Does God Want Everyone to Know Him?

[stiggy wiggy]

If he wants me to repent of my sins, I need to know to whom I am repenting.

I need to know that he exists.
Before I can repent.

Really now? Let's say I've committed adultery. I cannot repent and ask my wife for forgiveness unless I know God exists?

I don't think you've thought this out too well.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Really now? Let's say I've committed adultery. I cannot repent and ask my wife for forgiveness unless I know God exists?

I don't think you've thought this out too well.

Oh - so if I apologize only to the people I've wronged, and do not acknowledge Jesus at all, that's enough to get me into heaven?

Good to know!

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Oh - so if I apologize only to the people I've wronged, and do not acknowledge Jesus at all, that's enough to get me into heaven?

Prove it!

And who said anything about getting you into heaven?

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

If I say, “YES”, then that makes God (1) either unwilling or unable to make himself known because some do not know him. I hear atheists default to that position a lot.

Regarding specifically the question how can atheists speculate on what they don't know? It's a religious question. I recommend an alternative format.

Therefore, is God either unwilling or unable to make himself known?

You limit your possibilities due to religious ideology. There could be any number of possible reasons. Your question isn't practical, it's more a philosophical quandary.

If unable then arguably he is unworthy of belief.

Isn't that subjective?

If unwilling then it is unjust for him to condemn us for not believing.

What basis? Does he condemn us? Is believing the same as knowing? What would the possible advantages be to simply believing?

These are the facts of the matter.

Those aren't facts.

But what if there is an answer to the OP’s question, albeit, requiring a bit of sophistication, without forcing us to choose between either an unworthy God or an unjust God? (Warning: If sophistication or critical thinking is not your thing then you can stop reading here.)

[Laughs] Sorry. It's just that I'm reading that warning on an atheist vs theist public forum. Ideology is rampant on both sides. No one is looking for answers here.

WHAT IF (I am speculating here) the state of creation (ie., the current universe or cosmos) is separated from God, NOT due to anything we have done but due to something that happened on a cosmic scale way before our time?

What if a bird speculated that the Man that created his house, if so omnipotent, should be able to visit him inside his birdhouse?

The Bible clearly answers your question of separation and I've stated it here on this forum several times. Nobody buys it because it isn't doctrinal. For lack of a better term. I don't think it's relevant to the OP and I've asked several times for clarification - even simply what that separation means is beyond the grasp of anyone here. Oddly enough.

A “Something” that may be referred to as the “cosmic sin” if we are to seek its corollary in scripture (eg., John 1:29). (At least indulge me that). A perturbation of the universal existence resulting in the Big Bang, and consequently a material cosmos that was lifeless and chaotic.

Cosmic sin is a misnomer. Sin means to miss the mark. It's applied to archers, for example. Rock and gas aren't conscious. They don't sin. The word cosmos (and cosmetic) comes from the Greek word kosmos meaning adornment. Like a stream of pearls. The world isn't the same as the Earth if you mean to imply as much. The two terms, earth and world have various meanings.

In that scenario we would ALL be born into a material world separated from God.

Explain? Start by defining separated. Are we separated from the cosmos? From Earth? From the world? What does it mean to be separated from God?

Therefore, individuals who never believe in a divine entity remain separated from God NOT necessarily due to your choice but due to something, the cosmic sin, that preceded you. You have been “blinded” from perceiving God by the same “something” that caused a perturbation of the universal existence.

Philosophy. It seems a practical excursion to examine specifically what is meant by God but that ship has sailed for me as far as this and every other forum I've been on. Might as well ask the cat. The religious and scientific presuppositions are too much.

Therefore, if you never believe in an absolute Good God then you remain a part of the lifeless and chaotic cosmos due to the “cosmic sin”. Your current state REMAINS that of the material cosmos. IOW, nothing changes for you. You cannot claim God is unjust because the cosmos already paid the price for sin and you merely remain a part of that judgment for not believing.

The cosmos paid the price for it's own sin? What was it? $3.50?

Whereas, those who believe in and submit to the absolute Good One are being rescued from a material cosmos separated from God, —not physically rescued, but their souls are being rescued, “set apart”, for the intelligible world perceived in the future, when matter has been returned to God and made new, as it was, “in the Beginning.” It is to these souls being rescued that God has made himself known as the absolute Good One both willing and able to make himself known.

And they call that faith? The problem is you are bound to a source or you're making it up in your head with no basis.

In this way ^^^^^^^^ God rescues those returning to him from a cosmic sin that separated our world from him. Unbelief is ultimately the result of something that happened way before our time that continues to ripple across space and time, but not forever.

For the sake of brevity I will end here.

——
1) For the sake of argument “God” is defined as the Most High God, namely, Elyon, an absolute Good Source of everything and therefore is itself pre-existent.

Elyon?

 

[CrowCross]

What does?
Pointing out that "your" claim is not yours at all, but the Bible's, and has no external corroboration?

You are showing your lack in trust of the Bible...and God...is foolishness

 

[CrowCross]

What a great response, so full of analysis and insight. Is this really all you have to say?

Sums it up quite nicely.....Atheist are fools.

 

[Whatsisface]

Sums it up quite nicely.....Atheist are fools.

Oh dear. Has someone upset you?

 

[CrowCross]

Well, then, under the auspices of your unquestionable logic I'm a fool. I dare not question how that conclusion was reached under the circumstance because it would be a waste of time.

Edit per mod
Heck you even posted a couple bible verses...with no explanation. That would make you a fool+

 

[CrowCross]

Oh dear. Has someone upset you?

Nope, simply pointing out the fact.

 

[Whatsisface]

Nope, simply pointing out the fact.

Yeah, you're upset alright.

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

Yes, you are a fool.

Heck you even posted a couple bible verses...with no explanation. That would make you a fool+

I don't get what your problem is. I said the verses plainly state that when we die we aren't conscious of anything and in "hell" (the grave, the pit, sheol, hades, etc.) there is no moral distinction. I shouldn't have to explain them, though, they're self explanatory.

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

Science has a long history of speculation leading to rigorous attempts at validating the factual and discarding the fanciful.

Only in hindsight - especially with atheists that use it as a crutch. Ignaz Semmelweis was institutionalized and beaten to death for suggesting hands and utensils should be clean in a surgical setting, the Wright Brothers were scoffed at by science even after they succeeded, so was Jane Goodall.

For this reason alone, science will have more credibility with me than does theology. (I'd assert that the increased credibility should apply to everyone, not just me, but that is honestly a different subject, so I wont argue it here).

However, for the purposes of this thread - in which I brought up "credulity" - I'm willing to place temporal parts theory on an equal footing with cosmic turtles and @docphin5 's cosmogeny. More specifically, I need a better filtering process to know whether I should lean towards Doc's idea, or scientific speculation, or documented creation myth.

If you examine the myth of Santa you can take it out of the realm of myth. A so-called skeptical examination of the Genesis creation account is always more of an examination of poorly constructed theological suppositions. See Genesis Chapter 1 (annotations).

I believe the kind of credulity Doc is asking for is the opposite of a filtering process, which is why I reject the exercise (but not necessarily Doc's hypothetical).

If I understand you correctly I would agree.

 

[Whatsisface]

Only in hindsight - especially with atheists that use it as a crutch. Ignaz Semmelweis was institutionalized and beaten to death for suggesting hands and utensils should be clean in a surgical setting, the Wright Brothers were scoffed at by science even after they succeeded, so was Jane Goodall.

The examples you give aren't the fault of science but of people being all too human. Enough people are able to be more objective enabling science to progress the quicker.

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

The examples you give aren't the fault of science but of people being all too human.

The same could be said of religion. The only difference is religion has more people with a longer history. Keeping in mind that I would take science over religion any day, if it's done properly.

Enough people are able to be more objective enabling science to progress the quicker.

I don't think so but I would have to explore a comparison (if logical). Science is done by a small number of people. Accepting/rejecting (for lack of a better term - perhaps adhering?) by the masses seems more religious/ideology. Doing and adhering aren't the same. To look at religion under the same microscope, so to speak, is thought not to have a practical perspective. It's perceived more philosophically than scientific. While I think that necessarily so to some extent I think the approach could be more scientific/practical.

The documentary theory, for example, isn't at all scientific. Scientific/practical approaches to the Bible tend to be extremely unscientific/impractical. So, Biblical examinations tend to be more theological/religious than Biblical.

 

[Caroljeen]

If I say, “YES”, then that makes God (1) either unwilling or unable to make himself known because some do not know him. I hear atheists default to that position a lot.

Therefore, is God either unwilling or unable to make himself known?

If unable then arguably he is unworthy of belief. If unwilling then it is unjust for him to condemn us for not believing. These are the facts of the matter.

I was rethinking my response to this argument that crackerjack keeps bringing up....his first premise is "an all-powerful God that wants all to know that he exists". I believe God wants everyone to know him that they might be reconciled to him by the forgiveness of sins that comes through Jesus Christ, but it is conditional. The unbeliever has to seek him, come to him, feel after him, open the door and let him in. These desires to find out if God exists happen in part by his drawing us to himself through the gospel spread by believers and given us grace to believe without taking away the free will to accept it or reject it. It's not like we have to do some great feat to find God. All we have to do is draw near to him in faith, even with very, very little, nearly nonexistent faith.

It isn't that God is unwilling or unable to make himself known to us so that we will believe he exists, he isn't. The angels believe that God exists. They dwelled in his presence, yet a third of them rebelled against him. Imo, it is because of their rebellion, God deals with us differently.... through faith.
Why can't we trust that his reasons for why he does what he does and perceive in a positive him in light, instead of postulating a false dilemma that casts shade on God's motives.

But what if there is an answer to the OP’s question, albeit, requiring a bit of sophistication, without forcing us to choose between either an unworthy God or an unjust God? (Warning: If sophistication or critical thinking is not your thing then you can stop reading here.)

WHAT IF (I am speculating here) the state of creation (ie., the current universe or cosmos) is separated from God, NOT due to anything we have done but due to something that happened on a cosmic scale way before our time? A “Something” that may be referred to as the “cosmic sin” if we are to seek its corollary in scripture (eg., John 1:29). (At least indulge me that). A perturbation of the universal existence resulting in the Big Bang, and consequently a material cosmos that was lifeless and chaotic.

In that scenario we would ALL be born into a material world separated from God. Therefore, individuals who never believe in a divine entity remain separated from God NOT necessarily due to your choice but due to something, the cosmic sin, that preceded you. You have been “blinded” from perceiving God by the same “something” that caused a perturbation of the universal existence.

Therefore, if you never believe in an absolute Good God then you remain a part of the lifeless and chaotic cosmos due to the “cosmic sin”. Your current state REMAINS that of the material cosmos. IOW, nothing changes for you. You cannot claim God is unjust because the cosmos already paid the price for sin and you merely remain a part of that judgment for not believing.

Whereas, those who believe in and submit to the absolute Good One are being rescued from a material cosmos separated from God, —not physically rescued, but their souls are being rescued, “set apart”, for the intelligible world perceived in the future, when matter has been returned to God and made new, as it was, “in the Beginning.” It is to these souls being rescued that God has made himself known as the absolute Good One both willing and able to make himself known.

In this way ^^^^^^^^ God rescues those returning to him from a cosmic sin that separated our world from him. Unbelief is ultimately the result of something that happened way before our time that continues to ripple across space and time, but not forever.

For the sake of brevity I will end here.

——
1) For the sake of argument “God” is defined as the Most High God, namely, Elyon, an absolute Good Source of everything and therefore is itself pre-existent.

This would make a good science fiction novel. You should write it.

 

[mikeT]

The same could be said of religion. The only difference is religion has more people with a longer history.

No, there's another difference: science is self-correcting, but religion is not.

You're absolutely right when you point out that the objectionable things done in the name of either can be traced back to human fallibility. Humans creating a drug/therapy which does much more harm than was promised, humans failing to safe-guard choir boys from church pederasts, etc. Both are horrific in different ways - but both are the product of fallible humans.

However, with science, lessons are learned and the chance of similar future harms is lessened. Active steps are taken to not repeat the mistakes of the past. With religion, that self-correcting mechanism is largely absent, because dogma is favored over introspection.

What happened when, in the US, the horrors of napalm use in the Vietnam War were realized? As a country, we stopped using it. Its general use was de-emphasized, and over time, the technology was abandoned.

What happened when, in the US, it was discovered that the curse of Hamm was being used to justify anti-black racism here? The answer is nothing. Scripture wasn't altered, and instead of trying to learn from the mistake, Christians simply began paying less attention to the thing which was used to justify inhuman treatment of other humans. In effect, they ignored the problem, and left the original problem in-place, such that a new generation could some day point to the bible as justification for racial atrocities.

 

[Caroljeen]

It would be the first step in getting us to repent.

Really the question, then, should be does god want everyone to accept him?

I believe God does want to save everyone but does God have to do it our way? on our terms?

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

I believe God does want to save everyone but does God have to do it our way? on our terms?

First of all God does want to save everyone. That's very easily supported by scripture. I think someone already quoted 1 Timothy 2:4-6. Your question of terms is the exactly right one. Not everyone is willing to accept God on his terms. By the way, that wasn't always the case. Only Jews (faithful born Jews or conversions) were originally meant to be saved. When they rejected the Messiah the invitation was extended to gentiles.

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

No, there's another difference: science is self-correcting, but religion is not.

Of science, ideally yes. Of religion it can be self-correcting. The methodology may not be as precisely defined but the principle is the same. For example, JW teachings originally were the same as mainstream Christian, the cross, Easter, Christmas etc. They learned gradually in pieces from others. Another example is the increasing number of manuscripts leading to a better understanding.

You're absolutely right when you point out that the objectionable things done in the name of either can be traced back to human fallibility. Humans creating a drug/therapy which does much more harm than was promised, humans failing to safe-guard choir boys from church pederasts, etc. Both are horrific in different ways - but both are the product of fallible humans.

Agreed.

However, with science, lessons are learned and the chance of similar future harms is lessened. Active steps are taken to not repeat the mistakes of the past. With religion, that self-correcting mechanism is largely absent, because dogma is favored over introspection.

It's a valid criticism of religion. Personally my criticism of religion tends to be very harsh due primarily to dogma; and of science - it's in my forum moniker - my personal observation is, in general, that science minded atheists, while they admit the infallibility of science in words, tend to overreact at any suggestion to criticism in a very dogmatic manner. Like you said, that's human nature. In religion, science, politics, etc. And those people no more represent science than religious people do their own religion. [Looks around] And there's always exceptions.

Such as myself. [He said, with a certain smug self-righteousness] ?

What happened when, in the US, the horrors of napalm use in the Vietnam War were realized? As a country, we stopped using it. Its general use was de-emphasized, and over time, the technology was abandoned.

Yes, and I would stress over time as possibly very significant. In science and religion it can take decades. Even centuries.

What happened when, in the US, it was discovered that the curse of Hamm was being used to justify anti-black racism here? The answer is nothing. Scripture wasn't altered, and instead of trying to learn from the mistake, Christians simply began paying less attention to the thing which was used to justify inhuman treatment of other humans. In effect, they ignored the problem, and left the original problem in-place, such that a new generation could some day point to the bible as justification for racial atrocities.

I've actually written an article on a related subject. Beast of the Earth, in which the racist ideology of British Israelism and its spawns of Christian Identity and Aryan Nations is addressed. The idiotic proposition that non-white people are animals and so don't have souls. That's obviously wrong on two counts. 1. Animals have souls and 2. There's only one "race" the human race. We all come from Adam. Similar positions were proposed in evolution and eugenics.

You did say something very troubling to me above, namely the implication that the altering of scripture would be beneficial. No, no, no. If scripture was racists (and it isn't) or even if it is interpreted to be racist, then you should not alter it. That isn't a solution.

You mentioned Ham. I've also written a detailed response to the subject somewhere online but I could look for days and not find it. Instead I will paste a brief explanation, which, just at a glance, I agree with though it is old and may not bear precisely with current accurate understanding. Often there can be very subtle distinctions which bear more careful examination.

"Ham’s name means “swarthy” or “brown,” and it also carries the suggestion of “hot.” In The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopædia, Volume II, page 754, the comment is made: “The general opinion is that all the Southern nations derived their origin from Ham (to which the Hebrew root Khawm, not unlike the Greek. . . , burned faces, lends some force).” A Dictionary of the Bible, by James Hastings, relates the Hebrew word for Ham to an Egyptian word meaning “black” and shows that this Egyptian word is an allusion to the dark soil of Egypt as compared with the desert sand. It seems reasonable that if Ham received his name at birth, probably he was a child with skin that was somewhat darker than that of his brothers, and the illustration indicates this.

"Ham had four sons: Cush, Mizraim, Put and Canaan. The descendants of Mizraim, such as Philistines and Egyptians, were not Negroid. (Gen. 10:6, 13, 14) Canaan also was not Negroid, neither were his descendants. However, Ham’s son Put is shown on Bible maps as having settled in the east of Africa, his descendants being Negroid. (Nah. 3:9) As for Ham’s son Cush, he is very evidently a principal progenitor (perhaps along with Put) of the Negroid or dark-complexioned branch of the human family (Jer. 13:23), as indicated by the areas of settlement of certain of his descendants. (Gen. 10:7) This fact disproves the theory advanced by some who incorrectly endeavor to apply to the Negro peoples the curse pronounced on Canaan, for Canaan, the brother of Cush, did not produce any Negro descendants but, rather, was the forefather of the various Canaanite tribes of Palestine. (Gen. 9:24, 25; 10:6, 15-18)" - Watchtower 1967.

 

[CrowCross]

I don't get what your problem is. I said the verses plainly state that when we die we aren't conscious of anything and in "hell" (the grave, the pit, sheol, hades, etc.) there is no moral distinction. I shouldn't have to explain them, though, they're self explanatory.

The verse doesn't say that.

You were using in a way that meant when you die...you have nothing in the realm of conscience. Which would be an error on your part.

Perhaps if you read the verse again...slower...and not from an anti-bible cut and paste site you might figure out what it really says.

I've seen the foolish atheist use this verse before...