If you could see God...Would you?

[GOD'S BITCH]

This question was actually a topic of one of Alanis Morisette's songs. If you had the option to see God, would you want to? Keep in mind that seeing God would mean that you would obviously have to believe in this superior being. For those of you who are Athiests or pro evolution,this should give you something to think about.

[skunkworks]

Stare into the sky at night.

[Razgriez]

Well if I had the option to see him I would.

HOWEVER! That is not an option and Im forced to believe in this mindless bullshit christian extremists keep on changing just so its up to date with the times and how science has fricken fucked religion up the ass.

[skunkworks]

:huh

http://browndailysqueal.com/archives/rabbi.jpg

[Razgriez]

TGVBLIE5TN;/SGH,DFSG

THATS WRONG

[haunted]

I dont get it, can someone explain the bird

[rimpelcut]

polly want a cracked penis

[Razgriez]

The bird is on an erected penis. That is something I can do without.

[sadated_peon]

its about time he showed himself.

But the fact is that all christians who say they would, are going against the major concept of their faith..... their faith.

[Razgriez]

Oh my god... SAMF has put that image on his sig. You know thats considered as porn and porn we dont want to look at none the less.

[rimpelcut]

I would love to see him, talk alittle bit maybe smight him.

[Rockreaper]

Okay, Snack attack, im sorry man, but that is just fuckin wrong. Not what you said, that was somewhat funny, but the sig, gughhhhhhh.....

Oh, and on the subject of the thread. If I could see God I would. Mostly to get his opinion on the world today, mostly, and this is just to stop my own annoyances, to shut up those who say they know exactly what God wants and what he is. And I mean those who rebuke others simply becuase they twist and distort what's in the bible to fit their own images.

[rimpelcut]

you like the turtle more ehj? me too

[GOD'S BITCH]

its about time he showed himself.

But the fact is that all christians who say they would, are going against the major concept of their faith..... their faith.
And what determines faith? Faith is devotion on something you believe in. Facts and biblical revelations give Christians support for their belief. If a bible that has been altered soo many times to fit the needs of the Pope is able to give people faith, wouldn't the actual revelation of God make it simply impossible to overlook?

[CrazyMoronX]

I see a ban in someone's future.

I would certainly choose to see God, since I already believe he exists, the worst that could happen is that I died.

[Son Goku]

you know i hear ppl calling god a him ever thought it could be a she

[sadated_peon]

And what determines faith? Faith is devotion on something you believe in. Facts and biblical revelations give Christians support for their belief. If a bible that has been altered soo many times to fit the needs of the Pope is able to give people faith, wouldn't the actual revelation of God make it simply impossible to overlook?

No, faith is belief without evidence or proof. Seeing god is evidence/proof of god and therefore you no longer have faith.

[GOD'S BITCH]

Okay, Snack attack, im sorry man, but that is just fuckin wrong. Not what you said, that was somewhat funny, but the sig, gughhhhhhh.....

Oh, and on the subject of the thread. If I could see God I would. Mostly to get his opinion on the world today, mostly, and this is just to stop my own annoyances, to shut up those who say they know exactly what God wants and what he is. And I mean those who rebuke others simply becuase they twist and distort what's in the bible to fit their own images.
I'd probably do the same if I had the luxury of seeing God. So God, whens World War 2?etc...

[GOD'S BITCH]

No, faith is belief without evidence or proof. Seeing god is evidence/proof of god and therefore you no longer have faith.
Then whats the purpose of the bible? Its to provide Christians evidence of the existence of God.

[legan]

Just cos I see something doesn't mean I have to admit it's real.

[sadated_peon]

Then whats the purpose of the bible? Its to provide Christians evidence of the existence of God.

the bible is not evidence of god, it is evidence that men like to write stories to explain the world.

To believe the bible is true takes faith, because there is no evidence that the bible is true. (in fact there is much evidence against it.)

[rimpelcut]

No, faith is belief without evidence or proof. Seeing god is evidence/proof of god and therefore you no longer have faith.

I believe that people only get faith when there is infact logic in believing in god.
how narrowed that logic may be.

[GOD'S BITCH]

Just cos I see something doesn't mean I have to admit it's real.
So if God, creator of Earth, life, etc, came in front of you....you still wouldn't believe in God's existance? I guess your not familair with the notion "Seeing is believing." What would it take for you to recognize God's existance?

[sadated_peon]

I believe that people only get faith when there is infact logic in believing in god.
how narrowed that logic may be.

Then you have a very loose definition logic.

[rimpelcut]

yeah god could be a poser or maybe he acts asif he is god and then gains your truts to recruit you in his army against the real god

Then you have a very loose definition logic.

what is definition logic?

[GOD'S BITCH]

the bible is not evidence of god, it is evidence that men like to write stories to explain the world.

To believe the bible is ture takes faith, because there is no evidence that the bible is true. (in fact there is much evidence against it.)
Although thats true, Christians continue to believe and read the bible. Recognizing a book written by man as the word of God gives Christians faith. Seeing God would destroy any doubt that God truely exists.

[GOD'S BITCH]

I believe that people only get faith when there is infact logic in believing in god.
how narrowed that logic may be.
And where do people get that logic?

[rimpelcut]

They get it from the air and the mountain rivers. For example: no one knows if god exists, since I have luck sometimes there must be a devine beeing and there are religions so there must be a GOD! or like, the universe didn't come from just anything so there must have been a god that always existed like the bible says! or: I feel bad, let's read the bible, ow damn I feel so much better when I think about god. This must mean that when the bible said that if you believe in god he will help that it was correct! thats logic. Ofcourse you could say that it isn't logic just because YOU find it unlogical but people tend to stick to certain assumptions if it fits them, like saying I don't need to smoke I just like it because they remember themselfs starting to smoke out of choice( but never trying to stop).

[Rockreaper]

Snack attack, I do have one question?

Where does logic come in?

I'm just curious on it, becuase my view of faith is that you believe in something, even when it defies logic in every way shape and form. I mean, there is some logic in getting faith, i can understand that, but faith itself defies logic. Or can anyway.

[GOD'S BITCH]

They get it from the air and the mountain rivers.
In that case, athiests should go to the mountain rivers more often.

[GOD'S BITCH]

Snack attack, I do have one question?

Where does logic come in?

I'm just curious on it, becuase my view of faith is that you believe in something, even when it defies logic in every way shape and form. I mean, there is some logic in getting faith, i can understand that, but faith itself defies logic. Or can anyway.
How does faith defy logic? Faith in religion gives us an answer to the things around us...answers why we exist.

[Rockreaper]

Snack attack, I do have one question?

Where does logic come in?

I'm just curious on it, becuase my view of faith is that you believe in something, even when it defies logic in every way shape and form. I mean, there is some logic in getting faith, i can understand that, but faith itself defies logic. Or can anyway.

Oh, and Sasuke_Uzumaki

I don't think God is either man or woman, simply an entity, be "he" physical or not. i believe the thought of refering to God as a "he" comes from the time frame that people began to believe in him. It was basically, i guess, "a male worshipped" society. So, this was probably the thinking proces back then. "Since men are the greatest species, then the creator of the universe and heaven has to be a man."
I think that might be the idea anyway.

[Rockreaper]

How does faith defy logic? Faith in religion gives us an answer to the things around us...answers why we exist.

By logic, i believe faith defies it.
Here's what I mean.

By "logic", and I use the term in the way we mostly see it. There cannot be an all powerful being with limitless potential and power who created the universe, and the heavens. There also can't be an afterlife because we have no soul, becuase if we can't view it in the physical realm then it must not exist.

This is just an example, though, and correct me if i'm wrong.

[Insipidipity]

So if God, creator of Earth, life, etc, came in front of you....you still wouldn't believe in God's existance? I guess your not familair with the notion "Seeing is believing." What would it take for you to recognize God's existance?
And you would know its him/her/etc. how exactly? So if someone came up to you and said "I'm God" You'd automatically believe him?

Seeing isn't really believing. You've seen the Matrix I assume correct? Thats more believable that we're in a fictious world that we can't tell the difference from than the belief in God. And yet, even if it were fictitious, would it make a difference if it was so much like the real world that it was impossible to tell the difference?

[rimpelcut]

it would be better for you to explain what faith is to me. I'll start, non faith is to not agree, so faith is at least to let the probability exist.

[itachi793]

depends on what i feel like doing when the time comes

[rimpelcut]

By logic, i believe faith defies it.
Here's what I mean.

By "logic", and I use the term in the way we mostly see it. There cannot be an all powerful being with limitless potential and power who created the universe, and the heavens. There also can't be an afterlife because we have no soul, becuase if we can't view it in the physical realm then it must not exist.

This is just an example, though, and correct me if i'm wrong.

but there is no proof that it doesn't exist, therefore by logic it may exist. Also there is no proof of that there is no soul.

[GOD'S BITCH]

Snack attack, I do have one question?

Where does logic come in?

I'm just curious on it, becuase my view of faith is that you believe in something, even when it defies logic in every way shape and form. I mean, there is some logic in getting faith, i can understand that, but faith itself defies logic. Or can anyway.

Oh, and Sasuke_Uzumaki

I don't think God is either man or woman, simply an entity, be "he" physical or not. i believe the thought of refering to God as a "he" comes from the time frame that people began to believe in him. It was basically, i guess, "a male worshipped" society. So, this was probably the thinking proces back then. "Since men are the greatest species, then the creator of the universe and heaven has to be a man."
I think that might be the idea anyway.
The use of the word "He" to refer to God is a common misconception. Since men were superior in status than women during the time religion was created, the thought of a superior being made more sence. Even priests refer to God as him. Its become so common that people dont even notice the mistake of refering to God as "he."

[rimpelcut]

In that case, athiests should go to the mountain rivers more often.

it was sort of meant in two ways. I made the explanation longer now.

[GOD'S BITCH]

By logic, i believe faith defies it.
Here's what I mean.

By "logic", and I use the term in the way we mostly see it. There cannot be an all powerful being with limitless potential and power who created the universe, and the heavens. There also can't be an afterlife because we have no soul, becuase if we can't view it in the physical realm then it must not exist.

This is just an example, though, and correct me if i'm wrong.
No, your correct, I see what you mean. your right.

[GOD'S BITCH]

And you would know its him/her/etc. how exactly? So if someone came up to you and said "I'm God" You'd automatically believe him?

Seeing isn't really believing. You've seen the Matrix I assume correct? Thats more believable that we're in a fictious world that we can't tell the difference from than the belief in God. And yet, even if it were fictitious, would it make a difference if it was so much like the real world that it was impossible to tell the difference?
Finally! Someone finally noticed the major problem the question poses. How could we tell if its really God? especially considering the fact that the bible, torah, and Quran, etc give no description of God. Even if we were to see God, there is still a doubt about whether Its real or not. Faith once again would have to prevail in order to hold the belief in a superior being.

[GOD'S BITCH]

but there is no proof that it doesn't exist, therefore by logic it may exist. Also there is no proof of that there is no soul.
Also, the role of evolution plays into the question of the existence of God. The only difference is that you could define it as logic since there is some evidence.

[Rockreaper]

but there is no proof that it doesn't exist, therefore by logic it may exist. Also there is no proof of that there is no soul.

Exactly. That is the reason I truly believe in God without fear of being persecuted by those who disagree with my views. If there is no proof of something, but also no proof it doesn't exist, then that means it may nor may not exist, but I choose to believe "He" does.

[GOD'S BITCH]

Exactly. That is the reason I truly believe in God without fear of being persecuted by those who disagree with my views. If there is no proof of something, but also no proof it doesn't exist, then that means it may nor may not exist, but I choose to believe "He" does.
Thats the perfect definition of faith.

[rimpelcut]

but my point was that you are basing your faith on logic between certain things. Thats why faith doesn't prevail, it can simply change if you care to rethink things. he! I said it tooooooo

[GOD'S BITCH]

but my point was that you are basing your faith on logic between certain things. Thats why faith doesn't prevail, it can simply change if you care to rethink things. he! I said it tooooooo
Thats true, but logic changes too. New facts, new ways of thinking~Change in logic.

[rimpelcut]

change in faith...

[Insipidipity]

Exactly. That is the reason I truly believe in God without fear of being persecuted by those who disagree with my views. If there is no proof of something, but also no proof it doesn't exist, then that means it may nor may not exist, but I choose to believe "He" does.
By that logic, do you also believe in Pastafarianism?

Theres a term, its called Occam's razor. You might've heard of it. Essentially, the things that affect nothing are best left ignored. If he does or does not, but we can't prove either way, then theres no reason for believing more than necessary.
Lets say your lights went out. You could believe some magical invisible undetectable fairies were sucking the power out. Or you could believe that the power went out(temporarily). While the first case cannot be proven nor disproven, the fact that whether or not it is true would not make a difference since if it did make a difference, it could be proven. Do this a couple more times adding more beliefs than necessary and you can see how this opens the door for an infinite number of unnecessary beliefs.

I'd be relatively fine(I mean I don't mind the other infinite things that exemplify human stupidity) if people believed in such unneccessary things without bothering other people about it. But replace "God" with "the Loch Ness Monster" if you mention it outloud and you can see how silly it is. One can't disprove the Loch Ness monster if we said that it can become completely undetectable when it wants preventing any proof of its existence. But it's pretty silly to tell other people about such things unless you know they believe the same thing.

Once something becomes relevant, only then does it matter to begin considering its existence. This is what the point of my thread "What is the color of Saturday". You can't disprove its blue nor can you prove it, but does it matter? Is it even really a question worth considering if it makes absolutely no difference in our lives?

Part 2
Logic doesn't change, knowledge applicable by logic does. Logic is and always will be the same. Logic only "changes" if you're incapable of knowing it in the first place.

Part 3
Once again, theres no point in asking whether or not you'd see God because what difference does it make if you "believe" the person you talk to is God if it was or if it were say...Jim Carrey? As long as you have "faith" that its God, even if its Jim Carrey, that makes it alright to believe anything He says?

[Rockreaper]

Ah, but you missed a key word. Choice. I choose to believe in God because I believe he exists, but with the Lochness monster, for example, I take an apathetic stand on it because i'm a bit of a skeptic with it, but I'm not going to say that it doesn't exist either. And your right, when you use that type of logic then there are certain times when "stupid" beliefs can come in. However, in what I believe, I also come in with the ideas of impossibility and improbablity. If my power went out then it isn't impossible that faeries are sucking it out, but it is highly improbable, so I will go with the most probable outcome. With God, though, I believe he exists becuase it is a highly probable thought. Why do we have near death experiences if we don't have an afterlife of some sort, and if we do have one, then how was it created. The universe as well. The big bang, i think did happen in a way, but how? Did a bunch of stars just come together and explode? I don't believe so, i believe there had to be some sort of catalyst to do so.


And that logic can, while being hostile dependant upon the view, can also be undeniable at times.

[rimpelcut]

yeah but there is no need for this. Unless you are just curious in whitch it would be better to expand your view then simply lingering to god or a story. There must be something else that you fancy.
ow and instupidity, if you were revering....I meant logic relative to knowledge.

[rimpelcut]

:huh

http://browndailysqueal.com/archives/rabbi.jpg

I liked the penis parrot more

[GOD'S BITCH]

yeah but there is no need for this. Unless you are just curious in whitch it would be better to expand your view then simply lingering to god or a story. There must be something else that you fancy.
ow and instupidity, if you were revering....I meant logic relative to knowledge.
HOw would you be able to expand a view on God when all the sources you have are the bible full of stories thats changed soo many time? Maybe its best to just accept and linger on the present view of God. Look what curiosity got Adam and Eve...only pain and a screwed up humanity with of sins.

[GOD'S BITCH]

I liked the penis parrot more
I think the picture you have now is alot better although the penis parrot was creative.

[rimpelcut]

HOw would you be able to expand a view on God when all the sources you have are the bible full of stories thats changed soo many time? Maybe its best to just accept and linger on the present view of God. Look what curiosity got Adam and Eve...only pain and a screwed up humanity with of sins.

sources? look around you, philosophize. My view makes me believe that the probability for god's existence is really small.
I hope that reverence to adam and eve was a joke

[GOD'S BITCH]

sources? look around you, philosophize. My view makes me believe that the probability for god's existence is really small.
I hope that reverence to adam and eve was a joke
Look around you? Im guessing you mean that the sources are deductions we make about the things we see and do in society. My reference to Adam and Eve was sarcasm~As much as I believe in God or at least the exisitence of some kind of superior being, I think the tale of Adam and Eve was just fable of how sins lead to the destruction of humanity.

[sadated_peon]

what is definition logic?
as it pertains to this discussion, a system of reasoning that comes to a single conclusion based on the information.

As in
Jewish person logic = faith in Judaism
Christian person logic = faith in Christianity.

As the same logic system of logic came to two different conclusions, then the logic is wrong.
Although thats true, Christians continue to believe and read the bible. Recognizing a book written by man as the word of God gives Christians faith. Seeing God would destroy any doubt that God truely exists.
It would destroy doubt, which means that it destroys faith.

How does faith defy logic? Faith in religion gives us an answer to the things around us...answers why we exist.
look above.

Faith used by one person come to a different conclusion than faith used by another, therefore faith is not logical, nor is it based on logic.

[GOD'S BITCH]

as it pertains to this discussion, a system of reasoning that comes to a single conclusion based on the information.

As in
Jewish person logic = faith in Judaism
Christian person logic = faith in Christianity.

As the same logic system of logic came to two different conclusions, then the logic is wrong.

It would destroy doubt, which means that it destroys faith.


look above.

Faith used by one person come to a different conclusion than faith used by another, therefore faith is not logical, nor is it based on logic.
Wouldn't the destruction of doubt promote faith. You'd have more confidence in your ideas and beliefs.

[Insipidipity]

Ah, but you missed a key word. Choice. I choose to believe in God because I believe he exists, but with the Lochness monster, for example, I take an apathetic stand on it because i'm a bit of a skeptic with it, but I'm not going to say that it doesn't exist either. And your right, when you use that type of logic then there are certain times when "stupid" beliefs can come in. However, in what I believe, I also come in with the ideas of impossibility and improbablity. If my power went out then it isn't impossible that faeries are sucking it out, but it is highly improbable, so I will go with the most probable outcome. With God, though, I believe he exists becuase it is a highly probable thought. Why do we have near death experiences if we don't have an afterlife of some sort, and if we do have one, then how was it created. The universe as well. The big bang, i think did happen in a way, but how? Did a bunch of stars just come together and explode? I don't believe so, i believe there had to be some sort of catalyst to do so.


And that logic can, while being hostile dependant upon the view, can also be undeniable at times.
Well...at least I'm glad you're intelligent enough to know the flaws of that type of thinking, but it's pretty peculiar that you still choose to believe it. I saw you say choice, but choice doesn't make sense without reason unless you arbitrarily decided to go with the first one you saw.

What exactly do "near death experiences" have to do with an afterlife?

So why is it you can believe that an entity just came into being and has always been here but you can't believe the same thing about the universe?
Its a process of simplification
God created the Universe
+ God just exists
simplifies to "the universe just exists"

Simply put, the fact that you believe something can just exist means there shouldn't be any reason you can't believe that the Universe can just exist.

[Kagi]

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth!
First, let's see if God is possible! No. If he did I'm pretty sure someone within the last hundred year or so would've noticed. The stuff he is said to do, defies the immutable laws of science, which makes him impossible in my books.

And to answer the question that if I could see god, would I? Depends...
If he looks like this (http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y93/Shika246/omfgcopy.jpg)? Then no thanks. But from what I've learnt from animes, that's what happens when you ignore the law of the conservation of mass.

[Keiryu]

No i wouldn't

[Rockreaper]

Well...at least I'm glad you're intelligent enough to know the flaws of that type of thinking, but it's pretty peculiar that you still choose to believe it. I saw you say choice, but choice doesn't make sense without reason unless you arbitrarily decided to go with the first one you saw.

What exactly do "near death experiences" have to do with an afterlife?

So why is it you can believe that an entity just came into being and has always been here but you can't believe the same thing about the universe?
Its a process of simplification
God created the Universe
+ God just exists
simplifies to "the universe just exists"

Simply put, the fact that you believe something can just exist means there shouldn't be any reason you can't believe that the Universe can just exist.

Its the thing where a person has a near death experience they say that they end up seeing heaven or something like it.

And I do believe the Unvirse did exist, but the matter, what we consider matter such as the planets, moons, and maybe a few stars were what i was talking about when meant the "Big Bang."

I think the Big Bang didn't start the Universe, that was already there, it just put matter into it. or something like that.

[sadated_peon]

Wouldn't the destruction of doubt promote faith. You'd have more confidence in your ideas and beliefs.
Faith is having no doubt that god exists because you believe it, not because it has been proven to you. As faith is believe without proof or evidence.

If god shows himself it does remove doubt but because it is proof it also removes faith.

[Paracetamol Boy]

I wouldn't want to and I don't need to.

[Hangatýr]

I only have to look into the mirror to see him. :oh

[Sorian]

Nope I wouldn't. If he's around I'll be forced to see him at one point.

*You may sub she for he anywhere in my post.*

[nandesuka?]

i don't want to... but if i accidentally met HIm, i'll chat with him and asked WHY MY LIFE is so FUCKED UP?!

and then he'll answer this: "it wasn't me, it's you that make it fucked up..."

[rimpelcut]

as it pertains to this discussion, a system of reasoning that comes to a single conclusion based on the information.

As in
Jewish person logic = faith in Judaism
Christian person logic = faith in Christianity.

As the same logic system of logic came to two different conclusions, then the logic is wrong.

It would destroy doubt, which means that it destroys faith.


look above.

Faith used by one person come to a different conclusion than faith used by another, therefore faith is not logical, nor is it based on logic.


I really don't get your reasoning. one person things differently and has different faith, belief and therefore faith is not based on logic. wtf?

ok, I get it now, you are coming from the definition of faith that it is just accepting it without reason. BUt to me this is not enterly so. It's like this: first you reason, then put some personal things in it, then you have some kind of idea with questions remaining but after some time you just choose to stop questioning. The foundation has been made with logic like, this feeling does this, and then you let it be. It's the same for instance if you are scared. You sleep and are afraid for some monsters, it's in your mind. The idea will stay. you can just think ow well I don't care, I'm just gonna accept that they might be there. Then after time you forget them. If you'r religious you keep stumbling upon this cool world and become a part of it. After some time you identify with it like people that smoke and think that it is a part of them.
But logic can always reverse things. The fact is, there is no need for believing in god, it is introduced by reasoning.

[mr_shadow]

Id see God if i had the oppurtunity. But i think i would either go mad or die if i looked at him.

The guy who wrote the Book Of Reavaltions went on some kind of field trip to heaven, and when he describes the angels he makes them sound like something out of Call Of Cthulu. While angels arent evil, its pretty clear that their appearance is very intimidating.

And i think that tells you something about the guy who created them. Quoting Dogma:

"[...] were you to hear it [the voice of God], you mind would cave in and your heart would explode. We went throug five Adams before we figured that one out"

[Rockreaper]

Well, it might not be true, i mean, come on, it's Hollywood man.

[sadated_peon]

I really don't get your reasoning. one person things differently and has different faith, belief and therefore faith is not based on logic. wtf?

ok, I get it now, you are coming from the definition of faith that it is just accepting it without reason. BUt to me this is not enterly so. It's like this: first you reason, then put some personal things in it, then you have some kind of idea with questions remaining but after some time you just choose to stop questioning. The foundation has been made with logic like, this feeling does this, and then you let it be. It's the same for instance if you are scared. You sleep and are afraid for some monsters, it's in your mind. The idea will stay. you can just think ow well I don't care, I'm just gonna accept that they might be there. Then after time you forget them. If you'r religious you keep stumbling upon this cool world and become a part of it. After some time you identify with it like people that smoke and think that it is a part of them.
But logic can always reverse things. The fact is, there is no need for believing in god, it is introduced by reasoning.
No you still don’t get it.

Logic works like this.

You have arguments that lead to a conclusion.

For example

P1: If it rains Joe brings his umbrella.
P2: It is raining.
-
Conclusion
Joe brought his umbrella.

There as you can see there is only one conclusion to this, it is logical.
As if p1 is true, and p2 is true then the conclusion must be true.

Now lets look at faith.

Faith as a system of logic FAILS this. As one person can say.

I use faith to show that Christian god exists.

While another says

I use faith to show that Zeus exists.

Or in the form of the above
P1: I have faith
P2: faith proves god.
-
Christian god is exists.

Vs
P1: I have faith
P2: faith proves god.
-
Zeus is exists.

Both people use faith as their reasoning, and both people come to two completely different and contradictory conclusions. therefore faith is not logical, nor is it based on logic.

[rimpelcut]

uuhkej see thats what I didn't recognize in your post. Also I did not know that they use their faith to proof god. weirdos :S
Still I stand by my argument that there faith started because of logic. That they use this faith to proof god is another thing.

?

[Dommy]

This question was actually a topic of one of Alanis Morisette's songs. If you had the option to see God, would you want to? Keep in mind that seeing God would mean that you would obviously have to believe in this superior being. For those of you who are Athiests or pro evolution,this should give you something to think about.

I will have lots of questions to ask! :omg

But somehow, even if I find out the truth, I may not be happy with it. :S
So I rather choose to stay still. :oh

[Insipidipity]

uuhkej see thats what I didn't recognize in your post. Also I did not know that they use their faith to proof god. weirdos :S
Still I stand by my argument that there faith started because of logic. That they use this faith to proof god is another thing.

?
If something is truly logical, then it is true. Simply because you think something is logical, doesn't mean it arises out of logic.

Take the following statements:
All cats have 4 legs
Dogs have 4 legs
Therefore dogs must be cats

If I am green, then I will absorb sunlight
I absorb sunlight
Therefore I am green.

Neither is true, but to some, they seem to arise out of logic. Unfortunately they "arise" out of faulty logic, an imitation of logic. You can't have something "arise" out of logic without being able to prove it logically.

Perhaps you mean that thoughts arise out of weak inductive reasoning. Something along the lines of: Men create things. Things that exist have been created. The world exists, therefore it was created. Since men create things, something similar to men created the world. Am I right?
Thats called weak induction. And its not logic. It's about as sound logically as "1 is a factor of 60, 2 is a factor of 60, 3 is a factor of 60, 4 is a factor of 60, 5 is a factor of 60, 6 is a factor of 60, therefore ALL numbers must be factors of 60".

[Sesha]

The use of the word "He" to refer to God is a common misconception. Since men were superior in status than women during the time religion was created, the thought of a superior being made more sence. Even priests refer to God as him. Its become so common that people dont even notice the mistake of refering to God as "he."
The personal pronoun "He" can refer to some masculine as well as something gender-ambiguous. However, the word "She" is exclusively feminine in use.
I find it interesting to note that the Hebrew word for 'spirit', "ruah", is feminine in gender, while the Greek word "pneuma" is neutral. Just thought I'd point it out, as it's pretty interesting stuff.

Anyway, whole "God=He/She/It?" thing presupposes that word gender is equivalent to biological gender, which it does not.

[rimpelcut]

nah man I don't mean to say that it is logical, I am saying that they use logic. If this then that. Since some information is false you keep looking outwards for other things that make the whole puzzle fit and then comes religion.
see the difference is that what you are saying is dealing with the problem at hand, what went wrong etc. and the other doesn't deal with the problem, says ok that it went wrong is a fact there must be something outside this problem that I don't know yet but is a part of it.
Then finally when you see religion, you get these teachings as faith, you try it out some works and your happy you don't need to question it any further. It's like just doing something like a ritual without knowing that you are the one making yourself happy not the ritual. Now the search can start again and after some time you may stumble upon false truth that breaks down your logic thus far and the search begins again. Most of the times all of this starts from bad feelings, a lack of understanding the mind. It ends with faith and that is when the puzzle seems to fit. faith or hope gives you direction towards the good, this gives you the right intention and things start to work for you. Maybe in the teachings of the bible there is no logic but for the person seeking a good life it does because it works. Anyway my understanding is that the mind subconsciously always operates on logic. If this then that. Question if and you might find a different truth.

[GOD'S BITCH]

I will have lots of questions to ask! :omg

But somehow, even if I find out the truth, I may not be happy with it. :S
So I rather choose to stay still. :oh
In other words, you prefer to be ignorant than know the truth? it would make you happpier i suppose....

[Kin]

Why would I wanna see God? I lost my faith.

[Dommy]

In other words, you prefer to be ignorant than know the truth? it would make you happpier i suppose....

Yeah. :)
Knowing too much won't be good sometimes. :oh

[hesd]

Although thats true, Christians continue to believe and read the bible. Recognizing a book written by man as the word of God gives Christians faith. Seeing God would destroy any doubt that God truely exists.

Faith is something waiting to be affirmed. Seeing God will not, in any way, extinguish Christian faith; that is faith materially realized, faith amplified.
"Establish your mighty Kingdom Lord, implore you." That's what i would say...

I have noticed that people here are logical/scientific thinkers, which led me to construe that they have knowledge of what argumentative inference is--presenting examples and counterexamples and enumeration through induction are the only ways to support claims. Therefore, proof is elusive.
I wouldn't argue about God's existence. But I am hoping that one day, you'll experience His presence in your lives.

[sadated_peon]

Faith is something waiting to be affirmed.
Fine.
Seeing God will not, in any way, extinguish Christian faith;
Yes it will, because after you see god, you no longer need to have faith to believe in him.
that is faith materially realized, faith amplified.
Faith materially realized is no longer faith, it is proof.

[BeyonderZ]

If there was a God, in the since that we know of God and I was asked "would you like to see him" I would say yes. we would have many things to chat about.

[Jink]

well obviously if they get the option to see god then their atheisim isn't worth anything

[Rockreaper]

Yeah. :)
Knowing too much won't be good sometimes. :oh

Yeah, knowing the secrets of the universe could have disstarious effects.

[hesd]

Yes it will, because after you see god, you no longer need to have faith to believe in him.

Faith materially realized is no longer faith, it is proof.


Is there a problem with faith transformed into proof? isn't that what atheists want, to reduce faith on the level of human logic? Seeing God would just transform faith into something better, an affirmed Faith or Fact. And changing the concept of Faith to proof or fact or to what have you does not actually pose a threat to the existence of God (given that we had seen Him); He exists in spite of us.

[sadated_peon]

Is there a problem with faith transformed into proof?
no, there isn’t a problem, unless you consider that it is no longer faith a problem.

isn't that what atheists want, to reduce faith on the level of human logic?
Atheist don’t want faith, they want proof.

Seeing God would just transform faith into something better, an affirmed Faith or Fact.
That is very true, it would transform faith into fact. But it would no longer be faith.

And changing the concept of Faith to proof or fact or to what have you does not actually pose a threat to the existence of God (given that we had seen Him); He exists in spite of us.
It does not post a threat to his existence unless you believe that god is nothing without faith.

But that is not the point.

The point that I made was that Christianity rest on the idea of faith, as you have said once you see god there is no longer faith only fact. Therefore when you see god you have eliminated a major part of your faith… your faith.

[Rockreaper]

sadated is right.
Were we to see God then there would be no faith on it. In any way. Because Faith itself is the belief in something, but more it is the belief in something that can neither be proven to exist or be proven not to exist.

[mUcHo LoCo]

id want to see god... he'd probably know my future and tell me it before hand for the private schools i mite get into so i dont have to wait another 1 1/2 months

[Ha-ri]

I would want to just so I could see which people(if not all) where wrong.

[GOD'S BITCH]

Faith is something waiting to be affirmed. Seeing God will not, in any way, extinguish Christian faith; that is faith materially realized, faith amplified.
"Establish your mighty Kingdom Lord, implore you." That's what i would say...

I have noticed that people here are logical/scientific thinkers, which led me to construe that they have knowledge of what argumentative inference is--presenting examples and counterexamples and enumeration through induction are the only ways to support claims. Therefore, proof is elusive.
I wouldn't argue about God's existence. But I am hoping that one day, you'll experience His presence in your lives.
In other words, proof that supports a belief leads to faith?

[GOD'S BITCH]

sadated is right.
Were we to see God then there would be no faith on it. In any way. Because Faith itself is the belief in something, but more it is the belief in something that can neither be proven to exist or be proven not to exist.
Exactly faith is destroyed when the belief of something, in this case god, is proven.

[GOD'S BITCH]

well obviously if they get the option to see god then their atheisim isn't worth anything
Athiests would be forced to recognize the existence of a superior being. People who are athiests are so because of the lack of proof of the existence of God. Seeing God would give the evidence. However the main question is would they or would you? you'd be forced to believe in god if you see him. But if you dont you have the option of living in ignorance.

[GOD'S BITCH]

If there was a God, in the since that we know of God and I was asked "would you like to see him" I would say yes. we would have many things to chat about.
I never said if you could talk to God, only if you had the oppertunity of seeing God in person.

[blacklusterseph004]

Like hesd said, having faith is waiting for something to be affirmed. Thus when it has been affirmed, faith in that thing is no longer required. The faith has served its purpose.
The point that I made was that Christianity rest on the idea of faith, as you have said once you see god there is no longer faith only fact. Therefore when you see god you have eliminated a major part of your faith… your faith.You've said that Christianity is based on faith and that faith is gone once you've seen God. So what is your point really?

[hesd]

no, there isn’t a problem, unless you consider that it is no longer faith a problem.


Atheist don’t want faith, they want proof.


That is very true, it would transform faith into fact. But it would no longer be faith.


It does not post a threat to his existence unless you believe that god is nothing without faith.

But that is not the point.

The point that I made was that Christianity rest on the idea of faith, as you have said once you see god there is no longer faith only fact. Therefore when you see god you have eliminated a major part of your faith… your faith.

@ Sadated Peon
Faith (or prenotion that something is existing) is one precondition for finding proof. It leads us to explore that which is yet unknown and probably unkowable. However, finding a proof that something indeed exists does not devaluate faith, more so negate the existence of that which you put your faith on. Faith has been affirmed and promoted one notch higher in the level of human cognition (which atheists want). I really can't get your point about faith being nullified after God has smitten you. "God is in front of you! What are you ranting about?"

@ gud's beech
"In other words, proof that supports a belief leads to faith?" Faith that has been proven is faith affirmed. And I quote: "Thus when it has been affirmed, faith in that thing is no longer required. The faith has served its purpose." Faith can be done away with but not that which you laid your faith upon.

@Rockreaper
"but more it is the belief in something that can neither be proven to exist or be proven not to exist"
yeah, like mathematical axioms. We believe that they are reasonable starting points to derive complex mathematical equations and formulas. But these are incapable of being proven.

[Laiquelleion]

If I had the possibility to see God, then of course I would. I am what most people would call an atheist and am pro evolution theory, but that doesn't mean that I would ignore what I see just to keep to my beliefs.Truth is an evolving thing so if I got to see God then I would just have to start believing in him as well.

Though all of this depends on the fact that I believe that it is truly God I am seeing and not some phony trick.

[Rockreaper]

Like some random homeless guy coming out of the blue and exclaiming he's God?
:-)

[sadated_peon]

Like hesd said, having faith is waiting for something to be affirmed. Thus when it has been affirmed, faith in that thing is no longer required. The faith has served its purpose.
Faith is always required in Christianity as it is a cornerstone of the faith. Jesus himself called for it from all his followers and said it is pivotal for any and all Christians.

Here is a quote.
"Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe." John 20:29

(i thought this was the most relevant)
You've said that Christianity is based on faith and that faith is gone once you've seen God. So what is your point really?
that you loses the basis for Christianity.

Christianity base = faith.
No faith = no base.

Faith (or prenotion that something is existing) is one precondition for finding proof. It leads us to explore that which is yet unknown and probably unkowable. However, finding a proof that something indeed exists does not devaluate faith, more so negate the existence of that which you put your faith on.
I HAVE NOT, DID NOT say that what you had faith in was devalued GOD in ANY WAY. GOD is not effected by your transformation of faith into fact.
But it does mean that you no longer have faith, instead you have fact.

Faith Does not equal fact.

If your faith has been transformed into fact you have no longer have faith in it, you now know it as fact.

Faith has been affirmed and promoted one notch higher in the level of human cognition (which atheists want). I really can't get your point about faith being nullified after God has smitten you. "God is in front of you! What are you ranting about?"
I am not saying that GOD does not exist or that confirmation of faith disproves GOD. I am saying that Christianity holds faith as a cornerstone of its religion and when you lose faith you lose this part of Christianity.

When you move up that notch, your belief is no longer faith, it is now FACT. You have exchanged faith for fact and you no longer have faith.

[hesd]

Faith is always required in Christianity as it is a cornerstone of the faith. Jesus himself called for it from all his followers and said it is pivotal for any and all Christians.

Here is a quote.
"Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe." John 20:29

(i thought this was the most relevant)

that you loses the basis for Christianity.

Christianity base = faith.
No faith = no base.


I HAVE NOT, DID NOT say that what you had faith in was devalued GOD in ANY WAY. GOD is not effected by your transformation of faith into fact.
But it does mean that you no longer have faith, instead you have fact.

Faith Does not equal fact.

If your faith has been transformed into fact you have no longer have faith in it, you now know it as fact.


I am not saying that GOD does not exist or that confirmation of faith disproves GOD. I am saying that Christianity holds faith as a cornerstone of its religion and when you lose faith you lose this part of Christianity.

When you move up that notch, your belief is no longer faith, it is now FACT. You have exchanged faith for fact and you no longer have faith.


"Faith is always required in Christianity as it is a cornerstone of the faith."
yes, until God shows Himself up.

"Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe."
God proclaimed unto the world that He will return in all His glory. Faith is just a precursor to the fact--that He will reveal Himself to us. And don't tell me that the Christ's disciples hold no faith in Him.

Faith =/= Fact, but they're not antagonistic concepts. It's just a matter of promotion, not negation.

Consider a building under construction. The wooden trusses (faith) serve as temporary structural support. These can be disposed of when the steel reinforcements have arrived. Discarding the wooden trusses does not collapse the structure.

[sadated_peon]

yes, until God shows Himself up.
No, until your death, on earth faith is the cornerstone.
God proclaimed unto the world that He will return in all His glory. Faith is just a precursor to the fact--that He will reveal Himself to us. And don't tell me that the Christ's disciples hold no faith in Him.

When god returns the ones who had faith will be taken up to heaven to see god. Those who did not believe and see god would be caught in the judgement. It is faithful that go to heaven, not the ones who know for a fact.
Faith =/= Fact, but they're not antagonistic concepts. It's just a matter of promotion, not negation.

Consider a building under construction. The wooden trusses (faith) serve as temporary structural support. These can be disposed of when the steel reinforcements have arrived. Discarding the wooden trusses does not collapse the structure.

To continue your example.
Christianity = building supported by wood.
Building supported by metal = NOT Christianity

Christianity is defined by its faith, which is why it is called a faith.

[blacklusterseph004]

When god returns the ones who had faith will be taken up to heaven to see god. Those who did not believe and see god would be caught in the judgement. It is faithful that go to heaven, not the ones who know for a fact.I entered into this discussion under the assumption that the topic starter was suggesting a hypothetical situation that if you could see God, would you do it. I assumed that it had no connection to how the bible describes we will eventually meet God.

As for your last sentence, the reason that the faithful go to heaven is that they chose to believe when they didn't have to. This is the true test of faith anyway. By the time God's existance becomes fact, it's too late, because you've either believed in him already or you haven't. IMO, faith is what God wants to test in us, not our ability to accept a plain fact. If that were the case he would arrange meeting times or public appearances.

Shifting back to the scenario posed by the topic starter, I would choose to see God if could, and in that moment my faith that he exists would have been affrimed and served it's purpose in keeping me devoted...

[hesd]

It is not my goal for you to about face from your thinking that faith does not equal fact. I posted on this thread under the assumption that we can see God face to face. That God, on whom our faith was based, exists. Faith has been converted to a fact; the wooden trusses have been replaced by steel reinforcements--the very same building still remains intact and now has been made more sturdy.
God is the ultimate realization of faith on which Christianity is based. The existence of God is the cornerstone; faith is only the apparatus that Christians use to willfully obey God's commands, i.e., to worship Him, fulfil the Great Commission, etc. In other words, it is through faith that we find expression of His existence.
And the validity of Christianity is not compromised if faith is turned into fact since it is God's purpose--those who are earnest and steadfast to cling on to faith, which will become fact when He arrives, are those who shall receive His gift.

[sadated_peon]

I entered into this discussion under the assumption that the topic starter was suggesting a hypothetical situation that if you could see God, would you do it. I assumed that it had no connection to how the bible describes we will eventually meet God.
It not only has implication on when you will meet god, but ALL things that Christianity describes. If Christianity says that you must be faithful to go to heaven, then seeing god removes your faith. So Christianity says you will not go to heaven.

Christianity makes clear that FAITH is needed in the reiligion, when you see god you violate this condition of Christianity.
As for your last sentence, the reason that the faithful go to heaven is that they chose to believe when they didn't have to. This is the true test of faith anyway. By the time God's existance becomes fact, it's too late, because you've either believed in him already or you haven't. IMO, faith is what God wants to test in us, not our ability to accept a plain fact. If that were the case he would arrange meeting times or public appearances.
Which is why faith is vital to the Christian faith.
To say that you WOULD see god is to say that your faith is not strong enough.

The “correct” Christian answer would be, “I already know god exists I don’t need to see him.”

Shifting back to the scenario posed by the topic starter, I would choose to see God if could, and in that moment my faith that he exists would have been affrimed and served it's purpose in keeping me devoted...
The moment you see god, you no longer have faith in god, and all references to needing faith in the bible are lost to you. As you WANTED to have your faith affirmed, and did not wait for what Christianity has dictated as the correct time.

It is not my goal for you to about face from your thinking that faith does not equal fact. I posted on this thread under the assumption that we can see God face to face. That God, on whom our faith was based, exists. Faith has been converted to a fact; the wooden trusses have been replaced by steel reinforcements--the very same building still remains intact and now has been made more sturdy.
and as I have said MANY times now it is not god that is effected by your faith changing to fact. But Christianity, which is reliant on faith.

God is the ultimate realization of faith on which Christianity is based. The existence of God is the cornerstone; faith is only the apparatus that Christians use to willfully obey God's commands, i.e., to worship Him, fulfil the Great Commission, etc. In other words, it is through faith that we find expression of His existence.
As blacklusterseph said, faith is like a test for Christian. It is what is NEEDED for each Christian. Christianity believes that having faith in god IS BETTER than know god is there for a fact. This is why Christians believe that GOD has not reviled himself.

And the validity of Christianity is not compromised if faith is turned into fact since it is God's purpose--those who are earnest and steadfast to cling on to faith, which will become fact when He arrives, are those who shall receive His gift.
You are incorrect, Christianity only accepts faith turning into fact at certain times. It only says that this transformation is acceptable when the bible has described.
You seeing god, removes your faith and therefore removes your ability to follow the bible and Jesus.

[hesd]

You are creating an unjustified distinction between God and Christianity. Christianity embodies God as it is his teaching, the way of life that He wants His creation to live out. Saying that Christianity is abolished by the transformation is synonymous with saying that the nature of God is flawed and therefore not a god by definition.
"It not only has implication on when you will meet god, but ALL things that Christianity describes." This came from you. See? Christianity revolves around the concept of God. Your treatment of Christianity will impinge on your treatment of God. Why make a distinction then?

For a Christian, Faith = Knowing = Fact. Faith is only a temporary designation, a word that is synthetically divorced from the worldly concept of Fact. At present, I KNOW that He exists THROUGH FAITH. Seeing Him only buttresses, and not in anyway strengthen (to a certain extent. It is, however, affirmed) or weaken my KNOWLEDGE of Him, since in the first place He has revealed Himself in His creations and through the Bible. I for one have not yet seen the statue of liberty. But I know that it exists through faith. Actually seeing it would not change my notion of it.
I can therefore say: "I know You're there all along." or "Alas, there you are gift of france."

"You seeing god, removes your faith and therefore removes your ability to follow the bible and Jesus." This captures the dissonance between your use of Fact and Faith. You really believe that they're concepts that cancel each other out. I can't do anything about that.

[less]

If I could meet God, that would mean that there is a god. I would meet him, ask him what he wanted me to do in life, and do exactly that, happy that I did what my creator wanted me to and Knowing that I'd be going to heaven when I died.

The rethorical "proof" for the fact that anyone who knows that God exists for sure goes to hell implies that all prophets are in hell. Moses, Abraham, Jesus, all of them. That is not the Church's teaching.

I'm an atheist, by the way.

[Rockreaper]

\"You seeing god, removes your faith and therefore removes your ability to follow the bible and Jesus." This captures the dissonance between your use of Fact and Faith. You really believe that they're concepts that cancel each other out. I can't do anything about that.

Exactly. They don't cancel out. If you were to see God then you would not have faith, you would have knowledge and physical evidence. The type of evidence that would appease to an empirisisct (can't spell), for example. You can still follow the Bible and the teachings, but you wouldn't do it because of Faith.

[sadated_peon]

You are creating an unjustified distinction between God and Christianity. Christianity embodies God as it is his teaching, the way of life that He wants His creation to live out. Saying that Christianity is abolished by the transformation is synonymous with saying that the nature of God is flawed and therefore not a god by definition.
I an not making an unjustified distinction. Seeing god and losing your faith goes against Christianity, as Christianity holds faith above proof. You are doing something that goes against a principle of the faith.

"It not only has implication on when you will meet god, but ALL things that Christianity describes." This came from you. See? Christianity revolves around the concept of God. Your treatment of Christianity will impinge on your treatment of God. Why make a distinction then?
because Christianity is not the same things as god. Confirming that god exists against the principles of Christianity does not mean that God is lessened, but your Christian beliefs have lost the basis of faith in which they are held.

For a Christian, Faith = Knowing = Fact. Faith is only a temporary designation, a word that is synthetically divorced from the worldly concept of Fact. At present, I KNOW that He exists THROUGH FAITH. Seeing Him only buttresses, and not in anyway strengthen (to a certain extent. It is, however, affirmed) or weaken my KNOWLEDGE of Him, since in the first place He has revealed Himself in His creations and through the Bible.
First
Buttresses: “something that supports or strengthens”
http://m-w.com/dictionary/buttresses

Faith is a designation in which Christianity says god has commanded you to be in. This temporary designation is no less important than knowing, but MORE important than knowing. Christianity holds that faith is required to be a Christian, when you lose this you are no longer a Christian.

I for one have not yet seen the statue of liberty. But I know that it exists through faith.
NO YOU DON’T.
You have seen picture of the statue of liberty, you have talked to people who have seen, you have read books from people who have seen it. YOU HAVE EVIDENCE OF IT.
Actually seeing it would not change my notion of it.
I can therefore say: "I know You're there all along." or "Alas, there you are gift of france."
That you want to see god shows that your faith is not enough for you. Instead you want more. If you didn’t want more then you wouldn’t want to see god.
Christianity says that faith without knowing is vital for an individual’s Christian belief, not vital to god.

Therefore god says: “I commanded you to have faith without seeing, you have violated what it is to be my follower.”

"You seeing god, removes your faith and therefore removes your ability to follow the bible and Jesus." This captures the dissonance between your use of Fact and Faith. You really believe that they're concepts that cancel each other out. I can't do anything about that.
They are concepts that cancel each other. As you CAN NOT HAVE FAITH IF YOU HAVE FACT.

If I could meet God, that would mean that there is a god. I would meet him, ask him what he wanted me to do in life, and do exactly that, happy that I did what my creator wanted me to and Knowing that I'd be going to heaven when I died.

If you met him he would tell you that he wanted you to have faith in him, and to believe in him without seeing him. You have violated this so you go to hell.

The rethorical "proof" for the fact that anyone who knows that God exists for sure goes to hell implies that all prophets are in hell. Moses, Abraham, Jesus, all of them. That is not the Church's teaching.
Christianity teachers that their followers must have faith, Moses, Abraham, Jesus, all of them are not followers as they were given direct commands from god (they are leaders)

I'm an atheist, by the way.
good for you. Did you get the t-shirt or did you opt for the cap?

[blacklusterseph004]

@Sedated: On the previous page, hesd said that faith is something waited to be affirmed, which you agreed to. I then later made the following point:
As for your last sentence, the reason that the faithful go to heaven is that they chose to believe when they didn't have to. This is the true test of faith anyway. By the time God's existance becomes fact, it's too late, because you've either believed in him already or you haven't.
I was hoping that you would understand a progression of events here. Christianity says that through your faith, you will remain devoted, and that your devotion will determine whether or not you enter heaven.

Lets say that I give you a test. If you wait for me at the gates of the white house, I will give you 100 dollars. You don't know when I'm coming or even if I am coming. I arrive, but you are not there. You see on tv that I have arrived at the white house gates and I am waving a 100 dollar bill. Thus my coming and the promise of a 100 dollar bill are now fact to you. You fail the test however because you weren't at the gate.

Let's say though that you are at the gate when I arrive. Thus you had faith in me and my promise of a 100 dollar bill. My arrival at the gate marks the end of the test condition, and you've earned the 100 dollar bill.

Jesus has promised us that he will return and that we will have an oppurtunity to go to heaven. Our faith keeps us devoted to him and his promise, and it is this devotion to him in his absence by which he will judge us.

Christianity believes that having faith in god IS BETTER than know god is there for a fact. This is why Christians believe that GOD has not reviled himself.How did you come to this conclusion?

[less]

If you met him he would tell you that he wanted you to have faith in him, and to believe in him without seeing him. You have violated this so you go to hell.
You're assuming you know what an omnipotent and omniscient being would want me to do. You don't. If I met god (the forgiving one depicted in the new testament, at least), he would not order me to do anything that couldn't be done without giving me the tools to do so.

Christianity teachers that their followers must have faith, Moses, Abraham, Jesus, all of them are not followers as they were given direct commands from god (they are leaders)
And if I met god and he told me to do stuff, as you have already assumed in the first quote, how would I be any different?

good for you. Did you get the t-shirt or did you opt for the cap?
T-shirt.

[hesd]

@Sadated_PeonButtress, yeah. The use was rather sloppy. Anyhow, you need not be oh too lexical and I'll reciprocate by not pointing umm...some spelling errors.:amuse

The reality/unreality of the statue of liberty example I gave clearly relies on authority. And I have faith in the authority that says the SoL does exist. When I get to see the Statue firsthand, my faith in its facticity is reaffirmed as I have held it to be so through faith.
Faith in atheists' terms is fact unjustified. But in a Christian's perspective, faith is fact that is waiting, not wanting, to be affirmed.
The faith = fact (Christian way of thinking) is in every way legitimized and justified in an atheist's eyes when comes God. And I amen to Blackbusterspeh's analogy.

""Therefore god says: “I commanded you to have faith without seeing, you have violated what it is to be my follower.”" Distorted. He said that in His perfect time He will reveal Himself unto us. Faith only serves as the vehicle to arrive at a destination--God's revelation.

[sadated_peon]

I was hoping that you would understand a progression of events here. Christianity says that through your faith, you will remain devoted, and that your devotion will determine whether or not you enter heaven.

Lets say that I give you a test. If you wait for me at the gates of the white house, I will give you 100 dollars. You don't know when I'm coming or even if I am coming. I arrive, but you are not there. You see on tv that I have arrived at the white house gates and I am waving a 100 dollar bill. Thus my coming and the promise of a 100 dollar bill are now fact to you. You fail the test however because you weren't at the gate.

Let's say though that you are at the gate when I arrive. Thus you had faith in me and my promise of a 100 dollar bill. My arrival at the gate marks the end of the test condition, and you've earned the 100 dollar bill.

Jesus has promised us that he will return and that we will have an oppurtunity to go to heaven. Our faith keeps us devoted to him and his promise, and it is this devotion to him in his absence by which he will judge us.
Yes, I agree.

And seeing god, would be the equivalent of,
me walking away from the gate and going to the bank, and asking you for the money when you got it out of the ATM.

Failing the test of faith.
How did you come to this conclusion?
From the bible.

You're assuming you know what an omnipotent and omniscient being would want me to do. You don't. If I met god (the forgiving one depicted in the new testament, at least), he would not order me to do anything that couldn't be done without giving me the tools to do so.
I am not assuming, the bible has already said that its Christian followers are to have faith until god comes or they die. That you bypass this means that you violate the commands of god. By seeing god you have violated the command of faith, it does not matter if you follow everything else he tells you, you have still f-ed up.

And if I met god and he told me to do stuff, as you have already assumed in the first quote, how would I be any different?
because god didn’t come to you, you chose to violate Christian teachings and see him.

The reality/unreality of the statue of liberty example I gave clearly relies on authority. And I have faith in the authority that says the SoL does exist. When I get to see the Statue firsthand, my faith in its facticity is reaffirmed as I have held it to be so through faith.
the statue of liberty rests on evidence, there is no such evidence for god.
You do not have faith that the statue of liberty exists, as you have evidence that the statue of liberty exists.
Faith is belief WITHOUT evidence.

Faith in atheists' terms is fact unjustified. But in a Christian's perspective, faith is fact that is waiting, not wanting, to be affirmed.
The faith = fact (Christian way of thinking) is in every way legitimized and justified in an atheist's eyes when comes God.
Really because before you said.
“Faith =/= Fact, but they're not antagonistic concepts. It's just a matter of promotion, not negation.”

Faith is not the same thing as fact for Christian or for Atheists. If faith was the same as fact then Jesus would not have require his followers have faith in him. What is asked is that they have faith with the strength of fact. But they are not the same.

And I amen to Blackbusterspeh's analogy.
read my response to blacklusterseph’s example, you are failing the test.

""Therefore god says: “I commanded you to have faith without seeing, you have violated what it is to be my follower.”" Distorted. He said that in His perfect time He will reveal Himself unto us. Faith only serves as the vehicle to arrive at a destination--God's revelation.
But you did not wait for the perfect time.
Those times being the end of days, and when you die.

You have violated the commands of god.
Christianity is based on the idea that its followers have faith in god, you would be a follower without faith.

[blacklusterseph004]

Yes, I agree.

And seeing god, would be the equivalent of,
me walking away from the gate and going to the bank, and asking you for the money when you got it out of the ATM.

Failing the test of faith. Your response makes no sense. For one my test only requires you to be at the gate when I arrive. You are either there or you are not. Secondly, I've arrived with a 100 dollar bill. I'm not sure what relevance an atm has to this situation.

From the bible. I'm almost certain that you attack people for posting responses like this. Anyway, please elaborate...

[NeophyteNihilist]

I am not assuming, the bible has already said that its Christian followers are to have faith until god comes or they die. That you bypass this means that you violate the commands of god. By seeing god you have violated the command of faith, it does not matter if you follow everything else he tells you, you have still f-ed up.
God never commanded that you can't see Him. Hell, he shows himself willingly to multiple people!

the statue of liberty rests on evidence, there is no such evidence for god.
You do not have faith that the statue of liberty exists, as you have evidence that the statue of liberty exists.
Faith is belief WITHOUT evidence.
No, faith is belief without proof. There is evidence of God, such as historical documentation of his existance in the Bible.

[Rockreaper]

I'm sorry to say, Neophyte, there is no true evidence of God. I do believe in him, but the Bible can be disputed, one perfect example is the Dead Sea Scrolls. I choose to believe in him, even though there is no evidence that can sway the argument either way.

[sadated_peon]

Your response makes no sense. For one my test only requires you to be at the gate when I arrive. You are either there or you are not. Secondly, I've arrived with a 100 dollar bill. I'm not sure what relevance an atm has to this situation.
Ok let explain this slowly.

Your example is
You tell someone, wait at this the White House gate, you will return with a 100 $ bill if they are still there.
This is equivalent to Christianity saying that if you have faith in god you will go to heaven when you die or the end of days.

This is broken down to the bible saying if I have faith in Jesus (wait at gate), until I die or end of days (you return to gate), I will go to heaven (I will get 100 dollars)

As I see god BEFORE I died and BEFORE the end of days. This is means that I no longer have faith in Jesus I know for a fact instead. (faith in Jesus = waiting at gate which means NOT having faith in jesus = NOT waiting at the gate) so I am no longer waiting at the gate (as I no longer have FAITH).

So when I die/end of days (You return to gate) I will have no faith (will not be at gate) so I will not go to heaven (will not get 100 $)

I'm almost certain that you attack people for posting responses like this. Anyway, please elaborate...
I already gave one quote from Jesus that seems to be most relevant.
"Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe." John 20:29

“But without faith it is impossible to please him: Hebrews 11:6

For we walk by faith, not by sight: II Corinthians 5:7

And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God. Mark 11:22

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Ephesians 2:8

God never commanded that you can't see Him. Hell, he shows himself willingly to multiple people!
Yes, he did show himself, which is different than you violating the principle of the faith and losing faith for fact.
As in the difference is that one was a choice by god, and the other is a choice by you.

No, faith is belief without proof. There is evidence of God, such as historical documentation of his existance in the Bible.
the bible is not evidence of god, anymore than the Iliad is evidence of Zeus.

[hesd]

You're arguing out of premise. I thought it was given that you could see God, which is evidence itself? I'm just creating a parallel between the Statue of Liberty (which for the sake of argument, a !Kung tribesman in Africa believes to exists through faith in authority) and Christ's facticity (if you "could" see God means a legal possibility).

Definition 1) “Faith =/= Fact, but they're not antagonistic concepts. It's just a matter of promotion, not negation.” That was intended for an empiricist.
Faith and fact, their validity rests on where or on whom you put them on. As I've said, Faith is fact waiting, not wanting, to be realized. Therefore, seeing God only changes the letters of Faith into F-a-c-t. (intrinsically they are the same; the thread allows it)
As for Christians:
Definition 2) "Faith = Fact" but this of course cannot satisfy the palate of positivists. Evidence can be found in the future, and we are given an assurance of this. And in this thread, we are given the chance. This will not undermine Christianity, for it says that God does exist.

I don't know if you're familiar with what happened to the three astronauts (1969) after their return from space. They saw God's testimony through his creation; all of them became Christians. They're positivist thinkers; the distinction is collapsed between definition 1 and 2.

"As in the difference is that one was a choice by God, and the other is a choice by you."
Well, "seek He first...". We were just lucky that in this thread God is someone who can readily be seen.

[Rockreaper]

@hesd
For christians, at least for those who don't say "Im right and your wrong" i think, faith doesn't always equal fact. Im Christian, but I know just cause i have faith in something doesn't mean that it is true. (if you weren't making a generalization then please ignore the above posted)


@sadated_person
Christianity aslo says that you have to have a belief in God and that Jesus died on the cross to save our sins. Faith is basically a feeling or belief that something exists without proof, however, if God were to show himself and make himself known to the world, or at least give you a way to prove he existed, then you wouldn't have faith, you would have fact. And, while your quotes are right, they do not include God if he did show himself, they only mean if you have not seen then you still follow. If god did show himself then you would have fact, not faith, but in that you could, and should, believe in God. The only real difference is the fact that now, you have proof and can keep anyone from proving you wrong or saying so.

[Nakor]

@hesd

. If god did show himself then you would have fact, not faith, but in that you could, and should, believe in God
you could still have faith in the idea that God is good. just cause God may reveal himself, doesn't mean that all of a sudden everything about him is true to your specific religion.

[sadated_peon]

You're arguing out of premise. I thought it was given that you could see God, which is evidence itself?
No it is not. If I ask you if you would see god, it does not mean that I know that god exists or am able to produce god for you to see.

Only the act of seeing god is evidence of god, not the question.

I'm just creating a parallel between the Statue of Liberty (which for the sake of argument, a !Kung tribesman in Africa believes to exists through faith in authority) and Christ's facticity (if you "could" see God means a legal possibility).
A !Kung tribesman in Africa has been told that the statue of liberty exists by a person who has seen it. No one has seen god.

Definition 1) “Faith =/= Fact, but they're not antagonistic concepts. It's just a matter of promotion, not negation.” That was intended for an empiricist.
Faith and fact, their validity rests on where or on whom you put them on. As I've said, Faith is fact waiting, not wanting, to be realized. Therefore, seeing God only changes the letters of Faith into F-a-c-t. (intrinsically they are the same; the thread allows it)
No they are not the same, as one is confirmed and one isn’t. One is valued more than the other. One is the way to salvation and the other isn’t.

A person whose faith is a strong as it would be with fact, does not change the fact that they are different concepts.

"As I've said, Faith is fact waiting, not wanting, to be realized."
And once it has been realize it is no longer faith, it no longer holds the singular and most important aspect of not being confirmed and being reliant only on the persons will to support it, instead is it is confirmed.

What matters about faith is a person conviction in the face of no evidence, once there is evidence the conviction become meaningless.

And you WANT to see god, you are not WAITING to see god.
If you were WAITING to see god, then you would not want to see him EARLY now before you die and before the end of days. Seeing god early is you WANT, as it is a choice NOT to do it.

As for Christians:
Definition 2) "Faith = Fact" but this of course cannot satisfy the palate of positivists. Evidence can be found in the future, and we are given an assurance of this. And in this thread, we are given the chance. This will not undermine Christianity, for it says that God does exist.
Faith never is fact. They are two separate concepts which are always treated seperatly. Faith can be as strong as fact, but they are not the same thing.

Christianity promotes faith, not on fact. You can not interchange the two, AND IT IS NOT DONE SO IN THE BIBLE.

look this is getting silly.
A fact is something that is confirm and supported by evidence. Faith has not been confirm and is not supported by evidence.

They are two separate concepts. That a person will consider there faith to be as secure as fact does not change the fact that it is NOT confirmed, and is NOT supported by evidence.

This point is put plainly by JESUS himself.
"Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe." John 20:29
a CLEAR distinction between believing without seeing (faith) and believing with seeing (fact).

"As in the difference is that one was a choice by God, and the other is a choice by you."
Well, "seek He first...". We were just lucky that in this thread God is someone who can readily be seen.
only in a hypothetical, nothing more.

@sadated_person
Christianity aslo says that you have to have a belief in God and that Jesus died on the cross to save our sins. Faith is basically a feeling or belief that something exists without proof, however, if God were to show himself and make himself known to the world, or at least give you a way to prove he existed, then you wouldn't have faith, you would have fact. And, while your quotes are right, they do not include God if he did show himself, they only mean if you have not seen then you still follow. If god did show himself then you would have fact, not faith, but in that you could, and should, believe in God. The only real difference is the fact that now, you have proof and can keep anyone from proving you wrong or saying so.

If god were to show himself then it would contradict the bible, as the bible says that god will do that only at the 2nd coming. Nor is this question about what would happen at the 2nd coming, but instead YOU seeing god, NOT god showing himself.
God showing himself would not give you a CHOICE on whether to see him or not, as he would have returned.

Instead this would be you seeing god, counter to the commands of you holding faith until your death or until the end of days.

As it is said in the bible that those who did not have faith at the end of days are too late to change, as it is also true for those who die. It is necessary for you to have faith until these points at which Christianity has stressed. You violate this when you seek to see god.

[Rockreaper]

Yes, but then why would God turn you away when he knows you have seen him?
The thing is, you would have to be an exception. Even if you don't have faith, you can't possibly have faith when you've seen God, but he know's you know he exists because you have seen him, or he has shown himself to you in some way shape or form. You cannot possibly have faith when you have seen him, because now you have fact and belief rather than faith. And, also, the Bible can be interpreted through different ways. This sort of thing would be one of the "loopholes" in it. I mean, you don't have faith, but you can't have faith because you've seen what you believe in but what has not been proven or disproven, thus, parts of the bible are stretched and sometimes no longer even apply.


@fireball
i mean that you should still believe you in him because you have seen him. I mean, if you see him, then unless your either gullible or just plain in denial, then you should believe in him.

[sadated_peon]

Yes, but then why would God turn you away when he knows you have seen him?
he would turn you away because you were supposed to have faith, and not want to have it turned into fact.

The thing is, you would have to be an exception. Even if you don't have faith, you can't possibly have faith when you've seen God, but he know's you know he exists because you have seen him, or he has shown himself to you in some way shape or form. You cannot possibly have faith when you have seen him, because now you have fact and belief rather than faith.
That is right you can not have faith when you see god. Which is why you will be turned away from heaven because you have no faith.
There is nothing about seeing god that gets you into heaven.

And, also, the Bible can be interpreted through different ways. This sort of thing would be one of the "loopholes" in it. I mean, you don't have faith, but you can't have faith because you've seen what you believe in but what has not been proven or disproven, thus, parts of the bible are stretched and sometimes no longer even apply.
No, you can not go to heaven because you don’t have faith.

You had a choice on whether to see god or NOT to see him.
If you chose not to see god then can have faith. But when you chose to lose your give up your faith you don’t go to heaven.

“but you can't have faith because you've seen what you believe”
this is only true if you chose “yes” to see god, if you choose no then you can have faith.

[Rockreaper]

I see what you are saying, and now i know were debating over two completely different points. you were basing your arguments on whether or not we want to see God and then see him. My arguments, however, were based upon him showing himself to you, rather than you wanting to see him.

We've been going on opposite points.

[MkAura]

if see god, nothing would happen. is a fact that THERE IS "SOMETHING" different(superior maybe) out there,so i dont thing that is a big deal.....

maybe we could have a brief theological discussion^^

[blacklusterseph004]

As I see god BEFORE I died and BEFORE the end of days. This is means that I no longer have faith in Jesus I know for a fact instead. (faith in Jesus = waiting at gate which means NOT having faith in jesus = NOT waiting at the gate) so I am no longer waiting at the gate (as I no longer have FAITH).

So when I die/end of days (You return to gate) I will have no faith (will not be at gate) so I will not go to heaven (will not get 100 $)I indicated on the previous page already that my answer to the topic posters' question was based on a purely hypothetical situation, i.e. seeing God before the second coming. This means that this hypothetical situation, automatically disregards what the Bible says will be the circumstances under which we see him. Therefore, for the purpose of answering the question of the thread, it makes no sense to attempt to form logical paradoxes between us seeing him, and what will happen to our faith and future if we do. The Bible indicates that we will see God eventually, whether we like it or not, to receive judgement. So in attempting to answer the question you must neglect how the Bible says the meeting will take place.

[sadated_peon]

I see what you are saying, and now i know were debating over two completely different points. you were basing your arguments on whether or not we want to see God and then see him. My arguments, however, were based upon him showing himself to you, rather than you wanting to see him.

my argument by you
“you were basing your arguments on whether or not we want to see God and then see him.”

Topic
“If you had the option to see God, would you want to?”

I indicated on the previous page already that my answer to the topic posters' question was based on a purely hypothetical situation, i.e. seeing God before the second coming. This means that this hypothetical situation, automatically disregards what the Bible says will be the circumstances under which we see him.
incorrect, it does not disregard what the bible says, it poses the question of being able to violate when god has decided we would see him. And I continued on the implication of doing so.

Therefore, for the purpose of answering the question of the thread, it makes no sense to attempt to form logical paradoxes between us seeing him, and what will happen to our faith and future if we do.
No it makes perfect sense to do this.

Christianity holds the concept of you believing in god without evidence of god
(faith) as being a TEST of a person’s devotion to god. To see god before the time specified by god means that you fail this test of being a Christian. As you analogy shows.

The Bible indicates that we will see God eventually, whether we like it or not, to receive judgement. So in attempting to answer the question you must neglect how the Bible says the meeting will take place.

No you must not neglect it, you must realize the implication behind when god decides to show himself to people. As it has everything to do with you taking the power to see god out of gods hands and proving to yourself that he exist.

god says you must have faith until he has chosen to show himself to you, you have decided that you want to see him before then.
This means you violate gods commands for the test of your faith.

[Rockreaper]

Alright, and I do see your point. You are right, if we were to see God, and choose to, then yes, we would be denied in heaven. I did not mean to make a mistake, but we both do have valid points on both sides of our arguments.

[hesd]

"but you can't have faith because you've seen what you believe” This encapsulates your argument, i believe. But God's ultimate purpose is for us to see Him and to be with Him.
Implication: there exists a Bibilical inconsistency regarding faith. But I don't think so. Why?
Because Faith is a prerequisite for Fact. They are not mutually independent. In the end, seeing God is the consummation of that which is universally and unequivocally true.

@Rockreaper
The only Biblical requirement for salvation is accepting Jesus. Accepting Jesus is equivalent to your knowing that He exists. Seeing him will not forfeit your admission to heaven. In fact, your knowledge of him through faith will grow even deeper.

[Rockreaper]

Exactly. But, how do you mean Biblical Inconsitensies with Faith?

[MkAura]

mmmm whats wrong whit seeing god?? heaven and hell are concepst created for the people.......... a separation of the "good" and the "bad" (there is no good or back really, just piont of views)

one doesnt go to heaven because is good whit the religion, one goes to heaven because.....just live acording to what that person consider proper or not (taking in count that we are talking of somebody whit enought ethic in the head)

so seeing god is just another silly option that life probably never give it to us..... but i'd take it:)

[Rockreaper]

Were not debating on seeing God or not. It's more the implications that follow that.

[blacklusterseph004]

incorrect, it does not disregard what the bible says, it poses the question of being able to violate when god has decided we would see him. And I continued on the implication of doing so.
I'm sorry, I honestly did not interpret that as the intention of this thread.

[MkAura]

duh......:P once you see god you dont need to believe......thats for sure

thats why the fait is believe in the things we cant see or feel in any other way......so.... this thread doesnt have sence at all

you can go round and round, and never get an answer...funny isnt it?

[hesd]

Because God says that we shall see Him. But sadated keeps on saying that seeing Him will invalidate our entry to heaven.
In the judgment day, we will stand in front of Him, meaning seeing Him. We're not yet inside the gates of heaven. Would that mean that those who stand before Him cannot enter heaven?
God is contradicting Himself if sadated's logic holds true.

[Rockreaper]

Actually, Faith is a belief, or feeling really, that something exists when there is no proof to prove it or proof to disprove it. Undisputable evidence, empirical evidence really.

[Rockreaper]

Because God says that we shall see Him. But sadated keeps on saying that seeing Him will invalidate our entry to heaven.
In the judgment day, we will stand in front of Him, meaning seeing Him. We're not yet inside the gates of heaven. Would that mean that those who stand before Him cannot enter heaven?
God is contradicting Himself if sadated's logic holds true.

I think he means that if we see him and we choose to. I think his belief on it is that if we see him then we're violating his Faith rule, since we have to have faith to enter heaven and if we choose see God if we can then we can no longer have faith, which is what we need to enter heaven when Armaggedon comes.

I could be wrong, but that's just my view on the matter.

[MkAura]

oo c'mon! are you gonna believe every word that some people say.....hesd, are you a priest??? all the writen things are only impedimentes to understand the whole thing.....you cant solve a math problem whit the face sticked in the book, can you??

[Rockreaper]

I know, i'm just guessing on the matter though.

[FEFFRock]

It all depends on what God you are talking about if it is the Christian God no one can see his face without being consumed by His glory. SO I would like to be as Moses and see just His back. If I saw only that though then I would still be changed to reflect His glory.

[hesd]

@mkAura
everyone of us is a priest in our own ways. All written things are impediments? Tell that to Aristotle's face.

@Rockreaper
Yes. I'm getting what He says. But he has actually slanted the qualification for going to heaven,that is, seeing God in an 'untimely' manner. Seeing Him 'fortuitously' will only reinforce our faith in Him, therefore helping us to abide more strongly by Christian tenets. Faith sustains our belief of the yet unrealized. When that which is unrealized is realized, then faith has served its purpose. You, who have seen God, is just a really lucky isolated case.

[MkAura]

you see you see!!! is a never ending topic....(never ending fun?)
every writen thing is an impediment, but just when there is nothing more to read, and we keep on reading the same thing....over....and over....and over again..

[Rockreaper]

@hesd
Good point. Your right. It is kind of a slanted view on it. Well, i've got to go, i've spent a few hours on this, and I need video games :P

[Nakor]

I think he means that if we see him and we choose to. I think his belief on it is that if we see him then we're violating his Faith rule, since we have to have faith to enter heaven and if we choose see God if we can then we can no longer have faith, which is what we need to enter heaven when Armaggedon comes.

I could be wrong, but that's just my view on the matter.
i thought christians just had to accept God into themselves for them to enter heaven. whether it is by faith or by fact.

also I don't necessarily believe that God would deny people into Heaven if they could choose to see Him because of His divine generosity. God would know if you had accepted Him into your heart so as long as this is present in the person then God would accept them.

also if you saw God you would die. so unless this topic is not taking that into account, it would be impossible to see God without dying. or if that matters for this arguement at all.

[sadated_peon]

"but you can't have faith because you've seen what you believe” This encapsulates your argument, i believe. But God's ultimate purpose is for us to see Him and to be with Him.
No, god’s ultimate purpose is not for us to see him. Please quote the bible where this is said.

God requires faith of US, until he decides when we meet him. You propose removing faith when you decided instead of when god decides.

Implication: there exists a Bibilical inconsistency regarding faith. But I don't think so. Why?
there is no biblical in consistency. God wants us to have faith until we die or until he comes, to prove human devotion to god.

Because Faith is a prerequisite for Fact. They are not mutually independent. In the end, seeing God is the consummation of that which is universally and unequivocally true.
No, faith is not a prerequisite for fact. It CAN be one, but it doesn’t have to be. If I don’t know something, and then a fact is told explain to me with evidence then it was never faith.

Faith, is believing in something without evidence. Fact is something that is proven true. Faith can remain always a faith, and a faith CAN BE WRONG.
Fact can not be wrong, it has be shown to be true.
Let give a simple example.
You have faith in Jesus was real, Buddhist has faith in Buddha was real.
This is fine considering that faith is unproven, so there is no contradiction.

You know for a fact Jesus was real, a Buddhist knows for a fact that Buddha was real.
There is a contradiction because both things can not be true at the same time.

Faith and fact are separate.

The only Biblical requirement for salvation is accepting Jesus. Accepting Jesus is equivalent to your knowing that He exists. Seeing him will not forfeit your admission to heaven. In fact, your knowledge of him through faith will grow even deeper.
incorrect, I have posted several quotes to the fact that having FAITH in Jesus get you into heaven. NOT knowing Jesus.
Acts “18to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'”

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Ephesians 2:8”

John “12I 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. 13And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father.”

Galatians “20I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”

2 Timothy 1 “13What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus.”

Acts 14:22“strengthening the disciples and encouraging them to remain true to the faith. "We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God," they said.”

I'm sorry, I honestly did not interpret that as the intention of this thread.
It is the implication of seeing god for a Christian, if you are not a Christian then the topic is broader.

Because God says that we shall see Him.
where did god say that?
I don’t see anywhere in this topic or in the bible where god wants you to see him, for you die or the 2nd comming.
This topic is about YOU wanting to see GOD. Not god wanting you to see him.
But sadated keeps on saying that seeing Him will invalidate our entry to heaven.
it will because it goes against Christianity principles of faith.

In the judgment day, we will stand in front of Him, meaning seeing Him. We're not yet inside the gates of heaven. Would that mean that those who stand before Him cannot enter heaven?
This topic is talking about seeing god before he has commanded, in doing so you are seeing god before he wished it. THAT is violating his will, by seeing him before he has commanded.
God is contradicting Himself if sadated's logic holds true.
No, because God SHOWING himself at a pre-specified time, is completely different from you seeing god out side of what he has commanded of YOU as a good Christian.

Yes. I'm getting what He says. But he has actually slanted the qualification for going to heaven,that is, seeing God in an 'untimely' manner.
seeing god in an untimely manner means you violate god’s will of when you should see him, that mean you don’t go to heaven.

Seeing Him 'fortuitously' will only reinforce our faith in Him, therefore helping us to abide more strongly by Christian tenets.
NO. If you see god you no longer have faith in him. As you know that he is god for a fact, and fact is not faith.

Faith sustains our belief of the yet unrealized. When that which is unrealized is realized, then faith has served its purpose. You, who have seen God, is just a really lucky isolated case.
faith is a test. If you can keep you faith until god has command the time for you to see him, then you pass the test. You see him early, against god’s time, so you fail the test.
i thought christians just had to accept God into themselves for them to enter heaven. whether it is by faith or by fact.
see above.

also I don't necessarily believe that God would deny people into Heaven if they could choose to see Him because of His divine generosity. God would know if you had accepted Him into your heart so as long as this is present in the person then God would accept them.
that’s not what the bible says.

[MkAura]

what an enormous contradiction........this proves nobody is right.....not een me (but i knew that all the time^^) so there is no more truth than the truth....and we dont have the finest idea of what could be.....

[Nakor]

it will because it goes against Christianity principles of faith.
where does it say that seeing God before He is suppposed to be revealed to you is going against the principles of faith? Moses asked God if he could see Him, but God said no one can see my face and live so he showed Moses His back.

seeing god in an untimely manner means you violate god’s will of when you should see him, that mean you don’t go to heaven. why is that now?


NO. If you see god you no longer have faith in him. As you know that he is god for a fact, and fact is not faith.OK. Moses saw God's back. He saw God. So that means his faith turned to fact. So how can he get into heaven if he doesn't have any faith?

that’s not what the bible says.
God does have divine generosity, which is expressed through Jesus, since Jesus died for us. so why can't God's divine generosity be applied elsewhere?

[MkAura]

i said that once you see god you dont need faith anymore, ut what happens next??? u ovbiouly believe in god dont you?? so if yuo are still believing in god, there is no problem

nice point of view^^

[NeophyteNihilist]

I'm sorry to say, Neophyte, there is no true evidence of God. I do believe in him, but the Bible can be disputed, one perfect example is the Dead Sea Scrolls. I choose to believe in him, even though there is no evidence that can sway the argument either way.
True, the Bible is extremely disputable, but its still evidence. There is some logical evidence of God's existance. All things follow a pattern in nature, and every effect has a cause. Unfortunantly this creates a paradox, since that means there was never a first event. Something beyond all laws of nature had to initiate the first causeless effect that set everything in motion, and that is God.

Seeing God would also be disputable. Human senses are very easy to fool. Personally if I saw God, I'd probably begin to doubt after a while, thinking it was a dream or a hallucination. Simply accepting what one sees takes a bit of faith. Believing in God without seeing him takes greater faith, and that is blessed according to Jesus, so there is reason to not go see God. However, nowhere does the Bible say that you can't make it to heaven if you have seen God. If I was given the chance to see God I would because, like so many people, my faith has been rapidly deteriorating for quite a while now. Its better to have seen and believe than to have not seen and to not believe.

[Nakor]

However, nowhere does the Bible say that you can't make it to heaven if you have seen God.
thats what i thought too. my example above was Moses seeing God. i'd say its safe to assume Moses would be in Heaven

[sadated_peon]

where does it say that seeing God before He is suppposed to be revealed to you is going against the principles of faith?
Simple, faith is believing without evidence, God showing himself removes faith. No longer having faith is against the principles of faith

Moses asked God if he could see Him, but God said no one can see my face and live so he showed Moses His back.
God came to Moses, not the other way around. Moses was not given the option to be a direct servant of god.

why is that now?
Why?
Ask God he made the rules.

OK. Moses saw God's back. He saw God. So that means his faith turned to fact. So how can he get into heaven if he doesn't have any faith?
Moses did not have faith that god was real, Moses knew that god was real. It was god that went to him.
The CLEAR distinction being that god saw that Moses test of faith was over, while in this topic YOU decide you test of faith is over.

God does have divine generosity, which is expressed through Jesus, since Jesus died for us. so why can't God's divine generosity be applied elsewhere?
Else where like forgiving Lucifer?
Else were like accepting those in hell into heaven?
Else were like accepting non-believers into heaven?

The reason, because the non-faithful don’t go to heaven. Heaven is reserved for the faithful.

True, the Bible is extremely disputable, but its still evidence.
No, it is not. Evidence can not be contradicted by other evidence.

There is some logical evidence of God's existance. All things follow a pattern in nature, and every effect has a cause. Unfortunantly this creates a paradox, since that means there was never a first event. Something beyond all laws of nature had to initiate the first causeless effect that set everything in motion, and that is God.
No this is not logical.

This is not logically sound or logically valid.
Not logically sound: As nowhere is there a proof that all nature didn’t cause itself. (defeats “All things follow a pattern in nature, and every effect has a cause.”)

2nd it is not logically valid because it fails the form.
Because one we don’t know all the laws of nature and two something beyond the laws of nature in no way has to be god. It is called a false dilemma and is a logical fallacy.

Seeing God would also be disputable. Human senses are very easy to fool. Personally if I saw God, I'd probably begin to doubt after a while, thinking it was a dream or a hallucination. Simply accepting what one sees takes a bit of faith.

Faith is belief without evidence, you have evidence of god. If you believe that seeing is still faith, then you have faith in everything in this world, and there are no facts.

Believing in God without seeing him takes greater faith, and that is blessed according to Jesus, so there is reason to not go see God. However, nowhere does the Bible say that you can't make it to heaven if you have seen God. If I was given the chance to see God I would because, like so many people, my faith has been rapidly deteriorating for quite a while now. Its better to have seen and believe than to have not seen and to not believe.

and here is the point of why you would not get into heaven.
To get into heaven you are supposed to believe in god without proof, but instead by your faith alone. Faith is a test, you admit that you are losing faith so you are losing the test.

Seeing god is the equivalent of cheating on the test.

thats what i thought too. my example above was Moses seeing God. i'd say its safe to assume Moses would be in Heaven
Let me deal with this AGAIN.

For YOU to get into heaven you need faith.
Acts26: “18to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'”

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Ephesians 2:8”

It is clear that you need faith to enter heaven.

Now then you say “this is wrong Moses got into heaven. “
But this is a misunderstanding on the point of faith in relationship with getting into heaven.

As was brought up and explained earlier faith is a test by god. God has specified when this test will end. (when you die, end of days) this is when YOUR test of faith is over.

Moses was different, as god decided that Moses test of faith was over early and GOD reviled himself to Moses.

The clear distinction being that the test of faith is over when god revels himself to you, NOT when you decide to see god.

1) Moses seeing god = God reveling himself to Moses.
2) You choosing to see god = you deciding to see god.

In 1 god decided when the test of faith was over.
In 2 YOU decided when the test of faith was over.

In 1 god end test early because you passed, in 2 you cheated on the test.

[Nakor]

God came to Moses, not the other way around. Moses was not given the option to be a direct servant of god. yes God came to Moses but Moses still asked God if he could see his glory(something like that, dont' have Bible in front of me now). Yes God did reveal himself to Moses but not fully because Moses still had to ask God if he could see his glory. Then God let Moses see him but only his back because seeing His face would have killed Moses. So why would Moses still need to ask God to see His glory if he knew God was real?

Moses did not have faith that god was real, Moses knew that god was real. It was god that went to him.
The CLEAR distinction being that god saw that Moses test of faith was over, while in this topic YOU decide you test of faith is over.
but why can't us humans choose to see God if some of us believe with all our hearts that God is real? God doesn't exactly come visit people on earth regularly. He doesn't really give anyone the chance of seeing him until the end of days. God would know who the person is who is seeing him, and then God could decide based on that if this person was choosing to see him after he knew God was real or if he wanted to see God because he didn't know if God was real.


Else where like forgiving Lucifer?
Else were like accepting those in hell into heaven?
Else were like accepting non-believers into heaven?

The reason, because the non-faithful don’t go to heaven. Heaven is reserved for the faithful. its been made pretty evident that God does have divine generosity. so none of us humans could even comprehend how far that will go since none of us know God. so maybe he would except those people. He wants us to be faithful. He may still except non-believers...we don't know.

Faith is belief without evidence, you have evidence of god. If you believe that seeing is still faith, then you have faith in everything in this world, and there are no facts. during Jesus' time, the Jews saw the things Jesus was doing(walking on water for example) yet not all of them still believed in Jesus.

If i see God, I can still have faith in God that he is a righteous God or that he is the God that I hope he is going to be.



For YOU to get into heaven you need faith.
Acts26: “18to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'”who said that? that isn't a quote from Jesus or God is it? Jesus was only quoted in the Gospels.

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Ephesians 2:8”again, did God or Jesus say this? some thing such as faith and needing it to get into heaven is something very big for alot of people. Thus its hard to accept anything that isn't said by God or Jesus, even if it comes from the Bible.


Now then you say “this is wrong Moses got into heaven. “
But this is a misunderstanding on the point of faith in relationship with getting into heaven.

As was brought up and explained earlier faith is a test by god. God has specified when this test will end. (when you die, end of days) this is when YOUR test of faith is over.

Moses was different, as god decided that Moses test of faith was over early and GOD reviled himself to Moses.

The clear distinction being that the test of faith is over when god revels himself to you, NOT when you decide to see god.

1) Moses seeing god = God reveling himself to Moses.
2) You choosing to see god = you deciding to see god.

In 1 god decided when the test of faith was over.
In 2 YOU decided when the test of faith was over.

In 1 god end test early because you passed, in 2 you cheated on the test.
but how do you know that God won't care if you choose to see him. Its still his choice to let you into Heaven. Even after you choose to see God he can still decide based on what you believed in before hand and how your life was devoted whether you will get into heaven or not.

If a monk who has devoted his entire life to faith, to God. and he has the choice of seeing God because he wants to know God then how can God not let him into Heaven if God knows that this monk fully believes in Him and all he wants to do is get to know God better to be even more spiritually strong than he was. Stronger than anyone ever could be if they haven't seen God.

[Peliqua]

If I could see God, would I... Nope. If he didn't turn out to be what I expected, it'd be a let down. Then again it could be interesting.

[sadated_peon]

yes God came to Moses but Moses still asked God if he could see his glory(something like that, dont' have Bible in front of me now). Yes God did reveal himself to Moses but not fully because Moses still had to ask God if he could see his glory. Then God let Moses see him but only his back because seeing His face would have killed Moses. So why would Moses still need to ask God to see His glory if he knew God was real?
Now you just splitting hairs, god was confirmed for Moses. Seeing god’s back is nothing more than a metaphor, as god has no back from or side or face.
Why would he want to see his glory? Because it is by it’s own name glorious. It is not a confirmation of existence but a request to be pleased.

but why can't us humans choose to see God if some of us believe with all our hearts that God is real?
because that is gods decision.

God doesn't exactly come visit people on earth regularly. He doesn't really give anyone the chance of seeing him until the end of days. God would know who the person is who is seeing him, and then God could decide based on that if this person was choosing to see him after he knew God was real or if he wanted to see God because he didn't know if God was real.
god has already chosen when this time will be, and the requirement is to wait for that time, contradicting this time is wanting to see him. If god believed that your faith test would over he would reveal himself to YOU not the other way around.

its been made pretty evident that God does have divine generosity. so none of us humans could even comprehend how far that will go since none of us know God. so maybe he would except those people. He wants us to be faithful. He may still except non-believers...we don't know.
God has said that Lucifer and non-believes will burn in hell for all eternity.
If he forgives them then he contradicts himself.

during Jesus' time, the Jews saw the things Jesus was doing(walking on water for example) yet not all of them still believed in Jesus.

If i see God, I can still have faith in God that he is a righteous God or that he is the God that I hope he is going to be.
No, they only new that he had power. They did not know that he was the Son of God. As the devil and his servants have the power to walk on water, etc.

It is faith that Jesus was the Son of God. At no time did Gods voice boom from the sky to the Jews and say “hey guys this is my son JC.”

If you see god, there is no dispute about that you see god, because this is a question about you seeing god.

who said that? that isn't a quote from Jesus or God is it? Jesus was only quoted in the Gospels.
It is from acts in the new testament here is the context.

“26:15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
26:16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;
26:17 Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,
26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.”

again, did God or Jesus say this? some thing such as faith and needing it to get into heaven is something very big for alot of people. Thus its hard to accept anything that isn't said by God or Jesus, even if it comes from the Bible.
this is a paul recounting the teachings of Jesus.

And most Christian consider the bible to be correct, as the entire bible is supposed to be inspired by god.

but how do you know that God won't care if you choose to see him. Its still his choice to let you into Heaven. Even after you choose to see God he can still decide based on what you believed in before hand and how your life was devoted whether you will get into heaven or not.
Because the bible says you need to be faithful until you die or until the end of days. That is why.

If a monk who has devoted his entire life to faith, to God. and he has the choice of seeing God because he wants to know God then how can God not let him into Heaven if God knows that this monk fully believes in Him and all he wants to do is get to know God better to be even more spiritually strong than he was. Stronger than anyone ever could be if they haven't seen God.
Because god gave a test to that monk to wait until he died or until god arrived, that monk failed this test.

[Rockreaper]

Well, if God gave you the ability to see him, then shouldn't you use it. One thing I do find wrong with your statement is this: The aspect of faith has changed since the bible was written, at least I think. When we say faith now it might be different that what Faith was back then. And the bible also says that belief in god is required. If you could see God, and you chose to, then yes you would not have faith anymore, but you would still believe in him. The aspect of faith then has changed to the aspect of faith now. And, if you combine the belief aspect with the fate aspect of the bible, then you have a contradiction.


@Neophyte
To bring up the evidence thing, I mean the sort of scientific evidence that would sway an empriricist.

[NeophyteNihilist]

No, it is not. Evidence can not be contradicted by other evidence.
It definantly can. Otherwise, it'd be proof.

This is not logically sound or logically valid.
Not logically sound: As nowhere is there a proof that all nature didn’t cause itself. (defeats “All things follow a pattern in nature, and every effect has a cause.”)
Something can't cause itself to come into existance, because it wouldn't exist in the first place and therefore couldn't cause anything. One of the defining characteristics of God is that only he can create "ex nihilo": from nothing.

2nd it is not logically valid because it fails the form.
Because one we don’t know all the laws of nature and two something beyond the laws of nature in no way has to be god. It is called a false dilemma and is a logical fallacy.
We don't know all the laws of nature, but the important thing is all known evidence firmly suggests that there is laws. As for something beyond the laws of nature, if it essentially created the universe (or at least is responsible for starting the process) then I'd say that is God.

Faith is belief without evidence, you have evidence of god. If you believe that seeing is still faith, then you have faith in everything in this world, and there are no facts.
Maybe there are no facts. That idea led Decartes to search for the undenyable truth. The undenyable fact he came up with was "I think therefore I am."

and here is the point of why you would not get into heaven.
To get into heaven you are supposed to believe in god without proof, but instead by your faith alone. Faith is a test, you admit that you are losing faith so you are losing the test.
:laugh Wow, your the first person on this forum to tell me I'm going it hell. Well in that case, why the hell am I living a virtuous life? Me and the rest of the virtuous nonbelievers should start being greedy and hedonistic. We should also probably start genetic expiramentation and cloning projects on the Christians who doomed us to eternal damnaton because they were so terrible at instilling faith in God in us. That way we punish them and with a bit of luck we achieve immortality one of these days.

[Beren]

Faith is much more complex than "believing without evidence." According to the general view of Christians, God is everywhere in the world, and his presence manifests itself ubiquitously.

As for Descartes' ideas... what works of his have u actually read? Why would u, Neophyte, refer to his centuries' old philosophy? If ur gonna go deconstructionist, go all the way and quote Friedrich Nietzsche... who sought to prove that nothing existed, not even the mind.

[NeophyteNihilist]

As for Descartes' ideas... what works of his have u actually read? Why would u, Neophyte, refer to his centuries' old philosophy? If ur gonna go deconstructionist, go all the way and quote Friedrich Nietzsche... who sought to prove that nothing existed, not even the mind.
I've read very little, to be honest my knowledge of Descartes' is limited to what I learned from discussions about him in my "Morality and Justice" class. The reason I'm not quoting Friedrich Nietzsche is that my goal isn't to prove that nothing matters (although it would be fun to actually live up to my user name in a debate for once) but merely to prove that perseving requires a certain amont of faith.

[sadated_peon]

It definantly can. Otherwise, it'd be proof.
no evidence can not be false, proof is evidence that leads to a conclusion.
http://m-w.com/dictionary/evidence
b : something that furnishes proof

If I someone sees me at work at 3:50 this is evidence of my whereabouts, if another person sees me at home at 3:50 this is evidence of my whereabouts.

Both can not be true, as evidence can not contradict itself.

Something can't cause itself to come into existance, because it wouldn't exist in the first place and therefore couldn't cause anything. One of the defining characteristics of God is that only he can create "ex nihilo": from nothing.
At no point did I say something caused itself into existence. “Cause” does not mean to bring into existence. (causes itself into existence does)
Matter and the universe may have always existed, just as other believe god always existed.

We don't know all the laws of nature, but the important thing is all known evidence firmly suggests that there is laws. As for something beyond the laws of nature, if it essentially created the universe (or at least is responsible for starting the process) then I'd say that is God.
That you don’t know what the laws are means that you do not have any understanding of what is beyond them, as you don’t know their limit.

There is nothing in the laws of nature that says that all objects in the universe did not always exist. The laws support no creation. In fact there is absolutely no evidence anywhere in the universe of creation.

As for starting a process, instead of creating it, that is a cause that can be done by an object itself.
For example a supernova is not caused by an outside force.

God represents an idea of deity, when in this case any connotation of a definition of this unknown being/force is wrong. The only thing that can be said would be that it created the first object. Whether it even still exists can not even be determined, or even if it did ever exist. As it is only our laws of nature that suggest that things must exist to impact the world.

Maybe there are no facts. That idea led Decartes to search for the undenyable truth. The undenyable fact he came up with was "I think therefore I am."
Then you believe the bible is wrong when it speaks of facts…

Wow, your the first person on this forum to tell me I'm going it hell. Well in that case, why the hell am I living a virtuous life? Me and the rest of the virtuous nonbelievers should start being greedy and hedonistic. We should also probably start genetic expiramentation and cloning projects on the Christians who doomed us to eternal damnaton because they were so terrible at instilling faith in God in us. That way we punish them and with a bit of luck we achieve immortality one of these days.

I am not saying you are going to hell, the bible says you are going to hell. I am just explain what the bible says.

I don’t believe in hell, and frankly don’t give a damn what you do in your spare time.

Faith is much more complex than "believing without evidence." According to the general view of Christians, God is everywhere in the world, and his presence manifests itself ubiquitously.

Not really faith boils down to that, of course you can add on different types of faith… that is the hear of it.

[Rockreaper]

Simply because of the fact that the bible says it that does not mean it's going to happen, what I mean is that it is not a strict set of rules, simply an example one can choice to live by.. At this point in time when you think about it and as i said in an earlier post, the bible contradicts itself. I think, at the time it was written faith and belief were the same thing, just synonyms.

[skunkworks]

From a Jewish perspective, gd wanted to create creatures who would seek him out without being able to see or hear him. You shouldn't have blind faith. One should inquire, learn, open their mind before assuming gd wants you to believe in him the moment you're able to produce thought.

[less]

I am not assuming, the bible has already said that its Christian followers are to have faith until god comes or they die. That you bypass this means that you violate the commands of god. By seeing god you have violated the command of faith, it does not matter if you follow everything else he tells you, you have still f-ed up.
The bible is not the literal word of God. The bible, according the very faith it repressents (as opposed to the Quaran, which is supposedly transkibed directly from Allah) is written by fallible human beings. Anyone who claims that the bible ios the best they've got, are christians. Anyone who claims that the bible is all, are ignorant.

because god didn’t come to you, you chose to violate Christian teachings and see him.
This is a very good argument, and I'll admit that I interpreted the question as "Would you wish to be visited by God" as opposed to "would you wish to visit God". However, one could argue that an omnipotent being would not make it possible for me to visit him, unless he wished that I did so. In which case, of course, I would have no option.

[Nakor]

i think that by wanting to see God you are reaffirming your faith because you want to know God. You want to get closer to him than you already are. By seeing God your belief in him would only increase and be reinforced. I think God wants mankind to get as close to him as they can.

what i keep thinking your saying sedated_peon is that faith can only be blind faith. That we can't see him if we wanted to because our faith has to be based on the fact that we can't know for sure that God exists. But i believe faith can be much more than that. that it can evolve from there, and by seeing God if you want to, then your faith would evolve and get stronger.

i didn't respond to your arguments sedated_peon because i thought we were kind of getting alittle off topic with some of them. or at least i was going to with my responses.

[sadated_peon]

The bible is not the literal word of God. The bible, according the very faith it repressents (as opposed to the Quaran, which is supposedly transkibed directly from Allah) is written by fallible human beings. Anyone who claims that the bible ios the best they've got, are christians. Anyone who claims that the bible is all, are ignorant.
well then there are many ignorant Christians including, president Bush.
This is a very good argument, and I'll admit that I interpreted the question as "Would you wish to be visited by God" as opposed to "would you wish to visit God". However, one could argue that an omnipotent being would not make it possible for me to visit him, unless he wished that I did so. In which case, of course, I would have no option.
no, it goes along with free will.
For example does god wish you would sin? Does he allow you to sin?
Does god want you to see him? Does he allow you to see him?

i think that by wanting to see God you are reaffirming your faith because you want to know God. You want to get closer to him than you already are. By seeing God your belief in him would only increase and be reinforced. I think God wants mankind to get as close to him as they can.
Incorrect if you see god you have no faith, because it has been changed into a fact. You belief would be confirmed, but you would no longer have faith, and as I have quoted Many MANY times faith is required.

what i keep thinking your saying sedated_peon is that faith can only be blind faith. That we can't see him if we wanted to because our faith has to be based on the fact that we can't know for sure that God exists. But i believe faith can be much more than that. that it can evolve from there, and by seeing God if you want to, then your faith would evolve and get stronger.
There can be no faith, when it is now a fact.

i didn't respond to your arguments sedated_peon because i thought we were kind of getting alittle off topic with some of them. or at least i was going to with my responses.
????

[less]

well then there are many ignorant Christians including, president Bush.
Yes.

As for your agrument, I yield.

[Nakor]

There can be no faith, when it is now a fact.



so you are saying that blind faith is the only way to go and that anyone who tries to actually get closer to God and remove his/her blind faith would go to hell?

[Sparkles the Wonder Kitty]

i wouldnt i fear the prescence of a force greater than i it would destroy my bones rip out my eyes stop my heart and excetara i dont want that plus it might not be a "god" but a form of light or a animal or anything we dont know... :oh

[sadated_peon]

so you are saying that blind faith is the only way to go and that anyone who tries to actually get closer to God and remove his/her blind faith would go to hell?
all faith in god is blind.

[Nakor]

all faith in god is blind.
but the idea that humans have to have blind faith or they go to hell is a pretty horrible thought. that all the people who try to go beyond just blind faith(ex: by doing research on Jesus to prove his existence) are really committing themselves to eternal damnation.

[MkAura]

but.....who says you need to believe in god to be able to see "him"(there is no sex for me), i mean, is not like once you become catholic you have the "right" to another things, and even more.......who sais you may decide if you see god or not (if god exist, i thing it will be up to "him" to decide), and even even more:P , how the heel are you going to have that posibility?? if god created all (im not really a believer, but well) the possibility of seeing "him" would be in his calculations.....and "he" is really not that interesed on the people

[Nakor]

^^ the conversation has because been going on the idea that if you could see God outside his calculations, would you?

or if God gave you the choice of seeing Him.

also in my posts i was taking the stance of a christian having the choice. of course anyone can see God if God desires it.

[MkAura]

mmmmm.....i have just remeber "joan of arcadia"(a tv program, the girl who was the protagonist talked whit god every day^^)

out of his calculations?? i tought he was perfect^^ 9actually we think he is perfect, nobody has never asked that to him)

why would god let you see him is its wrong?? personally i thing is neither wrong or good, just an option....but to be allowed for doing something is like you have the choise

something importat: i thing god may have created us, but we are 100% free to do anything in our lifes. fate is just what we decide to do, no god implied in the middle

[Nakor]

out of his calculations?? i tought he was perfect^^ 9actually we think he is perfect, nobody has never asked that to him)yes he is supposed to be perfect. we were assuming we could go outside his control.


something importat: i thing god may have created us, but we are 100% free to do anything in our lifes. fate is just what we decide to do, no god implied in the middleso you'd be a deist. or something similar. if you'd want to classify it

[MkAura]

"out of his control"?? creepy, that sounds like we are puppets of his will....... can you explain memore about that "deist" thing??(if you dont want to meke spam...pm me ok?)

[Nakor]

"out of his control"?? creepy, that sounds like we are puppets of his will.......
with christian believe, God has full control of mankind and makes everything happen.

[MkAura]

:amazed :amazed no thx ^^, i feel great by miself

who made this post?? this is really a non-end conversation

[Rockreaper]

with christian believe, God has full control of mankind and makes everything happen.


So, do you mean destiny, or that he "makes the world go 'round"?

[Nakor]

^^ that he is involved in everything that happens. he controls his creations. he knows what everyone is giong to do before they do it.

edit: something like that.

[skunkworks]

^^ that he is involved in everything that happens. he controls his creations. he knows what everyone is giong to do before they do it.

edit: something like that.

I think that if gd does exist he is behind the scenes. I figure there's a goal we're supposed to reach and in a sense all that we do will ultimately lead to that moment. I like to believe that gd influences the world subtly.

[TicoTico]

First of all, I'll have to confess that I just quickly read the first and the last page. I'm supposed to be reading to an exam, but I felt the urge to comment here a bit, if you don't mind. I should have went to bed a long time ago.

Can an ultimate (I'm not native English, I'm fairly sure this is the right word though..) being be omnipotent? If one can define something as 'God'.. then there has to be something that isn't God. And wouldn't the existance of another force mean that there is something greater than God and that other being - the entity they form? Therefore, neither God nor his "rivalling force", so to speak, could be omnipotent, could they? Nor could anything with needs, goals or motivations. And because God means something Absolute, Omnipotent, Alfa and Omega.. can God be just a creature in an entity? Is it even physically possible to define God?

So, to personally answer the question: ..Yes, I would.

As always, the answer is not absolute but depends on one's perspective. One could say that one can see God in everything, because God is (the sum of?) everything, and we are all one. Then again, one could mean by God a creature that is the ultimate manifestation of divine attributes. An Ultimate Being. I do believe such a creature exists, but that it would be physically impossible for us to see it. Then again, one doesn't need to ponder God's existance for that long to realize that it just might be impossible for such a thing to be. Can the whole even exist if it (and it's definition) isn't in constant motion?

I don't think any of those, and any of the other perspectives, are wrong. Even that is, in the end, just my perspective about it. Narrowing God's nature to a definition would sound physically impossible - but at the same time, it can't be..?

Ah, the feeling of knowing I'm gonna regret this post tomorrow.. :P G'night!

[sadated_peon]

but the idea that humans have to have blind faith or they go to hell is a pretty horrible thought. that all the people who try to go beyond just blind faith(ex: by doing research on Jesus to prove his existence) are really committing themselves to eternal damnation.
no, not jesus. Finding the man would not confirm that jesus is god. As even Jesus could have been just a man. (not son of god.) studing more about Jesus and his teachings does not prove that he is god.

Though a person who is attempting to find god himself, yes it working toward damnation.

[Nakor]

no, not jesus. Finding the man would not confirm that jesus is god. As even Jesus could have been just a man. (not son of god.) studing more about Jesus and his teachings does not prove that he is god. im talking about after Jesus rose from the dead. Jesus/God same thing really since Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit are all one.

sorry i shouldn't have even mentioned Jesus there just to not confuse anyone. my fault. i should've just said God.

Though a person who is attempting to find god himself, yes it working toward damnation.that is horrible thought though. God gave us intelligence to figure things out. Why would God give humanity intelligence and then when we use this intelligence to prove God's existence we end up going to hell?

even if God's existence is proven by sight, the person(people) still woulnd't know what kind of God he was. They could still have faith in what type of God he would be. so while a person's faith may be gone in the existence of God, they would still have faith in what type of God he was. so the faith for God would still be there, just in a different way. unless of course, by seeing God we would know exactly what type of God he was. but thats another topic all together.

[makeoutparadise2]

I'd see him

[hesd]

Sadated says:
1) We decide to see God, not Him deciding as to when His revelation to us will come to pass.
2)Faith, then, is invalidated. Hence, we can't get to heaven.

Actually, I don't see the distinction between us deciding to see God and Him revealing Himself in His rightful time. The two roads lead to one destination: We had seen Him. Our test of faith lies not on whether we see Him at the right time or not. More than 500 people witnessed Jesus' ascendance to heaven when we rose from the grave. The test of faith is, when you see God, whoever, whatever induced your senses to comprehend His mighty presence, whether you have accepted Him as your Lord and savior and whether you have lived out the Christian faith or not.
And yes, a person who has chosen to see God will go to heaven. For sure, he'd undergone an instant transformation after their meeting,ceteris paribus. Transforming faith into a fact will not remove Jesus in your life. Humans are not machines to simply follow the lexical nature of the words. Concepts like Faith and Fact change based on empirical evidences and experiences; not the other way around.

[MkAura]

actually if i could see him, i would do it just to be sure that there is something.... and i dobut than after that i wont go to heaven, i mean, he wouldnt appear in front of yu knowing that there would be no heaven for that people

why dont we call a priest??:P :P but actually everyone know what would he say...

[sandninja911]

i woulnt id smite 1st point
when u want something really bad god is the guy who ignores u

[Nekko-Sama]

God likes the back table at Denny's. All hours, all locations :nod

[GOD'S BITCH]

Sadated says:
1) We decide to see God, not Him deciding as to when His revelation to us will come to pass.
2)Faith, then, is invalidated. Hence, we can't get to heaven.

Actually, I don't see the distinction between us deciding to see God and Him revealing Himself in His rightful time. The two roads lead to one destination: We had seen Him. Our test of faith lies not on whether we see Him at the right time or not. More than 500 people witnessed Jesus' ascendance to heaven when we rose from the grave. The test of faith is, when you see God, whoever, whatever induced your senses to comprehend His mighty presence, whether you have accepted Him as your Lord and savior and whether you have lived out the Christian faith or not.
And yes, a person who has chosen to see God will go to heaven. For sure, he'd undergone an instant transformation after their meeting,ceteris paribus. Transforming faith into a fact will not remove Jesus in your life. Humans are not machines to simply follow the lexical nature of the words. Concepts like Faith and Fact change based on empirical evidences and experiences; not the other way around.

transforming faith into a fact...you cant fo that. Even with evidence and facts you need faith to believe in the facts. As man progresses, many things that we thought were true were not etc. Faith cannot be eliminated or transformed it could only be reinforced by facts.

[vervex]

I see God daily...
I actualy like what skunkworks said : "Stare into the sky at night."
Very poetic and answers the question perfectly. Look aroung you and see... hmm... hmm...

[notcomawhite]

Depends what you define God as, if you define it as a higher being then no, I would not want to see God, if you saw God as hope then yes, I would like to see it.

A lot of people say "God is in everything" so do they believe they see God in everything that is tangible? I think that idea is pretty cool, but I can't get myself to look at God/religion in that way.

[Cæk]

do the cliche thing and ask God the questions no human could have the answers to =/

[vervex]

A lot of people say "God is in everything" so do they believe they see God in everything that is tangible? I think that idea is pretty cool, but I can't get myself to look at God/religion in that way.

Hmm... God is everything means it literally to me. I got interested into the oriental beliefs and it opened my eyes on many aspects of spirituality you can't find in occidental religions for example. Pagan beliefs are also meaningful in some way. And if you look deeper into what's remaining of the original bible texts, you might find what it means...
For me, God is only a word to name that "whole" we are part of. God is energy. Energy is what makes us and everything around. When they say religion's not that far from science, must be true ;)

The questions that remains unanswered yet are : Does "God"/"this whole" has a goal ? And if so, would we ever be able to understand it, being only a part of it ? - I can't explain either the layers/dimmensions that make this world... but I'm trying to get closer to the answer :) I do the best I can with my human limited brain and perception.

[sadated_peon]

Forgot about this thread.

that is horrible thought though. God gave us intelligence to figure things out. Why would God give humanity intelligence and then when we use this intelligence to prove God's existence we end up going to hell?
why?
Don’t ask me.
Think back to adam and eve and the fruit of knowledge, it was the search for knowledge that condemned man.

even if God's existence is proven by sight, the person(people) still woulnd't know what kind of God he was. They could still have faith in what type of God he would be. so while a person's faith may be gone in the existence of God, they would still have faith in what type of God he was. so the faith for God would still be there, just in a different way. unless of course, by seeing God we would know exactly what type of God he was. but thats another topic all together.
for god to show himself as an omnipotent/omniscience/etc being that he is would be to confirm what he is. To say god is not what is defined is god and has been shown, would be denying truth instead of not having faith.

Sadated says:
1) We decide to see God, not Him deciding as to when His revelation to us will come to pass.
2)Faith, then, is invalidated. Hence, we can't get to heaven.
that’s about right.

Actually, I don't see the distinction between us deciding to see God and Him revealing Himself in His rightful time. The two roads lead to one destination: We had seen Him. Our test of faith lies not on whether we see Him at the right time or not.
How can you not see a distinction between god deciding your test of faith is over, and you deciding your test of faith is over?

More than 500 people witnessed Jesus' ascendance to heaven when we rose from the grave.
Which doesn’t prove there is a god now does it.

The test of faith is, when you see God, whoever, whatever induced your senses to comprehend His mighty presence, whether you have accepted Him as your Lord and savior and whether you have lived out the Christian faith or not.
no, the test of faith is to hold the faith in god until he decided it is time for you to see him. That is why jesus said that those who believe without seeing are blessed.

And yes, a person who has chosen to see God will go to heaven. For sure, he'd undergone an instant transformation after their meeting,ceteris paribus. Transforming faith into a fact will not remove Jesus in your life. Humans are not machines to simply follow the lexical nature of the words. Concepts like Faith and Fact change based on empirical evidences and experiences; not the other way around.
A person who chose to see god, would not have faith in god. A person without faith in god will not go to heaven.

If Jesus revealed himself to you, then fine, god has said your test of faith is over.
If you peek at jesus in the shower your going to hell.

[HugeGuy]

Didn't go through all the pages. But according to Christianity, you'll die of you see God's face. Think I wanna stay a little longer on Earth(just to finish Bleach):P

[Cæk]

Didn't go through all the pages. But according to Christianity, you'll die of you see God's face. Think I wanna stay a little longer on Earth(just to finish Bleach):P

really? :huh i didnt know that, where did you find that?

[Deputy Myself]

if I'd see god I'd probably freak out and run away

[Meijin]

"How 'bout them Cowboys!"

[Heldensheld]

No, I would not.

[HugeGuy]

really? :huh i didnt know that, where did you find that?
Eh? I thought it was something all Christians know(unless you're not one. In that case, I apologize). But according to God, no living human should see His face and lives. That's why God covered Moses' eyes when He came down from heaven to drink with them on Mt.*I forgot the name*.

[vervex]

Eh? I thought it was something all Christians know(unless you're not one. In that case, I apologize). But according to God, no living human should see His face and lives. That's why God covered Moses' eyes when He came down from heaven to drink with them on Mt.*I forgot the name*.

I didn't know that... That stated in the bible ? Man, I'm even happier not to be Christian anymore lol it's non sense... God has no face. God is not someone.

That's actualy what I hate about Christianity, this tendency to humanise everything they don't understand ! To me, it sounds almost barbaric... I feel they need someone to show them the way, they can't think for themselve, but not only that, they need to imagine their leade is human also, for feeling more secure. Isn't that the paroxysm of lack of confidence ?

Anyway....

[Cæk]

Eh? I thought it was something all Christians know(unless you're not one. In that case, I apologize). But according to God, no living human should see His face and lives. That's why God covered Moses' eyes when He came down from heaven to drink with them on Mt.*I forgot the name*.

no, im not a christain :amuse and i didnt know that fact bout moses :O

(if i saw god before i ask him all those questions id say "WHY GOD WHY???" :arg..what? people say it alot i wanna know his answer :oh lol

[LOVEscream ♥]

If I would see him.. I would ask him if Boeddha is there too:oh

[vervex]

If I would see him.. I would ask him if Boeddha is there too:oh

Buddha reincarnates ;) no luck !

[LOVEscream ♥]

Buddha reincarnates ;) no luck !

Euhh...:oh

O yeah...:amazed I'm a disgrace to the Buddism :( :cry

[Deputy Myself]

Buddha reincarnates ;) no luck !

Haha, thats hilarious :laugh

[LivingHitokiri]

First answer if he exist then bother with other god things

P.S Im a believer:P

[Yoshitsune]

what if "he" is just a manifestation of our minds to take the shape of anything we want or whomever we want to see. like in that show Joan of Arcadia, God was everyone, he had many faces :)

[LOVEscream ♥]

There's something that I just can't figure out :oh Like you said about Joan of Arcadia. As you know France and England were at war. France and England are both christians... they both believe in him. So.. at which side is God :oh I mean, they both prey for victory:huh

PS: For your info, I don't believe in God.

[BladeofTheChad]

God would have to exist first, for me to see him...hahaha...then, if he did exist, id ask him why he made his creations more powerful than him...

[LOVEscream ♥]

God would have to exist first, for me to see him...hahaha...then, if he did exist, id ask him why he made his creations more powerful than him...

What creation?:oh

[BladeofTheChad]

us...we are more powerful than him...

[LOVEscream ♥]

us...we are more powerful than him...

Interesting.. what made you think of that?:huh IF God excist... of course he would be more powerfull then us :oh I mean.. people say that he caused the tsunami on the 26th of december (2years ago??:oh Sorry forgot ^_^") in Asia.

Really... then, I wouldn't dare to make him mad XD

[petersellers]

we all do when we look in the mirror. each one of us is a preveyor as well as a surveyor

[BladeofTheChad]

it is simple, people take this lightly, when the Bible says, Free Will...Free Will is the power to change anything.

The Bible contradicts itself, when it says there are only two choices after death, Heaven or Hell...using my FREE WILL, i can choose neither.

[kitty_kat]

I would only ask Him come He just "is"? I wanna know where He came from. Is there a mother God? (i hope that wasnt blasphemous)

[petersellers]

all you have to do to see god is think about him, if you want to see gods creator look in the mirror. you'll see him looking back at you

[petersellers]

when asked about gods omnipotence sartre retorted by telling people to look in every direction and then up and down. immediately upon the completion of the individuals survey he would ask who's the center of your universe?

[HugeGuy]

^Looks like the NF gods banned him.

[batanga]

Sure, I don´t believe in god(s) but I´d like to see one.


I think he once visited "Late Night with Conan O' Brien", though.

[LOVEscream ♥]

^Looks like the NF gods banned him.


Thank god he is... he's been bothering me a while =_= He was PM-ing me some insulting stuff :notrust He thinks I'm too cool for a girl:oh

[Robotkiller]

If I saw god I would ask him what the fuck is up with platypus's.:oh

[greatachilles]

personally, if i had the option i would like to see God. but eventually, someday we will.

[dannyboy]

yes...then i call buddha for bak up :hi5

[skunkworks]

God would have to exist first, for me to see him...hahaha...then, if he did exist, id ask him why he made his creations more powerful than him...

Hypothetically, I'd say that we were intentionally made more "powerful".

[petersellers]

tochee my friend, but why?

[BladeofTheChad]

Hypothetically, I'd say that we were intentionally made more "powerful".

exactly, if he did exist, why would he create beings more powerful than himself...

[GOD'S BITCH]

exactly, if he did exist, why would he create beings more powerful than himself...
More importantly, how is his creations more powerful?

[Shigure]

Would I like to gaze upon a being at or near the pinnacle of existance? Yes.
A (self proclaimed) god? No.

[GOD'S BITCH]

us...we are more powerful than him...
How are we more powerful than God?

[el zilcho]

IF some form of "divine" being exists, it is not something to "see", per se. But, if I am to assume that some deity exists, and I am given the opportunity to "perceive" or "experience" this being... No, I wouldn't. Such things are inconsequential and meaningless to me. I'd rather spend the time thinking of how I can reach my fullest potential as myself - a flawed, entirely mortal entity existing in 3+1 dimensional space-time.

[GOD'S BITCH]

IF some form of "divine" being exists, it is not something to "see", per se. But, if I am to assume that some deity exists, and I am given the opportunity to "perceive" or "experience" this being... No, I wouldn't. Such things are inconsequential and meaningless to me. I'd rather spend the time thinking of how I can reach my fullest potential as myself - a flawed, entirely mortal entity existing in 3+1 dimensional space-time.
But refusing to acknowledge or refusing the oppertunity to witness a superior being would not enable you to reach your fullest portential. You would just be ignorant.

[Azure-kun]

if there was a didvine existance in front of me there would be alot more action and alot less questions. . .I'll limit my reply to that thank you.

[GOD'S BITCH]

if there was a didvine existance in front of me there would be alot more action and alot less questions. . .I'll limit my reply to that thank you.
what do you mean there'll be more action than questions?

[el zilcho]

But refusing to acknowledge or refusing the oppertunity to witness a superior being would not enable you to reach your fullest portential. You would just be ignorant.

The only ignorance I see is in that reply. How does my desire to achieve personal fulfillment have anything to do with a divine being? I am human. I exist in a world dominated by physical beings. The assumption being made in my initial reply was not that "the Christian/Muslim/whatever God" existed, but simply a divine being. How can experiencing something that exists in a reality beyond my limits help me to reach mine in this? Oh sure, it may be inspirational, but I do not, nor will ever need, any deity to further add to my will.

If we were discussing the <insert religion of choice here> God, I would not have bothered to post, as that is never something I will accept as valid. But, as I thought this to be the Philosophical forum, I substituted the only notion of "God" that I could accept - an incomprehensible being that exists in a "higher" plane of reality, from which it is neither necessary, or entirely helpful, for my "viewing" of "God" to further my own goals.