Board index God

How do we know there's a God? What is he like?

God doesn't want a relationship with us

Postby 2a2a » Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:13 pm

God doesn't want a relationship with us right now

If God wanted to have a relationship with us right now, he would speak to us. He doesn't speak to us. So he doesn't want a relationship with us right now.

This could be expanded to the vast majority of humankind Could you refute that? I'm a Christian BTW. Debate that.
2a2a
 

Re: God doesn't want a relationship with us

Postby jimwalton » Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:16 pm

God appearing and having a friendly conversation wouldn't do it. Let me go back to the very beginning. Isn't it astounding that some spiritual beings—who knew God by experience, could see him and hear him, knew his goodness, his greatness, and his power—could rebel against God and abandon their positions (Jude 1.6) in defiance against God? How is that possible? There weren't even any filters (as far as we know) between them and God, and yet they turned against him. It's obvious to me that even a direct experience with God doesn't make it certain that one will follow him. "Irrefutable evidence" doesn't help them be "believers."

James 2.19 talks about demons who believe in God, sure enough, but don't follow him. They know all about him, so we can assume, and yet they don't follow God or "believe in him" in the sense of love and obey him.

We know that the children of Israel who were part of the Exodus got to see spectacular wonders of God's miraculous doings (pretty close to those friendly conversations you might want), and yet many of them were rebellious and unfaithful. We also know that thousands of people got to see Jesus, hear him speak, and watch him do miracles, and yet they didn't all turn to being disciples.

In other words, God speaking to people is no guarantee of the relationship. Often times, it's actually detrimental. God speaking to people seems only to be effective when the person is already in relationship with God. If they aren't, God speaking doesn't seem to make any difference at all, oddly enough.
jimwalton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9102
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm

Re: God doesn't want a relationship with us

Postby Johnny on the Rocks » Mon Feb 11, 2019 10:36 am

What does make a difference, then?
Johnny on the Rocks
 

Re: God doesn't want a relationship with us

Postby jimwalton » Mon Feb 11, 2019 10:55 am

Well, from what we are shown in the Bible, what makes the difference is the life-change that God brings to human hearts. God sends spokespersons (prophets, writers, preachers) to convince the mind by a sometimes slow process of intellectual acceptance (Romans 8.5-7; 12.2; 16.18; 2 Corinthians 4.4; Hebrews 10.8, et al.). God changes the lives of those he inhabits so that their goodness influences people towards Him (Mt. 5.16). As Christians, our love for people shows them what God is like (John 13.34-35; 15.12-13; Matthew 25.31-46). God wants us to serve other people (John 13.14; Mt. 25.31-46). When people see that Christianity makes sense, and they are drawn by the love and goodness Christians show, when they are sick and tired of the sin, the alienation and purposeless, they are drawn to Jesus. Then once a person comes to Christ in repentance and love, then God shows Himself to that person (John 14.21). The Holy Spirit comes to live inside that person and reveals God to them (John 16.8-15, esp. 15). That's what makes the difference. It's a relationship, not just a revelation, and certainly not a religion.
jimwalton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9102
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm

Re: God doesn't want a relationship with us

Postby Johnny on the Rocks » Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:51 pm

Christianity isn't a religion?! It is. I'd go so far as to say it's one of the world's biggest.
Johnny on the Rocks
 

Re: God doesn't want a relationship with us

Postby jimwalton » Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:51 pm

Calling Christianity a religion is actually a misnomer and reflects a misunderstanding. Generally speaking, when people think about religion, they are talking about what they do to reach God, what they do to make themselves acceptable in God's eyes, and what they do to earn their way into God's favor. Christianity is exactly the opposite on all three counts.

Christianity is the story not of us figuring out how to connect with God, but God reaching out to us to form a relationship. It's all about the relationship, not about what we do to find God. Christianity is the story of God finding us.

Christianity is not about us making ourselves acceptable in God's eyes, but rather what God has done to make us acceptable in His eyes. Religion is based on what we do; Christianity is grounded in the work of God alone that makes us acceptable.

Religion is generally about the cultic practices in which people engage to earn their way into God's favor, whether it's through good works, being a good person, being a humanitarian, doing certain sacrifices, performing certain sacraments, and following the book so that God is obliged to reward us. Christianity repudiates all of that and instead is in totally contrast: God offers us salvation as a free gift based on the sacrifice and resurrection of His Son. All we need to do is reach out and take it.

Christianity is famously non-religious and non-sacramental. There is no priesthood, no temple, no sacrifices, no list of requirements to deserve entry. Just turn from your sins, receive the free gift of salvation that is offered to you, and come to God in love.
jimwalton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9102
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm

Re: God doesn't want a relationship with us

Postby Johnny on the Rocks » Tue Feb 12, 2019 2:05 pm

> Generally speaking, when people think about religion, they are talking about what they do to reach God, what they do to make themselves acceptable in God's eyes, and what they do to earn their way into God's favor.

No they're not. Thinking about religion doesn't presuppose there's such a thing as God. When you're thinking about religion in general, the idea of "making yourself acceptable in God's eyes" isn't going to come up unless you already think there is a god (who happens to have eyes). Not all religions involve God. Thinking about religion is thinking about groups of spiritual beliefs and practices, accepted on the basis of faith, some of which may be to do with a god. Christianity is one example of a religion in this general sense.

> Christianity is famously non-religious and non-sacramental. There is no priesthood,

Tell that to a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. The majority of Christians, in other words.
Johnny on the Rocks
 

Re: God doesn't want a relationship with us

Postby jimwalton » Tue Feb 12, 2019 2:24 pm

> Thinking about religion doesn't presuppose there's such a thing as God. When you're thinking about religion in general, the idea of "making yourself acceptable in God's eyes" isn't going to come up unless you already think there is a god (who happens to have eyes). Not all religions involve God. Thinking about religion is thinking about groups of spiritual beliefs and practices, accepted on the basis of faith, some of which may be to do with a god. Christianity is one example of a religion in this general sense.

What I meant is that people who subscribe to religion generally consider it as a way to make themselves acceptable to God. People who subscribe to religion have already gotten past the part about whether or not God exists.

Buddhism, which is atheistic, is mislabelled a religion. It's more accurately a philosophy of life. So also Confucianism. Hinduism, though one can believe in no gods, is generally a polytheistic religion.

> Tell that to a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. The majority of Christians, in other words.

Yeah, it's one of the things the Catholics have gotten dead wrong in their quest for authority. The New Testament is radically anti-sacramental. Even Judaism was such. When the Temple was destroyed, the priests killed, and the sacrifices discontinued, they just kept right on humming. Judaism was content to let God be holy, and that things were merely things. Even today there has been no move to restore the Temple or any other form of the sacramental cult.

Christianity was totally without priests, temples, sacrifices or any sacraments until the leadership backslid. “Sacraments” don't fit the historical context of original Christianity, neither do they fit its theological context. Sacraments (the thought and action that carries with it the implication that God’s grace and favor, along with His will and power, to some degree or other have come under the control of man and his institutions) constitute about as “religious" a technique as can be devised; and original Christianity was religionless.
jimwalton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9102
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm

Re: God doesn't want a relationship with us

Postby Johnny on the Rocks » Wed Feb 13, 2019 1:25 pm

The Orthodox Church are the oldest sect, and it's their own doctrine that the Bible is the product of the church. All protestant sects by definition aren't Orthodox in that sense, and neither are Roman Catholics. At least that's their perspective, and they've been around longer so probably know what they're talking about. Christians can argue amongst themselves about that though. They have been for the past 2000 years. Makes you wonder if "the Bible" (whatever that is) or anything else about the faith is really as clear and indisputable as they'll tell you it is.
Johnny on the Rocks
 

Re: God doesn't want a relationship with us

Postby jimwalton » Sat Mar 02, 2019 7:35 pm

> They are the oldest sect, and it's their own doctrine that the Bible is the product of the church

This is not necessarily so. The oldest sect of Christianity is the apostolic church itself, which had only local hierarchy, and which existed for centuries. The Apostolic and Church Fathers had positions where their authority was recognized, but there was no centralized governance.

In AD 325, Emperor Constantine convened a council (Nicea) to deal with the issue of Christ's deity. There was still no centralized governance of the Church.

In 190, Victor, the bishop of Rome, attempted to declare himself as the head of the church. He was roundly criticized and resisted.

It was in 440 that Leo declared himself as the first bishop of Rome to be recognized as the head of the church, and to some extent, he succeeded. But it did not sit well with many congregations, who reacted negatively to the idea that any man was the head of the church. Congregations were considered independent, as part of the whole, with Christ as the head.

The Islamic invasion of Europe in the 600s plunged Europe into the Dark Ages. The conquest resulted in the Church of Rome getting involved much more in politics. Many Christians all over Europe were killed. The eastern part of the Church suffered the most in people killed and territory lost to the Muslims. Rome banded with the military to repel the Muslim armies. Rome was still not recognized by many Christians as their authority on Earth.

Rome continued to flex its ecclesiastical muscle, with more and more churches coming under its protection (and therefore its rules). By the early part of the 6th century, the Church owned 1/3 of all Italy.

St. Patrick of Ireland (not a Roman Catholic), started a massive missionary movement in Europe, planting Celtic monasteries all over the landscape. The papacy competed with them for congregations. Eventually the Celtic congregations submitted to Rome.

The era of 814-962 was one of pure chaos for the Church. It had become political, militaristic, and corrupt. It again became decentralized. Congregations refused to submit or to recognize any head over them except Christ. After the death of Nicholas 1, the papacy declined into utter chaos. Christendom had 3 leaders, depending on whom one spoke with: Christ, the Emperor, or the Pope.

1054 is when the great schism occurred. The Pope (western church) and Patriarch (eastern church) excommunicated each other, both convinced they were the true church and the other was wayward.

All of this is to show that in no sense can you rightfully assert that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the oldest sect.

> Bible is the product of the church

It depends what you mean by this. The Bible is realistically the product of the apostles and those who knew them. This was recognized by the Church at large through the first several centuries, and affirmed at the Council of Hippo in 393 and then again at the Council of Carthage in 397. The Church didn't produce them, but only affirmed them as authoritative.


Last bumped by Anonymous on Sat Mar 02, 2019 7:35 pm.
jimwalton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9102
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm


Return to God

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


cron