Happy is he who does not see yet believes?

[ateista]

Let’s examine the context of the passage, starting from the beginning of the chapter.

Note that the “glorification of the Father” needs to be understood in terms of Divine Selflessness, not human egos.

Pretty good analysis. But it still brings up two important points.

One is that we can understand the “glory to the Father” as the display of God’s majesty and power, which is demonstrated by the granting even “mundane” wishes. Everything that leads to the demonstration and acceptance of God’s power could be understood as “bringing glory to the Father”.

The other, more serious one is that there are many “worthy” wishes and honest prayers for them, and those are also not granted. One may pray for the sick to be healed, for the hungry to be fed, one may pray selflessly for the betterment of others, and those are compatible with “divine selflessness”, yet they are not granted. There is no proper, double-blind experiment which would show an even statistically insignificant but observable difference between the ones for whom prayers are uttered, and the rest.

Let’s face it: God never grants prayers, the result of which can be verified and which are not trivial. Sure, one can pray for deliverence from evil, one can pray to be forgiven, but these cannot be verified. Also one can pray for the sun to come up tomorrow, and it will be “granted”, but that is a trivial thing to ask for.

The rest of the prayers are met with stony silence. When this problem is brought up, the answer usually is: “one is not supposed to ‘test’ God”. But many times these are not “intended” to be tests, they are honest prayers. Other answer is “they may not be compatible with God’s plans”, which is pure blarney. God’s “plan” cannot involve the intentional and meaningless suffering of untold and random millions.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

God’s “plan” cannot involve the intentional and meaningless suffering of untold and random millions.

i only quote this sentence because i wonder why you might feel this way?

why cant G-ds plans include the suffering of millions?

He used suffering as the prime ingredient in redemption of many throughout the Scripture, specifically the Suffering of Christ. the Redemption of us all.

in my personal experience Suffering has always been beneficial, specifically it has brought me closer to G-d

further this idea that prayers are never answered seems odd to me, are you expecting something along the lines of star trek style matter transport

i.e. you might pray for a beer and a properly poured pint of guiness materializes?

that reflects a lack of understanding in the relationship between G-d and man.

we were not created as a benefit to ourselves, we were created as a benefit to Him.

we are chattel, and only His Divine Love allows Him to treat us any differently

as americans we are raised to believe that we have certain rights, but that does not extend to the Deity.

in relation to G-d we are property, what is good for us is in no way related to what we desire, there exists no relationship between the two ideas.

now you may say that you would not care to worship a G-d that does not fit your idea of right and wrong or that doesn’t behave in a manner that you find reasonable

but thats like cutting off your nose to spite your face, how does that affect G-d? it only effects you.

have you ever prayed for something that did not benefit you?
that did not benefit one you loved or cared for?
have you ever prayed for something to benefit G-d?

do you know anyone with ‘faith enough to move mountains’?

there are so many qualifiers to these passages, most of which seem to relate to faith and righteousness that you may be expecting something that only exists as a matter of the secular understanding of G-d and our relationship with Him.

not to theologically sound principals of that relationship

 

[ateista]

i only quote this sentence because i wonder why you might feel this way?

why cant G-ds plans include the suffering of millions?

He used suffering as the prime ingredient in redemption of many throughout the Scripture, specifically the Suffering of Christ. the Redemption of us all.

Self imposed suffering is no concern of mine.

we were not created as a benefit to ourselves, we were created as a benefit to Him.

Interesting. I was told that God is self-sufficient, and lacks nothing.

we are chattel, and only His Divine Love allows Him to treat us any differently

No sign of that “love”.

as americans we are raised to believe that we have certain rights, but that does not extend to the Deity.

Translation: “might makes right”.

in relation to G-d we are property, what is good for us is in no way related to what we desire, there exists no relationship between the two ideas.

Most Cathioics strongly assert that humans have intrinsic dignity and it is evil to treat other humans as “property”.

have you ever prayed for something that did not benefit you?
that did not benefit one you loved or cared for?

Of course I did, when I was a child. Nothing ever came out of it.

have you ever prayed for something to benefit G-d?

I am unaware of such possibility.

do you know anyone with ‘faith enough to move mountains’?

A mustard seed? That is the amount of “faith” one needs to have to move mountains… a demonstration of such an event would be rather convincing to us, heathens.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Self imposed suffering is no concern of mine.

yet you seemed very concerned about the suffering of people feeling guilty about masturbation on the morality threads. that would seem to be self imposed suffering. what is the differencee that allows you to feel one way about that suffering and another about redemtive suffering?

Interesting. I was told that God is self-sufficient, and lacks nothing

.

i didn’t say he wasn’t i said that you are mistaking the manner of mans true relationship to G-d. its nnot all about us.

No sign of that “love”.

that love is shown in the Eternal Sacrifice

Translation: “might makes right”.

damn skippy it does

when has it ever been any different? anywhere in the world, or in any society.

Most Cathioics strongly assert that humans have intrinsic dignity and it is evil to treat other humans as “property”.

sure, in relation to one another, but not in relation to G-d. we are property of our creator.

Of course I did, when I was a child. Nothing ever came out of it.

exactly what was it?

I am unaware of such possibility.

and yet that is the very beginning of the Lords Prayer.

A mustard seed? That is the amount of “faith” one needs to have to move mountains… a demonstration of such an event would be rather convincing to us, heathens.

no it wouldn’t, heathens deny all miracles, even ones witnessed by thousands, they call it mass hysteria or mass illusions

Peter was in the very presence of Christ and only took a few steps on the water. the faith necessary to meet the qualifiers on the passage you seek to portray as a lie are difficult to meet

 

[Sarpedon]

One is that we can understand the “glory to the Father” as the display of God’s majesty and power, which is demonstrated by the granting even “mundane” wishes. Everything that leads to the demonstration and acceptance of God’s power could be understood as “bringing glory to the Father”.

Yes, but such gifts could also lead us astray, which God does not want. If a human parent gave his or her children every single thing they desired as a demonstration of power, then the children would likely grow to view their parents as tools and embark on the road toward destructive behaviors. No good parent wants that, whether earthly or Divine.

The other, more serious one is that there are many “worthy” wishes and honest prayers for them, and those are also not granted. One may pray for the sick to be healed, for the hungry to be fed, one may pray selflessly for the betterment of others, and those are compatible with “divine selflessness”, yet they are not granted. There is no proper, double-blind experiment which would show an even statistically insignificant but observable difference between the ones for whom prayers are uttered, and the rest.

God wants to get us all to heaven, but He cannot compell us to choose it. Therefore, He tries everything He can in attempts to coax us into salvation. In some cases, the only method that will work is suffering. God may inflict suffering on us if He deems as a result of His omnicience that it is in our best interest. This does not mean that God is evil, or that He uses evil means. Suffering is not evil. The cause of the suffering may be evil (i.e. hurting someone), but suffering itself is not necessarily evil.

People in general tend to think of suffering as evil. This is because almost everything that leads to suffering is evil, and should not be chosen by man. But here’s the key point: we should choose to cause suffering to others, because it is not our place. God can, because it is within His authority as our omniscient Father to due whatever He can to save us.

This is not command ethics. God cannot use evil means, and He cannot encourage such behaviors in us. For example, God will not urge someone to kill another person because suffering is in the best interest for the victim. God can, however, cause suffering through non-evil means.

Just as human parents may inflict suffering (i.e. chores, exercise outside) to benefit their children, so to can God inflict suffering on His children in His attempt to save us.

Let’s face it: God never grants prayers, the result of which can be verified and which are not trivial. Sure, one can pray for deliverence from evil, one can pray to be forgiven, but these cannot be verified. Also one can pray for the sun to come up tomorrow, and it will be “granted”, but that is a trivial thing to ask for.

I don’t maintain that prayer can be verified scientifically.

The rest of the prayers are met with stony silence. When this problem is brought up, the answer usually is: “one is not supposed to ‘test’ God”. But many times these are not “intended” to be tests, they are honest prayers. Other answer is “they may not be compatible with God’s plans”, which is pure blarney. God’s “plan” cannot involve the intentional and meaningless suffering of untold and random millions.

Suffering is not necessarily meaningless and random. Sometimes we need it, as any parent, teacher, and athlete knows.

 

[ateista]

Yes, but such gifts could also lead us astray, which God does not want. If a human parent gave his or her children every single thing they desired as a demonstration of power, then the children would likely grow to view their parents as tools and embark on the road toward destructive behaviors. No good parent wants that, whether earthly or Divine.

So? There are zillions of other kinds. Jesus said that whoever has faith as small as a mustard seed he can tell to the mountain to move and it will move. No specific “advantage” could come out of it, except the demonstration of God’s power.

God wants to get us all to heaven, but He cannot compell us to choose it.

This is being repeated over and over again. Just another meaningless assumption and obviously incorrect. If God wanted us to be in heaven, he could have done it, without asking for our consent, just like he supposedly created us without our consent. What is the difference?

People in general tend to think of suffering as evil.

Not necessarily morally evil.

God can, because it is within His authority as our omniscient Father to due whatever He can to save us.

Heard this also too many times. God has the big stick, he can do whatever he wants.

Suffering is not necessarily meaningless and random. Sometimes we need it, as any parent, teacher, and athlete knows.

And sometimes it is, just like any random victim who perished in and earthquake and tsunami would attest, if only they could speak…

You know my friend, this “Bruce Almighty” stuff is so ludicrous. Yes, we habitually override the freedom of action of our fellow human beings. We override the wishes of our children. We override the freedom of criminals. There is nothing wrong with disallowing unwanted behaviour.

On one hand you assert that God’s authority is sufficient reason for allowing random acts of suffering. At the same time you deny that God’s authority would be a sufficient reason for preventing unwanted acts of violence. Makes no sense at all. God is always on the side of the strong ones, who wish to torture, kill, rape and humiliate the weak ones. Why is the freedom of action of evil people so precious, and the freedom of action of the weak ones always so irrelevant? Whatever God is (if he exists) he is not compassionate, he is not loving, he is not caring - if we go by the visible and available evidence - millions of instances of it.

Nevertheless, we are straying from the topic of the thread. Let’s return to it.

The point is that we can ask for a sign, just like Thomas supposedly did, and we shall not get it. Jesus promised that our requests will be granted. Let’s disregard the mundane wishes. This request, to ask for a sign is not mundane. Yet it is never granted. That is the fact.

 

[ateista]

damn skippy it does

when has it ever been any different? anywhere in the world, or in any society.

But it is not like that. Properly designed constitutional republics explicitly protect the right of everyone and explicitly deny the concept that “might makes right”. Yet, as you correctly observed, that is the only valid justification God can declare. Pretty sad, I would say…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

But it is not like that. Properly designed constitutional republics explicitly protect the right of everyone and explicitly deny the concept that “might makes right”. Yet, as you correctly observed, that is the only valid justification God can declare. Pretty sad, I would say…

thats only another form of ‘might makes right’ ask any minority.

its also known as the ‘tyranny of the masses’

‘might makes right’ may put on a pretty face, but make no mistake, it is the basis of all forms of government, and always will be.

no matter how well designed someone will wish to violate the wishes of the masses.

its a function of free will,

and though it may seem sad, there is no other alternative that i know of.

it is the nature of Creation, the strong dominate the weak, all else is only a matter of organization.

a jackal is no match for a lion, but a pack of them can take his dinner.

 

[Sarpedon]

I created a split thread to address your arguments.

The point is that we can ask for a sign, just like Thomas supposedly did, and we shall not get it. Jesus promised that our requests will be granted. Let’s disregard the mundane wishes. This request, to ask for a sign is not mundane. Yet it is never granted. That is the fact.

God only said that our wishes will be granted in they are in line with His plan, as I argued above. Therefore, granting signs must be against His plan for most people. There are numerous possibilities why:

1. Giving a sign may lead people to no longer think about God, to their own harm.
2. God may give enough indirect support that only people who practically worship their own intellect demand more. He may want to frustrate their request in order to keep them thinking about the whole question and hopefully snap out of it.
3. God may want us to acknowledge the limits of our own intellect.
4. God may want to teach us to trust in things outside of ourselves, and thus grow in selflessness.
5. The people who demand signs may just write off any signs as hallucinations and things like that.

These are just some examples I thought of with my own finite mind. I am sure an omniscient mind would think of more.

Also, keep in mind that most apparations and signs happen to people who are already at a high degree of holiness. Maybe God is willing to give them those signs because He knows that they are past the “danger point” and will not fall into one of the negative situations considered above.

 

[fhansen]

But it is not like that. Properly designed constitutional republics explicitly protect the right of everyone and explicitly deny the concept that “might makes right”. Yet, as you correctly observed, that is the only valid justification God can declare. Pretty sad, I would say…

In Catholic theology God actually withholds His power, seeking to draw people to agree with His righteousness, rather than enforcing it. In what we believe to be the fullest revelation, that of the New Covenant, the weak, poor, meek, and humble are exalted and inherit the earth while the powerful and arrogant are rejected. Ultimately justice prevails and evil is no longer allowed to coexist with good.

 

[ateista]

God only said that our wishes will be granted in they are in line with His plan, as I argued above.

No, God did not say that. It is merely your interpretation. There are no prerequistes for asking in Jesus’ words.

 

[RubyT]

Say you really love someone alot. But they don’t really love you. But your stuck on them and they say they love you (to make you happy). So you know in your heart that they don’t really love you and you wish they would prove it to you somehow. If they went out of their way to prove it to you; would believe that they really did love you. Wouldn’t you still question it? Does proving love make any difference when we know it is not true love.

Thus God wants us to love Him first just because He loves us so much. We need to prove our love to Him and He does not need to prove His love to us because He gave us His only begotten son Jesus. That fact should be proof enough. Do you believe that Jesus was the son of God? If so than you need no more proof than knowing Jesus lived and died and lives again. So you weren’t around when these events took place but you know history. You know the timeline, Before Christ and After Christ. You know the Bible story.

Take my word for it, if you love God enough He will let you know He really exist. Try to let go of your earthy senses(rationale), and stop looking for proof of Gods existence. Also you can pray that God lets you know He exist. Keep praying this and have patience.

Blind Faith has its perks

 

[RubyT]

Originally Posted by ateista
The point is that we can ask for a sign, just like Thomas supposedly did, and we shall not get it. Jesus promised that our requests will be granted. Let’s disregard the mundane wishes. This request, to ask for a sign is not mundane. Yet it is never granted. That is the fact.

Who said it is never granted? This is not a fact.
Perhaps never granted to you and thus is a fact for you.
I cannot say the same for myself and thus it is only a fact from your perspective. We are not permitted on this forum to discuss personal experiences but you telling me “this is a fact” does not negate them. Signs and wonders do exist but only when God Himself chooses to reveal them. Such signs must be verified through the church.

If people did describe such signs and wonders would they be believed by others? The typical response would be to mock the person describing the sign.

 

[RubyT]

No, it is not.

In that case the “loving” Father should not make promises, he does not intend to keep.

Jesus did not say: “whatever you ask in my name, I may or may not fulfill, depending on whether I deem it appropriate”. It was a simple, straightforward promise. It was not coerced, it was freely given. And it is not fulfilled. That is the naked truth. What do you call someone, who promises, and does not deliver?

Ateista, What do you call someone that lacks the patience to wait for God. Full of empty promises or just impatient?

With love of God and the belief in Jesus He does deliver. He did for me. Have you ever tried to ask such things in His name? Was the request accompanied with faith and love of God? If not than why would the request be granted? Because the faithless empty hearted words were uttered?

When we ask for things “in Jesus name” we must have true belief, strong faith and love for Jesus or it isn’t really “in His name” it is just words with, In Jesus name, included in the sentence. Those are empty words with no faith to back them and thus no reponse comes from God. Speaking empty words without faith is not what Jesus meant when He said “In My Name” One would actually have to believe in Jesus to speak in His name and get a response from Him.

 

[RubyT]

Certainly. Here it comes: John 14:11-14

Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least** believe **on the evidence of the miracles themselves. I tell you the truth, ***anyone who has faith in me ***will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it].

The words you seem to be ignoring in your quote from the Bible I have in put in bold type. You can’t just extrapolate what you want from the paragraph.

You can’t quote Jesus words and then try to use them in an argument when it suits your perspective, a perspective that is contrary to what Jesus is saying. Either you believe what Jesus is saying or you don’t, clearly you are saying you don’t, so how do you use His words which you have extrapolated and separated from the paragraph as a basis for your argument. I’m not buying that illogical logic.

 

[RubyT]

No, God did not say that. It is merely your interpretation. There are no prerequistes for asking in Jesus’ words.

The prerequiste is FAITH. As you ignored this in your quote from scripture.

 

[ateista]

Who said it is never granted? This is not a fact.
Perhaps never granted to you and thus is a fact for you.
I cannot say the same for myself and thus it is only a fact from your perspective. We are not permitted on this forum to discuss personal experiences but you telling me “this is a fact” does not negate them. Signs and wonders do exist but only when God Himself chooses to reveal them. Such signs must be verified through the church.

If people did describe such signs and wonders would they be believed by others? The typical response would be to mock the person describing the sign.

And the question arises: how do you know that it was not a random coincidence, what you consider a fulfillment of a request? The church is not an authority any more than a random human being would be an authority. The church is just an institution, or a collection of individuals, nothing more.

You referred to “blind faith” in your other post. Sorry, that I do not value at all. And I would bet that you do not accept on blind faith what a Muslim would assert about Allah, if is contradicts your established belief system. Your “blind faith” is just as selective as my skepticism, isn’t it?

 

[ateista]

With love of God and the belief in Jesus He does deliver. He did for me. Have you ever tried to ask such things in His name? Was the request accompanied with faith and love of God? If not than why would the request be granted? Because the faithless empty hearted words were uttered?

Sure did, as a child. With “blind faith” that only a trusting child can have. Nothing happened - naturally, since I asked for things that were “outrageous”, which could be verified.

When we ask for things “in Jesus name” we must have true belief, strong faith and love for Jesus or it isn’t really “in His name” it is just words with, In Jesus name, included in the sentence. Those are empty words with no faith to back them and thus no reponse comes from God. Speaking empty words without faith is not what Jesus meant when He said “In My Name” One would actually have to believe in Jesus to speak in His name and get a response from Him.

Not true. Jesus said that he came for the ones, who need him most. And those would be the ones who do not believe. Honestly asking for something without “blind faith” is not inferior.

This reply is applicable to your next two posts, too. But of course, you should realize that the “true” believers (with blind faith) may ask for things, and there is no objective criterion by which one could decide that the request was granted or not.

To say that one must “wait” and must have “patience” is just a cop-out.

 

[RubyT]

Sure did, as a child. With “blind faith” that only a trusting child can have. Nothing happened - naturally, since I asked for things that were “outrageous”, which could be verified.

Not true. Jesus said that he came for the ones, who need him most. And those would be the ones who do not believe. Honestly asking for something without “blind faith” is not inferior.

This reply is applicable to your next two posts, too. But of course, you should realize that the “true” believers (with blind faith) may ask for things, and there is no objective criterion by which one could decide that the request was granted or not.

To say that one must “wait” and must have “patience” is just a cop-out.

You need to review your definition of objective criterion. As I don’t need a scientific research study to know when I have had an experience from God which is a spiritual experience not defined by science. How do you know when you are on love with someone? Do you have an objective criterion for it or do you just know?

In my opinion your distraughtness over others belief in God is mearly a form of hope that one day you too will find a belief in God which doesn’t fit neatly into an objective scientific nitch.

God Bless you and I pray that the Holy Spirit will open your eyes to the Truth, The Way and the Light. In Jesus name I pray that you will come out of your dismay and find your faith in God. Amen

Jesus loves you even if you don’t think so.