You can know it for yourself but you can't prove it to others. If you could, you would most certainly change the world as we know it!

It doesn't have to be the whole world. It can just be one person at a time!

Proving G-D exists is like proving wind exists. You cannot see it. You cannot touch it. Wind is not tangible. but you can see the effects of it.

"why yes, yes I do"

Yes I agree with you Dude. Nicely said. I love the analogy of the sailboat on the water. You can't see the force behind it but you can see the effects as it moves across the water. That's what non-Christians should see in Christians. They should see the effects of their God behind them. We are called to be salt and light.

I also agree with all that say you can't prove to another. I agree. I'm just saying there is proof out there if one chooses to "see" but it is a you and God personal thing to be sure.

Knowledge does come from God alone. I did nothing to have recognized God in my life. I was a dead person before he breathed spiritual life into me. I'm not even sure why he sought me out. I don't feel I deserve it. I'm honored and love God so much more when I think that not only did he send his son to die for me but that he chose me from the foundation of the world. If he was fair he would have turned his back on me. God does know that I deserve it.

But he's a loving and merciful God and loves me too much to leave me the way I am now. He is as real to me as the wind on my face and alive to me as my own sons are. Someday we will all find out one way or the other and all our questions will be answered. I'm looking forward to that day.

Larry,

What is your definition of anti-semetic? While I have heard MLuther was anti-semetic I know of no such truth behind the rumor.

As far as the Gnostic gospels....yes I have heard of them. They not only contradict the 4 gospels we have now but they also contradict themselves.

Hundreds of writings were circulating in the Roman Empire. For more than 50 yrs Christians had relied on 20 or so writings.....the 4 gospels, Acts, Paul's 13 letters, 1 Peter, 1 John and Revelation. Many believers also used Hebrews, 2 John, 3 John and Jude. A few churches accepted three other books.....2 Peter, the Revelation of Peter and the Shepherd of Hermas.

To decide which writings should guide the church, Christians asked three main questions.

1. Is the book connected to an apostle?
2. Do churches throughout the world use the book?
3. Does the book agree with what we already kknow about God?

Eventually most churches realized that Peter's Revelation and the Shepherd of Hermas were frauds. Despite continuing debates about a few books, by AD 200 God had led churches throughout the Empire to recognize one basic canon.

'I think we can be sure. It's no longer "faith" for me. I know that God exists. Some people might interpret that as arrogance, but it's my own truth. God definitely exists. Must be a sixth-sense, or something of the like.'

Hi Andy, good to cross paths with you again. On this point, however, while YOU can say you're sure, WE - in the general 'humanity' sense in which it is used in the header - cannot. You may 'know' that God exists, but an atheist may 'know' that he doesn't (perhaps through his own 'sixth sense'), and neither can justifiably claim superiority through special insight.

'That's what non-Christians should see in Christians. They should see the effects of their God behind them.'

Doesn't make sense, KFC. If we did, there would be no 'non-Christians', as we'd all be card-carrying Christians, surely? And if you're saying that your God is interventionist, in that he supports and looks after his own, then it ought to be child's play to compile statistics that back that up, right?

Instead, what we 'non-Christians' see is the effects of Christians' BELIEF in their God upon their behaviour. Everything that you might care to identify as 'the effects of their God behind them' is easily and directly attributable to earthly influences, motives and beliefs without any need to seek recourse to a higher existence.

Someday we will all find out one way or the other and all our questions will be answered.

Amen to that KFC,

I did nothing to have recognized God in my life. I was a dead person before he breathed spiritual life into me. I'm not even sure why he sought me out. I don't feel I deserve it. I'm honored and love God so much more when I think that not only did he send his son to die for me but that he chose me from the foundation of the world. If he was fair he would have turned his back on me. God does know that I deserve it. But he's a loving and merciful God and loves me too much to leave me the way I am now. He is as real to me as the wind on my face

Here you’re implying that the believer has no say in the matter KFC. It’s up to God whether a person believes or not. I personally agree with this, or at least I believe that it’s a case of when the person is ready. When a person has reached a particular stage on their path, then God will awaken them, or open their ‘spiritual eyes’, so to speak. It’s true that most atheists don’t have much choice in their non-belief. It's where they're at, and it's how they sincerely feel. Many people don’t believe in God, and go to the grave in this state of mind and heart, even after having given the issue deep thought and sincere searching throughout life.

What are your views regarding this KFC, and how does it fit in with a fundamentalist point of view? Many people claim that unbelievers will be punished in hell forever after death.

Hi Andy, good to cross paths with you again.

Hi Furry, it’s good to see you. Yes, it’s nice to cross paths again.

You may 'know' that God exists, but an atheist may 'know' that he doesn't (perhaps through his own 'sixth sense'), and neither can justifiably claim superiority through special insight.

I don’t think that it’s a question of superiority, or anything like that. It’s more a question of ‘where the soul is at’. We’re all at different stages along the spiritual path, and I’m sure that no stage is any less significant than any other. I believe that we’re all where we need to be, in terms of our soul’s needs and experiences, (which might be different to our personality’s needs and desires, incidentally. While the personality might seek greater material wealth, or worldly adoration, or a ‘perfect’ romantic partner etc, God might have a different agenda in mind. It’s soul work that we’re up to down here, and hardship and material lack can promote spiritual growth, humility and maturity.)

From my own point of view, if an atheist said to me, “God does not exist”, then I’d conclude that he or she has room for spiritual growth. I wouldn’t say it, mind, as it would be futile and he’d probably think I was arrogant, or just plain wrong.

I believe that atheism has its place in the bigger picture. God, who is all powerful and all knowing, could easily have put into the human condition and into every human mind unequivocal knowledge that God exists. Why, then, did He not? Clearly there’s good reason, because God is infinitely wise.

(It might be something to do with the principle that in order to fully appreciate the security, goodness, joy, and the sense of purpose of our eternal life in Heaven, we first need to experience ‘lack of purpose’, insecurity, doubt etc. Life on this side of Heaven enables us to experience the full scope of wisdom, which includes atheistic belief and the view that life is an "accident". Atheism is an innovative and profound notion, in context with true reality.)

In answer to your point Furry, I don’t think that it matters whether we ‘know’ that God exists or not. Both sides are significant experiences. Once we experience one side at a deeper ‘heart level’, however, we won’t go back to the other, for sure. The whole issue of spirituality is subjective by nature, and it’s true that we won’t find proof of God’s existence via traditional materialistic science. The science of the soul is a different matter, though, and during our time on earth, “the Kingdom of God is within”, as Jesus said.

On this point, however, while YOU can say you're sure, WE - in the general 'humanity' sense in which it is used in the header - cannot.

I believe that spiritual growth operates on an individual basis as well as on a larger scale of humanity’s evolution (i.e. as a ‘global consciousness’). In my view, atheism will eventually become an antiquated philosophy in the popular mind. But that’s just my view, and many here will obviously disagree.

I believe that the next phase of human evolution is spiritual awareness and heightened intuition, in which we’ll move from the ‘flat-earth’ perspective of reality, (i.e. the current intellectual viewpoint that everything is brute materialism, and that all is death and finality), to seeing the larger perspective of spiritual Truth, (i.e. the view that the Heavenly dimension is our true reality, that death is not the end, and that God is the sustaining force and loving Creator of all things.)

You can know it for yourself but you can't prove it to others. If you could, you would most certainly change the world as we know it!

It doesn't have to be the whole world. It can just be one person at a time!

I’m sure that another person’s views cannot make any difference to our own, at a heart level. If our spirit is ready, then this ‘knowing’, or awakening, will occur regardless. Even if we think that it had been prompted by something else, like an inspiring book, or a tragedy in life, or by hearing a bird sing in spring, it would have happened anyway if the time was right. The prompt could be anything. It doesn’t necessarily happen overnight either. It can unfold steadily over many, many years, which I think is how it happens for most.

'In answer to your point Furry, I don’t think that it matters whether we ‘know’ that God exists or not.'
I tend to agree, Andy. (Actually I think it is important that we DON'T know, but that's an argument for another time.) But it wasn't my point to begin with - it was that of KFC in writing the original blog!

'Both sides are significant experiences. Once we experience one side at a deeper ‘heart level’, however, we won’t go back to the other, for sure.'
For sure? Deeper experience leads to not going back, going back implies absence of deeper experience. i.e. It's a cyclic argument, and thus impossible to prove. To an atheist such as myself, people both adopt and abandon their beliefs everyday. It seems quite reasonable to me that those who don't lose faith may not have had any deeper experience, but just a greater personal capacity for faith to begin with.

'The whole issue of spirituality is subjective by nature, and it’s true that we won’t find proof of God’s existence via traditional materialistic science.'
Agreed.

'The science of the soul is a different matter, though, and during our time on earth, “the Kingdom of God is within”, as Jesus said.'
Here I disagree fundamentally with your terminology. Frequently I find myself defending science against accusations of atheism and reductionism, often here on JU. (Incidentally, you make something of a suggestion to this end yourself above, albeit in a roundabout way - I would argue from personal experience that one can subscribe to a scientific or rational view of the world and yet still find it a marvellous and rewarding place to live in; i.e. it is not necessary to conclude that 'all is death and finality'.) Each time, I make the point that science does not have an agenda on - let alone any claim to have 'dismissed' or 'disproven' - spirituality, but that spirituality is by definition outside science's remit. Consequently, there can be no 'science of the soul'. Let's leave the soul to religion, and detectable phenomena to science.

'I’m sure that another person’s views cannot make any difference to our own, at a heart level.'
But doesn't this imply that you think all preaching, missionary work, charity, theological investigation is inherently futile?

Great thoughts and discussion guys.

Yes Andy I'm saying it's all God and not man. This is a very deep issue and one debated within the fundamentalists as well. I have looked at predestination at length and believe it's God who predestines. It's not about our will....it's all about his will be done. Paul writes about this in Eph 1 & 2 especially but it's seen throughout scripture. Jesus said...."You did not choose me but it is I that chose you."

We all deserve death. Sin separates us from God. It started in the garden. Adam was given the title deed to the earth. But because of the deception of Satan the deed was snatched from his hands. Satan from the get go has wanted to usurp God and kick him off his throne. Of course this is not going to happen but in the meantime he's going after the people that God loves. If you can't get at the one you're aiming for you go after what means the most to them. Satan is blinded by pride. He says...."I will asend" "I will be the most high." "I will be God." It's all about me, myself and I to him. When Christ died on that cross Satan's kingship was doomed. The title deed is now in the hands of the one who defeated Satan at the cross. With Christ it was all about the ones he loved, putting himself in the servant's position even to the point of dying for them.

When Jesus performed the footwashing in John 13 it was to teach many things to his disciples. One of course is humility. They were to serve....not to lord it over the people they met. Another lesson buried in there was the fact that we are walking in a sinful, dirty world. We will get dirty.....Christians or not. While we don't need a full bath (got that at conversion) we do need to cleanse our feet. That's why Peter said...."Cleanse all of me." In order to be in God's presence we need to be clean. He is a holy God and he does not allow sin in his presence.

That's why his son was sent. We who do believe are cleansed by the blood of the lamb. We now are able to be in God's presence someday and he will open the door for us to come in. When he looks at us, he does so thru the precious blood of his son. Christ is the mediator. He is the lamb of the OT that were sacrificed on a yearly basis for the sins of the Jewish people.

The ones who do not believe will be judged only on their "good works." But they will come up short. How good is good enough? God says that even our best works are like filthy rags and that none of us are righteous not one. Many are amazed that Jesus talked more about hell than he did heaven. So yes I do believe in hell. It's total separation from God and that's what makes it hell. Death is separation. When we die physically our physical body is separated from our soul. When we die spiritually our spirit is separated from God. Born once die twice......born twice.....die once.

So Furry while it's not our preaching or teaching or missionary work that saves a person.....God uses us to reach others. He has always used man to do his work. Man teaching man. Jesus said right before he left....go out and tell others. But ultimately it's God who does the heart surgery....we just do the prep work.

I believe that 'proof' that God exists would nullify the need for faith.

Astute observation, of which I concur. Faith has greater value to man verses knowing fact in many cases. Believing in a greater spirit helps me stay the line of over coming my imperfections.

there comes a time in everyone's life that they have to decide for themselves. That is when true faith comes in.

Like in a hole as tracers dance over head. Or when "man" makes a mistake. One that he knows will ride him for life, that's when he reach's out and discovers faith giving him a way to live and move forward.

Doesn't make sense, KFC. If we did, there would be no 'non-Christians', as we'd all be card-carrying Christians, surely? And if you're saying that your God is interventionist, in that he supports and looks after his own, then it ought to be child's play to compile statistics that back that up, right?

You have a point here Furry. First off lives have been changed as a result of these card-carrying Christians. Many have come to Christ as a result of seeing others follow him. They see the peace, joy and happiness that transends everything else. Many martyrs went to their death obediently and many watching came to Christ as a result. Have you ever heard..."the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the faith?" Unlike Islam, they didn't take anyone with them. They did not comit suicide. Their lives were taken from them, and their crime? Not denouncing Christ when they had the chance to do so. Many came to faith and still do all over the world as a result of those willing to die for the one that gave them life. This is still happening.

But at the same time many Christians are not doing the work of Christ. They are content just to believe and not share or show their faith. They are doing a disservice to Christ and to those around them that need to hear the "good news."

And actually there are many Christians or pseudo Christians even that are hurting the cause of Christ. They wold be better off not calling themselves this. That's what makes it all so confusing. Guess who's behind all this? Hint....it's not God.

And actually there are many Christians or pseudo Christians even that are hurting the cause of Christ. They wold be better off not calling themselves this. That's what makes it all so confusing. Guess who's behind all this? Hint....it's not God.

Satan's greatest trick, dividing the religions and making each one think theres is the only way to God.

Yes Andy I'm saying it's all God and not man. This is a very deep issue and one debated within the fundamentalists as well. I have looked at predestination at length and believe it's God who predestines. It's not about our will....it's all about his will be done. Paul writes about this in Eph 1 & 2 especially but it's seen throughout scripture. Jesus said...."You did not choose me but it is I that chose you."

yes I do believe in hell. It's total separation from God and that's what makes it hell. Death is separation. When we die physically our physical body is separated from our soul. When we die spiritually our spirit is separated from God.

I don’t understand the logic here, KFC. This is like a mother choosing to give birth to a child solely in order to put it into an oven to burn. But in this case, you’re saying that God predestines many of His children to be put into an oven to experience pain and torment forever? I don’t understand babe. You’ll have to fill me in more.

I’m sure that another person’s views cannot make any difference to our own, at a heart level.

But doesn't this imply that you think all preaching, missionary work, charity, theological investigation is inherently futile?

No, it’s not futile. Theological investigation, preaching and missionary work are part of the process of our learning and growth. But I don’t think that they determine our beliefs. I believe it’s the other way round.

Our beliefs and our model of the world stem primarily from our level of spiritual or emotional growth. As we grow, our views often change, becoming, generally speaking, more aligned with the ‘truth’ of reality. I believe that our behaviour, and our methods of exploring or expressing these views are secondary ‘by-products’ of our level of growth.

For example, a person might gravitate toward a religious fundamentalist's preaching and missionary work, and might then subscribe to those particular beliefs, and preach and do missionary work herself. Another person might not care for a religious outlook, taking a secular, materialistic stance on reality. A third person might explore a different point of view, such as Eastern wisdom, Buddhism or Taoism. A forth might see how all the views fit together, and might adhere to a model of the world that incorporates aspects of all.

In this sense, I’m sure that at a ‘heart level’, another person’s views cannot make any difference to our own. We usually just gravitate to people who share our views, or who would subscribe to our own. Yet they’d be on the same wavelength in the first place. (Interestingly, a common remark from initiates within particular group who share beliefs, is “This is what I knew in my heart all along.” In other words, they’ve found a level of teaching and wisdom that they’re ready for. It’s the right path for them.)

For sure? Deeper experience leads to not going back, going back implies absence of deeper experience. i.e. It's a cyclic argument, and thus impossible to prove.

Not necessarily. I believe that we can grow into a deeper experience of God, after which we do not go back to a non-experience of God. This has been my experience, anyway.

People can experience God, and then go back to a place where they don’t appreciate or recognise Him anymore. But I believe that on a larger scale, the underlying trend leads toward not going backwards. Whenever a person ‘backslides’, they can trust God’s grace, and can eventually come back to God. This is the meaning behind the parable of the Prodigal Son.

'The science of the soul is a different matter, though, and during our time on earth, “the Kingdom of God is within”, as Jesus said.'

Here I disagree fundamentally with your terminology. Frequently I find myself defending science against accusations of atheism and reductionism, often here on JU. (Incidentally, you make something of a suggestion to this end yourself above, albeit in a roundabout way - I would argue from personal experience that one can subscribe to a scientific or rational view of the world and yet still find it a marvellous and rewarding place to live in; i.e. it is not necessary to conclude that 'all is death and finality'.) Each time, I make the point that science does not have an agenda on - let alone any claim to have 'dismissed' or 'disproven' - spirituality, but that spirituality is by definition outside science's remit. Consequently, there can be no 'science of the soul'. Let's leave the soul to religion, and detectable phenomena to science.

Yes, I agree that the word “science” is probably out of context. Although from my own point of view, it’s a definite form of science that can be proved for oneself. But it’s such a subjective form of proof, that I’d have to agree with you. We’ll leave the soul to religion, and detectable phenomena to science.

But here, I’ll wheel out Sir William Blagg’s quote, because I think it’s apt: “Religion and science are opposed . . . but only in the same sense as that in which my thumb and forefinger are opposed - and between the two, one can grasp everything."

'In answer to your point Furry, I don’t think that it matters whether we ‘know’ that God exists or not.' I tend to agree, Andy. (Actually I think it is important that we DON'T know

Why do you think it’s important that we don’t know, Furry?

my answer--
yes, and then yes again.
there is no way i could explain it. but there's my answer.