Why GOD dosn't put a sign in the sky for Him!

[marver]

God doesn’t want a forced love from us so He does have obvious signs of His existence for those who want to accept Him. If you look up Intelligent design on You Tube you will find very interesting videos that amaze you. There is also a talk on DVD called the Bethlehem Star that is very interesting. God shows us His existence in subtle ways so that our love requires faith and trust in Him.

 

[julianp24]

Hi Sam,

Are you familiar with the “Miracle of the Sun”? This was an event foretold by Our Lady of Fatima and was predicted by the children whom she appeared to months before it even happened!

Anyway, if you were thinking of an explicit sign in the sky such as: “Catholicism is the only true religion” painted across the globe for everyone to see, that’s not going to happen. To do that would be to deny free will. Why? If you had an irrefutable sign that can be acknowledged by all scientists then that would mean everyone is forced to take up Catholicism whether they liked it or not. God would be creating robots to obey Him if that were the case. But no, humans have the free will to accept Him or reject Him, and thus the many different religions we see today.

To put a sign in the sky that is irrefutable would also mean that faith and grace are redundant. Not everyone gets saved in the end. How can God’s mercy be shown if everyone is saved? A distinction has to be made between the children of God and those who freely reject Him.

Hope that answered your question.

P.S There’s strong evidence that Jesus indeed died on the cross and was resurrected. No offence against Islam, but this religion only came about 400 years after Christ established His religion, and there’s no strong evidence to suggest that the founder of Islam has ever done any miracles, unlike Jesus who was witnessed by many!

Peace be with you

 

[ngill09]

Anyway, if you were thinking of an explicit sign in the sky such as: “Catholicism is the only true religion” painted across the globe for everyone to see, that’s not going to happen. To do that would be to deny free will. Why? If you had an irrefutable sign that can be acknowledged by all scientists then that would mean everyone is forced to take up Catholicism whether they liked it or not. God would be creating robots to obey Him if that were the case. But no, humans have the free will to accept Him or reject Him, and thus the many different religions we see today.

These statements are simply untrue, and keep being repeated because the repeaters don’t think through what they’re saying.

The acquisition of knowledge does not infringe on free will. One could know that Catholicism was true and still not become a Catholic. But it would be an informed choice - a true decision to reject God. What we have now with the many religions is not an informed choice - it’s people following what they genuinely believe to be true and then being damned as rebels for not following a God they do not know exists.

Why do you insist that a free choice must be a choice made in ignorance?

 

[LegoGE1947]

I see signs all around me every day.

Blessed be those that have not seen, and still believed.

Wonder if that especially applies to those believers who are blind or sight-impaired

 

[Sam_777]

You keep explaining yourself, and I think doing it quite well, but this forum seems determined to misunderstand your question. Why are there no golden letters written in pure divine light written over the Vatican saying, “This is My Church and you should be part of it”? Why do the bread and wine not visibly become the Body and Blood during the Eucharist, instead of only invisibly? Why doesn’t Jesus pop into our world capitals from time to time and tell everyone, in a visible form, which scriptures are valid and which one aren’t?

It is a great mystery. I do not think that you will find an answer here, but only in prayer. Our best hint in Christian Scripture is Luke 16:27-31. I know far too little about the Qu’ran or the Hadiths to say if there are any hints there.

I suspect that the answer lies in a combination. We must consider that original sin made Earth a territory under the Devil’s influence and control, and God, out of respect for our free decision to follow the Devil, chooses to allow that influence to continue. Further sins, by various heretics and their followers, have further clouded the waters. We must consider that skepticism about God generally, and Christianity specifically, is often rooted in something other than sincere intellectual doubt. We must consider that giving a clear and unrelenting sign would perhaps in some way injure the sincerity of the love and service we are made to give to God, or otherwise reduce the praiseworthiness of our faith. We must consider that God’s mercy is great, and that He will not condemn any who sincerely seek the truth with all their heart and strength during their lives. We must consider that God’s decisions are often completely incomprehensible to us mere mortals, and there is some reason for His silence that we cannot begin to understand – the Book of Job is a profound meditation on this last point.

And, to be completely sincere in our own pursuit of the truth, we must consider that perhaps these are all just shoddy excuses for an obvious lack, and the atheists or the Deists are right after all – God either doesn’t exist or doesn’t care about us. Or we must consider that the syncretists are right – all religions are equally valid paths to God, so there’s no need for a clear sign of which religion is “right.” I happen to think both those possibilities are silly, but we must at least consider them if we are being intellectually honest with ourselves.

No matter what the answer, it is certainly one of the most difficult questions religious people in any faith must face.

Impressive points Wowbagger, thanks.

 

[Sam_777]

I used to wonder also about this question. I went the “Creator within His Creation” route also and of course we can reason there’s a God but a triune knowable God? I wondered about it for so long and so extensively in fact that I do believe God finally took pity on me and gave me the answer: it’s because God is so Holy and we are next to nothing in comparison-in fact, mathematically speaking, the entire universe is nothing in comparison to God–and besides us having zero power or strength, we have evil in us. This means that in comparison to the infinite Holiness of God we are infinitely unholy and God won’t ever lie or exaggerate so He would be honest about Himself in showing Himself. God won’t show Himself other than in disguise (in the Eucharist or private revelations) because we would despair in the knowledge of our own misery–our own minuteness and unfortunately, unholiness. Even the most Holy Saints could only see God as through a vail. The invisibility of God is an unfathomable mercy that even the angels contemplate in wonder and awe. In other words, God only hid Himself after the fall in order to not kill us which He had all justification to do. When the soul leaves the body it will see God’s holiness and it will find immense joy in realizing God’s mercy knowing that had Christ not satisfied God’s justice, we would had to have been permanently separated from one so Holy. The Holy Spirit in the body and blood of Christ doesn’t make us ‘better’ (like act better), it makes us literally better–it makes us literally like Christ. And Christ is equal to
His Father in holiness. Because the Eucharist infuses in us Spirit of Christ and His Spirit is
‘of’ God, now we can equal God in Holiness and enter fully into His presence. In short,
when Christ shows up at the second coming in the fullness of His Glory (which is the
fullness of His holiness), He won’t have to ‘say’ anything. Individuals will ‘know’ their own
evil just by comparing themselves to Him; thus the reason He stooped so low to warn us: Christ knew we could not withstand His Holiness without being enveloped in the Holy Spirit; so let us seek Him out in faith and not look for proofs otherwise our souls may lack sanctity and be insuffisient to enter into the joy that has no end.

Interesting…

 

[Sam_777]

God made manna fall from the sky for years. Did this end disputes? Lol! Did it make the Isrealites good?

But I think it made them believe that they are following the right path…

If you had an irrefutable sign that can be acknowledged by all scientists then that would mean everyone is forced to take up Catholicism whether they liked it or not. God would be creating robots to obey Him if that were the case. But no, humans have the free will to accept Him or reject Him, and thus the many different religions we see today.

But we have over 4 billion people on those false religions

 

[Sam_777]

The acquisition of knowledge does not infringe on free will. One could know that Catholicism was true and still not become a Catholic. But it would be an informed choice - a true decision to reject God. What we have now with the many religions is not an informed choice - it’s people following what they genuinely believe to be true and then being damned as rebels for not following a God they do not know exists.

:idea: I think this is the best comment on this topic so far…

 

[julianp24]

These statements are simply untrue, and keep being repeated because the repeaters don’t think through what they’re saying.

The acquisition of knowledge does not infringe on free will. One could know that Catholicism was true and still not become a Catholic. But it would be an informed choice - a true decision to reject God. What we have now with the many religions is not an informed choice - it’s people following what they genuinely believe to be true and then being damned as rebels for not following a God they do not know exists.

Why do you insist that a free choice must be a choice made in ignorance?

Hi ngill,

If you knew for sure (and I’m talking about 100% sure) that rejecting Catholicism would send you to hell, and hell would mean suffering for eternity, why would you still reject it?

You mentioned the use of an informed choice, so the informed choice must take into account the consequences of a certain decision. To seek pleasure and avoid pain is a decision made based on our innate desires of the flesh. But our mind can force us to take up pain instead if it is for a greater good, such as serving God. For every decision made there’s always an ultimate consequence to it.

So if someone knew for sure that the ultimate consequence of rejecting Catholicism is to suffer for eternity in hell, and that nothing beneficial can come out of it, why would that person, presumably of a sound mind, still reject it?

The way I see it, such an informed decision would always be a decision to embrace Catholicism. Nobody would reject God if that were the case.

Am I missing something here?

Peace

 

[ngill09]

Hi ngill,

If you knew for sure (and I’m talking about 100% sure) that rejecting Catholicism would send you to hell, and hell would mean suffering for eternity, why would you still reject it?

You mentioned the use of an informed choice, so the informed choice must take into account the consequences of a certain decision. To seek pleasure and avoid pain is a decision made based on our innate desires of the flesh. But our mind can force us to take up pain instead if it is for a greater good, such as serving God. For every decision made there’s always an ultimate consequence to it.

So if someone knew for sure that the ultimate consequence of rejecting Catholicism is to suffer for eternity in hell, and that nothing beneficial can come out of it, why would that person, presumably of a sound mind, still reject it?

The way I see it, such an informed decision would always be a decision to embrace Catholicism. Nobody would reject God if that were the case.

Am I missing something here?

Peace

The implication of this is that the only reason anyone fails to follow Catholicism is out of ignorance, not out of a volitional choice. Is it just to punish someone for a decision made in ignorance? Or even the lack of a decision, because someone did not even know that a decision was necessary?

If everyone would embrace Catholicism if they knew it was true, and God wants everyone to embrace Catholicism… what’s the problem here? Just because the informed choice is obvious, that doesn’t negate that a choice was made.

I’ll try to illustrate with an example:

Suppose a road splits into two paths. One path leads to certain doom, one leads to certain happiness. Now suppose, somehow, that a guard stood at the crossroads and could impart certain knowledge to any traveler about which path leads to doom and which to happiness. Would this make the traveler a robot, or infringe on his free will? No. Suppose the guard stood by and allowed travelers to unwittingly take the path to doom? What would that say about the guard?

Another example: Suppose you were looking to buy a sandwich. You have a choice from a range of sandwiches, all of which look identical. However, only one of them is safe to eat - the rest are poisoned. The sandwich vendor knows this, and could tell you which sandwich was safe to eat. But would doing so infringe upon your free will? I think not, even though no one would buy a poisoned sandwich.

According to your theology (I presume), billions of people will go to Hell for being Hindu. And yet, if what you say is true, the only reason the are Hindu is because they do not know that Catholicism is true.

 

[MarcoPolo]

God should do something really revelatory like come incarnate and rise from the dead or something so that souls would believe!

 

[ngill09]

God should do something really revelatory like come incarnate and rise from the dead or something so that souls would believe!

Or better yet, do that in a fairly primitive part of the globe, during an extremely superstitious time, and have the only actual evidence that it happened be copies of anonymous contradictory sources filled with fantastic tales and known interpolations!

 

[MarcoPolo]

Or better yet, do that in a fairly primitive part of the globe, during an extremely superstitious time, and have the only actual evidence that it happened be copies of anonymous contradictory sources filled with fantastic tales and known interpolations!

Maybe in some other universe or dimension, the scenario you describe might happen!

 

[Sam_777]

Suppose a road splits into two paths. One path leads to certain doom, one leads to certain happiness. Now suppose, somehow, that a guard stood at the crossroads and could impart certain knowledge to any traveler about which path leads to doom and which to happiness. Would this make the traveler a robot, or infringe on his free will? No. Suppose the guard stood by and allowed travelers to unwittingly take the path to doom? What would that say about the guard?

https://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon14.gif A good example ngill09.

 

[RCCB]

And, to be completely sincere in our own pursuit of the truth, we must consider that perhaps these are all just shoddy excuses for an obvious lack, and the atheists or the Deists are right after all – God either doesn’t exist or doesn’t care about us.

The problem might be that ‘our’ pursuit of ‘truth’ has been a purely theological affair. That is a wholly human intellectual construct, subject to the limitations innate to natural reason. Does theology only exist because nothing has been revealed? At some point in ancient history long past, did human intellectual vanity and spiritual pretensions lose or exchange the reality of perfect truth for its own theological counterfeit?

The question is could two thousand years of scholastic exegesis, tradition and the faith of 2 billion ‘Christians’ be wholly in error? . . . And no longer just a rhetorical question for mud slinging between atheist and religious, we are on the threshold of finding out! For anyone willing to crack open history, check this link: energon.org.uk

 

[Sam_777]

The question is could two thousand years of scholastic exegesis, tradition and the faith of 2 billion ‘Christians’ be wholly in error? . . .

That same question can be applied to the 1.6 billion Muslims and the 1.6 billion Hinduism/Buddhism.

 

[polytropos]

The way I see it, such an informed decision would always be a decision to embrace Catholicism. Nobody would reject God if that were the case.

Satan was fully informed of God and chose to reject God.

 

[Patat]

God put a sign in the sky for the Israelites, a column of cloud by day and column of fire by night. They did not trust Him, feared his presence and did not enter the promised land when they were supposed to.

 

[faithsmind]

Yup. 40 years of wandering in the desert. That’s after God gave them free food. From heaven. For years.

What’d they do?
They threw all their gold together, and melted it.

Into a golden calf.

Bingo.

Have you read Exodus, Sam?

@sigh@

 

[Sam_777]

God put a sign in the sky for the Israelites, a column of cloud by day and column of fire by night. They did not trust Him,

I personally will…