Is God determined to allow no proof or evidence of his existence?

I've noticed that there are at least few here who seem to subscribe to this view. It was crashfrog that pointed out some claim that God does not allow his existence to be scientifically substantiated, because to do so would eliminate the need for faith.While I agree with the concept that some aspects of God are currently beyond our ability to directly experience, I wouldn't go so far as to say that he is determined to allow no proof or evidence of his existence. Furthermore, I don't think that simply believing that God exists necessarilly equals having faith in him.In short, my question related to God's existence is related to two complementary positions: Whichever way you answer, I would like to also hear why you think this. I will interject my thoughts from my own Judeo-Christian perspective and also attempt to explain why I think God is actually determined to allow proof and evidence of his existence -- and why thinking that he is determined to allow no proof or evidence of his existence is probably a major error in our thinking based on our own limited experiences.Although this discusion is primarilly targetted against the idea of God conceiling himself so as to generate "faith", I do believe that this discussion also has relevance to the whole "intelligent design" discusion as well.In addition to this, I welcome input from other faith systems that are not considered Judeo-Christian, including thoughts about God (or gods) from pantheistic, panentheisitic, agnostic or even other monotheistic faiths that I may not be aware of outside the scope of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I would also welcome any atheistic perspectives on this matter.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-18-2005 11:00 PM

Post moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I do believe that God withholds some kinds of evidence of His reality and character for the purpose of drawing us to Himself by faith alone. Obviously, being God, he COULD provide all kinds of evidence but He doesn't, and we have to answer why. His use of miracles over the centuries could be said to have been sparing considering what He could have done. The prophecies given are rather cryptic, which explains the endless complaints that they aren't even prophecies by some here. Christians of course know they are.I've always appreciated Blaise Pascal's Pensees on this subject:

Another reason God may be sparing with the kinds of evidence so frequently demanded at EvC is that the first part of us that died in Eden with the original sin of our first parents was the spirit, the faculty in communion with God, that is, the ability to know the "things unseen" that now require faith (Hebrews 11:1). When we fell in Adam we were reduced to "flesh" or "the carnal mind," the part of us said by scripture to be "enmity with God" and in fact capable of nothing but enmity to God: It is the spirt that is first restored by faith in the sacrifice of Christ that reconciles us to God: The demand for more evidence, for physical miracles, is a demand that God appeal to the "flesh" but this is exactly what God does not want to do, for the flesh is only the result of death, the cause of death, and more and more death, and incapable of obeying God or knowing God. It is the spirit which is life. The restoration of our life through Christ is first of all a restoration of the spirit, the image of God in us that cries "Abba, Father." The body will be restored at the resurrection, but meanwhile it is a "body of death" to us, as Paul says (Romans 7:24). (I may be wrong to be ordering these in a hierarchy as all our faculties died in Adam and all are restored in Christ so that maybe it is truer to say that it is a matter of degrees rather than one faculty at a time).Everything God does is for our good and His glory. He gives us EXACTLY the amount of revelation of Himself that is good for us. It will never be enough to satisfy the natural man, only the meek who worship Him in spirit and in truth.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-15-2005 04:28 AM

The Bible has a few choice tidbits concerning belief and unbelief. Apparently, being in the presence of the Son of God was not enough to instill belief. In fact, those same Disciples had witnessed numerous miracles and had seen the personality of Jesus firsthand. The fact that they still had unbelief is a testimony to the idiosyncrasies of human nature.Many of us who are believers today would still be as the Disciples were should we see a miracle before our very eyes. We would say "I don't believe it!"In the example that I cited, it may be that everyone was doubtful of the integrity of Mary Magdalene since she had in the past been rather strange. Jesus Himself later appeared to some of his disciples who at the time did NOT recognise Him. How do you figure that??This message has been edited by Phatboy, 05-15-2005 03:20 AM

---

"It is as impossible for man to demonstrate the existence of God as it would be for even Sherlock Holmes to demonstrate the existence of Arthur Conan Doyle."
---
"Religion points to that area of human experience where in one way or another man comes upon mystery as a summons to pilgrimage."
---
"People are prepared for everything except for the fact that beyond the darkness of their blindness there is a great light. They are prepared to go on breaking their backs plowing the same old field until the cows come home without seeing, until they stub their toes on it, that there is a treasure buried in that field rich enough to buy Texas. They are prepared for a God who strikes hard bargains but not for a God who gives as much for an hour's work as for a day's. They are prepared for a mustard-seed kingdom of God no bigger than the eye of a newt but not for the great banyan it becomes with birds in its branches singing Mozart. They are prepared for the potluck supper at First Presbyterian but not for the marriage supper of the lamb".Frederick Buechner

While I respect that position Faith, I'm still confused by it. I've never really encountered anything in the Scriptures (or Tradition for that matter) that taught this.If anything, it's almost the exact opposite -- that God provides adequate evidence of his will, existence, presense, etc., so much so that people are essentially without excuse.For example, the passage in Romans seems to express this very clearly: To be clear, I see nothing in these passages which indicates that God is "hiding" so that people may develop faith him. The Scriptures make this even more clear in the following passages: In other words, at least according to the Scriptures and Tradition, if people cannot see God, it is usually because some are either blinded by other factors beyond their control, or simply unwilling to see what has been made plain to them -- or, at the very least, their natural knowledge of God has simply not been expanded upon clearly yet. Actually, he does provide all kinds of evidences throughout the Scriptures -- and the Scriptures make it abundantly clear that they have been left behind as "evidence" for others to believe that he exists.It should be noted that within the Hebrew Scriptures there are many 'signs' given by the Lord in order to vindicate his authority as sovereign Lord. This authority as sovereign Lord was primarily focused on the ancient Israelites -- but also extended beyond them to incorporate the nations of the entire world in one form or another. In discussing these things, it should also be noted that the physical evidence of a sign could take on a wide range of outward appearances. In many cases, the physical evidence of a sign could range anywhere from a mark or a token, a badge or a standard, or even a monument or a memorial.The physical evidence of the signs given by the Lord usually almost always includes aspects of having a clearly definitive message pronounced as a warning, omen, or prodigy in conjunction with it. Likewise, in almost all cases, some form of deeper spiritual symbolism is present -- although many would argue over the semantics and reality of the symbolic meaning behind the physical evidence. On the more exceptional occasions, a miracle (or miraculous sign) was given to otherwise establish the proof of his presence and to demonstrate the seriousness of his intentions.In analyzing the concept of designated 'signs' within the Hebrew Scriptures, it should be noted that the Hebrew word for 'sign' is ot. The Hebrew word 'ot' signified something which could be shown or confirmed, and pertained to the past, present and future. As highlighted above, it is generally understood that the confirmation was an inducement to believe what was affirmed, professed, or promised. At the most basic level, it was considered the 'acid test' of prophecy -- as a true prophet was identified by the fact that the wonders or signs he predicted in the name of the Lord came to pass. Yes, but if one is simply looking at the 'miracles', then they are missing a formidable amount of evidence for his existence. Incidentally, when talking about miracles, the Hebrew word ot often occurs within the same context as the Hebrew word mopet.The Hebrew word 'mopet' essentially translates into English as something akin to a 'wonder'. When 'ot' is used in conjunction with 'mopet', it is often collectively referred to as "signs and wonders" -- or, at least, this is how most English speaking Christians are familiar with it within the Christian Scriptures translated into English in our modern day.An example of this translation is clearly outlined within the Hebrew Scriptures as follows: Another example of this translation can be clearly seen within another section of the Hebrew Scriptures as follows: Or, again, as yet another example of this English translation, carefully examine the following Hebrew Scriptural text as follows: Coming back to the central focus of the meaning of any given 'sign' -- it ought to be noted that the Hebrew word 'ot', when used exclusively, is generally an indicator or signal of something greater. This 'something greater', is usually some form of covenant promise which the sign points toward in one way or another. Again, ultimately coming full circle in one way or another, it points straight back to the Lord again.In some cases, the usage of 'ot' may be simply employed for the marking of time. An example of this is outlined within a section of the Genesis account of the Lord's Creation quoted below: However, in the case of the Greek equivalent of 'ot' in the Christian Scriptures, Christ seems to denounce those that were asking for a 'sign'. The Greek equivalent is for ot is 'semeion' in the Christian Scriptures -- and it designates a sign or miracle with a spiritual end and purpose.In the plural sense, these 'miracles' again lead to something out of and beyond themselves -- they are 'finger marks of God', valuable not so much for what they are as for what they indicate of the grace and power of the Doer.Nonetheless, noting the Christian Scriptures as follows, the request for a 'sign' (semeion) is met with the following retort by Christ: Christ does this not so much to dismiss the validity of miraculous evidence -- but rather to emphasize that there has already been plenty of evidence to validate his claims in the first place.If someone doesn't believe in him based on the testimony of many reliable witnesses (including his raising of the dead later), then there's bascially not much point in trying to convince them. Their hearts are essentially hardened by their rejection of God's testimony.To continue to ask for a 'sign' when they are simply unwilling (or unable) to even acknowledge the previous evidence that has been presented is simply overkill. It usually implies that those requesting the information are simply wasting your time -- because, if they can't see it already, then they're not going to listen to any new 'evidence' presented before them either.Christ seems to express this exact same sentiment when he spoke these words in the following parable: Hmmm...this is interesting. I'll have to come back to this later on today. I've got to go to church soon -- but I will reply to the rest of your post when I get back.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-15-2005 09:35 AM

First of all, I'm going to state that I appreciate when an atheist admits they don't see any evidence. In some sense, this is, in my opinion, much more respectible than any believer that simply parrots the status quo of their own denominational stance (or particular religion's stance for that matter).I guess it comes down to determining what kind of evidence one is searching for.Is it simply a reassurance that allows them to make it through the day?If so, I deeply respect this position and would never attempt to dismiss it offhandedly -- even if I disagree with it. This isn't to say that I don't consider this a valid form of faith -- because I do.But, having said this, a more mature faith would most likely investigate their own faith further so as to be able to back it up when doubts are express by others or even felt by the believer themself.Anyone who has belonged to a particular religion/denomination that has never questioned their own faith leaves me doubting that they've ever seriously investigated the claims of thier own position.Furthermore, if it is only something that they've derived comfort from, then this more likely belongs to the disciplines of various psychological fields which are conducted in order to generate some kind of catharsis within thier own lives.Is it something that they've searched thoroughly through to find the answers that they've sought?If so, I can more deeply appreciate their faith in whatever they have faith in -- even if it's solely some form of materialism. This doesn't mean that I'll agree with them, but it does mean that I can respect their point of view and engaged in some dialogue when the time presents itself.Again, having said this, this doesn't mean that I expect anyone to have all the answers to their own faith system. In areas where some aspect of knowledge is lacking (even severely lacking at certain points), it is simply assumed that they are trusting in whatever faith system they have identified with.But, at the very least, if they're going to present it as a valid faith, they should at least be able to point to some kind of philosophical underpinnings behind their faith system -- and be able to point to where their faith manifests in something positive in their lives. They should also be able to point to areas (or be aware of where) their faith is lacking and identify it as an area where they believe 'more evidence' will be forthcoming -- much like the predictive nature of the scientific method.To be continued...This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-15-2005 11:55 AM

I'm not sure what you are getting at. Jesus gave many proofs to his disciples and they were for the most part pretty blockheaded {edit: as we all are "in the flesh") though they had their moments of illumination.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-15-2005 01:57 PM

I might be wrong, but I think Phatboy is emphasizing the fact that, contrary to the position that God was attempting to hide himself in order to generate faith, Christ had to repeatedly provide proofs even to the doubting hearts of even his own apostles -- some of whom which were probably the very closest friends he ever had during his earthly ministry prior to his death and resurrection and after.

This isn't exactly accurate. There are many people that have concluded some kind of aspects of deity on or in nature. For example, pantheists believe in some way that "God is in all". Panentheists beleive that "God is in all" to some extent. And, to contrast the various Judeo-Christian faith systems to an "alternative" monotheistic faith system, consider the proposition of the deist.Deism is likewise the belief in "one god". The position holds that God exists but is not immanent, or active, in his creation. Deists usually embrace some kind of natural theology and see reason and natural law as humanity's only guide to moral rectitude and ultimate salvation. Faith, they hold, is a logical consequence or our perception and evaluation of the natural phenomena.Admittedly, the deist sees these things independantly of eccliastical authority. They tend to reject the validity of revelation and miracles. They also tend to reject the concept of divine providence and the possibility of a direct, personal communication with God (and consequently deny many things revealed in the Scriptures).However, notwithstanding these sharp disagreements, deists would still agree with many Christians that there is one creator-god -- a creator-god deserving of worship (the most appropriate form being a life of virtuous piety and repentance for our sins) and who rewards virtue amd punishes wickedness in some kind of afterlife.There is no unified deist position, but they generally consist of free-thinkers and were mostly united in the condemnation of religious "superstitions" as the greatest impediment to human progress. This statements seems to be highly linked with the question of why there is suffering in the world. I think that anyone who is looking to beleive in God can rationalize their reasons as to why God allows this.My only hope is that, whatever their reasoning, they would hold to a position that is most accurately portraying their religion's perception of their own divinity. My own personal is that God judges in proportion to that which has been revealed to each individual.In some sense, at the most basic level, knowledge of God is evident within creation itself. This is a no-brainer.In another sense, I think the default position of human faith, even without revelation, is that of the deist position -- that there is some kind of creator-god that has created all things. This position is slightly more complicated but apparently does happen in various forms of natural theology found around the world.In the fullness of the last sense, there is the knowledge of God that comes via revelation. In this regard, it comes directly from God or his prophets, etc. This is a unique experience that is certainly the most complicated to grasp -- that God is alive and active in one's life. Going beyond the "nature is a reflection of God" or "the God is the ultimate watchmaker", this position holds that God is a friend that is deeply concerned with every aspect of your life. I think this accurately captures the human condition even for many Christians. As I've said before, from my own perspective, it must be stressed that the Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in other religions.The church has a high regard for their conduct in so far as she believes the Spirit is moving them according to the Lord's will. This high regard also includes those precepts and doctrines found within other religions which, although differing on many points from that which the church believes and propounds, often reflects a ray of the truth which enlightens all men.In tracing human history, it is generally believed by older school Catholic theologians that the primal knowledge of the Lord was often supplanted in religions by concepts of gods which are "more accessible."In doing such, the "primordial" monotheistic knowledge of a monotheistic God seems to deteriorate into a pantheon of divinities whose attributes seems to be defined more by nature and/or human characteristics. Even still, despite this supposed deterioration, these religions often carry a distant memory of this "Sky-God" whom they have lost most contact with.The Catholic Church holds a deep conviction in regards to what is called semina Verbi (seeds of the Word) present in all religions. She does this in order to trace a common path against the backdrop of the contemporary world from our first two parents and on throughout human history. The position of the church in this regard is inspired by a universal concern -- she is guided by the faith that God the Creator wants to save all humankind in Christ Jesus, the only mediator between God and man.As such, the church still proclaims, and is bound to proclaim that Christ is 'the way and the truth and the life' in conformity with the Christian Scriptures found within the John 14:61. It is within Christ that one must find the fullness of religious life and in whom the Father has reconciled everything to himself.To be continued...This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-15-2005 03:53 PMThis message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-15-2005 03:56 PM

OK, that probably explains it. That's covered by Pascal however. God gives what's needed but not as much as so many think he should before they will believe.

You have a point. We know God is Spirit, the heavenly realm is a spiritual realm, all inhabitants there are spirits and we ourselves are mere spirits temporarily contained in these vessels we call bodies.So wouldn’t it make sense for God to be more pleased by actions that enhance or in some way glorify the spiritual side of existence? OTOH, the type of miracles that would provide compelling evidence to atheists for the existence of God must deal with the material world. But hasn’t God been down that path many times before?The Bible is filled with miracles performed in the physical world. But if you look closely, I believe there is a purposeful difference in miracles found in the OT verses the NT. The OT miracles were more spectacular, more of the type that atheist of today would find compelling, broad miracles of nature, plagues on Egypt, etc.The NT on the other hand, offers more personal miracles such as dealing with curing people one at a time. Sure there were natural miracles in the NT, calming the sea, feeding the 5,000, etc. But I see a trend towards the personal in the NT contrasted to the OT. This approach to personal miracles seems to fit the message of the personal salvation preached by Jesus. This stands in contrast to the national salvation experienced by the Hebrews through the miracles of Moses.Now we are 2000 years removed from the miracles of the NT. It is obviously God’s divine Will that neither approach is suitable in today’s world. I’m certainly not saying that miracles do not occur today, because I believe they do and they are visible to the believers.Perhaps we, the human race, His beloved creation, have matured beyond the need for great physical manifestations or even mildly personal ones that can be objectively measured and quantified by a skeptical world.Maybe we as a race have grown beyond spiritual milk given by miracles. It is written in 1Peter2:2 (NIV) Like newborn babies crave pure spiritual milk so that by it you may grow up in your salvation, now that you have tasted that the Lord is good.We have the Word and all the splendors of nature and He views that as adequate. He told Paul something similar when Paul asked for more than was necessary. 2Cor 12:9 (NIV): My Grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weaknessThus there seems to be a balance between belief and non belief, just enough for some, not enough for others, but all to the glory of God’s great purpose.

---

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. ---Albert Einstein

I think there are clearly two parts to this. IMHO there is much evidence for GOD and we discover more of it everyday. Part of the problem when discussing stuff like this is most folk look in the wrong place. For example, they look to the Bible which is nothing more than an anthology of anthologies and useless as far as evidence or proof is concerned.Another big problem is our own limitations. We are talking about the possiblitity of knowing or understanding something that's bigger, more complex, more inclusive than the whole universe. If we're struggling to understand abiogenesis and cosmology, how can we expect to understand taht which created both of them?If we continue to look forward, to try to read what GOD has left us, to understand what She's writing right now, day by day we will learn a little more.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Faith's quotation [Pascal] writes:

229. This is what I see and what troubles me. I look on all sides, and I see only darkness everywhere. Nature presents to me nothing which is not matter of doubt and concern.

​

This isn't exactly accurate. There are many people that have concluded some kind of aspects of deity on or in nature. For example, pantheists believe in some way that "God is in all". Panentheists beleive that "God is in all" to some extent.

---

Even where those are the dominant religions there are probably only a few who really intuit God's presence and the rest believe what they are taught from the religion.I thought I quoted the part from Pascal where he acknowledges that some do find God in nature, though I can't find it in what I quoted above, so I must not have, and I know I myself have acknowledged it in other posts on other threads: That is, there are always some who have that kind of sensitivity. But overall he's correct, most of us don't. I certainly never did until I became a believer.

quote:

---

Faith's quotation [Pascal] writes:

If I saw nothing there which revealed a Divinity, I would come to a negative conclusion; if I saw everywhere the signs of a Creator, I would remain peacefully in faith.

​

And, to contrast the various Judeo-Christian faith systems to an "alternative" monotheistic faith system, consider the proposition of the deist.

​

Deism is likewise the belief in "one god". The position holds that God exists but is not immanent, or active, in his creation. Deists usually embrace some kind of natural theology and see reason and natural law as humanity's only guide to moral rectitude and ultimate salvation. Faith, they hold, is a logical consequence or our perception and evaluation of the natural phenomena.

​

Admittedly, the deist sees these things independantly of eccliastical authority. They tend to reject the validity of revelation and miracles. They also tend to reject the concept of divine providence and the possibility of a direct, personal communication with God (and consequently deny many things revealed in the Scriptures).

​

However, notwithstanding these sharp disagreements, deists would still agree with many Christians that there is one creator-god -- a creator-god deserving of worship (the most appropriate form being a life of virtuous piety and repentance for our sins) and who rewards virtue amd punishes wickedness in some kind of afterlife.

​

There is no unified deist position, but they generally consist of free-thinkers and were mostly united in the condemnation of religious "superstitions" as the greatest impediment to human progress.

---

I'm not sure of the import of the above in relation to my quotation of Pascal, which was meant to represent the attitude of the unbeliever who complains that there is not enough evidence in nature to convince him to believe -- to believe either in the Biblical God or the Deist's God it would seem. Certainly there are SOME who think they have such evidence, but Pascal is dealing with the case of the many who say there isn't.

quote:

---

Faith's quote [Pascal] writes:

But, seeing too much to deny and too little to be sure, I am in a state to be pitied; wherefore I have a hundred times wished that if a God maintains Nature, she should testify to Him unequivocally, and that, if the signs she gives are deceptive, she should suppress them altogether; that she should say everything or nothing, that I might see which cause I ought to follow.

​

This statements seems to be highly linked with the question of why there is suffering in the world. I think that anyone who is looking to beleive in God can rationalize their reasons as to why God allows this.

---

I think you MAY be finding more in these quotes than Pascal put there? He is merely characterizing in various ways what seems to me to be a common attitude here at EvC for instance, that God simply hasn't given us enough evidence to ascertain his existence.

quote:

---

My only hope is that, whatever their reasoning, they would hold to a position that is most accurately portraying their religion's perception of their own divinity. My own personal is that God judges in proportion to that which has been revealed to each individual.

​

In some sense, at the most basic level, knowledge of God is evident within creation itself. This is a no-brainer.

---

Well I only know this since I became a believer. Scripture says it is so and I believe it, and now am able to discern it, but nevertheless before I was a believer I was in no better position than those that Pascal is talking about, or those at EvC who say they find no definite proofs of God in nature.This may be a digression but everything in nature seems to me to be flawed as a matter of fact, hinting at something glorious but never quite fulfilling it, in fact presenting destruction and ugliness as often as beauty and coherence. If you look at the principles by which life exists then I think you may begin to apprehend something of God, but again, most of us don't. The result of a combination of our flawed/fallen intellects as subject with flawed/fallen nature itself as object.

quote:

---

In another sense, I think the default position of human faith, even without revelation, is that of the deist position -- that there is some kind of creator-god that has created all things. This position is slightly more complicated but apparently does happen in various forms of natural theology found around the world.

---

Just as a matter of fact, however, at least in OUR time, this doesn't seem to be the case for most people. Pascal was dealing with the growing assumptions of Enlightenment rationalism, so may have been particularly bombarded with that kind of objection to claims about God. But then those are the same objections that WE are confronted with, as the Enlightenment certainly did its work of undermining religion over the last few centuries.Also, however, I'm not so sure the denial of evidence of God is all that recent in any case. Deism may not be any kind of natural view at all. Historically it was a reaction to the Enlightenment assault on Christianity, a holding onto what little was left of it that rationalists could entertain after the Enlightenment had munched away at it. Even the Old Testament speaks of the folly of people's denying that there is a God at all -- in David's time about 1000 BC -- side by side with affirming that "The heavens declare the glory of God..." for those who can recognize Him. Most natural religions acknowledge many gods, plural, and sacrifice to those gods, without recognizing a Creator God and have done so for millennia. Abraham's family kept household idols before the Lord of hosts apprehended him, and continued to hold onto those idols through the time of Isaac and Jacob. Islam's version of monotheism supplanted hundreds of local deities. Christianity in its push through Europe displaced hundreds of not thousands of local cults and deities.I think the Fall did its work of obscuring God from us by destroying our spiritual ability to apprehend his character and even his existence, by bringing catastrophe and destruction and death into Nature, and by giving Satan and his demons rule over us to deceive us.

quote:

---

In the fullness of the last sense, there is the knowledge of God that comes via revelation. In this regard, it comes directly from God or his prophets, etc. This is a unique experience that is certainly the most complicated to grasp -- that God is alive and active in one's life. Going beyond the "nature is a reflection of God" or "the God is the ultimate watchmaker", this position holds that God is a friend that is deeply concerned with every aspect of your life.

---

This kind of belief can only be had by spiritual regeneration from God Himself, however, by His own Holy Spirit, that opens one's eyes to His written revelation. The unregenerate man is blind to God's revelation.

quote:

---

Faith's quotation writes:

Whereas in my present state, ignorant of what I am or of what I ought to do, I know neither my condition nor my duty.

​

I think this accurately captures the human condition even for many Christians.

---

If so, granting many degrees of the gift of faith and the ability to understand revelation, it is our own fault, because as Christians we have been given all the light we need to know our condition and our duty.

quote:

---

As I've said before, from my own perspective, it must be stressed that the Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in other religions.

​

The church has a high regard for their conduct in so far as she believes the Spirit is moving them according to the Lord's will.

---

Isn't scripture clear that the Holy Spirit was sent by Jesus Christ ONLY to His followers? Certainly God is in charge of all human beings and watches over all with a good will, but the gift of the Holy Spirit was given ONLY to those who have entered into the New Covenant by the sacrifice of Christ.

quote:

---

This high regard also includes those precepts and doctrines found within other religions which, although differing on many points from that which the church believes and propounds, often reflects a ray of the truth which enlightens all men.

---

There are certainly many inspiring teachings that have come from many wise men of other religions and other cultures, people with an intuitive grasp of what is good and the ability to teach it, showing that much of the light of the image of God remains even in fallen humanity. But this is not saving grace, merely natural grace -- I think it has a more official name but I can't think of it -- God's preservation of his creation and his general goodness to mankind which scripture affirms, but it is not belief unto salvation and I believe the Catholic Church has lost its Christian bearings completely when it begins to suggest that.

quote:

---

In tracing human history, it is generally believed by older school Catholic theologians that the primal knowledge of the Lord was often supplanted in religions by concepts of gods which are "more accessible."

---

Of course. Certainly the "gods" are more "accessible" to FALLEN nature which has lost the capacity to discern God, but this is precisely the idolatry that God condemns throughout the Bible. For one thing they are quite a bit like us fallen creatures. As scripture tells us, those gods are demons ...members of Satan's kingdom who have had the right to rule us since Satan deceived our first parents, and have done so by impersonating gods in order to receive worship and tribute and sacrifice from humanity and keep us all in bondage. "Accessible" indeed. But I really don't think this Catholic view goes back very far does it? It's pretty recent isn't it really, all a part of the recent ecumenical drive to draw all religions under the Vatican umbrella, which has pretty much involved a deemphasis on -- if not an outright denial of -- all the particular requirements for salvation historically taught by the Christian Church, including Catholicism?

quote:

---

In doing such, the "primordial" monotheistic knowledge of a monotheistic God seems to deteriorate into a pantheon of divinities whose attributes seems to be defined more by nature and/or human characteristics. Even still, despite this supposed deterioration, these religions often carry a distant memory of this "Sky-God" whom they have lost most contact with.

---

Certainly. There is a dim light left in all humanity that still recognizes the one true God, and this is reflected in the "Sky God" evidences -- but for all intents and purposes it is so dimmed as to be inconsequential, while fallen human nature has succumbed to demonic deceptions and committed all kinds of idolatries, really succumbing to our own blindness to everything of the invisible world.

quote:

---

The Catholic Church holds a deep conviction in regards to what is called semina Verbi (seeds of the Word) present in all religions.

---

Is this since Vatican II?

quote:

---

She does this in order to trace a common path against the backdrop of the contemporary world from our first two parents and on throughout human history. The position of the church in this regard is inspired by a universal concern -- she is guided by the faith that God the Creator wants to save all humankind in Christ Jesus, the only mediator between God and man.

---

Faith based on what? The Bible does declare that God does not desire the death of any but the salvation of all, and yet it also declares that because of sin this is not going to come about, since God's holiness and justice require the meeting of conditions that will not be met by all.

quote:

---

As such, the church still proclaims, and is bound to proclaim that Christ is 'the way and the truth and the life' in conformity with the Christian Scriptures found within the John 14:61. It is within Christ that one must find the fullness of religious life and in whom the Father has reconciled everything to himself.

---

But as I understand it, this language may hide the Catholic belief (or Vatican II belief) that Christ Himself does not necessarily have to be proclaimed AS Christ but is assumed to be "known" in some sense without such proclamation?In any case, I think perhaps you have taken this subject a bit far afield, as we are talking about how much evidence God has given us for discerning His reality and character and whether He measures it out. I'm not sure what your considerations here have to say about this. It seems to me that the Catholic Church may have decided to MAKE UP for the lack of evidence most people experience by declaring that their nearly nonexistent knowledge of the true God is nevertheless sufficient for salvation. I see no justification for this in scripture.

I probably haven't read far enough ahead yet to come to this conclusion.However, one of my big sticking points with this view is that God was dwelling visibly and quite actively amongst the Israelites.Abraham encountered a theophany of the Lord prior to his incarnation. Moses went up and spoke with him on the mountain. If I recall correctly he later brought others up there and they literally feasted in his company on a spiritual level. A generation of Israelites were lead through the wilderness by various ways -- including the pillar of fire and the cloud among other things. They all saw many miracles and signs and wonders of various sorts. Solomon and company observed the shekina glory entering the Temple. Many of the prophets record very strange observations in regards to the Lord approach, with Ezekial being an excellent example of witnessing his glory. Rashach, Meshach, and Abednego had a direct enounter with the Lord in the fires prior to his incarnation well before his virgin birth.My whole point with noting all these encounters was that they never doubted that God existed. He gave them ample visible evidence that he was dwelling among them. The issue of God existing wasn't so much the issue during these times. Rather, whether he would keep to his promises was usually the major concern.Futhermore, even though God gave many visible signs, evidences, and proofs of his presence -- it still didn't necessarilly engender faith in him. According to the Scriptures and Tradition, even the adversary knows that God exists, yet he has apparently no intention of obeying him or giving God the love and respect that he deserves.Knowledge of God's existence =/= faith in God; and if knowledge of God =/= faith in him, it seems to be a rather perplexing position to take that God would deliberately withhold evidence of his existence in order to generate faith in him. Surely during these time, knowledge of God's "existence" wasn't a prerequisite for believing in him.