Why is god in hiding?

[JJ50]

If the Biblical god exists why does it hide away, making its existence a matter of faith not reality?

Those who claim there is evidence that god exists, can never provide that evidence.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 70 by By Grace]

You are attacking the tone of my words rather than addressing my valid challenges.

"Rom 1 says every human has seen the proof of YHWH's divinity and power but have repressed that proof of the truth so as to live with our sins with less guilt, the quintessence of our enslavement to evil."

These words are false because I have not seen the proof of YHWH's divinity and power. I have not repressed that proof of the truth so as to live with my sins with less guilt, the quintessence of my alleged enslavement to evil. This is ludicrous in the extreme. It is rhetoric designed to convince the congregation that they have made the right choice. You might not like the term snake oil, but it is an accurate description of the text.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 70 by By Grace]

I submit that the totality of vehemence in these words indicate a particularly prejudicial perspective whereby the poster may be unable or unwilling to judge the Bible by what the words and sentences therein actually mean in their context.

You are not reading with understanding. The onus is on you to demonstrate that the words in the Bible are anything more than the unsupported opinions of the various anonymous authors. You do not appear to be able to do that. All you do is focus on the language that I have used to convey my concerns. I have no reason to believe that the Bible is any different from the numerous texts describing any number of gods and religions. There is no compelling reason to accept the words in the Bible as fact. We don't even know if any of the words attributed to Jesus were actually uttered by him. Faith is not a virtue. You have put the cart before the horse. You have accepted belief in the veracity of the words in your holy book and then used those words for confirmation. Very circular and very illogical.

[By Grace]

[Replying to post 71 by brunumb]

You are attacking the tone of my words rather than addressing my valid challenges.

No, I never stated that your challenges were valid.

I did not attack your "tone", but instead, I copied your own words. If you want to call that "attacking" then by definition, you are really attacking yourself. You own your words, so do not try to paint me with them as not liking a "tone"... whatever THAT is.

These words are false because I have not seen the proof of YHWH's divinity and power

Do you determine the veracity of something based upon your SUBJECTIVE (thus inaccurate) experiences???

No, if you really wanted to deal with the Bible said, you would look to see in other places where it says exactly the same thing. It does. therefore the Bible is consistent. Unfortunately, your argumentation is not consistent because as I said earlier, your subjective experience can NEVER be the arbiter of objective truth.

I have not repressed that proof of the truth so as to live with my sins with less guilt, the quintessence of my alleged enslavement to evil.

Your words, which I quoted earlier (which you seem not to like--- shall I copy and paste them again?) are prima facia examples of your suppression of the truth because without engaging in the discussion of what is said in Scripture, you have painted a very negative picture of Scripture. By definition that is not evidence of having a rational discussion of facts, but instead is a raging and unsubstantiated prejudice against the Bible.

This is ludicrous in the extreme.

On your say-so, right-o! Once again you delve into the realm of the subjective in order to make an absurd absolutist statement for which you have not produced any fact.

It is rhetoric

I believe this quote, and the previous statement accurately reflect your position, not mine.

You might not like the term snake oil, but it is an accurate description of the text.

You have not read the text of the Bible in this thread, so once again, you are making an absolutist and emotional statement which is based on your subjective experience, and that has no connection in reality

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 70 by By Grace]

That there is more vitriol and "subjective errors" in the above paragraph to qualify as one having a closed mind to the history and transmission of the Bible.

Hardly vitriol. It would seem that cognitive dissonance has reared its uncomfortable head.

If you actually had an appreciation of the history and transmission of the Bible you would understand that challenges to its claims of divine authority are perfectly valid.

My mind is open. What compelling evidence do you have confirming the divine source of the Bible and the truth of its contents?

What would it take to convince you that the Bible is nothing more than a product of ancient humans trying to understand the world they inhabited?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 73 by By Grace]

No, if you really wanted to deal with the Bible said, you would look to see in other places where it says exactly the same thing. It does. therefore the Bible is consistent.

So what if it is consistent? It was designed to flog the same message. You fail to acknowledge that there is no valid reason for accepting the truth of the words in the Bible. Accepting them on faith is akin to being gullible. I'm sure that you would not make any other important and life-altering decision without some sort of incontrovertible evidence. The say-so of others has a proven track record of being unreliable.

Unfortunately, your argumentation is not consistent because as I said earlier, your subjective experience can NEVER be the arbiter of objective truth.

And your subjective opinion of the contents of the Bible can not be the arbiter of objective truth. The need for faith contradicts the claim that the Bible represent objective truth.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 70 by By Grace]

That there is more vitriol and "subjective errors" in the above paragraph to qualify as one having a closed mind to the history and transmission of the Bible.

Hardly vitriol. It would seem that cognitive dissonance has reared its uncomfortable head.

If you actually had an appreciation of the history and transmission of the Bible you would understand that challenges to its claims of divine authority are perfectly valid.

My mind is open. What compelling evidence do you have confirming the divine source of the Bible and the truth of its contents?

What would it take to convince you that the Bible is nothing more than a product of ancient humans trying to understand the world they inhabited?

Moderator Comment

While it is not only acceptable, it is encouraged, to challenge a claim and ask for supporting evidence, personal comments such as 'If you actually had an appreciation of ...." are personal and cross the 'ad hominem' line. Be careful to address the post, and not make comments about the writer of it.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[alexxcJRO]

There is ample evidence in creation that He exists, d there is evidence in His testimony that He is a covenant-making and relational God, who is not willing that any should die, but instead be saved.

Because those who claim that "god is hiding" it is evident that they are presupposing that the God who made the Universe, and all therein should bow down to the capricious vicissitudes of human thought is an act of unmitigated insubordination

Romans 1: 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

You and the Bible say there is ample evidence for the existence of God(Yahweh), it is clearly perceived.

But my genuine disbelief in God(Yahweh) kind of disproves the above statement and his existence.

Mind you Yahweh it is supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good and a personal God(wants to have a personal relationship with every human-->Therefore wants that every human believe in his existence).

[By Grace]

[Replying to post 77 by alexxcJRO]

But my genuine disbelief in God (Yahweh) kind of disproves the above statement and his existence.

KUDOS for your recognition of your personal anti-supernatural biases.

We can work with that sort of honesty because we can shift the discussion to that of "internal consistency" meaning asking the question "Does the Bible contradict itself?" That is a question asking for objective answers instead of relying on subjective feelings and emotions

Mind you Yahweh it is supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good and a personal God(wants to have a personal relationship with every human-->Therefore wants that every human believe in his existence).

Non sequitur.

The second premise does not follow the first because it makes belief dependent upon acceptance of external evidence. In reality, I am free to believe that the stop sign is there, and likewise, I am free to act upon that belief. However, it is the cop who will act upon the existence of that stop sign, irrespective of my belief and acting as it is there, or not.

Nor will my personal belief hold sway in Municipal Court.

[alexxcJRO]

We can work with that sort of honesty because we can shift the discussion to that of "internal consistency" meaning asking the question "Does the Bible contradict itself?" That is a question asking for objective answers instead of relying on subjective feelings and emotions

We do not need to shift. Please do not change the subject.

The Bible says: "20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived."

Yet my genuine disbelief exists.

Either i am lying(and anyone who says has a genuine disbelief in Yahweh) or it is the Bible.

Q: So which one is it?

The second premise does not follow the first because it makes belief dependent upon acceptance of external evidence. In reality, I am free to believe that the stop sign is there, and likewise, I am free to act upon that belief. However, it is the cop who will act upon the existence of that stop sign, irrespective of my belief and acting as it is there, or not.

Nor will my personal belief hold sway in Municipal Court.

Please answer the following Questions:
Q: Is God(Yahweh) an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being who wants to have a personal relationship with me? (Yes/No question)

Q: Does Yahweh wants for me to believe in him?(Yes/No question)

[By Grace]

[Replying to post 79 by alexxcJRO]

We do not need to shift. Please do not change the subject.

Attempting to discuss common things is neither "shifting" nor "changing the subject".

The Bible says: "20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived."

Yet my genuine disbelief exists.

Either i am lying(and anyone who says has a genuine disbelief in Yahweh) or it is the Bible.

Q: So which one is it?

You present a false choice dilemma here, but I'll deal with it later

Romans 1: 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him

1 Timothy 1: 17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen

Hebrews 11:24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; 25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; 26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward. 27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible

So you can see that there are four different books with the same consistent message: the God of the Bible exists, and He is invisible.

As to the error in logic: There are other possible answers to your very limited conclusion about lying. I can say that because it is possible for a person to be wrong about something, and not be lying.

You see, the accusation of "lying" speaks of intention, and arrogates unto the accuser the role of omniscience. While everyone has the right to possess incorrect beliefs, it is not correct to equate the expression of wrong beliefs with deliberate deception.

For that reason, I reject your question as a false choice dilemma. It is like the old con game, "Heads I win, tails, you lose."

Please answer the following Questions:
Q: Is God(Yahweh) an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being who wants to have a personal relationship with me? (Yes/No question)

Hebrews 11: 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

So you seem to be asking an unconditional question, but the statement is quite conditional in Hebrews: God rewards those who DILIGENTLY SEEK HIM, and BELIEVE THAT HE EXISTS

Q: Does Yahweh wants for me to believe in him?(Yes/No question)

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance

So, you present two false choice dilemmas here, and that is because you truncate the expressed purposes of one knowing about Him: so that one can repent of sins. They are interconnected, and to split them is to unintentionally ask loaded questions. But know for sure, I do not accuse you of doing that viciously nor intentionally