Isn't it strange that we can't literally see God unless we die?

[ANV]

Like it happens after death, where none is there to tell, and where the case is that people most often don’t come back to tell.

 

[Wesrock]

It’s precisely because of sin that we can’t. Sin results in the disunion between God and man. In Heaven amd after the resurrection, the saved have been made fully just and are without sin.

Anyway, I’m not sure your statement is entirely correct, anyway. It is possible to get a glimpse. Many monastics strive for such an intimate experience with God through long times spent in contemplative prayer and by carefully mastering their fleshly appetites, working for theosis, and there are saints and monastics who have reported it.

Would you tell a Buddhist it’s weird they can’t get to Nirvana without careful, years of meditation and preparation?

 

[ANV]

It’s precisely because of sin that we can’t. Sin results in the disunion between God and man. In Heaven amd after the resurrection, the saved have been made fully just and are without sin.

Anyway, I’m not sure your statement is entirely correct, anyway. It is possible to get a glimpse. Many monastics strive for such an intimate experience with God through long times spent in contemplative prayer and by carefully mastering their fleshly appetites, working for theosis, and there are saints and monastics who have reported it.

Would you tell a Buddhist it’s weird they can’t get to Nirvana without careful, years of meditation and preparation?

So are you saying that God is a self-relative thing, the more we are connected to our inner-self and dettached from the physical world the more we are connected to him, but after this physical world, you are supposed to meet and talk to God, then what difference in experience does it have between being so much devout in this life, connecting to him and actually meeting him in the hereafter? If in both cases you are “seeing” God.

 

[Aloysium]

Like it happens after death, where none is there to tell, and where the case is that people most often don’t come back to tell.

You should read up on Catholicism to know something about what you say you don’t believe.

The dying that would take place to know God, is to sin.
It is not our will, which tends to be seduced by sin, but His will that leads us to God.
In order to be our true selves, the person we are meant to be, we must be loving.
Becoming Christ-like, we are brought into eternal communion within the Trinity.

Jesus did come back bodily, lots of people have religious experiences, some when they are near death encounter different form of reality which they recall later although their brains would have been unable to form memories; there are many encounters with the Divine, told but not necessarily heard.

 

[MPat]

Like it happens after death, where none is there to tell, and where the case is that people most often don’t come back to tell.

Such use of the word “strange” here seems to be, um, strange…

For the word “strange” means something like “extraordinary”, “unfamiliar”, “unexpected”. Are you sure you want to say that you are unfamiliar with humans not having a beatific vision before death?

 

[Crusaderbear]

You are really looking for PROOF of God. Faith does not require seeing God to know he is there.

 

[hicetnunc]

Like it happens after death, where none is there to tell, and where the case is that people most often don’t come back to tell.

Hi ANV,

In fact, properly speaking, we don’t “see God” at all, if by that you mean with the eyes! God is pure spirit, and so there is nothing to see in that sense. We will “see” God in different way: intellectually, with the heart. We will be able to see God incarnate in the person of Christ. And we will be able to see the saints and those who make it there. But the “vision” of the Trinity is not a physical vision, but what we might call an existential one.

As other posters have mentioned here, “seeing” God requires faith; just as “seeing” love in another person is not something physical, but an experience of another person. “Seeing” God requires an experiential kind of knowledge and so appealing to physical tests of this “seeing” sort of miss the point of the scope of human reason.

I like your question because it raises some interesting questions about the way in which we value different kinds of knowledge today. A number of Enlightenment thinkers emphasized the physical or empirical kind of “seeing” with the eyes, at the expense of the internal, or intellectual seeing with the mind and heart.

Hicetnunc

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I think it’s strange in 3 different ways:

1. God is said to want us all to follow him, yet doesn’t participate in direct communication with us. The general defense against that is that God does not want to hinder our freewill; but that defense does not hold water. Children sometimes defy their parents. Employees sometimes defy their bosses. Having a person above us making direct requests of us doesn’t hinder our freewill but makes it truly freewill, since only when we know that these requests actually exist can we then choose to accept or reject them.
2. God the Father is said to have appeared in physical form. In Exodus 33, for example, God tells Moses that he will uses his hand so that Moses will not be able to see his face; but that Moses will see God’s “back parts”.
3. The idea that God can not be seen by the living has some similarities to explanations for other supernatural phenomena that supernatural believers give when pressed. Why didn’t I see a paticular entity after doing a certain ceremony? It’s because I “doubted too much” or “the entity can not be tested”.

Now the fact that God does not appear to us does not mean that we can say that God does not exist, though it is something each person should ponder/consider when trying to determine if he does exist.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I’m going off the topic a bit, but I recently went into a deep depression where paradoxically I felt a strong sense of peace and calm. I really thought I could sense that God was calling me to Heaven and I wanted to just stay in my bed until I died and could go to be with God. However, I fell asleep and when I awoke the depression was completely gone. This experience is etched upon my mind and I’m no longer the least bit afraid to die. I now feel like a heavy weight has been removed from me.

I have lived in almost complete solitude for about 10-15 years. My ability to experience worldly pleasures are almost completely gone. The worldly pleasures I see most people experiencing seem to be nothing but folly and vanity. I’m not the least bit suicidal and I do not experience anger against anyone or the world itself. The Holy Spirit comes and visits me every now and then and fills me with wisdom, knowledge, and understanding.

I’m filled with joy and optimism about the Hereafter, and I hope this story will influence you to explore Catholicism!

 

[Thom18]

I think it’s strange in 3 different ways:

1. God is said to want us all to follow him, yet doesn’t participate in direct communication with us. The general defense against that is that God does not want to hinder our freewill; but that defense does not hold water. Children sometimes defy their parents. Employees sometimes defy their bosses. Having a person above us making direct requests of us doesn’t hinder our freewill but makes it truly freewill, since only when we know that these requests actually exist can we then choose to accept or reject them.

Someone more knowledgeable than me can answer this better than I, but you don’t seem to fully understand the defense, so I guess I’ll comment.

The defense generally is about free will. However, if God gave us proof that satisfies us that He is real, and this or that religion is true, it would hinder one’s ability to come to Him willingly. We would intellectually acknowledge that He exists and maybe go to church every day we should, but would we be going out of love, or obligation? So, yes, God could, for the sake of the argument, “approach” every human being and let them know which religion is correct, and we could still maintain our free will by refusing to change our religion or worship Him. However (and this is where someone more knowledgeable than me should speak, but I feel the need to comment), if we were to be given the knowledge of who God is and how to worship Him but decide we don’t want to worship Him, the excuse of “I didn’t know” when being judged would be 100% invalid. The possibility of salvation would be significantly decreased, to say the least.

1. God the Father is said to have appeared in physical form. In Exodus 33, for example, God tells Moses that he will uses his hand so that Moses will not be able to see his face; but that Moses will see God’s “back parts”.

God is said to have a strong right arm and feathers and wings, but we aren’t supposed to take this literally. God the Father is pure Spirit. Even angels (as we can read in Tobit) only appear to have physical bodies. I think it’s Raphael who is spoken of in Tobit, and he said that when he ate with Tobias, it was only an illusion (because angels, too, are only Spirit). Only Jesus took flesh.

1. The idea that God can not be seen by the living has some similarities to explanations for other supernatural phenomena that supernatural believers give when pressed. Why didn’t I see a paticular entity after doing a certain ceremony? It’s because I “doubted too much” or “the entity can not be tested”.

Now the fact that God does not appear to us does not mean that we can say that God does not exist, though it is something each person should ponder/consider when trying to determine if he does exist.

The best answer I could give is to read my first response again. Sometimes we are blessed to see something extraordinary (tongues of fire, a dove, flesh and blood in a Eucharistic host, etcetera). We usually aren’t. Again, do we come to God out of love or obligation?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Someone more knowledgeable than me can answer this better than I, but you don’t seem to fully understand the defense, so I guess I’ll comment.

The defense generally is about free will. However, if God gave us proof that satisfies us that He is real, and this or that religion is true, it would hinder one’s ability to come to Him willingly. We would intellectually acknowledge that He exists and maybe go to church every day we should, but would we be going out of love, or obligation? So, yes, God could, for the sake of the argument, “approach” every human being and let them know which religion is correct, and we could still maintain our free will by refusing to change our religion or worship Him.

People can’t “come to” someone that they don’t have enough evidence to believe exists. Before we can weigh the merits of something we have to first know it’s true. If I were to formulate something (a person, an item, a deity, etc.) that was so amazing, it’s amazingness means nothing if you are not convinced it is true.

Others may disagree, but I find that because the question of god (yours or any other) is so large and nebulous, both unprovable and unfalsifiable, that a reasonable person can take one of many different religious position. This includes Christianity and atheism. The problem though is that people seem to be punihsed for holding very reasonable doubts to a deity who (if real) specifically chooses not to clear up those doubts by (among other things) not letting us see him.

However (and this is where someone more knowledgeable than me should speak, but I feel the need to comment), if we were to be given the knowledge of who God is and how to worship Him but decide we don’t want to worship Him, the excuse of “I didn’t know” when being judged would be 100% invalid. The possibility of salvation would be significantly decreased, to say the least.

But that would be far more fair. Part of how we judge other people isn’t just on what decisions those people make but also on the knowledge they had access to when making those decision.

Let’s say I own a bank and my HR rep is hiring a new teller. She hires Tony Farms. Tony later uses his job to case the bank and walk out with half a million dollars. If we find out that our HR rep checked out his contacts and criminal records and found no cause for alarm, then we can’t blame her for the robbery. If though she did not due to her research, or worse did it but ignored any evidence that he was capable of robbery, then we judge her sternly.

God is said to have a strong right arm and feathers and wings, but we aren’t supposed to take this literally. God the Father is pure Spirit. Even angels (as we can read in Tobit) only appear to have physical bodies. I think it’s Raphael who is spoken of in Tobit, and he said that when he ate with Tobias, it was only an illusion (because angels, too, are only Spirit). Only Jesus took flesh.

According to the Catechism everything in the Bible is true in either a literal sense or in one of three non-literal senses. So if you are saying the passage in Exodus 33 is not literal, then what is its true meaning? Just saying that it’s not literal is simply not enough.

The best answer I could give is to read my first response again. Sometimes we are blessed to see something extraordinary (tongues of fire, a dove, flesh and blood in a Eucharistic host, etcetera). We usually aren’t. Again, do we come to God out of love or obligation?

Do you discount the supernatural items, events, and claims made by those believers? If they have the same types of explanations for why you can’t see what they claim to be true, how is a non-Christian supposed to not have the same reaction when these explanations are given for why they can’t see God?

 

[MPat]

1. God is said to want us all to follow him, yet doesn’t participate in direct communication with us.

Likewise, professors are said to want all students to pass the tests, but they do not say what are the correct answers during those tests. Do you think that’s strange too?

Just like having students passing the tests is not the only goal of professors, having humans believe God exists is not the only goal of God.

1. God the Father is said to have appeared in physical form. In Exodus 33, for example, God tells Moses that he will uses his hand so that Moses will not be able to see his face; but that Moses will see God’s “back parts”.

Have a look at some commentary. For example, (haydock1859.tripod.com/id411.html): “My face, even in my assumed form. (Menochius)”.

1. The idea that God can not be seen by the living has some similarities to explanations for other supernatural phenomena that supernatural believers give when pressed. Why didn’t I see a paticular entity after doing a certain ceremony? It’s because I “doubted too much” or “the entity can not be tested”.

You mean like in the case when “supernatural entity” called “neighbour” does not appear after doing the “certain ceremony” called “knocking on the door”?

Such explanations are used because in general they are plausible. Thus they sound plausible even when they are false.

Now the fact that God does not appear to us does not mean that we can say that God does not exist, though it is something each person should ponder/consider when trying to determine if he does exist.

Sure. Just like many other things.

 

[Thom18]

People can’t “come to” someone that they don’t have enough evidence to believe exists. Before we can weigh the merits of something we have to first know it’s true. If I were to formulate something (a person, an item, a deity, etc.) that was so amazing, it’s amazingness means nothing if you are not convinced it is true.

Others may disagree, but I find that because the question of god (yours or any other) is so large and nebulous, both unprovable and unfalsifiable, that a reasonable person can take one of many different religious position. This includes Christianity and atheism. The problem though is that people seem to be punihsed for holding very reasonable doubts to a deity who (if real) specifically chooses not to clear up those doubts by (among other things) not letting us see him.

But that would be far more fair. Part of how we judge other people isn’t just on what decisions those people make but also on the knowledge they had access to when making those decision.

Let’s say I own a bank and my HR rep is hiring a new teller. She hires Tony Farms. Tony later uses his job to case the bank and walk out with half a million dollars. If we find out that our HR rep checked out his contacts and criminal records and found no cause for alarm, then we can’t blame her for the robbery. If though she did not due to her research, or worse did it but ignored any evidence that he was capable of robbery, then we judge her sternly.

God desires for everyone to be saved. If God revealed Himself to all mankind and people still rejected Him, to put it one way, things wouldn’t look good for them. To know what the truth is (God) and reject that truth in exchange for something you know isn’t true (false gods, or no gods at all)? They can’t plea ignorance. I’m not sure if they would still have the possibility of being saved, but I can say with certainty that it hurts their chances.

Let’s just look at the Israelites. They were blessed to have God in their presence the way people wish they could today.God actually spoke to them and dwelled among them, yet they chose to follow false gods more times than I can remember. They knew what the truth was, but they chose to do something false instead.

According to the Catechism everything in the Bible is true in either a literal sense or in one of three non-literal senses. So if you are saying the passage in Exodus 33 is not literal, then what is its true meaning? Just saying that it’s not literal is simply not enough.

The Catechism says that God the Father is purely Spirit. I don’t know which sense to interpret Genesis or Exodus in, and can only point to verses such as John 4:24, which says that God is Spirit. There’s a difference between having a spirit (a human has a spirit) and actually being a Spirit.

Do you discount the supernatural items, events, and claims made by those believers? If they have the same types of explanations for why you can’t see what they claim to be true, how is a non-Christian supposed to not have the same reaction when these explanations are given for why they can’t see God?

If the Church has approved of a miracle, I believe it. I would take everything not approved by the Church on a case by case basis. Just because someone says they experienced something doesn’t make it so, but the possibility exists.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Likewise, professors are said to want all students to pass the tests, but they do not say what are the correct answers during those tests. Do you think that’s strange too?

Just like having students passing the tests is not the only goal of professors, having humans believe God exists is not the only goal of God.

That’s not analogous. A better analogy would be someone you’ve never met telling you that there is a professor you’ll never see, a test you’ll take at some undefined point, and assurance what the test will be about. More importantly this person will tell you to not listen to the other people who claim that his professor doesn’t exist but theirs does, and not to listen to what they say will be on the true test.

While having humans believe in God is not his only goal, all of his other goals spring from that one goal. Accepting his existence is far and away his most vital goal.

Have a look at some commentary. For example, (haydock1859.tripod.com/id411.html): “My face, even in my assumed form. (Menochius)”.

So the commentator is saying that God’s face is his divine essence and his “back parts” are the things that will happen to Jesus. One body part is an attribute and the other is a description of events to come. It’s not consistent.

And where does Moses exist in this metaphor? In the commentary you quoted it said that Moses saw what would happen to Jesus in the latter days of the synagogue. Does the commentator mean that literally, that Moses was shown what was to take place? Is the commentary explaining the metaphor metaphorical itself? If so, we are through the looking glass

You mean like in the case when “supernatural entity” called “neighbour” does not appear after doing the “certain ceremony” called “knocking on the door”?

Such explanations are used because in general they are plausible. Thus they sound plausible even when they are false.

I’m not quite sure what you are getting at. A person leaving after I take too long to answer a door is consistent with how doors, neighbors, and time work. The explanation with how God wants to be with us but won’t present himself to us is internally inconsistent. No, what I was talking about supernatural events that when put to the test result in excuses as to why the observers didn’t see anything. Why didn’t the seance contact anyone? Why did the person who claimed to be talking to my dead grandfather not know anything about him? Why didn’t the spell turn a paperback copy of “The Da Vinci Code” into gold? It’s because I didn’t believe enough or something else I did. The explanation for why it’s so vital that God remain hidden feels so much like these other supernatural excuses.

Sure. Just like many other things.

And that’s key. There is no limit to that which is both unprovable and unfalsifiable. From a neutral standpoint they have equal grounds to be believed. If God wanted to have people come to him as he wants all to do, then appearing and not staying hidden would give Christianity a leg up over so many of these other unprovable/unfalsifiable things that are in many cases are discarded.

God desires for everyone to be saved. If God revealed Himself to all mankind and people still rejected Him, to put it one way, things wouldn’t look good for them. To know what the truth is (God) and reject that truth in exchange for something you know isn’t true (false gods, or no gods at all)? They can’t plea ignorance. I’m not sure if they would still have the possibility of being saved, but I can say with certainty that it hurts their chances.

So God does this hiding game so that a few people can have plausible deniability when they don’t do what God wants (specifically because he is one of numerous alleged deities who want different things)?

Let’s just look at the Israelites. They were blessed to have God in their presence the way people wish they could today.God actually spoke to them and dwelled among them, yet they chose to follow false gods more times than I can remember. They knew what the truth was, but they chose to do something false instead.

… which only goes to prove my point. By making his existence known he does NOT inhibit the freewill of the people. It’s always better to eliminate confusion than to foster so very much of it.

The Catechism says that God the Father is purely Spirit. I don’t know which sense to interpret Genesis or Exodus in, and can only point to verses such as John 4:24, which says that God is Spirit. There’s a difference between having a spirit (a human has a spirit) and actually being a Spirit.

So the Church says it is figurative. What it does not say is how it is figurative, which is insufficient if one is to convince outsiders that they know the capital-t Truth.

 

[ericc]

People can’t “come to” someone that they don’t have enough evidence to believe exists. Before we can weigh the merits of something we have to first know it’s true. If I were to formulate something (a person, an item, a deity, etc.) that was so amazing, it’s amazingness means nothing if you are not convinced it is true.

Is evidence ever enough? One can always demand more claiming it is inadequate. Or demand to the point where freewill cannot operate because you are forced to concede. The doubting Thomas was forced to concede for example 2000 years ago.

In life as in most things, we don’t need 100% proof to “come to” or “come around” to any belief. A suspicion is sometimes sufficient to trigger and open the mind. Sometimes, the resistance is self-imposed. Or perhaps one is too attached to certain things and to know that God requires you to abandon them may not be too palatable. As in many things in life, if you are unsure about anything, the best thing is to get an education or hands-on experience rather than theoretical musings at long distance. One may sign up for a course to learn something if one feels it is worth their while. On the other hand, if they have no interest, they will find a 1001 ways to avoid it. Calling it strange is one way.

Or I can restructure it to say the other way, that billions of credible people have signed up. Many have stayed on till the end of their lives and I’d find it strange that all these people have remained duped and didn’t move away if they found that they have been conned/scammed. Or perhaps they found something worth their while. That is for you to reason out whether you think you have a soul or whether there is an after life. If the answer is in the negative, there is nothing for you here because all these religious stuff is for those who reckons there are such things. You just need to make sure there are no such things as souls and afterlife. You have done that exercise I presume? Because long term planning is required to make sure the soul is well taken care off. Just saying myopia is not a virtue on stuff like these.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Is evidence ever enough? One can always demand more claiming it is inadequate. Or demand to the point where freewill cannot operate because you are forced to concede. The doubting Thomas was forced to concede for example 2000 years ago.

I think proof of existence isn’t that hard a hurdle to overcome, especially since allegedly not the threat of eternal torture rests in part on believing he exists.

It’s the bare minimum required in a court of law. If I tell a judge I was speeding to get a friend to the hospital I at the very least need to show that such a friend exists before getting onto any other aspect of my case.

In life as in most things, we don’t need 100% proof to “come to” or “come around” to any belief. A suspicion is sometimes sufficient to trigger and open the mind. Sometimes, the resistance is self-imposed. Or perhaps one is too attached to certain things and to know that God requires you to abandon them may not be too palatable. As in many things in life, if you are unsure about anything, the best thing is to get an education or hands-on experience rather than theoretical musings at long distance. One may sign up for a course to learn something if one feels it is worth their while. On the other hand, if they have no interest, they will find a 1001 ways to avoid it. Calling it strange is one way.

But I have opened my mind and I have studied quite a great deal. And I have asked a great many questions both here on CAF and in real life. Based on the answers (and is often the case non-answers) I have come to the position I have, yet I’m still open to getting better and convincing answers. I have certainly not avoided religion but delved head-long into it. My calling divine hiddeness strange is a result of that interest, not from a need to dodge the subject.

Or I can restructure it to say the other way, that billions of credible people have signed up. Many have stayed on till the end of their lives and I’d find it strange that all these people have remained duped and didn’t move away if they found that they have been conned/scammed. Or perhaps they found something worth their while. That is for you to reason out whether you think you have a soul or whether there is an after life. If the answer is in the negative, there is nothing for you here because all these religious stuff is for those who reckons there are such things. You just need to make sure there are no such things as souls and afterlife. You have done that exercise I presume? Because long term planning is required to make sure the soul is well taken care off. Just saying myopia is not a virtue on stuff like these.

As I’ve said in other threads and in this very thread, I believe a reasonable person can look at the religion question and come away as a Christian, or an atheist, or many other choices. I do not in any way say that being a believing Christian is wrong, largely due to (as I said) the great size of the question as well as how nebulous it is. In religion I do see internal inconsistencies, uncomfortable moral implications, a question of certainty of position despite believers acknowledging gaps in knowledge and understanding (“mysteries”). I want to learn more, which is part of the reason why I’m here.

As far as whether I believe there is a soul and/or afterlife, I don’t believe but you can’t rule it out. All I need is evidence.

Until then I will continue to explore religion. Even as an outsider to it I find it fascinating.

I don’t see myself as myopic when it comes to religion. I hope to open eyes, not in any way to pull people from their faith, but to have a truer understanding of what it entails.

 

[ericc]

I think proof of existence isn’t that hard a hurdle to overcome, especially since allegedly not the threat of eternal torture rests in part on believing he exists.

I didn’t bring up eternal torture so I don’t see why that is necessary on the topic of evidence. Yes, evidence isn’t hard to overcome. It depends on whether you trust the testimonies of others. And it is something we do daily, trusting others to do what they are supposed to do.

It’s the bare minimum required in a court of law. If I tell a judge I was speeding to get a friend to the hospital I at the very least need to show that such a friend exists before getting onto any other aspect of my case.

My friend Jesus exist and he came and visited us 2000 years ago. He did things normal people couldn’t and that’s why his friends and disciples eventually came to believe what he is. And Jesus did that by showing and proving what he can do, and not by a lot of words. Jesus appointed people to set up his institution and to teach and that institution has been doing that ever since. Is Jesus real? History says he is. It wasn’t lots but sufficient after all he came as a carpenter with not much material wealth to spread around. (My kindy school teacher may not exist too 2000 years from now merely because not much was written about her and records get lost with time. I have actually forgotten her name but I know she was real.) How do we know history was real? We depend on the testimonies of others, those who were there and written about those events. Those that were credible get passed on, others die with time. Some testimonies get destroyed, altered but notwithstanding those calamities, the contents are pretty much unchanged. Did those testimonies met the requirements of the times as valid? They did. Paul basically said check with those still living if you doubt. And the Gospels were written in a time where Christianity was not welcomed by the Romans nor main stream Judaism. If the Gospels were not able to stand on their own as true accounts, that religion would have been ripped and skewered as untrue in no time by her enemies. It would have been easy to prove the gospel accounts as fake.

But I have opened my mind and I have studied quite a great deal. And I have asked a great many questions both here on CAF and in real life. Based on the answers (and is often the case non-answers) I have come to the position I have, yet I’m still open to getting better and convincing answers. I have certainly not avoided religion but delved head-long into it. My calling divine hiddeness strange is a result of that interest, not from a need to dodge the subject.

That was my original point, holding out for more and better evidence (till the cows come home?) It is not your fault that each of us have a different threshold. Perhaps for some beliefs, you might be quicker to accept as true and for others , not so fast. I am thankful it is not my job to convince you that God exist. That is the Holy Spirit’s job. Mine is just to let you know that there is such a thing as God, and Jesus and Holy Spirit, and Church, and Bible and so on. I am sure if you wanted to know more , you know where to obtain that knowledge. I am also sure, if we let God into our hearts, SINCERELY, i.e. without doubt, not in a testing mode, not in a “prove to me first before I will think about it” mode, he will respond. This mantra is real. If you seek, you will find.

As I’ve said in other threads and in this very thread, I believe a reasonable person can look at the religion question and come away as a Christian, or an atheist, or many other choices. I do not in any way say that being a believing Christian is wrong, largely due to (as I said) the great size of the question as well as how nebulous it is. In religion I do see internal inconsistencies, uncomfortable moral implications, a question of certainty of position despite believers acknowledging gaps in knowledge and understanding (“mysteries”). I want to learn more, which is part of the reason why I’m here.

And I encourage you to keep at it. The built -in resistance sometimes need a certain key to unlock the defences. I believe Anthony Flew kept on hitting his head there till he conceded, perhaps reluctantly, but that’s where the argument led for him. You may need a different trigger. But if you don’t keep on poking it, you will never find which button will unlock it for you.

As far as whether I believe there is a soul and/or afterlife, I don’t believe but you can’t rule it out. All I need is evidence.

Those people involved in exorcisms or the dark arts, have a different view point. I think for anyone who relentlessly pursue the evidence of such immaterial existences, would find it. But that is for the brave and foolhardy? with plenty of time and resources. Some are victims who didn’t look for it.

Until then I will continue to explore religion. Even as an outsider to it I find it fascinating.

I don’t see myself as myopic when it comes to religion. I hope to open eyes, not in any way to pull people from their faith, but to have a truer understanding of what it entails.

That is excellent stance and prudent. And I thank you for not bashing believers as deluded. After all our threshold is different from everyone elses. If the after life is real, you may miss the greatest opportunity one would ever come by by not engaging. If it isn’t, you have lost nothing other than time on CAF and elsewhere. But who’s keeping track.

 

[MPat]

While having humans believe in God is not his only goal, all of his other goals spring from that one goal. Accepting his existence is far and away his most vital goal.

OK, that looks like an important claim. If you could support it, you would be able to make a pretty strong argument against existence of God.

So, where did you get that claim? Can you find something in the Catechism that would support it?

Or, perhaps, you are going to claim to get it from your modifications of my example? let’s look:

That’s not analogous. A better analogy would be someone you’ve never met telling you that there is a professor you’ll never see, a test you’ll take at some undefined point, and assurance what the test will be about. More importantly this person will tell you to not listen to the other people who claim that his professor doesn’t exist but theirs does, and not to listen to what they say will be on the true test.

Nope. Your additions might work as distractions, but they do not say anything about professor’s motivations.

So, the question remains: where did you get that claim?

So the commentator is saying that God’s face is his divine essence and his “back parts” are the things that will happen to Jesus. One body part is an attribute and the other is a description of events to come. It’s not consistent.

So the Church says it is figurative. What it does not say is how it is figurative, which is insufficient if one is to convince outsiders that they know the capital-t Truth.

So, have you looked at the rest of the text in the commentary I have linked? I only gave one sentence as an example. And opinion of more than one commentator is given there.

Also, are you really as sure about what that text means, as you seem? After all, you are not asking us to confirm it. You are also not telling us it is (still) hard to understand.

I’m not quite sure what you are getting at. A person leaving after I take too long to answer a door is consistent with how doors, neighbors, and time work. The explanation with how God wants to be with us but won’t present himself to us is internally inconsistent. No, what I was talking about supernatural events that when put to the test result in excuses as to why the observers didn’t see anything. Why didn’t the seance contact anyone? Why did the person who claimed to be talking to my dead grandfather not know anything about him? Why didn’t the spell turn a paperback copy of “The Da Vinci Code” into gold? It’s because I didn’t believe enough or something else I did. The explanation for why it’s so vital that God remain hidden feels so much like these other supernatural excuses.

And con men offer excuses like that, because such excuses are consistent with how persons “work”.

But I have opened my mind and I have studied quite a great deal.

I want to learn more, which is part of the reason why I’m here.

I don’t see myself as myopic when it comes to religion.

So, we have a second important claim (expressed in different ways). So, how do you know it is true? How do you know you have an open mind?

Please note that here I am not asking you to persuade me. I am asking you if you have tried to check if that is not just a case of having a good opinion about yourself.

 

[fhansen]

So are you saying that God is a self-relative thing, the more we are connected to our inner-self and dettached from the physical world the more we are connected to him, but after this physical world, you are supposed to meet and talk to God, then what difference in experience does it have between being so much devout in this life, connecting to him and actually meeting him in the hereafter? If in both cases you are “seeing” God.

We see God only at His discretion, as that ability isn’t naturally ours. Now we’re asked to walk by faith; our knowledge of God is limited. “For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.” 1 Cor 13:12. But He can provide those “glimpses” anytime He wants, for His purposes, whether it’s connected to our seeking that experience or simply because He deemed it appropriate in any case.

 

[mikekle]

You are really looking for PROOF of God. Faith does not require seeing God to know he is there.

And yet Jesus had to constantly do things to prove he was who he said he was to people back when he walked the earth, even the apostles asked for proof numerous times.

Point is, if people back then saw and still did not believe, how much chance of people 2000+ yrs later believing without any kind of proof?