Adstar,
I believe that coming to the conclusion that a "God" exists does not take Gods acting upon a person. People can come to that conclusion by themselves.
Yes. But this is the god of intellectual inference. It is what one puts there where logic becomes dumb.
But that god of inference is a cold and lifeless philosophical construct.
Definitely not God, that construct is definitely not something one would pray to and worship and most of all, love.
God can Help people past that rudimentary stage if they seek Him while at the same time asking Him to reveal Himself. The Proud seek God, but the meek seek God and ask God to reveal Himself to them. God resists the proud but assists the meek of spirit.
I love the way you put this.
But there is one very hindering circumstance here: The expectations of believers. For someone who is not a member of a religion, the expectations of believers can be a very discouraging thing.
It's paralyzing, sometimes, when one gets told, "No, that certainly wasn't from God, what you think you saw or experienced. If it were from God, it would be like what the Bible says."
Oh well. I've learned though to, at least in theory, resist such demands set by believers. Believers do tend to discourage a newbie, telling him not to trust himself when it comes to God. But it is essential to overcome this conditioning by others.
Now there is a boundary of enlightenment. A limit to how much "knowing" God will allow us to have. God can give someone the basic enlightenment they need. And He can give someone else greater enlightenment. But God never gives total enlightenment or understanding. So there is ALWAYS an element of faith that we must have in God.
I see, and I agree, but I wouldn't call that faith.
I think it once more has to with the problem of expectations of what it is like to experience God, and that these experiences must be something most extraordinary, because if they aren't extraordinary, they aren't experiences of God.
People tend to make it look as if everything must be oh so complicated, or it isn't true.
So, instead of depending on "having faith, even though one doesn't know for sure", I'd rather say it is preferrable to work away those lofty expectations. This is something one can do applying conscious effort, and I can testify it works.
One can know (not have faith) that God is the God of Abraham.
One can Know(not have faith) that Jesus is the Messiah.
But if one does not know why God created the universe and mankind or why God allowed History to proceed the way it has, then one must have FAITH in God (Trust in Him) on these matters.
One must be able to say to God "i do not understand why you have done all this but i trust in your wisdom that all you have done is justified".
Okay. I see what you mean and I agree.
So enlightenment does not totally dispel the need for Faith. Enlightenment only reduces the boundary of what we are required to have faith in.
One can know (not have faith) that God is the God of Abraham.
One can know (not have faith) that Jesus is the Messiah.
Tell me: How is one to love them, if one does not have faith in them?
I mean, you see that I have a grasp of Christianity, and I understand some things, but I'd be making a hollow claim if I'd say that I love Jesus.
I can't make myself love Jesus.
Yes. But i have Faith that God will enlighten all those who seek Him in the right spirit.
Many people who are young think they can create a perfect world or live forever. Many proud people finally come to realize they cannot achieve perfection. Many do not come to this "disillusionment" until they are old. So pride is not always a permanent affliction/block to enlightenment.
Is this in any way aimed against me?
I'm not looking for conflict, I'm just asking.
