Is God determined to allow no proof or evidence of his existence?

nowhere, but that's beside the point.All the examples above are based on human actions and behaviour, they're not natural events, nor do they suggest that the Christian God (if any) is behind them. Unless, of course, you're going to use scripture to support that. Tell me, how do you conclude that you can be saved by accepting God's Son as your personal saviour, by observing the above ?

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Drat I just lost a whole post on this subject. Hit a wrong key somehow. Hope I can recover the gist of it.I believe I have been addressing exactly this idea all along. It indicates that God is knowable in his creation but that nevertheless he is not known. It affirms only that his "eternal power and divine nature" are knowable through the creation, however, and gives no hint that any deeper knowledge of God is possible merely through the creation, certainly not the central focus of scripture, his plan of salvation.But let's say that everything about God IS detectable in the creation in the sense that the evidence is actually there -- the fact is that NOBODY HAS DETECTED IT. No natural religion worships the true God, probably since the time of Job anyway. As your many examples show, there is only the vaguest shadow of the One God in any culture, and the barest hint in some cultures of something suggestive of the Fall. The Chinese Shang-Ti sounds like a remnant of true worship but that's way in the past and he's hardly acknowledged. The idols have come forward in the place of the true God all over the world. ONLY the religions of the Hebrew and Greek scriptures have restored any idea at all of the one Creator God who is sovereign and the final judge of all things. Islam has picked up their version of the One God from these sources. Otherwise the world continues in idolatries of all kinds.The passage of Romans you quote shows that some evidence of God is apparent in the creation itself, and that therefore we are accountable for it, but the fact is that our fallen nature, with a little assist from the demonic hordes, leads us to confusion and denial and culpability unto hell, and without God's specific revelation of his intervention in Jesus Christ NOBODY would have a hope of salvation. And in fact in the next chapter Paul goes on to affirm that we're ALL hopelessly lost and are not to judge one another because none of us is free from this offense to God, which God has put up with patiently in all of us until he reveals the gospel to us. Yes, I love that psalm. But I believe I've addressed this idea already many times. And I've addressed it above in any case. God is knowable in his creation but nobody knows him nevertheless. I think he used to be known more and that this is another example of our accumulated fallenness that the knowledge is vaguer and vaguer. There are always those, as I keep saying, who have the kind of sensitivity that recognizes God in His creation, but even then they only have bare inklings, and certainly never grasp the plan of salvation. Only those who have the scripture can really appreciate God in Nature, and rightly understand his character. Those who deny the scripture but affirm God in nature end up affirming things that contradict scripture, and that can't be. Both are true. If there is a contradiction the fault is not in scripture, it's in our fallen minds. There is a problem with this idea the way you keep wording it. There is only one God. He's not a "Christian God," He's God, period. The fullest revelation of this God is in the Christian scriptures however. And the attributes that are revealed in the Christian scriptures are simply, as a matter of observable fact, NOT grasped by anybody who knows God only from Nature. This is demonstrable on this very forum. In fact their view of God directly and even aggressively contradicts and denies the scriptural portrait. It is of no use to be able to recognize that there IS a God from the creation, if you have a false or insufficient idea of his character from that source. If you have his attributes wrong, then you do not know him, it's as good as having a false idol for your god. I understand the light in this passage to be the light of truth -- enLIGHTenment of the mind and spirit -- knowledge of eternal things. The darkness is the darkness of sin and fallenness and the demonic realms, the light is the truth of God. I gather that he is using light to demonstrate something of the nature of God, especially the Trinity. That's fine, but the idea of the Trinity came first and the illustration afterward. In other words we need scripture to know about the Trinity and then we can recognize it in creation as well. Again, as I said before, you have not demonstrated that anyone has ever intuited God or the triune nature of God simply from a recognition of triads in nature. Again, show me anybody or any religion that has intuited the resurrection from the planting of seeds without knowledge of the Bible. Yes, scripture reveals the meanings in nature, as I have affirmed. AFTER we know scripture, Nature becomes legible in its light. But again, show me any religion or anyone who has intuited the resurrection of the Son of God from Springtime without knoweldge of the Bible and the resurrection of Christ? I can agree with this, that the evidence is in fact THERE, at the same time again point out that NOBODY HAS EVER RECOGNIZED IT without knowing the scriptures, and their blindness to it doesn't save them from culpability for rejecting it either. Those who find God in Nature but reject the Bible are never going to figure out the resurrection from their observations. In fact they deny all the special revelations of scripture. But we who know scripture can see in nature all of it. I hope what I'm saying here is making it clearer because you haven't been getting my point. You are wrong to think that just because the evidence exists in nature that anybody ever appreciates that evidence, or that anybody could ever gain a saving knowledge of God from it. Why is it that those who affirm God in nature deny the truths of scripture? YHWH, as Legend keeps saying, is ONLY known through scripture. He's absolutely right. Nobody has EVER arrived at a knowledge of YHWH from Nature, much less YHWH's plan of salvation. Yes, the evidence may in fact be there, but they are blind to it. All of us are blind to it until Christ opens our eyes. Yes, and he had the Holy Spirit because he had Christ. The idea that you seem to have, and that the Catholic Church now affirms, that the Holy Spirit operates in people who do not have Christ, has no scriptural support whatever. The Holy Spirit was sent by Christ on account of His ascension, to those who believed on Him. He testifies to Christ alone and anyone who does not know Christ does not have the Holy Spirit.Nevertheless my point is that the ability to recognize God in nature is a special gift to some people. Few have it. There are those who through ordinary grace, without the Holy Spirit, may recognize God in Nature, but these are the ones I'm talking about above who never get the slightest inkling of the character of God that can only be known through the scriptures, and often outright deny the scriptural revelation. If to some extent some correctly surmise something of the character of YHWH in these intuitions, nevertheless it is the paltriest intuition and they never arrive at saving knowledge unless they are led to the gospel of the scriptures. Yes, Brother Lawrence was, but he was led by Christ as I said -- the Holy Spirit is given ONLY through Christ. It's a different level and kind of knowledge. The blossoming tree instilled a powerful love of God in him that was consistent with the Biblical portrait. If you can show me anything remotely like this occurring in someone who does not know the gospels or the scriptures then you'd begin to have a point. The ONLY ones "who can see analogies of the Christian God in nature" are the ones who know and love the Christian God from the scriptures. Anyone who scorns the revelation of the scriptures is far from recognizing the Christian God in nature. They are affirming a god of their own invention. I haven't followed all the discussion with Legend, but his apprehension of the fact that the character of YHWH is known only through the scriptures is right on. Yes, Paul recognizes it through the Holy Spirit, and his lifelong soaking in the Hebrew scriptures. Again you seem to be implying cart before horse, as if anybody would ever intuit such relationships from nature alone without revelation. It hasn't happened, it doesn't happen.====
Interesting that you appreciate Tal Brooke and SCP. I'm not familiar with his writings on Teilhard.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-21-2005 10:13 AM

---

DIEU d'Abraham, DIEU d'Isaac, DIEU de Jacob non des philosophes et des savants. Certitude. Certitude...
-- Blaise Pascal, 1654Gustato spiritu, desipit omnis caro.
-- Unknown, quoted by John of the Cross"...faith in the possibility of science, generated antecedently to the development of modern scientific theory, is an unconscious derivative from medieval theology."
---Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World, 1926, p.19

sorry pd, I hadn't seen you had already addressed this when I wrote my last post.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Checkmate writes:
No, I am not joking and I don't have to. Let us look at your source where few Morons are fishing for converts, they are as follows.

quote:

---

Dude, this website is sponsored by the The Canadian Society of Muslims.

​

Here's the information from their Index page. I see nothing here about Mormonsim...

​

muslim-canada.org - This website is for sale! - muslim canada Resources and Information.

​

Furthermore, reading their index page, I see the following:

​

muslim-canada.org - This website is for sale! - muslim canada Resources and Information.

​

About this website. . . writes:

​

The Canadian Society of Muslims, al hamdu li Allah, operates two Internet sites and these websites encompass a great deal of material which fall into three distinct categories of law. On this website we will follow this traditional method for classifying knowledge:

​

Part I Fiqh Akbar / Fiqh Awwal - consists of Aqaid (faith and belief)

​

Part II Fiqh Ausath / Fiqh Duwwam - consists of all mundane as well as spiritual acts.

​

Part III Fiqh Asghar / al-Akhir - consists of worship (Ibadat) and other devotional practices.

​

It is important to note that the second category of Fiqh Ausath (Sufism) is the most important category in terms of the quality of one's devotions. The achievement of ever-increasing levels of purity and sincerity and hence acceptance by Allah, depends entirely upon the level and quality of sincerity and the purpose behind one's acts. If one does not comply with the requirements of Fiqh Ausath, those acts will not qualify for divine acceptance or reward because insincere actions are hypocritical and are consequently unworthy of divine reward. The Prophet Muhammad p.b.u.h. has said, "[there are] two qualities [which] the hypocrite lacks - good intentions and religious insight." Fiqh Ausath covers both of these aspects: i) sincerity of intention (Ikhlas) and, ii) religious insight (the esoteric knowledge of Ihsan [authentic sufism, or tasawwuf ]) Therefore, to be of any real benefit, Fiqh Akbar and Fiqh Asghar must comply with Fiqh Ausath. The Hadith literature (traditions of the Prophet p.b.u.h.) have established the dictum of law which states, actions are judged by (or are dependant upon) motivation and intention, and also, God looks not at your figures (or faces) and He looks not at your wealth, but He does look at your hearts and your deeds. (Sahih Bukhari and Muslim)

---

This does not proves anything to me as a Muslim, neither it means anyting to me. That website may belong to anyone and they may be Muslims or pseudo-Muslims or Christian missionaries (yes they have this kind of websites to dupe the world). Bottom line if that Muslims' belief is based on Qur'aan and Sunnah teachings and not on Internet. Muslims don't go to learn Islaam on websites, especially me.

quote:

---

Checkmate writes:
These fools don't even know that Glorious Qur'aan gives no status to Christianity and if any Muslim or Christian can prove by quoting a single verse from Qur'aan to this effect , I will reward him or her with $ 500.00 cash instantly.

​

Yep -- this is usually translated as "Whatever you say, I won't believe you."

---

You are operating with ZERO knowledge of Islaam, and this was the reason you posted a link of a website that matched your fancy.

quote:

---

Checkmate writes:

​

Hogwash, this is a boldface lie and/or distortion of truth.

​

Oh...so Muslims do not believe in a Second Coming of Christ after all?

​

*slaps forehead*

---

That is off the topic, what second coming has to do with the issue we are discussing. So, when you don't have a reasoned response, you like to change the topic.

quote:

---

Now I understand...

​

Um...Checkmate, here's the thing, I'm totlaly not interested in discussing this stuff with you because you are going wildly off topic by attempting to defend Islam.

---

This is called "projection" which is often a Christian thing to weasel out. Anyway, feeling are mutual, perhaps we can do after you augment your studies about Islaam. Right now you can't even talk to a 2nd grader on this subject.

quote:

---

You can say what you want -- but Islam is considered a part of the Judeo-Christian family. I've read nothing in your post to counter that concensus amongst world-class scholars either. Whether that offends you or not, it still remains a fact that anyone can look at and examine this development in the course of human history.

---

Says who? And who are those world class scholars and how many you know and have read their work? Can you name them all please with their publications? Or your version of scholar is any "John Doe" with a PC with Internet connection and ability to type "gobbledygook?"

quote:

---

Now, if you wish to start a thread concerning the differences between Islam and Christianity, go ahead and float your boat dude.

---

I have no desire for that.

quote:

---

I've pointed to enough similarities to validate my claim, many of which you haven't even addressed except to claim that they're somehow converted Mormons and not actually "true Muslims" -- whatever the hell that means.

---

Had you read my post carefully, you would have know that I wrote "moron" and not mormon. Using your logice we can prove that a mule is a man or vice versa, since the similarities between a mule and man are:
Both have penis
Both have two ears
Both have two eys
Both have ass
Both have stomach
Both have back
Both have nose
Both have teeth
Both have tongue...But this is not way of eploring the similarities and I cannot accept your assertions, which are contrary to know facts. In fact, you are trying to teach me my faith, it is like trying to teach chicken how to lay eggs.

quote:

---

Take it elsewhere, because it's off-topic here.

---

I think it is you who is off topic and frustrated as well.

quote:

---

Now, about you other other post (message 68), that's more on-topic and I will respond to that when I have a chance. Though I suspect that you will be disappointed with my answers.

---

We will see that.

---

"An uninformed person cannot conceptualize the essence of knowledge nor its sublimity. One who fails to conceptualize something, its significance will never become rooted in the heart."

quote:

---

Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
Consequently, you've already stated exactly what many Christians state concerning God and creation when you said the following:

​

Checkmate writes:

​

Muslims believe that both the proof and/or existance of One and Only God {Allah/Allaah} are all around us. The God of Islaam repeatedly ask the man to ponder and see the signs of His existance around him, and believe in Him (God).

​

Checkmate writes:
I am not aware of any particular claims like that.

​

How about this one?

​

NIV writes:
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

​

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

​

Certainly this passage found in Romans 1:18-23 indicates that "Christians believe that both the proof and/or existance of One and Only Trinue God {Father, Son & Holy Spirit} are all around us. The God of Christianity repeatedly ask the man to ponder and see the signs of His existance around him, and believe in Him (God)."

---

Am I suppose to take your copy and paste of Roman as a valid response? I don't think so. Because it does not even come close to what you are trying to prove. Just the presence of mere word "heavens" proves nothing, which you cannot elaborate what heaven is, conclusively and how it convince Christians about the god's existance without parroting?

quote:

---

Checkmate writes:
Because among Christians everyone has his own interpretation. However, since a religion is judged by its scripture, therefore, the $ 64 question is that can Christians can prove their claims using the NT?

​

Do you mean can I prove my claims that non-Christians can see the Judeo-Christian God in nature?

​

If so, then I just pointed to one in Romans in the above Scriptural passage.

​

Or do you mean something else entirely that is *sigh* once again OFF TOPIC?

---

Projection and desperation again. I did not say anyting about "nature" you said it andI reject it outright to be off target.

quote:

---

Checkmate writes:
The answer is no.

​

No to what? What are you talking about?

---

No comments

quote:

---

CHeckmate writes:
The second question is, can they prove this by using the Bible, the answer again is no.

​

What is "this" referring to?

​

Checkmate writes:
That is why Jews and Christians produce 100% atheists or evolutionists and/or dogma rejecters or least converts to other religions. I cannot accept your assertion, since it is contrary to all known facts.

​

What are you talking about?

​

It seems as though you're just using this post as an opporunity to criticize my own Catholic faith -- which is really off topic.

---

First of all I didn't know your belief until now and I mentioned a fact. But you are also in denial like many other Christians. The only way you can save the face is to accuse me for attacking your faith, falsely.

quote:

---

Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
For example, one could take your sentences above and state the exact same thing while substituting Christians for Muslims, etc...

​

Yes. I've already done this:

​

NIV writes:
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

​

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

​

Furthermore, St. Paul has expressed already that where the "Law" is not observed that the law of people's hearts (which has been inscribed by God himself from the very beiginning) is sufficient.

​

Romans 2:13-15 writes:

​

For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

​

Mr. Ex Nihilo imitating Checkmate's post writes:

​

Christian's believe that both the proof and/or existance of One and Only Triune God {Father/Son/Holy Spirit} are all around us. The God of Christianity repeatedly ask the man to ponder and see the signs of His existance around him, and believe in Him (God).

​

Checkmate writes:
Please quote explicitly verses from the New Testament in support of your claims.

​

I already have.

​

Here is the Checkmate to you:
Mind you that the parts of NT that you would quote and/or interpret must be construed with reference to the significance of the whole. Your claims and/or interpretation must be consistent with the rest of New Testament and/or the Bible. This simply means that no parts of the New Testament, for example, can contradict Moses, the Prophets, the Writings, or Jesus and be correct!

​

Already did it.

---

Doesn't proves anything and does not make sense as usual.

quote:

---

However, you seem to be overlooking that I'm Catholic, so, in my belief, revelation is not limited to the Scriptures alone anyway. I believe in both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scriptures.

---

Am I obligated to know that you are Catholic? I don't think so. However, since you have told me that and brought up something else as well, so why don't you present the alleged "Sacred Tradition" with unbroken chain of narrations and/or transmissions all the way to Jesus?You think you can do that, as a Catholic? I don't think so!!!

quote:

---

Checkmate writes:
Let me see what you got, my friend?

​

Would you like me to go into detail about the traditional Catholic beliefs regarding non-Christians and their potential for heaven?

​

Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
Now, of course, your next statement has got me curious.

​

Checkmate writes:

​

One who even reads the English transaltion (transaltion has its limitations) of Qur'aan can find this himself, since nothing is preconditioned such as: 'you have to believe it' or "it cannot be explained" or 'man can't understand this' etcetera.

​

Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
Could you explain this further please? I'd like to know exactly what you're saying here.

---

No comments

quote:

---

Checkmate writes:
For answer please carefully read this.

​

This link briefly talks about transaltion, which should suffice to get my point across.

​

um...naahhhhhh.

​

You know what?

​

I've typed a lot of things in this thread here from my own words (or else seriously took the time to find information that is extremely consistent with the things I've been trying to express and tried really hard to put them in my own words).

​

I'm tired of typing and reading all the time.

​

If you want me to read something regarding the "translation of the Koran into English", then type in your own words something that you believe and present it in ANOTHER THREAD, m'kay?

---

I tried to edcuate you, but obviously you have closed the door of knowledge for yourself. How come you can post a link with non-sense and try to teach me Islaam is fair and when I post a link to get my point accorss and to edcuate you, becomes a foul? What is that is my website and that is my article? Nevertheless, you were presented the informaiton that you didn't know and you can verify anywhere, unlike your link with fallacious information about Islaam.Final word:I don't think you can engage is a rational, reasoned and intellectual dialogue with me, while operating with ZERO knowledge of Islaam and relying of Internet websites.This will be the end of our dialogue!

---

"An uninformed person cannot conceptualize the essence of knowledge nor its sublimity. One who fails to conceptualize something, its significance will never become rooted in the heart."

bye bye. Edit: Now I can get back to the more respectable thoughts presented by Legend and Faith.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-21-2005 01:32 PM

Faith and Legend,It seems as though we're talking past each other to some extent. I'm going to read carefully through to see what's going on here. I think we're each misunderstanding each others position a bit.I'm not saying that all religions "worship" the same God. I'm saying that there are various Christian elements found in both other world religions and also in nature.The exact reason why this is so could be a mere matter of probability or cultural guesswork as Legend suggests. This could also be a matter of a priordial revelation by God to the earliest members of humanity, as Faith subscribes to (and myself as well). But it could also mean that God is trying very hard to reach all people by various means (including nature itself), but that only some of which have grasped the situation clearly.The exact reasons for why these ancient religions have some similarities to the Judeo-Christian concept of God is, in my opinion, not fully known. And to assume that it can be explained purely by inventive guesswork or else purely by priordial revelation seems to restrict a very real chance that nature itself can reveal things about God in a real and tangible way.For example, Hinduism has a kind of Trinity. Even though the Hindu Trinity is remarkably different from the Christian Trinity, I'm stil left wondering exactly how the development of this Trinity came about in their faith.Now don't misunderstand me.I'm not saying that Hinduism and Christianity worship the same God. I'm saying that God has been trying to communicate with many people throughout history, but that some have been more open to the Holy Spirit and grasped divine mystery more clearly.Within a sense, I see a kind of universal dialectic taking place that starts from perfection, falls aways from perfection, but tries very hard to return to that perfection. Despite claims to the contrary, many religions do have bits and pieces of truth in them that readilly agree with certain Christian thoughts.In saying this, I'm not trying to imply that these faiths are "secretly" Christian. The only faiths that are Christian are...well...Christian. However, I can also admit that other religions have drawn similar conclusions to that of Christianity and I'm curious to know why. I think nature can (and does) plays a part in these similarites.I'm going to explain this position more carefully with my next post.

I thought that humanity was a product of both God and the nature of the world as God created it. At least, I think that humanity is nearly as much a product of nature and he is a product of the God who made nature.

It confuses things to call those elements "Christian." That's a big problem I've been having with your posts. God is God, and there are elements of his nature that are known to many people through nature or intuition or even racial or cultural memory back to Noah. If what they know resembles what Christianity/the Bible teaches, that shows that their intuition or memory hasn't succumbed to total distortion through fallenness but retains at least a foggy focus on the true God. The Christian scriptures are the standard. There's nothing "Christian" whatever about their recognition of anything about God even if there is some truth in their vague apprehension of the true God. What would begin to make it Christian would be any hint of an anticipation of God's plan of salvation. While I understand from some missionary stories that there are customs and legends in some tribes that contain a vague notion of something along these lines, these are usually pretty distorted, and they have no saving power whatever in themselves. They may help the missionaries' work however, having prepared the people to receive the true gospel of Christ with joy when they finally hear it. Hm. First I have a problem with the phrasing of "a primordial revelation by God to the earliest members of humanity." Then I have a problem with the picture of the omnipotent God "trying very hard to reach all people by various means."I believe the revelations of God through the Holy Spirit to His chosen people, first the Israelites and then the New Covenant people, which are recorded in the books of the Hebrew and Greek Testaments and NOWHERE ELSE, are the lens through which these things are to be understood, and that they cannot be understood outside of these revelations, which have been written down for the edification of the ages.The scriptures show us the origin of the human race in a single couple, and follow a few -- very few -- of their progeny through many generations. Adam and Eve had intimate conversation with God. Although with the Fall they lost this conversation the memory of God and the ability to continue relationship with him in a much reduced way continued, and however reduced it was, the indications are that their closeness to God was much greater than later generations. Some of their progeny - Abel, Enoch, Noah, were faithful to God, knew God, walked with God, and are great men of faith, although no doubt in a much less direct and close way than Adam and Eve had before the Fall.This loss of closeness to God I believe is clearly shown to increase over the generations. The lifespan decreases and the closeness to God decreases. Noah's religion is still that of the one true God. Later, Abraham's family in Ur has already succumbed to idolatry and demon worship. Abraham's household possesses many idols. They continue within his family until Jacob finally orders his family to do away with them. Yet Abraham nevertheless retains the ability of our first parents to recognize the voice of the one true God, who calls him out of Ur to a new life in Canaan. Abraham hears and obeys.Job is a man of roughly the same era as Abraham, as has been judged by the customs described in the book, as well as his own long lifespan, which was apparently common for that period, at least among the righteous. We can deduce from the example Job that there were others among the human race, outside the lineage of Abraham, who had the same dedication to the worship of the one true God.This has implications for the remnants of such true ideas about God that can be seen in the kind of examples you posted. At one time the entire human race knew God. This knowledge deteriorated after the Fall, more rapidly in those who committed grave sins however, as sin removes us farther and farther from God's presence. The line of Seth maintained communication with God down to Noah. The line of Cain no doubt rapidly lost it but this is not directly reported.After Noah, the line of Shem maintained pretty good communication with God. The religious practices of the line of Japheth, the progenitor of us European types, are not reported in scripture, but judging from the condition we find our ancestors in as the Romans encountered them and tried to civilize them, and later bring them the gospel of Christ, they were nothing to brag about, including the Vandals and Visigoths and sundry other barbarian hordes who finally brought down the Roman Empire, and the warring thieving raping and pillaging tribes of Northern Europe, all with their local gods. (Anybody who thinks Christianity is culturally "European" doesn't know the history of Europe). The line of Canaan, who sinned against his father, would have lost their communication with God as a result, and in fact we find the Canaanites later on to be practicing some of the darkest forms of idolatry.Abraham's family, derived from the line of Shem, also degenerated into idolatry, however, yet Abraham heard the true God when He called. I'm sure that if God wanted to, He could have called someone from the line of Canaan for His chosen people, but He chose Abraham and it becomes a matter of history from that point.Mostly what scripture gives us is the very narrow focus on the family of Abraham, and otherwise occasional brief glimpses of the world outside this focus, but I believe my inferences above are deducible from all these revelations.The implication is that the memory and worship of the true God was retained for many generations throughout the human race in some form but with greater and greater disortion and confusion as demon-inspired idolatries and human-originated ponderings replaced the knowledge of Him.All human cultures have roots back in Noah, and varying degrees of preservation of the memory of Noah's God mixed with error.Sorry to be so wordy but I hope it helps clarify my position. It is to answer your idea of "a pri[m]ordial revelation by God to the earliest members of humanity." The way you put it suggests you think of this revelation as something extra-Biblical. The fact is the Bible SHOWS us that "primordial" revelation by God in His relationship with our first parents and with some of their immediate progency, and shows us also its deterioration in the memory of the human race over time. ALL lines of the human race are foreshadowed in at least a sketchy way in Genesis.So, concerning your idea of the omnipotent God "trying very hard to reach all people by various means" I think it is easily deducible from what scripture shows us that all the remnants of knowledge of God have ancient roots, and that the evidence of God in Nature has always been there, God hasn't added to it or subtracted from it, and that human beings have progressively lost the spiritual sight to recognize it except in vague distorted impressions.The omnipotent God could easily have performed miracles at any time in this long history if he wanted to "try hard" to "reach all people by various means" but the passage in Romans you quoted from in your previous post demonstrates that He "gave them up to" their sinful and idolatrous ways. The omnipotent God has no need to "TRY" to do ANYTHING. He says that there is evidence of Him in His creation and it will judge us at the final day for our rejection of Him.HOWEVER, back to the title of this thread: Is God determined to allow no proof or evidence of His existence? Maybe a clearer statement of my answer to this would be that He does not give anything more than what already exists of evidence of Him in His creation to sinful fallen humanity, although He COULD give many extraordinary proofs such as those He gave to the Israelites and through Jesus.Instead, He has CHOSEN to restrict that sort of evidence to only this particular line, first the Jews and then the followers of Christ. He has CHOSEN to reveal Himself through a peculiar people, to reveal His true character which has been lost to the human race over the millennia, to reveal His plan of salvation, in this particular way and in no other way, and He specifically told His disciples to "take it into all the world" for the sake of ALL humanity.And even so, He COULD have revealed all of what He does reveal more dramatically than He has. It is all "hidden" -- OR "revealed" --depending on your point of view, in His dealings with the Israelites and His messages through His prophets and all kinds of hidden meanings in the symbols of the historical events and the plans for the Tabernacle and other elements of the history.Since He1) COULD have revealed Himself very dramatically to anyone anywhere at any time apart from the Israelites and did not, this is a clue that to some extent He withholds evidence despite the fact that Nature contains such evidence and human memory also;and2) COULD have revealed the meaning of His own dealings with the Israelites much more unambiguously and did not, this is a clue that to some extent He withholds evidence also.This is what Pascal was observing that I quoted in my first post on this thread.=== I think as I show above that it's clearly deducible from scripture. But never to saving knowledge just as a matter of simple fact. And I believe the above gives my answer to this. Even the Jews have no notion of the Trinity though. I do believe that IS a revelation that can only be known through scripture. The Buddhists also have an interesting Trinity, a rather abstract one, but I find interesting correspondences in it to the thoughts of Jonathan Edwards in an essay he wrote on the Trinity. But neither the Hindus nor the Buddhists know YHWH and whatever their Trinity means to them it is of no use to them apart from the knowledge we have of it through scripture.If these things reflect remnants of the largely lost knowledge of God, I have no problem with that idea, and scripture suggests such a thing, but the idea you seem to have that they in anyway constitute a revelation of the true God that belongs on a par with scripture is false. Scripture illuminates such things, and salvation is not known through them.Scripture was given to us BECAUSE of our loss of contact with God over the millennia since the Fall, out of mercy, because if God didn't give us direct revelation of Himself none of us could be saved at all. It is only through the gospels recorded in scripture that salvation is possible to anyone anywhere. I think my way of explaining it is much more in keeping with scripture. God doesn't have to TRY, and again NOBODY has the Holy Spirit EXCEPT believers in Jesus Christ. That is straight out said in scripture. I believe I've acknowledged that and explained it on the basis of the Biblical revelation. OK but now I'm worn out and I do believe I've answered your view about as completely as possible. But I'll see what you have to say.{Edited here and there for clarity. Hope it's not a problem for anyone trying to read it in the meantime.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-21-2005 06:52 PM

quote:

---

I thought that humanity was a product of both God and the nature of the world as God created it. At least, I think that humanity is nearly as much a product of nature and he is a product of the God who made nature.

---

IMO God is a product of humanity, which is why you see God in human actions and not in nature.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

Then why do people see human emotions in nature and then ascribe them to gods? In other words, many people see God in nature.For example, if a volcano is erupting in some primitive area, the peoples living around this area might conclude that their "gods" are "angry" -- and then seek to appease their deities.The same could be said of the Vikings, who actually felt "secure" when thunderstorms struck because they thought that Thor was among them. He was alternatively seen as either "angry" or "happy" when storms came -- but, either way, the Vikings still took off into their longboats whenever it stormed because they considered it a 'sign'.Fairly well all religions tend to deify certain aspects of nature and connect these aspects with their own human emotions.Monotheism is kind of different in this regard because God is not directly seen as being "in" the natural disaster itself. Nonetheless, he is still perceived as being involved in nature -- and sometimes even believed to be "expressing" his emotions via the natural disasters much like other religions do.Many children tend to think that God is "happy" on sunny days and "sad" on rainy days or "angry" on stormy days. Some children think that God is taking their picture with a flash camera whenever lightning flashes. The major difference between monotheism and polytheism is that the polytheist could potentially tend to see the natural distaster or volcano as the deity itself -- whereas the monotheist would tend to see the natural disaster as being controlled by God but not necessarilly contained within it.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-22-2005 12:22 AM

Alright, I just wanted to take the time to express my own thoughts on the matter.Like I said before, I tend to see the development of the Christian faith as a spiritual dialectic toward the fullness of truth.Usually, when someone pictures a dialectic, most people picture a discourse that works through contradictions -- or rigorous questioning -- in order to wittle away common misconceptions.In particular, I picture a dialectic spirituality that undergoes the three common stages of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. In this sense, like dialectical logic, a "revelation" is presented, countered by sound reason, and ultimately transformed through the interaction of the two into a new kind of superior hybrid.Hegel worked out many of these premises seeing civilization advancing in steps, or "historical moments", each of which was believed as a necessary but imcomplete step in the development of human consciousness, reason, and freedom.Hegel called this synthesis in human history a "sublation", a term which implies both negation and perservation -- the emergence of a condition that subsumes and supercedes the original.His philosophy of "absolute" (or dialectical) idealism" saw human history as a rational progression in which all the subjective elements of understanding are purged. In the end, it leaves only a pure, objective knowledge of the absolute -- God as pure thought, mind, or spirit.Hegel basically traced the development of human understanding. For him, the absolute was approached by art aesthetically, in the beauty of material forms, and it was conceived symbolically in religion, whose highest manifestation was Christianity (with its central symbol of the spirit-made-flesh).Consequently, although I see much wisdom in Hegel's thinking, I am nonetheless compelled by Sacred Scripture and Tradition to confess that the "primordial revelation" of God mirrors that which was recorded in the earliest chapters of the Book of Genesis -- but that it went through a period of loss, being seminated through various ancient cultures (such as the Babylonians or the Chinese for example) only to re-emerge within the called lineage of Abraham and his descendants -- only to be further refined through Christianity.In other words, and this goes out specifically to Faith, I think the "primordial revelation" was none other than: Likewise, Faith, the "earliest members of humanity" that I was refering to was none other than Adam and Eve themselves -- two people who I believe to be literal people even if the names we have today are not accurate to the original names.In other words, we are not in disagreement on these matters -- even though we are explaining the development of these ideas throughout human history from different perspectives.Consequently, in regards to the concept of the trinity within Jewish thought, although it is "now" apparent to many Christians, it was nonetheless sitting in utero gestating within the Hebrew Scriptures -- and some of the Jewish commentators in the past did express thoughts related to the triune nature of God during the time
shortly after the destruction of Israel by Rome.The Zohar is a book written by Rabbi Simon ben Jochai and his son Rabbi Eliezer in the years following the Roman army's tragic destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in A.D. 70. It is emphatically a Jewish, not a Christian work.Consequently, in Zohar (II, 53b) we read: As Richard Amiel McGough comments, it is important to note that, if this is a genuine Jewish glimpse of the trinity, it is somewhat occluded by the fact that they don't have the full light of the gospel. But alos please note how it is based on the Shema, which Jews from before the time of Jesus have recognized as the "first and
greatest commandment."It is hard to imagine that the Jewish authors of this Jewish work would write anything like this if it were not perceived as a true mystery of their own faith.Another enlightening quote from the pen of Moses de Leon, who refers to the "mystery of the triune singularity", which he supports with the words "as our sages teach us" is noted as follows in Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer,:"The world was created through ten sayings, and of three are they comprised -- wisdom, understanding, and knowledge -- forming a single secret of reality."Again, as McGough notes, it is granted that this is not identical to the Christian doctrine of the trinity, but it certainly is compatible with it -- and with the help of God's Holy Spirit it is a natural stepping stone to the Christian Faith. If nothing else, it proves that the Doctrine of the trinity is not incompatible with the Jewish
understanding of God.As Grant R. Jeffries notes, another book written by Rabbi Simeon ben Jochai, known as the Propositions of the Zohar, records the mystery of the Shechinah glory
of God in these words... There is more as well. For example, another extraordinary reference to the supposed trinitarian nature of God is found in the Zohar as follows: http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/chphnwr.htmCertainly discoveries within the Dead Sea Scrolls seem to reveal a bit in this direction as well, at least in so far as the concept of a divine Messiah is concerned:The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament
by Mark M. Mattisonhttp://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/deadsea.htmlFaith, I think you'll enjoy this above article by Mark M. Mattison. I encourage you to read it through thoroughly. I don't think you'll find anythng in this that you'll disagree with.Conseqently, there is a major religion in the world aside from Christianity that contains a very significant trinity. The Hindu trinity is that of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. They are respectively the creator, preserver and destroyer of the universe. They are also aligned as the transcendent Godhead, Shiva, the cosmic lord, Vishnu and the cosmic mind, Brahma. In this regard they are called Sat-Tat-Aum, the Being, the Thatness or immanence and the Word or holy spirit.According to the article found in the [i]Hindu Universe[/], this is much like the Christian trinity of God as the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The trinity represents the Divine in its threefold nature and function. Each aspect of the trinity contains and includes the others.The concept of the trinity (trimurti), expressed in beautiful art works or invoked even by believers, is in practice a philosophical construct that unites all deistic traditions within Hinduism into one overarching symbol.Furthermore, there is a philisophical movement (with many religious underpinnings) which bears a very striking appearance to Christianity -- and it appeared at least 300 years prior to Christ's incarnation and is called Stoicism. In fact, I find similarities within Stoicism that I find it hard to beleive that there is no connection between it and Christianity.My whole point in noting all these similarities is that I believe that God calls many people by the Holy Spirit, but that many are unable to discern his calling for various reasons, including, more than anything else, the society's cultural heritage within which the called one have been immersed in. Either that, of that many hear the "still small voice" of God in their conscience, but that his words become distorted, again for various reasons, but mostly including cultural heritages.In other words, simply pointing to a priordial revelation that has been dimly remembered in the cultures they have been transferred through doesn't seem to explain how the more recent religions/philosophies that bear striking anologies to Christianity developed their ideas.Admittedly, in the case of Stoicism for example, the concept all people being equal (rich and poor, free and bond, man and woman) is not expressed within the Hebrew Scriptures at all -- although it is "prophecied" in various places. Yet this equality is very much a staple within Christian theology -- and almost identically expressed word for word within Stoicism to be fair. Yet Stoicism preceeded Christianity by around 300 years.Aside from the standard explanation that Christianity was "influenced" by Stoicism, it seems more appropriate that God was calling out to all people, but that the Greek Stoics heard the message more readilly, then the Hebrew people (who were ironically more inclined to hear the message according to Christian claims), and the later the entire body of Gentiles as Christianity spread
throughout the world.For me, the development of the Christian faith is a two-fold process which is simulaniously expressed as a returning to the intital state of grace by revelation from both the past and the future -- and it is, in my opinion anyway, most perfectly manifested within the Christian faith.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-22-2005 12:33 AM

So...um...how do non-believers receive the grace of God then?Don't get me wrong. I believe that Christians are a temple of the Holy Spirit, implying a "permanent" indwelling that had heretofore been absent since our earliest ancestors.However, certainly the Holy Spirt is at work in those who hear the word of God and do what it says even if they don't really know Christ yet, correct?Likewise, if something is spoken which God considers to be true, then wouldn't God bless the listener even if they did not know where the wisdom came from?For example, if God desires people to get married, and two atheists become married, would God not be at least joyful over their marriage even if they didn't know God?Likewise, if a couple loves their children (love as defined by God), are they not being moved by the Holy Spirit to love them regardless of whether they believe in God?What about children? Are children only considered a "gift from God" only if the parents believe in God?If the Holy Spirit is only at work in those who believe in Christ, then how could one otherwise be "saved" -- because, by your definition, it sounds as if it is impossible for an "unbeliever" to even be "moved" by the Holy Spirit, let alone have the Holy Spirit "enter" them?Part of the whole problem with this discussion is the difference in our beliefs and the nature of salvation. You and Legend apparently think that Christianity implies that only people who confess Christ will have salvation. jar (I think?) and I (definitely) disagree with this position.However, part of my argument about God being determined to allow proof or evidence of his existence hinges on this exact point -- and there's no avoiding this question of "salvation" in order to debate this idea.I think it's time we discussed this part before we go any further.Edit: fixed quote code.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-22-2005 01:11 AM

There's "trying" in the sense of not having the ability to give evidence of Himself more conspicuously, which is false as He is omnipotent, and then there is "trying" in the sense of extending an invitation and leaving it to people to take it or leave it. Forcing people to love Him would make a mockery of love. Giving extraordinary evidence of His existence may be something He wouldn't do for similar reasons. He's given the evidence as scripture says, it's there, if we don't acknowledge it nevertheless we are accountable for it.Matthew 23:37 Through "ordinary" grace, which I've mentioned a number of times, saying I think there is a more "official" term for this that the Church developed, but I can't think of it. "Prevenient grace" is a term for the grace that leads a person to true faith, for isntance, but the kind of grace I'm trying to think of is simply God's care for His whole creation, His constant kindness and mercy to all and patience with all us sinners. This is an area of theology I don't understand very well, the idea that there is light to all from God --but it's not the kind of knowledge that comes through the Holy Spirit.But whatever the explanation, there shouldn't be any need to explain that the Holy Spirit is only given to believers as scripture is VERY clear that that's the case. You'd have to give me an example of this. Perhaps this is "prevenient grace." I'm sure that anybody who lives close to the Law of God, or the precepts in the Book of Proverbs is blessed by God, and that describes many who do not know Christ. Chinese philosophers in particular seem to have taught this kind of wisdom. Long life and health are among its rewards, as the Book of Proverbs also promises. I have no problem with the idea that many people know the law of God. Scripture even says that is the case, that His law is written in the hearts of the Gentiles. God will bless people according to their honoring of His Law, yes. Not according to scripture which tells us that the Holy Spirit was giving to believers and always testifies of Christ.These things you are talking about are the natural obedience of God's Law by many people who don't know Christ. He blesses this obedience, but it is not the same thing as salvation. Of course not. All things are a gift of God to his entire Creation. God "maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." Remember I'm basing this on scripture and your ideas appear to contradict scripture. I'm not making this up. Anyway, yes, this is a theological problem which I understand is answered by the idea of "prevenient grace." I don't understand enough about this area of theology to know if this is the working of the Holy Spirit or some other principle of grace. But if God chooses someone in Christ He gives the Holy Spirit to that person, so it is a bit of an academic distinction to my mind. Yes, that is the distinction. Jar denies the importance of scripture altogether and you seem to start from a position outside scripture, although you acknowledge it, while I start from scripture and judge everything by scripture. Legend seems to understand that this is the Biblical position even if he doesn't believe any of it. I was thinking we'd come to the end of the topic and spelled out our respective positions to the point of impasse if not conclusion.What is it you want to discuss further? Do you want to start a new thread on what salvation means or do you think it fits here?This message has been edited by Faith, 05-22-2005 04:14 AM

quote:

---

Then why do people see human emotions in nature and then ascribe them to gods? In other words, many people see God in nature.

---

People don't SEE human emotions in nature they attribute human emotions to nature.

quote:

---

For example, if a volcano is erupting in some primitive area, the peoples living around this area might conclude that their "gods" are "angry" -- and then seek to appease their deities.

---

When ancient man didn't know what the sun, moon, planets, and stars were; they were the gods. They were beyond the reach of man (physically and mentally). They humanized the heavenly bodies.When droughts or other natural disasters occurred, the gods were displeased or had abandoned them, because that is what people would do if they are displeased.As mankind started to understand more about the world around him, the image of the gods changed. Gods are no longer the sun and planets; the stars are no longer the angels; tornadoes, earthquakes, and volcanoes are no longer tools of punishment; and diseases are no longer curses from the gods but treatable.

quote:

---

Many children tend to think that God is "happy" on sunny days and "sad" on rainy days or "angry" on stormy days. Some children think that God is taking their picture with a flash camera whenever lightning flashes.

---

They have humanized these events to something they can understand, just as the ancients did.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France