don't believe because we have seen no proof are doomed to hell. All of those who didn't believe and were converted by being shown god go to heaven. I'd take less grace over hell anyday.

About the topic of whether or not you believed before the vision. What about the muslims that saw the visions at Zeitun? The visions are of the virgin Mary, which is almost always a common theme in these visions, it's almost never god or jesus that is seen, but the virgin Mary. The muslim's don't believe in the virgin Mary. I'm assuming that those who saw this vision altered their viewpoints on their religion because of it. What about them? Will they be spit upon in heaven? The christians believed before, the muslim's didn't. Once again, unfair. Or, I guess the muslims that converted would have to live more ideal lives as their grace is less and sins that believers with no visions commit which can be forgiven would send the others straight to hell.


Reminds me of a Saturday Night Live a long time ago, Jim Carey was hosting. He played a guy that used "I'll see you in hell" once in a conversation to an asshole on the phone. Everyone in the office started cheering him, "way to go!" So he started using it so much that it lost all significance and pretty soon it was just his way of saying hi. "Hey, Bob. How's the family? I'll see you in hell." At the end of the skit, he was in hell and all his buddies showed up. Pity he wasn't shown a vision of god. "Why art thou persecuting me?"

Or what about South Park when it is determined that in fact it was the Mormons who had the correct religion. Everyone else goes right to hell. Basically, without some type of proof of god, picking a religion is just a crap shoot. They all have equal amounts of good content and bad content. Most people choose their religion because their parents were a certain religion. Without proof, we're being punished for the sins of our fathers. Of our grandfathers. Of our great-grandfathers. I don't know the exact verse, but there is a verse in the bible that says that sins of the fathers will be punished to the 4th generation I believe. If your family has been part of the wrong religion for longer than that, you should be excused for choosing the wrong one.

I think it's reasonable that God could judge someone based upon knowledge received.

... and I think that it's unreasonable to assert a single thing about what god could/would/should do, if you have any reverence for it as a deity whatsoever.

Ah, the Christian Ad Star eh? Living up to your name.

I have to ask though, I mean you said:

"The signs and miracles where for a purpose and that was to give authority to the one delivering the will of God to the people. But once the will of God is delivered to the people there is no further need for signs, because the truth can stand on it's own and those who love the truth will hear it and know it is the truth. "

So I'm thinking you just shit all over a bunch of Muslims and Hindus, or are you gonna say something about how god works in mysterious ways? If so, then what if "his ways" are so mysterious that from our perspective in the universe, atheism is actually the closest believe to truth? Not possible eh? How about monism sans religion? No? Probably because your book says differently huh? I can feel the bible quotes coming now. *sigh* I see. It's "truth" that you love eh? I saw a lot of truth in my calculus book and I loved it. How about that book. Let us quote to each other the fundamental theorum of calculus, and it shall be good.

Do you even stop to examine what you're saying? It's a bunch of ridiculous, random shit that in your bible-centric perspective may have merit, but that perspective has no basis outside of your taste in exagerated, propagandic collections of folk-lore.

wesmorris let me make one think quite clear to you. I am not responsible to make anyone believe in God. My calling as a messenger is to deliver the message. It is the receiver of the Message who has the responsibility to believe. it does not concern me what religion the receiver is weather they call themselves christians, muslims, buddists, hindus, athiests, jews, anamists, or satanists.

" I saw a lot of truth in my calculus book and I loved it. How about that book."

Your calculus book will not bring you to eternal life with the God of Abraham. It will not save you from the eternal lake of fire that awaits all those who are against Gods will.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

It is the receiver of the Message who has the responsibility to believe.

Who else could it lie with? Why is it that you would presume that I have responsiblity based on your words? You think your conviction trumps my own eh? Sounds like a fundamentalist to me.

it does not concern me what religion the receiver is weather they call themselves christians, muslims, buddists, hindus, athiests, jews, anamists, or satanists.
atheism isn't a religion. aint no atheist church.

It's okay, at some point we're all a mass of contradictions, so I understand this as human:

I am not responsible to make anyone believe in God. My calling as a messenger

Your calculus book will not bring you to eternal life with the God of Abraham. It will not save you from the eternal lake of fire that awaits all those who are against Gods will.


However in my opinion it's simply better when you are aware of where your contradictions lie. Myself, I have blind faith in pure reason. I can't really justify it more validly than "it's a boundary condition" and assume it.

Looks to me that you aren't very aware of what you're really doing. Your context only leads you to more of the same context.

I am not responsible to make anyone believe in God. My calling as a messenger is to deliver the message. It is the receiver of the Message who has the responsibility to believe.

And why do I have the responsibility to believe?

What makes you so sure that you are right?

What makes you so sure that you are right and I am wrong as long as I don't believe the same thing you do?

Your calculus book will not bring you to eternal life with the God of Abraham. It will not save you from the eternal lake of fire that awaits all those who are against Gods will.

When in doubt threaten damnation. Beware Adstar, lest you find yourself in your own damnation for choosing poorly. Why is your god the right god? Because your daddy told you so?

On the subject of Fatima and Zeitun and the experiments I cited, you say that the students were seated next to other students. Weren't the 70,000 next to each other? Weren't the people at Zeitun next to each other? I think the peer pressure of a group of 70,000 people would be far higher than 4 other people. Especially among people who are inclined to believe in such things to begin with.

I don't think the 70,000 or those at Zetiun were in any sense peers. Some of them were also different religions.


I checked out the Zeitun site. As you say, the photographic quality is poor. Very poor. Why would god bother proving himself in a way that could be open to claims of fraud? God could prove himself, without a doubt, if he so wished. Adstar states verses that claim that the day of proofs is over. That the antichrist will use these methods to lure people into a way opposite to god's way. If this is so, wouldn't these incidents be more likely the work of the antichrist and not god?

The anti-christ is not here yet.


Convenient isn't it? It's basically saying the proofs we have seen are from god. Any proofs that come later will be the work of the antichrist. We're right, they're wrong. Again, inherently unfair. And how would one determine if it's the antichrist or the second coming? Seems the only way to know for sure is when you find yourself in heaven or hell. And then it's too late.

I believe the anti-christ is the consumation of Evil, and God does not just throw people into hell.


What about Saul on the road to Damascus? He didn't believe in Christianity. God showed himself to him and from this the catholic church descended. Is Saul shown less grace because of the nature of his conversion? I bet you'd piss of a few catholics if you said so. Why does Saul get proof of god and I get nothing? Unfair.

Ok, your right. It's not so much less grace, but more opportunity for destruction such as after receiving the vision Paul denied Christ's mission for him.


Even if you are shown less grace because because of the nature of the vision, it's certainly better than hell isn't it? All of us who don't believe because we have seen no proof are doomed to hell.

No one knows that.


About the topic of whether or not you believed before the vision. What about the muslims that saw the visions at Zeitun? The visions are of the virgin Mary, which is almost always a common theme in these visions, it's almost never god or jesus that is seen, but the virgin Mary. The muslim's don't believe in the virgin Mary.

Muslims believe that the virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus and that God purified her.


I'm assuming that those who saw this vision altered their viewpoints on their religion because of it.

Most likely not. I don't believe the mission of the visions was purely belief but peace. For instance, the virgin Mary held up a olive tree branch at certain points.


What about them? Will they be spit upon in heaven? The christians believed before, the muslim's didn't. Once again, unfair. Or, I guess the muslims that converted would have to live more ideal lives as their grace is less and sins that believers with no visions commit which can be forgiven would send the others straight to hell.

I think you are confused about what Heaven and Hell are. Heaven is a place of mercy. God doesn't just send people to hell because they chose wrong.


Or what about South Park when it is determined that in fact it was the Mormons who had the correct religion. Everyone else goes right to hell. Basically, without some type of proof of god, picking a religion is just a crap shoot.

The point I think I'm making is that God is more like a path than anything else. He does not usually show himself entirely to someone but he shows himself in stages.


Of our great-grandfathers. I don't know the exact verse, but there is a verse in the bible that says that sins of the fathers will be punished to the 4th generation I believe. If your family has been part of the wrong religion for longer than that, you should be excused for choosing the wrong one.

THe punishment can extend many generations but this does not mean that the sons would go into hell. In fact, Ezekiel repudiates this assertion.

.
.. and I think that it's unreasonable to assert a single thing about what god could/would/should do, if you have any reverence for it as a deity whatsoever.

If God did truly create the world, then any assertion about how the world was created is asserting something about what God could, would, and should do. It's an assertion on your part that mankind cannot know anything of God.

It's also a logical contradiction to say you know that nothing can be known.

wesmorris.

“Who else could it lie with? Why is it that you would presume that I have responsiblity based on your words?”

The point is they are not my words. I said I was a messenger.


]“atheism isn't a religion. aint no atheist church”[/B] then you said “I have blind faith in pure reason”

See you do hold to a faith the atheist faith. And that is faith in human reasoning and human perception of the physical world. You call it “pure reason” but you have blind faith in faulty reason, because it is the reasoning of man. Wisdom lets us know that we are not capable of pure reason because our intellects and senses are limited.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

RoseMagika

And why do I have the responsibility to believe?

Because you are responsible for the decision to believe or not to believe. The thing is i do not really know what you believe?

What makes you so sure that you are right?

What makes anyone sure of what they believe? You either have conviction backed by scripture or you don't. I have prayed to God for Him to reveal the meaning of scripture to me and i have faith that God will guide the meek.

What makes you so sure that you are right and I am wrong as long as I don't believe the same thing you do?

Well if you do not believe as i believe you must show me where i am making a mistake. and if i believe that you are mistaken it is my conviction to give you my thoughts and back it up with scripture. if you think i am mistaken then if you love me you will persevere with me. God gives all believer a portion of wisdom it is when we share it in love with our brethren that we can grow in the armor of knowledge of the Word.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

PS: you where looking for scripture:

Matthew 16
13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?"
14So they said, "Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Yes and the directives of Peter are found in His Letters and whatever he bound or loosed stands. Why because he was directed not by his understanding or reason but he was guided by God.

When in doubt threaten damnation. Beware Adstar, lest you find yourself in your own damnation for choosing poorly.

Threaten damnation? No nexus. warn of damnation. I cannot send anyone to the lake of fire. Only God can do that. i do not apologize for the statement i made.

Why is your god the right god? Because your daddy told you so?

No nexus. As i said before i do not place my eternal salvation into the hands of any man and that includes my flesh daddy. My dad belongs to a religion. i was brought up in that religion. I read the Bible and left that religion.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

“ And why do I have the responsibility to believe? ”
Because you are responsible for the decision to believe or not to believe.

Responsible to whom?
Responsible why?

The thing is i do not really know what you believe?

No you don't. Yet you are so brazen to think that you can know better than me or anybody else for that matter. You suppose that if I love you, then I will perservere with you.

You are implying that the Christian rules you believe in go for everybody else too, not just Christians.

“ What makes you so sure that you are right? ”

What makes anyone sure of what they believe? You either have conviction backed by scripture or you don't.

So, this means that if I have no scripture, then my belief is worthless?

Also, which scripture? Who decides which scripture is a valid scripture and which one isn't?


Well if you do not believe as i believe you must show me where i am making a mistake.

That's the thing: I don't feel like I *must* show you where you are making a mistake.
I DO NOT WANT TO CHANGE YOU.

I am only holding my position, and defending it. If it brings anything for you, okay, and if it doesn't, okay too.


Do you think that because I have a position and am standing for it, this already means that I am against you or wanting to change you?


and if i believe that you are mistaken it is my conviction to give you my thoughts and back it up with scripture.

And it is my conviction to hold my ground and let others be.


if you think i am mistaken then if you love me you will persevere with me.

Sweetie pots, I don't love you and I won't miss you, you know.

Seriously, why do you think that what you believe about love is ultimately true and that everyone else should adhere to it, regardless whether they are Christian, Muslim, Hindu, ...?

The point is they are not my words. I said I was a messenger.

So you expect me to take reponsibility for your words but you refuse to. I see. That seems cowardice to me.

See you do hold to a faith
You caught that eh?

the atheist faith.
Ask another atheist and odds are you will not get the same answer. I simply recognize the boundaries of logic. You know you follow the same faith, or this conversation is moot... right?

And that is faith in human reasoning and human perception of the physical world.
I have faith in reasoning, not perception. Perception is all I have to go on, but I do not have faith in it. I have faith that it is all I have to go on, but that it may well be flawed.

You call it “pure reason” but you have blind faith in faulty reason, because it is the reasoning of man.
No it's because if I didn't then there is no point in ever thinking or conversing.

Wisdom lets us know that we are not capable of pure reason because our intellects and senses are limited.
Reason is circumstantial. It is based on context. Pure reason is releative to your scenario regarding its validity. As such, it is entirely tenable. You're doing it right now. The problem I see is that you're presuming yours is valid in my context.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

No thanks.

Adstar and RM, if I may butt in...
Responsible to whom?
Responsible why?
I think he means the same thing I said in my other post: you can't blame Christians for not believing in God, you have a responsibility towards yourself. Unless you have already made up your mind that God doesn't exist or it's impossible for Him to love you, using other Christians or other beliefs to justify your doubt is just an excuse.

You are implying that the Christian rules you believe in go for everybody else too, not just Christians.
We don't believe in rules that are only valid for Christians, and that's the problem. If something is really true, it must be true for everybody otherwise it's too relative to be useful. Morality as we know it in the West grew from Roman/Christian roots, but we hold it as valid for the whole world. Just recently Lorne Craner reasserted America's moral authority (http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1528598,00.html), even though it's theoretically no more valid as Shari'a laws, which still enforce stoning as a valid means of execution. But if morality is a universal law, then Christians have at least the same authority to call people to obey it, and if God is the author and ultimate judge of moral behaviour, then there is an added gravity and responsibility that nobody should ignore, whether Christian or not.

So you expect me to take reponsibility for your words but you refuse to. I see. That seems cowardice to me.
The gospel is probably one of the few messages where the messenger also loses the message when he loses his ability to deliver it with its integity intact.

ERK,
I've heard this several times before, but never really thought about it. The problem with this argument is that it assumes God is busy with more important things. However, it's completely incoherent for "God" to be "busy." It is conceivable that God, if it exists, might care about every little species.
You missed my point. I did not mean that god is too "busy". Point is that attributing something with the power to create the universe with humanlike qualities like "love" or "caring" is pure conjecture and likely way off-base.

Don't base your argument on size or god's priority. Base it on the obvious fact, given the human condition and (divinely) preventable accidents, that no outside force really seems to care about us.
That argument works as well. :cool:

ERK,
You missed my point. I did not mean that god is too "busy". Point is that attributing something with the power to create the universe with humanlike qualities like "love" or "caring" is pure conjecture and likely way off-base.

This was the original statement:

To think that an entity with the ability to create the universe would care whether or not our little species acknowledged it is ridiculus.

Implied in this is that god cares about *some* things, but not "our little species." The adjective "little" suggests that we are a relatively unimportant part of this big, big, universe, and it's this wording that lead me to interpret your statement like I did.

In other words, instead of replying with "What, care about us little humans?" a more appropriate reply would be "Wait, you think God actually cares about anything?"

ERK,
Fair enough, I agree. Thanks for clarifying...

ERK,
Fair enough, I agree. Thanks for clarifying...

It's cool :)
It seems we agree, anyway.

Unless you have already made up your mind that God doesn't exist or it's impossible for Him to love you, using other Christians or other beliefs to justify your doubt is just an excuse.

God forgive you.

Daniel 7:13 - If you don't have faith, what hope do you have? None.

Hope for what? I'm not a Jew living in the old days where their lives were living Hells getting attacked left and right. Darn right THEY need hope to get things better. This is the whole reason for the making-up prophecies of there being a Messiah to save them. And when they Messiah whom they believed so much in died? Their lives didn't get better so what do they say? There will be a SECOND COMING of their Messiah to save them, heh.

That's what all their hope was for.. for a better life. I doubt it had anything to do with their soul in the after-life. And if someone is going to live their life on hope for things to get better without doing a darn thing themselves to MAKE it better, they're a lost soul. In this physical plane of existance, we're left to ourselves so only we can make things better or worse. Don't rely on God to save you.

I have heard of this experiement also. But I think your forgetting that the group studied were college students sitting together, and the tendancy of peer presure would have been significantly higher.

Pssh, having a mass-vision of God happening would be TOTAL peer pressure. All those people with their belief in God and all the other mumbo jumbo that will happen if you don't follow Christianity. So if everyone is clamining to see God yet here some people (or most)don't.. what do you expect to go through their mind? Oh crap, if I don't see God, that must mean I'm going to go straight to Hell, oh noooooo! Oh wow, I see him now, I do I do! Okay, not really but I don't wanna go to Hell so I'll just act like it.


himself in a way that could be open to claims of fraud? God could prove himself, without a doubt, if he so wished. Adstar states verses that claim that the day of proofs is over. That the antichrist will use these methods to lure people into a way opposite to god's way. If this is so, wouldn't these incidents be more likely the work of the antichrist and not god? Convenient isn't it? It's basically saying the proofs we have seen are from god. Any proofs that come later will be the work of the antichrist. We're right, they're wrong. Again, inherently unfair. And how would one determine if it's the antichrist or the second coming? Seems the only way to know for sure is when you find yourself in heaven or hell. And then it's too late.

Heh, yep. With all the hypocrasy, contradictions, bad things, lies and other funky stuff in the Bible, I have a feeling (just a feeling) in the back of my mind that the Bible could be the book of Satan.. even moreso if God ever DOES show him/her/itself.

With all the delusional, hysterical, or just outright made-up events and writings of the Apostles saying something happened that most likely didn't, that's the way to make people believe in Satan and not God. It's all a matter of who did or said what first. It's written that the miracles done in the past were performed by God and when next miracles happen, it will be done by the Anti-Christ. Well if all of the past miracles are fake, what if that was Satan's doings and with all of this need for proof we have in this day and age, God FINALLY decides to make him/her/itself known. Well he/she/it goes and finally does some world-wide miracles, but since Satan did his miracles first and said the next time it will be the work of Satan, we will think the real true God is Satan, lol, go figure.

This is why I said if God even made him/her/itself known, people wouldn't believe it and would lash out at him/her/it. Heck, THAT could be the reason why God won't make him/her/itself known, because he/she/it wrote him/her/itself back into a corner. Hey, I didn't make it up. For Christians out there, that IS the reason why God won't show him/her/itself. If God reveals him/her/itself, it'll be assumed it's Satan because it says so in the Bible. And if God does show him/her/itself and it isn't the Anti-Christ, then it must mean the Bible is false yet again and heck, if it were the work of Satan himself, oh lordy, all that time worshipping the false Bible so much will totally create mass depression.

But seriously, what miracles were done in the old days? Any good stuff was all minor acts and well, Satan is a minor demi-god. What other stuff was done in the old days, the big stuff was all LOTS of violence and other horrid deeds. Geez, sounds like Satan more and more. Yet when the GOOD stuff comes later, people say it'll be the Anti-Christ/Satan doing it to fool us. We expect those minor miracles (which are most likely made-up stories) and violent deeds of the past to be done by GOD, yet when world-wide, OH MY GOD-type miracles happen in the future, it'll be the Anti-Christ or Satan? Geez, heh, need I say more?

- N

I always find this question funny.
Look in the mirror. Smile. Be pleased with who you are.
Look outside, look inside, look at life, look up and down and all around and stand in awe because you are seeing God!
Why doesnt God show himself!!! hehehehehehe

PEace

c20

RosaMagika

Responsible to whom?

You are responsible to God for your response to His call to you.


Responsible why?

Because you have the free will to choose truth or stay in a lie.


No you don't. Yet you are so brazen to think that you can know better than me or anybody else for that matter. You suppose that if I love you, then I will perservere with you.

I do suppose if you have love you will persevere with me .


You are implying that the Christian rules you believe in go for everybody else too, not just Christians.

There is only one God and yes His will stands for every man on earth.


So, this means that if I have no scripture, then my belief is worthless?

No if your beliefs go against scripture then your beliefs are worthless.

Also, which scripture? Who decides which scripture is a valid scripture and which one isn't?

The 66 books of the Bible are scripture. If one is genuinely looking for God then it will become clear to them that this scripture is truth.


That's the thing: I don't feel like I *must* show you where you are making a mistake.
I DO NOT WANT TO CHANGE YOU.

I am only holding my position, and defending it. If it brings anything for you, okay, and if it doesn't, okay too.

Do you think that because I have a position and am standing for it, this already means that I am against you or wanting to change you?

So if I am mistaken? If you know I am doomed. you have no desire to give me the knowledge that will save me from destruction? You would not want to free me from deception? To change me?


Sweetie pots, I don't love you and I won't miss you, you know.

Yes it seems you do not love me. But I love you and that is what my Messiah told me to do.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

wesmorris

Ask another atheist and odds are you will not get the same answer. I simply recognize the boundaries of logic. You know you follow the same faith, or this conversation is moot... right?

You may indeed be right wes

1 Corinthians 1:23
but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness,

1 Corinthians 1:18
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

I always find this question funny.
Look in the mirror. Smile. Be pleased with who you are.
Look outside, look inside, look at life, look up and down and all around and stand in awe because you are seeing God!
Why doesnt God show himself!!! hehehehehehe
c20

Actually, you're seeing the universe. If you are suggesting that the universe is God, you'd be twisting definitions.

hey i'm not greek.

:D

Actually, you're seeing the universe. If you are suggesting that the universe is God, you'd be twisting definitions.

Ok thats a fair point but what I say still stands. Ill explain ...

God is Spirit and therefore is as invisible to us as the Wind by that definition. It is my opinion that God wanted us to be Witnesses to his magnificence, kindness and love. He created us to adopt us as his own so that we would call him 'Father'. He revealed His nature to us through Creation and therefore by standing in awe and walking humbly with God, His purpose in creation is fulfilled.

Peace

c20

God forgive you.
Funny you should say that.

hey i'm not greek.

:D


:D ohhh yes you are, you believe in thinkers like Aristotle and pythagorus and you follow the greek way of thinking. greek logic and greek reason. Actually the scientific way of thinking is based on greek culture. So yes indeed wes you are greek in spirit. The worlds modern culture is basically greek with computers.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

The ERK,

Actually, you're seeing the universe. If you are suggesting that the universe is God, you'd be twisting definitions.

Whose definition?

Actually, you're seeing the universe. If you are suggesting that the universe is God, you'd be twisting definitions.
Not for a Pantheist! :)

"you gotta have faaaaaaiiiiiiittttthhhh"

Because you have the free will to choose truth or stay in a lie.
Yes we do have the choice, but unfortunately you cannot know it is the truth until the end, and your arrogant if you think your automatically right because its what you believe to be correct. If only one religion can be correct then the odds arnt in my favour, i'd rather enjoy what i got now.

The ERK,

Whose definition?

I don't have an exact definition for God, but I know that if the word is a synonym with 'Universe', it becomes a useless concept, and you might as well use the word 'Universe.'

your arrogant if you think your automatically right

Thats an interesting one. True believers wouldnt see it as a contest between believers and non believers. A contest of who's right and wrong??? True believers should show God's love by example and by their deeds you will come to know God.
I guess being 'open to love' isnt that bad is it? No matter what you 'believe' in.

I don't have an exact definition for God, but I know that if the word is a synonym with 'Universe', it becomes a useless concept, and you might as well use the word 'Universe.'


Hopefully I explained myself adequatly tho ? :)

Thats an interesting one. True believers wouldnt see it as a contest between believers and non believers. A contest of who's right and wrong??? True believers should show God's love by example and by their deeds you will come to know God.
I guess being 'open to love' isnt that bad is it? No matter what you 'believe' in.
I dont have a problem with anybodys belief, i dont believe in god, it doesnt mean i will kick someone when they are down or be a bad person, its not about right and wrong thats why statements about 'going on living a lie' etc are irritating and to me suggests arrogance on the part of the person making the statement, you can believe its the truth, that doesnt make it the truth, thats all im getting at really.

Because you have the free will to choose truth or stay in a lie.

I do suppose if you have love you will persevere with me .

There is only one God and yes His will stands for every man on earth.

No if your beliefs go against scripture then your beliefs are worthless.

The 66 books of the Bible are scripture. If one is genuinely looking for God then it will become clear to them that this scripture is truth.

May God forgive you your religious pride. You are so vain and so cruel in your religious pride.


So if I am mistaken? If you know I am doomed. you have no desire to give me the knowledge that will save me from destruction? You would not want to free me from deception? To change me?

I don't think that you are in deception. You are the one who thinks that there are only two ways: the right one, and the wrong one; and that one is either in deception, or not.

You are the way you are. If you should ever feel that what you think or do is not right, then you'll seek help. And then, and only then, if you come to me, will I try to do my best to help you. But only if you specifically come for advice.

I do not force my belief on you. I do not go around telling people that what I think is right.

Yet you wish to rape us with your black and white thinking.


Yes it seems you do not love me.

Oh yes, and there is either love or hate, for you. You Christians have a strange idea of love. "If a man on the street doesn't shoot me -- that means he loves me!!"

But I love you and that is what my Messiah told me to do.

You don't love me. You wish me to be someone else. You treat me as if I were your problem.

What you do is ill, it is malignant.

I dont have a problem with anybodys belief, i dont believe in god, it doesnt mean i will kick someone when they are down or be a bad person, its not about right and wrong thats why statements about 'going on living a lie' etc are irritating and to me suggests arrogance on the part of the person making the statement, you can believe its the truth, that doesnt make it the truth, thats all im getting at really.

I think these sort of threads will always contain strong words. I am sure if everyone met up and were face to face, everyone would realise that they all have a common interest... 'heated debate'. I guess heated debate must be a strong human yearning. I think its fun! I guess you just have to be responsible all the time, making sure you never actually get personal. I reckon thats pretty hard too! But ya know ... its all good really!

Peace

20c

Funny you should say that.

It is sad that *you* think it was funny that I have said what I have said.

I've always thought that love is 'patience' first.
Its like something undeniable. Romantic love is great but patient love carries a personal price. We are all hypocrites if at first we dont show patience I think.

Peace

c20

It is sad that *you* think it was funny that I have said what I have said.
After everything I said, you still think I'm trying to hurt you or trying to change you? You invoke God to forgive me for trying to get you to admit that He exists and loves you. That is what was strange to me. You never made your position clear, you know.

Jenyar,

What *you* think about God is not necessarily the same thing *I* think about God.

I never made my position clear, because I feel there is nothing to *say* about God: I do not know him, at least I do not consciously think I know him, so I cannot make any claims about his characteristics.

You are judging everyone else's way of thinking by your own way of thinking, insisting that what you think is right.

You think that what you believe goes for everyone else too.
You don't seem to have the abilty to really let others be the way they are.

Where is your humility?!

Where is your humility?!
I don't think it's humility not to have an opinion, and I certainly don't think the God that created us would make it impossible to know anything about Him. And we can know things. Otherwise teachers would have been redundant, and students non-existent. We need different ways of thinking about things so we can learn from each other. But that doesn't mean neither of us cannot eventually know anything.

If everybody had that approach to life - to let everybody just be the way they are, ignorant or vain - nothing would ever be achieved. Civilization and society would be bankrupt. You even contradict yourself with that statement: why aren't you willing to let me be the way I am?

So let me ask you this: even if I don't expect you to believe me, or everything I had learned; if I didn't presume to know everything or judge your perspective - are you willing to get to know God anyway?

The God I know would be sad that you are snapping at eachother. I really find it so hard to understand why poeple cant just see God as 'Love' and leave it at that. It doesnt matter what religion you are or what you believe in or what you know or whatever. A 'human being' cannot deny that 'love' is the greatest thing of all.

The God I know would be sad that you are snapping at eachother. I really find it so hard to understand why poeple cant just see God as 'Love' and leave it at that. It doesnt matter what religion you are or what you believe in or what you know or whatever. A 'human being' cannot deny that 'love' is the greatest thing of all.
I don't like snapping at anybody either - it's destructive. But there really are too many religions of convenience around. I can tolerate many things, but apathy is really becoming another opium of the masses. People too easily promote everything they believe in the name of love or God or tolerance, as if that settles the matter, and there is no responsibility to find out why these things carry so much power or what they imply. The end result is people holding beliefs for which they take no responsibility, and which they're not willing to be held accountable to. I didn't take such an easy way out when I chose to follow God, and it grieves me to see people mocking my decision by making it seem to be just that.

If people are sincere and convinced about their beliefs, they should have no qualms about living up to them, and that's all I'm asking. For example, who is the God of 'love' you believe in? Is He just a flowery scent in a grassy field, or does He also demand justice? Does He agree with you that nothing else matters? Many people think you are not entitled to have answers to these questions. Why do you think that is?

The God of Love i believe in is here --- http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=36438

I speak in terms of the abstract i.e Love because it is less likely to cause people to trip over religous terminology. I do not want to argue theology endlessly or get into debates about something that is precious to me. I am quite happy to be an example of my faith tho and live in Love.

And anyway 'God is Love'. I have walked with the spirit for a long time now. Your question about 'Does He Demand Justice.' ... I think you need to put that into some sort of context. Jesus certainly didnt call for justice against those that crucified him. Rather he prayed to His Father to forgive them because they didnt know what they were doing. There is no condemnation in Christ. Thats really important. Love covers a multitude of sins. Lets not bash eachother and call for unbelievers to give account of themselves. Lets just pray that our brothers and sisters find peace.

Lets not bash eachother and call for unbelievers to give account of themselves.
That's exactly what I'm saying.
There is no condemnation in Christ.
Although you said earlier, "It doesnt matter what religion you are or what you believe in or what you know or whatever." So it does matter. Jesus did forgive his enemies, but only He was in a position to do so.

Please understand that I'm not attacking people's beliefs, or even trying to force them out of them, I'm worried about a 'live and let live; there's nothing to know' attitude that cannot progress beyond itself. Nobody can afford to be the frog slowly being boiled alive - and if Christians are caught up in the same attitude, they won't point point out the fact that even though the water's the same temperature for everyone, it's also getting hotter for everyone.

I dont really know what to say other than I think we may have our wires crossed.
I do feel your frustration really.
All I will say tho is I cannot carry the weight of the cross for all or I cannot convince everyone that its getting hotter. I am neither strong enough or worthy to carry that full burden and why should I. Salvation wouldnt really be a gift if I had to do it on my own strength. If people see that I am happier moving to a cooler area, maybe they will follow me into the shade willingly. They are too hot and bothered to listen to my ranting were i predisposed to do so.

Jenyar,


I don't think it's humility not to have an opinion,

What is *not* humble is the *content* of your opinion.

Change a few names in the Bible, and you get the essence of Nazism.


If everybody had that approach to life - to let everybody just be the way they are, ignorant or vain - nothing would ever be achieved. Civilization and society would be bankrupt.

This is a false post hoc ergo propter hoc.


You even contradict yourself with that statement: why aren't you willing to let me be the way I am?

Fact is that you think that my conviction is wanting to change you, the same as it is yours wanting to change me.
You obvioulsy cannot imagine what it is like to simply have an opinion without wanting to change the other person.

It is the content of your belief that you must influence others in a certain way. My belief says that I should not influence others in any certain way.

Did I ever say to you that you should give up believing in God? Did I ever say to you that you should give agnosticism a chance? Did I ever ask you whether you are willing to give agnosticism a try?
I certainly have not, but I am quite sure that this is how you read my words.


You, on the other hand, keep on directly aiming at me with your "are you willing to get to know God anyway?"

But I can see that you read my belief and my doings as if I were here on a "mission" -- like you are.

You obviously think that since Christians are here with a certain purpose and a certain mission -- that other people are also here on a certain mission of their own.
And that my "mission" is to change you, or convince you of how agnosticism is the right thing to do.
But *I* don't see my life as a mission.


So let me ask you this: even if I don't expect you to believe me, or everything I had learned; if I didn't presume to know everything or judge your perspective - are you willing to get to know God anyway?

What is this supposed to mean? Whose God? Mine? Yours?
You are so, how should I say, ... you can hardly wait to find someone who doesn't think the same way you do. For then, you can show and "prove" how strong and right your faith is. Without agnostics, atheists, and all kinds of "pagans", you Christians have nothing and noone to compare yourself to. You need us, for only when you compare yourselves to us, you feel like Christians.

We don't need you to be able to define ourselves.
In your own eyes, as paradoxically as this may sound, you are a little more than dust without us.
You consider us to be your problem -- you approach us with the attitude of wanting to solve that problem. If there would be no "pagans", Christians had nothing to do -- and couldn't be Christians.

How pathetic.

Shame on you.

You need us, for only when you compare yourselves to us, you feel like Christians.


Was 'You' directed at Jenyar or Christians in general?

If it was general (Christian*s*) I would like to make a comment please.
I am a 'Christian' because that is a word that means you believe in Jesus and his teachings: about loving your neighbour and being thankful to God for what you have; walking humbly and at peace.
I am not a Christian because I have a need to feel superior to another human being. That would go against the grain so to speak.

Peace

c20 :m:

c20H25N3o,

If you come to me, telling me I should "give God a try" or "get to know Jesus", then, yes, then I will consider you the same kind of Christian as Jenyar is.

But apparently, there are more "kinds" of Christians: there are such who let others be without wishing to change them, and there are such who in one way or another wish to change me.

Christians have very different opinions on what it means to be a Christian.
Some say,
"I am a 'Christian' because that is a word that means you believe in Jesus and his teachings: about loving your neighbour and being thankful to God for what you have; walking humbly and at peace."
Some other say, they wish me to get to know Christ.
Some other took a sword and killed everyone who didn't convert.

The problem is that all Christians call themselves Christians.

How am I to know which are which?

I wish to be as honest as possible, I don't want to generalize.
I ask Christians, and they direct me to the Bible.


But if I read the Bible -- it speaks against me. And so many acts of Christians speak against me.

You say you wish to walk humbly and at peace.
Some of your fellow believers have very different ideas of what "humbly and at peace" is.

Do not be surprised if people like me have great distrust in Christianity, when we see such a large range of what "love" is.

You obvioulsy have an issue of great inconsistency in your own lines. This is not a problem of the non-believers. You don't behave as one unified and equally thinking group of people, yet you all go by the same name.
And you want non-believers to see you as one unity -- while at the same time you don't act as such.

What am I supposed to do? Christians simply aren't trustworthy. I know this is a generalization, but it is not my fault that you all go by the same name.

Christians preach love and humility and understanding -- and then DO something else, even the opposite. And then I am expected to see them as simple and imperfect human beings -- okay.
But what I am not okay with is that I should still give this religion a try. I don't have to become a Christian to accept people as they are, with their "faults" and "imperfections".

RosaMagika

You know your own mind. I think it is unfortunate that people have to be labelled at all but thats just how it is. Judge me by my posts tho. I promise I wont try and force my beliefs on you. Its probably important to see the 'person' before the 'Christian', accepting people as they are, with their "faults" and "imperfections". I appreciate that this is incredibly hard to do if they are forcing the 'Christian' rather than their 'person'.
I guess I just hate generalisations but I understand your points :)

peace

c20 :m:

Rosa, you are using specific instances when Christians acted unlike Christians to prove that all of Christian doctrines are falsehoods. It's not a good argument against Christianity, especially when I can point to thousands of members acting in accord to Christ's example. And, no, you cannot simply try a religion. I think the advice you've received is merely to look into stuff a bit more.


Some other took a sword and killed everyone who didn't convert.

And the specific time period when this happend was? I know of several cases where if you examine the specific instance further you will see that it is the action of one man outside of any bishop or any church heirachy.



You obvioulsy have an issue of great inconsistency in your own lines. This is not a problem of the non-believers.

I'm not following. Certainly you do not mean non-believers are united. About the only thing non-believers are united in is unbelief.


You don't behave as one unified and equally thinking group of people, yet you all go by the same name.

Christianity today has many different denominations including the Catholic church. We go by the same collective name because we believe in the essential moral teachings of Christ along with a few of the main doctrinal tenets. Christianity is really a family of different faiths.

RosaMagika

I understand now why you are uncertain of the Christian faith. Because you judge a faith by the people who claim to hold that faith. Seems reasonable, but how can you judge a perfect message by the imperfect person who delivers it? You have pointed out what you believe are my faults but irrespective of my faults (and i know i have them) you cannot measure the Message of Jesus by the people who claim to hold it. You must measure the people by the message of The Messiah Jesus. Do i fail Jesus? yes i fail Him everyday and i have made a mess of delivering His message on more than one occasion. But the beauty of the Message of Jesus is we are forgiven our human faults as long as we have the right humble loving spirit.

Rosa please take the time to read the Message of Jesus without thinking of Christians.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Adstar and c20,


Rosa please take the time to read the Message of Jesus without thinking of Christians

See, THIS is what I have been waiting for a Christian to say to me!

This is all I wanted to hear.

Now you DO have my respect, regardless of what some other Christians have done.

I just wish all Christians would be able to say what you said, Adstar.

Its probably important to see the 'person' before the 'Christian', accepting people as they are, with their "faults" and "imperfections". I appreciate that this is incredibly hard to do if they are forcing the 'Christian' rather than their 'person'.
I guess I just hate generalisations but I understand your points :)

peace

c20 :m:

Yes, I always wish and try to see first someone's 'person', before seeing their religion. It is far more fair, I think. And more realistic too.
If, say, James, wishes me to see him primarily as a 'Christian', but then I see him cheat on me and being a coward, then I will doubt his Christianity.
But if James wishes me to see him simply as just James, then I have no problem if James's religion is Christianity.

Rosa,

I'm really sorry you feel this way about me. Your distrust of Christians makes you very sensitive to any message that sounds like an attempt to convert you. But I challenge you to go back through my posts and see if that was my intention.

You said once I got you to think about how Christians influenced your perception of religion. I hoped that it meant you could see past the pretences of Christians that wouldn't tolerate you or had hurt you in the past, but now it seems to me that you judge the whole religion by its lowest denominator. Am I right?

You don't have to become a Christian to be a Christian in the true sense of the word. Just like Christians didn't need to become Jews to be part of God's Israel. It's not a competition. But wanting to get to know God is crucial. It was a question about your attituede towards God - not Christians - that's all.

A Christian is one who is a TOTAL slave of/for Christ.

Jenyar,


You said once I got you to think about how Christians influenced your perception of religion. I hoped that it meant you could see past the pretences of Christians that wouldn't tolerate you or had hurt you in the past, but now it seems to me that you judge the whole religion by its lowest denominator. Am I right?

No, I don't judge a religion by its lowest denominator.
I'm saying that Christians, as belivers, present a vast scale of strength of belief and behaviour. Yet they all go by the same name. This is very confusing for an outside observer. I find it hard to trust such a mess, sorry for that word, but it's probably the most correct one.


You don't have to become a Christian to be a Christian in the true sense of the word.

Now, if my lovely Catholics or Mormons would hear you!!
They'd lynch you, you know!

Look, I don't mean to revert everything back to believers.

I just wish people would meet me as people, as persons -- and not as their religion. The way I sketched out in the above post. And this does include you too, to an extent.


But wanting to get to know God is crucial. It was a question about your attituede towards God - not Christians - that's all.

This is something *you* say. Again -- I ask: Which God? In what way?

I read the Bible -- and it just didn't speak to me. It is yet another cosmogony to me.
I feel no need for an "eternal life".

I have *not* already made up your mind that God *doesn't* exist -- if anything, I am an agnostic. And for what is worth, there is a simple logical argument that says it is logically impossible to deny God's existence, and I accept that argument. I don't know what the future may bring. What I do have are some very reasonable and very practical guidelines for life.

And when you state the option that whether I should have made up my mind that "it's impossible for Him to love you": I have not made up my mind about that either, because I once more think that this isn't something I could simply make up my mind about. For in order to make up my mind about that, I would first have to believe that God is loving and other things: this, IMO, is giving him characterists.
But, by my definition, I cannot ascribe any characteristics to him. Neither good nor bad. I say God is, and that perfectly says evertyhing for me.

Can you accept that -- or will you once more say

you can't blame Christians for not believing in God, you have a responsibility towards yourself. Unless you have already made up your mind that God doesn't exist or it's impossible for Him to love you, using other Christians or other beliefs to justify your doubt is just an excuse.

?

^^

Human beings don't ascribe characteristics to God, God reveals himself to us and that is how and why we know him.

I believe this is reiterated in Calvin's theology but I forget where exactly. About man's thoughts originating from God and all that... NOT that I'm a Calvinist, mind you..

Why doesn't God just show himself?

He'd then be an idol

I'm saying that Christians, as belivers, present a vast scale of strength of belief and behaviour. Yet they all go by the same name. This is very confusing for an outside observer. I find it hard to trust such a mess, sorry for that word, but it's probably the most correct one.
We all go by the same name: it's called humanity. You don't have to categorize us either. As you said:
"I just wish people would meet me as people, as persons -- and not as their religion. The way I sketched out in the above post. And this does include you too, to an extent."
Christianity does include you to an extent, too, even though you might resent it. Look at it as a funnel - you can even look at all religion collectively like this. You can get stuck somewhere in the funnel, or you could look for the most honest way through it. In fact, life itself is such a funnel. Most only see a dark hole called death, others see a light. Sometimes it just depends on how comfortable you are in this life.

This is something *you* say. Again -- I ask: Which God? In what way?
But that's exactly the question you don't want me to answer! You'll think I'm trying to convert you. But what could I possibly get out of converting someone I don't know, on the other side of the earth, to a Christianity that seems just as foreign to me? But I do know God - it's a relationship that I trust and I will gladly refer you to it. That's the best I can do.

I read the Bible -- and it just didn't speak to me. It is yet another cosmogony to me.
I feel no need for an "eternal life".
I felt no need for a car; I felt no need for an internet connection; I felt no need for a cellphone either - now I don't know how I ever got along without them. They're mundane examples, but life works that way.

When you read the Bible, what were you looking for?

Yo RosaMagika,

I dig the clear way you think. I find god in simplicity. To me, convolusions indicate human interference. Christian apologetics is an example of hardcore convolusion. And, yeah, like you, I know pain too.

Allcare.

God is a coward. If god can allow the torture of innocent l