Why Doesn't God Show Himself To Everybody?

[antho91]

Moses, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Saul were called to DO something not to be convinced of anything.

 

But if Jesus's appearance to Saul wasn't to convince him that He is indeed true, how then can He call Saul to carry out His work?

[glintofpewter]

But if Jesus's appearance to Saul wasn't to convince him that He is indeed true, how then can He call Saul to carry out His work?

 

antho91,

I know that Saul's experience traditionally has been called a conversion experience but Saul was already seeking God. In his persecution of the early Christians he was living out his faith.(That should make some of us stop and reconsider our actions.) He does not recognize Jesus but he does not ask Jesus to prove who he is.He accepts the introduction at face value. The prophets also did not ask for proof. They knew that the voice calling them was God. Their response was more along the lines of "Who? Me? You must be kidding!" Brain science shows that such experiences must have a ready context to be recognized as Divine. One must have spiritual language to interpret the experience.

 

I don't deny that there are conversion experiences. But the testimonies usually involve being at the absolute bottom in one's life or in some other state of readiness. I would say that this moment is a very vulnerable one, a moment in which one is open to something new, even an in-breaking of the Divine. Whether one is at the bottom or one has been meditating there is an openness. If there is no openness then the story is more likely to resemble that of Balaam and his donkey (Balaam Numbers 22:21ff) in which the messenger is beaten.

 

²⁶

Then the angel of the Lord moved on ahead. He stood in a narrow place. There was no room to turn, either right or left.

²⁷

The donkey saw the angel of the Lord. So it lay down under Balaam. That made him angry. He hit the donkey with his walking stick.

What I am saying is that unless there is an openness then God's showing, an epiphany, will be seen as the braying of the donkey. There must be a hand and mouth to receive the wine and bread. There are hearts made tender by life and hearts hardened. Certainly that is seen by many as the work of God but my point is that the soil must be broken up and before it is ready to receive the seed.

 

Some say they came to faith by reason and others by Scripture - two possible ways - but they were already on the path. I don't think the ineffable One who loves beyond all understanding pushes or argues us into belief. The ineffable One lures us forward in love, invites us into the warmth of her embrace.

 

Take Care

 

Dutch

[murmsk]

By asking the question one is assuming that God shows him/her self to anyone which may be the same as saying that God shows to everyone (or no one).

 

My dad has said that one believes what one wants to believe. Could it be that we see God when and where we want to see God.

 

steve

[JenellYB]

Steve wrote: My dad has said that one believes what one wants to believe. Could it be that we see God when and where we want to see God.

 

Could it just as well be that what we see isn't a matter of seeing what we want to see, but a matter of how we interpret what we see? What one believes has to begin with how one interprets what they see.

 

That is really an enormous factor in how we all see most everything in our life experiences. We can have any number of reasons for not interpreting, even not wanting to interpret, something in a certain way.

 

As myself one married for over 2 decades to an 'unfaithful' husband, that managed to exclude concious recognition of that fact throughout most of that marriage, I not only felt very stupid when I did recognize the truth, when undeniable and unrefutable evidence was presented before me, for not having seen it, but also had to spend a lot of time thinking about WHY I didn't see it. It sure wasn't because he was that good at concealing what he was up to! I'd seen things, but I had convinced myself they meant something else, weren't what they really were. The honest reality came down to, i had entered that marriage very young and naive, entered with 2 young babies after struggling to survive alone with them, soon had 2 more, so I soon had 4 little children depending on me, and no job skills or outside support to help me try to do so on my own. Both myself and my 4 babies had a much better chance at getting through their growing up years reasonable well provided for by my doing what it took to avoid recognizing that reality, avoid facing the truth, and consequently, having to choose an alternate course of action.

 

I don't think there's anyone that doesn't do that in at least some matters at sometime in their lives. Yeah, it might be negatively referred to as avoiding "an inconvenient truth" but sometimes matters of principle, integrity, honestly, and pride get terribly complicated in matters of just surviving and getting through life as best we can. And, as in my experience noted above, that there were 4 others people, helpless children, depending on me certainly added even further complications to matters.

 

I think we struggle with the same conflicts in our interpeting what we see in terms of what might be evidence of God. how many people struggle with trying to sort out what is God from what is what religion has presented to them as God? Many of us here have had to deal with that...in our process of rejecting and disentangling ourselves from religious teachings and attitudes we can no longer bear to continue holding onto, it can feel like we have to reject God along with it, or to accomplish making that break away from the religion. There are powerful forces within the beliefs and doctrinal structures, deeply imbedded attitudes, of that very idea, that to accpet or reject the religion, and/or "the church", IS synonomous with accepting or rejecting God. I belief atheists coming out of backgrounds of exposure to religion are caught up in that very stage of a process of breaking away from religion. I know many that have gone through various stages of agnositisicm and atheisism on their journey away from religion and toward a spiritual faith later in their lives. They have to find new ways to interpret what they see that might have something to do with God, without that religious baggage.

 

Jenell

[markn902]

I've always understood that in the OT times there was a physical fulfillment of scripture ie there was a physical group of people that were called out (the jews) to be Gods people..people worshiped physical idols..God manifested himself physically

 

Then when Jesus came he was the fulfillment of all that had happened before and now we are understanding the scriptures on a spiritual nature..Jesus said his words were spirit..baptism in spirit..people worshiping spiritual idols in their heart ...scripture and salvation for all nations so a spiritual nation that is called out as opposed to a physical.

 

So if we believe that then a physical manifestation of God isn't necessary to understand or "see" as it is spiritual and invisible to other people. Not quite as convincing as a burning bush but then again a burning bush didn't work in OT times as people still did not do what they had to do.

 

I don't know that is just my understanding of it..maybe God has shown himself to your friend and your friend just didn't recognize him

[JenellYB]

Mark, I think that's really a good observation, and I hadn't thought of it that way. Going to give that one some more thought.

One sticking point I see with it, though, is that so much in the NT, as well as in the Christian religion that arose from it, is the focus on physical evidence, as in Jesus' working miracles for people to see, Jesus' physical death and ressurection, etc, but how the way it has developed, provided supposed physical expereince for those that actually witnessed those events, but left everyone from then on dependent upon what is presented as just stories to be believed without any evidence at all beyond those wrtiten stories of someone's say so. Maybe that's the crux of it right there, the "world", "non-spritual church" that has dominated the Christian religion, vs the "spiritual church" made up of those that discover something other than that.

 

Jenell

[..ant]

antho91,

 

Your friend draws a conclusion...

 

c. Therefore God could save countless people from an eternity of Hell but he chooses not to

 

... from eight premises that posit several assumptions about God, heaven, hell and free will, based on what appears to be selective readings from the bible and a specific interpretation of those readings.

 

For me, I do not assume those premises, nor do I interpret those readings similarly, and therefore I do not draw the given conclusion. There are other selective readings in the bible that I personally find more meaningful. I would ask your friend to spend some time pondering these:

No one has ever seen God

; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us. (1 John 4:12)

 

Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “

The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed

, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst.” (Luke 17:20-21)

 

These are meaningful to me for two reasons. First, they contrast quite significantly with all of the visions in the bible stories. Second, they bring God "down from heaven" and nearer to our daily experience, so that God is found in love. I really do believe that God is love and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God (another reading to ponder).

 

..ant

[thofmann]

This is a key question and one that has troubled me all my life.

 

As children in US main culture mix, we are given Santa Claus instead of being asked to notice the Spirit of the season. In effect, Santa Claus is easier to explain as "real", even though he isn't.

 

So far in my life, I like what Paramahansa Yogonanda wrote about God wanting us to seek Him (or Divine Mother) earnestly.

 

Chogyam Trungpa also wrote of a "basic goodness" from the non-Theisitic Tibetan Buddhist point of view, which helps me with "what is", rather than an intellectual or symbolic representation of what I want to be.

 

I also like that when Jesus speaks in the Bible, the message is always a universal truth, even if most of the Bible is timebound, culture bound and bound to this world.

 

I've had experience of the Spirit (there is an eternal, indestructible part of me) like others on the boards, yet the further removed I am from the expereince the more my "rational" fear believing mind can be skeptical of how real it was. I've had experience of basic goodness, yet my mind seems to prefer to believe in fear and chatter endlessly about survival issues.

 

So I live committed to seeking God because of the logic of "Pascal's wager" (God exists or does not, which outcome are you betting on?), the striking moments I've had that do not fit this world's logic, and the very good and real feelings I get when following true universal truths such as sincerely helping others.

 

So , yes, it would help me for God to appear to me. Although, God has already appeared to me and I have a hard time consistently believing it. I have to get beyond my belief that there must be a Santa Claus god I can go see at the mall. Still working on that one....

[soma]

thofmann, good post. As I read your words, I believe they resonate within my self.

[Mike]

Welcome to the board thofmann. Thanks for sharing.

 

I've had experience of the Spirit (there is an eternal, indestructible part of me) like others on the boards, yet the further removed I am from the expereince the more my "rational" fear believing mind can be skeptical of how real it was. I've had experience of basic goodness, yet my mind seems to prefer to believe in fear and chatter endlessly about survival issues.

 

For me it helps not to think of the eternal as 'part' of what we are. As it reads in the Genjokoan, enlightenment does not divide you. Neither part, nor whole. A place of no pretense and no distance.

 

 

Thanks,

Mike

[JenellYB]

thofman, i can relate so well to your post. Welcome to the board.

Yes, the trust in the memories can be so elusive as time passes....yet, I know they were real, I know they were real, I know they were real...there are times when I just meditate quietly on those memories, going over again the details of those events, occasions, incidents, seeking, what did i miss? Was there really some ordinary explanation i missed? Was I really fooled, did i really decieve myself? And always, the same. No. I didn't miss anything. No, I did not deceive myself. They were REAL.

 

Jenell

[matt67]

I once heard that the idea of prophecy was not so much to predict the future, which I don't think the "prophecies" necessarily do, than to call one's attention to the present time. Is that really the role of apocalyptic literature? When I hear a Christian refer to passages in the "old" testament which predict Jesus, I have to wonder...really? It seems that things are so vague that anyone can really apply it to almost anything. Even when the gospels talk about how a prophecy was fulfilled by jesus and they give a scripture verse. The fact that the gospel was written perhaps a generation or two after Jesus appeared makes me question the reliability of the verses. Also, especially when it comes the end times and all that, it seems that every person making the prediction fails to explain specific references which don't fit into the Christian worldview. The Book of the Apocalypse is more about the eternal now than it is about the future.

 

In response about God not showing Himself, maybe we need to make ourselves able to see Him? I mean, you don't run a marathon on the first day of training if you never ran before. You have to prepare yourself. Even then, I think God knows that if no one can really handle a full experience of Himself, which is implied in scripture. The Divine is so huge and awesome that we need to experience Him in our limited capacity as humans.

[Angel Whispers]

 

 

These are the premises he offered to me:

 

p. God is all-powerful

p. God loves us all (even the sinners and the ones who do not believe he exists)

p. Those who don't believe in God, will spend eternity in Hell suffering

p. God wants everyone to choose to believe in him

p. By God appearing to people (like he did the prophets), and giving them information about the future, it significantly increases their chances for believing in God

p. God's appearing to people does not take away their free will

p. God does not appear to everyone (like he did the prophets)

c. Therefore God could save countless people from an eternity of Hell but he chooses not to

 

I'd ask if one first believes that free will is possible, within the dominion of omniscience?

 

I think this also applies to the red "c" point as well in that it seems to be a human connotation rather than anything that could be remotely attributed to how a superior consciousness to humans, thinks.

If we go on the presumption first that god is omni-benevolent and then is too omniscient, how could Hell come to exist in the first place? And if god could save people from Hell but chooses not to, how is that possible when we're first suppose to accept on faith that god sent himself as Jesus in order to save people from Hell, if they chose to accept his sacrifice was proof he loved them and saved them from the sin that he cursed all humanity with in Genesis, if only they accepted that salvation?

 

And also, being lesser consciousness than would be attributed to any god, wouldn't it be incumbent on a power/energy/being that is said to possess the divine attributes of omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence and omni-benevolence, to believe in us?

Why would a lesser being have to find (proof of) a higher power in order to believe it exists? And given the limited intellect of a lesser being, as in mortal consciousness, how would that then know what characteristics denote a higher power?

 

After all, what we're told to believe in about god's authority and presence, is related in a book that was compiled from multiple resources, who's autographs can never be discovered today. And then voted by at least three different councils who selected and then elected it's official "closed canon" content, so that it was distributed to the masses as is. Implying, by the appointment of it being a closed canon, that what is bound between those covers and amid those 66 books that that is the one and only time God will give his word/breath to the world.

 

So in effect men said; this is god chapter and verse.

And the asked; believe it and thou shalt be saved from what this book says god made of you.

 

Whereas, there are some people who believe if a supreme being can be conceptualized by the human intellect then it is intellect limited to human subjective understanding of self and ego, that makes god in it's own image and likeness.

When in truth, as that too is relative in that case, god can be seen to "show itself" at all times and in every place, (which is the import of omnipresence) , because it is granted the credit for being manifester of all that is, was or shall be.

[JenellYB]

Angel wrote: Why would a lesser being have to find (proof of) a higher power in order to believe it exists? And given the limited intellect of a lesser being, as in mortal consciousness, how would that then know what characteristics denote a higher power?

 

Yes, that does seem sort of like a parent conditioning their granting granting any care for and of their newborn infant upon the infant prooving it recognizes, accepts, and appreciates the parent, doesn't it?

 

Jenell

[Angel Whispers]

I think so, yes.

[matt67]

Maybe he's really busy.

[glintofpewter]

Matt