Would God reveal himself?

[Dameedna]

Sorry this is a bit long, so bare with me if you can. This is something I’ve been pondering for a while. I’ve heard a lot of “logical” arguments about why God did this or that in both the new and the old testament. It’s the assumptions and the alternatives that I’m interested in.

I’ll start with a few concepts.

1. God choosing a specific human tribe to present his truth
2. God enables prophecies.
3. God choosing a particular group of humans(a church) to spread the truth.
4. God creates miracles
5. God giving his holy spirit to the world, to help people to understand the truth.
6. God revealing himself

Here’s some thoughts.

1. God chose 1 group of humans.

By doing this, God would open up the world to the possibility that one human group could have the truth. Humans have no means of verifying the group who makes this claim. (see below, before responding to this).By allowing one group the privalege of being chosen, he allowed the concept of a chosen group to enter the world, and make the same claim, which is exactly what we see.

God, would not choose one group of humans.

1. God gives us a prophecy.

God, will enable prophecies so that a group of humans can prove they have the truth over other groups. This opens the world up to the possibility of prophecies, that once have occured, can never be verified by anything other than claims by other failable human beings. This means any individual can claim a prophecy, can claim it occured and humans have no way of knowing for sure if it did.

God would not create prophecies.

1. God chooses a church.

Same thing, If God chooses 1 church to represent him, he opens up the world to the possibility that one church has the truth. Humans, of course have no way of verifying which church is the 1 church leading to many churches existing and making this claim.

God would not choose one church.

1. God creates miracles

God creates miracles to prove the truth. This opens the world up to claims of miracles that cannot be verified. He also defies the laws of physics, the only thing he HAS given us for verification.

God will not break the laws of physics.

1. God gives the holy spirit to the world.

This opens up the world to the concept of a holy spirit telling them what is true. Of course this can never be verified so humans have no way of knowing the difference between the actual holy spirit and their own imagination and emotion.

God would not do this.

6 . God reveals himself to man.

This would open up humans to the possibility that God actually does this. This of course leads to many humans claiming revelations and providing us with no way of verifying that the revelation was real. We end up with many claims to revelations and no way of knowing which is true.

God would not reveal himself.

I’m wondering if there’s any philospher(christian or otherwise) that has addressed these types of questions.

These statments are not fact.(IE god would not do this).They are very much dependant on my own view of the world and how I see faith evolving amongst the different religions. It also very much depends on how I view “goodness”. If there is a God…what would God do and why? What assumptions have humans made about God…and are those assumptions wrong.

Cheers

 

[Dolphincrc]

1. God, would not choose one group of humans.
2. God would not create prophecies.
3. God would not choose one church.
4. God creates miracles to prove the truth. God will not break the laws of physics.
5. God would not do this.

6 . God would not reveal himself.

Wow! Such a long question would require a long answer, which I dont have time to do. But just some observations:

1. When God chose one nation- Israel- the main purpose was to be “a light to the nations”- “from Jerusalem shall go forth instruction…” - not to choose one to the exclusion of others.
2. God has chosen prophets to guide Israel and the nations, to turn from evil and to do what is right. A parent corrects a child because they love him, so God corrected the people thru prophets. There where false prophets who said what the people wanted to hear: “keep doing wrong, we’ll be OK”- history proved them wrong and the true prophet right.
3. Christ did not choose ONE church over another. He ESTABLISHED one Church to be a light to the nations, to give people knowledge of the true God, to be the new people of God in all the world. Divisions came later and were human origin, not God.
4. God doesn’t have to prove anything, and why cant He “break” the laws He created? God is not subject to laws, He is independent of creation and time.

5.God’s ways are infinitely higher than ours, can we really say “God would not do this”? He can and He did.

1. Ditto. God is love. Love is given and shared. We were created to know and to love God. “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son” Jn 3:16

 

[Dameedna]

Dolph,

I do appreciate your response I really do, you did put some time into it.

But you haven’t addressed anything I’ve said.

I’m not asking for more "this is what the church says’. I’m asking those that choose to respond, to provide me with some philosophical thoughts or understandings on these issues.

I know, what the majority of church goers believe.

 

[buffalo]

Dolph,

I do appreciate your response I really do, you did put some time into it.

But you haven’t addressed anything I’ve said.

I’m not asking for more "this is what the church says’. I’m asking those that choose to respond, to provide me with some philosophical thoughts or understandings on these issues.

I know, what the majority of church goers believe.

I think it may have been you who on another thread recommended some reading. If you read the references I gave I think it will answer some of your questions.

 

[fhansen]

I’ll make a general statement.

If, as Catholicism claims, it were natural for man to know and “walk” with God but man rejected that relationship, and if God values human free will as much as Catholicism claims, then it could be logical for God to insert light (e.g. the truth of His existence and of His love) into the world as an option for mankind among other options-a beacon, so to speak, which man can fix on and be guided by, or not, depending upon his choice. The history of the Jews and there quasi-close on again off/again relationship with God becomes a parable whereby we witness His desire to restore man to full relationship to Him as well as mans obstinacy in resisting this restoration, mimicking our own internal struggle to do same. Being chosen as the means of His revelation was not necessarily so great a privilege in many ways, going by the story itself.

Is there something more going on in this universe besides birth, education, work, marriage, pleasure, beauty, beer, football, suffering, death? Is there something which calls to us, vying for our attention, something we already know or identify with but can’t quite put a finger on? The existence of a creator God outside of nature is not an unreasonable one on many levels. The fact that that God can and may reveal Himself to a part of His creation (mankind) who’re endowed with qualities which make them something like Him; self-awareness, creativity, ability to love, freedom to act would also not be unreasonable. Catholicism and others simply claim He did-and does-reveal Himself to those willing to believe. It’s a turning from the world of humankind that rejected relationship with Him and a turning back to Him, the source and reason for our existence. In Catholicism, this conversion is actually a process.

Religion can be nothing much more than a false piety for the individual-or not.

 

[MindOverMatter]

By doing this, God would open up the world to the possibility that one human group could have the truth. Humans have no means of verifying the group who makes this claim. (see below, before responding to this).By allowing one group the privilege of being chosen, he allowed the concept of a chosen group to enter the world, and make the same claim, which is exactly what we see.

God would not choose one group of humans.

Well, relative to the neccessity of faith, Christianity, as successor to Isreal, hasn’t exactly done too badly.

But lets assume first that the universe exists for the most part to perfect humanity. God wishes to perfect human beings in love. God is also all knowing and wise in respect of bringing human beings back to him. And so, it follows from that premise that God will choose events, persons, or groups, so long as it will lead to the greatest good that is logically possible, without undoing freewill. (Please don’t ask me how God knows all this; for the sake of argument lets just assume he knows what’s best). Therefore we can not rule out the possibility that there is wisdom and potentiality for great virtue in any choice that God makes, even if we don’t get it. The fact of the matter is we don’t know that we would be better off if God had revealed himself to a larger segment of humanity; we are not all wise and all knowing. Take for instance the problem of evil. It is difficult to understand why God would permit evil. And some people often complain that it is unreasonable to believe in God for that reason. However, we must admit that many more people have come to believe in God and respect morality because of the influences and experiences of pain and evil then they might have done if such evils had not occurred. Depending on your state of mind, simply being told the truth isn’t always the surest path to the truth; since, sometimes a greater virtue comes from “experiencing” things for yourself. The influence of Evil has had a hand in making saints of sinners. It is evident that there is a potentiality for humans to become spoiled; yet suffering has tamed us to such an extent as to reveal to us the depravity of wickedness and selfishness. Thus the natural world around us is also our teacher. Its seems there are other areas of our lives that need to be developed. We have gained much of our most essential wisdom and ethics through the experience of other peoples suffering and misfortune as well as our own. I don’t mean to turn this into a thread about the problem of evil, and I’m not trying to justify evil, but sometimes pain can be the greatest teacher. I think there is a similarity in truth with the original point.

To sum up. We don’t know what God knows, so we must be careful not to be too arrogant of a judge if we are willing to take Christian theology and Scripture seriously.

Please get back to me on this one.

 

[Dameedna]

I think it may have been you who on another thread recommended some reading. If you read the references I gave I think it will answer some of your questions.

Any ideas on which thread it was? I’ve been on a few lately, and recieved a good bit of reading matieral.

Thanks

 

[Dameedna]

The existence of a creator God outside of nature is not an unreasonable one on many levels.

I do not think it unreasonable.

The fact that that God can and may reveal Himself to a part of His creation (mankind) who’re endowed with qualities which make them something like Him; self-awareness, creativity, ability to love, freedom to act would also not be unreasonable.

Actually this is more to the point of what I’m trying to query.

I am not sure at all that it would be reasonable for God to reveal anything, knowing that anyone could claim the same thing, meaning any revelation that is “supposed” to be for all man, would get caught up in the miriad of other so called revelations.

Would it be reasonable at all for God to do this?

I am just curious if these issues have been addressed in any area of philosophy. Doesn’t have to be christian, since the issue relate to pretty much every religion except perhaps budhhaism.

 

[Dameedna]

But lets assume first that the universe exists for the most part to perfect humanity. God wishes to perfect human beings in love. God is also all knowing and wise in respect of bringing human beings back to him.

I’m okay with this idea.

And so, it follows from that premise that God will choose events, persons, or groups, so long as it will lead to the greatest good that is logically possible, without undoing freewill.

I appreciate your response thank you. I am not talking specifically about christian literature. I’m talking about the concepts that most religions endorse and ones that I’m sure christian(and other) philosophers have attempted to deal with.

Just as people say "accept this even if we cannot understand it " the idea that humans can be “arrogant” is used in the same way. Accept what I say, because we cannot understand God and when you question what we claim to be the truth of God * you * are being arrogant.

This is a trap and it is very very manipulative to me. It is telling a person who questions and find the results rather wanting that they are arrogant and proud. They may BE arrogant and proud. They may also be refusing to accept something that is in fact evil, and despite the threats of eternal damnation they have the strength to battle that evil no matter what it costs them.

What if the person who is giving you this response(god is unknowable and to question is to be arrogant) is asking you to accept Jihaad? This can be an excuse used to cower human beings into submission. Don’t think you can really understand God. Accept what we tell you and don’t be too arrogant about questioning us.

Is doubting religious claims arrogant when so many people make the same kinds of claims but disagree?

Would God actually do these things I’ve mentioned above(presuming he is loving) knowing the dilema he leaves at humanities doorstop? It is particularly problematic, if human existance(or an eternal result) is to be dependant on it.

Although I’m happy to listen to people’s thoughts, I am also interested in learning about which philosophers have discussed this in the past.

 

[MindOverMatter]

But it doesn’t really address the issue that any group, could claim anything and by God revealing one thing, he opens up the world to the possibility of anyone claiming a God revelation. No way to verify it…

You assume that there is no way to verify it. If you mean verification in then sense of science, then there is no way to verify it. But one can look at the historical roots of any particulor religion, and ask them selves if it makes sense of the world around them and who they are as persons.

So although God could reveal something to man the very act of doing so creates a dilema for man. If the revelation is revealed to all of man for a purpose, and is one that is “expected” to be followed we end up with a mess on our hands as this “expectation” leads people to follow the wrong thing…

God created a church of preists, because that is the way he chose to combat the problem of evil in humanity. That might not be true of course, it might be all rubbish. There might be no God. But if you feel compeled to think that there is a purpose, a plan, a destiny and a value to your existence. Then it follows neccesarily from that belief (a kind of “mere religion”) that there is a true religion and that God has chosen that faith over certainity will guide humanity back to him. Its either that or its naturalism. So we are left trying to find the true faith to the best of are reasonaing capability, for reasons only God knows. A true faith doesn’t have to be totally understandable, but it must be more reasonable and in tune with our needs then all other religions…

Plus we must take in to consideration that perhaps God is calling us and guiding us to truth spirtually, but because we are sinners, we make it difficult for us to hear. This could be a munipulitive lie. But then again it could true.

Hence, to me…it seems unreasonable that God would reveal anything that is for all of mankind…

It seems reasonable to me that if there is a God, then that God established a truth, and hasn’t seen it fit to establish that truth through science or certainty, but through the faith and philosophy of preists. You are not God, so how do you know what God would do?
So what it boils down to is your world veiw. Are you willing to accept the possibility that God has a plan for you? If so, then you procede to wade through the belief systems of the world to find the one that most fits reason and history.

I don’t have an issue with humans not understanding the whole picture. I am agnostic and are fairly comfortable with the unknown, even if I do desire knowlege and understanding of this life I have.

However, there is the possibility that a human would claim something about God that is quite dreadful and ask(or demand) that humanity accept it, because they cannot ever know or understand God. This is the dilema I speak of. .

If there is a truth, and you value thruth, then it is everybodies duty to find it.

What if the person who is giving you this response(god is unknowable and to question is to be arrogant) is asking you to accept Jihaad? This can be an excuse used to cower human beings into submission. Don’t think you can really understand God. Accept what we tell you and don’t be too arrogant about questioning us…

I never said that ignorance of true religion cannot be abused. Love can be abused. Good can be abused. But this does not verify that therefore those concepts are false. Jesus warned against blind following of religion. I absolulutly agree you must judge with reason; but you must also understand your place and your capacity. I have been in the past sure that there was something contradictory about God, but because i honestly wanted to learn and had faith that there might be an answer, i eventually was able to understand that which wasn’t clear to me before.
The fact that we cannot grasp everything, is not an excuse to blind people or stop them reasoning, its a reminder about who we are and what our capacity for knowledge is. You only have a respect for truth because you see so many decieved. Those who have knowledge must teach. The act of human beings teaching eachother the thruth is a virtue.

Is doubting religious claims arrogant when so many people make the same kinds of claims but disagree?.

I think assuming there all wrong just because there all in disagreement is arrogant.

 

[Dameedna]

You assume that there is no way to verify it. If you mean verification in then sense of science, then there is no way to verify it. But one can look at the historical roots of any particulor religion, and ask them selves if it makes sense of the world around them and who they are as persons.

It seems that you are saying that a human who feels the world is sensible through a religious belief, is therefore correct. I am learning about quantum mechanics at the moment. It is completely counter-intuitive. It is also the reason we have most of the technology we have because it works in reality.

What makes “sense” is very personal and individual. It cannot be used as a claim to truth it can only be utilized.

God created a church of preists, because that is the way he chose to combat the problem of evil in humanity.

God created a culture of Islam because that is how he combated the problem of evil in humanity. Does this explanation work for you in it’s entirety, when it comes to the creation of Islam?

Why do you accept a priest over Islam, if this is the reason given for both?

That might not be true of course, it might be all rubbish. There might be no God. But if you feel compeled to think that there is a purpose, a plan, a destiny and a value to your existence. Then it follows neccesarily from that belief (a kind of “mere religion”) that there is a true religion and that God has chosen that faith over certainity will guide humanity back to him.

Why do you think a true religion follows necessarily from a belief. Belief follows belief. And with the recognition that the universe exists and that there may be meaning in it I do not “necessarily” feel there is a true religion at all, when I am compelled to accept truth.

In fact, it would reasonably follow that no religion would be true. Given the absolute failability of humanity, it would lead me to completely reject the “truth” that any human gives me about God.

That is what follows necessarily for me.

t does not follow from that, that there is a true religion and that God has chosen faith over certainty that will guide humanity back to him.

Why is there an assumption that we “left” him in the first place. Why would it be reasonable to believe that?

You are trying to answer my question in accordance with your beliefs.I’m asking you to answer the questions regardless of your belief system. Like most philosophers attempt to do.

It seems reasonable to me that if there is a God, then that God established a truth, and hasn’t seen it fit to establish that truth through science or certainty, but through the faith and philosophy of preists. You are not God, so how do you know what God would do?

Are you saying that it is reasonable to you, that God would show truth through methods that depend on trusting failable humans, rather than a method that relies on verification regardless of the failability of man?

How is that reasonable to you?

If you have been taught a faith system, that teaches the failabilty of man, then how can “man” who is failable ever reasonably give you truth? How is it reasonable to believe we must trust the “right” human, or else suffer the consequences when we know those “right” humans are failable in the first place?

It would seem “reasonable” to me, that god would never expect us to trust another failable human at all.

Okay, I do appreciate the attempt but I’m sure these questions have been asked before?

Can anyone point me toward literature on this? I find it to be a rather interesting topic.

Cheers

 

[davidv]

It seems that you are saying that a human who feels the world is sensible through a religious belief, is therefore correct. I am learning about quantum mechanics at the moment. It is completely counter-intuitive. It is also the reason we have most of the technology we have because it works in reality.

What makes “sense” is very personal and individual. It cannot be used as a claim to truth it can only be utilized.

God created a culture of Islam because that is how he combated the problem of evil in humanity. Does this explanation work for you in it’s entirety, when it comes to the creation of Islam?

Why do you accept a priest over Islam, if this is the reason given for both?

Why do you think a true religion follows necessarily from a belief. Belief follows belief. And with the recognition that the universe exists and that there may be meaning in it I do not “necessarily” feel there is a true religion at all, when I am compelled to accept truth.

In fact, it would reasonably follow that no religion would be true. Given the absolute failability of humanity, it would lead me to completely reject the “truth” that any human gives me about God.

That is what follows necessarily for me.

Why is there an assumption that we “left” him in the first place. Why would it be reasonable to believe that?

You are trying to answer my question in accordance with your beliefs.I’m asking you to answer the questions regardless of your belief system. Like most philosophers attempt to do.

Are you saying that it is reasonable to you, that God would show truth through methods that depend on trusting failable humans, rather than a method that relies on verification regardless of the failability of man?

How is that reasonable to you?

If you have been taught a faith system, that teaches the failabilty of man, then how can “man” who is failable ever reasonably give you truth? How is it reasonable to believe we must trust the “right” human, or else suffer the consequences when we know those “right” humans are failable in the first place?

It would seem “reasonable” to me, that god would never expect us to trust another failable human at all.

Okay, I do appreciate the attempt but I’m sure these questions have been asked before?

Can anyone point me toward literature on this? I find it to be a rather interesting topic.

Cheers

You might consider Pope Benedict’s Introduction to Christianity. In it he spends a significant amount of time on defining what “I believe” means in the christian perspective. He also esplains his views on the “God of faith” and the “god of philosophy”. He goes on then to propose that our current view of God is the paradoxical uniting of these two.

 

[Dameedna]

You might consider Pope Benedict’s Introduction to Christianity. In it he spends a significant amount of time on defining what “I believe” means in the christian perspective. He also esplains his views on the “God of faith” and the “god of philosophy”. He goes on then to propose that our current view of God is the paradoxical uniting of these two.

Thanks

 

[jkiernan56]

Would God reveal Himself?

ABSOLUTELY YESSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!

Just as a healthy Parent is moved to Love their children, to want to KNOW their children, and want their children to know and love them … God wants us to KNOW and LOVE Him … and KNOW His LOVE for each of us … God is Love … Love wants to be known and to know … Love wants to be in relationship … Love seeks out … Love seeks not its own … Love desires to give freely … God is our Heavenly Father … who gives life and breath to all … and the source of all Holiness … and Grace

 

[severntofall]

1. Ditto. God is love. Love is given and shared. We were created to know and to love God. “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son” Jn 3:16

The fact that god found it necessary to kill his son in the first place is all I need to know about god’s love.

 

[MindOverMatter]

The fact that god found it necessary to kill his son in the first place is all I need to know about god’s love.

God killed his son? What are you talking about? The sins of humanity killed Jesus. We should be ashamed of ourselves.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

What makes “sense” is very personal and individual. It cannot be used as a claim to truth it can only be utilized.

You are very perceptive This basic concept is underscored in much of John Henry Newman’s writings.

His thinking went something like this; There is as much against the idea of a God in the universe as there is for the idea of God. In other words we can’t be sure either way. A sound rational person might consider this an interesting paradox if there WERE a God. IOW, why should something so important be so indeterminate or ambiguous? The ONLY possible solution would be that God has somehow given us revelations, that explain this paradox.

The thinking person at this point would then turn to the great religions of the world, and see how well God’s revelations (as manifest in their doctrines) explain this problem.

Does any religion in the world explain a hidden God, in a world of evil with more rationality, sublimity, and even evidences of the Divine better than the Judaeo-Christian one?

To my way of thinking, it would be difficult to find an older, more consistent, more sublime explanation than the Judaeo-Christian one.

Now that, as you have mentioned, is a personal decision, and must be weighed in a spirit of humble submission to the truth, without regard to personal prejudice, if possible.