Board index ‹ God

[Grover]

Why doesn't god reveal himself in a way that undoubtedly gives us evidence of his existence?

If he wants people to follow him out of free will, then why not simply make sure that all people are aware of the truth of christianity. Then people can decide freely on whether or not they should follow him.

[jimwalton]

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 reveal himself to people in a way that undoubtedly gives us evidence of his existence 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.

[Grover]

> In other words, God reveal himself to people in a way that undoubtedly gives us evidence of his existence is no guarantee of the relationship.

Well I'm not saying that it is, but it would make christianity a far more tenable position if he did so right?

[jimwalton]

I'm saying the opposite. I'm saying that God revealing Himself in a more obvious way did NOT motivate people to belief or to relationship. It turns out, according to the Bible, that it's not about obvious evidence as much as it is about people who want a relationship with Him. Evidence obviously doesn't convince people, and so it doesn't make Christianity a far more tenable position.

[Grover]

But evidence would certainly convince me, just like how it convinced paul.

[jimwalton]

Two things come to mind in response to what you've said.

#1: If evidence would convince you, I wonder if you have read and wrestled with the evidence for the existence of God and the reliability of the Bible? We can talk about that if you want.

#2: The vision Paul had is what pushed him over the edge, but I'm guessing it's not what convinced him. Having studied with Gamaliel in Jerusalem, and being one of Gamaliel's star students, it makes sense that Paul had some access to Jesus's teaching and miracles during Jesus's ministry. Since we don't have any record of this, we can't know what Paul was thinking, but it's likely that he may have even known Jesus or had conversations with him, as many Pharisees did. In addition, Paul had numerous interactions with devoted Christians, being one who persecuted them. He was repeatedly exposed to their message and their convictions. It's more than very possible that Paul's many exposures to Jesus and Christians were working on him LOOOOONG before his vision that pushed him over the edge.

And so that's what encourage you to do, since you say "evidence would certainly convince" you. If that's true, then seriously and objectively assess the evidence we already have.

[Goo Goo Dolls]

> God revealing Himself in a more obvious way did NOT motivate people to belief

• John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs which he did.
• John 14:11 "Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves."
• Acts 2:22 Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.
• Matthew 9:6-8 "But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the paralyzed man, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” Then the man got up and went home. When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to man.

[jimwalton]

Yes. Agreed. Undeniable. What you find in the Bible is that when people are leaning in Jesus's direction, the signs He gives are effective. But if someone's heart is hard, the signs accomplish nothing. When Jesus did miracles in Nazareth, He was only able to do a few because people were rejecting of Him. And we know that even if someone rose from the dead, it didn't convince the hard of heart.

Many people who have chosen to reject Jesus see no convincing merit in his signs. Those who are open-minded are sometimes convinced. And for those of us who believe, these are truly signs of His deity and power.

Here on the forum, when people claim, "If only God would reveal Himself to me, I would surely believe," I don't necessarily believe them. We know that the state of the heart is the biggest determinant of the efficacy of evidence.

Here's a dumb example, but pertinent I think. There are many people in the country who HATE Donald Trump—sheer unmitigated hate. So the guy orchestrates a peace treaty between UAE and Israel, and then between Bahrain and Israel. These are huge accomplishments, but for those who hate him, they are meaningless and even more fuel for getting rid of him. It's nonsensical not to recognize a good thing when it happens, but their rejection of DJT is so strong he could heal the sick and raise the dead and they would just hate him more. (And please please please don't think I'm equating DJT with God or with the Messiah.)

I think this is the way it works with God. For people with their minds closed and their hearts hard, the signs mean NOTHING.

And back to your examples about Jesus from the Gospels. We know that despite Jesus's miracles, He had very few followers by the time He died. Why is that if His signs were so convincing? I think it's because the signs (the evidence) doesn't change hearts.

So talk back to me.

[Grover]

I really appreciate the response, I'll look into the material you've provided and maybe reconsider my position.

> Tacitus talks about Jesus's followers during his life.

Where does this occur?

[jimwalton]

In Tacitus's book called "Annals," book 15, about 3/4 of the way through the document:

"To kill the rumors, Nero charged and tortured some people hated for their evil practices—a group popularly known as ‘Christians’. The founder of the sect, Christus, had been put to death by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, when Tiberius was emperor. Their deadly superstition had been suppressed temporarily, but was beginning to spring up again—not now just in Judea but even in Rome itself, where all kinds of sordid and shameful activities are attracted and catch on. First those who confessed to being Christians were arrested. Then, on information obtained from them, hundreds were convicted, more for their anti-social beliefs than for fire-raising. In their deaths they were made a mockery. They were covered in the skins of wild animals, torn to death by dogs, crucified or set on fire—so that when darkness fell they burned like torches in the night. Nero opened up his own gardens for this spectacle and gave a show in the arena, where he mixed with the crowd, or stood dressed as a charioteer on a chariot. As a result, although they were guilty of being Christians and deserved death, people began to feel sorry for them. For they realized that they were being massacred not for the public good but to satisfy one man’s mania."

It mentions the sect that had been started by Jesus, known as the Christ, implying he had followers in Judea.