This is a question posed by many Christians to non-believers like myself.
There is a very simple answer. I expect God to do for me what he did for virtually every Bible character.
The Apostle Paul preached:
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see … And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. –Hebrews 11:1,6
Paul was a hypocrite to teach this. Based on his own story of conversion, Paul admits he only became a believer because Jesus appeared to him as a blinding light in the sky and spoke to him directly. But everyone else on earth is required to blindly believe without seeing or hearing and trust the story of Paul that sounds like one of a crazy man.
The Bible teaches that God appeared to Adam and Eve, Abraham, Noah, Moses, Solomon, the disciples and many others.
Am I wrong in demanding that God show himself to me before I will believe?
No, because the Bible tells me:
I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism. –Acts 10:34
God does not show favoritism. –Romans 2:11
If God does not show favoritism, he would show himself to me exactly as he did for Paul and the many other Bible figures. Why must I believe without seeing when others like doubting Thomas received special treatment? Either God did not appear to these people, or he does show favoritism. You can’t have it both ways.
This can mean only one of two things:
A) The Bible is false and God shows favorites
B) The Bible is false and God is fiction
Tags: Christianity, God, Atheist, Bible, Jesus, Christian, Belief, Agnostic, Imaginary, Believe, False, Paul, Apostle
June 2, 2009 at 3:53 pm |
I think God has revealed himself and spoken to some of our TV evangelists. Maybe Paul, Adam and Eve, Abraham, Noah, Moses, Solomon and the others were the “TV Evangelists” of their time?
June 2, 2009 at 4:02 pm |
If that’s the case, the Bible should have used the spelling “Jeezus” whenever Paul preached. We totally lose the flamboyant flair of Paul’s televangelist style in the current texts.
http://thebeattitude.wordpress.com/files/2009/06/jeezus.jpg
June 2, 2009 at 4:47 pm |
Isn’t that the very definition of favoritism?
For that matter, what’s the deal with calling a race His “Chosen People?” Doesn’t that smack of complete and utter favoritism? When people do that, they’re racists. Why does God get an exemption on this?
June 2, 2009 at 4:10 pm |
Nothing short of a verifiable miracle will ever convince this skeptic.
Mixter
June 2, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
Then there are the guards at Jesus’ tomb in Matthew who supposedly had a front seat to the resurrection and revelation of the empty tomb and they could apparently think of nothing else other than how to cover it up.
June 2, 2009 at 5:17 pm |
My answer would be a little different: A God worthy of worship would need to be different in many if not respects of the Jehovah of the Bible-both New and Old Testaments.
June 2, 2009 at 6:57 pm |
Is belief the right approach to take regarding G-d?
June 2, 2009 at 8:02 pm |
“Am I wrong in demanding that God show himself to me before I will believe?”
Yes; but that may very well be the way it happens.
June 2, 2009 at 8:05 pm |
I’ll address your 3rd point:
Your interpretation of Romans is out of context. God doesn’t show favoritism between Jews and Greeks (you’re thinking person to person). Romans was written to a bunch of non-Jews and Paul was telling them Salvation was available to them as well. Acts was around the same situation (remember the sheet that comes down?). You’re individualizing something that was meant corporately.
You claim you want God to treat you just like he treated Paul, yet look at his life: stoned, imprisoned, beaten. You surely wouldn’t want all the Lord required of Paul, would you? Or would you want just the good, while being required of nothing?
Read
June 2, 2009 at 8:42 pm |
Well let’s see (and I don’t mean to be ripping on you BeAttitude at all here).
1) He’s lost his job
2) He can’t reveal himself to his wife, friends, and family for fear of being ostracized
3) He has people coming here on a daily basis telling him he is wrong and damned
I’d say he’s certainly not asking for just the good. He’s asking for equal footing, which would make sense.
June 2, 2009 at 9:29 pm |
Maybe God is real and he’s decided to smite me for my lack of faith. If that’s the case, he’s doing a good job.
June 3, 2009 at 3:25 pm
…
June 2, 2009 at 9:21 pm |
Jedi–
You make some good points. The verses are speaking about Jews and Gentiles. But the meaning of the verse is God treats everyone the same and shows no favorites. And as I’ve illustrated, that isn’t true.
And as Bryan said here, I’m not looking for the god of the Bible to come down and give me a high five. I’m simply stating that certain people in the Bible did not require faith to believe. In these stories, God absolutely gave them special treatment.
June 3, 2009 at 6:02 am |
BEattitude-
God never claimed to treat everyone the same except to whom he offers Salvation. He never said “Jacob and Esau shall be equals”, but quite the opposite (Rom 9:13). The meaning is not that God shows no favoritism in how he reveals himself, as you appear to claim.
I agree with you that God certainly did give certain people “special treatment”. He’s God, doesn’t he have the right to do that? (Rom 9:21)
He already was beaten, crucified, and died so that you might have Salvation. Yet you ask for even more?
Examine Anselm’s proof or other ontological proofs for God’s existence. You asked Jesus to come into your heart, at that was your first mistake. Ask Him to come into your mind.
June 2, 2009 at 11:30 pm |
Sorry to hear about your job. I hope you find something better.
Scholars are divided but most think that Hebrews was not written by Paul. But faith is all that is required by God. It is his gift to us.
So:
“Am I wrong in demanding that God show himself to me before I will believe?”
If your belief in God was contingent on direct observation, then it would not be based on faith but on proof. If you need proof, then that is the definition of having lost faith.
The real question to ask is this: Why is faith insufficient? Does truth only come wrapped in proof, science and reason? I am a believer because I don’t want to cut myself off from truth that is not available through rational means.
June 3, 2009 at 5:53 pm |
Yes.
June 4, 2009 at 9:30 pm |
Paul,
Needing proof is not the definition of having lost faith. Not trusting God anymore, or not being found trustworthy would be a better definition of losing faith.
If having proof means that you can’t have faith then none of the disciples had faith. Paul didn’t have faith. Moses didn’t have faith. Etc. Notice that most of the heroes of faith in Hebrews actually saw god. Check out a NT Greek dictionary. Faith means trust (with a few nuances here and there). Trust often needs proof and the scriptures are filled with people getting proofs. “So that you will know…”
June 2, 2009 at 11:36 pm |
For me, like most intellectually honest folks, all it would take is clear, confirmed, scientifically-verified evidence of God’s existence that has been peer-reviewed and has no alternative explanations.
Without that, it’s just a fairy tale and can be categorized with all great stories.
There is no truth without evidence. There is only supposition. What the faithful call “truth” is wishful-thinking.
June 3, 2009 at 7:50 am |
To affirm Paul M’s point: Few scholars think Paul wrote Hebrews, and the book itself does not say who wrote it. It wasn’t a good idea to make an assumption of Pauline authorship there so central to your post.
It’s interesting that Jesus addresses the issue of people who want a sign in order to believe. He makes several points related to this:
1. The signs are there, you just don’t recognize them (Matthew 16:1-4).
2. Unless you are born again, you cannot recognize the working of God’s kingdom (John 3:3).
3. Those who do not believe the testimony of Moses and the prophets would not even believe if someone came back from the dead and appeared to them (Luke 16:30-31).
His point is: The problem is not lack of a definitive, sufficient sign, such as a direct appearance of God. The issue is that the same people who do not accept the “smaller” signs that he has given — such as the testimony of the Scriptures themselves or his ministry and his disciples — wouldn’t accept the testimony of the much larger signs, either.
And we see this played out very clearly. For example, later in the gospel of John, Jesus brings Lazarus back to life. That’s quite a sign. Yet the Pharisees still do not believe. In fact, this led them to plot to kill Lazarus as well as Jesus (John 12:10). You also have the very vivid miracles that Jesus did during his ministry, and yet there were still many who witnessed them but did not believe (John 11:47-53).
One might say that the biblical testimony to these things is not reliable — that Jesus didn’t really say these things, he never brought Lazarus back to life, and never did miracles in his ministry. But that would be missing the point. The point is that the Bible itself does give an explanation for why God does not make himself manifestly, obviously visible to everyone. So it would be unfair to critique Christianity on the basis that God has not appeared to you (like he did to some — not all — biblical characters) but not give consideration to the Bible’s own explanation for why he operates in this way.
The main point from Jesus’ teaching and the NT on this is that the problem is the human heart, not the way he reveals himself. This is a very, very profound point that I don’t see people reckoning with on discussions of these matters.
One more thing: This point is very different, also, from saying that God simply doesn’t reveal himself directly because that would take away “room for faith.” I don’t agree with that, and I don’t think that is the meaning of passages like Hebrews 11:1-6). The biblical teaching is much, much more profound: it is that the people who don’t believe now without such amazing and miraculous and direct “proofs” wouldn’t even believe if the amazing proof they are requesting were given to them.
June 3, 2009 at 8:17 am |
1. Things that can be easily explained are not miraculous signs. A talking burning bush and a voice from the sky are miraculous signs anyone would recognize.
2. Whether you believe it or not, I was born again. I whole heartedly believed and followed God for most of my life. As a believer, you attribute everything to God because you believe it. Not because it is necessarily true.
3. The statement in Luke is absolutely ridiculous. If someone dies and comes back to life, it would be impossible to deny it.
My human heart is just fine. I am the same man I have always been. I simply believe in one less god than I used to.
June 3, 2009 at 8:56 am |
Thanks for your thoughts. I thought that your point three was very interesting, because Jesus died and came back to life, and yet you deny it. (As did many of the religious leaders in his day as well.)
Beyond that, it is quite interesting that after Jesus brought Lazarus back to life, the response of some of the leaders was not that they denied it, but that they sought to kill Lazarus so that word of what Jesus did would not spread.
I wish I knew more of your story. I read your recent post on leaving the faith. It is interesting that you say here that you were born again, when I would assume that you don’t even believe anymore that there is even such a thing as the new birth (as that presupposes the existence of God and Jesus as Lord).
June 3, 2009 at 10:01 am |
Since I now view the Bible as little more than archaic folklore, the story of Jesus and Lazarus can be easily explained. It’s fiction. I’m not denying something I’ve witnessed, I’m denying something that was written 2,000 years ago by unknown authors 40-70 years after the alleged events took place.
I can understand the idea that the Pharisees would have seen Jesus as a threat to their Jewish beliefs. But killing Lazarus after he had been miraculously brought back to life would not stop the word of the miracle from spreading. And it doesn’t change the fact that it is completely irrational to believe any person would deny such an obvious miracle after personally witnessing it.
Your assessment of my story is accurate. I was born again because I believed I was born again. But today I don’t believe anyone can be reborn in Christ because I see it as only a figment of their imagination.
June 3, 2009 at 10:46 am |
BE,
Read the book “The Case for Christ,”
This book is all about the scientific evidence for Jesus Christ. It talks about how the Gospels are reliable as a biography to the life of Jesus Christ. It talks about how the entire Bible is reliable, historically, and that no piece of archeology has proven any part of the Bible wrong, and in fact archeology has proven parts of the Bible true that scholars have previously thought were wrong! It is absolutely incredible the amount of evidence that backs up Jesus Christ’s claims as the Son of God and the Bible as the Word of God.
June 3, 2009 at 10:57 am |
Except the Gospels were written after Jesus died and there is no proof that the writers even met Jesus.
That book was written by someone who not only wants to believe that the Bible is inerrant, but he wants everyone to. That does not count as a valid, unbiased source.
I’ve heard a lot of the justifications, and they simply do not stand up to scrutiny when you look up the actual facts.
There is no first-hand record of Jesus being a historical figure. Even if you take Josephus’ account, and there is skepticism as to whether he wrote those passages at all, then it’s still not first hand but, rather, based on the retellings of other people. That’s even if you discount the evidence that the two references he makes to Jesus were probably forged.
There are no accounts detailing the things that happened that, even if someone didn’t know about Jesus, they would have seen. People would have written about people clawing their way out of the graves at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion. They would have documented the miraculous healings. Yet, the histories of the day, while very complete concerning all manner of goings on, fail to mention them.
Also, archaeology points to the idea that Jericho may have actually been completely vacant by the time its walls were supposed to have fallen down, allowing the Israelites to take the city. That’s pretty far from confirming the Bible. http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/middle_east/jericho.html
June 3, 2009 at 12:40 pm |
Actually Janus, Lee Strobel was an atheist, and wrote the book The Case for Christ after he was converted to Christianity after facing the overwhelming evidence for Jesus, and the Bible’s, claims.
As far as archeology disproving the flood, I disagree with that statement. If you want to find evidence for, you will. If you want to find evidence against, you will. It’s not a question of evidence, it’s a question of faith. Thermodynamics says that things get more chaotic as time progresses, so how can this universe come into existence based on the laws of thermodynamics? Also, where you see a watch, you know there is a creator, where you see a t-shirt, you know there is a designer, where you see a painting you know there is an artist, and where you see twenty pop cans in a row you know there is someone who had to place them in order. The heavens declare His glory. Creation, Design, Art, and Order. 4 things that testify to God’s existence. Also, there are over 300 prophecies in the Old Testament that were fulfilled by Jesus Christ. Any other book in history make that claim? The Bible is also the top selling book around the world. Number one. No one beats it. It’s also published in more languages than any other book in existence. There really is a God.
June 3, 2009 at 1:03 pm
The fact that he was an atheist before doesn’t mean he ever had the facts.
You make it seem like atheism has some kind of centralized belief structure and therefore, if one atheist believed something, then they all do.
The fact is, he’s flat out wrong. He’s wrong and he’s either lying for Jesus or staying willfully ignorant.
All of your little “ace in the hole” examples of thermodynamics and watches and what have you are old and have been explained in detail.
Besides, people WROTE the New Testament. They wrote it knowing exactly what the Old Testament said. Of course they would write that Jesus fulfilled those prophecies, that doesn’t make them true.
June 3, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Actually Janus, Lee Strobel was an atheist,…
Yeah, sure he was. The apologist who doesn’t claim to have been an atheist is a rarity. But then they all write things that make me think they never actually were; things that convince me they have no idea what it actually means to be an atheist.
June 9, 2009 at 8:21 am |
Janus,
“That does not count as a valid, unbiased source.”
When we’re debating things like this nobody is every going to agree on an unbiased source. We’re all biased, we all have our public and secret motivations. Would any of us be comfortable in finding a person who has no interest in Christianity or atheism and letting them decide once and for all which one (if either of them) is true? Of course we wouldn’t. We’d all run right back to our thinkers and say “yes but, yes but.” If we just round up everybody who is biased and get rid of them, we won’t have anybody to listen to… not even ourselves.
Empretho appeals to Lee Strobel the same way that you appeal to the people who have “explained in detail” things like the watch argument. It doesn’t matter who writes it or explains it, or how biased they are; the question is, is it true?
“I’ve heard a lot of the justifications, and they simply do not stand up to scrutiny when you look up the actual facts.”
And where is this Big Book O’ Facts that you’re reading? “Facts” are always disputable. Paul says “I saw Jesus.” Sounds like a fact, but we all dispute it. “God doesn’t answer prayer.” Sounds like an obvious fact to some people, but we all dispute it. If there were some indisputable collection of facts that we could look at then debates like this wouldn’t be happening. “Facts” are discovered and promoted by biased people. As fellow biased people, we have to sort through them and decide which ones we think are true.
“There is no first-hand record of Jesus being a historical figure.”
John claims to have seen Jesus and touched him. I would say that this is a pretty good first-hand record of Jesus being a historical figure. It’s a fact that John claimed this (check John’s gospel). But do we think John really saw and touched Jesus?
“People would have written…”
We don’t know what people would or would not have written. Besides, even if we did find these things written, we could just say what Reginald says below, “Wow, it’s written in a book, it must be true.” We could just explain the rest of the writings away too!
“Yet, the histories of the day, while very complete concerning all manner of goings on, fail to mention them [miracles].”
Histories of the day were anything but complete! Historians continue to debate over what was written and whether it is reliable. I’m not talking about religious stuff, I’m talking about “all manner of goings on.” Historians always wish they had more, because what we have is depressingly incomplete.
On the other hand, archaeologists are constantly discovering writings. Maybe one day we’ll find a lot more outside evidence of Jesus. Even if we don’t, we’ve got some pretty good stuff already.
Have you ever stopped to consider that just about any history writer was writing biasedly and from the “inside” just like Christian writers? Most of them wrote about things that they were not eyewitnesses to. And if they only wrote about things that they were eyewitnesses to then think of how much they would have had to leave out!
If a Roman writes a history of Rome, are we going to reject it just because he is Roman? If a Jew writes a history of Rome, shall we reject it if he hated Rome? If a random uninterested guy writes about Rome, should we treasure it because he was disinterested and unbiased? Is there any more reason to think that he got things right and complete just because he wasn’t biased? Everyone around would think that he really was biased because he wasn’t willing to either love or hate Rome!
Lee Strobel is wrong and “he’s either lying for Jesus or staying willfully ignorant.”
Are you kidding me? Are you in any position to know his motivation? Must non-atheists be liars or willfully ignorant? Can’t people just really be convinced by the evidence that something else is true? When you claim to know the real motivation of ancient writers and modern writers – despite what they say their real motivations are – you’ve probably said too much. Nobody is going to believe that you have the inside scoop to people’s inner thought life.
June 9, 2009 at 8:34 am
Wow, thank you so much for waxing eloquent on my behalf Mat.
Another reason why the miracles of Jesus time were not well recorded is because often times Jesus told the people he was healing not to say anything about it. Notice that anytime Jesus healed someone, He talked about their faith. Also, Jesus Christ was from Nazarene, a small town of estimated 300 people around that time frame. In fact, some historians, until recently, weren’t even sure of it’s existence in Jesus time, which only goes to show why the people said “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” It comes down to faith, even with all the evidence that is laid out in front of them. Paul says that Jesus Christ revealed himself to 515 people. I believe this to be fact.
June 9, 2009 at 7:27 pm
So, wait a minute. You’re bringing up the Bible as a source to prove the Bible? I would ask you to do better than that, but I know you can’t. There isn’t anything. I even refrained from posting a good article about the only two times Josephus mentioned Jesus and how they’re categorically determined to be completely out of keeping with Josephus’ writing.
Here’s the gist of a fraction of it. The most famous passage of which is when Josephus calls Jesus “The Christ” and yet Josephus lived his entire life devoutly Jewish. He also wrote under the patronage of the Roman Empire. Mystery cults were getting hammered down hard by Rome and Christianity was nothing special in that regard. Josephus wrote nothing but derision for those types of sects. He had to. If he didn’t, he would have been executed along with the people he was defending.
Not to mention the fact that people only had record of that tidbit in the 4th or 5th century, when Christianity was in full swing and had been declared a state religion. How about that?
As for keeping tight lipped, didn’t Jesus also tell his disciples to literally go to every city they could and talk about him? What was that whole bit about the condemnatory shaking off the sandals when cities wouldn’t receive the message of Jesus? I mean, this is a guy who promised hellfire on the cities that weren’t interested.
Matthew 10:14 and 15
14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
I don’t know what you’ve heard, but the fates of Sodom and Gomorrha were widely regarded as times when God was especially harsh on people, to the point that even Abraham was begging God to show mercy. Jesus is calling down vengeance even more wrathful than the God of the Old Testament? So much for the whole “merciful Savior” thing.
Weren’t there also thousands upon thousands of people who saw Jesus work miracles? These were people who presumably were trying to make him king, yet nobody thought to write anything down? Not even people witnessing the phenomena? There are tomes and tomes of information of daily Jerusalem life around the supposed time of Jesus, yet nobody heard of 5000 men, not even counting women and children, feasting from mere scraps?
Didn’t 500 people see Jesus fly into the heavens? Not to mention the dead clawing their way out of their tombs during the crucifixion.
None of that merited ANYTHING? This was a time when historians were busy cataloging every event they could. The New Testament mentions scribes aplenty. Their JOB was to write down things. That’s all they did all day long. Not one of them even mentioned Jesus derisively? For all the hatred of Jesus, you think he would have warranted more scorn than any of the other leaders of the mystery cults of the age, but the Romans were awfully silent for someone who was actually processed through their legal system.
Oh, and the “Case for Christ?” It’s obviously not the testimony of an atheist. The only people who I’ve ever seen impressed with that “evidence” were already convinced of its veracity in the first place. They’re common Christian catch-phrases.
It would be like me saying that I never watch basketball, but I was won over when I saw a Division II college coach make good use of his deep bench to draw out the opponents big men and really spread the paint.
Stop throwing me softballs. Really. Part of me wishes that you actually had something to reference. At least that might be sporting.
June 3, 2009 at 11:44 am |
I’ll add to what Janus has said. There is archeological evidence that disproves much of the Old Testament. For example, the flood story in Genesis is physically impossible and fossil evidence only further proves this fact.
Take a look at the two stories of Jesus’ birth. They tell two completely different accounts of the events. And historical evidence proves much of what these stories claim is false and never happened.
If the Bible is the “Word of God”, I have to think it would not be so extremely flawed and conflicting.
June 4, 2009 at 1:38 pm |
The creation story in Genesis is a folk tale. We know this because it contains a talking snake. The flood story may also be a folk tale. But so what? God chose to speak to us through metaphor, poetry, letters, analogy and folk tales. Why should we expect just facts?
The Bible isn’t a science book or history book – it is all sorts of literature bundled together. The best way to read the Bible is to try to read it as it was intended for its original audience. That is difficult because the books in the Bible span several hundred years and several cultures. We in the 21st century expect rational, fact-based proof. But that is not how God chose to speak to us.
If you regard the Bible as a series of logical deductions and abslute facts, you will be disappointed.
June 4, 2009 at 2:05 pm
This is a nice way to rationalize the creation story, but there is a problem. It was written as fact.
Genesis 1-2 presents Adam and Eve as actual persons and even narrates the important events in their lives. They gave birth to literal children who did the same (Genesis 4-5). Old Testament chronologies place Adam at the beginning of the list (Gen. 5:1; 1 Chron. 1:1). The New Testament places Adam at the beginning of Jesus’ literal ancestors (Luke 2:38). Jesus referred to Adam & Eve as the first literal “male and female,” making their physical union the basis of marriage (Matt. 19:4). The comparison of Adam (the “first Adam”) with Christ (the “last Adam”) in 1 Corinthians 15:45 shows that Adam was understood as a literal, historical person.
The Apostle Paul went on to further establish the “truth” of the creation story in Romans 5:12-19.
June 15, 2009 at 2:24 pm
While this argument may sound childish compared to the well referenced ones above, and it is indeed a bit late, it’s logic, nonetheless, is sound:
If you believe in a being with the unlimited powers of God on faith, then why not a talking snake?
It somewhat reminds me of when those believing in creationism attack the theory of evolution on the grounds that it lacks a sound scientific backing, foundation, and proof.
Its the sort of argument where the speaker themselves stands on very shaky ground.
Also, it seems that you are taking your own interpretation of the Bible and stating it as fact and/or forcing it upon others hence negating the very concept of interpretation.
June 3, 2009 at 1:05 pm |
I have not read “The Case for Christ”, but plan to this summer.
I’ve heard it discussed many times, so I’m not expecting to read anything I haven’t heard before. My pastor was big on referencing Lee Strobel’s book in sermons he liked to call “head sermons” when he attempted to built the factual case for Jesus.
June 3, 2009 at 1:45 pm |
Read the book “The Case for Christ,”…
Wow, it’s written in a book, it must be true.
June 3, 2009 at 12:50 pm |
I think the problem is that you grew up in the Catholic church, which does not hold true to pure doctrine as taught by the Apostle Paul.
June 3, 2009 at 1:01 pm |
I grew up in a Lutheran ELCA church. I disagreed with Catholic tradition even when I was a believer.
June 3, 2009 at 2:43 pm |
was paul lutheran or pentecostal? or baptist? or methodist? or episcopalian? or jehovah’s witness?
i’m just wonderin’ who has been given the true “pure” doctrine?
June 3, 2009 at 2:50 pm |
Like so many Christians, his version of “truth” and “pure” doctrine is the correct one. Why? Because he says so.
June 3, 2009 at 1:00 pm |
[...] is a question posed by the blog “the BEattitude“, which has recently gained over 1,000 well deserved comments on a post concerning losing [...]
June 3, 2009 at 1:15 pm |
Alright, well, Lutheran is still reformed theology and still isn’t pure doctrine. That’s neither here nor there.
Janus, people also WROTE the Old Testament. Paul the Apostle, and Peter, before they were crucified, both had the opportunity to recant their belief before their crucifixion, but yet they didn’t. Their lives would have been spared, but they chose not to recant their faith. Paul claimed to have seen Jesus Christ in the flesh. If it was all a lie, then why would Paul and Peter not have recanted their faith? They saw Jesus Christ in the flesh, resurrected, and they would not recant their faith!!!
BE, the Lutheran church believes in sacraments, or things you must do to earn your salvation, or to merit the grace of God, which is not true. Sacraments are not biblical. If you really want God to make himself real to you, then ask Him to.
June 3, 2009 at 1:22 pm |
The followers of Charles Manson vowed they would die for him as well. It is very common in cult mentality.
We know nothing about these people. They may have been brainwashed, mentally ill or both.
People also flew planes into a building for a god named Allah. Does that make him a true god? Why else would they die for him?
June 3, 2009 at 1:26 pm |
The fact that people also just wrote the Old Testament serves my point, too. I’m not Jewish, I don’t believe the Old Testament is the word of God, either.
Paul and Peter not recanting their faith isn’t evidence. If that was proof that something existed, then you would have to accept nearly every religion. People have died for Islam, Buddhism, Norse Theology, the Greek gods, you name it, people have died for it.
Does that make them true?
I’ve heard all your arguments before. You think I just up and decided to give up everything I believed on a whim? You don’t think anybody from my old church hasn’t told me any of this, thinking I hadn’t heard it, either? Take a step back and realize the arrogance of your position before brow-beating us with weak arguments you’ve heard third hand.
June 4, 2009 at 1:17 pm |
As a Lutheran it has always been my understanding that we are saved by the sacrifice of Jesus and this was done by God’s grace. Grace cannot be earned – it is a gift that we simply accept. Luther understood this from reading Paul’s epistles and got into an argument with the Roman Catholic Church over the selling of indulgances – essentially certificates of grace. If grace is a gift, how can the church be selling it?
The sacraments in the Lutheran church are the means of grace. We are accepted as a child of God through baptism. We baptise infants because the gift has already been made – it does not require any understnading or profession. Communion is the real presence of Christ – he is with us always. We believe Christ instituted the sacrament of communion at the last supper the night before he was crucified. We see the baptism of Jesus as described in the Gospels as a sacrament also.
Lutherans consider themselves the church of the Reformation, but not a reformed church like the Dutch Reformed, Presyterians, etc – we do not follow the theology of Calvin.
June 4, 2009 at 1:32 pm |
“The sacraments in the Lutheran church are the means of grace.” You cannot earn grace. Grace is free. You cannot earn grace. If you earn grace by works then it is no longer a gift. Grace is grace. Baptism has absolutely nothing to do with being born of the Spirit of God. You use scripture to interpret scripture, and the Bible verse that says “Ye must be born of water and Spirit.” it is referring to the Word of God and the Spirit of God. Without the Word of God you cannot realize your need for a Savior, or that there even is a savior. Communion is not the real presence of Christ, it is something the local church is to do on a regular basis in order to remind themselves of Christ’s death, and baptism is by immersion only because the water represents dirt, not a cleansing agent. We are buried with him by baptism and raised to walk in newness of life. A child cannot be saved through infant baptism, they must personally recognize their need for a savior and be born again of their own accord.
June 4, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Well we mostly agree. Grace is a gift, not earned by works. Scripture is interpreted by scripture. But Luther held to the real presence of Christ in communion, based on the words of institution found in Luke and Matthew.
Luther said of adult baptism: “The text does not say ‘He who confesses’, but ‘He who believes.’ To have his confession is not to know his faith.”
Our friend BEattitude has withdrawn his confession of Christ as savior. But the real issue is that he says he has lost his faith.
June 4, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Well Paul, if he withdraws his confession, then I’d say that he was never genuinely saved in the first place. Look at 1 John 4:2-3. It is entirely possible to say, that is confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord over all, that He is the Son of God, but unless it’s a confession that is from the heart, it is not genuine, and one is not born again, and henceforth one may lose their faith.
June 3, 2009 at 1:27 pm |
if god really loved us like many christians believe then you would think he would do anything…anything at all to bring doubters to belief. since he doesn’t, i don’t think he’s real or at best doesn’t really care
June 3, 2009 at 1:27 pm |
I’d go with answer B.
All you explain goes to that direction, and the “all of the above” (that considers as well that God doen’t exist) comes out of nowhere, at least in your argumentation.
Because if the Bible says God does not make favoritism, and you argued against that statement, so it brings you to: So the Bible is a fraude.
Don’t spoil your argumentation with precipitated conclusions saying “so there’s no God”: you’ll loose all credits when you were doing fine…
June 3, 2009 at 2:16 pm |
Busted. You can deduct me 2 cool points. The final list has been updated with conclusions that better pay off my argumentation.
Do I still loose all credits? I was low on sleep when I wrote this.
June 3, 2009 at 2:37 pm |
“Do I still loose all credits?” Not anymore… The argumentation makes more sense, and I’ll follow it with the answer A) The Bible is false and God shows favorites, although I personnally don’t go for that. But I’m playing along, and ask you: what if there are reasons why some sees or feels things and other don’t? What if we are not all the same?
Going too far? I have nice answers to those ones, but that’s not my blog nor my faith here, isn’t it?
I wish you luck, and I’ll keep reading!
June 3, 2009 at 1:43 pm |
Well, all have a right to believe as they wish, for the time being, until the American government takes that right away from us, and you guys also have a right to be wrong. It’s not a question of evidence, for surely there is more than enough evidence that points to a Creator, and it is not a question of what is and is not true, for surely He will reveal it to you if you are truly seeking truth. It is simply a question of the heart, and our own pride and sin separating us from Him. You guys know the theology, you just aren’t willing to accept it.
June 3, 2009 at 1:47 pm |
Too bad He wasn’t there when I was looking for Him.
That’s such an easy cop-out. Unless you really know what it’s like to be at the very pit of despair praying for God to do something, then I don’t think you’ll ever realize how imaginary God really is.
And yes, it is a matter of evidence. There simply is none for a Creator. You’re the only one coming from a position of not accepting what anyone else has to say. Instead of refuting points based on their merit, you move from one point until the next until, just as everyone else in your shoes does, you just throw up your hands and say “oh, well there IS evidence, but you just don’t want to see it.”
That’s it? That’s all you have? I know what it’s like to be you and it simply drove me to depression.
June 3, 2009 at 1:53 pm |
I’ve been in more despair than you have any idea of knowing. I was a heroin addict for two years, and I’m 20 years old. Because of what He has done in my life, I know there is a God. Evidence, no evidence, because I do not need evidence to confirm my belief. When Thomas required proof, Christ gave it to him, but He also said that the man that beliefs without proof is blessed! If any man will do His will, he shall know the doctrine. It comes first with a willingness to admit it. Our human heart is so deprived and sinful that it wants nothing to do with a thrice Holy God.
June 3, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Clinging on to something in a desperate situation doesn’t prove anything.
The fact that you told me that God appears to those who are seeking has nothing to do with you being in despair. If what you said is true, that God will reveal Himself to those who are genuinely looking, then it should have been clear to me, someone who had given my life to Him.
However, this didn’t happen. If you want to go on about how He’s real to you because you know He is and that’s it, then that’s fine. However, once you admit that there is no evidence for your belief, as you just did, then I’m done.
Where do we go from here? You’re going to keep telling me I’m wrong just because I’m wrong. That’s not a discussion because there’s nothing to discuss. There’s absolutely no way for you to be wrong, no matter how many points I have that led me to my lack of belief in God.
Besides, everyone was supposed to have seen Jesus perform miracles. How is Thomas the only one who had to see to believe? They all saw Jesus walk on water, heal the sick, and do things nobody should have been able to do.
Yeah, they were all monuments of faith. Even the Father of Faith only believed in God because God appeared to him. We’re not supposed to expect even that? Nice.
June 3, 2009 at 2:00 pm |
“Too bad He wasn’t there when I was looking for Him.”
Did you check under the sofa cushions? When I can’t find something, that’s where it usually turns up.
June 3, 2009 at 1:44 pm |
Also, if you’re wrong, eternity in hell is a might price to pay. If you’re right, then there really never was a loss.
June 3, 2009 at 1:49 pm |
And if you’re wrong and some other religion is right, you’re going to spend eternity in their hell.
June 3, 2009 at 1:58 pm |
Pascal’s Wager is widely considered by atheists to be one of the stupidest arguments ever put forward for adherence to a religion.
One of its many problems is that it presumes you should accept the most profitable offer, without considering the likelihood that the offer is valid. And after all, what offer could beat an infinite stay in paradise?
I’ll tell you what could beat that: Believe in me instead, and tithe to me, and I will give you two eternal lives in paradise fro the price of one!
If that’s not enough, I’ll throw in a set of Ginzu knives.
June 3, 2009 at 1:59 pm |
it presumes you should accept the most profitable offer, without considering the likelihood that the offer is valid.
Should I apply this same principle to the e-mails I get from that nice fellow in Nigeria?
June 3, 2009 at 1:53 pm |
God spoke to Deanne Laney. He told her to kill her children. So she did.
My point is: even if God appeared directly to me, I would have to consider the possibility that it wasn’t really Him and that I was having a delusion.
And if I told someone else about this appearance, they would have to remember that they themselves did not see the appearance, and have only my word to go on.
June 3, 2009 at 3:24 pm |
The devil speaks to people too. I wonder if it was really God or the devil?
June 3, 2009 at 3:29 pm |
Either way, God, in His infinite wisdom, wanted those children to die.
Oh, but for His purpose, of course. Horrific ends justify the means when you can’t understand the motive, I suppose.
June 4, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Maybe those children died as a consequence of our sinful nature. Deanne Laney hears a voice – she thinks it is God but it is not, she is just wrong – and innocents died. Children die every day from neglect or disease – sins of omission by all of us. How is God responsible for that?
June 4, 2009 at 2:21 pm
To say that God is responsible is wrong. God is not responsible, we are. The book The Shack comes immediately to mind because God tells the man He is speaking to that He desires a relationship with all of His creatures. Remember, we’re talking about God here, and my sin looks no different than your sin, in God’s eyes. God loves you as much as He loves Hitler. Remember, the Bible says that God so loved the WORLD. To better answer your question, here:
Rom 14:12 KJV – So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
We shall each give account of ourselves to God at judgment day.
June 9, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Empretho, I’m going to assume that you’re a decent fellow. I honestly do believe that. Even though we have differences of opinion on religion, I know where you’re coming from. It’s your way of trying to help and I do appreciate the sentiment.
Now, with that said, even in our human, sinful nature, we care enough about people to help them any time we can. If I was to see a child getting beaten, I wouldn’t sit around for it. Even though I wasn’t the one doing it, I would be just as complicit if I did nothing. It is simply in our nature to preserve our fellow man.
In this vein, God has the power to stop any and all horrific misdeeds and tragedies. According to your belief, He sees them all and can stop them all. The only rationale that I have heard for this is that, like a good parent, He sometimes lets people learn from their mistakes. Another justification along those lines is that sometimes people need disciplining.
I’m not going to assume you were raised the same way I was, but learning lessons and getting punished didn’t involve torture, rape, and murder. Those aren’t lessons. Those are tragedies that any decent human being, much less any parent, would never wish on a child. There’s not a fine line between discipline and outright terror, the difference is rather cut and dry. If we can tell the difference, why can’t God?
There’s not even room to pull the “He has to govern everyone, these are global punishments or guidances.” Jesus said that each and every person, specifically, is precious to God. He has every hair on their head numbered. There is no such thing as collateral damage in a perfect plan executed by an omnipotent, omniscient being. By its very definition, a perfect plan is zero-loss.
If you even want to play the just desserts card and say that people who have grown up and made their decisions getting tragedies and injustice thrown their way is God’s disciplinary hand, I’ll let you have it. That’s a battle I don’t even need to fight.
However, if you honestly believe that part of God’s plan is to allow thousands and countless thousands of children to die annually from the most grotesque and painful diseases imaginable as a result of starvation and poverty, then you seriously need to evaluate your position. There is no end that requires that.
If you, in your sinful, imperfect condition, recognize these deplorable, horrific things happening to innocent people as being too terrible for words, then what does that say about an omnipotent, omniscient God?
There’s discipline and there’s outright, merciless slaughter. It really does sicken me when theists work their hardest to blur the line between the two.
June 9, 2009 at 7:47 pm
The best reply I’ve ever heard from your most recent argument is that God loves all people the same, and so when should he intervene? God is love, but God is also just, holy, and righteous. He calls all his people to obedience, and all who reject him are punished eternally in a lake of fire.
June 9, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Your counter argument is that this invisible god loves us all the same, but plans to send many of us to burn forever in a lake of fire?
How exactly is that just, holy or righteous? That is sadistic.
June 3, 2009 at 3:36 pm |
It was God. If you doubt that, then I get to doubt anyone you nominate as having spoken with God.
The devil did speak to Andrea Yates, however. He told her to kill her children. So she did.
Deanne Laney was found not guilty by reason of insanity by a Texas jury.
Andrea Yates was found guilty by a Texas jury.
So I guess people who think God spoke to them are crazy, but people who think the devil spoke to them are not.
I am happy that I do not live in Texas.
June 3, 2009 at 3:42 pm
The State Board of Education hearings were especially painful.
One of the organizations I work for fought really hard and was instrumental in keeping the actual “strengths and weaknesses” language out. Of course, a watered down version was passed. Baby steps, I guess.
June 3, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Additional evidence:
God spoke to Dena Schlosser. He told her to kill her children. So she did.
Dens Schlosser was found not guilty by reason of insanity by a Texas jury. Interesting trend.
June 3, 2009 at 2:01 pm |
Alright, let’s move the discussion off of Jesus Christ, and to God in general. Computer models demonstrate that the chances of this earth, as it is today, happening 100% by chance is actually less than 1%. What do you say about that?
June 3, 2009 at 2:14 pm |
I’d say you’re talking out your ***.
June 3, 2009 at 2:28 pm |
computer models also predict the chances of there being a god is 0%. what do you say about that?
June 3, 2009 at 3:23 pm |
I wonder who the programmers were…
June 3, 2009 at 2:48 pm |
I say that there are hundreds of billions of galaxies full of thousands of solar systems. That 1% means there are quite a few earths out there.
I have an old post on how Aliens can go to heaven. If other “earth” planets exist, they would all need a savior. Poor Jesus.
http://thebeattitude.com/2009/02/25/aliens-can-go-to-heaven-too/
June 3, 2009 at 3:03 pm |
I believe that’s what Mormons believe, or at least something similar.
June 3, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Apparently Catholics believe it too.
I quote the Vatican’s chief astronomer, Jesuit Father Jose Funes in the post I linked to. He calls them our “extraterrestrial brothers” in Christ.
June 4, 2009 at 1:22 pm |
God will not be proved by science. If he had decided that reason and logic was the best way, he would have made himself known in that fashion.
God chose to reveal himself to us through the Bible and life of Jesus Christ, not have himself discovered by science. Faith is the way we understand that there is a God, not science. If we think we see God’s fingerprints in the universe, aren’t we saying that we are as powerful as he is because we can detect his presence?
June 3, 2009 at 3:21 pm |
I agree with Jedi’s response on this. Good work.
I — in my humble opinion — think it will take less than a “light show” to change your mind. The problem with seeking truth and asking questions is that you’ll get answers. Maybe not today or tomorrow or necessarily from this post, but the answers will come. And then you’ll know the Truth.
Still, if it’s proof, God is still doing miracles even today (John 14:12, Hebrews 2:4) — really. And I’m not talking like, “Oh, I made it to work in good time today — thanks God.” I’m talking like Bible-miraculous stuff: healings, discerning of spirits, tongues, prophecy… all that stuff (1 Corinthians 12). For real!
God is still working.
June 3, 2009 at 3:29 pm |
I don’t view “discerning of spirits, tongues, and prophecy” as examples of a miracle. I’ve witnessed people speaking in tongues and the only miraculous thing was that the person was sane when they did it.
As for healings-
If a person has truly been miraculously healed without the aid of modern medicine, why is it never in the news? If a blind man regained sight or a man was raised from the dead, it would certainly be newsworthy. The only faith healers making the news are swindlers and con men like the recent fraud of Todd Bentley.
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/15373
Go on youtube and watch this crazy man in action.
June 4, 2009 at 9:33 am |
Biblically, there wasn’t a lot of “now go tell everyone you’ve been healed” after a healing took place. It was more like, “the people were amazed who saw it”. I would probably file this under “meekness”.
I guess that’s just not how we roll.
June 4, 2009 at 9:38 am
If only Christians had the same meekness today.
Somehow going around telling people that they’re wrong and you’re right doesn’t really smack of humility in most people’s eyes.
But I suppose that’s how you roll, too.
June 3, 2009 at 4:01 pm |
I’m talking like Bible-miraculous stuff: healings,…
Could you please provide a list of amputees who have been healed?
Thank you.
June 4, 2009 at 9:35 am |
Nice. I don’t think they would appreciate it.
June 4, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Nonexistent people are always very private.
June 3, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
It would take the total dissolution of ALL religious groups, fundamentalists, right-wing extremists, fascists, demagogues, life time imprisonment for Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, and the bringing to justice all the real 911 culprits and the Wall Street, Federal Reserve, and corporate criminals. Also turn every human into a vegetarian and to comply with Bernard Shaw’s (I think it was him) theory of the second giant leap, the first being the industrial revolution and the second when humans no longer contrive to survive. Then I may believe in God.
June 3, 2009 at 9:06 pm |
Show him/her/itself to all of humankind at the same time…not some metaphorical bullshit…I mean standing in front of all people and make itself known. Perform some sort of miracle that bends all the laws of time, space, physics…Then explain why all the misery, pain, suffering, etc….
Then I will give him/her/it my worship and obedience…that is a God-test.
Faith is a cop-out. Faith is blind belief because the proof alludes the individual and community.
So I await the proof…bring it on Big Guy/Gal/Whatever!
June 3, 2009 at 11:18 pm |
I believed like some others do that science and evidence pointed to the existance of God. I didn’t believe the 6000 year old earth thing, but still thought that God was the designer of all things and that evolution was wrong about people coming from ape-like ancestors and things like that.
Until I read places like talkorigins, science articles and other places that aren’t apologetics, then I realized that those were based on a lot of evidence, and the arguments for intelligent design just fell apart quickly (As said, the thermodynamics and watchmaker arguments have been answered many times and do not strengthen the case for Gods existance). Evolution is not “just” a theory!
I didn’t really despair or anything as it finally made sense. If I’m going to be on this earth, I want to know the truth, not just believe in something which contradicts what we observe on earth. “Oh no GOD put those fossils there to test our faith” “The scientists are right about everything unless it contradicts our faith” “Well, when God said that a rapist had to marry the girl he raped, what he really meant was… and that’s why it really wasn’t as bad as you atheists make it out to be…”
The “You should believe anyway because if you atheists are wrong you’re going to hell” is amusing, because not only is it unfair to people of certain characteristics (Oh, he was born into a skeptical family I guess I won’t bother giving them enough evidence to save them, it’s your fault you’re skeptical), but that if God did exist, I’m sure he’s not dumb enough to not see through that you don’t really care about god, that all you want is the rewards.
June 3, 2009 at 11:24 pm |
Whoops, forgot about the main topic.
What would it take for me to believe in God? Right now, it would be revealing himself to EVERYONE in a 100% undisputable way, it would be to save EVERYONE regardless of religion/background, to fix all the problems we have on this earth so that everyone could have access to fresh water/have no diseases/no wars/have abundant food for everyone/and freedom/happiness.
I hope that’s not too much to ask.
June 4, 2009 at 5:58 am |
For me faith requires evidence not warm fuzzy feelings. As other posters noted, god was quite willing to make physical manifestations in the old testament, why not now? Maybe he is shy, so instead I’d accept this.
Flip a coin and let it come up with 100 consecutive “heads”. You can even offer prayers and sacrifices if thats to your liking. I’d be baptized the next weekend if you do this. My only requirement is that if the coin toss experiment fails, the theist must publicly deny their faith? Small adjustments of air currents and a micro-second localized change in the gravitation constant to adjust the spin of the coin isn’t such a hard thing for the creator of the universe? After all, the ID crowd uses these arguments all the time. The Bible is chocked full of flaming swords, burning bushes, talking donkeys, collapsing walls, stripped goats, water –> wine, resurrections, etc that are much more dramatic.
Any takers? How about reducing the number of heads to 50, 25, … fifteen? How low does the count have to go before someone takes the bet, knowing they have to deny their faith if it fails? Ask yourself the question.
June 4, 2009 at 9:29 am |
Maybe someone already pointed this out (I’m at work so reading 71 comments is out of the question right now), but usually in the Bible if God showed himself (or one of his messengers) very explicitly to someone, he required a helluva lot more of those people than he required of other followers. Cases in point: Paul, Moses, Jacob, Mary (mother of Jesus). Paul went through all kinds of crap. Moses had to walk into the throne room of a country that had banned him and demand freedom for a bunch of slaves, then wander around for a few decades listening to those slaves complain about the problems that came with that freedom. Jacob wrestled with God and had a trick hip for the rest of his life. Mary got pregnant before she got married in a time when such a thing was a death sentence.
So I don’t know what you’re so miffed about.
June 4, 2009 at 5:56 pm |
I’m not miffed. The fact that God does not show himself as he did so frequently in the Bible is further proof that the book is fiction. It’s impossible for me to be mad at a deity that I do not believe exists.
June 4, 2009 at 4:29 pm |
Please tell me that a book (the Bible) put together eleven hundred years after the events are supposed to have taken place is the word of God – what crap. You Christians act as if this book is sacrosanct when in truth is was put together to uphold at the time what was expected and was the public SHOULD believe in. As for the old Testament, well, that’s another story.
June 7, 2009 at 12:03 am |
Just imagine if God actually met your demand and started providing earth-shaking, monolithic miracles for every single human being on the planet. Human civilization and physical reality itself would collapse into chaos under the barrage of burning bushes, parting seas, blinding lights, and booming voices from the sky. People would have nervous breakdowns, go mad, and kill themselves (and each other) in droves. And, as each person interpreted these miracles according to their own mental predispositions and religious traditions, the level of religious madness that would break out would make all the inquisitions, crusades, and jihads of history stacked up together look like a picnic.
Sure, lots of Biblical characters were awarded miraculous proofs that most haven’t received. I guess it suited His purposes at the moment. You can interpret that as favoritism if you want. But, then again, Jesus did say that those who come to believe in Him without big-time miraculous proofs will be more blessed than those who believed because of His miracles. So, maybe, that means that those who don’t get miracles are the ones who are being favored. I don’t pretend to know.
In any case, I’m perfectly content with the small-time miracles and day-to-day evidences God has seen fit to send my way. And I’m not sure I’m ready for God to break out the big guns just yet.
June 8, 2009 at 8:01 pm |
I came here because from another blog site that I read about you give up believing Jesus! I just like to invite you to my blogspot to see how Jesus doing mighty works in my life when I do what he said…believe in Him.
Here is the site:
stephanienjesus.blogspot.com
June 9, 2009 at 11:31 pm |
No one is even sure if Paul wrote Hebrews. And if it was Paul, that is not hypocritical. Paul had faith in God’s promises, such as the Resurrection, which he never experienced until he died obviously. Man your arguments get worse and worse.
And people in the OT and the NT saw miracles and still rejected God and Christ! What makes you so sure that you’ll be different?! Further, how would you know it was God when you saw Him do for you what Scripture records Him doing? What standard would you use to know that it was God? And what standard would you use to know that that standard was trustworthy, etc. You’re caught in an infinite regress.
This is exactly why Biblical faith is not based on human rationality alone (as it is deprived), nor is it irrational, but rather is trans-rational (Rom 10:8). It is a faith given by God, not conjured up by selfish sinners with hearts of stone who are hostile to Him and His real truth (Rom 4:5, Eph 2:8).
June 10, 2009 at 12:45 am |
You mean the miracles in the Bible that the Bible uses to prove that miracles happened?
If there were some actual miracles taking place that could not have been a result of anything but the supernatural, then sign me up. Even just one. Show me a guy who prayed to God and had a severed arm grow back without any medical assistance. Show me a guy who can move a mountain with his faith.
Also, Abraham, the Father of Faith, only believed because he saw God. God didn’t just plant a little seed in him and let the faith grow from inside, He actually spoke to Abraham and told him what to do. Even then, it took Abraham several times of God speaking to him to do something.
Seriously, if this is what qualified for faith, then mountains would be flying every which way and we would be buried in mustard seed trees.
July 2, 2009 at 9:47 am |
A friend of mine just put on his Facebook page “Healings, with an emphasis on operating out of LOVE. Witnessed a leg growing out an inch & a half before our eyes. The event took place at a small church in [removed].”
Pretty great!
July 2, 2009 at 9:57 am |
Umm … pretty insane. Your friend needs to go back on his meds.
August 31, 2009 at 12:03 pm |
God said :
[i]Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you,” declares the LORD , “and will bring you back from captivity. [2] I will gather you from all the nations and places where I have banished you,” declares the LORD , “and will bring you back to the place from which I carried you into exile.” (Jeremiah 29:12-14 NIV)[/i]
You can experiencing God when you seek Him with all your heart. Being christian and going to church everyday not making you a christian.
Expect to have experience from God through His presence. You can feel His presence everyday when you seek Him with all your heart. I did this and I can meet with my Father.
Not every Christian can have same experience as Paul but we can have experience in His presence. I have not see God with my naked eyes but I can feel He is near. He watching you as well