I have heard atheists say that the best thing for God to do would be to reveal Himself openly so that everyone could believe in Him, do what He wants, and not go to hell. Since He does not do this, we know that either He does not exist or He is not good.
When this comes up with your atheist friends, try exploring the question of what it would look like for the atheist were God to unequivocally prove His existence to said atheist. What would come of this? Would God's sudden appearance change the atheist's heart such that he would desire to devote himself to God?
Atheists aren't idiots. An open display of powerful glory by the God of the universe would likely drive former atheists to serve Him out of fear, but what would this accomplish from God's perspective? God doesn't desire eternal slaves--i.e., those who do what they think He wants out of a desire to escape punishment or gain something they want. As God reminds the Israelites throughout the Old Testament, it's not the acts of worship He's after, but the hearts of children who adore their Father and want to be with Him.
I submit to you this illustration from The Gulag Archipelago (a book about the Soviet Union in the first half of the 20th century). This is the kind of scenario God has no interest in creating:
At the conclusion of the conference, a tribute to Comrade Stalin was called for. Of course, everyone stood up (just as everyone had leaped to his feet during the conference at every mention of his name). The small hall echoed with "stormy applause, rising to an ovation." For three minutes, four minutes, five minutes.... But palms were getting sore and raised arms were already aching. And the older people were panting from exhaustion. It was becoming insufferably silly.... However, who would dare be the first to stop? The secretary of the District Party Committee could have done it.... But he was a newcomer. He had taken the place of a man who'd been arrested. He was afraid!...
The director of the local paper factory, an independent and strong-minded man, stood with the presidium. Aware of all the falsity and all the impossibility of the situation, he still kept on applauding! Nine minutes! Ten! In anguish he watched the secretary of the District Party Committee, but the latter dared not stop. Insanity! To the last man! With make-believe enthusiasm on their faces, looking at each other with faint hope, the district leaders were just going to go on and on applauding till they fell where they stood....
Stalin had made himself known to his people in all his power, and this was the result--forced worship given to avoid punishment. Yes, the standing ovation occurred, but it was not done out of love--it was not truthful. And for the atheist who sees God as a Stalinesque dictator, the result would be the same. This kind of "worship" does not please God; in fact, the hypocrisy of it angers Him.
A person who faults God for not openly showing His power so that atheists will have the chance to do what they need to do to avoid hell has missed the very purpose of God's revelation of Himself. We exist to "glorify God and enjoy Him forever," not to grudgingly follow His orders. How would cowing the atheist into submission by His presence further this goal for the atheist? The atheist has misdiagnosed his situation: Not being certain God exists is not his main problem, and so certainty would not solve his problem. God is available with evidence enough to give confidence and trust to those whose hearts have been changed to desire Him. But if one hates the idea of the biblical God even in theory, one would be unlikely to love Him if He suddenly appeared in person.
The major difference between atheists and Christians is not that Christians believe God exists, but that they love Him for who He is and delight in pleasing Him, worshipping Him, and being with Him. This is why it's a good idea to ask the atheist who faults God's lack of appearance for his unbelief, "If I were to prove without a doubt that God exists, would you then love Him?" This question gets to the heart of the real issue for the atheist.
Well said, Amy!
Posted by: michelle | June 11, 2009 at 05:33 AM
>> Would God's sudden appearance change the atheist's heart such that he would desire to devote himself to God?
Yes.
>> An open display of powerful glory by the God of the universe would likely drive former atheists to serve Him out of fear
Why. Is he gonna do something scary like with thunder and stuff? I don’t see a need for dramatics. If he just came over and introduced himself and had a chat, I’m sure we’d have a lot to talk about. If there’s so much to love about him - as everyone claims, then I just don’t see a problem. Hey I’m a friendly guy, I play guitar. I don’t have a problem giving love to the guy.
>> Not being certain God exists is not [the atheist’s] main problem
It’s my main problem.
>> “But if one hates the idea of the biblical God even in theory, one would be unlikely to love Him”
quite profound. All circles are round. If I hate the idea of pizza in theory, I would be unlikely to love pizza. Hee hee.
>> "If I were to prove without a doubt that God exists, would you then love Him?"
Ridiculous question.
It would be like asking a 33 year old orphan, “If I open this door right now, and your real father walks in this room, would you love him?”
That’s just not how love works.
Love takes a while. But sure, eventually. If he turns out to be a good guy, and if he has a good reason for not responding to my phone calls for the first 32 years of my life.
Posted by: ToNy | June 11, 2009 at 06:25 AM
>> If he just came over and introduced
>> himself and had a chat, I’m sure we’d
>> have a lot to talk about.
If some guy, sans lightning and thunder, walked up to you, introduced himself as God, and wanted to strike up a conversation, how would you respond?
Posted by: Jesse | June 11, 2009 at 07:05 AM
"and if he has a good reason for not responding to my phone calls for the first 32 years of my life."
Tony dear friend.... I know I do not know you. Does the fact that you are on a christian blog talking predominantly to christians.. Is that a curious thought to you? Does that make any sense? Maybe I can elaborate if it doesnt..
Posted by: White Triangle | June 11, 2009 at 07:26 AM
Does God openly appear to us and show His power when we're in Heaven? Is this bad?
Posted by: Joe | June 11, 2009 at 07:46 AM
When I first read in the Bible how the Israelites rebelled, murmured, or openly complained against the Lord even though they had heard God's voice and seen miracles performed by Him, I found it hard to believe. How could they act in such a manner while having clear knowledge of God's existence?
But overtime I've come to learn that their reaction was a credible tale of a human response to the divine.
I mean...if God wrote across the sky in large letters, "I am the Lord, thy God," so that everyone in the world could see it, or He appeared to everyone in person, within a week there would be people doubting it had ever happened. Conspiracy theories would abound. Some atheists would claim the shared experience was caused by a dormant gene that had suddenly became active.
I believe some people are determined not to accept any clear evidence that may appear. It would rob them of their moral autonomy.
Posted by: Rolf Anderson | June 11, 2009 at 08:09 AM
Joe
wouldnt matter because there's no threat of hell nor sin once youre in heaven.
Posted by: ToNy | June 11, 2009 at 08:10 AM
Rolf,
Ya if i only had one week worth of experiences, I would doubt it too.
Such an amazing act as meeting the creator of the universe requires lots mo'.
Posted by: ToNy | June 11, 2009 at 08:12 AM
White Triangle,
>> "the fact that you are on a christian blog talking predominantly to christians.. Is that a curious thought to you? Does that make any sense?"
Well I don't go to the agnostic blogs because they all agree with me.
And it's only fun when people fight.
Posted by: ToNy | June 11, 2009 at 08:13 AM
God's power and presence is on full display every moment of every day. The majority of people on this planet perceive this in one way or another-- atheists are a stubborn minority that are upset that God won't play by the strict rules of the Enlightenment. Why does this come as a surprise, when humans do not play by those rules either (i.e. the empty theories of B.F. Skinner)?
Posted by: MijkV | June 11, 2009 at 08:15 AM
>> If some guy, sans lightning and thunder, walked up to you, introduced himself as God, and wanted to strike up a conversation, how would you respond?
I'd start with a question:
Please devise a means by which you could prove to me that you are God.
Then i'd see how he does.
Posted by: ToNy | June 11, 2009 at 08:15 AM
>Wouldnt matter because there's no threat of hell nor sin once youre in heaven.
Exactly. Once it doesn't matter, then God shows up. But at a point in time when it might do some good, it's not good for God to be too obvious. Odd.
Posted by: Joe | June 11, 2009 at 08:23 AM
I guess the question that comes to my mind after reading this post is what does it mean to 'love' God anyway? What does it mean to 'hate' him?
I think Tony is on to something with his analogy of an orphan meeting his absent father.
Let us say that my father died before I was born. I hear stories about him from family and friends, see picture etc... I would say that I love him but really I love the idea of him. This is a different kind of love that if my father were alive and I had to get along and love the messy person that he is on a day to day basis.
I think those who 'love' or even 'hate' God are doing the same thing. They love/hate their idea of God. As none of us have ever interacted with God one cannot form a proper opinion of him. What we love or hate is our conception of him.
Posted by: topher | June 11, 2009 at 08:37 AM
I am not an atheist, but I sympathize with their position, particularly those that are informed and thoughtful. As for me, well, let's just say it's complicated right now.
For the sake of argument, I'll operate under the assumption that the only possible God is the Christian version.
Amy >> I have heard atheists say that the best thing for God to do would be to reveal Himself openly so that everyone could believe in Him, do what He wants, and not go to hell.
Yes, that is a common charge, including from atheists that are former Christians. The testimonies of many former Christians bear this out over and over again as a common factor in deconversion.
Yet, it doesn't just apply to atheists, right? What about all the non-Christian theists? They are also skeptical of the existence of the Christian God, and could easily make the same appeal.
Amy >> Since He does not do this, we know that either He does not exist or He is not good.
Or His values are different than ours, or that He only reveals Himself to some people
Amy >> Would God's sudden appearance change the atheist's heart such that he would desire to devote himself to God?
Judging from the testimonies of many ex-Christians, the answers is "YES!!!!!".
Amy >> An open display of powerful glory by the God of the universe would likely drive former atheists to serve Him out of fear
Some out of fear, and some out of reverence. Sounds like Christians! No doubt, some believe in the Christian message out of a fear of hell. I don't suppose they adore God, but greatly fear Him.
Amy >> A person who faults God for not openly showing His power so that atheists will have the chance to do what they need to do to avoid hell has missed the very purpose of God's revelation of Himself. We exist to "glorify God and enjoy Him forever," not to grudgingly follow His orders.
Why do you keep discussing atheists, when non-Christians is really the group you're going after here?
Amy >> God is available with evidence enough to give confidence and trust to those whose hearts have been changed to desire Him.
Are you suggesting that belief is only possible for those whose hearts have been changed to desire God?
If so, have the atheists' hearts been changed but they aren't responding? Or have their hearts NOT been changed, and they have no hope of ever believing what you believe?
Amy >> But if one hates the idea of the biblical God even in theory, one would be unlikely to love Him if He suddenly appeared in person.
Many atheists, agnostics, and skeptics seem very practical. They often desire to be in alignment with reality. Many are happy to accept reality, and actively try to understand it better.
Amy >> The major difference between atheists and Christians is not that Christians believe God exists
Please elaborate. I have no idea where you are getting this from. I think it's quite plain that atheists do not believe in any God.
Posted by: Jim T. | June 11, 2009 at 08:43 AM
>>Does God openly appear to us and show His power when we're in Heaven? Is this bad?
Hi, Joe. Consider this: When Jesus healed the blind man, or the paralyzed man, or raised Lazarus from the dead, some people loved Him, and some people hated Him for it. Whether or not it was helpful to see Him depended on the heart of the person. My point is that there is something more basic to an atheist (i.e., his disposition towards God) than his thoughts about whether or not God exists that would have to change for him to become a Christian.
As for heaven, here's one description from Revelation 19:
So to answer your question, this is very good for those who actually do rejoice and are glad in God. However, to Christopher Hitchens, this sounds like the worst sort of tyrannical, megalomaniacal behavior on the part of God, and he has no desire to be any part of this scenario (as he has said). So it would not make sense for Hitchens to be in heaven merely because he believed God exists--there's something else more fundamental keeping him from enjoying God's presence both now and later.
Posted by: Amy | June 11, 2009 at 08:58 AM
topher >> I think those who 'love' or even 'hate' God are doing the same thing. They love/hate their idea of God. As none of us have ever interacted with God one cannot form a proper opinion of him. What we love or hate is our conception of him.
Topher, I find this to be a very insightful comment.
Our personal ideas about God are no doubt a mixture of our own thoughts and the thoughts of others. We hear many, many different claims about God, and then we slowly form our own ideas about the different possibilities. Some of us come to a belief that one of those ideas is correct, others come to reject them all.
For those that reject all the claims about God, this is often times with regret. They like the idea, but don't see how it aligns with their perception of reality.
This is very typical in deconversion stories. People are often very sad to lose their idea of God. They miss their relationship with Jesus, and despair over the loss. But they do it because they now perceive all that to have been a fantasy, a grown-up version of imaginary friends.
I often observe that religious believers (of any sort) often just cannot comprehend skepticism of the supernatural. But your comment gets to a very core issue. All we have are our personal experiences and what other people claim. All we have are ideas to either accept or reject or remain agnostic about. And it will remain like that as long as God remains hidden.
Posted by: Jim T. | June 11, 2009 at 09:07 AM
Excellent post, Amy. Thanks!
Posted by: Ken | June 11, 2009 at 09:12 AM
There's an erroneous assumption here that perceiving someone with the 5 senses is to fully perceive them, as if God is hidden at this moment in history.
Those aspects of others that cause us to love or hate them are just as invisible to the eyes as God is (unless you're really shallow), yet many of us have no difficulty believing those aspects to be true and real. What I love most about my wife are those invisible qualities, and although I have ample evidence I ultimately cannot prove them empirically. I have to accept them by faith, and my life is richer because of it. Imagine how miserable I would be if I doubted every act of affection and continued to demand more "proof."
Posted by: MijkV | June 11, 2009 at 09:53 AM
So, the particular mind of Christopher Hitchens now equals the minds of all atheists? And if something won't work for Hitchens, it won't work for all atheists? Who cares what works or doesn't work for Hitchens? He's not the "universal atheist", so citing his opinion is not very useful.
As for the rest, you seem to be saying that admission into heaven depends on more than just believing that Jesus is God.
Posted by: Joe | June 11, 2009 at 09:55 AM
Jim T. I fit right into your idea. I wish I could believe. It would make my life a lot easier (with family, spouse etc). Yet, in the end I can't seem to believe in what everyone is telling me about God's nature.
This discussion reminds of a story that paradoxically helped undercut my belief. The short story "Un coeur simple"(a simple heart) by Flaubert. This moving tale tells the life of a simple, pious, illiterate serving woman who comes to perceive the Holy Spirit and by extension God, as a parrot. She comes to this idea through a combination of a stain glass window in her church, the priest talking about the Holy Spirit as a dove and fire, and a pet parrot she receives as a gift.
This story got me thinking about our perceptions of God. Are we not all like this women worshiping our conceptions of God as opposed to the real thing? How would we know what the real thing even is? How does the believer claim to have more knowledge of god then the atheist? or non-christian?
I love this story by the way
Posted by: topher | June 11, 2009 at 10:13 AM
ToNy
"If he just came over and introduced himself and had a chat, I’m sure we’d have a lot to talk about. If there’s so much to love about him - as everyone claims, then I just don’t see a problem."
Suppose that in your conversation, you would find out that all the things you had to talk about, was worthless brain dead nonsense(forgive my blunt and brutal characterization) , while God was the only one who actually had anything sensible or intelligent to say(i.e. you would find out that you were intellectually and spiritually bankrupt)...would you feel the same way?
Posted by: Louis Kuhelj | June 11, 2009 at 10:16 AM
>> Please devise a means by which you
>> could prove to me that you are God.
>>
>> Then i'd see how he does.
...and what means would you accept? You've already told us a week's worth of the kind of miracles the Israelites experienced in Exodus won't cut it:
>> Ya if i only had one week worth of
>> experiences, I would doubt it too.
>>
>> Such an amazing act as meeting the
>> creator of the universe requires
>> lots mo'.
Posted by: Jesse | June 11, 2009 at 10:28 AM
Tony,
You wrote: "Love takes a while".
Are you sure about this? Are you a father?
Posted by: Kevin W | June 11, 2009 at 10:36 AM
@Joe (June 11, 2009 at 09:55 AM)... you are correct. Biblical conversion is indeed more than simply believing that Jesus is God. In fact, in the Bible, in the book of James, the point is made that those supernatural being who have rejected God have not done so out of atheism, but out of sheer rebellion. "They tremble" but still reject Him. And have as much physical evidence as anyone could ever want.
Posted by: jimB | June 11, 2009 at 10:37 AM
Guess John 3 isn't correct then.
Posted by: Joe | June 11, 2009 at 11:30 AM
If you look at the full passage, it's actually explicit that "believing in Christ" entails more than just thinking He exists. The people who don't trust in Him are "judged already" because their resistance to Jesus reflects their hatred of the Light. The judgment is actually defined as being against those who "hate the Light." Those who love God are the ones who embrace Jesus. Here's the full text.
Posted by: Amy | June 11, 2009 at 11:39 AM
>>>>There's an erroneous assumption here that perceiving someone with the 5 senses is to fully perceive them, as if God is hidden at this moment in history.<<<
MijkV, that's a very good point. As another example, consider how many people fall in love with each other via the internet, before having met each other or seen each other. I know of such people. Also consider the days before the internet when people used to correspond via letters. They would get to know each simply by writing letters and then would go off and get married. Ask your great grand parents. The point is that we can get to know someone intimately without physically having met them. That is what the Christians believe about the Bible (His word) and what God himself says about the Bible: that we can come to know Him intimately by reading what he says about himself in it. That is my experience and of countless others.
Posted by: Adam | June 11, 2009 at 11:40 AM
>>>>This story got me thinking about our perceptions of God. Are we not all like this women worshiping our conceptions of God as opposed to the real thing? How would we know what the real thing even is? How does the believer claim to have more knowledge of god then the atheist? or non-christian?<<<<
Topher,
This is exactly what is described as idolatry in the Bible - worshiping our own conception of God. Our foundation for the correct/true knowledge of the Judeo/Christian God is from the Bible. We cannot come to know him from nature.
Posted by: Adam | June 11, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Amy,
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something about your original quote, in regards to fear - please explain. I first started seeking God because I realized my own sin and because of guilt for the evil things I had done. I also realized that I was in danger of hell which was the primary reason I started seeking Jesus - out of fear of what was facing me if I died in my sins. The "Gospel" isn't good news until you can grasp that - that we're evil by nature and that only Jesus can take away our sins. As I read the Bible more and more, the fear began to disappear and I actually started loving God more and more. In a way, I think fear of punishment is a necessary motive. We could use a silly analogy: a sky diver will utilize his parachute because he fears the consequence of not pulling it. The closer he gets to hitting the ground, the more he will appreciate the chute when it opens and saves him.
Posted by: Adam | June 11, 2009 at 12:04 PM
Adam you have hit on the point as to why this story undermined my own faith. Firstly you seem to imply that the woman should be damned to hell for idolatry, but is this not what we all do? If I think of the Holy Spirit as a dove is that not idolatry? I mean any conception I have of God is by nature idolatry, as we have no way of knowing what he 'looks like.' Besides since when is a theology exam a prerequisite to getting into heaven?
Secondly, the bible is not an objective source of information in the sense that we interpret what we read and try to spin it in a way that makes sense to us. the bible is not a systematic theology nor a systematic description of God. We depend on our own interpretations to make sense of the disparate, often contradictory character of God as presented in the bible. All the different churches and denominations in Christianity claim authority when interpreting the bible, but who is correct?
Posted by: topher | June 11, 2009 at 12:30 PM
Adam >> This is exactly what is described as idolatry in the Bible - worshiping our own conception of God. Our foundation for the correct/true knowledge of the Judeo/Christian God is from the Bible.
You're just replacing "our own conception of God" with "our own conception of what the Bible says". We're still dealing with our own personal conceptions, which are often greatly influenced by others, especially when attemping to understand a massive and ancient text written in foreign cultures.
Short of God zapping in knowledge, how are we to each get outside of our own conceptions?
For me, this is greatly exasperated by the many different types of Christianity and interpretations of the Bible. Fact is, there are many different ideas about the Christian God's character, nature, motiviation, and purpose for us. All of these different ideas are partially supported by scripture and partially involve special pleading and mystery to "explain" away the hard parts.
We can either adopt one of the existing systems of ideas, or develop our own. But either way, we're dealing with personal conceptions about a proposed hidden God that may have left behind a hard to fathom text.
Good grief, God, can we get a little help here?
Posted by: Jim T. | June 11, 2009 at 12:41 PM
"Believe". And here I thought that I knew what "belive" meant. Apparently "believe" is just a word that can mean whatever you want it to mean. Much like John 3. You interpret, I interpret, who knows what it means?
Tell me, exactly how much does one have to "embrace" (another squishy word) in order to qualify for heaven? 10%? 90 %? How does one measure "embrace"? At the point where the line between eternal torture and enternal bliss is drawn, how many signficant figures are in the "percent embrace" value?
How much "hating the light" is too much hating? (More words with many meanings.) Can I have a little hate and still get into heaven? Maybe I sorta like the light, but the are things that I don't like about the light. Do I get into heaven?
So in end, it comes down to semantics. Words with subjective meanings. Such is theology. Not much of a basis for eternal damnation, I should think.
Posted by: Joe | June 11, 2009 at 12:48 PM
>>Maybe I'm misunderstanding something about your original quote, in regards to fear - please explain.
Adam, I think there's a difference between these two kinds of people:
Can you see how the orientation of the heart towards God makes all the difference, even though they both recognize the real punishment waiting for them? The first person is afraid because he recognizes God's perfection and authority and his own guilt. In this, he's appreciating God's perfection and submitting to it. The second is afraid only of brute power; he's still in rebellion. He still does not see or acknowledge any of God's perfection, only His power.
In none of this am I saying a person could never move from #2 to #1 if the Holy Spirit moves him. I'm just saying there's a huge gulf between the two that is much more than merely believing God exists.
Posted by: Amy | June 11, 2009 at 01:48 PM
Amy,
I am inclined to agree with much of what you have written, but I don’t think serving God out of fear is so bad. The Bible even talks about saving some with fear. Indeed, a lot of Christians serve God out of fear, not having learned the love of God for whatever reason (family background issues, emotional issues, theological misunderstandings, etc.). But they still serve Him, and will go to heaven. Surely it is better for them to serve God out of fear and make it to heaven than it is to not serve Him at all and go to hell.
Of course, someone who really has no desire for God will eventually stop serving Him just like the Israelites did. But I think more people would be saved if God made His existence a little more clear (so that even those who try to delude themselves, or who have been deluded by false religions could not help but to believe in God). Think about it. There are 5 billion people on this planet who don’t even believe the God of theism exists, yet alone trust in Him. Surely if all 5 billion knew who the true God was, at least one of them would decide to follow Him! If that wasn’t the case, missions would be totally ineffective. Evangelism is effective, however, because there are people in these religions/regions who want to know God, but simply did not have enough information to find Him. Once the information comes (in the form of evangelism), they believe. So why think that wouldn’t happen more if God wrote the Gospel in the sky?
Posted by: Jason Dulle | June 11, 2009 at 01:53 PM
I definitely think that some people are saved when they hear the Gospel! That is the means the Holy Spirit uses. We ought to work to tell people everywhere. But you've shifted the subject somewhat. This post is specifically about atheists who hate the God of the Bible and consistently denigrate the character of the Being presented there. If they knew for sure He existed, that wouldn't change the fact that they have problems with His character. (And see my comments on fear right above your comment.)
Posted by: Amy | June 11, 2009 at 02:17 PM
I have dragon in my garage
you know: for google
RonH
Posted by: RonH | June 11, 2009 at 02:43 PM
An invisible dragon? You don't say! I've heard of these before!
Carl Sagan, a rather smart guy, even claimed to have one of these in his garage. Personally, I think he's nuts... ;)
Posted by: Jesse | June 11, 2009 at 03:41 PM
See the site No Blind Faith.com and see a disscussion about this very subject. The fact is whether people choose to believe it or not, the reason God doesn't just "show Himself" is that it wouldn't make any difference. If you don't believe this see the Old Testament... remember pillar of cloud by day, pillar of fire by night and yet what were the people doing in the midst of that evidence?
Posted by: Damian | June 11, 2009 at 04:19 PM
Louis,
>> "Suppose that in your conversation, you would find out that all the things you had to talk about, was worthless brain dead nonsense"
Then I would take this as one piece of evidence that he really was God.
But frankly it wouldnt surprise me. I'm already convinced that 99% of what I say is nonsense anyway.
: )
Posted by: ToNy | June 11, 2009 at 04:22 PM
Jessee,
>> "and what means would you accept? "
Since he's God, he knows what will work on me.
Posted by: ToNy | June 11, 2009 at 04:23 PM
Jesse,
It is invisible!
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345409469/qid=994520541/sr=1-20/ref=sc_b_20/103-7805055-6613450
Ron
Posted by: RonH | June 11, 2009 at 04:36 PM
(If you search inside you can read Chapter 10 about the invisible dragon - at least until amazon cuts you off.
But get the book out of the library - it's a classic.)
Posted by: RonH | June 11, 2009 at 04:38 PM
Damian >> The fact is whether people choose to believe it or not, the reason God doesn't just "show Himself" is that it wouldn't make any difference.
Do you really believe that to be true? No difference at all? Not one single non-believer (including agnostics and all non-Christians) would not have a change of opinion based upon a HUGE AND AMAZING change in the available evidence?
I am absolutely dumbfounded by people that can't appreciate this.
Even within the Christian story, there are plenty of people that needed an extra dose of God to push them in the right direction: Paul, Thomas, etc.
Posted by: Jim T. | June 11, 2009 at 05:16 PM
ToNy said, "It would be like asking a 33 year old orphan, “If I open this door right now, and your real father walks in this room, would you love him?"
Topher said, "I think Tony is on to something with his analogy of an orphan meeting his absent father."
Your attitude would change when you realize your bio dad was responsible for sustaining you. That his efforts were directly responsible for the air you breathe, the food you eat, the clothes you wear, the roof over your head and the warmth you enjoy in winter.
If your bio dad ever ceased from all his efforts to sustain you, it all goes away and you have none of those things. Someone who knows gives you all this information about what he's doing for you, but you don't accept. You think everything just comes.
God is not distant and nonsustaining. He gives you every breathe you take into your lungs, every thirst quenching drink and every morsel you eat. You will not suddenly wake up and find God hasn't given you all these things. You can know it now and seek His forgiveness and love Him for it or you will know it later and regretfully live everlastingly in your willful rebellious condition.
Posted by: a friend of STR | June 11, 2009 at 05:23 PM
a friend of STR,
>> Your attitude would change when you realize...
sure.
I mean I would it would also change if he was just funny or intersting.
Posted by: ToNy | June 11, 2009 at 05:47 PM
Ｉｍ ｇｏｉｎｇ ｔｏ ｓａｙ ｓｏｍｅｔｈｉｎｇ， ｐｅｒｈａｐｓ ｂｏｌｄ．Ａｔ ｔｈｅ ｓａｍｅ ｔｉｍｅ perhaps I am going to say something thats may cause every non-christian to disregard my entire post. I am extremely, extrmely skeptical of the phraze "I wish I could believe", when said from a non-believer. This mostly comes (and heres my admission, without going into detail) from something that happened to me a few years ago that involed me praying for something and swearing to God I would do it, with, to my knoweldge as much honesty as I could muster up, and when it showed up, I ran from it. I cried. Im dont really have the room nor want to get into detail.. But it was very telling.. And God really showed me what I truly was. If your still reading this post, The deception of the heart is much deeper, I think, than people truely realize. It really puts in order the proverb concerning the heart. Indeed, who can know it? If you wish there was a God, well, frankly, you dont have to wish at all. And forgive my arrogance here, but do you really, wish there was a God?
Could it be something in your heart? Some idol (because if you dont worship Jesus, you will invariably worship soemthing else), some deception, some self-sufficiency (if that is even possible) that you are so entrenched in that you dont even notice it anymore? Just kinda spaced out? I think the things we say quite often betray our actions. I would akin 'wishing there was a God' to wishing you had a wife, while eating the steak and drinking late harvest vognier she bought for you. I duno. I dont buy it. I could be wrong. And how haughty of me to presume such a thing over you. But look around you! Really? You wish? Have you ever looked at the crab nebula? Even once? Maybe your not done living your life.. I duno. Maybe im wrong. Allright. Im done!
Posted by: White Triangle | June 11, 2009 at 08:32 PM
For the record, I would cite Divorce as an outstanding example of this.
Posted by: White Triangle | June 11, 2009 at 09:07 PM
”Tell me, exactly how much does one have to "embrace" (another squishy word) in order to qualify for heaven? "
Joe, simple answer: Jesus. Not Jesus +. Just Jesus.
Posted by: White Triangle | June 11, 2009 at 09:12 PM
>> "I am extrmely skeptical of the phrase "I wish I could believe", when said from a non-believer."
Honestly so am I.
The vast majority of atheists i've meant and read seem to have some odd hang up or hatred toward God. And seem hung up on forwarding a political agenda of some sort. They also seem to despise Christians and regard them as stupid and child like.
I dunno...
The zeitgeist seems to reflect a semi new flavor of Richard Dawkins-style, slash GodWhoWasn'tThere, slash End Of Faith, post 9-11 hatred of religion.
Atheism is like punk music, it seems to appeal to a niche of people who need something to be angry about.
Or to a class of pseudo-intellectual nouveau rich who like to talk about NPR and the evil pope. I call them the "StuffWhitePeopleLike Atheists"
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/
hee hee
Posted by: ToNy | June 11, 2009 at 09:18 PM
LOL
Tony
I am in complete aggreance with you. You nailed it. Honestly, sometimes when I talk to atheists like the ones you mentioned, Ide really like to submit to them some genuinely 'good' atheist material. So ATLEAST, they can really think about it rather than what you mentioned.
Posted by: White Triangle | June 11, 2009 at 09:22 PM